infinite1

> {quote:title=Janet0312 wrote:}{quote}Not many Universal fans on this board, are there? You can count me as another one. I would like UNIVERSAL to get together with TCM/MOVIES UNLIMITED to release a follow up to their CULT HORRORS COLLECTION. I would like to see in such a set the following films: SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD THE MYSTERY OF MARIE ROGET MURDER IN THE BLUE ROOM THE CAT CREEPS THE SPIDER WOMAN STRIKES BACK I would like to see ALL the DEANNA DURBIN musicals released in a box set and /or shown on TCM, ditto for the MARIA MONTEZ/JON HALL technicolor classics. So you see, we do exist. Perhaps we're not as vocal as the WARNERS or MGM fans, but they have much to yell about since their films get most of the attention on TCM and in the RETAIL STORES. And, while the Warners Archive and COLUMBIA mod collections have grown, the UNIVERSAL VAULT COLLECTION has remained frozen. Maybe this will change this year with UNIVERSALS' 100th Anniversary, we can only hope.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > If lets say we look at a film genre like the Swashbuckler for instance. Let us compare a fine film made back in 1940 called The Sea Hawk and compare that film to a newer film from 2003 called Master and Commander. Compare the two films and how they were made. Sure one could say that with the benefit of CGI effects from today the more recent film actually "cheated" or got away from true filmmaking. But if you look closer at the two films they both used miniatures in their filming, both used color/B&W backdrops, and both had full size replicas built for the close in scenes. The major difference in the two films was that the more recent film actually had a real true to size replica built and the older film had smaller not true to size replicas built. The older film had to use models in a large tank to film the two sailing vessels fighting one another, where as in the newer film, the model of the British warship was shot onboard an actual reproduction of a former British warship from the time period. Other film shots involved the use of full scale replicas mounted on gimbals in a large tank and cgi effect shots of ships in storms and further away. > > I don't think you can fairly compare the SEA HAWK to MASTER and COMMANDER although I basically agree with everything you are saying. THE SEA HAWK was a fictional swashbuckler while MASTER and COMMANDER was more HISTORICAL DRAMA. I think the more valid comparrison is to compare SEA HAWK, or for that matter, CAPTAIN BLOOD, to JOHNNY DEPPS' PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN films. The reason we will never see a new film on a par with either CAPTAIN BLOOD or THE SEA HAWK is that 1. Errol Flynn is dead and he was the only one who, in my opinion, could carry it off without the CGI effects, and 2. CGI EFFECTS. Todays' audience is enamored by special effects. A straight, fun, pirate film will not work unless you depict limbs being loped off in the most graphic fashion imaginable or add in the extra added attraction of monsters. Today's audience is fickle, each new movie has to top the last one. It's not enough to just tell a good story with great actors, one has to be hit in the face by the latest special effects. The studios know this and they give the public what they want. It's as simple as that. You can substitute any genre and it's the same story. As long as the public demand crap, we will be given crap. You get what you pay for.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote} In Angela's case, it was a career highlight........ > > Edited by: Hibi on Jan 30, 2012 2:45 PM If that was her career highlight I'd hate to think what her career lowlight was. Really, what was so great about her acting out the part of MRS. LOVETT? I suppose it could, on some level, be on an equal HIGH CAMP footing with Betty Davis as BABY JANE or JOAN CRAWFORD as MONICA RIVERS in BERSERK, but I always considered those films comedowns for two actresses who were well past their prime. Definitely, I would consider her career highlights to be MRS. ELEANOR SHAW ISELIN in the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE and JESSICA BEATRICE FLETCHER in MURDER SHE WROTE, but MRS. LOVETT, BLECCH. I much more prefer Helena Bonham Carter in the part, but then again I prefer the film over the stage "production" anytime. Can't beat all that fake blood spurting all over everything and everyone or SACHA BARON COHEN as PIRELLI, now that's acting.

GEORGE RAFT BELA LUGOSI LIONEL ATWILL BUSTER CRABBE WALLACE BEERY DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS SR. JOHN BARRYMORE ERROL FLYNN VICTOR MCLAGEN BETTY GRABLE RITA HAYWORTH MARILYN MONROE TYRONE POWER LON CHANEY JR. BRODERICK CRAWFORD HUGH HERBERT WHEELER and WOOLSEY LAUREL and HARDY JIMMY DURANTE RONALD COLEMAN EDNA MAY OLIVER FRANK MORGAN MAY ROBSON FLORA ROBSON ANNE REVERE ALBERT DEKKER SAM JAFFE PRESTON FOSTER ADOLPHE MENJOU CONRAD VEIDT CARMEN MIRANDA

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Not at all. LOL. I dont remember an outcry like this when TCM showed several old tv shows Grace Kelly appeared in when she was SOTM some years back. What's the difference? Maybe the difference was in the quality, but frankly I was not happy with that either. I suppose if one diggs deep enough you can find TV shows that featured many classic movie stars, but is that what we want TCM to become? Do we really need another ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW marathon if and when he ever becomes SOTM or "classic" episodes from GILLIGAN'S ISLAND or the TWILIGHT ZONE that guested classic movie stars? If TCM ever launches a spin off channel called TCT (TURNER CLASSIC TELEVISION) I'd be all for it, but this current "brilliant" programming strategy of TCM to turn their channel into a hodgepodge, a mixed bag of "classic" films and tv shows, reeks of laziness and doing things on the cheap. If anyone considers this a hissy fit or tissy fit on my part, so be it.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}We're glad you're glad. LOL. I wouldnt have minded a showing of Beauty and the Beast, as I've never seen it. TCM showed a televised version of a Broadway musical. The world didnt end. I had a great time.......... But tell me the truth, didn't you miss the pledge breaks?

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}His classic training and central European good looks aside, they probably saw him as a one dimensional comodity. Lugosi's breadth and depth as an actor was never fully utilized by any studio(sepiatone) > > True. I imagine it was studio politics (what isn't) that saw Karloff rise while Lugosi was overlooked. > > I find Lugosi very charming, key to his performance as Dracula. > > I was embarrassed for him in his later moviews, but as you said, TikiSoo, he was charming - I also found him handsome, riveting, and very sexy as Dracula. Was his agent to blame? Could an improved diction have helped him? Or was it entirely studio politics? Diction was not his problem. Well....., suffice it to say, that James Whale was Mr. Big, for a time at UNIVERSAL, and we all know that Karloff, a fellow Bristisher, was Whales' boy. So it's not hard to extrapolate the reason for Lugosi being given the shaft or stake. Lugosi, on the other hand, had the sinister, dark kind of look that made him perfect for the type of parts he was given. Whether he could have eventually moved into the kind of roles essayed by a Paul Lukas is a matter of conjecture, but he could have easily moved into the kind of villainous roles played by Conrad Veidt if he would have had a Director that was willing to work with him instead of against him. However, it is important to remember that Veidt rarely starred in anything during the sound era, while LUGOSI, for the most part, had top billing in all his poverty row films. Who is to say who was the more successful or who made the better carreer decisions. Who today has the better name recognition BELA LUGOSI or CONRAD VEIDT? Certainly not Paul Lukas.

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}His classic training and central European good looks aside, they probably saw him as a one dimensional comodity. Lugosi's breadth and depth as an actor was never fully utilized by any studio(sepiatone) > > True. I imagine it was studio politics (what isn't) that saw Karloff rise while Lugosi was overlooked. > > I find Lugosi very charming, key to his performance as Dracula. > > I was embarrassed for him in his later moviews, but as you said, TikiSoo, he was charming - I also found him handsome, riveting, and very sexy as Dracula. Was his agent to blame? Could an improved diction have helped him? Or was it entirely studio politics?Diction was not his problem. Well....., suffice it to say, that James Whale was Mr. Big, for a time at UNIVERSAL, and we all know that Karloff, a fellow Bristisher, was Whales' boy. So it's not hard to extrapolate the reason for Lugosi being given the shaft or stake. Lugosi, on the other hand, had the sinister, dark kind of look that made him perfect for the type of parts he was given. Whether he could have eventually moved into the kind of roles essayed by a Paul Lukas is a matter of conjecture, but he could have easily moved into the kind of villainous roles played by Conrad Veidt if he would have had a Director that was willing to work with him instead of against him. However, it is important to remember that Veidt rarely starred in anything during the sound era, while LUGOSI, for the most part, had top billing in all his poverty row films. Who is to say who was the more successful or who made the better carreer decisions. Who today has the better name recognition BELA LUGOSI or CONRAD VEIDT? Certainly not Paul Lukas.

I'm glad all you folks are so giddy over the fact that TCM, supposedly a movie channel, is starting to show left overs from PBS, (at first I thought I was watching OVATION or BRAVO), but frankly I thought it STUNK. When the DISH NETWORK listed it as the Johhny Depp BLOOD FEST, I thought "oh crap, this is what TCM has come to". Now, after viewing this drek = excuse for a broadway show, I'm sorry the Depp version was not shown, AT LEAST it's a movie. I don't know, maybe it was missing something like a few pledge breaks. Is this the best that TCM could do for Angela Lansbury? The best thing about Angela in this heap of manure was when she was thrown in the oven. Why not a block of MURDER, SHE WROTE? I'm surprised TCM is not showing the DISNEY cartoon BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, or are they? The DISH NETWORK would probably list JEAN COCTEAU'S film instead. Why do we allow TCM to get away with perpetrating this kind of crap. People want MOVIES, not plays, not documentaries, not left overs from other channels. Because if that's what you all want, then you're not the movie fans you claim to be.

> {quote:title=ThelmaTodd wrote:}{quote} > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi infinite1, > > I think the confusion about *Lugosi's* country of origin could be cleared up by looking at the map above. Following the end of the First World War, the victorious Allies imposed a very punitive territorial settlement called the *Treaty Of Trianon in 1919*. Hungary lost 2/3 of it's territory. Lugosi was born in a town called *Lugos*, not far from the present Hungarian border, but which fell to Romania. You can see above that Romania was quite enriched territorially. (Their piece of the pie also included Translyvania, where a lot of Hungarians lived.). > > I blog extensively on European and Hungarian political and cultural websites. The nationalisms still rage over this treaty and it's consequences, and it has and continues to breed a neo-nazi nationalist right. What fuels the resentment and madness to this very day was the fact that a lot of Hungarians (shown in orange above) were left outside the revised borders for Hungary. (Lugosi's hometown was in one of those orange patches near the corner where Yugoslavia, Hungary and Romania met.) To Romanian nationalists, that territory was never legitimately a part of Hungary. To Hungarian nationalists on the other hand, that lost territory is still Hungary! After a bout of that kind of stuff, the TCM message boards are like a peaceful sanatarium to me where I can rest and recuperate my spirit! > > Edited by: ThelmaTodd on Jan 23, 2012 8:18 PM > > Edited by: ThelmaTodd on Jan 23, 2012 8:23 PM > Hi ThelmaTodd I appreciate your research, but isn't what counts, pardon the pun, where LUGOSI was born in 1882? I don't think LUGOSI was ever confused about his country of origin. He declared himself Hungarian on more then one occasion and all his official BIOGRAPHIES agree with him. My father was born in Bessarabia when it belonged to ROUMANIA, just because it was tossed back and forth between ROUMANIA and RUSSIA does not change the fact that my father was born in ROUMANIA. All I am saying is that TCM or BOB O should have stuck with LUGOSI's official birth country of origin, not create confussion where there really isn't any.

According to my DISH NETWORK DVR I recorded THE KID FROM SPAIN with EDDIE CANTOR. However, when I tried to watch it today I found TEXAS in it's place. The DISH NEWTWORK description still claims it was THE KID FROM SPAIN, but I couldn't find "hide nor hair" of EDDIE CANTOR or SPAIN. What happened? Am I the only one that noticed this?

Just a few comments: I enjoyed TCM's Bela Lugosi Sunday Night Triple Feature immensley. Bob Osborne's comments, not so much. I was shocked when he got the country of Lugosi's birth wrong the first time, but then to compound the error he repeated it throughout the night. Sorry, but that bit of trivia is BASIC BELA 101 that every MONSTER KID, that ever picked up a copy of FOREST ACKERMAN'S FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMDOM mag, would know by heart. He was HUNGARIAN, not ROUMANIAN. I guess Bob was confusing Bela with either the fictional or real DRACULA who WAS native to ROUMANIA. I hope he never makes that mistake with CHRISTOPHER LEE, then I'd start to worry. But, that aside, at least Bela is back on TCM. Maybe this year we'll have a whole day devoted to him during SUTS, in OCTOBER, or both.

I have read reviews of BRIDE which either allude to a GAY or CAMP subtext or outright claim that it is fact. Aside from the facts that James Whale was gay and Pretorious is depicted as rather effeminate I just don't see it. What do you think about this??? Is there any truth to this claim or is it in the eye of the beholder? I don't recall anything of this kind written about FRANKENSTEIN or for that matter any of the other UNIVERSAL HORRORS, if you discount the so called LESBIAN scene in DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, so it appears to be a BRIDE thing.

> {quote:title=smileys wrote:}{quote}Anybody watch PBS lately? They've been running commercials between shows for years. As long as there are no interruptions, it's not the end of the world, people. No, more like the beginning of the end. Say, that sounds like it would be a great title for a movie. Maybe I better have it copyrighted?

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}Universal has announced that it will be offering films from their library via MOD. (Much like the Warner Archive). > > > Universal needs to explore it's options. They can give or donate some of these properties to a not for profit archive. (Tax write off) A non-profit can raise donation money towards restoration. I still think they should also consider selling the collection piecmeal to interested and qualified parties.The problem with that is that non-profits aren't in a position to take over the costs of digitizing and releasing DVDs. Due to the economy, many non-profits are struggling with donations to cover costs for works they are already doing. > > The Film Foundation works with the various studios to help with underwriting restorations. But even with Marty Scorsese out there talking on their behalf and reminding us all how important our cinematic heritage is, the Foundation isn't exactly rolling in dough. Kevin Brownlow, perhaps the preeminent archivist of our time, struggles to raise money to restore films via Photoplay. Each year, non-profits such as UCLA Film Archives and George Eastman House must make choices of which films from their holdings they can restore because there isn't money enough to restore them all. > > Whether its just digitizing films and making them available via MOD or restoring films for the future, it all costs money and as Kevin Brownlow and David Shepard have stated publicly, classic films, especially silents and early talkies, are a very niche market. > > That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done but until we as a society value our cinematic heritage, films will languish on the shelf whether they are in studio vaults or non-profits. Actually, from the UNIVERSAL press releases that I have read, these *restorations* will be offered on blu-ray and be available for sale in retail stores, not via MOD.

It's amazing and laughable now to think back that AMC's mantra, once upon a time, was about respecting our film heritage and film preservation. I think, if I am not mistaken, that AMC was the first to come out touting the praise of letterboxed films and was the first to show the pro letterbox "commercial" with GEORGE COSTANZA that TCM now occassionally shows between films. Man, I used to look forward to AMC'S Movie Palace Memories hosted by BOB DORIAN every Saturday morning that featured Betty Boop Cartoons, Laurel and Hardy shorts, a serial chapter, a Newsreel, and the main feature, more times then not, a classic horror or sci fi film. I saw all the EDDIE CANTOR films for the first time on AMC as well as Jolson's films. AMC used to show THE BRIGHTON STRANGLER, a 1940s thriller from RKO, which TCM supposedly owns, but has never shown (hint, hint). AMC's annual Halloween MONSTERFEST was truly a delight as it showed all the UNIVERSAL CLASSICS complete and uncut as well as all the HAMMER CLASSICS. In some respects the old AMC was, dare I say it, better then TCM, especially for me since COMCAST of central New Jersey did not get it until after AMC morphed into amc, dumped DORIAN and CLOONEY, and turned into a crappy channel.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Ok, it's been at least 3 days since a new complaint thread was launched...how can this be? Time for another one, and I've got just the thing. It's even kind of mean ( I think.) Never before have I ever read such a mean post. I'm shocked, shocked, beyond words. Misswonderly, I'm surprised and dissapointed in you. Oh, and by the way, keep up the good work.

Obviously, unless RO has a twin brother, if he does continue to act as chipper and peppy as he did in his promo, whatever he was out for couldn't have been that serious. So, I welcome him back, no questions asked, and hope he used the time he was out wisely, to either brush up on his knowledge of movie facts, or else find some better qualified people to do the research for him.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}What's not to understand? Jonathan Winters and Don Rickles were known firstly as comedians. Robin Williams first was known as a comedic actor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lemmon and Matthau are poor examples, though. They were actors before taking on so many comedic roles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I get his post. Jerry Lewis was a comedian. After gaining fame as one, he'd sometimes attempt non-comedic performances, usually in tv guest-starring roles. A more recent example of buffoon to thespian is Jim Carrey. > I don't see much difference between the nasty characters that Rickles played in his films and his brand of comedy which also had a nasty zing to it. Winters' one "dramatic" outing, that I know of, was in the Twilight Zone, I always found his performance kind of funny, in a sarcastic kind of way. I don't find Williams to be funny at all so it dosen't matter to me what he's in. The fact that LEWIS has flopped in all his non-comedic performances proves the old adage that "one should stick with what one knows".

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > > I knew Dobbs would deny ever posting that AMC was better than TCM. He's conveniently forgotten. > > Show us a quote, a thread, and a date. > > > > You're not going to deny robbing all those banks, are you? > > I'm not going to go through your 11, 000 posts just to prove you wrong. And anyway, what makes you think that posts from 2006 are still on here. I just know that you were strongly pumping up AMC when you first got here and that it was one of my first of many arguments with you. I would have to agree that from 1994 to 2001 AMC was a much better classic movie channel then TCM. You see, for that period the only classic movie channel that COMCAST of NJ allowed onto their system was AMC. By the time that we were finally given TCM, AMC had already degenerated into amc, so luckily or unluckily I was spared having to make a comparrison. In retrospect however, the old AMC would have been a nice companion channel to TCM as it was also heavily into film preservation and showed rarities from PARAMOUNT, UNIVERSAL, and COLUMBIA that appear to this date to be overlooked by TCM for one reason or another. They also showed RKO and UNITED ARTIST films that I have yet to see aired on TCM. I don't recall if any WARNERS or MGM films popped up on AMC, does anyone remember?

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > > I knew Dobbs would deny ever posting that AMC was better than TCM. He's conveniently forgotten. > > Show us a quote, a thread, and a date. > > > > You're not going to deny robbing all those banks, are you? > > I'm not going to go through your 11, 000 posts just to prove you wrong. And anyway, what makes you think that posts from 2006 are still on here. I just know that you were strongly pumping up AMC when you first got here and that it was one of my first of many arguments with you.I would have to agree that from 1994 to 2001 AMC was a much better classic movie channel then TCM. You see, for that period the only classic movie channel that COMCAST of NJ allowed onto their system was AMC. By the time that we were finally given TCM, AMC had already degenerated into amc, so luckily or unluckily I was spared having to make a comparrison. In retrospect however, the old AMC would have been a nice companion channel to TCM as it was also heavily into film preservation and showed rarities from PARAMOUNT, UNIVERSAL, and COLUMBIA that appear to this date to be overlooked by TCM for one reason or another. They also showed RKO and UNITED ARTIST films that I have yet to see aired on TCM. I don't recall if any WARNERS or MGM films popped up on AMC, does anyone remember?

A frightening thought. What if TCM or TIME WARNER, whomever owns GWTW , have decided to use this as an experiment to determine if classic OLD movies can still survive and thrive on a commercial channel? Isn't this a blatant slap in the face to fans of TCM who want their cherished films shown only without commercial interruption? No doubt this will reap a huge pay day to someone, but by permitting amc to air GWTW, TCM or TW are giving their tacit approval to amc's policy of airing edited films with commercial breaks every five minutes. This is, supposedly, the exact opposite of TCM's policy. Once more the almighty buck wins out over fans of classic movies shown as originally intended.

> {quote:title=FloydDBarber wrote:}{quote}I really like to see comedians in dramatic roles and dramatic actors in comedies. > Jonathan Winters did very well in a Twilight Zone episode, Don Rickles has done a few dramatic roles. Robin Williams is great, when given a good script. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau also were great in almost everything. Any others come to mind? Don't really understand your post. The actors you mention are still basically playing the same characters they have always played. It's just the circumstances around them that have changed, not their characters. John Wayne had appeared in DRAMAS and COMEDIES and still basically played the same heroic character he always played, except for REAP THE WILD WIND where he played a villanous, but still somewhat likable role.

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > BEACH BLANKET BINGO are far from classic, even though the former is a classic comedy film and the later is just plain all around dreadful, and to consider it a classic in any way shape, or form, is a stretch of the imagination that borders on the absurd.I am a great lover of the absurd. It is what makes life interesting. To say: 'this is an absurd movie' means it has value beyond serious reality. To say: 'it is absurd to argue this movie is good' makes me very much wish to argue it because I do not know what other absurd things I may find in forming my argument. > > > That's why there is a rating category called BOMB in Leonard Maltin's annual movies on television bookI feel as if I need to bathe each time I see him on television for I feel I have been exposed to a thing unclean. I believe I would like to see any movie he rates a 'bomb' because I am sure it has many good qualities. > > There are many movies which I do not think are worthy of watching again or of asking others to watch at all. There are many movies which I feel have no redeeming social values or have no entertainment value. Some of these movies are called classics by others. I would be interested to know which films you deem as unworthy since it appears that those would probably be the kinds of films that are universally regarded as classics by "others". But, I think you are either being absurd here or trying to be absurd, which of course is only my opinion, based on the factual absurdity of your response. But, I'll tell you what, if and when you rate the kind of recognition Leonard Maltin has achieved in the industry and endeavor to publish an annual book with your "interesting" opinions of what constitutes a classic film I will purchase and read it. Though, the act of buying it may, in and of itself, render me absurd, and I may feel afterwards the need to, as you say, "bathe each time" I pick it up.

Let's see, there were a few of classic television shows that involved ships of some kind, GILLIGANs' ISLAND 64-67 comes to mind, MR. ROBERTS which ran from 1965 to 1966, and THE LOVE BOAT that ran from 1977 - 1986. TCM likes to include TV episodes, why not pull a few from these shows as well?