AIRPORT Collection---Concorde CUT!!!!

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Film Buff, Feb 12, 2004.

  1. Film Buff

    Film Buff Guest

    JUst got this one and I notice by IMDB and other sources that for the last film
    "The Concorde: Airport '79" the running time is 123 mins.
    But the DVD has a RUNNING TIME OF 113 MINS!!!!!
    WHAT IS CUT????????
    Thanks for help
     
    Film Buff, Feb 12, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The IMDB is not always correct. Not saying it is or isn't cut but the
    IMDB is put together by user submissions and is subject to error.

    There are versions with deleted scenes (network TV version)that get
    shown on TV (most recently AMC). Some of the confusion may come from
    this.

    Mike

    Film Buff wrote:
    >
    > JUst got this one and I notice by IMDB and other sources that for the last film
    > "The Concorde: Airport '79" the running time is 123 mins.
    > But the DVD has a RUNNING TIME OF 113 MINS!!!!!
    > WHAT IS CUT????????
    > Thanks for help
    >
     
    Michael Rogers, Feb 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Film Buff

    Film Buff Guest

    Also checked Maltin and Motion Picture Guide and they give the same running time of
    123 mins.
    Still wondering what is cut?????

    On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:30:50 GMT, Michael Rogers <> wrote:

    >The IMDB is not always correct. Not saying it is or isn't cut but the
    >IMDB is put together by user submissions and is subject to error.
    >
    >There are versions with deleted scenes (network TV version)that get
    >shown on TV (most recently AMC). Some of the confusion may come from
    >this.
    >
    >Mike
    >
    >Film Buff wrote:
    >>
    >> JUst got this one and I notice by IMDB and other sources that for the last film
    >> "The Concorde: Airport '79" the running time is 123 mins.
    >> But the DVD has a RUNNING TIME OF 113 MINS!!!!!
    >> WHAT IS CUT????????
    >> Thanks for help
    >>
     
    Film Buff, Feb 12, 2004
    #3
  4. Amazon lists the VHS run time as 113 minutes. Maltin has been wrong in
    many cases as well. I'll bet that Motion Picture guide and IMDB copied
    runtime from Maltin (IMDB used to list the Maltin Summery, until I bet
    Maltin asserted his rights).

    I don't think I remember the film running over 2 hours on HBO way back
    when, it's only on the network TV versions with additional footage that
    it runs over 2 hours.

    I have the Airport Terminal DVD pack and I live near a mom and pop video
    store filled with early video versions of many movies (Hell, they even
    have the very first Magnetic Video 20'th Century Fox releases).

    Perhaps I'll rent there (I'll bet 20+ year old) copy of Airport 79 to
    confirm what I suspect:

    That the runtime on IMDB (probabaly carried over from Maltin) is in
    error and the movie on Airport Terminal is the original theatrical
    lenth.







    Film Buff wrote:
    >
    > Also checked Maltin and Motion Picture Guide and they give the same running time of
    > 123 mins.
    > Still wondering what is cut?????
    >
    > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:30:50 GMT, Michael Rogers <> wrote:
    >
    > >The IMDB is not always correct. Not saying it is or isn't cut but the
    > >IMDB is put together by user submissions and is subject to error.
    > >
    > >There are versions with deleted scenes (network TV version)that get
    > >shown on TV (most recently AMC). Some of the confusion may come from
    > >this.
    > >
    > >Mike
    > >
    > >Film Buff wrote:
    > >>
    > >> JUst got this one and I notice by IMDB and other sources that for the last film
    > >> "The Concorde: Airport '79" the running time is 123 mins.
    > >> But the DVD has a RUNNING TIME OF 113 MINS!!!!!
    > >> WHAT IS CUT????????
    > >> Thanks for help
    > >>
     
    Michael Rogers, Feb 12, 2004
    #4
  5. Film Buff

    Film Buff Guest

    Hope you do
    I cannot find any run time except the 123.
    This may be advanced preview runtime before cuts were made for theatrical release
    Sure do wish these people would get their running times correct
    Thanks Again

    On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 02:51:10 GMT, Michael Rogers <> wrote:

    >Amazon lists the VHS run time as 113 minutes. Maltin has been wrong in
    >many cases as well. I'll bet that Motion Picture guide and IMDB copied
    >runtime from Maltin (IMDB used to list the Maltin Summery, until I bet
    >Maltin asserted his rights).
    >
    >I don't think I remember the film running over 2 hours on HBO way back
    >when, it's only on the network TV versions with additional footage that
    >it runs over 2 hours.
    >
    >I have the Airport Terminal DVD pack and I live near a mom and pop video
    >store filled with early video versions of many movies (Hell, they even
    >have the very first Magnetic Video 20'th Century Fox releases).
    >
    >Perhaps I'll rent there (I'll bet 20+ year old) copy of Airport 79 to
    >confirm what I suspect:
    >
    >That the runtime on IMDB (probabaly carried over from Maltin) is in
    >error and the movie on Airport Terminal is the original theatrical
    >lenth.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Film Buff wrote:
    >>
    >> Also checked Maltin and Motion Picture Guide and they give the same running time of
    >> 123 mins.
    >> Still wondering what is cut?????
    >>
    >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 01:30:50 GMT, Michael Rogers <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >The IMDB is not always correct. Not saying it is or isn't cut but the
    >> >IMDB is put together by user submissions and is subject to error.
    >> >
    >> >There are versions with deleted scenes (network TV version)that get
    >> >shown on TV (most recently AMC). Some of the confusion may come from
    >> >this.
    >> >
    >> >Mike
    >> >
    >> >Film Buff wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> JUst got this one and I notice by IMDB and other sources that for the last film
    >> >> "The Concorde: Airport '79" the running time is 123 mins.
    >> >> But the DVD has a RUNNING TIME OF 113 MINS!!!!!
    >> >> WHAT IS CUT????????
    >> >> Thanks for help
    >> >>
     
    Film Buff, Feb 12, 2004
    #5
  6. They cut the scene where George Kennedy has an orgy with the luggage in the
    baggage compartment.
    "Film Buff" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > JUst got this one and I notice by IMDB and other sources that for the last

    film
    > "The Concorde: Airport '79" the running time is 123 mins.
    > But the DVD has a RUNNING TIME OF 113 MINS!!!!!
    > WHAT IS CUT????????
    > Thanks for help
    >
     
    TheDreamwaster, Feb 12, 2004
    #6
  7. Film Buff

    Jay Stewart Guest

    "TheDreamwaster" <> wrote in message
    news:1vEWb.156796$U%5.712161@attbi_s03...
    > They cut the scene where George Kennedy has an orgy with the luggage in

    the
    > baggage compartment.


    I remember that scene. When he was done it looked like a mayonnaise truck
    had exploded.
     
    Jay Stewart, Feb 12, 2004
    #7
  8. Film Buff

    djskyler Guest

    "Film Buff" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > JUst got this one and I notice by IMDB and other sources that for the last

    film
    > "The Concorde: Airport '79" the running time is 123 mins.
    > But the DVD has a RUNNING TIME OF 113 MINS!!!!!
    > WHAT IS CUT????????
    > Thanks for help
    >

    I saw this one in the theaters, I remember it being under two hours in
    length.
     
    djskyler, Feb 12, 2004
    #8
  9. Film Buff

    Jeffy3 Guest

    Film Buff <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > JUst got this one and I notice by IMDB and other sources that for the last film
    > "The Concorde: Airport '79" the running time is 123 mins.
    > But the DVD has a RUNNING TIME OF 113 MINS!!!!!
    > WHAT IS CUT????????
    > Thanks for help



    HA! The more they cut of this movie the better!
     
    Jeffy3, Feb 12, 2004
    #9
  10. EEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    >
    > I remember that scene. When he was done it looked like a mayonnaise truck
    > had exploded.
     
    Michael Rogers, Feb 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Film Buff

    P Pron Guest

    Film Buff wrote:
    > JUst got this one and I notice by IMDB and other sources that for

    the
    > last film "The Concorde: Airport '79" the running time is 123 mins.
    > But the DVD has a RUNNING TIME OF 113 MINS!!!!!
    > WHAT IS CUT????????
    > Thanks for help


    The British Board of Film Classification (=Censors) (www.bbfc.co.uk)
    passed it in August 1979 with a running time of 113m 21s, with no
    cuts.

    I wonder if the "missing" 10 mins might have been additional rubbish
    added at some time for some spurious TV "special edition"? Or , more
    likely, it's just a single misprint, recycled many times by subsequent
    writers using someone else's research....

    paul
     
    P Pron, Feb 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Film Buff

    Stan Brown Guest

    It seems "Michael Rogers" wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >The IMDB is not always correct. Not saying it is or isn't cut but the
    >IMDB is put together by user submissions and is subject to error.


    Yes, and since Amazon took it over the process of submitting a
    correction is such a giant pain that I no longer bother. It's a
    pity.

    makes it harder to follow discussions.
    before the material you're commenting on, it
    When you put your comments

    http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#upside

    --
    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com
    DVD FAQ: http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
    other FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
     
    Stan Brown, Feb 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Film Buff

    Stan Brown Guest

    Stan Brown, Feb 12, 2004
    #13
  14. But ironicaly, the Amazon VHS entry lists it at the correct 113m. I
    don't think Film Buff has to worry that the DVD is edited. I think that
    the 123m thing started with a mistake in Maltin's book (and since C79 is
    not exactly a movie with a following, nobody really caught it until
    now).

    Network TV version (I have it on tape somewhere)does add aprox 20
    minutes but also has standards and practices editing so I don't quite
    know how it all balances out..

    Mike

    Stan Brown wrote:
    >
    > It seems "Michael Rogers" wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > >The IMDB is not always correct. Not saying it is or isn't cut but the
    > >IMDB is put together by user submissions and is subject to error.

    >
    > Yes, and since Amazon took it over the process of submitting a
    > correction is such a giant pain that I no longer bother. It's a
    > pity.
    >
    > makes it harder to follow discussions.
    > before the material you're commenting on, it
    > When you put your comments
    >
    > http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#upside
    >
    > --
    > Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
    > http://OakRoadSystems.com
    > DVD FAQ: http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
    > other FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
     
    Michael Rogers, Feb 13, 2004
    #14
  15. Film Buff

    Film Buff Guest

    Thanks ALL
    Everyone's comment are appreciated
    Thank everyone for their help

    On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:59:50 -0600, Film Buff <> wrote:

    >JUst got this one and I notice by IMDB and other sources that for the last film
    >"The Concorde: Airport '79" the running time is 123 mins.
    >But the DVD has a RUNNING TIME OF 113 MINS!!!!!
    >WHAT IS CUT????????
    >Thanks for help
    >
     
    Film Buff, Feb 13, 2004
    #15
  16. Film Buff

    Jeffy3 Guest

    "P Pron" <> wrote in message news:
    >
    > I wonder if the "missing" 10 mins might have been additional rubbish
    > added at some time for some spurious TV "special edition"? Or , more
    > likely, it's just a single misprint, recycled many times by subsequent
    > writers using someone else's research....
    >
    > paul


    According to Leonard Maltin's book, additional footage was added for
    network tv version.
     
    Jeffy3, Feb 13, 2004
    #16
  17. Film Buff

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, Michael Rogers <> wrote:
    >But ironicaly, the Amazon VHS entry lists it at the correct 113m. I
    >don't think Film Buff has to worry that the DVD is edited. I think that
    >the 123m thing started with a mistake in Maltin's book (and since C79 is
    >not exactly a movie with a following, nobody really caught it until
    >now).
    >


    Well for someone who lives in Salt Lake City Utah, both Airport 75 and 79 hold
    some dear moments. Both had key points of the movie filmed in Utah . When the
    plane lands in airport 75, its at SLC international. Thats the one time i ever
    got to meet Mr Heston.


    Also, the main fuselage (sp?) of the concorde that is shown on the ground
    after the crash in 79, is completely made out of snow. They went cheap and
    didnt make a complete prop for the movie.


    >Network TV version (I have it on tape somewhere)does add aprox 20
    >minutes but also has standards and practices editing so I don't quite
    >know how it all balances out..
    >
    >Mike
    >
    >Stan Brown wrote:
    >>
    >> It seems "Michael Rogers" wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >> >The IMDB is not always correct. Not saying it is or isn't cut but the
    >> >IMDB is put together by user submissions and is subject to error.

    >>
    >> Yes, and since Amazon took it over the process of submitting a
    >> correction is such a giant pain that I no longer bother. It's a
    >> pity.
    >>
    >> makes it harder to follow discussions.
    >> before the material you're commenting on, it
    >> When you put your comments
    >>
    >> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#upside
    >>
    >> --
    >> Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
    >> http://OakRoadSystems.com
    >> DVD FAQ: http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
    >> other FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
     
    GMAN, Feb 16, 2004
    #17

  18. > Well for someone who lives in Salt Lake City Utah, both Airport 75 and 79 hold
    > some dear moments. Both had key points of the movie filmed in Utah . When the
    > plane lands in airport 75, its at SLC international. Thats the one time i ever
    > got to meet Mr Heston.


    Cool! I wish I got to meet C.Heston. Unfortunataly, he's probabaly too
    sick to meet now.

    Mike
     
    Michael Rogers, Feb 16, 2004
    #18
  19. Film Buff

    Jimbo700 Guest

    Magnetic Video Corp and early VCR's

    > I have the Airport Terminal DVD pack and I live near a mom and pop video
    > store filled with early video versions of many movies (Hell, they even
    > have the very first Magnetic Video 20'th Century Fox releases).


    I remember when I bought my first VCR (for which I paid almost $1,000),
    there were no movie-rental places and you had to buy movies at $50-$100 each
    (and there were only 30 or 40 titles available to the public).
    I had to drive 50 miles to a store that had movies for sale and they were
    all movies from Magnetic Video Corp. (20'th Century Fox) and I bought 4 or 5
    of them. Two of the movies I bought were The Towering Inferno and Patton
    (both were double-tape sets).
    When I got home to view them, the movie labeled and packaged as Patton was
    actually The Towering Inferno.
    Even though all labeling and packaging said Patton, the tape itself had The
    Towering Inferno on it (both tapes of the set)! I had paid $65 or $70 for a
    second copy of The Towering Inferno! Boy was I PO'ed. I had to drive back
    to Indianapolis to exchange it, but before I left the store I made them open
    the package to check the tapes and they all (5 or 6 copies) were actually
    the Towering Inferno. I got a refund and waited another year before I
    finally got a copy of Patton.
    I still remember the music and the voice at the beginning of each Fox movie:
    "Magnetic Video Corporation, in cooperation with 20 Century Fox is proud to
    present the following major motion picture on videocassette." That was when
    blank tapes were selling for $20 a shot.
    I remember a year or so later when Warner Brothers released Superman on
    tape I paid almost a hundred bucks for it.
    I also paid $150 or a bootleg copy of Star Wars that was videotaped from a
    theatre screen and had that annoying flicker because of the frame rate
    differences... Yet I was thrilled to have a copy. All video cassettes at
    that time were priced over $50, thus spawned the movie rental business.
    When George Lucas released Star Wars on tape (after telling everyone for
    years he would never release them on tape) they were intended for rental
    only and the cost was $115.
    The first low-priced movie released was Star Trek II-The Wrath of Kahn,
    which was priced at $19.95 and it sold a zillion copies. It didn't take
    long for them to figure out that if movies were priced right, people would
    buy them rather than rent and it wasn't long before studios were releasing
    movies for about $20 each. By that time the cost of blank VHS tapes had
    fallen below $10. I built my movie collection around those Magnetic Video
    Corp. releases and movies I recorded from HBO.
    Just a lesson in history spawned by your mention of Magnetic Video Corp.
     
    Jimbo700, Feb 17, 2004
    #19
  20. Film Buff

    Dick Sidbury Guest

    Re: Magnetic Video Corp and early VCR's

    Jimbo700 wrote:
    >>I have the Airport Terminal DVD pack and I live near a mom and pop video
    >>store filled with early video versions of many movies (Hell, they even
    >>have the very first Magnetic Video 20'th Century Fox releases).

    >

    Thanks for the reminiscences. It brought back pleasant memories for me.
    >
    > I remember when I bought my first VCR (for which I paid almost $1,000),


    Mine was a Beta because it was only 750 and the VHS were 1200.

    > there were no movie-rental places and you had to buy movies at $50-$100 each
    > (and there were only 30 or 40 titles available to the public).


    The video store that I bought mine from was "renting" dubs from HBO. In
    fact I knew a surgeon who spent the weekend in Atlanta (about 75 miles
    from my home in Rome Ga at the time) so that he could watch commercial
    free movies on HBO from his hotel room.

    > I had to drive 50 miles to a store that had movies for sale and they were
    > all movies from Magnetic Video Corp. (20'th Century Fox) and I bought 4 or 5
    > of them. Two of the movies I bought were The Towering Inferno and Patton
    > (both were double-tape sets).
    > When I got home to view them, the movie labeled and packaged as Patton was
    > actually The Towering Inferno.
    > Even though all labeling and packaging said Patton, the tape itself had The
    > Towering Inferno on it (both tapes of the set)! I had paid $65 or $70 for a
    > second copy of The Towering Inferno! Boy was I PO'ed. I had to drive back
    > to Indianapolis to exchange it, but before I left the store I made them open
    > the package to check the tapes and they all (5 or 6 copies) were actually
    > the Towering Inferno. I got a refund and waited another year before I
    > finally got a copy of Patton.
    > I still remember the music and the voice at the beginning of each Fox movie:
    > "Magnetic Video Corporation, in cooperation with 20 Century Fox is proud to
    > present the following major motion picture on videocassette." That was when
    > blank tapes were selling for $20 a shot.


    I purchased the first blank L-750 in Rome for only 30 dollars.

    > I remember a year or so later when Warner Brothers released Superman on
    > tape I paid almost a hundred bucks for it.
    > I also paid $150 or a bootleg copy of Star Wars that was videotaped from a
    > theatre screen and had that annoying flicker because of the frame rate
    > differences... Yet I was thrilled to have a copy. All video cassettes at
    > that time were priced over $50, thus spawned the movie rental business.
    > When George Lucas released Star Wars on tape (after telling everyone for
    > years he would never release them on tape) they were intended for rental
    > only and the cost was $115.


    I got a bootleg (about 4th or 5th generation) dub of TESB that was
    extremely blurry.
    > The first low-priced movie released was Star Trek II-The Wrath of Kahn,
    > which was priced at $19.95 and it sold a zillion copies.


    I'll take your word for it, but I remember it being Raiders, or at least
    I remember Raiders being the first movie that was released at a sell
    through price. (I had loaned the dealer that I bought my VCR from the
    money to open the first video rental store in town and so I knew the
    inside business and dealer prices at his place.) He had decided to rent
    commercial copies of movies rather than "free" rentals to his
    purchasers. Since I was an investor I got free rentals. My first movie
    from him was Coal Miner's Daughter.

    It didn't take
    > long for them to figure out that if movies were priced right, people would
    > buy them rather than rent and it wasn't long before studios were releasing
    > movies for about $20 each. By that time the cost of blank VHS tapes had
    > fallen below $10. I built my movie collection around those Magnetic Video
    > Corp. releases and movies I recorded from HBO.
    > Just a lesson in history spawned by your mention of Magnetic Video Corp.
    >
    >
    >

    Thanks again.

    dick
     
    Dick Sidbury, Feb 17, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Q0FMb3ZlbGw=?=

    Airport Express Setup

    =?Utf-8?B?Q0FMb3ZlbGw=?=, Aug 19, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    660
    =?Utf-8?B?SkVBYnJhbXM=?=
    Sep 6, 2004
  2. Pompey©

    Concorde RIP

    Pompey©, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,219
    Bigfred
    Oct 26, 2003
  3. MayB

    Attention you Concorde enthusiasts

    MayB, Apr 14, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    425
    slumpy
    Apr 17, 2004
  4. Ian Burley

    Concorde pix?

    Ian Burley, Oct 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    818
  5. Rocketman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    549
    Rocketman
    Mar 3, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page