I can't remember the name of this horror movie. It's from the late 2000s or early 2010s. A high school girl has a crush on her married teacher. She is a stereotypical quiet "loner." Somehow she dies, then comes back as a more sexy type with powers. At one point, after returning, she tells the teacher's wife "I died for him!" and the wife says "As would I!" (or something similar).
TedStixon
7th Feb 2024
General questions
5th Jan 2024
General questions
In the 2000s, many people enjoyed and appreciated movies from the '80s. Why is it that, in the 2020s, movies from the '90s and early 2000s need to be remade/"updated"?
Answer: Honestly, a huge factor is the financial one. Due to many differing reasons (50%+ drop in physical media sales over the last 10 years, streaming making content available for very cheap, skyrocketing production costs, inflation, etc.), studios have been losing money at a much greater rate than they have in the past. The industry has become very financially volatile. Therefore, brand recognition is very important. A familiar brand is typically a safer bet than an original idea. This is why sequels, remakes, adaptations, etc. have become the norm, and are given huge budgets... they're usually more likely to turn a profit. If people want to turn this around and have the studios start taking major risks and making more original films again, they're going to have to actually go see original movies in theaters with some regularity, consider buying DVDs/Blu-Rays again, etc. Basically, vote with your wallet... otherwise we'll continue to get nothing but remakes, sequels, etc.
I completely agree with your response. I think another, tiny factor is that trends and technology move faster now. In 2000, life still had many basic things in common with the 80s, despite changes in fashion and computers. Now, in early 2024, a show/movie from 2014 can already be "outdated": mentioning social media platforms that are less popular now, referring to social media trends, using words and phrases that are now considered offensive, etc.
Answer: I think this is mostly because of the advancements in CGI and special effects. Perhaps they think that better special effects will make the movie better. Also, if they think remaking a movie will make money, they will make it.
Money does seem to be a factor. '80s - early 2000s nostalgia has been a big trend for the past few years.
5th Dec 2023
General questions
For a period of time starting in the mid-2000s, it became common for most major DVD releases to have both 1- and 2-disc editions. Typically, the 2-disc edition just had more bonus content and cost a few dollars more, while the 1-disc edition had less content and was cheaper. I never understood this. This was before streaming became huge, so it didn't incentivize buying the DVD, nor did the 2-disc edition cost much more, so it couldn't have had much impact on profit. So why was this even a thing?
Answer: OP here. From everything I've been able to find, it pretty much just looks like it was just a bit of a gimmick. Put some extra bonus content on a second disc, call it a "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition," and charge an extra $5 for it. People who wanted just the movie could buy the single disc for the standard price, and people who wanted more special features paid a slightly more expensive "premium price." And it would subtly boost profits.
I think you're right - the extra content largely existed already, there was no significant cost to produce it, and mastering a second version of the DVD wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme of things either, so any extra amount would have been pure profit. Showgirls (first example I found) apparently made $37m in cinemas and $100m in DVD sales. A couple of extra dollars per unit would add up. It might also serve as "anchoring" if that's the right term - having a more expensive 2 disc version makes the single disc version look like better value to the casual buyer (while also appealing more to the movie buff). There are certainly some films I splashed out on for the fancier version because I was a fan (and then of course never really watched the extras much!), but going back a while there was literally no other way to see this extra content unless you bought the special edition.
From the perspective of why they were simultaneously released (and with a relatively small difference in price), I'd agree. But this is different from why two-disc versions were released some time after the one-disc version (and with a substantial difference in price). That is, the reasons why this initially happened are different from why it continued to happen.
I was trying to refer to concurrent releases in my question. Unfortunately, the character limit meant I could not give any examples. I was referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Transformers." I used to go to the store at midnight to buy new DVD releases around the time those movies came out, and there would almost always be a single disc DVD with just the movie and a few features, and a 2-Disc set with more special features released on the same day. (A 2-disc special/anniversary edition being released a few years later for an older title makes sense, and is a different matter entirely. I'm referring to when multiple editions of the same new release were put out at the same time.)
Yes, I finally figured this out! You are asking about a specific time period and looking for a straightforward answer, without putting things in historical perspective (the developing technology and decreasing costs of mass-producing DVD movies). The extras (plus a little more) that used to be included on the standard editions were now on a second disc with the package costing about $5 more. It probably came down to "will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?"
It probably came down to 'will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?' "and unfortunately when I was a teenager, I was, hahahaha. But yeah, the more I look into it, the more it does just seem like a total gimmick. (I feel like a good modern comparison might be steelbooks... cool packaging, but usually sold for a very high markup even though it's the same exact discs.)
My "victimization" came much earlier. I had the standard release versions of movies and, later, when I started to see much more expensive two-disc versions, I thought, "Who would buy these now?" Well, I think I ended up buying 3 versions of "Terminator 2." [Why?]
Answer: From my experience, the 2-disc versions provided two different formats. Typically, the 1-disc version was Fullscreen and, depending on its release, did have additional content like commentaries and deleted scenes. The 2-disc version included a Widescreen version as well as extra materials, extended cuts, remastered versions, or special edition, etc. Later, when Blu-Ray came out, the 2-disc set usually included a standard DVD version. Some DVDs were sold as 2-sided without a lot of extra content but having a Fullscreen and Widescreen version.
This doesn't really answer the question. I'm not referring to those. I'm more so referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Super 8". Their DVDs only came in widescreen, but had two versions. A single-disc edition with just the movie and a few special features, and a 2-disc edition that had more special features. I'm curious as to WHY many titles had single and two-disc editions with the only difference being the amount of special features. It just seems more logical to release just the 2-disc edition. This answer basically just explains that 2-disc existed.
I apologise for misunderstanding the question, because what you described in my experience was atypical. And in my opinion, it makes sense to release two versions, but I'm afraid to answer why if I turn out to still not understand the question.
No problem. It's a very weird, specific question, hahaha. Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't even really an answer beyond just "they decided to try it for some reason."
Answer: Simply put MONEY.
Profits are almost always, if not always, a factor. The two-disc versions with "extras" might have been enough to get certain movie buffs to buy them, even though they already had the single-disc version - but I doubt very many people actually did so.
11th Jul 2023
General questions
I remember seeing a film in theatres in the 90s when I was a kid. I think it was a children's sports film. I seem to recall there being a scene where a boy spots another boy through a gap in a shelf at the store and remarks something like, "What a hunk!" At least I think it was two boys... one may have been a tomboyish girl, though. And I think it had something to do with football. Ring anyone's bell? Trying to rewatch childhood movies and it just popped into my head.
Answer: Sounds like the movie Little Giants.
Looked it up and that is 100% it. Thanks.
11th Jul 2023
General questions
It seems to me that older shows, for the most part, had more "stand-alone" episodes: you could easily watch them if you missed the previous episode or two. If I am correct, this is why characters often had new love interests for just one episode. Nowadays, a show is often called a "series" and all episodes must be watched, even a "Previously on..." recap doesn't cover everything. Any thoughts on why this is?
Answer: Well, in the old days, people couldn't really watch whenever they wanted or even record what they wanted to see. So trying to follow a continuing show was a lot harder. That's why there were way more shows where every episode was standalone, as you didn't have to bother watching every single one to be able to follow it. You could skip a few without a problem. These days, watching all episodes is a lot easier because of recording and digital releases. You can watch whenever you want, in the right order.
Answer: There's a lot of factors that go into this. I think the biggest one is that seasons in general have gotten shorter, meaning there is less room for stand-alone episodes. It used to be the norm for shows to have 20+ episodes per season, whereas now, seasons with 13 or fewer episodes are more common. (This is for many reasons, including higher production costs, viewership fluctuations, streaming making shorter seasons more in vogue, etc.) And as a result, many shows now just basically feel like one big movie that's split up into chapters/episodes since there's less time for side-stories or stand-alone episodes. There's good and bad to this. On one hand, it means shows need to be more efficient and concise, and there's likely to be fewer dull moments. But on the other hand, it also means that there's slightly less time for side-characters, sub-plots, world-building, etc. So it's a double-edged sword. Also, "show" and "series" have always been used interchangeably. That's nothing new.
I don't remember what year it was, but if I understand correctly, one of the results of one of the writers' strikes a while back was reduced episodes to make a complete season or a half season (with some exceptions, like daily shows).
Yeah, from what I recall, during the 2007 writers' strike, a lot of seasons had to be produced with fewer episodes due to lost time from the several months the strike lasted. And that did help set a certain precedent that many shows could be successful with fewer episodes per season. Although, I think it wasn't really until about five years later that you started to see shorter seasons becoming more widespread.
Answer: I also think another point is, there's just so many more shows being produced today, so we see more examples of these types of series shows. And, if more shows are being produced, there's more competition to get viewers to watch live (as opposed to recording to a DVR or streaming). Companies that buy ad time during a show know if viewers are recording, they can skip their ads (which is why we see more countermeasures to this).
Answer: Adding to the other answers: In TV's earliest days (from the 1950s), shows had more episodes per season, over 30. During the summer hiatus, fewer reruns were shown until the new Fall season. That resulted in self-contained episodes and one-time characters or situations that were rarely mentioned again. Episodes could be shown in any order, without losing continuity. The half-hour sitcoms were like extended skits. Many early TV shows were written by radio-era writers when maintaining a consistent, non-visual storyline was more challenging. It was just a different way of doing things. As TV evolved, plots became extended throughout a season with fewer episodes. Keeping viewers involved and guessing what happens in the next episode helps ratings.
14th Jun 2023
General questions
Why do people in some movies/TV put a blob of sunscreen on their nose? In real life, I typically see people rub sunscreen into their skin, all over themselves.
Answer: The sunscreen you are asking about is likely zinc oxide. It sits on the surface of the skin and scatters the sun's rays. The sunscreen rubbed into the skin, as you describe, doesn't contain zinc oxide, but rather contains chemicals that absorb the solar radiation and converts that energy to heat, which is then released from the body.
Answer: From what I recall, older sunscreens were much weaker than what we have now. And it was common to apply extra to certain areas of the body, like the nose since it sticks out from your face and is more likely to get sun damage. And the extra sunscreen created the white "blob" around the nose. So it just sort-of became a visual shorthand in films and TV for showing that someone is wearing sunscreen. And since people became used to it, it stuck around. It's currently also a good way to show that a character is rigid, set in their ways or old-fashioned, since it's not something you see too much anymore.
19th May 2023
General questions
Are there any TV series that were cancelled before a complete first season was even aired? I am mostly curious about sitcoms and dramas/thrillers, not reality shows.
Answer: Honestly, there have been numerous TV shows cancelled before a complete first season was aired. Another great example is cult-favorite sci-fi series "Firefly," which was cancelled before the 14 produced episodes finished airing. "Emily's Reasons Why Not" is another good example. It's a romantic comedy series that was cancelled after only one of the six produced episodes aired. (The remaining five episodes never aired on TV, but were quietly released on a DVD set.) "Viva Laughlin," a musical comedy-drama series produced by Hugh Jackman was cancelled after only two episodes, and none of the remaining episodes have aired or been given a DVD release. "Mockingbird Lane," a re-imagining of "The Munsters," was cancelled after it's pilot was aired as a TV-special, so the remainder of the first season was never produced. There's honestly probably hundreds of shows that were cancelled before a complete first season was aired.
I was wondering if there are contracts that require the entire first season to be shown, before a network can decide not to show another season. I guess not, based on the answers here.
Shows being pulled mid-season isn't indicative of what other shows' contracts consist of. Some shows may have had it in their contracts that the entire season be aired (there are shows that get pulled mid-season beyond season 1). I don't have personal knowledge because that would be a lot of contracts to read to find out. So maybe someone does. But there's plenty of shows that don't produce an entire season prior to being picked up, so it's possible all the episodes produced were aired.
Answer: So, so many. Drive comes to mind - Nathan Fillion thriller about an illegal road race, only had a few episodes before being pulled off air. "Selfie" (2014) with Karen Gillan and John Cho was cancelled by ABC after only 7 episodes. "Do No Harm" (2013) cancelled after 2 episodes. The Dictator (2012) starring Christopher Lloyd only had one episode.
Answer: One of the shortest TV shows ever was the 1997 series "Lawless," starring former NFL player Brian Bosworth. It was cancelled after the first episode. Also, "Cop Rock," a TV show in the 90s, was cancelled after only 11 episodes. "When The Whistle Blows," a TV sitcom in the 80s, also only lasted 11 episodes.
Answer: There was a police drama roughly 10 years ago called Golden Boy. It was about the youngest police Commissioner in NYPD history and kept hinting at a department-wide shootout that led to the man's promotion. It lasted 13 episodes.
Answer: Another show was called "Brimstone" and had actors Peter Horton and John Glover. The show only had 13 episodes.
The 1963 ABC "The Jerry Lewis Show" was originally planned for 40 episodes in the first season. It went off after 13 shows.
Answer: Outlaws 1986, was cancelled after a few episodes. Sitcom In Case of Emergency, with Kelly Hu, was cancelled after only a couple of episodes.
5th Feb 2023
General questions
How can I get better at spotting movie mistakes on my own? Especially the revealing mistakes and visible camera crew and equipment type ones?
Answer: Honestly, what made me start to notice revealing mistakes/visible crew was just learning about those types of mistakes on this very website and figuring out what to look for. Watching behind-the-scenes materials and learning how movies are made also helps. If I'm specifically going through a movie or show looking for mistakes, which I do sometimes for fun, I usually load up a Blu-Ray copy or the streaming service I'm using, and just scan through every shot, frequently rewinding and looking at all the little details. It can be subtle, so you may have to watch the same few shots 3, 4, 5+ times before you notice things. And even then, I'm sure I miss a lot of them.
Answer: First, it's imperative you watch a film or show with the ability to rewind (DVD, On Demand, Streaming, etc). Second, you should be familiar with the different types of filming techniques and procedures so you can visualize how the scene is being shot and where equipment and crew might be that could accidentally get in the shot. A lot of wide shots are going to expose revealing mistake, often time just briefly. While a continuous shot (where the camera doesn't cut) isn't going to have continuity issues. When the camera angle changes, that's when you can pick up mistakes. Finally, you can't be a passive viewer, if you're texting or looking at your phone, you're going to miss mistakes. And if you're really out to find mistakes, you'll probably miss the show (so it's best to look for mistake on your 2nd or 3rd viewing).
23rd Jan 2023
General questions
Why do some TV shows have different directors and producers throughout a season? Don't networks order/approve an entire season at once - meaning that a regular director and producers could join the crew? For example, I am currently watching the first season of "Melissa and Joey", and there have been six different directors for the episodes I've seen so far.
Answer: The workload of making a TV show is usually intense, and they often film multiple episodes simultaneously or back-to-back in order to save time. It's basically like filming multiple feature-length films. Having a single director or the same producers working on every single episode would be borderline impossible and would take way too long, especially if the season is more than 10 episodes. They have a schedule to keep.
9th Jan 2023
General questions
There was a movie about a girl who entered a gaming competition. While playing, she has an energy drink that slows down everything around her, and she wins the competition. As her boyfriend congratulates her, the energy drink is knocked to the ground causing her to suddenly find herself twenty years in the future and married with three kids. When she walks outside of the house she sees the entire world is practically desolate.
Answer: Doing some research, it appears you are referring to an episode of the science fiction black-comedy series "Dimension 404." It's an anthology series where every episode told an original story. The sixth and final episode, "Impulse", seems to match your description almost 100%. The show was produced for Hulu (where it is still available to stream, at least in the US) and seems to only have one season.
Thank you.
7th Jan 2023
General questions
I watch a lot of 80s and 90s shows. I've noticed that when two characters sit on a couch, they often sit close beside each other, in the couch's center. It's not so unrealistic for a dating/married couple, a parent and young child, or times when a character needs to hug and comfort another. But in real life, if there is plenty of room on a couch, many teens and adults don't choose to sit so close together. Is this done for a filming reason? Or is my real-life experience odd?
Answer: It's usually done that way for framing/composition reasons, since it looks more aesthetically pleasing to the eye to see two people beside each other than on opposite ends of a couch. Things that may seem more natural, like sitting on opposite ends of a couch, just don't often look good on camera. Plus, it subtly indicates that they are close in some way, making it a good storytelling shorthand. (It's kinda similar to how in TV shows, if a scene is set during the morning, there's usually a giant, ornate breakfast out on the table that nobody actually touches, save for maybe grabbing something before they run out the door. Totally unrealistic, but it looks good on camera and is a visual shorthand to indicate it's the morning).
I'd imagine with older 4:3 ratio TV screens if people were at opposite ends of a couch the camera would have to be quite far back to see them both (easier on 16:9 widescreens), so it's easier to have them in the middle with a bit of space either side to make it symmetrical.
1st Jan 2023
General questions
I remember seeing a movie about 10 years ago, I think. I wanna say it was a heist movie or something along those lines, and it may have been a British film, but I was honestly deathly ill at the time and can't remember too much. All I remember is that there was a team of criminals, and one of them was an amateur adult-film actor, and I think there was a scene where he was tortured (and possibly threatened with castration if not castrated?) and killed for information. Ring any bells?
Answer: The Bank Job (2008) based on a true story. A femme fatale, Saffron Burrows, convinces Jason Statham and his crew to rob bank full of safe deposits, not knowing it's a cover to retrieve some photos of a royal family member in a "Fifty Shades" situation. It takes place during the 1970's. Unfortunately, the other boxes belong to the mob. They capture and torture the adult film actor for information and as a hostage.
Thanks! That seems to be the one.
25th Dec 2022
General questions
I remember seeing a sketch show in the US in the late 90's or early 2000's. There was a sketch that was parodying James Bond where the villain was going to kill the Bond character, but realised Bond always had an out for everything. (Ex. "I can't feed you to alligators because you'll just run across their heads like a bridge!" etc.) At the end, the villain got so frustrated, he just killed himself by grabbing onto an electrified panel. Does anyone know what sketch show this is from?
Answer: I found my answer. Evidently it's a skit by Hale and Pace, an English comedy double-act, and it's on YouTube if you search "Hale and Pace Bond." Some of their skits were shown in the US in the 90's as part of the "Ohh, Nooo! Mr. Bill Presents..." comedy show, which was a show that aired comedy skits and shows they licensed from overseas, and were introduced by the character "Mr. Bill." (A little man made out of clay who would comedically be injured and squashed in every episode while screaming "Oh nooo!"). That's where I saw it.
Answer: I don't know about a sketch, but in an episode of "The Simpsons," a character Frank Grimes gets so frustrated that Homer is so dumb but yet archives so much acclaim, becoming an astronaut, winning a Grammy and becomes friends with celebrities. He sets Homer up to fail, but yet wins an award. Frank throws a tantrum, doing dumb things like Homer but ends up electrocuting himself. There have also have been several episodes spoofing James Bond.
Definitely not that. This was a live-action sketch show specifically parodying James Bond.
25th Dec 2022
General questions
When animated shows are recorded, do all the voice actors record lines together, as the plot happens? Or does each person record all their lines at once? And if a character only says a few words in an episode, is some of their previously-recorded dialogue just re-used (if the script would allow it)? If it matters, I am mostly thinking about half-hour shows like The Simpsons, King of the Hill, South Park, Family Guy, etc.
Answer: To add to Bishop's answer, some shows occasionally do have multiple (or all of the) actors working together, but it's typically pretty rare for that to happen. As for the second part of your question, audio clips and lines do get reused sometimes. It just depends on the circumstance of the episode.
Answer: Generally each character's lines are recorded separately where the voice actor reads all their lines at once. There may be other voice actors in the studio with them to read their lines as a prompt so the actor being recorded has something to play off. Also, in the examples you give, one actor voices multiple characters. It would be very difficult for even a seasoned voice actor to have to switch between characters in a scene if the lines were recorded together. And impossible to do if two characters voiced by one actor were both talking at the same time.
7th May 2022
General questions
I remember watching a movie when I was younger around 1996 and a boy has a learning disability, and he becomes friends with a blind lady who is black. He tries to read but can't because the words look funny to him, so she teaches him Braille. I remember the old lady later dies and the boy becomes so upset that he runs away and finds his grandmother and stays with her until he feels ready to return home to his single mom. I think actress Della Reese was in it. What was this movie called?
Answer: Did a quick Google search, and the television film "Anya's Bell" from 1999 seems to fit the bill perfectly plot-wise, plus it stars Della Reese. Only discrepancy is the date (it came out in 1999). But I'm 99% sure that's it. Check out the Wikipedia and IMDb pages for it.
Answer: Thank you that is the move. I don't know why I thought it was 1996 must have been because of the tape we had it on. It was full of movies that were taped off TV, and they were all from different years, so I just estimated with the year.
21st Mar 2022
General questions
I remember catching part of a movie or TV show in the early-to-mid 90's, and some younger kid was singing a song about diarrhoea, along the lines of "When you're sliding into first, and you feel your pants burst, diarrhea, diarrhea." Anyone know what this was from?
Chosen answer: You're probably thinking of the 1989 Steve Martin comedy "Parenthood." In the movie, a kid sings that song. Google it and you can find a clip of the scene.
Answer: There's also an episode of "Two and a Half Men," Season 5 Episode 8, titled "Is There a Mrs. Waffles?" Charlie becomes a children's singing star. He sings about everything kids do playing, eating and sleeping. One song is about doing "potty." I don't remember the lyrics, but he uses words like "poo poo" and "doody."
12th Mar 2022
General questions
I just remembered this brief moment from a movie. An Asian man with shoulder-length hair growls - he has the growl of a tiger or other big cat. In the moment that I remember, he might have been bare-chested/shirtless when he growled at someone. I saw this sometime in the '90s - am quite sure it was not the 2000s or later. Thank you.
Answer: That sounds very similar to a scene in the 1995 "Mortal Kombat" movie. A shirtless man with shoulder-length hair is in the first major fight scene of the tournament, and a few times, they loop in a sort-of tiger growling sound while he's shouting/yelling. (I believe it happens twice.) The only difference is that he's a black man and not an Asian man.
Thank you. I just watched the scene on YouTube, and it seems to be the one I remembered. I must have been mistaken about who did the growling.
18th Jan 2022
General questions
Is there a reason a weekly TV series wouldn't name their episodes? I can understand a soap opera that's on 5+ days a week for decades not wanting to name thousands of episodes, but some shows just list the episode number or use a #1.1 pattern. For example, I'm rewatching "Dark Matter" and each episode in season 1 is just the episode number while season 2 and 3 the episodes have names.
Answer: As for "Dark Matter," it was probably just a creative decision that they decided to change along the way. A majority of shows do have titles for episodes (whether or not the episode titles are ever onscreen... sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't), but I have seen a few that nebulously just have titles like "Chapter One/Two/Three/Etc." or similar things. Perhaps it's an attempt to keep storylines hidden, especially now when people over-analyze and over-scrutinize everything online? Maybe the creators simply feel it's more ominous to not have descriptive titles? Maybe if the show tells a singular concise storyline, simply listing the episode number is more appropriate since it's all one story? Etc. It really could be any number of things. It's just one of the many creative decisions that goes into making a show.
18th Jan 2022
General questions
I saw a movie or TV show back in the early 90's when I was a kid. I only remember one scene because it scared the crap out of me. I believe in the scene, an older man (probably 60's?) was fed feet-first into a shredding machine or large wood-chipper and killed. It was outside. The camera was inside it looking up. And I think there was a woman behind him who either pushed him in, or was trying to get him out. He was awake, shouting and struggling. Ring anyone's bell? (And it was not "Fargo.").
Answer: This might be from the TV series Friday the 13th. The episode is called "Root Of All Evil." The plot of the episode deals with a cursed mulcher. Anybody that gets thrown into it is killed and money is expelled from the other side. The richer the person is, the more money that comes out. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD9XnWh5Mx4.
Holy crap! I think that's it! Quickly scanned through the episode, and it seems to (mostly) match up with what I remember. Not exactly, but considering how young I was, I could just be misremembering it. Additionally, since I was born in '88 and probably saw it when I was 3-4 years old (so '91-'92ish), it would also line up because the show ran until 1990 and was likely still on the air in re-runs.
In fact, I'm 90% sure the death at 31:13 in the video is the exact scene I'm remembering. The only difference is that it's a man and not a woman who pushed him in, but that just could be my memory being dodgy since I only saw it once about 30 years ago. Thank you! I think you got it.
You're welcome.
Answer: I know there're several films where someone has died in a wood-chipper or similar device. License to Kill (1989), Bond is dangling over a shredder and Dario is standing over him. Pam shoots Dario and Bond pulls him into the shredder.
That's a good example, but it's not the scene I'm looking for. It's hard to give details due to the 500 character limit. But the scene seemed to be outside during the daytime (I think there were trees in the background), I think the old man who died was wearing a flannel shirt (that could be wrong), and I seem to recall him having like gray or white hair. I think the woman was trying to save him.
I don't know the film you're talking about, but have you tried looking up "woodchipper" or "body in a woodchipper" in IMDB's plot keywords? The latter has 13 movies listed.
Yeah, I've scoured IMDB for it, but the problem is almost everything I run into is either from the year 2000 or after (like I said, I saw this in the early 90's on TV), or just not the movie/show I'm looking for. I'm assuming it might have been like an obscure episode of a TV show or movie that might not necessarily have a plot keyword attached.
13th Jan 2022
General questions
If episodes of a TV show are still re-running, do the actors continue to receive some amount of payment?
Answer: It depends. Often the principal cast, producers, etc. will get paid for reruns. It's typically referred to as "royalties." Ex. The show "Friends" still brings in nearly $1 billion in revenue each year through reruns, DVD sales, merchandising, advertising, etc. And the six main cast members get a cut of that - usually around $20 million per year each in royalties. However, smaller players and bit-part actors don't really make much, if anything at all, from royalties. It can also vary depending on the contracts and whatnot. Ex. The cast from "Gilligan's Island" didn't make squat from reruns because they weren't contractually obligated to get royalties. But nowadays, it's pretty common for the principal cast to get royalties.
Answer: Yes and no. It depends on what show you're talking about, how long ago it was made, and what the actors had in their contracts. Many reruns do result in "residuals" for the actors involved (or what one might call "royalties"). But this (usually) only for "principal performers", and only if they're in the rerun. Often times when a movie or TV show airs, is sold (e.g. on DVD), or streams, there are residuals to pay. Some however, do not earn these residuals (which usually diminishes after time or set number of airings). The Brady Bunch kids made very little (if any) off residuals. Bob Saget made very little for "Full House" reruns and his co-stars even less. Whereas Kelsey Grammer, Ray Romano, and "Friends" stars make millions each year off residuals.
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: That sounds like the 2005 horror movie "Tamara." It was technically in theatres, but was primarily a video release.
TedStixon
Thank you. That is the movie.