Question: Why did they fire Jenilee Harrison?
raywest
21st Mar 2025
Three's Company (1977)
Answer: The official reason was producers felt Harrison was "too inexperienced and unseasoned" an actress (translated Harrison was probably too immature). After Harrison's first season as Cindy Snow, actress Priscilla Barnes joined the cast as Terri Alden, Jack and Janet's new roommate. Terri was a stronger, more complex character than ditzy, naive Cindy. Harrison's role diminished and Cindy was now living on her college campus. After a handful of episodes, Cindy was written out without explanation.
15th Jan 2018
General questions
When sitcom TV shows have restaurant scenes, are these typically filmed in a real restaurant or is a set created?
Answer: Due to the logistics involved in filming, in most cases, a set would be created. In some cases, a real restaurant might be used, but it would involve compensating a business for lost revenue during the filming, obtaining special city permits, hiring police to monitor crowd control, etc. It is simpler and more economic to build a confined set.
The above is certainly true but a rare third option is filming in an old, closed business. The place is refurbished by the crew, it looks realistic and it is simple to move the action in and out of the venue. An example is the bar at the beginning of The Wolverine, set in the USA but filmed in an old, closed pub in rural Australia.
29th Jan 2025
Terror by Night (1946)
Question: Holmes says he realised that Inspector McDonald was an impostor because he supposedly knows the 'real' Inspector McDonald of the Edinburgh police. As shown in the other movies and Conan Doyle's original stories, there are several Inspectors working for Scotland Yard in London (another British city), which begs the question: does this resolution Holmes mentioned about two British Inspectors having the same surname make sense and, if so, why?
Answer: If you're comparing the film to Arthur Conan Doyle's original Sherlock Holmes stories, then any discrepancy does not really apply. The Basil Rathbone films were loose adaptions of Doyle's work, often incorporating plot elements from multiple stories or were original screenplays with new characters. There was little regard to details or plot consistencies. "Terror by Night" was an entirely original story. The original Sherlock Holmes stories were set in the late Victorian era while the 12 Universal Studio films mostly took place during World War II, with Holmes often fighting Nazis and enemy spies. The first two Sherlock Holmes films by 20th Cent. Fox studio were generally faithful to the original stories.
Actually, my question is related to the movies themselves and it's not a comparison. There are still several inspectors working for Scotland Yard in the Basil Rathbone saga too (I've made an entry edition to include this).
Thanks for clarifying, though you stated, "as shown in the other movies 'and' Doyle's original stories." Much of my previous answer still applies. The Basil Rathbone movies were not a definitive interpretation of Sherlock Holmes. The first two by 20th Century Fox were mostly faithful to the original stories. The 12 later Universal Studios films were lower-budget, cranked out in rapid succession for profit, and shifted the time period to the mid-20th century for cheaper production costs. The studio's mandate was the films were, "to simply be entertaining B pictures." There was little regard for historical accuracy or plot continuity from film to film. Scripts were simultaneously developed by different writing teams. The 12 films had multiple directors and screenwriters who were focused on their individual projects.
Actually, almost all the movies were directed by Roy William Neill (11 of 14).
That's true, but many different screenwriters were simultaneously working on the various movies. It's also typical in Hollywood for uncredited "script doctors" to revise scripts, further adding to small inconsistencies. Universal Studios had a seven-year contract with the Doyle estate to make the Sherlock Holmes films. They produced them quickly, releasing three movies per year. Under the contract, Universal was allowed to make plot revisions, create some original stories, and modernise the setting (making it more topical and cheaper to produce).
20th Jan 2006
Sister Act (1992)
Question: Why does the young red-headed nun, that doesn't sing very loud (can't remember her name), wear a different habit?
Answer: It is because she is not, technically, a nun yet. She is a novice, one who is in the "trial period" of becoming a nun, but who has not made the final vows to join the order.
She doesn't wear a white cap in the second movie either, and she did her vows.
It takes 9-12 years to become a nun, with many stages: discernment, aspirancy, postulancy, novitiate, temporary vows, and finally, solemn vows. The young nun may have moved up a step but would not yet have taken her solemn vows. The various stages would have differences in apparel, headdress, insignia, etc. that showed their rank. In addition, different nun orders wear different styles of habits.
10th Apr 2004
The Great Escape (1963)
Factual error: Why is Hilts not wearing a uniform? A serving officer captured behind enemy lines in civilian clothing risked being shot as a spy. If a prisoner's uniform was too worn or damaged to wear, it was routine for the German authorities to replace it - a P.O.W. in civilian clothes is an obvious escape risk. He is wearing a pair of tan chinos, a cut off sloppy Joe sweatshirt, both ridiculously anachronistic - Sixties hipster fashions - and nowhere even close to a World War 2 uniform. He is also wearing Army Type III Service boots - something that would never have been issued to a fighter pilot.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hilts was a POW for a few years before being transferred to this camp. His current clothing likely changed from when he was originally captured in his uniform, so he would not have been considered a spy. After multiple escape attempts, his uniform could have been ruined. The Geneva Convention required that POWs receive shelter, food, clothing, medical care, etc. The Red Cross delivered care packages to POW camps containing food, miscellaneous apparel, and other essentials. Sweatshirts have existed since the 1920s and changed little. Also, chino pants have been around since the late 19th century. Hilts was an U.S. Air Force pilot, and light-colored khaki trousers (similar to chinos) were standard-issue uniform for some U.S. military branches, along with leather bomber jackets for Air Force pilots.
And none of them would have been available to a prisoner in a German POW camp in Poland in the mid 1940s. Not one single item of hipster fashion would have found its way into the camp. Even if it did, do you really think the German authorities would allow a prisoner to lounge about in civilian clothing? Talk about an escape risk.
The camp was in Germany, not Poland. Other than the sweatshirt, Hilts appears to wear military clothing - a leather bomber's jacket with military sleeve insignia, and U.S. Air Force khaki trousers. So not "hipster" '60s civilian clothing. The sweatshirt could be military appropriate (even issued) and something Hilts acquired at a different camp. He arrived with a small duffel bag that presumably had some misc clothing. He and two other POWs are the only Americans and have different uniforms. The current camp commandant, who apparently disdained Hitler and his Nazi minions, would decide what POWs could wear.
15th Nov 2024
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Question: To create a horcrux, a witch or wizard must first split their soul by intentionally and deliberately murdering someone without any guilt or remorse for their actions. Since Tom Riddle murdered countless people, shouldn't his soul have been split into more fragments rather than just seven?
Answer: The other answer is spot on, but I would add that it requires casting a specific spell while simultaneously killing someone to make horcrux and split one's soul. (The movie downplayed this and the spell name is never revealed in the book.) Professor Slughorn had told the young Tom Riddle that the act involved dark magic, though he did not provide details. Riddle apparently discovered what that dark spell was to make horcrux.
Answer: Next to the act of murder, one also has to purposefully turn an object into a horcrux in order to make a horcrux. Your soul splitting doesn't automatically send that piece of soul into an object; your soul will be split but still connected to your body. As for when Voldemort's killing curse rebounded onto Harry, his real body was destroyed, and his fragmented soul shattered because it was frail and unstable, causing a piece to detach and lodge onto Harry.
The question wasn't about how to make a Horcrux. It was about why each murder Tom committed didn't shatter his soul more. For example, if Tom killed 11,000 people, then shouldn't his soul have shattered into 11,000 pieces?
I think your soul splits when you kill someone, but doesn't split again when murdering someone else (which part would?). Once you murder, your soul is split and will stay split until you detach a part of your soul. It's not like Tom could have saved up on fragments of soul by killing and then put pieces of his soul into objects one after the other. He had to murder and then purposefully put that split part into an object, and only then be able to split his soul again with another murder.
To further clarify, according to J.K. Rowling, random killing damages a wizard's soul, but does not split it. That requires using Dark magic and deliberately storing the soul shard into a vessel, making it a horcrux. Riddle chose six significant objects for the horcruxes and left one soul piece in his body. When Riddle cast the Killing Curse at baby Harry, it rebounded and simultaneously destroyed Riddle's body and sheared off another soul piece. Harry's forehead scar was an accidental seventh horcrux that Riddle never knew existed. It was Lily Potter's love and sacrificing her life to save Harry that protected him from the killing curse.
15th Oct 2024
Beetlejuice (1988)
Question: Was Jane lying when she said that she decorated the Maitland home (she wanted Lydia to mention this to her parents)?
Answer: Jane appears to be taking credit for what Barbara and Adam had done. At the beginning of the movie, the Maitlands are discussing the home projects they've been working on. Adam has been refinishing cabinetry while Barbara has chosen wallpaper, and they're spending their two-week vacation working on the house.
Answer: It's never answered in the film if she actually decorated the house for Adam and Barbara, but there isn't really any reason to doubt it.
My interpretation was that Jane was always chasing a buck. She aggressively pestered Adam and Barbara to sell the house just to earn a commission. She was hustling the Deetzes for her decorating services. Regarding Barbara and Adam, they just didn't want anyone in their beloved house, much less having it redecorated after all the work they did on it.
But if she actually did, then I wonder if they would care as much about the Deetzes remodeling the home?
This is a stretch, but maybe Jane wanted to keep the house as close to how Adam and Barbara had it, like a shrine. It's not uncommon for those who lost loved ones to try and keep things as close to what was possible.
What I meant was, why would Adam and Barbara, not Jane, be so upset about the remodeling if Jane did the decorating anyway? Granted, they apparently chose to live with it.
That was probably a comfort thing. They learned they were going to spend over a century in that house, and it would be one thing if it was closer to what they were comfortable with, but the Deetzes' style was too much for them.
11th Oct 2024
The Hand that Rocks the Cradle (1992)
Question: Is there any indication that Mrs Mott knew that her husband was sexually assaulting his female patients? I doubt any pregnant woman would be pleased if she found out her husband was taking advantage of other women for his own desires behind her back.
Answer: Totally agree with the other answer, but would add that Mott's previous victims only came forward after Claire made her allegations. Many sexual assault victims fail to report crimes because they are embarrassed, think they won't be believed, fear public backlash, dread the legal process, etc. Mott, being a doctor, made it hard to prove his actions were "sexual" in nature. He was pretty subtle, leaving his victims unsure and making it difficult to prove sexual assault.
I just figured that maybe there was occasional gossip/rumours about Mott's behaviour before Claire reported it. But you are very correct - his actions would be subtle and difficult to prove. Also, the people who do these things are usually popular and well-respected, not stereotypical "creeps."
Answer: I don't think she knew. Later on, while talking to Claire, she sounds happy about him and says that he was the only one who really understood her. It's also possible that she heard occasional rumours about him, but refused to believe any of it. This happens in real life - a person will ignore numerous allegations against their spouse/partner. They don't believe it, and/or they want to cling to their ideal fantasy life. Notice how Mrs Motts thinks of her husband's death as a murder, and Claire is the "murderer."
21st Sep 2024
Enough (2002)
Question: If Mitch was pleased with the way his marriage had turned out and he admitted that Slim was a great sexual partner and she did nothing wrong to justify his affairs, then why does he still have "needs" that need to be met by sleeping around? He seemed to know full well he was risking throwing away all the success he had achieved and wanted to keep just to fool around.
Answer: You've answered your own question; he just wanted to continue having affairs and was using his "needs" as an excuse. Abusers manipulate/gaslight their victims by placing the blame for the abuser's behaviour onto them, knowing full well it is a lie.
Well, did he have an actual reason for doing that in the first place, since he stated that he was satisfied with his marriage? After all, he never denied that Slim was a great partner and did a lot for him, and he wouldn't have lost his family if he had acted like a responsible family man.
Right, he *acts* like a responsible family man. This is part of his abuse. The point is that he is NOT a responsible family man; never was, never would be. He's an abuser, and Slim is his victim. From the moment they met, he was manipulating her into thinking he was devoted to her. This is how abusers work: act like the perfect partner on the surface until they have total control over their victim, when it's too late for their victim to escape. Everything he says about being "satisfied" is a lie.
You do make a good point about how him saying he was truly satisfied with the marriage life was a lie. I was a bit skeptical since he did seem content with his marriage for the most part prior to truly losing control, but the possible idea did occur to me that he was probably playing the role of someone who he really wasn't, such as putting on a face of being a strong and hard-working man, when in reality he was weak and a coward. I appreciate the feedback and insight.
I've known a few men who were completely satisfied being married, loved their wives, and enjoyed the perks and comforts of domestic life with their spouse running the house, caring for the kids, coordinating their social life, etc. But despite all that, they had affairs on the side, apparently enjoying the thrill of secret liaisons and wanting variety. Eventually, their wives divorced them.
Answer: Along with the other comments here, I want to point out that abusive people can have a twisted idea of "love" and acceptable behaviour. Mitch might actually believe that he loves his family and he is a good husband/father, who likes to have the casual affair "on the side."
16th Jul 2008
The Firm (1993)
Plot hole: In Cayman, a drugged Avery passes out on the bed, fully clothed. Abby is in the kitchen, carrying the Mafia files. The bedroom is in the background, only now Avery is under the covers and undressed. He was drugged and too heavy for Abby to move and undress alone and have enough time to also transport files, copy them, and return everything to the bungalow before Avery awoke. Avery would also know he passed out atop the bed and not under the covers.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When he falls, his head is about 3 feet from the pillow, where it is later in the background. Abby would only need to drag him up the bed. Pretty easy even for someone with Abby's build. Avery's shirt is fully unbuttoned when he falls backwards onto the bed, so removing it would be very simple. Then all she needed to do was drag the cover out from under him and put it over. She could probably do all that in 2 minutes. Also, Avery wouldn't have been suspicious, only confused.
Abby could not possibly have done all that in "2 minutes." A small woman moving and undressing a 180 lb. unconscious man is not an easy task and impossible in that short amount of time. Abby had a limited time to move, copy, and return the files.
The gender of the people involved is irrelevant. It isn't known that Abby removes Avery's trousers. All we know is that she removes his already unbuttoned shirt, pulls him 3 ft up the bed and puts a sheet over him. My partner and I, who weighs significantly more than I, have just simulated the scene. I was able to move them up the bed, remove their shirt and put a sheet over them in just over 2 minutes. Abby then has an unknown number of hours to deal with the files, which she did.
24th Jun 2018
The Firm (1993)
Character mistake: At the end, when Mitch tells Agent Tarrance that the government can convict the law firm on mail fraud and racketeering, he says he got the idea while he was studying for the bar exam. He actually got the idea from a client earlier in the film when the client was complaining about being over-billed and tells Mitch that every time a bill is mailed through USPS, the firm is committing mail fraud which is a federal offense, punishable by fines and prison.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is not wholly correct. Mulholland (the client) planted the seed in Mitch's head, but Mitch realised instantly that it was a federal offense, presumably because he had studied it.
14th Aug 2024
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
But his surname sounds German. It might suggest that he is an American Neo-Nazi of German descent.
Yes, of German origin. "American" is not a race or ethnicity, is made up of many cultures, and is only a nationality. Klaber is an American citizen likely with German ancestry. American Neo-Nazis are of many different racial backgrounds. They adopt Nazi ideologies.
German is also a nationality, not a race. To be clear.
German is a nationality, referring to citizens of the country of Germany, and also an ethnicity, traditionally characterized by certain genetic traits, certain facial features, light-coloured eyes, blond hair, etc. "American" is only a designation of citizenship, not any particular racial or ethnic makeup.
That's not true. People with those genetic traits (like me) are not "German" or "Germanic." Maybe Aryan or Caucasian. Those are ethnicities. Not German. Germans are only distinguished by their use of the Germanic language, not their appearance. Also, certain Germanic tribes were very far from blond and light-colored eyes.
20th Feb 2009
Jaws (1975)
Question: When the swimmers are running out of the water, why does Brody shout: "No whistles?"
Answer: Brody didn't want to panic all the beach goers and cause a splashing commotion which would excite the shark.
Answer: When the shark attacks fist began, Brody began reading up on shark behavior. It is believed that vibrating sounds can attract sharks. Brody believes that multiple people blowing loud whistles could bring the shark closer into shore.
On the contrary, high frequency noises (such as those produced by whistles) barely penetrate into the water and seem to have no effect on sharks or any other fish. Low-frequency noises (such as concussive splashing) travel a great distance in water and are a definite attraction for marine predators. Ultra-low-frequency noises (such as the songs of whales) can travel hundreds of miles through water. The U.S. Navy even uses extremely-low-frequency (ELF) transmissions for communicating with submarines far out at sea. So, no, there is no documented scientific reason for Brody to think that high-frequency noise would attract sharks. Either the movie's screenwriters were badly mistaken in their assumption that whistles attract sharks, or the character of Chief Brody was deliberately written to be mistaken in that assumption.
In a study, sharks were attracted to low-frequency pulsed sounds resembling those of struggling fish. Sharks appearing in close to wounded or struggling fish has often been observed by fishermen and scuba divers. That type of shark behavior is probably what Brody read about, though his scientific knowledge or understanding about it was limited. He was just reacting in an excited manner.
23rd Dec 2017
Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)
Question: I have read the books and watched the movies countless times but this part I still don't get; why was Christian so upset when he found out that Ana was a virgin? Neither the book(s) nor the movie expresses this in detail.
Answer: Christian was sensitive and compassionate enough not to want a young virgin's first-ever sexual experience to be a kinky BDSM experience. Ana would then have no first-hand knowledge of what a normal (or vanilla) sexual relationship was like. Christian liked introducing experienced women to a different type of sexuality, something Ana would be unable to compare it to.
Answer: Christian wasn't mad. He says "where have you been" indicating he was looking for someone like her - a virgin whom he could mold into whatever he wanted since she didn't know any better.
9th Jun 2024
General questions
When an actor wants to leave a show or is fired, why is the character killed off instead of having them do something else? In House M.D, Kal Penn wanted to leave the show, so his character was written as having committed suicide. Wouldn't it have been better to have his character leave the show by either having him take a job somewhere else or having him get fired instead of him killing himself? In Roseanne, her character overdosed. Why not have her character divorce Dan instead?
Answer: Often times it's done for dramatic purposes, even if the actor leaves on good terms. Writing an episode where a character dies is much more jarring to the audience and something they may talk about the next day. Plus, actors that suddenly leave the show, don't return the next season, or die in real life, aren't there to say goodbye to friends, family, or colleagues before taking another job, going off to college, or getting fired. Which is what normally happens in real life, so it would come across as unrealistic. But there's plenty of shows/characters where an actor is knowingly leaving the show, so writers do have time to write a farewell type episode in. Also, by killing off characters, the audience doesn't have an expectation for their return and writers don't have to think about them. Of course, the alternative is recasting the character and then just dealing with the backlash or criticism of such a cheap move.
It does seem like recasting is rarely done, and the audience usually doesn't like the replacement.
There's a number of cast replacements in TV shows, but often it's minor characters. More prominent ones include Dick Sargent replacing Dick York as Darrin in "Bewitched," and Sarah Chalke taking over Lecy Goranson's role as Becky in "Roseanne." Neither replacement actor was warmly received by viewers.
19th Jul 2024
What Lies Beneath (2000)
Question: If Norman married Claire when she was "touring with a baby" (Caitlin), why is he not referred to as Caitlin's stepfather? When they take her to college, Claire refers to him as "Norman" when speaking to her. I've seen the movie a few times and always thought this was a little odd. Many people would even think of a stepfather as "father" if he was the one who raised them for most of their life.
Answer: There's no rule about how a step-father is referred to. Caitlin may simply not consider him a father figure to remain close to her real dad. Many step-children call their step-parent by their first name, regardless of how long the parents have been married. Most likely this is a plot device so that the audience isn't confused about or doesn't forget that Norman is not Caitlin's real father. Some may be offended by a father killing his biological child's mother. It makes Norman less attached to either Claire or Caitlin.
I am not trying to be rude, but have you seen this movie? You say that Caitlin might be close to her real dad. He is dead. Claire was "touring with a baby" after he died, and then she met Norman. Hence why I found the situation a bit odd. Norman has been in Caitlin's life since she was a "baby."
I saw the movie some years ago and don't remember every small detail. However, my main point was that calling Norman by his first name was a plot device to keep the audience focused on him not being Caitlin's biological father. This kept his character more detached from Claire and Caitlin, and made him less sympathetic. It showed an emotional/personal divide existed between Norman and Claire and her daughter. He has less resistance in killing Claire if they did not share a biological child.
28th Jun 2024
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: To become master of the Elder Wand, it must be taken from the wizard who owns it. How could Harry become the new master of the wand when it was buried with Dumbledore and Harry took away Draco's own wand?
Answer: You don't have to physically take the wand to become the master; you have to disarm the master. When Harry disarmed Draco, the wand became his. Even though the wand was not present, it still knew. Call it magic.
Answer: The Elder Wand or Deathstick must be removed by force from the current owner. Draco disarms Dumbledore at the top of the tower. Thus, its allegiance passed to Draco and he becomes the wand's master. When Voldemort takes the wand from Dumbledore's grave, he's not taking it from the wand's master. Later, Harry disarms Draco and as such Harry is now the wand's master. This ultimately proves helpful and a key point in the final showdown in the Great Hall. As Lionhead said above, it's magic. But at its deepest level, as explained by Mr. Ollivander at Shell Cottage.
18th Jun 2024
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: Why not take over this planet's cloning process instead of shutting it down and recruiting others to be Stormtroopers, when the clones were 100% obedient and loyal to the Emperor?
Answer: I think recruiting people is one of the sneaky ways of controlling the galaxy. Many Stormtroopers might have spouses and children back home. They could be receiving a tiny salary. Maybe some younger adults are eager to get away from their home planets, as Luke and Anakin both were. Still, others could be criminals who agreed to serve as Stormtroopers instead of another sentence (in "Game of Thrones", some convicted criminals can choose to join the Night's Watch order). These would all be ways to convince more citizens to support the Empire, instead of just training clones.
I'd like to add besides these points that it's possible the cloning process is just too slow and cumbersome for the Emperor. They were useful as shock troops, to fight droid armies. But their numbers were not great enough to cover the entire galaxy as a security force. This especially once the Rebel Alliance shows up. I'd say recruiting people gives him a much-needed manpower boost in a shorter time.
Answer: There would be serious moral and ethical issues about cloning sentient beings just to become mindless, obedient servants/slaves/killers to achieve your cause, regardless of its good intent.
But the Empire clearly doesn't really have moral/ethical issues about most stuff, so that's not really an argument.
Ray West mentions "mindless, obedient" servants, which is a good point. I think an army of "mindless" clones would actually be less effective. Instead, the Emperor claims that the Jedi wanted to overthrow the Senate. If he can persuade a decent number of people to support him, and spread his way of thinking, he can slowly gain more influence around the galaxy.
9th Jun 2024
General questions
Is there a general reason why American actors are chosen for starring roles as British characters, or vice versa? I've read about Renée Zellweger working at a British publishing firm to prepare for the Bridget Jones movie. Andrew Lincoln played a Southern US man on "The Walking Dead" for several years. Natalie Portman hired a coach to help her prepare for playing Anne Boleyn. With all due respect to them, would it not be easier to simply use an actual British or American actor?
Answer: Why "easier"? If an actor can do the right accent and is the best fit for the role, there's no great hardship in someone traveling for work and changing their voice. It's not like they're hiring someone with a completely inappropriate physical look that will involve hours in makeup every day. If the best person for the role happens to be a different nationality, far better to get them to do an accent and make the movie better, rather than hiring someone with the right natural accent but who isn't actually as good a fit. Producers and directors and casting directors don't owe it to actors of either nationality to give them work, their job is to find the best person for the film they're making.
Why the snappy response? This is why people are afraid to ask questions.
What was "snappy"? You used the word easier, I asked why. I didn't accuse you of implying anyone was owed work, I was just stating that as a fact. Slightly odd you'd reply "thank you for your comment" then later come back with your own "snappy" response, when I just answered the question you asked. No evidence anyone's afraid to ask question either - they get asked here all the time.
By "easier", I only meant that some of the preparation work might have been skipped by choosing someone who is already American or British. Also, I did not mean to imply that any actors are "owed" work. They're not. I was only curious about why actors are chosen for such roles. Thank you for your comment.
Even actors playing someone of their own nationality often have to work with a dialect coach to perfect a regional accent. An American actor who grew up on the West Coast does not speak the same as someone from New England, the Mid-West, the South, Texas, New York, etc. The same for British actors as there are many regional accents and dialects they may have to master.
Answer: Working Title Films tried for years to raise the finance to make "Bridget Jones' Diary", but nobody was interested, even with Rachel Weisz and later Kate Winslet attached as Bridget. Then one day Renée Zellweger signed on and Miramax and Universal threw money at them. This explains the many jarring Americanisms in the film, sops to the film's US financiers.
Answer: Would add to the other answers that it's typical when casting a movie there are usually multiple actors considered for a main role. Movies are a huge and risky financial investment, so for a big-budget film, it's usually a small pool of bankable A-list actors that are considered, regardless of their nationality. In the case of Bridget Jones' Diary, Helena Bonham-Carter, Cate Blanchett, Emily Watson, Rachel Weisz, Cameron Diaz, Kate Winslet, and Toni Collette were considered. Some were already tied to other projects, Winslet was ultimately considered too young, Weisz was too pretty, and so on before producers landed on Zellweger. I also suspect some of these well-known actresses balked at playing a slightly overweight character that would have required them gaining weight for the role. Zellweger put on 20 lbs. To pay Bridget.
9th Sep 2016
Cast Away (2000)
Revealing mistake: When Kelly is copying her dissertation, there is no paper being fed through the copier feeder or any printed pages going into the output tray. (00:12:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Watch carefully. When Kelly turns round, you can see, by her right hand, paper coming out of the copier and landing in a pile on top of each other.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: The producers felt that she was too "inexperienced and unseasoned" for her role on the show. Harrison admitted that she "had a lot of naivety."
Well, how else do you get experience in acting? By being on a show, in a movie, or in a play. She was fun and seemed rather sweet.
Rob245
True, but the producers apparently felt an older, more experienced actress would better play off the other characters. Shows also monitor how well viewers react to characters. Of course, there are serious reasons why actors are let go. Other series have fired actors with all sorts of personal problems, like drug/alcohol abuse, mental health issues, legal issues, public controversies, etc, that are a liability to the show, though it's often downplayed or covered up. Charlie Sheen and Roseanne Barr are high-profile examples. If there was some other issue with Harrison, a cover story could have been issued to protect her reputation. That doesn't mean there were any, just a possibility.
raywest ★
In addition to what Ray West wrote, I want to add that many actors start out as children and young teenagers. So she could have been inexperienced compared to someone else of the same age. IMDb only lists three TV episodes that she acted in before "Three's Company."