Talk:Around the World in 80 Days (1956 film)

Cannibalism

I Removed the bit about cannibalism. The Indians try to burn Passepartout at the stake, and he refers to the incident as being 'cooked,' but there's not the slightest implication the Indians planned to eat him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.129.220 (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC) ---

@75.2.129.220 Even given the racist attitudes common when the film was produced, I doubt that any significant number of people believed that any native North Americans practiced cannibalism. The use the word "cook" simply refers to the heat of the fire. Some tribes really did burn their captives at the stake, and this became a trope in film. Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Regular 35 mm film runs 90 feet a minute with 24 frames per second (fps). Still with 24 fps a 70 mm print runs 112,5 feet per minute. This movie was shot in 65 mm with 30 fps, e.g. 140,625 feet per minute. With a running time of 183 minutes, the total length of a print must have been 25 734,375 feet (7 843,8375 m), not only 22 000 as claimed in this article. I will change accordingly. --Towpilot (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The balloon part.

This is from "A collision in the air", which is another Verne novel. I was surprised when I read AtWi80D. I think it works well to make the film great fun for the kids too.69.122.62.231 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Having seen the movie, when I read the novel for the first time I was surprised to learn that there was no balloon in it. I usually disapprove strongly when screenwriters introduce completely new plot devices into films based on existing novels, but in this case I have to applaud it. The balloon episode is absolutely perfect for the story, and I might even go so far as to say that the producers of the film "fixed Verne's novel for him".Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The most animals used?

I noticed the "citation needed" notation on the claim "The movie holds the record for the highest number of animals ever employed." IMDB's trivia page for this movie states that "The film utilized the talents of, at that time the most animals ever in any film," suggesting that the record has since been broken. Perhaps the claim in the article should be revised to say "at that time" until it can be verified that this movie still holds that record. Erality (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for buffalo numbers

I added a "citation needed" to the claim that "Todd also used over 6000 buffalo for a stampede scene" because IMDB's trivia page states that "2,448 buffalo" were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erality (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

PRINCESS AOUDA'S DRESS

Mr. Todd appears to have mistakenly kept Princess Aouda in Hindu garb when in fact her dress in the original novel is carefully described by Verne: a dress of Scotch stuff, a mantle, and a beautiful otterskin pelisse. I still have no idea why he did it that way.

Inflation

"£55,000 (equal to £3,641,794 today)" Too many significant figures. I don't know on what date that sentence was written, but I bet if I did the calculation today it would no longer be accurate. 91.107.166.36 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"I don't know on what date that sentence was written" and I fully agree, Wikipedia is full of badly written prose with serious time issues. This is why the underlying Wikisources uses the formatnum template. It is only because the figure is automatically adjusted that phrasing as vague as "today" is in any way acceptable.

That the number is not rounded to a more readable figures is not ideal. Perhaps that can be fixed.

Unfortunately someone changed automatically generated figure to a fixed number, and used the very imprecise wording "equal to around" and added the date 2014 which would need to be update again and again (which, is a bad thing). This might not have been so bad if the editor had made this change to both cases where the template was used in the plot but inconsistently did it only once.

I restored the formatnum template for consistency. It is not ideal but over precision is far better than an inflation conversion that would need to be frequently updated. -- 109.77.249.10 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked into the templates Template:Formatnum and Template:Inflation. First I changed the formatting to round the last five digits. I also followed best practice explaiend in the template and added an explanatory footnote/reference, hopefully this will also assuage editors who are concerned by the vagueness of the (phrasing around ... today). Knowing that pedantic types would prefer that a rounded figure be expressed in words, I also change the template to use Format Price so that the figures would be expressed using the words millions.

Thanks to the editors who use the Formatnum template in the first place, that made it much easier for me to improve and update the article. I hope others will keep these improvements intact. -- 109.77.249.10 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hot-air balloon

Worth saying that there is no balloon in the novel. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no hot air balloon in the movie. It appears to be a hydrogen balloon. My memory of the movie is unreliable, but the posters clearly show a gas balloon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.36.227 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Most likely the lifting gas is helium.

Although it's certainly true there's no balloon in the novel, I have to admit it fits very well into the story regardless.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I may have Goofed in removing large citations needed tag

Folks, I am cruise the back issues of PM and PS and FLIGHT looking for citations for aviation and weapons article. When I came across a 1956 article dealing with the special effects used for this movie. I removed the smaller citation needed tags from the texts and then I removed the larger one at the top of the article/production section. I may have been a little zealot in removing the larger citation needed boxes. I left the smaller citation need tags in the paragraphs which the 1956 PM article did not cover (eg the Bullfight). If anyone wants to revert that action I have no problem with it. If I did over do it, my apologizes. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The balloon part, part deux

IT IS NOT A HOT AIR BALLOON!!

IT IS NOT A HOT AIR BALLOON!!

IT IS NOT A HOT AIR BALLOON!!

Why do the editors and writers insist on calling it one, as if any balloon large enough to carry people must be a hot air balloon? The balloon in the film is lifted by gas which need not be heated, but is lighter than air at ordinary temperatures due to its physical nature. It's most likely helium. A balloon of this type is operated quite differently from a hot air balloon, and as far as the film goes into the technical matters concerning this, it's reasonably accurate to the best of my knowledge. All things being equal, a balloon such as the one used in the film and currently in equilibrium -- not rising or sinking -- can theoretically stay at its current altitude indefinitely, and gas must be released or ballast jettisoned to descent or ascend respectively. A flight aboard a gas balloon is said to be a sublime experience, carrying passengers aloft without the usual noise of aircraft motors. If the balloon itself no longer contains enough, but still contains almost enough helium to lift the gondola and passengers, it should descend at a slow and steady rate until it lands.

By contrast, a hot air balloon depends entirely on the continuous heating of ordinary air. The burner, which is VERY noisy, can be briefly turned off to allow passengers the experience of floating silently in the sky, but it soon must be turned on to keep the balloon in flight. If the burner fails or the fuel supply runs out, the balloon will descend at an ever faster rate which cannot be diminished by jettisoning anything.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Needs careful review of citation sources

The article includes no fewer than four citations to IMDB, which is not a reliable source, for biographical and financial information. Another “citation” is simply an editor stating, in essence, “I saw it on TV on this date,” which is not at all verifiable. These and probably others should be replaced with verifiable citations from reliable third-party sources. 2603:9001:4500:1C09:D4:574A:A070:9A7B (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)