CineSage_jr
-
Posts
3,852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by CineSage_jr
-
-
What an interesting household yours must be.
-
And that's why the Roman Empire no longer exists, and Latin is a dead language.
-
The photo could possibly be of Jacqueline White, from the RKO movie ?Mystery in Mexico?
from 1948. Does the ?MM? in your photo look like the ?MM? in this one?
This would have been solved much sooner had the link to photo been posted earlier so that I could take a good look at it. If you examine
the photo's serial number, it doesn't read "MM," it says MIM, so, yes, it's almost certainly MURDER IN MEXICO (either that, or the
price of the photo is $1999, expressed in Roman numerals).
Of course, the easiet thing to do is read the text in the link, where it says "Jacqueline White MURDER IN MEXICO."
-
"MM" has nothing to do with who's depicted in the photo. Every studio had its own system of cataloguing the still photos taken during
productions. MGM's was probably the simplest: every film had a production number in a series that began when the studio was formed in
1924. For every "scene" shot there was a dash and another number indicating where in the total inventory of still taken the particlar shot
belonged (ex: 1711-84). Then there was the "X" series, which was used to inventory behind-the-scenes production shots (ex: 1711-x-12).
As such, it's usually quite easy to find out what's on an MGM still.
RKO's system was decidedly more complex, and it'd probably take a bit of research to figure out
what film your still photo is from.
-
While we the faithful have no problem telling the two apart but many other people do.
But there's obviously no easy way to distinguish Bob Osborne from Bob Dorian (well, they're both named Bob...)
-
Hellinger also produced the film, his last. He died shortly after its completion.
-
gee what about "the maltese falcon" (1941) ?
The thread title asked for films actually shot (at least in part) in San Francisco; THE MALTESE FALCON, while set in the city, was shot entirely at Warner Bros. in Burbank, (and a number of the titles listed below also never left Hollywood).
-
I am currently living in Italy and have become a huge fan of the classic Italian comedian, Toto. I am surprised that I've never seen or heard anything about him on TCM.
Especially since his resemblance to a black Scottish terrier is so uncanny.
-
TIME AFTER TIME.
-
In terms of the total number of films made and released, India's Bollywood film industry is about twice the size of Hollywood's.
Of course, the total spent on Hollywood production far outstrips India's, and American films' worldwide boxoffice receipts are about ten times that of their Bollywood counterparts, even though the Indian film industry's total worlwide audience exceeds the U.S.'s by 10-15 percent
-
Everything in this thread (with the exception of this posting) needs to be translated into English.
-
I understand the purity argument against altering the original intent of the artists who chose to make their film in B&W for artistic reasoning, even though color was available to them as an option.
However, color in films was an added expense, and some of those early classics were not produced in color simply because they didn?t have the budget to do so.
Colorizing such films could be considered a fulfillment of the original intent, in such cases.
Joseph L. Mankiewicz once said that he never saw a film that benefited dramatically from the use of color, with the possible exception of GONE WITH THE WIND. After the introduction of three-strip Technicolor in 1935, most films were made in black-and-white until the late 1950s because monochrome was viewed as the standard means of cinematic expression, and not because color cost more (though there certainly were b&w films that would have been made in color if the studio thought that increased boxoffice grosses would justify the extra expense).
Franky, the who notion of colorzing movies has, thankfully, become pretty much a dead issue, apart from Columbia's ill-conceived re-release of the three b&w films Ray Harryhausen made for that studio. It's unfortunate that there are still people like you who are, apparently, pining for the days of Ted Turner's greatest dispaly of Philistinism (I admire Turner a great deal, for a great many thing, but this was probably his most ignominious sheme).
"Colorization" (it's not a real word) has five major problems:
1.) Someone has to sit down and decide what colors to put where. Fifty, sixty, seventy years after a film is made, that guess isn't, and can't be, even an educated one, but merely a wild one. You're not looking at a color movie, but a mutilated one, something akin to drawing mustaches on people in photos merely because you like the way they look with them.
2.) Colors in the electronic process are not of and within the people and objects in the film, but merely applied on top of the gray values that exist in a b&w film. The color therefore operates on a separate, detached plane from the images.
3.) No electronic process can duplicate the subtlety of real-life color (let alone the glories of Technicolor): the blush of a cheek, the difference between one leaf and the next, or the crepuscular palette of a sunset.
4.) The process of "colorization" seriously alters and degrades both the sharpness and contrast of the image originally recorded in b&w; the argument from the "colorizers" that any viewer who dislikes the process can just "turn down the color" on his or her TV is nonsense. The resulting black-and-white image looks like muddy, foggy garbage.
5.) You, the viewer, are also degraded by your acceptance of the process. By doing so, you admit to the world that the subjectiveness of black-and-white story-telling is simply to much for you to assimilate, and that you demand a relentless literalism in all that you see and hear. If there's one great and enduring problem in modern films, it's that they are nothingif not literal, both textually and cinematically. Filmmakers have capitualted to the modern audience's perceived need for everything -- from exposition to character development and relationships -- to be laid out in the most obvious and undemanding manner, which is what has really driven films' descent into graphic sex and violence. People nowadays want their meal cut up into little bite-size pieces for them before they even sit down to eat it, and that's terribly, terribly sad.
I've always wanted to conduct a little experiment: take a couple of minutes of footage from a beautiful Technicolor film, make a black-and-white transfer of the film, and then give it to the "colorizers" to color according to their own taste and judgment.'
If one were to then put the two up side-by-side for comparison, I seriously doubt that there is anyone who would not puke on his boots at the travesty that is "colorization."
You'd never want to look at one of the damn things again.
-
You are quite right, of course.
That was why I amended the statement with: "Or, better yet, that we had a truly alternate transportable fuel and conveyance system in place so that we no longer have to rely upon petroleum to get around..."
Thank you, Stephan. This leads just as certainly into a discussion of John McCain's proposed federal gas-tax "holiday." It is, of course, a bit of naked pandering to the electorate's perceived (and I do mean that, with all the subjectivity it implies) short-term financial interests. The truth about the price of gas is that the current rise is not being driven by supply-and-demand market forces surrounding refined petroleum (as is usually the case), but by the relentless upward pressure on crude oil prices created by speculators who buy oil "futures" as a hedge against now-shakier investments like the slumping stock market, real estate values, and the whole economy in general, and is also the cause of other commodities, like gold and platinum, being sent to record high prices.
Were the federal gas tax to be temporarily rescinded (which would save the average motorist all of about $2.75 per 15-gallon fill-up, or about $143 a year, at an average of one fill-up per week), it would encourage people to drive more. Apart from the extra greenhouse gases that would produce, it would then create the precise supply-and-demand effect that is currently not a factor, on top of the rise in prices created by the price of crude oil. As a consequence, the price of gas would begin to rise even faster, nullifying any benefit to the consumer from the federal gas-tax rollback. Moreover, instead of that money being paid in taxes that go right into the federal highway fund, from whose building and maintenance of roads all taxpayers benefit, the extra money motorists pay will instead go into the coffers of the oil companies. Those companies' executives and stockholders (I among them) will benefit, but no one else.
McCain's proposal is nothing more than a cheap, dirty and despicable trick to buy votes from people too lazy to look at the facts, who will gladly sell the family cow for a handful of magic beans.
-
Yes, but webestang asked specifically for films in which real, full-sized trains were wrecked for the sake of cinematic authenticity. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH's smash-up was a miniature, albeit a large one.
-
But then I wish that gasoline was back to a dollar a gallon again...
I don't: the streets are clogged enough with traffic, the air's dirty enough, and we're in hock to the Arabs enough as it is.
-
In fact, I'd like to ask the well-scrubbed Ms. MdGowan how she feels about it...in about 20 years....when she is closer to Margot's age....
Davis was 42 when she played Margot Channing; at 35, McGowan is all of seven years younger. Davis just started old, and got older, though the fact that the movies she, and most actresses, were given to play in her day were about more mature characters and subjects than the frivolous rubbish that predominates now.
-
By drinking the blood of young virgins. How else does one do it?
-
Robert Osborne mentioned that MGM was grooming Whitmore to be the next Spencer Tracy (yeah, good luck with that).
Whitmore's primary function was to be dropped into parts that Tracy refused to play, with the implicit threat to Tracy that he was expendable when his contract came up for renewal. Studios often signed "road-company" versions of those stars who were "difficult" for just that purpose (obviously, they found other roles for the junior players to justify the expense of keeping them under contract).
Whitmore's a wonderful actor, one of my favorites, but at that stage in his career he was no Spencer Tracy (but, then, who was, or has been since, though Morgan Freeman is the nearest contemporary equivalent).
-
Funny, Robson never looked a day over 120.
-
My favorite actor he may be, but Kirk Douglas was seldom if ever, the right casting for only-as-big-as-life-and-no-bigger roles.
He's Spartacus, for Pete's sake!
-
Caluculated? Tsk, tsk.
It was all those damn calico dresses Pickford used to wear when playing twelve-year-olds.
-
HARLAN COUNTY, U.S.A. is a contemporaneous 1976 documentary about the lot of poor coal-miners in the Kentucky county.
-
on the other hand, Mary Pickford seemed much younger at 35 lol
Pickford was playing twelve-year-olds when she was 40; if that carried over into her real life (which I doubt,; she was reputed to be a rather steely businesswoman in real life), then it's hardly an appealing trait, butr her "youthful" appearance was calculated and achieved by cinematic and make-up sleight-of-hand.
-
Of course, it's "The Corsets Can, Brothers[/i]," based on the classic novel by Alexandre Dumas.
Other MMs?
in Information, Please!
Posted
The scan of the back of the photo is fine, Carrie; the problem is that whoever stamped it decades ago didn't apply enough pressure on the stamp to get all the ink on the paper, though I suspect that examination under ultraviolet light might bring out a little more of the stamp's text.