(BBC1, 15:10 today.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gd1rn says it's "1 hour, 16 minutes"
(and it is, plus 9 seconds). But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_%26_Gromit:_The_Curse_of_the_Were-Rabbit says 85 minutes, and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/ says "1h
25min".

Even allowing for 24/25 for film on UK TV, that seems rather a big
difference - thoughts, anyone? (I wasn't _aware_ of any obvious
omission.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you want to make people angry, lie to them. If you want to make them absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:iJg41+aY8YdhFwTl@255soft.uk...

(BBC1, 15:10 today.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gd1rn says it's "1 hour, 16 minutes"
(and it is, plus 9 seconds). But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_%26_Gromit:_The_Curse_of_the_Were-Rabbit
says 85 minutes, and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/ says "1h
25min".

Even allowing for 24/25 for film on UK TV, that seems rather a big
difference - thoughts, anyone? (I wasn't _aware_ of any obvious omission.)

Maybe it had a few adult jokes and sight gags removed for a daytime
audience - such as the rabbit at the village fair which modestly hides its nether regions behind a box... labelled "May Contain Nuts".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 18:29:00, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:iJg41+aY8YdhFwTl@255soft.uk...

(BBC1, 15:10 today.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gd1rn says it's "1 hour, 16
minutes" (and it is, plus 9 seconds). But

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_%26_Gromit:_The_Curse_of_the_Were >>-Rabbit
says 85 minutes, and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/ says "1h >>25min".

Even allowing for 24/25 for film on UK TV, that seems rather a big >>difference - thoughts, anyone? (I wasn't _aware_ of any obvious
omission.)

Maybe it had a few adult jokes and sight gags removed for a daytime
audience - such as the rabbit at the village fair which modestly hides
its nether regions behind a box... labelled "May Contain Nuts".

Hmm, plausible - though the above BBC page, like most similar, lists
earlier showings, and I've only ever seen the film on TV, and _have_
seen those gags - do you think they edit the page prior to an afternoon showing?

(And - I've just checked; that particular sight gag is still there in
the BBC version, at 1:13:07.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(please reply to group - they also serve who only look and lurk)
(William Allen, 1999 - after Milton, of course)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 7:08:02 PM UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 18:29:00, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:iJg41+aY...@255soft.uk...

(BBC1, 15:10 today.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gd1rn says it's "1 hour, 16
minutes" (and it is, plus 9 seconds). But

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_%26_Gromit:_The_Curse_of_the_Were >>-Rabbit
says 85 minutes, and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/ says "1h >>25min".

Even allowing for 24/25 for film on UK TV, that seems rather a big >>difference - thoughts, anyone? (I wasn't _aware_ of any obvious >>omission.)

Maybe it had a few adult jokes and sight gags removed for a daytime >audience - such as the rabbit at the village fair which modestly hides
its nether regions behind a box... labelled "May Contain Nuts".

Hmm, plausible - though the above BBC page, like most similar, lists
earlier showings, and I've only ever seen the film on TV, and _have_
seen those gags - do you think they edit the page prior to an afternoon showing?

(And - I've just checked; that particular sight gag is still there in
the BBC version, at 1:13:07.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf (please reply to group - they also serve who only look and lurk)
(William Allen, 1999 - after Milton, of course)

Could it be that the end credits are heavily truncated? I have noticed for a long time time now that (for movies being broadcast) the BBC and other mainstream channels run
the end credits speeded up considerably. That would shorten the running time by maybe
another 2 or 3 minutes. I don't know whether the same would apply to the iplayer version
though.

Gerard.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 11:22:48, Gerard K <scotsmandrareg@gmail.com>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):

On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 7:08:02 PM UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 18:29:00, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote (my

responses usually follow points raised):

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:iJg41+aY...@255soft.uk...

(BBC1, 15:10 today.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gd1rn says it's "1 hour, 16

[]

says 85 minutes, and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312004/ says "1h
25min".

[]

Maybe it had a few adult jokes and sight gags removed for a daytime
audience - such as the rabbit at the village fair which modestly hides
its nether regions behind a box... labelled "May Contain Nuts".

Hmm, plausible - though the above BBC page, like most similar, lists
earlier showings, and I've only ever seen the film on TV, and _have_
seen those gags - do you think they edit the page prior to an afternoon
showing?

(And - I've just checked; that particular sight gag is still there in
the BBC version, at 1:13:07.)

[]
24/25 of 85 is 81.6, so we've got over 5 minutes (81.6-76) to account
for.

Could it be that the end credits are heavily truncated? I have noticed for a >long time time now that (for movies being broadcast) the BBC and other >mainstream channels run
the end credits speeded up considerably. That would shorten the running
time by maybe
another 2 or 3 minutes. I don't know whether the same would apply to
the iplayer version
though.

Hmm, I think you may have it - the end credits are about 51 seconds,
which seems short. Though only partly - I think 6 minutes would have
been rather long.

Gerard.

John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All I ask is to _prove_ that money can't make me happy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:fU1ni3iNDbdhFwFT@255soft.uk...

On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 11:22:48, Gerard K <scotsmandrareg@gmail.com>

Could it be that the end credits are heavily truncated? I have noticed for >>a
long time time now that (for movies being broadcast) the BBC and other >>mainstream channels run
the end credits speeded up considerably. That would shorten the running >>time by maybe
another 2 or 3 minutes. I don't know whether the same would apply to the >>iplayer version
though.

Hmm, I think you may have it - the end credits are about 51 seconds, which seems short. Though only partly - I think 6 minutes would have been rather long.

I've just checked our DVD. The overall film has a run-time of 1:21:08 and
the credits (from after the "THE END" caption to the Aardman credit) is
6:37. So the difference is 6:37 - 0:51 = 5:46. I think we have our answer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 21:51:45, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:fU1ni3iNDbdhFwFT@255soft.uk...

On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 11:22:48, Gerard K <scotsmandrareg@gmail.com> >>>Could it be that the end credits are heavily truncated? I have

noticed for a
long time time now that (for movies being broadcast) the BBC and
other mainstream channels run
the end credits speeded up considerably. That would shorten the
running time by maybe
another 2 or 3 minutes. I don't know whether the same would apply to
the iplayer version
though.

Hmm, I think you may have it - the end credits are about 51 seconds,
which seems short. Though only partly - I think 6 minutes would have
been rather long.

I've just checked our DVD. The overall film has a run-time of 1:21:08
and the credits (from after the "THE END" caption to the Aardman
credit) is 6:37. So the difference is 6:37 - 0:51 = 5:46. I think we
have our answer.

Looks like it!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1phllto.ddzx6q165mjbkN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

- the end credits are about 51 seconds,
which seems short. Though only partly - I think 6 minutes would have
been rather long.

When "Morris: A Life with Bells On" was screened at the Little Theatre
in Bath, the audience sat silently in their seats for the entire credits (there were a lot of them) and then burst into applause. I don't think
many films would achieve that.

Likewise when I went to see Shine (with Geoffrey Rush). That may have been partly because of the electrifying effect of the operatic aria "Nulla In
Mundo Pax Sincera" which plays over the credits.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

- the end credits are about 51 seconds,
which seems short. Though only partly - I think 6 minutes would have
been rather long.

When "Morris: A Life with Bells On" was screened at the Little Theatre
in Bath, the audience sat silently in their seats for the entire credits
(there were a lot of them) and then burst into applause. I don't think
many films would achieve that.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 09:45:35, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):

"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message >news:1phllto.ddzx6q165mjbkN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

- the end credits are about 51 seconds,
which seems short. Though only partly - I think 6 minutes would have
been rather long.

When "Morris: A Life with Bells On" was screened at the Little Theatre
in Bath, the audience sat silently in their seats for the entire credits
(there were a lot of them) and then burst into applause. I don't think
many films would achieve that.

Likewise when I went to see Shine (with Geoffrey Rush). That may have
been partly because of the electrifying effect of the operatic aria
"Nulla In Mundo Pax Sincera" which plays over the credits.

Though I think I have experienced it for other films, the one I remember
best for getting applause at the end was the 50th (I think) anniversary
showing of Casablanca, at the Empire, Leicester Square. (Bit of the Marseillaise there helped of course.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never raise your hand to your children. It leaves your mid-section unprotected

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)