Talk:Forrest Gump/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Cheated
- 2 Revised Plot Summary
- 3 Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.
- 4 Lt. Dan
- 5 Connection to The Idiot
- 6 More focus on the book?
- 7 Added spoiler quote
- 8 Vietnam War rally
- 9 Is the Lieutenant Dan Band the same Dan Band from Old School?
- 10 what, no criticism?
- 11 This is not a flaming contest
- 12 Filming
- 13 Trivia
- 14 crooked as a.......
- 15 US Army Rank
- 16 Movie Plot section of this article
- 17 "Differences from the novel" section should have spoiler warnings
- 18 What happened to the hollywood accounting section?
- 19 Gump/Pulp Fiction Parody
- 20 Paramount and the author - contested information
- 21 Two actors played young Forrest Gump
- 22 Forest Gump and Zelig
- 23 Tom Hanks' Younger Brother
- 24 Significance of Feather
- 25 Weird Al Song
- 26 A real story or just a fiction
- 27 Split Film and Book?
- 28 Differences from novel
- 29 Fair use rationale for Image:Forrest gump.jpg
- 30 Running Time differences
- 31 Groom/Paramount "dispute"
Is it fair to decisively say that Paramount "cheated" Groom? It certainly looks that way, but as far as I can recall there was never any court decision or even a lawsuit.--Feitclub 23:30, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- "cheated" is just completely loaded. Even if there was a court decision, it isnt NPOV. -- sidd
- Was it one of those reverse-Enron situations where the accountants do tricks to make the movie have close to zero profit? That happened with Spider Man IIRC. If there is a Wikipedia article on that phenomenon, it would be worth linking to (I'd create one if I knew what to call that phenomenon.) The funny ironic thing about this is that it takes the naivete of Forrest Gump to get a deal for a share of the profits rather than the gross... --Bletch 21:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I agree this phenomenon needs a topic of its own, I would propose the subject title of Artist Exploitation to refer to all the forms of exploitation of artists by record labels, agents, movie studios etc. Certainly, it is a common, but little publicized corollary to capitalist exploitation in general. Exploitation, after all, is not accidental in capitalism, but is an unavoidable corollary, as Marx pointed out.
The critisism seems blatantly POV. Unless a more accurate source other than "some people" can be cited, it should be removed.--The_stuart 22:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. Moving to talk until it can be backed up with cites.
Some have criticised the portrayal of Gump's friend Jenny, whose activism during the 1960s and experiments with alternative lifestyles and intravenous drugs through the upheavals of the 1970s end with her death from an "unknown illness" (symptoms are indicative of AIDS), while Gump and their son survive. In their view, this aspect of the film was an attack on the positive changes that occurred at that time and the alternative of Gump himself as empty nostalgia for a golden age that never really existed.
<<Under Forrest Gump#Plot summary of the movie, a statement says "..., and he carried his wounded platoon ??? to safety during a battle in ...." Is something missing in this sentence?
H Padleckas 21:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Someone with some time please edit the review to fix up the lapses in tense.>>
Revised Plot Summary
I have just completed some work on the story of Forrest Gump. I attempted to make the writing easier to follow, whilst also trying to deal with the issue of the tenses. Moreover, I have added the final two paragraphs to the story, which I felt was necessary to replace the somwehat brief ending which was evident before. As I'm English, I have written this using, if you will, 'true' English; I understand that this is an American film, so if anyone feels like they want to change it from English to what is considered acceptable American-English, that's fine. I Hope I've helped out a bit.--allthesestars 22:31 (BST), 26 May 2005
While I think that it's likely Jenny's disease was HIV or AIDS is there any actual evidence from those involved with the film that that is infact her disease? I mean, if she had AIDS or HIV wouldn't she have given it to both Forrest and their son, Forrest Gump, Jr. ?
Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.
Can someone create an article on this real-life restaurant/delivery service? Sure it sells merchandise based on Forrest Gump, but it does exist. Also, just wondering, but was it based on the movie, or did it come first? --Geopgeop 09:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- It was based on the movie, founded in 1996, according to  --Cfitzart 11:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
How did he live to see forrests wedding after he made peace with God? For a man with no legs swimming deeper into the ocean, I dont think his surivival would occur! RealG187 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Surely you do not think that the makers of this movie intended to portray that Lt. Dan just continued swimming forever off into the sunset as the scene fades. When he said he made peace with God, he is referring to the "showdown" during the hurricane and the survival of himself and the boat and in turn thanking forrest for saving his life. And further on in the film after Forrest left to stay with "mama" until she died, Forrest says that he never went back to "shrimpin'" with Lt. Dan again. Thus telling you Lt. Dan was still alive.
Connection to The Idiot
Perhaps someone should discuss the similarities between the two, and possible inspiration.
- Sounds a little original-researchy, but what did you have in mind?.--220.127.116.11 02:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
More focus on the book?
I know the film is more well-known and popular, but I think the article should focus on the book equally and not equally. It's relegated to second place. Uthanc 09:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you have the time to, go ahead and do it. I've read the book, but its been soo long I don't have the foggiest what's different and what's what. Sorry :(
Uberpesh 19:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on your logic. If the film is more well-known and popular, the article should focus on the film over the less-well-known and less-popular book. Powers 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Uthanc. 18.104.22.168 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought common practice in such cases was to split the reference between book and film (and character?) and have a disambiguation page at Forrest Gump to let users select which they wished to view. Or if the film is really most popular (which I think is likely), then it should be at this location and an italic statement at the top should say "For the book, see Forrest Gump (book). For the literature and film character, see Forrest Gump (character)."—This unsigned comment was added by Edonovan (talk • contribs) .
- That seems fair. I believe that's what's done with A Series of Unfortunate Events. Powers 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, so not quite the same thing. But it still models seperating the book from the film. Powers 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Perfect solution Liu Bei 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you would like to split the two articles, definitely go for it! ^_^ grafikm_fr 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I generally support splitting film adaptations from the plays or books that they are based on. Just curious thought, is there anything in this article about the book? savidan(talk) (e@) 18:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the split although this article hardly has anything to do with the book in it, to make a succesfull split there would have to be alot of work put into the book page. Woldo 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm removing the split tag, since I think it's more meant for articles that are too long or that have sections that are well-detailed enough to stand alone. Right now, the discussion is for creating a brand new article (almost) that focuses on the book only. When that happens, awesome. But for now, this article is mostly movie-oriented, and its length is just fine. --Crisu 00:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Books suck, movies are better, u see more and takes less time.. RealG187 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Added spoiler quote
I added the 'Your best friend could get shot' under quotes. Though should I have posted it under Trivia? [[Uberpesh|Uberpesh 19:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Someone with the IP 22.214.171.124 vandalized the quote with anti-war propaganda. 'Sometimes when people go to Vietnam, they go home to their mommas without any legs. Sometimes they don't go home at all. That's a bad thing. That's all I have to say about that'. I fixed it to what is supposed to say Uberpesh 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Vietnam War rally
In that scene in Washington at that anti-Vietnam War rally, is that guy in American flag decal shirt who's speaking up on the stage, and tells Forrest to talk about the war, Abbie Hoffman? Because I'm almost positive it is, but I don't know how to fit in in the synopsis. VolatileChemical 23:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah he's wearing a flag shirt and Abbie Hoffman is listed in the credits. Go for it. -Tristan
Btw, Forrest gets his medal before the rally, since his mother fainted after Forrest shows his wound to the President. That was why Forrest was wandering around D.C. in the first place. Uagent 09:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Is the Lieutenant Dan Band the same Dan Band from Old School?
- I believe not. --Crisu 00:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
what, no criticism?
For a movie with a huge conservative undertone to it, i find unusual to not find any type of criticism about the movie. eg: poor jenny's ultimate sin was to try to change the world throughout all decades, so she basicly dies for being a liberal, while good ol conservative forrest, he lives and becomes rich. In fact if im not mistaken, Forrest Gump was elected one the worst movies to ever win an oscar for bestpicture (along with rocky, wich was number 1).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) .
- There probably is some. What could be added to this article is a paragraph summarizing all the cricitism with reference links to news articles within it. --Crisu 00:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- what's wrong with you punk? you punks always come and attack things, don't try to use intelligent words, you just said you're a liberal and wanna change the world and the movie made you cry, sure you had to make the remark of being the worst bla bla bla because you're a stupid agressive lowlife punk. i mean, the film is really good and i'm sorry, people who DO live like jenny always get fucked in the end, i hope you don't start vandalising the page and adding your point of views on the criticism. just read the book, gump is a pothead in the book, the book sucks ass. and you are such a stupid heartless punk that didn't noticed forrest the good old conservative has everything and does everything and bla bla bla but HE'S NOT HAPPY 'cause he doesn't have the girl, life still sucks doesn't matter what you do or have if you don't have the loved ones close to you. got it? GOT IT? and also, the most beatiful things of life for him are the stars and sunset, besides he's nice to people BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD TO by his mom, and he's not RICH 'cause he uses his money to HELP PEOPLE. you people just don't get it. go murder yout mom stupid anarchist! too ad hominem but jesus that's the only way this people understand. i'm so pissed off i don't care you guys giving me loads of crap, you just can't cover your sickness with fancy words sometimes!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) .
- Nevertheless, even a movie one disagrees with politically can still be a good movie on its own terms (Birth of a Nation, or Nazi and Soviet propaganda films). I'm not sure FG (the movie) is wholly conservative anyway. Gump himself is totally apolitical, he just doesn't understand the issues. The Vietnam War comes across as a waste of lives, hardly a "conservative" view. Many of the famous people Gump meets end up dead from an assassin's bullet - hardly a message that would cheer the NRA.
I agree the movie has a neocon agenda. Very Leo Strauss. I recommend watching "Forest" after watching "Born on the 4th of July." I think "Forest" is an attack on "4th" and Oliver Stone.
I don't know about the film being neo-conservatist. If one were to see a hidden message in this film, that would be slightly Strausian as he remarked that people are always hiding hidden messages in things that only the 'elite' can understand, however, this is an interpretative theory which cannot be proved and although you can apply Strausian interpretation to this to see it as neo-conservatist, you can apply it to pretty much anything. However, at a stretch I can see how the slow gump making it well through life can be seen as neo-conservatist (given the fact that they advocate that less educated people are easier to rule), however, the main aim of neo-conservatism is to focus people against an enemy (usually one that doesn't exist or is exagerated) so that America can acheive it's 'true goal' of bringing democracy to the world and civilising everyone. In this film there is no enemy and America's true destiny doesn't come up. In fact, judging from the way in which the vietnam war was presented (did you ever see any vietnamese soldiers?) and the entire point of the war from Gumps perspective was lost (Gump didn't seem to understand why they were there), I would say this could be regarded as against certain neo-conservatist beleifs. However, this was probably not the authors intent...or was it?
are you serious that was the best movie ever and what problem do you have with a good person getting good things he tries to protect Jennie from herself and even gives her his medal of honor for fighting in the military, do you just got some sort of problem with people who are good hearted. Jennie was living sinfully more than anything else, she was in pornography, did every single drug, she was on a destructive path not a trying to do good for the world path. She was lost metaphorically and picked up by some bad people who sent her in a bad direction. Can you honestly tell me you feel Jennie was a better person than Forrest. He helped everyone he meet the best way he knew how. Exile 11:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- 0.0 i havent even seen this kind of rhetoric in the socialism page. iv never sought political meaning in forest gump, i think its more about psychology then politics anyway, the simple minded versus the complex minded hmm..ever thought of that one? and that jenny dies has nothing to do with her 'liberal' lifestyle. and that shes messed up is due to her, uhm, overaffectionate father, not an open mind. in fact, it is her open mind that makes her so perfect for forest. and forest gets rich for being different from anyone else and acting outside of 'normality', theres nothing conservative about that. truly, seeking all this political meaning is pointless, thats not the theme of the movie at all· Lygophile has spoken 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Haha. Oh, Geez. Stop making everything so political. It's not a political movie. It's a movie for entertainment. Lighten up.
This is not a flaming contest
This last bit of tripe will be removed shortly. This isn't the forum to criticize the film's alleged conservative bias (although it seems to have attracted just as much criticism for having a liberal bias). At any rate, the film touches many hotbuttons for polarized political opinions, but it should be discussed for its artistic merits instead. Best to let it stand as a great film adaptation of a good novel, that broke cinematic ground on many fronts, and left a deep impression on many who saw it. Landroo 01:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's legitimate to discuss the political aspects of the film, since this was a genuine source of controversy. Perhaps we need some actual quotes from reviews which touch on the politics.
Exile 11:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This movie was filmed a large part in South Carolina, but it wasn't even mentioned in the categories. Only two portions of the film were filmed in North Carolina, but five portions (including the "vietnam" area) were filmed in South Carolina. This is notable, and other films should be added to this category, but none are. Here is a link  to other places this movie was filmed. If anyone wants to fill them in, go ahead. 184.108.40.206
Did you notice that the planes dropping the napalm in Vietnam were F-4 Phantoms?
Did you notice that grown up Forrest runs the same way as young Forrest?
Did you notice that each of Lieutenant Dan's relatives look exactly like him?
Lastly, Lieutenant Dan's Revolutionary war counterpart was infantry The Civil War guy was a flag bearer The WWI guy was Infantry The WWII guy was infantry at Normandy.
crooked as a.......
in the movie Forrest said on the schoolbus "Momma said it's shaped/crooked as a question mark"
is "politician" what he says in the book (because he is allegedly more cynical) - 220.127.116.11 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's stated in the movie during the scene where Forrest is being fitted for the braces. Later on, he says that his mother told him it was a crooked as a question mark. Uagent 09:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
he does not have leg braces in the book, that whole part was thought up during the scrrenplay
US Army Rank
I just saw the movie, and it occurred to me that Forrest has a rank of Sergeant on his uniform, even though in the book he was a PFC and I doubt he was a Sergeant in the film.Delta Spartan 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed this as well. I thought he was a PFC in the film. --MasterA113 20:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Forrest was both PFC and a SGT if you pay close attention to the detail, while in Vietnam letters Gump received by Jenny say PFC Gump, then later on when he starts playing ping pong, he eventually does have SGT rank; it isn't explained of course but take a close look it is there. from 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Happygilmor 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)uNT.[Happy]
Movie Plot section of this article
It seems to me as if the info given in the "Movie Plot" section of this article is pretty much the same as that given in the article Forrest Gump (character), though it may be worded somewhat differently. I wonder if the plot should be summarized briefly here, with a notice just below the header: "Main article: Forrest Gump (character)." Or should the articles be merged? Roxtar 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've chosen the "main article" option; the plot here is cut down now. Roxtar 02:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Partly in response to the notice that the plot summary was overly long, & partly because most of the info is the same as what is told in Forrest Gump (character) (even if told in different words), I'm doing again what I did a few months ago--CUT THE PLOT DOWN. Roxtar 22:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"Differences from the novel" section should have spoiler warnings
The section of the article titled "Movie Plot" has spoiler warnings around it. I notice that the section "Differences from the novel" doesn't have any spoiler warnings around it, even though it reveals quite a few details of the movie's plot. I think it should have spoiler warnings added to it as well.
Someone keeps messing with the "Differences in the novel section." The character is not called "Doug Gump" in the book.
- The edit to Doug began on March 21. No one challenged it until tonight and several anon IPs have changed the name to different ones. Unless a source is provided, recommend stay with what was posted. Morenooso 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The source is the actual novel. As well as the rest of this entries, which do not mention a "Doug" name.
What happened to the hollywood accounting section?
There was major controversy that the Forest Gump book author Winston Groom didn't any back end points from Paramount for the movie due to Hollywood accounting practices. This was a major scandal since the film was such a financial and critical hit. The movie entry should have links to hollywood accounting from both the Forest Gump book and movie articles. Mention should be added to he author's wikipedia entry as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Gump/Pulp Fiction Parody
I remember seeing a parody of Forrest Gump called 'Gump Fiction', where the actors were just acting out select scenes from Pulp Fiction, only putting in Forrest or Bubba in with Travolta and Jackson. Has anyone else seen this? Personally I thought it was hilarious, and am wondering if it has any relevance in Misc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Following an WP:OTRS complaint I have temove the following from the lead:
" although Paramount claimed it was a commercial failure and did not pay Groom his share of the profits.Marshallinside article on Hollywood accounting As such, Groom has refused to allow the novel's sequel, Gump and Co., to be filmed, stating that he could not in good conscience sell the rights to film the sequel to a failure. "
- The first claim is sourced, but pretty badly. If it is true, and the complainer convincingly claims it is not, then there must be much better media sources. Replace this only if you can find undisputable ones. It seems incredible that paramount could make such a claim
- The claim about the sequal is unsourced. Again, if this were true there would be huge media coverage. Find it, or keep both out.
--Docg 10:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Two actors played young Forrest Gump
I just checked and both tonight's edit (just prior to this post) and the earlier correction are both listed at IMDb as playing young Forrest Gump. Could another editor confirm and make the right edit listing both. Morenooso 01:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you might have been confused since Michael Humphries plays Forrest as a boy at the start of the film while Haley Joel Osment plays his son "little" Forrest at the end of the film. --T smitts 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Forest Gump and Zelig
I thought "Forest Gump" was a big-budget movie, (probably) inspired by Woody Allen's 1983's "Zelig" in which an ordinary person gets to meet filmed images of famous people in the past thanks to special effects. I am sure many other people, (who have seen both movies), feel the same way. Shouldn't "Zelig" be metioned in the article? 126.96.36.199 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk
Tom Hanks' Younger Brother
It says in the trivia section that Tom Hanks' real life younger brother protrayed Forrest Gump in a couple of scenes, does anyone know which scenes he is in rather than Tom Hanks? I watched the film last night looking for any differences in the older Forrests but I can not tell-they must REALLY look alike.TammiMagee 09:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have since found out that his brother acted as his running double in some scenesTammiMagee 09:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- In the scene where Forrest is running being chased by the bullies in the pickup truck, Tom Hanks is the one running in camera view. When he turns down the field and the camera follows the pickup truck, Tom Hanks runs off screen and his brother is the one that then comes in to the camera view way off in the distance as the camera pans around as the pickup truck turns off the road into the field. This gives the viewer the impression that Forest (Tom Hanks) REALLY ran fast across the field. 188.8.131.52 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Significance of Feather
Someoen should put in the significance of the feather, that Jenny was praying in the cornfield for God to make her a bird so she could fly free and now she can.
- Well, simply, she's always wanted to be a bird. But if you could, you may watch the audio commentaries to avoid original research. Alientraveller 19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a mention of it somewhere? Socby19 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Socby19
A real story or just a fiction
- He's fictional.~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Split Film and Book?
- Should the film and the book be split into separate articles? It seems like there are enough differences between them to consider them separately, particularly as the book has a sequel and really can not get full coverage in this article that is dominated by the movie. AnmaFinotera 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- (copied from Film project talkpage) I think that the book and the film should have separate articles to allow both articles to develop independently. There are enough differences, and will be more as the articles develop (eg. critical reception). --BelovedFreak 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think they should be split into seperate articles. As Belovedfreak just said, there are definetly enough diffrences.Grango242 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- They definitely ought to be split. I was shocked to see that the novel didn't have a separate article. The film is certainly the more notable of the two, but the book is certainly notable enough to warrant an article, per the notability guideline for books. The mere fact that the movie was made makes the book notable. faithless (speak) 22:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Differences from novel
I believe this section is relevant and should be kept. It does need a lot of clean up (list to prose, no need to point out every little instance, etc), but the article should note that the film is very different from the novel, and if possible note why (if citable sources can be found). This is part of the production details and history of the film, and is generally a standard section for movies based on books, especially where there are major changes made. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, but I see no need for a WP:NOR violation. Besides, when someone seriously wants to revise the article to GA-standard, then a couple of paragraphs could be all done to describe why the main changes were made. Alientraveller (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Work is being done on the article, as I and other FilmProject folks find time. I can see your point on the NOR violation, so would a section with just a short summary and an expand tag be a good compromise? AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. I've not read the book myself, and it's always more productive to start again then to salvage really. Alientraveller (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Work is being done on the article, as I and other FilmProject folks find time. I can see your point on the NOR violation, so would a section with just a short summary and an expand tag be a good compromise? AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Forrest gump.jpg
Image:Forrest gump.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Running Time differences
What's the reason behind the different running times for Europe (136 minutes) and North America (141 minutes)? It's probably worth mentioning in the article, I'd count that as a deleted scene or censor change or similar. --Riche (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
i believe, the longer running time for North America is because the system, NTSC has a faster speed than PAL. i do not think it has anything to do with a deleted or censured scene, like Temple of Doom, which knocks something like 2 mins off the UK version Kilnburn (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it does. Cinema film has 24 frames/second. The PAL system has 50 half-pictures per second, so theoretically 25 fps. To have an easy conversion from film to PAL, the film is sped up by that one frame. The calculation is as follows - originial running time (141 min.) in seconds mutiplied by 24 fps = total framecount of the film -> then divided by PAL´s 25 fps gives the new running time of 2256 seconds... thats roughly 136 minutes. As this is only a 4% speedup this is the common method for all film-PAL conversion and a lot more convenient than NTSC conversion as NTSC runs at an odd number of ~29,9 fps. Vandervahn (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
After reading about the supposed legal issue that had prevented a sequel being made, I checked out the footnoted reference for more info- and the article cited specifically says, at the bottom, that Groom insists there was no dispute and that, even if there were, Paramount could have made the sequel at any time, since it owned the rights. So, I've removed that info from the page since the source of that info has issued a correction. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)