Talk:The Flight of the Phoenix (1965 film)

Premiere
Although the film debuted on December 15 1965, this was presumably in Los Angeles for Oscar qualification purposes. I have recently been researching London West End film releases and The Flight of the Phoenix opened at the Carlton Theatre, Haymarket, London (a theatre that Fox was running at the time) on January 20th 1966 with what was described in the advertising as the World Premiere. Can you have a "World Premiere" when the film has already been publicly shown earlier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambak51 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Terminology
With all due respect to Bzuk, I don't see any point in exclusively using the word "aircraft" to refer to the airplanes in the film. In addition to being unnecessarily technical, it's ambiguous: It doesn't distinguish between airplanes and helicopters. I understand that "plane" is a colloquial term that could confuse nonnative English speakers, but "airplane" is so universally accepted in the English language that calling it "colloquial" strikes me as being unrealistically pedantic. I can't imagine an English dictionary not including the word, and I can't imagine any English speaker being confused by it. The term "transport aircraft", on the other hand, is obviously technical jargon. In addition to adding unhelpful detail to the leading sentence, I think it's confusing to readers with modest educational backgrounds. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BZuk is correct that "plane" is considered colloquial, but that's not why the usuage of "airplane" is restricted. Using "aircraft"/"fixed-wing aircraft" in lieu of "airplane"/"aeroplane" is a standard guideline across Wikipedia. It's meant as a catch-all solution to the argument of whether "airplane" or "aeroplane" should be used in article, and to avoid the constant edit wars between users preferring one or the other. This is inspite of the WP:ENGVAR guidelines, which would allow both forms to be used, depending on whether the topic is British/Commonwealth or US/Canadian, or the preference of the first writer on non-English topics. One of the problems is that immature users on both sides of the Atlantic cannot tolerate the use of the other side's form, so this solution was imposed on everyone. I'd rather see the ENGVAR solution used, but so far my efforts to have this implemented have failed. - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * > "aircraft"/"fixed-wing aircraft" is a ... solution to ... "airplane" or "aeroplane"
 * Yuck. The cure is worse than the disease. > I'd rather see the ENGVAR solution used
 * Agreed.
 * > BZuk is correct that "plane" is considered colloquial
 * Just for the record, I already agreed with that.
 * Thanks for helping. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was out of town and didn't have a chance to respond. There are reasons why the arcane "aeroplane" and its derivations, "airplane" and "plane" are deprecated, and better left off as it has been an ongoing source of discussion as to a lack of consensus regarding their usage on Wikipedia. As much as possible, regardless whether "airplane" has become common vernacular, if there are appropriate alternatives, wiki editors will choose these as compatible solutions. It seems that "cargo plane", "floatplane" and "bush plane" have been acceptable so there are no "carved-in-stone" dictums. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Why not check the novel by Elleston Trevor, to see how he spelled it? He was British, so if the term appears in the novel, it most likely was "aeroplane".&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 20:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In the film "aeroplane" is used throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.25 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Home video releases
Though not currently discussed in the article, there are differences in the home video releases of the film. The first home release was on VHS tape, and was faithful to the theatrical release. The later DVD release chopped some scenes for who-knows-what-reason, and thus lacks continuity. I haven't seen the DVD release personally, but I do remember reading a scathing review of it (perhaps at Amazon.com?) several years ago for this reason.&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 20:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of cartridges used
Having just watched the film, it looks clear to me that there were seven cartridges for the Coffman starter. Towns clears the cylinders with the fifth and starts the engine successfully on the sixth, leaving one spare. If no-one disagrees I will make this change in one week. Srimech (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure, the premise was always that Towns is down to the last cartridge. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC).
 * There has been an anonymous edit which agrees with me, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.109.226.83. It's possible we were both working from the recent DVD release. I didn't see the theatrical release. Srimech (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * well i DID see the theatrical release. I was bout 10 or 11yrs old at the time, and of course seen it many times since. What a ensemble cast. I too recall that Towns is down to the last (6th) cartridge. Knowing the DVD release is FLAWED, how can you allow it to be used as reference? Lame ass. Here's your required four tildes 76.218.248.127 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

About the Playboy Magazine cover held up
In the first several minutes of the film in the cargo section, one of the passengers holds up viewing a Playboy Magazine: the cover is for May 1965 issue. It reads:

ENTERTAINMENT FOR MEN MAY 1965 · 75 CENTS PLAYBOY

CONTINUING IAN FLEMING'S FINAL JAMES BOND ADVENTURE, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN · PLUS JEAN PAUL SATRE, RONALD DAHL, WILLIAM SAROYAN, KEN W. PURDY AND MARQUIS CHILDS

The cover can be viewed here: http://takemeback.to/media/cover/cover-Playboy-19650501-77442.jpg Ncsr11 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

HOW REALISTIC ?
Have any aeroplane mechanics/engineers ever commented on how realistic the storyline is ??? It's pure unrealistic fantasy, of course. If not, it should be easily duplicated Dickie birdie (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the cartridge starter relevant to WP?
Mention of the cartridge starter and the limited number of cartridges has been repeatedly removed as WP:POPCULT.

Should this mention be included? In this article? In the Coffman engine starter article? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)