infinite1

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}I have made myself look incredibly dumb and ignorant. Why oh why did I not look up "films made in 1930" before hitting that "post" button? > > All I can say is, whenever I look up a date on a film that's clearly from the early 30s, it never says "1930". Of course, the 30s ( and, uh, 20s) are the film eras I am least familiar with. But that's no excuse. > I am seriously embarrassed. Can I "delete" the whole thread, or is it too late? > > > The moral of the story is, don't go posting a thread on impulse. Save yourself from looking like an idiot by checking a few facts first. I am now going into the garden to eat worms. And read about the year 1930 in film. > There appears to be a good deal of difference of opinion as to the true date of some films from 1930/31. For example DRACULA, a film for the most part made in 1930 with a release date in February 1931, on VALENTINE's Day, no less, billed as the world's strangest love story, has been shown on separate occassions to be either a 1930 or 1931 film. In fact, it is well known that a silent version of DRACULA was made for theatres that were not yet equiped with sound equipment. This was a common practice with feature films and short subjects made in the 1930. I could be wrong, but I think the practice ended with films made in 1931. I have seen the same for LITTLE CAESAR. At times this film is listed as a 1930 film and at other times, a 1931 film. Since 1930 was the transitional year that films went all sound, (1929 was pretty evenly distributed between silent and sound films), perhaps some 1930 films were held until 1931, on purpose, to allow a bit of a buffer. Now, how should those films be listed, as 1930 films because they were made in 1930 or 1931 films because they were released in 1931? In the case of LITTLE CAESAR, perhaps it was reissued in 1931 to take advantage of that years big gangster flic THE PUBLIC ENEMY and the later film of 1931, SMART MONEY, made with the leads of both prior films. Could be that LITTLE CAESAR was simply lumped together with the two following films, rechristened as a 1931 film, and it stuck.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > > Banned for calling someone a craphead? > It wasn't for that. If you read Michael's post, it states that TCMfan23 had called posters names in the past and from the sounds of Michael's post, had been repeatedly warned that type of behavior is not allowed according to the Code of Conduct that we all agree to follow when one signs up to post here. > > Despite the numerous warnings from Michael, TCMfan23 continued to call posters names. > > That's what he got banned for, not just a single incident. I don't remember it that way. Admittedly, I don't read each and every thread, but the ones I read that were initiated by TCMfan23 usually began with his initial rant, (getting something off his chest), regarding something about modern technology that rubbed him the wrong way, or about TCM, in his opinion, straying from the classics. That was generally enough to start the name calling barage directed towards HIM. I don't know what it was about him that irritated so many people. I don't recall him ever retaliating. I always pictured him as hurt by the remarks, cowering in some corner, and was rather surprised he did not fight back. I was actually surprised by his "craphead" comment because it seemed so out of character. I guess anyone, when repeatedly insulted WILL respond in kind. I guess it's a lesson we could all benefit from in conducting our real life relationships that do not have the benefit of a Moderator like Michael who will save the day by eliminating someone WE can't get along with.

> {quote:title=mr6666 wrote:}{quote} > > TCMfan23. He's been permanently banned from the Message Board > good news ! > (until he snakes his way back in under a new user name ) Can't we give it a rest already??? SHEESH! He's gone, that should be enough to satisfy all of us, no need to dance on his grave. Besides, that will just give him all the more incentive to come back.

> {quote:title=SonOfUniversalHorror wrote:}{quote}It IS odd on Halloween night they're skipping over BRIDE, going from Frankenstein to Son of... ?:| > > At least they're going from The Mummy to The Mummy's Hand. ] Yet, I always considered BRIDE a mixed bag. Sure there were some iconic images in that film, but I always considered it more satirical then horiffic. Everything from the campy prologue to the overacting of Una O'Connor to the prissy, effeminate Ernest Thesiger's Pretorious, to his "little people" creations that he grew from cells, the characterization of the monster himself who now can speak and becomes totally sympathetic ruining his effectiveness as a monster. Even the Bride was just throwing a hissy fit because she had a bad hair day. Perhaps better to air this film on APRIL FOOLS DAY as it is a JAMES WHALE April fools joke on fans of the genre.

> {quote:title=RMeingast wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=casablancalover2 wrote:}{quote}The freedom to express yourself, when it causes on one else harm, should be protected here on the boards. > > > > But it is a fine line of expression in discussion of certain topics. This message board I hope gives a chance for some posters here to express themselves, but to remember that their point doesn't have to demean another to have value. > > > > > > I start this thread for discussion true, but also as a place for practice of airing ideas without resorting to name-calling and/or troll behavior (or troll behaviour, as my friends Canadian would write). > > > > > > Even if someone were to be savage in their response, there is another way to respond, not just react. We could even help each other to try out different methods of responding that can diffuse and not accelerate the bullying. > > > > > > Inspiration is even found in the movies. > > > > > > I want people to be themselves here on the boards and not acting out in reaction, or taking a persona out of fear or out of bullying. It is hard to take another's ideas when only shouted or written in disregard of facts yet stated as fact, or demeaning to other posters simply for the temerity of disagreeing. We are better people than that. We may practice that here. > > > > Yep, this is a movie message board. And discussing movies can be done in a serious way or a humorous way... But they are just movies... No cause for getting heated about it (I know, I've taken the bait in the past and got into pointless debates hook, line and sinker)... > > And the subject heading of the deleted thread yesterday was "over the top," IMHO... > But why not state that in the thread rather than complain to TCM Admin about it?? > If you don't like it, start your own thread, ignore it, or argue in the thread about it. > Or start a private debate by PM... (I converse with users by PM, for example) > Don't complain to TCMAdmin. > > And it just seems that whoever complained, if anybody complained, probably doesn't realize that they have written stuff on the board in the past that others may have found offensive... > Anyway, the subject heading yesterday may have been deemed libelous by TCMAdmin and that's why the entire thread was deleted. I don't know? Maybe nobody complained and that's why it was gone. > > But I understand that politics can get people heated up faster than a Red Savina pepper... > And to be fair to Americans, we get excited over politics up here in The Great White North too... > And some Canucks go too far too... > > So try and keep it respectful, if you have a problem, TCMAdmin is a last resort. PM the person you have a problem with, start your own thread, start a debate... > > And I've noticed, it seems to me, some people seemingly making subtle and disguised insults towards other members of the message board. I'm not going to point out examples, but please knock it off... > > To quote the late Rodney King, "Can we all get along?" > > Can I have an "Amen." > Maybe we can all take a page from British Parliamentary Procedure and refer to everyone in our responses as "the honorable lady or gentleman" before we lay into someone'spost and tear his/her opinion to shreds. The end result will be the same, but the opening line may soften the sting and qualify as a "diplomatic insult" . Seriously, we will never ALL get along, unfortunately that IS the reality. We can swear up and down on a stack of bibles that we will be good, but we never know how we are going to behave until we are put in the position of being on one side of a "discussion" or another.

> {quote:title=SonOfUniversalHorror wrote:}{quote}...but the Stooges were surreal, not always realistic. There's a difference there...I think the original post's intent were things that normal people do that's odd. Exactly, not comical stunts that are supposed to be dangerous, but dangerous things done by your normal average joe or joan like taking your eyes off the road while driving or laying down to relax with a lit cigarette.

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}You'll find that for the most part, the rules are in the Code of Conduct. Beyond that, if you it's something you could say to my sainted Grandmother in a room crowded with her former Marine Corp sons and grandsons, it's fine. Sadly, with that as criteria, there are at least a few social misfits in this crowd. Most of them are obvious, because they get all puffed up when someone calls them on their rudeness and claim they have a right to respond in kind. > > Which is funny, because they don't have that right. And many posters understand they can make their point effectively in other ways. Some folks around here could teach a class of diplomatic insults. Any takers? > Not following you. Are you saying that "diplomatic" insults are allowed? What exactly is a "diplomatic" insult? If I had to hazard a guess, and I could be wrong, it would be an insult so subtle that the offended party doesn't know he/she was insulted. Am I right/wrong? Actually, the only "diplomatic" insult that I'm aware of resulted in SYLVANIA declaring war on FREEDONIA. But, if that is what floats your boat, please provide examples so the next time when we use one and are chastised for it we can say 'Michael said we can say it". Seriously, what's so wrong with simply issuing and edict saying that everyone should respect everyone else's opinion regarding TCM, it's programming policies, or any subject that is allowed on these boards, even if that opinion flys in the face of someone else's logic or facts, and no insults to fellow posters of any kind are tolerated, period. If you don't like an opinion just ignore it. But, an insult, ANY INSULT DIPLOMATIC OR OTHERWISE is not, however, an opinion. That is made as a definitive statement, not against the opinion you dislike, but against the individual giving his/her opinion. It is not made in jest, and not to teach a lesson, it is made with malice aforethought for the express purpose of belittling someone that they are sick of and baiting them into fighting back. I hope you are including those individuals under your "social misfit" umbrella as they could use a lesson in basic respect and tolerance 101, something usually learned in KINDERGARTEN.

Thank you Michael, for removing the offensive post from the other thread.

Thinking about some of the things that you see in classic hollywood films that are ridiculously unrealistic and downright dangerous if ever attempted in real life, by normal people. For example - Ever think about the car scenes where the driver looks lovingly at his wife or girlfriend while he is driving on a busy highway or a dangerous mountain road that is poorly lit? They kiss, embrace (the driver takes care to only use one arm), etc. Then there are the fights, arguments, deep discussions that go on during driving scenes. In real life something like that would result in a terrible accident taking the life of the driver, passenger, and any oncomming vehicles or innocent bystanders that happen to be in the car's path. Yet, on film they drive along blissfully unaware of their surroundings and accident free. Can you think of any other every day activities in classic hollywood films, by normal average folks, that would rate the tagline "don't try this at home"?

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}I should have said this below, but I'm not trying to single anyone out in that previous post. "If you think a response to you crosses the line, stand up for yourself in response, and let them know, politely, you think they've crossed the line. *Do not respond in kind*. And don't jump into a thread to defend someone else - you're not the police. I am." I guess you didn't try hard enough because you singled me out by using my own words against me, that's fine. But, as to your point, there is no way to respond "politely". People who throw down a gauntlet do it because they have no respect for the person they are attacking. I don't see where responding like a wimp will move someone to change their tone. As to your second point, you may be the police, but as you have said in the past you can't be everywhere and read every single post. That is why, I assume, you did not respond to the slur against ISRAEL in the "ANYONE FIND IT STRANGE" thread that refers to 9/11. That comment has the potential for escalating into a flame war and I would find it odd if any pro Israel or Jewish fans of TCM, LIKE MYSELF, did not respond in kind.

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}*The following does not necessarily represent the views of the TCM network.* > > No recriminations... share what you think. I'm genuinely interested and I'm not going to hold what you say here against you. Although, I suppose I will have to put you on post-moderation if you can't be nice about it. Well, since I have recently been chastised I don't suppose there is much more that could happen. Well...there probably is, but here goes anyway. I don't come to this board looking for a fight, but I did think that I was free to express my opinion, in reason. Evidently, I was wrong. Unfortunatley there is a pile on the dog mentality that exists on this board and it is directed at anyone who comes here with an opinion that is contrary to the majority opinion. Granted, some opinions are way out there and can be argued away with facts. But, sometimes opinions are based on perceptions. For example, one of my first confrontations on these boards dealt with the question of the existence of a TCM FILM LIBRARY. I argued that there is one while the majority argued against the existence of one. Facts were presented to support their claim, but that does not change the FACT that a TCM FILM LIBRARY is still referred to in print and on TV by ROBERT OSBORNE et al. So, who is correct? I have come to the conclusion that we both are. But, I still carry the scars from that war. I have been called ignorant, called lazy, told that my opinions have no merit, or that I have no right to even ask a question. I don't doubt that there are folks here who are smarter then me, have more experience then me, and know more people then me, but they also feel that that gives them the right to be superior to me. That, they are not. I suppose it would be a perfect world if every insult was swallowed and the hurt party would just walk away and never be seen or heard from again. But, the real world does not work like that AND I DON'T. I will never use vile language or be out and out mean, but I will respond in kind. If that is not acceptable then you can ban me right now, because if I have to be afraid to respond to every post that attacks me because I might have a difference of opinion then this board is biased. I often find it funny when I scan through threads I am not participating on and I read insulting threads and when there is retaliation the original offenders act like the hurt parties. To quote Edward G. Robinson in LITTLE CAESAR "You can dish it out, but you got so you can't take it no more."

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}There are at least six previous versions: > > *Broncho Billy and the Baby* (1915) > *The Three Godfathers* (1916, with Harry Carey) > *Marked Men* (1919 - John Ford, with Harry Carey) > *Action* (1921 - John Ford, with Hoot Gibson) > *Hell's Heroes* (copyright in credits:1930, some sources cite it as a 1929 film, William Wyler) > *Three Godfathers* (1936, with Chester Morris, Walter Brennan and Lewis Stone) > > > The John Wayne version is titled as *3 Godfathers*, thus none of the cinema adaptations actually repeated the title letter-for-letter. > > > The 1970s TV version is called *The Godchild*. > Clore, Would you consider the JOHN FORD film 3 BAD MEN (1926) to be a different take on the Three Godfathers idea?

And lest we forget EDDIE CANTOR. I could never quite figure out which side he liked to play on in his films.

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}While researching this topic, I found a few examples of ZaSu Pitts in bed with another woman in some Hal Roach productions. Was this merely to be funny, or an innocent form of girlfriend-ness? Or maybe it was meant to be read in a more progressive way, who knows. > > This photo is from a short she made with Thelma Todd, but she also wound up in bed with Patsy Kelly in Roach's BROADWAY LIMITED: > > Funny, LAUREL and HARDY and THE THREE STOOGES also shared beds. Was it just a comedy thing???????????

Interesting topic. I think I'll play. How about Katharine Hepburn and Lauren Bacall in any of their films?

> {quote:title=UniversalHorror wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > My only assumption was that you favored the universal classics of the 30s - 50s, which you agreed with. > > > > My question, was whether or not you would accept slasher films on TCM. Which you anwered "I could care less because I have other interests outside of TCM". > > > > > > What assumption am I making about you in that question that you obviously resent so much? > > > Your assumption was: > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}If TCM started to show modern slasher films wouldn't that be enough to give you reason to pause and say "what's up with that"? If I am wrong in my assumption, forgive me, but then why the name? > You assumed I would be questioning the reasons why they'd be showing modern slasher films, on the basis of my love of the Universal classics. UniversalHorror, let me try again to explain to you, because I see you're struggling with it. I assumed that you were a devotee of Universal's classic horror output from the 30s-50s because of your name, period, hence my last sentence which you quoted above. I then asked IF you were turned off by modern slasher films and WHETHER the airing of those films would cause you to be displeased with TCM. Why did I ask this? If I was correct about your name, that MIGHT preclude you from watching slasher films and result in you being displeased with TCM. As I think you are aware, there is a very vocal fan base, of golden age horror films of the 30s-50s, that are diametrically opposed to modern slasher films. I was just asking IF you were part of that group, based on my assumption of the definition of your name. There is no logical way I could assume you were definitely opposed to slasher films from your name alone which is why I framed it as a question. But, I guess I did assume something else, that you would answer my question one way or another. I was correct about that as well. Now, what was more interesting was your initial response. You said, in a roundabout way, after chastising me for making an assumption I never made, that you don't care because you would find something else to do. I don't think that is the answer that TCM EXPECTS to hear. By your answer you admitted that you are part of the group that dislikes modern slasher films and your response would be to turn off the channel. If everyone who didn't like what TCM is playing decided to turn off the channel, there would soon be no TCM. That is what we, the folks on my side of the aisle, are trying to prevent. We don't want you or anyone to find something else more interesting to do, other then eating, the bathroom, work, the news, sleep, procreation, or the Presidential election. We don't want you or anyone else to be driven away from the channel, by lousy movies, oft repeated movies, or modern films (70s and up) of questionable quality that damage the reputation of the channel. We want TCM to show classics, nothing but classics, and mainly studio era classics from the golden age, which everyone who comes to this channel appears to enjoy and can agree are worth the price of admission. And not the same classics from month to month because, as you are well aware, "absense makes the heart grow fonder". I believe that TCM can do better. Wow, sounds like a slogan I've heard recently and I'm not even a Republican.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} > > I would never assume anything about you or anyone else which is why I put it in the form of a QUESTION. Of course if you chose to answer my question that would predicate that you first understand what a question is. But, your lack of understanding aside, you're one angry sick little puppy dog, aren't you? Why don't you take that chip on your shoulder, stick it where the sun dosen't shine, and rotate on it. It'll give you a new spin on life and perhaps cure you of your arrogant, nasty disposition. Just some friendly advice if you want to get along in this world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's always amusing to see how little it takes to get the forums most inveterate cry-baby to start bawling. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even more amusing to think advice from it would be worth anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only advice that'd be worthwhile to give to you would be for you to go back to school and take a course in critical thinking. Perhaps another in creative writing. Generally, your style of posting is painfully lacking in both readibility and content-worthiness. > WOW, darkblue, seems like you need a time out. Take your blood pressure medication and relax. I'm sorry that you have a reading comprehension problem, but it's nothing for you to be ashamed of. By the way, how old are you, five? I'm not bawling, I'm laughing my a$$ off, you're soooo predictable.

> {quote:title=UniversalHorror wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}UniversalHorror, I am assuming from your name that you have a predilection toward UNIVERSALS' CLASSIC horror film output from the 30s, 40s, and 50s as well as other classic horror/fantasy films from the golden age. If TCM started to show modern slasher films wouldn't that be enough to give you reason to pause and say "what's up with that"? If I am wrong in my assumption, forgive me, but then why the name? > You assume a lot...just because I happen to favor the Universal classics of the 30's-50's does NOT mean that I am closeminded and blocked off towards other types of films. It would not "give me reason to pause" and question it...it might for OTHERS, but not for myself. > > If TCM started to show modern slasher films...I could care less. it wouldn't bother me a bit, because I have other interests and a life outside of the world of TCM. There are other stations (not that I watch that many movies on tv, however), and my own sizeable DVD collection. > > Oddly enough, just as below when you said to darkblue "I would never assume anything about you or anyone else which is why I put it in the form of a QUESTION."...you just asked me a question, but it was an ASSUMING question. > My only assumption was that you favored the universal classics of the 30s - 50s, which you agreed with. My question, was whether or not you would accept slasher films on TCM. Which you anwered "I could care less because I have other interests outside of TCM". What assumption am I making about you in that question that you obviously resent so much?

UniversalHorror, I am assuming from your name that you have a predilection toward UNIVERSALS' CLASSIC horror film output from the 30s, 40s, and 50s as well as other classic horror/fantasy films from the golden age. If TCM started to show modern slasher films wouldn't that be enough to give you reason to pause and say "what's up with that"? If I am wrong in my assumption, forgive me, but then why the name?

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}Nothing that TCM ever schedules would cause me to say "uh oh, this doesn't look so good". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I accept what they show and will continue to do so without complaint. There's lots of different people in the world who like lots of different movies and whenever even one movie out of the many is something I can take pleasure in watching, I'm grateful for it. That doesn't mean I expect anything else to be geared toward my preferences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have no right to any "reassurance" from anybody, let alone another forum member. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do not presume to speak for me. Do not attempt to predict my posts. The low level of insight that you have displayed over these past months is indicative of being seriously insufficient to be making such assumptions about other people. > I would never assume anything about you or anyone else which is why I put it in the form of a QUESTION. Of course if you chose to answer my question that would predicate that you first understand what a question is. But, your lack of understanding aside, you're one angry sick little puppy dog, aren't you? Why don't you take that chip on your shoulder, stick it where the sun dosen't shine, and rotate on it. It'll give you a new spin on life and perhaps cure you of your arrogant, nasty disposition. Just some friendly advice if you want to get along in this world.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}Nothing that TCM ever schedules would cause me to say "uh oh, this doesn't look so good". > > I accept what they show and will continue to do so without complaint. There's lots of different people in the world who like lots of different movies and whenever even one movie out of the many is something I can take pleasure in watching, I'm grateful for it. That doesn't mean I expect anything else to be geared toward my preferences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have no right to any "reassurance" from anybody, let alone another forum member. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do not presume to speak for me. Do not attempt to predict my posts. The low level of insight that you have displayed over these past months is indicative of being seriously insufficient to be making such assumptions about other people. > I would never assume anything about you or anyone else which is why I put it in the form of a QUESTION. Of course if you chose to answer my question that would predicate that you first understand what a question is. But, your lack of understanding aside, you're one angry sick little puppy dog, aren't you? Why don't you take that chip on your shoulder, stick it where the sun dosen't shine, and rotate on it. It'll give you a new spin on life and perhaps cure you of your arrogant, nasty disposition. Just some friendly advice if you want to get along in this world.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > You missed one additional 1980's film which makes a total of three films from the 1980's being shown during September. Also, if we are to apply golden era films then the list goes like this: > > 11 films from the 1920's > 71 films from the 1930's > 102 films from the 1940's > 97 films from the 1950's > > Also, there are over 85 shorts from the 1900's through the 1940's being shown, including a massive amount from Mack Sennett. > > Of course we should count post 1960 films as well: > > 61 films from the 1960's > 19 films from the 1970's > 3 films from the 1980's > 1 film from the 1990's > fxreyman, You are right, 61 films from the 60s, 19 films from the 70s, 3 films from the 80s, and one from the 90s is nothing to go crazy about. But, can you guarantee that the ratio between pre 1960 and post 1960 films will always remain the same. My concern, and possibly the concern of others, is that as time passes and the reigns of leadership at the station change, that the ratio between pre and post 1960 films will shift in favor of newer films. That would be a drastic change to the station. Can you provide any reassurance to those of us that love pre 1960 films that we have nothing to fear along those lines? We know it happened at AMC after they swore "on a stack of bibles" that it would never happen. What would the signs be, or better yet, what's the first sign that would cause fxreyman, darkblue, izcutter, or kyle to exclaim "uh oh, this doesn't look so good". And by that time would it be too late to do anything about it?

> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote} > > So if TCM wants to show "Field of Dreams" or "Forrest Gump" or "Schindler's List" I'm fine with that. They are classics of the modern era. I just don't ever want to turn on TCM and see "Big Mama's House" or "Ghost Rider" or "Fast and the Furious". Your last three lines negated your entire post. As you have obviously read on these here threads the term "classic" is so open to various interpretations that it really means nothing and every film is a classic in the eyes of someone. Therefore, if TCM decides to show such tripe as "Big Mama's House", "Ghost Rider", or "Fast and the Furious" they will still be instep with their mission, whatever the hell that is, and you will have to either like it or lump it.

Why does modern cinema stink? Well, for one there are no more actors or actresses that have any personalities worth talking about. They are now an endless procession of one-dimensional clones that have no talent beyond posing for pictures for the latest US, PEOPLE, or whatever scandal rags are on the racks at the local supermarket checkout aisles. The movies themselves are made for people with the attention span of a chimpanzee which is why there has to be an endless succession of explosions or some other violent act to wake them up out of their stupor. The theatres realize the movies stink which is why they have to offer inducements now like serving meals while you watch them, you know, to give you that warm and fuzy feeling like you're home eating in front of your TV.

Lori, I never liked the "who is better" question. I know it makes for interesting "friendly" fights on message boards, but it sounds like something that little kids like to argue about on playgrounds during recess. I know it goes on all the time "who was the best bogie man KARLOFF or LUGOSI" OR "who was the best modern operatic tenor PAVOROTTI or DOMINGO". Or who is better BARAK or MITT? But seriously, why does there have to be someone who is better??? Fred Astaire was a great dancer, Gene Kelly was a great dancer. Kelly might have been a better acrobatic modern dancer then Astaire, but Astaire was the more refined, traditional dancer. And, he had one thing KELLY didn't have, GINGER ROGERS. BOTTOM LINE they were both great. But, I'm sure you will find just as many people who consider DAN DAILEY, DONALD O'CONNOR, GEORGE RAFT, or BUDDY EBSON just as great for one reason or another. By the way it's a good thing you didn't ask who was the better singer. The answer would have been neither, they both stunk.