Talk:No Highway in the Sky

Untitled

I really liked this film it was classic Stewart, hanging in when no one else believes his theories. His vindication in the end is only important to him because of the lives saved.

Relationship to DeHavlland Comet Disasters

The Comet was the first commercial jetliner, but had a design and structural flaw which resulted in the inflight breakup and loss of 2-3 planes before the source of the failure was understood. By then, the reputation of the Comet was trashed and the market for the 707 was wide-open.

Would be interesting to know if the Comet was the inspiration for this movie.88.84.16.188 (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Comet entered service after the film was made so probably not. In addition, in the film the "Rutland Rheindeer" is a fictional turboprop airliner more like an enlarged Vickers Viscount rather than a pure jet like the Comet.

The book/film was unusually prescient though in predicting the effect of metal fatigue in passenger aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The name

This is a British film released in Britain as No Highway; the IMDB even lists it under that name. Should it in fact be moved to e.g. No Highway (Film)? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be the original name, cant see any reason why the article should use the US-release title. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit of a conundrum as the Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. was the production company, operating through a subsidiary in Great Britain (Twentieth Century-Fox Productions [GB]), and the film is now universally recognized by its US title. The title, No Highway although it does not appear in the registry of the British Film Collection 1896–1984 by Patricia Warren (1984), it is found in Film Index International run by the British Film Institute, and the film is titled there as No Highway, and the countries are Great Britain and USA. FWiW, many films from a US production company, using foreign filming locations, released versions for other markets, see Operation Crossbow for another example of a film made in Britain, that was a product of a US production company with a British subsidiary, and also had multiple names for different markets, finally settling on the US name, but still retaining its British origin. Bzuk (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

The fun about IMDb is that it is a fan-based site that does not have independent or peer reviews. See the very page that the film appears and you will note the film poster clearly says: No Highway in the Sky. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

And for the lamest measure, Google shows No Highway in the Sky about a third more hits than No Highway. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Shortly after posting the above - and I want to stress that I don't give a shit what the article's called - someone claiming to be "Bzuk" above sent me the following charming email, which went on and on and on:

"Hi Ashley,

The reason for not using the conventional practice of directing developmental issues to the talk page of an article, in this case the Wikipedia article, No Highway in the Sky/No Highway is that I have had a long and storied (I almost said sordid) history with a particular editor, cum-wiki-stalker (well, maybe not really stalking, just a perverse habit of showing up whenever I edit in one of the articles he has an interest ...) who has shown up on the talk page and had independently reverted the entire article to reflect it was a US production. He has a penchant for claiming articles in which he has edited as his own, especially if there is any connection with one of his passions, postal history of the US. His arguments are lengthy, full of wikilawyering, basically pedantic and smack of fancruft. I have chosen to take the argument to his talk page because the issue is mainly a self-created one that really only involves Bruce and myself. Bruce is Bruce Cooper, an author and fan of many things that could be classified as Americana, but mainly focused on hockey, sports, stamps and of course, John Wayne.

I first encountered Bruce in the development of the Charles Lindbergh article which he literally peppered with items from the Copper Collection of American History, as he calls it. He did the same in the Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg articles, another passion of his as he has actually collected fragments of the great airships. Both were also connected to stamps and first flight covers.

Other editors have had similar dealings with Bruce but I choose to regard him as at least many cuts above the standard pimple-faced vandal (present company excluded if I have hit a nerve) but nonetheless, a cantankerous and tendentious editor. The Curtiss JN-4 article was just another article I edited until I realized that it, of course, represented the aircraft in the famous "Inverted Jenny" stamp, reputedly the most expensive stamp series in the world of philately. Bruce then proceeded to rewrite everything into his particular brand of writing style, format and dogma (how dare he, it should be in my style!!! Oops, did I say that, I thought I was only thinking it...) That's where Amelia Earhart comes in. I noted that a recent edit had the duck's walk, squawk of a spammer. Within moments, Bruce joined the chorus..., reverting all of my edits as a matter of course, and now onto the No Highway conundrum.

Bruce believe firmly that all article should be written in his style, which includes date conventions, where we first had a conflict as he changed all the US-produced aircraft articles to a US popular style of dating, M/D/Y rather than the D/M/Y style that had been adopted at the time in aviation topics to reflect a more international impact of the aircraft. Through persistence and continual arguments, which on the surface, have merit, but fall into the wikilawyering that some editors employ merely to get their way, had those changes made and approved by a consensus of the WP:Aviation Group, although Bruce is far from being an expert in aviation.

Please take a look at the No Highway in the Sky article again ..."

I find this kind of off-site canvassing leaves a bad taste in my throat, and if anybody has a problem they should bash it out here, on Wikipedia. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ashley. User:Bzuk is a long story who basically does not like to have his particular views on anything (especially regarding formatting and a variety of other issues which he has self admitted to being "petty") ever challenged or questioned in any way. I am used to discovering his canvassing in other WP forums made without his advising me (although this is the first time I have been made aware of his also doing so "off site" as well), but not to worry as I can take care of myself. (I don't know where he came up with the impression that I am a John Wayne fan, however, as I am not.) With that out of the way, you certainly have a really super photography blog which I found linked on your user page. I have bookmarked it and will now follow regularly. I do both SLR digital photography -- mostly of railroads -- as well as digital image restoration of all kinds. (See my user page for links to my many other photography and history web sites.) Thanks for your support. Centpacrr (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is it?

I must admit that I am now more puzzled than usual by the standards being applied to this film. After editor BZUK made a convincing case above that this film is "universally recognized by its US title" with it having been financed, produced, and distributed by a US movie studio (20th Century Fox) under a US producer (Louis D. Lighton), a US based (although a German born exile) director (Henry Koster), and with a iconic US actor as the lead player (Jimmy Stewart), as soon as I accepted this determination as it clearly being a US title and corrected the article to reflect that status the very same editor immediately claimed that it is now a British film presumably because it was filmed in Great Britain. If that is the standard to determine the "nationality" of a film, then presumably "The Train" would have to be reclassified as a "French film", the "Paths of Glory" as a "German film", "Saving Private Ryan" as a an "Irish film" ,and "Apocalypse Now" as a "Philippine film" as those are the countries in which each of these films were made.

Really you can't have it both ways so please tell me what standard you intend to apply? Centpacrr (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Read further expanded statements above. It's a British film produced by Twentieth Century-Fox Productions [GB] which now is more often known by its US title, see: WP:Common name. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC).

BTW, The Train is indeed, a US/French/Italian film. FWiW, Twentieth Century-Fox Productions [GB] has a long and storied history of 47 productions dating back to 1937, which include primarily British productions but also include co-productions such as Alien. Bzuk (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC).

The only logo and musical theme that appears at the start of the credits is that of Twentieth Century-Fox, the legend that appears above the film's title reads "Twentieth Century-Fox presents", the copyright notice reads "Copyright MCMLI by Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation", and the only seal of approval displayed in the credits is that of the US based "MPAA". Conversely the credits do not carry the words "Twentieth Century-Fox Productions [GB]" anywhere, there is no British Board of Film Censors certificate that would be required to be displayed if it were a British film produced prior to 1983, and a search of the British Board of Film Classification data base returns no results for the title "No Highway in the Sky". That being the case, even if this picture were filmed in the UK it is self identified in its credits as being exclusively a US film and not a British one. Centpacrr (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The film as No Highway is produced by Twentieth Century-Fox Productions [GB], the subsidiary of Twentieth Century-Fox. When released in the US (See: The New York Times, it used the name No Highway in the Sky and that name eventually became its common name. See: The First of the Few for another period piece, again produced by a British production company but released through MGM, which promptly changed the title to Spitfire for US distribution, a name which did not become its common name. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC).

In checking with a myriad of sources, in all cases, the country of origin for the production is given as the UK including the British Board of Film Classification: No Highway (1951), but sometimes (BFI, Turner Classic Films), the US is listed as well. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC).