infinite1

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}An ode to the forums: > > Bicker, bicker, bicker, > Fight, fight, fight, > You are wrong, > No, I'm right. > filmlover, this has nothing to do with "bicker, bicker, bicker" "Fight, fight, fight". This has to do with fair play and repecting a fellow poster, even if that poster gets some or even most of his facts wrong. This is not my thread and I was not the one that insulted the OP. I just attempted to show the one doing the insulting that no one is P E R F E C T. Perhaps this wasn't my place, and I don't mean to be stepping on anyone's toes, but I didn't see anyone else coming to the OP's aid. Obviously, Michael can't be everywhere all of the time, and if he was he might not like me doing this, so I am running a risk at incurring his displeasure as well. But some times a point has to be made at whatever the cost. Now, I don't really have a problem with Mr. K69, I know he's a good egg, but some people, myself included, tend to get too impressed with ourselves and every once in a while need a dose of humility. That's all. I'm content to let the matter drop.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > As far as what I wrote. I don't see the misinformation. He did experiment with the disc medium, just after the cylinder medium. Also, as you acknowledge, I included a link to a site that included all the information necessary on EDISONS' DIAMOND DISCs by someone with more knowledge on the subject then either of us, so no attempt to hide information or misinform, on my part. > Okay then, call it irrelevancy ....we were initially discussing Edison's beginnings of recording...the Diamond discs came later on after four decades. > > Why are you engaging in this ridiculous and pointlessly lengthy nitpicking? No, we were discussing the history of recorded sound. You made a factual error claiming that Edison did not work with the disc medium, I proved you wrong. Why can't you simply admit you were wrong? I guess it's easier to cry irrelevancy and complain of nitpicking then fess up to a mistake. You'd make an excellent politician, congrats.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > > {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > > > > > > An interesting write-up...with several major instances of *misinformation* or misplaced negativity: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edison invented the phonograph ...which recorded on wax cylinders. He didn't record on a disc medium. > > > > > Have you ever heard of EDISON's 80rpm DIAMOND DISCS circa 1912-1929? Edison obviously experimented with different recording medium, not just WAX CYLINDERS. > > > > So, as you see kriegerg69, anyone can be guilty of a little unintentional misinformation. > > > I didn't mean to suggest he ONLY recorded on cylinders ALL the time, but that the beginning when he invented the medium it WAS only cylinders...and this is from that site you linked (Edison ONLY used cylinders for four decades): > > "For four decades, beginning in 1877, Edison was committed to cylinders, which created an opportunity for Emile Berliner to develop a market in America for discs in the 1890s (Berliner's company evolved into the Victor company). Finally, Edison decided that he was ready to enter the disc market though he also issued cylinders since they were very profitable (cylinders cost very little to make--Edison discs were relatively expensive to produce). Diamond Discs were issued from 1912 to 1929." > > > So you see, you're also guilty of misinformation. I actually was NOT. > TCMfan WAS with this misinformation: > > "Thomas Edison invented the Record Player in 1877. By accident , he discovered human voices could be recorded on a disc." > Actually, you were. "He didn't record on a disc medium" is as definite a statement as any I've ever read. Since I am not a practicing mind reader I have no way of knowing what you meant and what you didn't mean. I only know what you wrote and from what you wrote it was quite clear that you stated something that was not the whole story. That, my friend *is* called misinformation. As far as what I wrote. I don't see the misinformation. He did experiment with the disc medium, just after the cylinder medium. Also, as you acknowledge, I included a link to a site that included all the information necessary on EDISONS' DIAMOND DISCs by someone with more knowledge on the subject then either of us, so no attempt to hide information or misinform, on my part. As far as TCMfans' two statements "Thomas Edison invented the Record Player in 1877. By accident , he discovered human voices could be recorded on a disc." While I grant that the accident part is incorrect, I have heard cylinders referred to as records by collectors so that first statement, at least, is not incorrect. As to the accident part, there have been reports to that effect, and even though proved wrong, I don't believe that TCMfan repeated them with any malicious intent. All you needed to do was correct him without your misinformation commentary.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > > An interesting write-up...with several major instances of *misinformation* or misplaced negativity: > > Edison invented the phonograph ...which recorded on wax cylinders. He didn't record on a disc medium. > Have you ever heard of EDISON's 80rpm DIAMOND DISCS circa 1912-1929? Edison obviously experimented with different recording medium, not just WAX CYLINDERS. The following site www.gracyk.com/diamonddisc.shtml provides information about Edison's diamond discs, but to summarize, they were flat discs about a quarter of an inch thick. They could not be played on your average victrola, you needed a special Edison disc machine. Also, you could NOT use steel needles, you had to use a diamond stylus. So, as you see kriegerg69, anyone can be guilty of a little unintentional misinformation.

> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:}{quote}Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn: They were great in THE AFRICAN QUEEN; and although Bogie's days were numbered, might've been another memorable pairing. > > Cary Grant and Ann Sheridan: They even discussed doing another film, as their chemistry worked very well in one of the top hits of 1949, I WAS A MALE WAR BRIDE > > Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly were a great dance team in COVER GIRL, where some of the innovative Kelly choreography was first in evidence. What a great team they made. > > Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh: A match made in boxoffice heaven; if only a story as compelling, if not necessarily as epic, as GWTW could have brought them together. > > Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman: Another reunion that fans longed for, as did WB. In the couple of years after CASABLANCA, several wartime melodramas were pencilled in for the pair, but none came to fruition. > > Robert Mitchum and Linda Darnell: Mitchum worked well when partnered with "broads", as when he was teamed more than once with Jane Greer, Susan Hayward and Jane Russell. Darnell was a worthy partner of this ilk in SECOND CHANCE. > > Robert Mitchum and Marilyn Monroe. Ditto . . . great chemistry in RIVER OF NO RETURN. > > Robert Mitchum and Rita Hayworth. Ditto . . . great chemistry in FIRE DOWN BELOW. Mitchum and Hayworth did work again in her last film in 1972 THE WRATH OF GOD a western that is shown from time to time on the ENCORE WESTERN CHANNEL.

Let's not forget THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS who was killed at CONEY ISLAND amusement park after he demolished a ROLLER COASTER. I heard a rumor that he didn't much care for carousels either, but the coaster was there and so.....

> {quote:title=TomJH wrote:}{quote}TCM broadcast Thank Your Lucky Stars again today. It was one of a number of musical/comedy skit productions produced by the studios during WWII, the others including MGM's Thousands Cheer, Paramount's Star Spangled Rhythm and Duffy's Tavern, Warners' Hollywood Canteen. There was also Stage Door Canteen. After the war Parmount would do it one more time with Variety Girl. > > There was also MGM's ZIEGFELD FOLLIES and UNIVERSAL's FOLLOW THE BOYS.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > Hard to believe that Edward G. Robinson & James Cagney only worked together once on film, isn't it? > Yes, that's amazing. I would have guessed they were in 4 or 5 or more films together. > > I suppose that's because we often see both of them in old Hollywood documentaries about gangster movies. Actually, the only real star of SMART MONEY was Robinson. When Smart Money was first released Cagney was only a supporting player. It was only after PUBLIC ENEMY was released to the public that SMART MONEY was re-released to capitalize on Cagney's new star status. You can tell that the movie is all Robinson's. So, it was not intended to be an actual teaming of two stars. It's a curiosity because it gives us a chance to see Cagney in the type of role that Bogart made famous, that of second banana, before his star turns in THE MALTESE FALCON, HIGH SIERA, and CASABLANCA.

> {quote:title=Im4movies2 wrote:}{quote}I recall that copyright disputes with certain studios have prevented TCM from showing cartoons hence the Cartoon Alley program was taken off. You can view many vintage cartoons on Youtube. However it would be nice if TCM would bring them back again. It would have been nice if TCM told us the problem, like in NOW PLAYING, instead of dropping the series without any notice.

> {quote:title=TomJH wrote:}{quote}Here's a chance for TCM fans to vent. Name the actor or actress who you think should have received an Academy Award for a performance that wasn't even nominated for the award. (If you're not quite up on your Oscar history and select a performance that was nominated, don't worry, someone will come along to correct you). This can apply to supporting performances, as well. > > I'll start the ball rolling: *James Cagney in White Heat*. Cagney's first gangster portrayal in ten years, and a big comeback for him at Warner Brothers, after a few years in which he had failed to make a go of it as an independent filmmaker. Cagney had played a few quieter types, reflective of his own personality to a large degree but the public had greeted those portrayals with a yawning indifference. > > For 1949's White Heat Cagney returned to his old form but with a ferocious force never seen in him before, as he played the biggest pyscho nut case gangster the screen had seen until then. And he did it brilliantly, with his cafeteria breakdown scene and his "Made it, Ma. Top of the world!" finale the stuff of movie legend. > > Incredibly, Cagney wasn't even nominated for an Oscar for a performance that seers into the memory of anyone who has seen the film. A total injustice, but far from the only won in Oscar history. > > So who gets your pick as the actor or actress whose performance most haunts you that failed to get an Oscar nomination? Here, at least, you can do your own small part to correct that injustice. I would have to say LON CHANEY SR. Not for any one performance, but he should have been awarded an Oscar posthumously for his dedication to his craft and his whole body of work. It is an injustice that he has been ignored for too long. Hopefully someday that injustice will be addressed. Another actor from the "horror" genre that should receive a posthumous award is BORIS KARLOFF. Aside from his iconic portrayal of the FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER in three films which, in and of itself, is more then enough reason for an award, it is Karloff and his monster who were really responsible for the birth of the horror/sci fi/fantasy genre. If not for Karloff and the monster there would have been no KING KONG, no ALIEN, no STAR WARS, no LORD OF THE RINGS, and no HARRY POTTER films. I firmly believe this.

I have also thought along these lines. But, rather then broken down by genre I think you only need 4 channels TCM - Films from the silent years through the 50s TCM2 - Films from the 60s through the 90s TCMWorld International - Foreign films TCTelevision - Separate channel that ONLY shows classic television from 50s and 60s complete and uncut.

> {quote:title=MarlonFan wrote:}{quote}I am just curious here: have you ever personally met a big Hollywood actor or actress? I put it that way, because I don't mean local theatre, but big motion picture people. > No, I haven't. But, I would have loved to have met Anna Nicole Smith before she died.

> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}Don't worry, before it gets that small, the dispenser will come with a coin slot. Let's see, three sheets for a quarter or the "Montezuma's Revenge Special" of 15 sheets for a buck. Hope they're 2ply.

What is the difference between a character actor and a supporting actor? Since there isn't a category for character actors at the academy awards, and to my knowledge there has never been such a category, is character actor a true category or is it just used to describe a type of supporting actor? Also, can a charactor actor be the lead actor of a film, or are they typecast as character actors aka supporting actors.

NORTH BY NORTHWEST SABOTEUR VERTIGO Thanks to those damned films I can't climb a step ladder without being afraid I'll fall off.

> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}It's not just newspapers, in recent years many magazines have changed size too. Even TCM's NOW PLAYING was size adjusted at one point. It's true it saves paper, but another factor is that often one printer will actually print for several different publications. With color printing presses often costing a million dollars or more, it's just more cost effective to standardize to one size instead of having to have several different presses. If it costs them more to print it, those costs get past on to the publication which then passes those on to......well, we all know how that goes. Damn straight it's not just newspapers. Notice how toilet paper is getting narrower. Pretty soon public rest rooms will be providing strips of confetti.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}You are going to have to wait awhile for any additional comments from me about your response to my last post. > > I just got a new job for the first time in almost 10 months. Its a sales job and I am working ten to twelve hours per day. So I am tired as an old dog when I get home each night. Good luck on your new job.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}If you can't think of anything to say, please don't keep sending this lame duck to the top. Why not, obviously you felt you had something interesting to add. LOL!

> {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}And monkeys have wings and houses land intact after being hurled through a tornado. > > > > Hint: it was a fantasy. > > > > > > Sheesh. > > > Yes, I know it was a fantasy. But, even fantasy worlds have to maintain basic laws of logic within their twisted realities, else the stories won't make a semblance of sense. Even in fantasy land 1 plus 1 must equal 2, a + b must equal c. So, if monkeys have wings in OZ it's because they do and if houses land intact after being hurled through a tornado that's just because they can. It's in keeping with OZ laws of nature and physics. But besides being a fantasy, it was a fantasy DREAM. Since it was a dream, DOROTHY couldn't possibly have remembered all of it, no one remembers every aspect of a dream. My point is that my questions were never addressed so we'll never really know the answers. I'm just asking for speculations. But who knows, maybe someday someone will make a BROADWAY musical explaining it all. By the way, hint, every movie is a fantasy. That dosen't stop folks from disecting every aspect of them.

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}And monkeys have wings and houses land intact after being hurled through a tornado. > > Hint: it was a fantasy. > > Sheesh. Yes, I know it was a fantasy. But, even fantasy worlds have to maintain basic laws of logic within their twisted realities, else the stories won't make a semblance of sense. Even in fantasy land 1 plus 1 must equal 2, a + b must equal c. So, if monkeys have wings in OZ it's because they do and if houses land intact after being hurled through a tornado that's just because they can. It's in keeping with OZ laws of nature and physics. But besides being a fantasy, it was a fantasy DREAM. Since it was a dream, DOROTHY couldn't possibly have remembered all of it, no one remembers every aspect of a dream. My point is that my questions were never addressed so we'll never really know the answers. I'm just asking for speculations. But who knows, maybe someday someone will make a BROADWAY musical explaining it all.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}It looks like a horror film, though. > > > > > And, it plays like a horror film until the ending - then it turns into just a murder mystery. > > > > > > It has some of the most remarkable horror imagery you can find from the 1930's and that makes it a special movie to watch - keeps the title legitimately in the genre of horror - no matter that we're very disappointed with the ending and its sudden genre shift. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, yes - ruined by a weak ending, definately. Still worth viewing for its wonderful vampire imagery, also definately. > Yes, but that's what makes the deception all the more troublesome. The imagery was too good, too sophisticated to be merely written off in the last ten minutes as a hoax. It almost seems as if it was a last minute change in genre to satisfy some censor board, that the imagery was forgotten or ignored to make a hoax ending possible.

A few questions I've always had that were never answered in the film or I believe the novel, were if GLINDA, the "GOOD WITCH" of the NORTH was SO good why didn't she use her powers against THE WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST or THE EAST? Why did she USE DOROTHY to do her dirty work, and where was HER sister the "GOOD WITCH of the SOUTH"? I know if she would have used her powers to send DOROTHY home at the begining of the story there would have been no story and therefore no film. Also, I find it hard to believe that a charlatan like the "WIZARD" would have been able to fool the magic savy witches the way he managed to fool the general gullible populace of OZ for too long a time. Was he really just biding his time waiting for a small girl from KANSAS to come and save him? The way the story was presented was just too illogical to make sense and yet, since it was all revealed to be a dream and since dreams are never logical perhaps it does make sense after all. It's not surprising that critics originally panned the film. Not saying I dislike the film, I do like it, but I wish these points would have been addressed.

What I found interesting was the clip of Bolger, Lahr, and BUDDY EBSON entertaining some children who came to visit the studio. Wonder if there is any existing footage of BUDDY EBSON in costume as the TIN MAN or of JUDY GARLAND as DOROTHY with her blonde Shirley Temple style locks? Also, just thought I would mention that it is to the credit of Margaret Hamilton's acting ability that after years of viewing this timeless classic her portrayal of the Wicked Witch still has the ability to creep me out. Wouldn't want to run into her in a dark alley. I would put her iconic Witch right up there with LUGOSI's DRACULA and KARLOFF's FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER. Interesting how her face was just the right shape for....., that she needed very little makeup for......, could it be that she was a......., no after all she did all those Maxwell House coffee commercials as CORA and looked normal, unless THAT was, gulp, A MAKEUP JOB. Don't think I'm going to sleep too well tonight.

I would have loved to have shook hands with the MARX BROTHERS, but in HARPO's case I would probably have wound up holding his leg in my hand while GROUCHO and CHICO picked my pockets.

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}Any particular reason you bumped this? Seems like it's played out as well as the other one you bumped. I am still waiting for fxreyman to respond to my response to his lengthy post. But, since you ask, the main reason is that I find the responses interesting and there is ALWAYS more to say, by different people. Of course, if they bore you, feel free to read some other thread.