infinite1
-
Posts
855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by infinite1
-
-
I guess when I say Thanksgiving Day themed, I mean movies that used to be annual staples on Thanksgiving. Movies like
KING KONG
SON OF KONG
MIGHTY JOE YOUNG
MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS
THE SINBAD FILMS
THIEF OF BAGHDAD
etc.
-
> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote}
> I hope you're not suggesting...heaven forbid...
>
> ...I need a moment to take a deep breath...
>
> I honestly hope you are not saying that anti-semitic (Christian) films are okay, because Jews are in the minority and most Christians will bolster these films at the box office. Or that you are saying it's okay to have a pro-Aryan film cuz those n-words have ROOTS.
>
> Please do not let that be what you are saying. LOL
No, I'm not saying that they are ok. I was just responding to your post. You said that these type of films would never be made in todays' day and age, from a business perspective, if they offended a large segment of the viewing public. I am saying that they will always be made, irrespective of any real or perceived offense as long as long as there is a large enough audience for them that outweighs the amount of offended VOICES.
-
Just noticed, there isn't one THANKSGIVING DAY themed movie listed on the 25th. Dosen't TCM usually show PLYMOUTH ADVENTURE on this day as well as other family oriented films? It seems pretty much like any other day on TCM. Am I the only one who noticed this?
-
> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote}
> I don't think it's a classic. I think it's a historical document on how not to make a film.
>
> A film like this would not be made today (politics aside), because it is reckless with demographics. You cannot market something to the widest consumer audience if you offend an entire race. So from a business standpoint, this type of film is a no-no.
I think you're wrong. ROOTS and ROOTS THE NEXT GENERATION were both made in the 70s and as I recall there was no major expression of offense made by White people. More recently, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST did not generate that much resentment by Jews even though parts of it were offensive to Jews. And I didn't hear much resentment from African Americans regarding the films BAMBOOZLED and C.S.A.: CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, even though both films were offensive. I don't know how the last two films did at the Box Office, but as I recall, PASSION was VERY SUCCESSFUL and ditto for the two ROOTS mini series.
-
> {quote:title=gagman66 wrote:}{quote}
> infinite1.
>
> The two Stan and Ollie compilations LAUGHING 20's is from 1965, and FUTHUR PERILS was 1967. 4 CLOWNS wasn't released until 1970 or '71.
ok, so there were 7 compilations, 8 if you count MGM's BIG PARADE OF COMEDY.
-
> {quote:title=gagman66 wrote:}{quote}
> I thought this compilation was from 1959. My favorite Youngson is probably 1970's FOUR CLOWNS. His final compilation, and maybe the best.
>
> Besides WHEN COMEDY WAS KING, TCM has aired THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY a few times, but I would like to see DAYS OF THRILLS and LAUGHTER. and THIRTY YEARS OF FUN. I haven't seen the former since the very early 80's, and have never seen the latter at all.
>
> And yes the boys did destroy the wrong house! Whoops!
I think there were two others post FOUR CLOWNS, LAUREL AND HARDY'S LAUGHING TWENTIES and THE FURTHER PERILS OF LAUREL AND HARDY.
-
Question:
In any given month, what is the percentage, on TCM, of movies aired that are on Home Video, ie. DVD, VHS, LASER vs. movies that have yet to join the HOME VIDEO ranks? If I had to hazzard a guess I would say that the former outweighs the later. Not that I have a problem with classics that are on DVD or VHS being shown on TCM, but I would like to see MORE attention to CLASSIC FILMS that are not already available in handsome DVD boxed sets. My DVR is aching to record something I don't own.
-
> {quote:title=Scottman wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}
> > > {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}
> > > I'm comfortable calling it a 1925 film.
> >
> > You can call it anything. You can even call the 1925 film a 1923 film since it was shot in 23 and shelved for two years, but since the norm is to go by release date it makes more sense to label the film shown on TCM a 1929 film since it was first released in *1929*.
>
> So based on that standard, would the 1931 reissue of THE BIG PARADE, that now included a recorded music score and sound effects make it a 1931 film? If TCM were to present that version, would RO be in error to call it a 1925 film?
YES
-
How about looking at everything else, but the road, when you are driving that car and not have an accident?
-
> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}
> I'm comfortable calling it a 1925 film.
You can call it anything. You can even call the 1925 film a 1923 film since it was shot in 23 and shelved for two years, but since the norm is to go by release date it makes more sense to label the film shown on TCM a 1929 film since it was first released in *1929*.
-
> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}
> > As I stated previously in the thread and will gladly repeat, his reputation is on the line with every syllable that he reads off the Teleprompter. Until he combs through everything before the cameras start rolling (and I don't mean scanning or quickly pre-reading), he is bound to keep making errors and viewers will cry foul.
> >
> > The integrity of these hosts, not just R.O. but all of them, is on the line the minute they spout something into the camera. They get paid too much to glide by without being 110% accurate.
>
> Then I would have to deduce from the above statement that you hold everyone to the same standard, right? The same could be said of network newsmen, commentators, anyone really, right?
RIGHT!
>
> The only viewers who seem to be crying foul are people like you and a few others here on this thread. And to me that is a shame. Instead of appreciating RO's unbridled enthusiasm and passion of the movies you and others like you continue to bash the poor guy.
You and other viewers on this thread are taking this entirely too personal. This is not politics or news analysis, this is FILM HISTORY. What is wrong with a FILM HISTORIAN, who has "unbridled enthusiasm and passion of the movies" he speaks about, sharing ACCURATE information with his viewers? Why is that a sin? If you and others don't care about facts and prefer to live in denial that's your affair, but just maybe there are other folks that ARE interested. If this is too much effort for RO or Silent Films are not his forte, then perhaps TCM needs to enlist FILM HISTORIANS who can.
>
> Whether you like it or not RO *IS* the face of TCM now and for the foreseeable future. And he has way many more fans than detractors.
Again, it's not a question of fans or detractors, it's a matter of integrity of the station. And since we watch it, we have a RIGHT to comment on ANYTHING related to it.
>
> You want a character debate? Why not stick with us peons on this board.... RO is way out of your league.
That is just plain ridiculous.
-
> {quote:title=RayFaiola wrote:}{quote}
> Thanks, lzcutter, for the kind words. Much of this is semantics as to how one views an alternate release version of the film. But I do think viewers could cut a bit of slack to hosts when introducing these films. Even though Robert Osborne is a longtime professional enthusiast, I'm sure he is partly dependent on researchers and copy writers.
*The fact of the matter is that there is a tag at the begining of the film by Kevin Brownlow - "A Restoration of the *1929 reissue*". This is labeled as *a 1929 film* so semantics is not even an issue. The issue is FILM HISTORIANS, not "professional enthusiast's" who, for one reason or another, refuse to acknowledge simple facts even when they are right in front of their eyes, and who instead rely on subordinates to provide them with "facts". Now, I wouldn't care so much if this was Zacherley or Elvira doing the intros on WPIX's CHILLER THEATRE, but this is TCM and ROBERT OSBORNE. I presume that you consider RO to be a cut above the ordinary HALLOWEEN film host?*
>
> As I've mentioned before, AMC used to have some of their research supplied by a fellow who combed movie pressbooks for facts. A dubious source if ever there was one. I think the staff at TCM is leagues above that kind of "efforting" (curse CNN for coining that annoying phrase) and, for the most part, they do a superb job of putting into context the films that are shown to an extremely large and diverse audience. There will always be missteps and pitfalls to be picked up and picked apart by devoted fans who see their fandom as an avocation.
I'm sorry you consider this nitpicking, but Apologists who continually let people slide because they are NICE only serve the cause of misinformation and confusion that is so prevalent in today's society. Just as it would behoove Mr. O to get his facts straight, it would behoove knowledgeable folks like you to demand perfection from a station that you appear to love. Unless you just don't care, but you must, else you wouldn't be the expert you are.
-
> {quote:title=gagman66 wrote:}{quote}
> The problem is that only the dramatically altered 1929 sound-re-issue survives in 35 Millimeter. Thus that is the material that the Photoplay Productions edition is based upon. The much different 1925 original cut of the film exists solely in poorly struck and preserved 16 millimeter Show At Home prints, and has never been restored. How I wish that a 35 Millimeter Nitrate print of the film in it's 1925 form would show up in the Russian Gosfilmofond archive collection.
The 1925 PHANTOM that was used for the MILESTONE set was good enough for me and should be good enough for TCM, considering that they have shown silents in the past that suffer from marked film deterioration. They have even screened LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT in it's poorly "recontructed" format from stills and label it a silent film. The 1925 PHANTOM is head and sholders above that abomination.
-
> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}
> I wouldn't say that RO got it wrong. You have to remember, he doesn't really have the film playing between when he films the opening and closing remarks. So he can't tell if it is 1925 or 1929. And, usually, I believe, he doesn't write all the intros and outros.
Well he did get it wrong, even though what you say may very well be true, it is no excuse for sloppiness. One of TCM's main selling points is that they have ROBERT OSBORNE a bonified FILM HISTORIAN, as opposed to an actor pretending to be a film historian ala BOB DORIAN of the old AMC, hawking their films. If I had to hazzard a guess, I would suppose that Mr. O is very proud of his FILM HISTORIAN designation. Therefore it would behoove Mr. O to actually read some of his intros and closings before hand and check on the veracity of what he is about to read. The fact of the matter is that a FILM HISTORIAN should know what he is talking about and not just rely on underlings to provide background info. I believe Mr. O, a few years ago, even hawked the MILESTONE ULTIMATE PHANTOM DVD set, so this not new information for him to digest. That is why, at least to me, I find it rather dissapointing that he would not take the time to identify which version of the film this is and include it in his Phantom opening or closing remarks. It's just going the "extra mile" to not only show that he knows his stuff, but also educate some souls out there who honestly believe they are watching the PHANTOM that was released in 1925, not the 29 reissue.
-
Robert Osborne needs to take a crash course in his Phantom of the Opera lore. I watched Phantom last night and listened to RO's intro and closing remarks. He consistently refered to this film as the 1925 Phantom although it was not. It was the 1929 REISSUE of Phantom which was refilmed for a sound track that no longer exists. Anyone who is familiar with Phantom would know that there is a marked difference between the two versions and they should not be confused. Even the NOW PLAYING guide got it wrong, listing it with a 1925 release date. I am dissapointed in Mr. Osborne and expect accuracy from someone who is a FILM HISTORIAN.
-
I'd like to see the complete EAST SIDE KIDS series next.
-
> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote}
> Another question to ask: let's say the original film in a franchise is a classic, like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, does that necessarily mean that all its sequels are classics, too? Probably not. If we look at the ROCKY series, we can see that several of the follow-ups performed very well at the box office (or else they would not have continued making them), but most of the sequels lack the magic of the original, which was a best picture Oscar winner.
It appears that you are very loose with the term "CLASSIC". Of course you are entitled to your OPINION, but an OPINION does not make it a FACT. RAIDERS was a fun action picture, but not a CLASSIC, far from it.
-
> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote}
> What films do you think are modern classics? (Definition of 'modern' would be post-production code.) I think these films are already classics, for a variety of reasons:
You are welcome to your "classics". Please look for them on another channel, preferably amc, which is where they belong. TCM stands for REAL CLASSICS = OLD B+W MOVIES pre-production code.
While I will tolerate some movies from the late 60s through the early 80s, they are hardly classics. Movies from the 90s up forget it. DON'T POLLUTE TCM WITH THAT DRIVEL.
-
> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}
> I know I'm repeating myself:
> "...I find that all these shorts, featurettes, testimonials, vintage movie trailers, "This Month News", and even the "ads" for tcm are all part of the Turner Classic Movie experience, and I like them very much.
> Do others feel the same way? "
>
> How do you TCM fans feel about the extras mentioned above?
I also enjoy the "extras" however, my only gripe is that TCM fails to promote their extras by listing them in their NOW PLAYING GUIDE. Perhaps if TCM would wake up and promote their "extras" as much as their main features there would be more fans. As it is, TCM treats them as "extras" that are somewhat less important then the movies and therefore relegates them to the status of commercials that those without the luxury of a DVR most probably use for snack or bathroom time.
-
Bela Lugosi used his accent and voice to great effect in the genre he excelled in. His Hungarian accent coupled with his deep resonant voice added much to his characterization of DRACULA as well as the other sinister roles that he is noted for.
-
I'd like to see one, this month, for Bela Lugosi, done by Martin Landau while aping Lugosi's distinctive voice.
-
> {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=RayFaiola wrote:}{quote}
> > Yeah, I can't imagine after the earth-shattering sales of THE MAD DOCTOR OF MARKET STREET and THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. RX that Big U isn' t ready to go back to the B hive!!
> >
> > I guess the Paula the Ape Woman films are all that's left of the horror canon. Maybe the Crime Club Mysteries?
> >
> > I'd like to see Universal release their Dead End Kid / Little Tough Guys pictures, especially the excellent CODE OF THE STREETS.
>
> Following is a list of the missing Universal Horror/Mystery films and a list of the Universal owned Paramount Horrors:
>
> UNIVERSALS:
>
> Never released on OFFICIAL home video
>
> THE CAT CREEPS (1930) lost
> THE SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM
> EAST OF BORNEO
> THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD
> SECRET OF THE CHATEAU
> LIFE RETURNS
> FLESH AND FANTASY
> THE HOUSE OF FEAR
> THE MISSING GUEST
> THE BLACK DOLL
> NIGHT LIFE OF THE GODS
> THE GREAT IMPERSONATION
> MURDER IN THE BLUE ROOM
> THE SPIDER WOMAN STRIKES BACK
> THE CAT CREEPS (1946)
>
> Released on VHS only
>
> THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD
> GREAT EXPECTATIONS
> JUNGLE WOMAN
> JUNGLE CAPTIVE
> HOUSE OF THE SEVEN GABLES
> THE THING THAT COULDN'T DIE
> CURSE OF THE UNDEAD
>
> PARAMOUNTS:
>
> Never released on home video
>
> MURDER BY THE CLOCK
> TERROR ABOARD
> DOUBLE DOOR
> MENACE
> THE WITCHING HOUR
> AMONG THE LIVING
> THE MAD DOCTOR
> THE MAN IN HALF MOON STREET
> THE UNSEEN
>
> Released on VHS only
>
> ISLAND OF LOST SOULS
> SUPERNATURAL
> THE MONSTER AND THE GIRL
> THE UNINVITED
>
> As you can see there are more then enough films for another seven CULT HORROR COLLECTION follow up sets, at least.
One more UNIVERSAL never released on Official home video
THE MYSTERY OF MARIE ROGET
-
> {quote:title=RayFaiola wrote:}{quote}
> Yeah, I can't imagine after the earth-shattering sales of THE MAD DOCTOR OF MARKET STREET and THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. RX that Big U isn' t ready to go back to the B hive!!
>
> I guess the Paula the Ape Woman films are all that's left of the horror canon. Maybe the Crime Club Mysteries?
>
> I'd like to see Universal release their Dead End Kid / Little Tough Guys pictures, especially the excellent CODE OF THE STREETS.
Following is a list of the missing Universal Horror/Mystery films and a list of the Universal owned Paramount Horrors:
UNIVERSALS:
Never released on OFFICIAL home video
THE CAT CREEPS (1930) lost
THE SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM
EAST OF BORNEO
THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD
SECRET OF THE CHATEAU
LIFE RETURNS
FLESH AND FANTASY
THE HOUSE OF FEAR
THE MISSING GUEST
THE BLACK DOLL
NIGHT LIFE OF THE GODS
THE GREAT IMPERSONATION
MURDER IN THE BLUE ROOM
THE SPIDER WOMAN STRIKES BACK
THE CAT CREEPS (1946)
Released on VHS only
THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD
GREAT EXPECTATIONS
JUNGLE WOMAN
JUNGLE CAPTIVE
HOUSE OF THE SEVEN GABLES
THE THING THAT COULDN'T DIE
CURSE OF THE UNDEAD
PARAMOUNTS:
Never released on home video
MURDER BY THE CLOCK
TERROR ABOARD
DOUBLE DOOR
MENACE
THE WITCHING HOUR
AMONG THE LIVING
THE MAD DOCTOR
THE MAN IN HALF MOON STREET
THE UNSEEN
Released on VHS only
ISLAND OF LOST SOULS
SUPERNATURAL
THE MONSTER AND THE GIRL
THE UNINVITED
As you can see there are more then enough films for another seven CULT HORROR COLLECTION follow up sets, at least.
-
Any news from TCM on whether or not there will be a sequel to last years' UNIVERSAL CULT HORRORS COLLECTION? There has been some speculation over on the CLASSIC HORROR FILM BOARD generated by TOM WEAVER, as to the liklihood of just such a set. Tom promissed us that something genre related, and BIG, will be released by October 31st. I just wanted to know, from the horses mouth, so to speak, if this is what Tom is referring to. He claims to have been "sworn to secrecy".
Watched PHANTOM OF THE OPERA last night, Robert Osborne got it wrong again.
in Hot Topics
Posted
> {quote:title=spdavies wrote:}{quote}
> As an impartial observer of this ridiculous discussion, I agree with the person who pointed out that this is an entertainment network, *not an academic class*. RO introduces hundreds if not thousands of films - it would be a miracle if there were not occasional errors in the details. He may have worked in film history in his life and therefore is more knowledgeable than most but it doesn't (and shouldn't be expected to) make him infallible as the HOST of an ENTERTAINMENT network. The whole critical tirade just seems petty and mean-spirited. Infinite1 seems to be a rather unpleasant and critical person with obsessive compulsive tendencies and way too much time on his hands.
> And sorry if I'm too blunt but though I don't know the man personally, I do like RO and enjoy his work and feel offended by pointless and petty carping by the likes of some of the "fans" on this site.
WOW, someone needs to take a "time out". All I did was make a point about a film that I love. I assumed, maybe incorrectly, that RO loves Lon Chaney, and PHANTOM, and would include in his intro or closing a remark about this film being the 1929 reissue. Not Rocket Science by any stretch of the imagination and no big deal for a FILM HISTORIAN. But I guess that's too "unpleasant and critical" and suggests a "petty, mean-spirited person with obsessive compulsive tendencies with way too much time on his hands". I'm really sorry I offended you. I'm really quite loveable and I wouldn't harm a Fly. Why, I would never make the mistake of confusing TCM with an academic class, the mere suggestion is ridiculous. But, however entertaining the station is or isn't is not the issue, because I agree it is extremely entertaining. My impression of the station is that TCM does take pride in itself and does not consider itself on the same level with other ENTERTAINMENT STATIONS. TCM, in my estimation, is on a higher plane or playing field, then SHOWTIME, HBO, or USA to name a few, and I think you would agree. And while TCM is not an academic class they did hire an Academic to do the intros and closings. If film education was not one of TCM's goals I suppose they could have hired Alec Baldwin or Pee Wee Herman to be their full time host and do a little song and dance act as part of the Intros. Nevertheless, I'm SO sorry you find me unpleasant, just because I criticized TCM or RO, and thanks for the Armchair Psychoanalysis, I found it very entertaining coming from someone that claims to be an impartial observer on a message board. But, I guess you are no longer an impartial observer since you have taken a side in such a "ridiculous discussion". You are now part of that "ridiculous discussion" and that makes you just as ridiculous as you perceive me to be. ANYWAY, KNOW THAT I LOVE TCM, AND WILL CONTINUE TO POINT OUT ERRORS IF AND WHEN THEY CONTINUE TO BE MADE, AS LONG AS I CATCH THEM.