h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The author is perplexed as to how the BBC can lose 3 minutes from the 95 minute version when they showed their 'complete' version.

It's because when a film is shown on British TV (using the PAL system) they run about 4% faster. This is because movies run at 24 frames per second, and TV runs at 25 frames per second, giving a speed increase that most people don't notice, but it does mean that a 95 minute movie will only run for 92 minutes when shown on PAL TV. So the version shown on the BBC is as complete as the 95 minute videotape.

Confusingly, when shown on American TV, which ostensibly runs at 30 frames a second, movies run at the same speed, for reasons that are too complex for this margin.

Except, strangely, it isn't the same movie.
There are *bits* missing from the BBC 92 minute version that are in the US 95 minute version. Bits that strangely surround those hasty splices made by the BBC techies.
I know it's illogical, but it's true. The strange curse of 'The Wicker Man' strikes again.

It's also worth pointing out that all the BBC did was splice bits of the American footage to the British copy in their possesion-so they added som eight minutes of footage-and if eight minutes of footage will run 50% slower then I'll leat my hat...

The point about running times still stands - it's unlikely that 3 minutes worth of footage would be missing around splices made by the BBC - probably only a few seconds or so. You've obviously compared the two prints, so you know what *precisely* is missing.

But the 95/92 minute difference can *definitely* be explained by the difference in running between 24 and 25 frames per second.

So yes, if there's footage missing around the splices, it might well have been some frames that were lost in the editing process (it may have been necessary to lose some frames because they couldn't use optical fades because they wouldn't match, for example).

But not having seen both versions I'd say the majority of the time lost is still likely to be due to the timing, since the maths works out. Only a scene by scene analysis of both versions would tell you any more.

Still not convinced, sorry.

What the BBc had was a perfectly functional 87 minute print, that plays 87 minutes on British systems.

They then get from the States a 95 minute version on NTSC video, that *would* run to 92 minutes *if* they play it in it's entirety. But that isn't what they do, because the NTSC tape is deemed 'below broadcast standard'. They choose to splice eight minutes of footage from the NTSC tape onto the PAL tape, presumably first having converted it to PAL.

Using the figure of 3% that you quote, those eight minutes should now run to 7 minutes 45.6 seconds. The film *should* now run to 94 minutes 45.5 seconds. But it doesn't, it runs to 93 minutes.

The only conclusion is that the missing 2 minutes 15.4 seconds wetre lost in the splicing. *Unless*, for some reason best known to themselves, the BBC converted the whole thing to NTSC-a process that seems inherently unlikely. Or, the insertion of the NTSC foortage causes the whole tape to speed up, but I don't think that's the case either.

And no, I've not compared the two. The BBC promptly ditched their 92 minute copy and as far as I'm aware it has never been shown again. I was taking the information from a number of souces, who clearly had done the comparison.

95 minutes at 24fps (NTSC runs at an average 24fps using a technique called 3:2 pulldown) will run for 91.2 minutes at 25fps.

So if we assume that the US print contained *every* scene that the UK 87 minute print had, and we assume that that's 87 minutes at 25fps (because it's already been transferred to PAL) then we're not talking about eight extra minutes, we're talking about less than 5.

The numbers *do* add up, which is why, short of pulling the BBC tape from the archives (assuming it still exists) I'm more inclined to believe that there probably wasn't anything missing from the BBC's extended version. Two or three minutes is a *huge* amount of footage to go missing. I'm sure the BBC editors aren't that careless.

This reminds me of the continual arguments of people who *swear* that Star Wars was referred to as 'Episode IV' in the original release in 1977, or that they *definitely* saw Ellie Sattler pull that leaf off the tree while driving up to the brachiosaurs in Jurassic Park, despite the fact that that scene was only ever in the trailers. Since it's unlikely either of us will see the actual footage, I go with the simpler explanation - that someone just compared running times blindly and didn't compensate for the PAL/NTSC difference.

Feel free to convince me if you know of a scene-by-scene analysis anywhere on the web.

While the posts here around 3 years old in regards to the running time of The Wicker Man I wanted to toss this in if anybody is still interested in this.

I have a copy of the original showing of The Wicker Man on BBC's Moviedrone. While stationed in Scotland, (RAF Edzell 1985-1988) I recorded several movies and shows in PAL format.

Richard
U.S. Navy Seabees (Retired)
New Orleans, USA

The last post on this was 3 years ago so it may not be of concern to anybody now. However, the belief that because PAL/UK runs at 24/25fps vs. NTSC/USA at 30fps and therefore compensates for the differance in times just does not hold water.

The author mistakenly believes that the differance in fps means that the movie will run slower in the UK then the USA is flawed by simple math.

E.G. A motorcar traveling at 30mph on the M5 will cover 30 miles in one hour, however a motorcar traveling at 24/25 mph will only cover 24/25 miles in the same hour. It would take 1.2 hours or about one hour 12 minutes to cover the same distance.

Hence, a film film running at 24/25fps which is slower then the 30fps USA would EXTEND the length of the movie, NOT shorten it.

Just my opinion

Comments welcomed.

Richard

What you are missing (which I explain in my post) is that in the UK, film runs at 25fps on TV, but in the US, it actually runs at 24 fps, *not* 30fps. Here's why.

The difference between 24 and 25fps is almost imperceptible. Music is pitched a little higher, voices too, but on the whole nobody notices this difference. If, in the US, they ran films at 30fps everyone would be running around like Benny Hill and speaking like Pinky and Perky. Which clearly they don't. So how do they solve this problem?

They use the fact that TV is 'interlaced' and isn't actually made up of 30 frames per second but is actually 60 'fields', with each field having half the lines that make up the whole picture, alternating odd and even. So, to show movies at 24fps they use a trick called '3:2 pulldown' where they take one film frame and show it for 3 fields, then the next and show it for 2 fields, then the next at 3 and so on. You can see that 24 frames will take 12*3 + 12*2 = 60 fields - one second.

So, although US TV does run at a faster frame rate, movies on US TV actually run slightly slower than they do in the UK, and therefore they run at the same speed (and therefore running time) as in the cinema, and in the UK they run a bit shorter.