infinite1

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}Now, you claim that my quote above from IMDB is untrue by virtue of the fact that he was offered HIGH SIERRA, THE MALTESE FALCON, and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT and turned them down, that he was his own worst enemy. Well, maybe he was and maybe they were mistakes. From his perspective they were not. > > I reject the IMDb info because it's indefinite. It refers to how Raft was affected by his associations "later in his career. We're talking a 50 year career here and in the first 20 years of it he was getting starring roles for the most part at various studios. On a relative scale, it is early in his overall career. > > As far as which side (studio or Raft) was right as to the movies offered, it doesn't matter from either side's perspective - you're the one claiming that they didn't offer him "Raft and Raft only" vehicles and that he was broadsided by studio execs. > > > So, who offered HIGH SIERRA, THE MALTESE FALCON and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT? Was it the person in charge of the studio commisary? History does not bear out your conjecture. > > That they have become cult classics adds to the attraction of labeling them as GEORGE RAFT mistakes even though they were tailor made for BOGART and would not have worked well with RAFT in the lead. > > > Hold on, they were offered to Raft first, you admit that, but now you're saying they were tailor made for Bogart? That seems rather inconsistent. Seems to me that Bogie was getting the leftovers. We'll get to that part about not working well with Raft in the lead later. > > You then bring up DOUBLE INDEMNITY claiming it to be another GEORGE RAFT "mistake" even though the fact is that RAFT and ROBINSON hated each others guts. Do you really think that ROBINSON, more in favor with WARNERS, would have accepted RAFT as the male lead over him? I don't believe it. > > > First, and I pointed it out already, DOUBLE INDEMNITY was a Paramount film, not Warners. Secondly, you're presuming that Robinson was already cast - not so, Wilder hadn't signed up anyone at the point in which he approached Raft. If Raft had signed, maybe Robinson wouldn't have done the film - but that would have been his mistake. Besides, the point is what Raft did to sabotage his own career, not what others would have accepted or not. He refused a male lead because it didn't fit in with his own sterling image of himself. > > > Now, as the story goes, JACK WARNER wanted RAFT for the lead in CASABLANCA, RAFT wanted CASABLANCA, but HAL WALLIS nixed him. Then, WARNERS threw RAFT BACKGROUND TO DANGER, A lesser vehicle, to placate him before ending his contract. Yea, they didn't sabatoge his career. Sure they didn't. > > > So, you're saying that Raft deserved a reward for having turned down everything offered to him over a two year period. You're presuming that his status to the public remained high despite not being seen and while being eclipsed by Bogart in the very same films he could have appeared in. Films offered to him by the same execs you claim deliberately tried to sabotage his career. > > > Just what did Raft do to deserve such a plum property as CASABLANCA - and yet another one that is now part of the Bogart mystique and so we don't really know if it would have been of equivalent stature had Raft been the lead anyway. You yourself cited the other Bogart pick-ups "would not have worked as well with Raft in the lead," yet you're not presuming so here obviously. Again, you're being inconsistent. > > > Bogart evolved into what he became by working, Raft evolved into what he became by not working. > > > By the way, BACKGROUND TO DANGER might have been a better movie. But Raft insisted on changing the character of the Ambler story from a regular guy, to a secret agent. They even called in John Huston to help on a rewrite. Raft had more ideas, such as having FDR congratulate him at the end for successfully completing the mission. Huston was pitching in for free, but decided that there was nothing to do to improve such a watered-down script if Raft was going to have his way. > > > Still, to try to salvage what looked to be a bad situation, Wallis ordered Raoul Walsh to take the directorial reins from Jo Graham who had done two films for the studio. Raft had worked well with Walsh three times previously and was one of the top men on the Warner lot. > Clore, Obviously you have your film history down pat. So, the only thing I'll take issue with is your constant referring to RAFT's "sterling image of himself". Do you know that to be a fact? Everything I've read about RAFT reports the exact opposite. He often times acknowledged that he was a lousy actor and acted from what he was familiar with from real life experiences. When asked by someone if he ever watched his own performances he said "no, because they're probably awful", meaning bad. That dosen't sound like someone who has an overblown ego or has a "sterling image of himself". As to the films RAFT turned down, yes, I would have liked to have seen him do more and not be so picky. But, those PARTICULAR films he turned down or was denied HAVE been so connected to the BOGART mistique that even I can't see anyone else doing them as successfully and that includes CAGNEY and ROBINSON. For example, ROBINSON played SAM SPADE in the LUX RADIO dramatization of THE MALTESE FALCON. I listened to it and cannot accept the ROBINSON voice as SPADE, I keep hearing BOGART. But, I honestly didn't know that film roles were handed out as "REWARDS" for towing the studio line. Silly me, I thought they were offered to the actor that was considered best for the part. The fact that RAFT was the first choice for CASABLANCA must have meant something and the fact that he was passed over as a punishment obviously means something else. To me it means that there was a vindictiveness at WARNERS on the part of some and their opinions held sway over others. But, what do I know? Some would say that RAFT deserved it for being a trouble maker. But, riddle me this, does any actor past or present purposely or purposefully look to sabatoge their own careers? Don't they have agents that were/are supposed to look out for their careers? Maybe, on the other hand, it all depends on the flip of a coin and RAFT'S kept landing heads down.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}TRANSCRIPT of SHANE: > > I'm all right, Joey. > > Go home to your mother and father and grow up to be strong and straight. > > And, Joey... Take care of them, both of them. > > Yes, Shane. > > He'd never have shot you if you'd seen him! > > Bye, little Joe. > > He'd never even have cleared the holster, would he, Shane? > > Pa's got things for you to do! And Mother wants you! > > I know she does! > > Shane! > > Shane! Come back! > > http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/shane-script-transcript-alan-ladd.htmlFred, Are you from MISSOURI? Seriously, you know that dialogue is, most times, altered from the actual script to what's printed on film. Haven't you ever heard heard of ab-libs? Maybe the kid added the BYE SHANE himself and the director decided to keep it in the film for the reasons mentioned by others in this thread? It's possible isn't it?

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > > *"His career was marked by numerous tough-guy roles, often a gangster or convict. The believability with which he played these, together with his lifelong associations with such real-life gangsters as Owney Madden and Bugsey Siegel, added to persistent rumors that he was also a gangster. The slightly shady reputation may have helped his popularity early on, but it made him somewhat undesirable to movie executives later in his career." from IMDB* > > > The IMDb is like Wikipedia, anything can get placed there. The history proves otherwise as Warner execs offered him HIGH SIERRA, THE MALTESE FALCON and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT. > > > Here's an example of what can happen at the IMDb, these two items are right in sequence on his bio page: > > > His parents Conrad and Eva Ranft had ten children, nine of them boys, with George the eldest. > > > According to both the 1900 and 1910 Censuses for New York City, Raft only had one sibling named Eva "Katie" Ranft, born on April 18, 1896 in Manhattan. > ok, obviously as you point out there can be inaccuracies. So are you saying that because there may be inaccuracies that nothing is valid? If that be the case, what are the sources that you would rely on for the most accurate information? Inaccuracies can exist in anything from printed BIOGRAPHIES to AUTOBIOGRAPHIES if the subjects' memory is faulty. Even "official" documents have been known to contain inaccuracies so what's the alternative if you can't trust anything? Now, you claim that my quote above from IMDB is untrue by virtue of the fact that he was offered HIGH SIERRA, THE MALTESE FALCON, and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT and turned them down, that he was his own worst enemy. Well, maybe he was and maybe they were mistakes. From his perspective they were not. That they have become cult classics adds to the attraction of labeling them as GEORGE RAFT mistakes even though they were tailor made for BOGART and would not have worked well with RAFT in the lead. You then bring up DOUBLE INDEMNITY claiming it to be another GEORGE RAFT "mistake" even though the fact is that RAFT and ROBINSON hated each others guts. Do you really think that ROBINSON, more in favor with WARNERS, would have accepted RAFT as the male lead over him? I don't believe it. Now, as the story goes, JACK WARNER wanted RAFT for the lead in CASABLANCA, RAFT wanted CASABLANCA, but HAL WALLIS nixed him. Then, WARNERS threw RAFT BACKGROUND TO DANGER, A lesser vehicle, to placate him before ending his contract. Yea, they didn't sabatoge his career. Sure they didn't.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}I love those old Ray Harryhausen movies ! That's how I think of them - I don't think of the director or the actors, I think of that special effects magician. > I'll take his visual magic over the claustrophobic and sometimes depressing computer generated special effects in fantasy movies now. That's when fantasy felt like fantasy ! > > I remember seeing *Jason and the Argonauts* on TV when I was a kid - I was absolutely fascinated. I never forgot those grinning skeletons that emerged from the ground, born out of the hydra's teeth. Not to be picky, but the genre is officially called SWORD AND SANDAL. I wonder why TCM dosen't show more of these films. There is a whole host of HERCULES, ATLAS, URSUS, and MACHISTE films that contain enough muscles, monsters, sneering villains, epic battles, big busted women, and mythology to satisfy the most diehard fan. Then you have your VIKING films, MONGOL films, etc., etc., etc. enough to fill up the SATURDAY time slot vacated by the BOWERY BOYS, TARZAN and BOMBA films, for months and months to come. How about it TCM?

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote}{font:Arial}{color:black}A new major film version of comic book hero “Captain Marvel” has been in the works for the last ten or so years! The most interested party or company was at one time Disney. The problem at the start of the proposed project was whether or not to create a fully animated version as opposed to a live-action one. Because the character of “Captain Marvel” is based around mysticism and magic, rather than our typical super alien human being or a realistic costumed, law enforcing caped crusader, it was difficult to decide on where to go with the “Captain Marvel” character on the grounds of what age bracket would the film be geared towards. Naturally, an animated Disney version would be more prone to children and probably not to adults. It was even thought of creating a comedic aspect to the proposed idea of a full-length cartoon! Some officials at Disney resisted the idea of “Captain Marvel,” feeling that the character was in some regards campy and childish, partially due to whole “Billy Batson” teenage issue and his dated sort of famous phrase: “Shazam!” As of now, Disney is totally out of the picture. > {font}{font:Arial}{color:black} > Well, for those of you who don’t know, read the entertainment trade papers and watch show business news on the web and television, there is some hope! Talk is that wrestling and action movie hero tough guy and star, Dwayne (THE ROCK!) Johnson is trying to get something going! He’s been making a few rounds, talking about his interest in playing the legendary, magical comic book super hero. Dwayne says he’s been a fan of the stories since he was a kid and it’s sort of a dream of his to get into a new major motion picture about “Captain Marvel.” The surprise success of last year’s “Captain America,” bringing in way over 360 million at the box-office might be what’s now hanging in a positive balance for a “Captain Marvel,” setting a pattern towards a feeling that the idea or time for a major film is right. D.C. Comics and Warner Brothers now have to cook something up, if this is going to get off the ground. > {font}{font:Arial}{color:black} > All the past and recent talk about a new film version has good old Stan Lee amused and caught in the middle of this foray of ideas. The “Maestro of Marvel Comics” would hope that there will be no confusion over what Marvel (the company) has created and especially their character of "Captain {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}.” In hind sight, “Captain Marvel” that is straight out of D.C. Comics has not enjoyed the long term popularity of other comic book heroes. This is what has led to some of the criticism about a possible new movie. Yet, because of the “name association” between “Captain America” and “Captain Marvel,” on top of just the use of the word “Marvel,” has some believing there is this connection between the characters along the line of their publishing history. Of course, you have to be a comic book fan to figure out what is technically correct. Plain and simple: These superheroes are from rival comic book companies! Stan would only like to make it clear, about the whole Marvel family of characters, there was never anything like “Captain Marvel” in all the years he ran Marvel Comics! Of course, fans of D.C. Comics would like to point out that "Captain Marvel" precedes "Captain America" by two years and therefore is a thinly, disguised version of the magical superhero even with all his "Shazam!" {font} Actually, the confusion would not be between DC's Captain Marvel and Marvel's Captain America, rather the confusion would be between FAWCETT''s CAPTAIN MARVEL and MARVEL COMICS' CAPTAIN MARVEL. MARVEL COMICS had trademarked the name CAPTAIN MARVEL in the 1960s when they created their own version of the character. CAPTAIN MAR-VELL (CAPTAIN MARVEL was the official name of the 1960s Marvel comic) was purely based in Science Fiction and was "an alien military officer of the Kree Imperial Militia, who is sent to observe the planet Earth as it is developing technology to travel into space. Mar-Vell eventually wearies of his superiors' malign intent and allies himself with Earth as the Kree Empire brands him a traitor. From then on, Mar-Vell fights to protect Earth from all threats." This went on until the early 80s when Captain Marvel contracted cancer and died in Marvel's first GRAPHIC NOVEL entitled fittingly "THE DEATH OF CAPTAIN MARVEL". However, in order for MARVEL COMICS "to retain their trademark, Marvel has had to publish a Captain Marvel title every year or two since, leading to a number of ongoing series, limited series, and one-shots featuring a range of characters using the Captain Marvel alias." Incidently, the MARVEL trademark of the name CAPTAIN MARVEL made it necessary for DC to label their comic book SHAZAM when they acquired the rights to the original Captain Marvel in the 1970s and they have been forced to do so ever since.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}IT ALL CAME TRUE and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT were throw away films that, in my opinion, didn't do anything to further Bogart's career. > > Your opinion has nothing to do with it, nor does mine. They were financially successful films and the bottom line is what they look at. Raft was also not only refusing WB films, but exercising that part of his contract that allowed him to make THE HOUSE ACROSS THE BAY and BROADWAY away from the studio. Neither was especially successful, but to his home base, it smacked of disloyalty. > > > *Are you speaking specifically about Warner Brothers or about RAFT? I ask this because it was not an uncommon practice to have such a clause built into contracts. I can think of many examples of actors who made films for other studios while under contract with one specific studio. Abbott and Costello for one, had a contract with UNIVERSAL, and made three films for MGM as well as a few independent productions. Did UNIVERSAL view that as disloyalty?* > > > I would agree that THE MALTESE FALCON was a mistake, in retrospect, but from RAFT'S point of view HUSTON *was* a rookie so RAFT had a legitimate reason for making the decision he did. If BOGART wasn't dying to be in ANY picture he might have felt the same way, but his desperation paid off. > > > It isn't as if Huston had never been near a film set before, he had been writing for a decade and even did some scenes for his friend William Wyler on JEZABEL. Bogart had already refused films, he didn't want to do BADMEN OF MISSOURI after Lupino had him knocked out of OUT OF THE FOG and Raft nixed him on MANPOWER. But Bogie knew Huston from HIGH SIERRA and felt quite comfortable with him. Speaking of HIGH SIERRA: > > > *ok, so BOGART already knew HUSTON and was comfortable working with him. RAFT didn't know him and obviously felt uncomfortable working with a first time director. Besides, BOGART looked more like JOHN DILLINGER then RAFT and since the part was modeled after DILLINGER it's not surprising that HUSTON would have prefered his friend BOGART to RAFT.* > > > > In my opinion, it is highly overrated as a gangster film and a BOGART film. Frankly, it was an IDA LUPINO film all the way, which, I guess, is why she was the star of the picture. > > > Again, current opinions don't matter, then-contemporary boxoffice does. Bogart was the male lead, he has far more screen time than Lupino and between the two of them, who got more out of it, Lupino or Bogart? He was supposed to get top billing, Warners reneged at the last minute owing to some bad publicity with the pre-war Communist investigations. By the time he was exonerated, the prints had gone out. Talk about politics affecting one's status. > > > But even after turning the film down, after seeing it become a hit, Raft still went on refusing the scripts being offered. Raft was in good company though, after he turned it down, so did Paul Muni - because he wasn't offered it first. Cagney and then Robinson also turned it down because they didn't want to play gangsters. > > > Look at it from RAFT'S point of view. RAFT was a major A list player at PARAMOUNT. WARNERS did nothing to build up his career by crafting the kind of A list films around RAFT the way they did for CAGNEY, ROBINSON, BOGART, and GARFIELD. > > > You're overlooking that Bogart supported Raft in in two films, INVISIBLE STRIPES and THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT. These were films built around Raft. There probably woudn't be a Bogart as we know him now if Raft hadn't refused those many films. Bogart had been at the studio since 1936, Raft signed in 1939 and immediately he was given a higher berth on the totem pole. He was given the chance to appear in relatively prestigious projects at the studio and he refused. These weren't Bryan Foy "B" films at WB, they were Hal Wallis films. > *Maybe there were those at the studio that resented RAFT'S higher berth and felt that BOGART deserved the push by virtue of his being at the studio since 1936. In any event it's no coincidence that his "supporting" player soon left him in the dust. In any event, it would have been nice to have seen a film built around RAFT AND ONLY RAFT, without any assistance from BOGART.* > > > I still say it was politics, WARNERS didn't want someone with RAFT'S reputation as an underworld crony to be one of their major stars. They used him, abused him, and dumped him. > > > Are you trying to say that Raft's reputation was a secret prior to his signing with Warners? They gave him his chances, but the barely educated, sixth-grade dropout Raft, couldn't tell when he was better off. > > > *I'm not saying that it was a secret, but* > > > > *"His career was marked by numerous tough-guy roles, often a gangster or convict. The believability with which he played these, together with his lifelong associations with such real-life gangsters as Owney Madden and Bugsey Siegel, added to persistent rumors that he was also a gangster. The slightly shady reputation may have helped his popularity early on, but it made him somewhat undesirable to movie executives later in his career." from IMDB* > > > *Are you saying that people in Hollywood weren't blacklisted because of their suspected outside activities? I am not familiar with RAFT's level of formal education, but as you point out above, he was in good company with CAGNEY, ROBINSON, and MUNI who all refused films at some point in their careers, yet their careers were not damaged to the extent that RAFT'S was.* >

> {quote:title=doctorxx wrote:}{quote}Captain Marvel, Superman and Batman were all introduced thu comic books of the late 30s early 40s. All three were made into serials. Then in the 60s Batman and Superman made it big in the movies. Why has no company not made a major film of Captain Marvel? I think you meant the 80s, not the 60s. Superman made it big on TELEVISION in the 50s, ditto for BATMAN in the 60s. Captain Marvel was always considered to be somewhat more cartoony then the other two Super Heroes who could be squeezed into the sci fi and film noir genres. Could anyone really take a SUPER HERO seriously that had a talking tiger as a mjaor supporting player?

> {quote:title=cody1949 wrote:}{quote}Please don't put James Cagney in the same league as George Raft. Warner's could do without Raft but no matter what fuss Cagney could create he was an essential part of that studio. He went back to Warner's in 1949 only after losing money on his independent productions. Maybe WARNER's could do without RAFT, but could CAGNEY? If it wasn't for RAFT interceding with his underworld connections to reign in some other underworld types that wanted to bring down the curtain on CAGNEY for good, there would have been no CAGNEY. So much for WARNER's gratitude to RAFT for saving their cherished CASH COW. I guess you can chalk that up to another bad business decision on the part of RAFT.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}Maybe the only business mistake RAFT made was not asking his old friends to make Jack Warner an "offer he couldn't refuse" in order to get some of the juicy parts that were given to BOGART and CAGNEY. > > Not so at all. Raft turned down IT ALL CAME TRUE, HIGH SIERRA, THE MALTESE FALCON and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT. All of which were done by Bogart and for this, his reward was CASABLANCA which Raft was begging to do. Hal Wallis wrote Jack Warner and nixed Raft, saying "he hasn't done a picture around here since I was a small boy." > > Raft also refused what became the Garfield role in THE SEA WOLF. > > > It was Raft's own stupidity that set Bogart up as a star. A few years earlier, Bogart was supporting Raft in INVISIBLE STRIPES and THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT. > IT ALL CAME TRUE and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT were throw away films that, in my opinion, didn't do anything to further Bogart's career. RAFT could have done them blindfolded, but they were more suited for GARFIELD then either RAFT or BOGART. I would agree that THE MALTESE FALCON was a mistake, in retrospect, but from RAFT'S point of view HUSTON *was* a rookie so RAFT had a legitimate reason for making the decision he did. If BOGART wasn't dying to be in ANY picture he might have felt the same way, but his desperation paid off. THE SEA WOLF was all ROBINSON'S picture, the character GARFIELD played was an insignificant after thought and no great loss to RAFT. I have mixed feelings about HIGH SIERRA. In my opinion, it is highly overrated as a gangster film and a BOGART film. Frankly, it was an IDA LUPINO film all the way, which, I guess, is why she was the star of the picture. Look at it from RAFT'S point of view. RAFT was a major A list player at PARAMOUNT. WARNERS did nothing to build up his career by crafting the kind of A list films around RAFT the way they did for CAGNEY, ROBINSON, BOGART, and GARFIELD. I still say it was politics, WARNERS didn't want someone with RAFT'S reputation as an underworld crony to be one of their major stars. They used him, abused him, and dumped him.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}Raft was out of Warners after BACKGROUND TO DANGER in 1943. According to Jack Warner, the actor had been such a royal pain that Warner proposed settling Raft's contract for the sum of 50,000 dollars. Seems to me that CAGNEY was as much a "royal pain" or perhaps even more so then RAFT ever was. Yet, he wasn't treated as badly by WARNERS as RAFT was. Maybe Jack Warner was more concerned with RAFTS' well publicized friendship/associations with underworld types like Benny Siegel, Meyer Lansky, and Lucky Luciano then RAFT being a "royal pain". Maybe the only business mistake RAFT made was not asking his old friends to make Jack Warner an "offer he couldn't refuse" in order to get some of the juicy parts that were given to BOGART and CAGNEY.

1. Beulah Bondi 2. Helen Westley 3. Anne Revere 4. Flora Robson 5. May Robson 6. Edna May Oliver 7. Ethel Merman 8. Helen Miren 9. Judi Dench 10. Geraldine Page 11. Julie Harris and the list goes on.................

George Raft, without a doubt. He took his inspiration from the real life gangsters that he associated with. He may have not been the actor that CAGNEY, BOGART, and ROBINSON were, but he brought a degree of restrained menace to his gangsters that the above three with all their histrionics could not match. A shame his ego got the best of him.

I just started buying from Warner's Archive. I bought the OUR GANG set, the LON CHANEY set, and THE CYCLOPS - remastered version. Surprised at how good the OUR GANG set is. I really took a chance because I had heard some bad things about it when it was first released. No menu, for one. But, they must have listened to the complaints because there is now a menu. The shorts themselves look beautiful. The remastered CYCLOPS was also fine, no problems. Don't know why Warner's is still offering the edited version as well???? Indicate remastered version when ordering. Have not viewed the LON CHANEY set, yet. I hope it is ok, but I have not heard of anyone having any problems with theirs.

> {quote:title=JonnyGeetar wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}House of the Seven Gables is much closer to being a horror movie...certainly with horror elements ... At the very least, it's often been considered a type of horror movie by many over the years.... > Eh. But if they wanted it to be a horror movie, they really didn't go "all out" for it in the mood, lighting, atmosphere, music- heck, even the performances. And it's a Universal* film with Vincent Price! > > *Neither was Universal's NIGHT KEY a true HORROR FILM and that one even had BORIS KARLOFF in the lead. Yet it is considered one of their classic Horror films.* > > > > Really, it's a tepid little period piece with a slight and brief suggestion of the supernatural- but it ends up being a heavily moralizing, unmemorable picture which, quite frankly, would have been better off as a short. > > > But thanks for showing it, TCM! > > > *somewhat oddly, the actual house they built for the movie was still standing the last time I was on the Universal lot, back in 2004(ish.) > > Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Mar 2, 2012 6:22 PM >

> {quote:title=BunnyR wrote:}{quote}It was really hard but.... > I love Ginger Rogers > Vivacious Lady...............Charles Coburn was a gem > > Flying Down to Rio...........Great film and the dancing and music perfection! > > Mildred Pierce.......best Film Noir, I watch it every time! > > What Ever Happen to Baby Jane................Victor Bruno, love his scenes. > > I also love religious films. > Jennifer Jones is another favorite of mine. I'd like to play, but it depends on the rules of the game. Do we have free reign to select whatever films we like, from whatever studio we like, or do we have to select films from a pre-arranged list of films that are already paid for by TCM, you know, like the real guest programmers have to do?

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}*"You know we have no input into what TCM shows, that's entirely up to the discretion of the programmers."* > > I don't know that and I would never say that. I know otherwise. > It is not just happenstance that Joel McCrea is "Star Of The Month" in May. Persistent and polite advocacy in these Forums played a role in that decision. "Serials" and Tarzan films on Saturdays were born out of recommendations in here. But neither would I say that TCM is an "All Requests - All The Time" station. Not all requests can be fulfilled. > > *"As to your short list, HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY is an oft repeated film on TCM."* > > Are you sure you are not making the same mistake I have made and confusing *The Quiet Man* with *How Green Was My Valley*? *The Quiet Man* has been a perennial favorite of TCM. I believe *How Green Was My Valley* was last shown (only shown?) during a John Ford weekend when TCM promoted the newly released "Ford At Fox" DVD boxset. *The Prisoner Of Shark Island* was shown that same weekend. That would be around 2007. But I could be mistaken and the "other Irish film" has been shown more often than I remember.. > > Kyle In Hollywood Perhaps what I should have typed was that it's up to the discretion of whoever is paying the bills at TCM. Yes, "persistent and polite advocacy in these forums" might play a role in the decision as long as the cost is not astronomical. I am sure guest programmers when asked to pick their four favorite films are given a proviso that it must be from a pre-arranged list of films that TCM has already pre-selected for the month in question. Which is why you never have guest programmers choose their four favorite films solely from UNIVERSAL, PARAMOUNT, or COLUMBIA'S libraries even though TCM does occasionally show films from those libraries. Imagine a guest programmer listing as his favorites SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM, MURDER IN THE BLUE ROOM, THE MAD DOCTOR, and THE MONSTER AND THE GIRL, never happen. No, I did not confuse THE QUIET MAN with HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY. Confuse John Wayne with Walter Pidgeon????? I know it was shown, in addition to the time you mentioned, during some Maureen O'Hara tribute, a Roddy McDowell tribute, perhaps even a Donald Crisp or Walter Pidgeon tribute. This could be a birthday, or SOTM, or SUTS tribute. I believe the film has also made the ESSENTIAL list in the past. In any event, it has been shown more then twice. But, you are correct about THE QUIET MAN. It is a favorite of TCM and one of mine as well.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > > please someone tell me that movies in a box-set dont all have to be from one studio. > Lori, > > The good news is that Time-Warner owns not only their own film library but the pre-1986 MGM film library as well as RKO's. (Thanks, Ted Turner!!!) > > So, Warner's could release a box set containing Garfield's WB films as well as *The Postman Always Rings Twice*. > > As for *Body and Soul*, it looks like it was released by United Artists and at some point in the 1980s, it was released on home video by Republic Pictures. > > I think Lionsgate Entertainment may have the rights or possibly Paramount. Republic's library has been through various owners the last decade. I suppose anything is possible, but in light of prior evidence highly improbable. Have you ever seen any Warner box sets contain anything but Warners' films? It would have been great to have had MGM's SECRET SIX, BEAST OF THE CITY, and RKO's BAD COMPANY included in their GANGSTER sets, but they were not. I don't believe it was done in the past with their other sets. Did the CAGNEY WARNER's set include RKO's GREAT GUY?

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > > please someone tell me that movies in a box-set dont all have to be from one studio. > Lori, > > The good news is that Time-Warner owns not only their own film library but the pre-1986 MGM film library as well as RKO's. (Thanks, Ted Turner!!!) > > So, Warner's could release a box set containing Garfield's WB films as well as *The Postman Always Rings Twice*. > > As for *Body and Soul*, it looks like it was released by United Artists and at some point in the 1980s, it was released on home video by Republic Pictures. > > I think Lionsgate Entertainment may have the rights or possibly Paramount. Republic's library has been through various owners the last decade.I suppose anything is possible, but in light of prior evidence highly improbable. Have you ever seen any Warner box sets contain anything but Warners' films? It would have been great to have had MGM's SECRET SIX, BEAST OF THE CITY, and RKO's BAD COMPANY included in their GANGSTER sets, but they were not. I don't believe it was done in the past with their other sets. Did the CAGNEY WARNER's set include RKO's GREAT GUY?

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}OK. As the converse to a different thread here, how about submitting titles that played on TCM only once or twice and haven't been seen again. > And I am not necessarily thinking of "new" films shown during "31 Days of Oscar". > > My short list includes - > *Easy Living* > *The Prisoner Of Shark Island* > *In Old Chicago* (Did it ever get rescheduled?) > *How Green Was My Valley* > *Papillon* > > And yours? > > Kyle In Hollywood Not sure if I understand the purpose of your thread??? If it's purpose is to suggest films that actually stand the chance of being shown on TCM, then what's the point? We have already been told in numerous threads that the reasons many films that were shown on TCM once upon a time and are now absent is varied, not the least of which is the absence of a digital master which is astronomical in cost. However, if it's just a game, another Santa wish list then fine, but please frame it like that. You know we have no input into what TCM shows, that's entirely up to the discretion of the programmers. As to your short list, HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY is an oft repeated film on TCM. I don't recall the exact number of times I've seen it since I started watching TCM in 2001, but I've seen it enough times on this channel to know it's one of the channel's favorites.

> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote}All the films listed on this page, and no one's mentioned GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT. Granted, Garfield played a supporting role (incisively, I might add), but the film's topic, anti-Semitism, was very important to the actor, who never forgot where he came from. It was mportant, too, that there should be at least a couple of real Jews in such a movie (the other being Sam Jaffe), in which you have a Gentile actress, June Havoc, playing a Jew, and, of course, Gregory Peck as a Gentile passing himself off as Jewish. > > Watching Garfield as Dave Goldman, I get the sense that it really may take a Jew to play a Jew, as the atavistic memory of five-thousand years of inherited suffering, lamentations and achievement cannot be adequately written on a script page, nor refined in rehearsal. We're talking about films to be included in a box set. Obviously, this would be a Warners Archive box set. The above film was made by 20th Century Fox, not Warners. That would atomatically disqualify it from inclusion in any Warners set. Besides, it was already released in a DVD box set as part of the 20TH CENTURY FOX STUDIO CLASSICS COLLECTION.

How about CONRAD VEIDT'S 1928 silent THE MAN WHO LAUGHS. There are some folks on another message board that claim TCM aired it once in it's early years. It does seem strange that TCM has not aired it since, if at all, as KINO went to all the trouble to restore it. Dosen't that make it digitally eligible to be shown on TCM? It would go over well as a double feature some night with CHANEY'S PHANTOM.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}I remember that they were the first to air STAR WARS on TV, but other than that, I can't recall much other than that they also had some rock concerts. We didn't get it where I live, but I remember reading about it in the trades. > > We had the similar WHT - Wometco Home Theater - which aired mostly movies of recent vintage on a UHF channel for which you needed the descrambler. The menu was rather limited and we didn't subscribe for very long. Yes, I remember WHT or WWHT although we never subscribed to it. Before they became WOMETCO HOME THEATER they were WTVG and before that WBTB-TV channel 68. I remember watching UNCLE FLOYD on that channel and a host of old TV SHOWS. I remember being angry when they changed the format of the station and was glad when WOMETCO HOME THEATER was replaced by a home shopping channel, which it still is to this day.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}I remember that they were the first to air STAR WARS on TV, but other than that, I can't recall much other than that they also had some rock concerts. We didn't get it where I live, but I remember reading about it in the trades. > > We had the similar WHT - Wometco Home Theater - which aired mostly movies of recent vintage on a UHF channel for which you needed the descrambler. The menu was rather limited and we didn't subscribe for very long.Yes, I remember WHT or WWHT although we never subscribed to it. Before they became WOMETCO HOME THEATER they were WTVG and before that WBTB-TV channel 68. I remember watching UNCLE FLOYD on that channel and a host of old TV SHOWS. I remember being angry when they changed the format of the station and was glad when WOMETCO HOME THEATER was replaced by a home shopping channel, which it still is to this day.

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote}{font:Arial}{color:black}Ok, the way I see it is to have two box sets, in a volume one and two, made up of five films per box set. My choices would be for volume one:{font} > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}“They Made Me A Criminal”{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}“Dust Be My Destiny”{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}“Castle on the {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hudson{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}”{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}“Sea Wolf”{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}“Out of the Fog”{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}Volume two:{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}“Tortilla Flat”{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}“Pride of the Marines”{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}“The Postman Always Rings Twice”{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}“Body and Soul”{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}“He Ran All the Way”{font} > > > > > > > > > > > > {font:Arial}{color:black}While I know there are other titles of Garfield’s career that could be placed into this double volume box set, I decided on going for a comprehensive selection along the lines of good dramatic diversity. To create a box set of {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Garfield{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} can be difficult, based around the subject matter, because most of his best films are of a criminal nature or that of a rebellious character on the outskirts of society. My list is made up of films that I find his performances to be first rate, while the list pretty much reflects upon his specialty of being an outcast to most of the roles he played. Rather than go with the usual TCM, four film box set, I added an extra film. Perhaps even a sixth film would be more flexible towards expanding on the subject matter.{font} > I'm all for a few John Garfield box sets, but I am disapointed that Warners didn't see fit to include any of his gangster films in any of their four GANGSTER film box sets. That was an insulting omission. In my opinion, OUT OF THE FOG, CASTLE ON THE HUDSON, EAST OF THE RIVER, BLACKWELL'S ISLAND, FORCE OF EVIL, and HE RAN ALL THE WAY were every bit as entertaining as any of the CAGNEY, BOGART, ROBINSON, and RAFT gangster films. I wish Warners would continue the series, but all we would probably get at this point is those horrible no frills MOD DVD-Rs. Garfield rates nothing less then pressed DVDs with the same type of extras the other sets included.

> {quote:title=mick1967 wrote:}{quote}I remember watching the film in the 90s. Martin Landau did a great job as Bela Lugosi. I never knew Lugosi's life was that hard in his later years. What a shame. Yes, if you disliked Lugosi to start with, then I can understand you praising Landau's "great" job. The film was a parody of Ed Wood's life and Landau's so called performance was a parody of Lugosi. The film stunk.