LuckyDan
-
Posts
5,309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by LuckyDan
-
-
Thursday morning I think it was they ran what might have been the first Tweety and Sylvester cartoon. I had to leave before it ended but it seemed that they were meeting for the first time. Sly approached Tweety and coaxed him (or her) out of the cage. Tweety asked, "What are you gonna do?" Sly said, "What am I gonna do?!" Then in an aside to the camera asked, "How naive can you get?"
I'd like to see that all the way through.
-
1
-
-
On 3/9/2021 at 3:12 PM, fxreyman said:
I came to the message boards in the spring of 2007. It has been a long 14 years to finally get to the 3,000 post threshold. I am not patting myself on the back for this, but it is worth noting. I just never thought I would have had the opportunity to post this many posts.
That's about 4 posts per week, a healthy amount, I'd say. Congrats.
And thank you for recalling Arkadin. I've been trying to remember his username, but it just wouldn't come to me. We used to PM about a mutual, non-film related, interest and I've been hoping to come across him again but it looks like he has been gone a good while.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Shana Krenz said:
No one mentions the line referencing that the dad thought of himself as a black man, and the son thinks of himself as a man. That is so key, so critical...and yet no one wanted to acknowledge that line, and instead were stuck on the whole 'white father domination'. Seriously...I wondered how they could ignore that!!!
That line isn't in harmony with today's racial views. We are race-conscious. So many people today choose to define themselves by the race, or their gender. Then there's the whole idea of a man being proud to be a man. Some might say that's toxic. They didn't touch on it because they don't know how to handle it.
-
5
-
1
-
-
Fine recording of a great song, but an embarrassingly self-indulgent video.
It takes a careful eye but if you watch closely you can see the horse going up on its hind legs!
-
19 minutes ago, kingrat said:
Speaking of the Archies: According to Billboard, the most popular song of 1969 was . . . get ready to hurl . . . "Sugar Sugar" by the Archies.
"Sugar Sugar" is not hurl-inducing. It's a nicely crafted piece of pop. My buddy from across the street had it. He wore it out. That and some Monkees song or other.
Edit: oh yeah. My point: it was probably pre-adolescent kids that made it number 1.
-
#2 is Vladimir Sokoloff and quite possibly a lost brother of Fred Allen.
Edit: I see the other Texan already identified Vlad.
-
8 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
The fact Warwick's songs were played on R&R radio stations doesn't make it R&R music. I have a lot of respect for Warwick as a singer and entertainer but I would still classify it as pop music. Anyhow, like I said, this so called R&R Hall, has added many non-rock artist over the decades, so I see no reason to change that now.
I do find it funny that Donna Summer is mentioned. To me that makes the point about this, non-rock, but instead, pop hall of fame.
It's gotten a little out of hand. They need to chill on new inductons for a while. If they want to have an annual party, they can honor existing members instead of shooing in new inductees just because they need an excuse to get together.
-
2
-
1
-
-
#3 is familiar to me from Three Stooges shorts. Maybe a Sherlock Holmes villain. I think he is Philip Van Zandt.
-
4 hours ago, txfilmfan said:
Sometimes films get into rights issues if, as individuals pass away, they didn't properly address the handling of the rights to the films in their will, trusts, etc. Once that gets settled, things are OK until one of those heirs passes away, and you go through the whole process again. If "shares" of the rights keep getting splintered across multiple heirs, it can get very complicated.
It appears that only WB owns the film rights for the film rather than individuals (no independent production companies are credited, other than WB), but even WB owns the film rights, there may be further complications depending on the status of the source material the film was based on. If the production company and/or studio didn't buy the full rights to the underlying material, then things can get complicated as the rights to that underlying material works its way through the probate process.
But even if the source material's royalties are in dispute, why couldn't fees be paid to "the estate of" whoever and held in trust until probate is complete? Seems like a lot of revenue could be lost by people who took care of their business because others didn't or someone disputes whether they did.
-
When Angels was released, the controlling law was the Copyright Act of 1909, which allowed 28 years of protection, with an option to extend the copyright another 28 years upon renewal with the US Copyright Office.
The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal period from 28 years to 47 years (for works prior to 1978 that had not become public domain) which then allowed for 75 years of protection.
The 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act added 20 years to that, allowing for a total of 95 years protection.
Here is helpful chart from Cornell University that provides copyright timelines for certain types of work. The internal math seems to make 1963 a cutoff year when determining whether a movie is now in public domain, but only for works that were either never protected or not renewed.
So. The only way that Angels could be in public domain today would be if the copyright was not renewed before it expired in 1966.
-
Just now, TomJH said:
Are you sure of this, Dan and, if so, can you supply a source for this information?
Warners Home Video had the rights to release it on DVD in 2005, along with the other five gangster films in their Warners Gangster Collection Vol. 1. None of the other films are public domain (Public Enemy, Little Caesar, Petrified Forest, Roaring 20s, White Heat). I realize there is a rights issue of some kind with Angels now but I've never heard it's public domain. And if it is public domain why aren't we seeing multiple cheap looking copies of it around, such as is the case with Santa Fe Trail?
Search "angels with Dirty faces public domain" and you will see it listed as such on wiki commons and imdb.
Warners owned it so they would have no trouble selling copies of it on dvd.
Why it isn't floating around in dollar bin copies is a question I'm still working on. I can only guess that Warner has prints and is guarding them from cheap copy makers. I don't know the answer.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Millenniumman said:
What is the cost to restore a film or does it depend on it's original production value ?
Do you mean is it dependent on the quality of the existing film materials? I would think so, yes, and the process can be very time consuming if the original materials are not in good shape. I would think a movie as beloved as Angels would have been kept in pretty fair condition, or as good as thexpassage of times allows.
I recently discovered some old home movies my grandfather recorded as early as the 1950s on his hand-wound Bell and Howell camera. I'm planning on having them converted, as is if possible, to disk, and I'm hoping it won't be cost prohibitive, though restoration probably would be.
-
1
-
-
Here is an old thread on the topic of public domain movies on TCM.
And here is a 2012 NY Post piece where the TCM programming VP talks about accessing public domain movies. The money quote:
“There are some distributors that specialize in public domain movies. The better ones tend to have the better material,” Tabesh says. “We don’t pay a ‘license fee’ for the film, but we do pay to be able to access their version. In addition, we sometimes go to film archives that have good film prints; if we pay for the cost of mastering to video and credit them on-air we can often work out an agreement."
-
1
-
-
Another question about the business of commercial broadcasting I'd like to know but can't find an answer to: Does TCM have some sort of agreement with distributors that forbids them from running public domain movies? So that the distributors don't have to compete with free stuff. Unlikely but possible I think.
-
Just now, TikiSoo said:
Yeah....and then I was thinking, it's such a great film, I bet someone's restoring it (hopefully Kino or Criterion) Then there will be a DVD release and it will be readily available to stream for $9.99!
I've spent an hour or more looking for more information on why it isn't readily available. I know nothing about the mechanics of broadcasting movies or tv shows that were originally on film or tape. Why can't TCM for example, have an employee bring in a DVD copy to run? Is the DVD copyrighted? Must they air an actual print of the film? Has Warners opted not to make their prints available? In that case, no independent restoration is possible.
But I can't find much information relative to any of these questions. My coffee is getting cool, and I'm losing interest.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:
I can't find any hard information on it, but Cagney did have his own independent production company, starting in the mid 1930s. Also, he had a very strained relationship with his two adopted children. Maybe they got left out of the will and maybe there is some kind of dispute over the estate that includes some portion of this film? Maybe it is some kind of rights dispute stemming from these two facts?
The formation of Cagney Productions was announced in 1942, so it had no ownership interest in Angels. The brothers James and William planned to produce movies that would be released through United Artists. They went broke pretty much after The Time of Your Life.
Angels With Dirty Faces is public domain.
Edit 9 hours later: Maybe not.
-
2
-
-
I watched a few epis of Route 66 early this morning. On the Love Boat now. Jill St. john as a seductress doesn't play as well on screen as it probably did on paper.
-
My third hour of Match Game reruns on Buzzr.
I'm not living my best life.
-
1
-
-
-
-
46 minutes ago, Det Jim McLeod said:
It was just a soap opera but I found myself drawn into the story.
That's the mark of a good soap..
I don't know this one, but any movie that features Oscar Homolka as a love interest, I want to see.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, TikiSoo said:
I'm a fan of visiting "locations" rather than studios and posted many pictures through the years on this board.
I'd love to see some of your photos. Do you recall the thread titles you posted on?
-
2 hours ago, darrylfxanax said:
I’m not a resident of Hollywood, but have been able to visit on several occasions. When I’ve gone, I always made it a point to visit places that have significance in film/television history. I love to stand where the stars once stood, although many of the spots bear little or no resemblance to the way they looked “back then”.
Then and now photos of homes, buildings, locations are interesting to me, too. I envy you having had the opportunity to visit these places personally. I'm happy to find comparison photos when I can.
-
On 2/25/2021 at 8:40 PM, Allhallowsday said:
One of the very greatest Rock n' Roll albums : THE WHO Who's Next
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-487464-1587376240-4941.jpeg.jpg)
What a stunner! What a cover...
This is in my news feed today, an item from Entertainment Weekly where Pete discusses Who LP covers. Of Who's Next, he says:
"It’s another piece of s—. I hate it. It’s a horrible thing. Just horrible. Of course I don’t like it. It’s got no artistic consequence whatsoever. No link to the music. It’s meaningless. It’s four guys stopping in a car and **** up against a chunk of concrete. It was photographed by a very fine photographer in Ethan Russell, who, thank God, I really liked and used again for Quadrophenia, but I hate the front cover, I hate the back cover, I think it’s disgusting. I suppose the notion was that 2001: A Space Odyssey was the film of the moment [and we’re] **** over this 2001 monolith — which is even stupider because I think we all thought the film was fabulous. There’s no irony in it, there’s no truth in it. Anyway, can we move on?”
Pepe Le Pew Hubbub
in Information, Please!
Posted
I wasn't aware of it but I'm not surprised. Unwanted sexual advances. Contributing to rape culture. How is it possible we are becoming both more accepting AND more puritanical? God these are interesting times.
https://deadline.com/2021/03/pepe-le-pew-space-jam-2-new-york-times-rape-culture-controversy-1234708688/