infinite1
-
Posts
855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by infinite1
-
-
Too bad they never used Jerry Lewis as a villain in one of the Matt Helm films. That would have been as funny as hell, right up there with Woody Allen in Casino Royale. Imagine him as some power mad shlep yelling HEY LAAAADEEEE, trying to romance Ann Margret or Stella Stevens, and getting a disapproving look from Matt Helm (Dean), before he shoots him.
-
Surprised no one mentioned THE BIBLE: IN THE BEGINNING (1966). It had a segment on the first and greatest GARDEN, the Garden of Eden.
A few more fantasy films with gardens:
LA BELLE ET LA BETE (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST) 1946. When an old man plucks a rose from the beasts' garden he is captured by the beast, but let go on the condition that he brings one of his daughters to take his place.
HANSEL AND GRETEL 1954. Stop-action animation and hand-scuplted dolls created a fantasy land combining elements of the classic fairy tale and Englebert Humperdink's 1892 opera. Who can forget the Witch's garden of GINGERBREAD CHILDREN?
THE SCREAMING SKULL 1958. Gardens abound in this horror film. There is the ghost of the murdered first wife that still tends her gardens and the estate's mentally challenged gardener that loyally keeps her skull hidden in the garden and becomes a suspect in a plot to drive the husbands' new wife insane.
-
I enjoyed both films and found them to be good entertaining westerns. Not as action packed as some, but more then made up for by the acting. Let's face it, if JESSE wasn't any good would there have been a sequel? How many A pictures had sequels? Sequels were the province of B pictures and series films.
Also, don't forget Jesse and Frank, at least how this film was presented, were walking a very thin line between being heroes and badguys. There couldn't be too much shoot-em up action without alot of innocent people being killed and the movie was trying to paint Jesse and Frank in a sympathetic light, that they were victims of circumstances, rather then ruthless outlaws out for greed and possessed of a killing bent.
If you really want to talk about boring films how about a film like HIGH NOON which has put me to sleep on numerous occassions and is listed as an essential. The only shooting in that film is at the end and by that time who gives a damn, not me.
-
> {quote:title=whistlingypsy wrote:}{quote}I suspect most "costume" or "period" films depicting the lives of the English feature gardens in some form (English landscaped gardens reached an apex under Capability Brown). A few titles that come to mind, in addition to every version of Jane Austen's novels: *The Divine Lady* (1929) with Corinne Griffith as Emma Hamilton and *Tom Jones* (1963) with Albert Finney as the title character, both of which have scenes set in Vauxhall Gardens. *A Room With A View* (1985) in which the Honeychurch family enjoys a game of tennis (not to mention the more provocative scenes in the woods and an Italian hillside); *Orlando* (1992), which features a maze garden as the location of the title character's "re-genderization" (if I may use the word).
Speaking of maze gardens, here are a few more films that feature maze gardens:
THE SHINING 1980
A CHUMP AT OXFORD 1940 - Upon Laurel and Hardy's arrival at Oxford, the upperclassmen, headed by Peter Cushing, playfully trick the boys into getting lost in the garden maze on the college grounds.
-
Here are a few more garden films:
DEATH IN THE GARDEN 1956 - Simone Signoret, Georges Marchal
THE CHALK GARDEN 1964 - Deborah Kerr, Haley Mills
and for horror film enthusiasts:
WEREWOLF OF LONDON 1935 - Henry Hull, Valerie Hobson, and Warner Oland - Hull, the protagonist and werewolf of the title is a Botonist by trade and hobby, that has an indoor garden in his laboratory as well as other gardens filled with rare plants from all over the world, some of which are carnivorous.
-
> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Posts collide !
>
> *I prefer to think of it as "great minds think alike".*
>
> What are the odds we'd both be thinking of the same kind of garden films at the same time? Of course I had not yet read your comments when I posted mine just now.
Nor, did I read yours when I posted mine. Perchance it was the will of Allah?
-
misswonderly, here is another garden film
THE GARDEN OF ALLAH 1936 with Marlene Dietrich, Charles Boyer, and Basil Rathbone
And one where a garden is used to good effect to begin the love story in
THE THIEF OF BAGDAD 1940, the scene where John Justin reveals himself to June Duprez takes place in her garden when she looks into a pool of water, sees Justin's reflection from the tree he is hiding in and mistakes him for a genie.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> > Has anyone catalogued what exactly was lost to posterity as a result of this fire and what is left? Is there a published list of both?
> Universal has not been very forthcoming on what was lost in the fire. They have said that the film prints and video masters that were lost or damaged beyond repair (water damage is not good for either), that the film negatives were not stored in the same facility so those films can be reprinted or remastered. This has been also verified by film preservationists working in Los Angeles.
>
> The master sound recordings, many of them on acetate, were original copies and many of those were the only copies and not replaceable.
"Fortunately, nothing irreplaceable was lost," Meyer said. "The video library was affected and damaged, but our main vault of our motion picture negatives was not."
According to Ron Meyer, chief operating officer of Universal Studios.
If the above is true then the deal should have still gone thru with TCM, right?
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}Universal film warehouse fire, 2008:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hmmmm, some of these firemen look pretty darn happy. Wonder if they got any "souveniers" out of the deal like the "lost" CAT CREEPS from 1930, the silent version of 1931's DRACULA, and/or a 35mm version of 1925's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA??????
Has anyone catalogued what exactly was lost to posterity as a result of this fire and what is left? Is there a published list of both?
-
Here's a few:
THE GARDEN OF THE FINZI-CONTINIS 1970
BROTHER ORCHID 1940
IT'S A GIFT 1934 Does an ORANGE GROVE count?
A WALK IN THE CLOUDS 1995 How about a VINEYARD?
-
> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote}
> > infinte1:
> > I do hold TCM to a higher standard than other channels because I have a higher regard for TCM then I have for other channels. But, this is really the fault of TCM who sells itself as the VANGUARD of classic cinema, the premiere advocate of film preservation, and the all-around lovers and caretakers of classic film. If asking for an apology is too much to expect from such a channel as I have described, then feel free to damn me. Maybe, I have listened to their hype too well, I actually believe all of the above. Are you telling me I shouldn't, that they are on the same level as any other station and so I shouldn't expect any better service from them then I can find on commercial TV?You ascribe to TCM exaggerated claims. As a result, you hold it to an unrealistic standard. Compared to the wealth of programming provided, the shortcomings you present are minor. If TCM only played the movies it does in its regular lineup, it would more than abundantly justify its existence. But it does much more. It letterboxes movies. The bookending of films by Ben Mankiewicz and Robert Osborne, and the other hosts, flawed as they can be, as often as not provide interesting information. The silent and international film series, debated as they are, bring many rarely seen films--to American audiences at least. Through it's composer competition it has rescored many silent films. TCM has worked to bring to light films that have long been tied up with contested copyright. It has brought to its audience long forgotten programmers American studios had to produce for the British market, many with rare work by well known talent, Michael Powell among them. It has produced a series of spotlights on how different groups have been treated in film, including, African Americans, Latinos, Homosexuals, and Arabs. It has produced many other spotlights focusing on, among others: Bernard Herrmann, John Ford, films restored by the American Film Institute, William Wellman, Chuck Jones, Hal Roach, Buster Keaton. All of these bringing at least a few, if not dozens of rare examples of their work. It has produced many interviews with actors, directors and producers, both entertaining and insightful.
>
>
> I know I've only touched on a few of the things TCM has done, and maybe others can recall more, but I hope it gives some perspective. What I think can help is of we get a better idea of the process by which TCM gets its films, whether from distributors, or studios, or both. A lot of discussion centers around the quality of prints (if the term print can still be used) it gets. Can TCM audit prints in advance and request alternates? seek prints of the same movie from different sources?
I am well aware of all the good that TCM has done and would never belittle any of their accomplishments. But, this is not about their accomplishments, of which there are many to be sure, it is about a specific post which was purported to cover 10 specific questions. My contention is that number 3, and perhaps some or all of the others were not answered completely. You claim that I am ascribing to TCM "exagerated claims". The fact that those claims originate from TCM is lost on you. But, are you seriously challenging any of the claims that I included in my post above? Your post gives credence to those "exagerated claims" because no other channel, commercial or pay, operates on as high a standard as TCM. That is why any deviation from that standard is a cause for concern for some of us. Especially, deviations that are not corrected. To a large segment of TCM's base, the concern we have for the poor condition of some of the films that TCM shows are not "minor shortcommings". Since the showing of classic films is TCM's "bread and butter" we feel that it is a major concern when they fail to deliver a product that does not live up to our expectations. And, when there is no explanation and no apology, that only leaves room for speculation. And natuarally, we speculate that TCM does not give a damn. What are we to think? They don't confirm or deny any of the excuses that are given in this thread. They pretend the problems never existed. That's one way to rewrite history, ignore it. As to the real solution, whatever it is, that is TCM's responsibility to find one. It is their business and it is not for you or I to teach them how to do their jobs, only rate their performance.
-
> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}*"I'm sure I could find other relating issues ..."*
>
> Oh no doubt. Because you've definietly got issues.
>
> Bottom line, you have already expressed your belief that any response or answer given will not be truthful. So why anyone should bother to reply to you at all is a mystery.
C'mon Kyle, that's beneath you. Surely, you can do better then that. ( crickets chirping ) No, I guess you can't.
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}
> I think very highly of TCM but creating multiple threads isn't going to motivate TCM. They got your e-mails (and I'm sure many e-mail from other Durbin fans). Like when any star dies (or on their birthday, another common complaint thread), TCM is very aware fans of these stars would like TCM to do a tribute. My point simpley was that multiple thread have no impact (other than to provide needless clutter).
>
>
> As for access to Durbin films and material. Are you not aware that TCM has difficultly getting access to Universal films? The issue has been discussed at this forum many times (e.g. by horror fans that wish TCM would show more Universal horror films). It is Universal that is the hold-up, not TCM for lack of effort. So the recommendation to those horror fans as well as Durbin fans is write to Universal.
>
Of course, if you believe Robert Osborne, there is that deal with UNIVERSAL that he spoke of a few years ago, during TCM's 15th Anniversary to be exact, in the pages of FILMS OF THE GOLDEN AGE. But, of course a prerequisite is that one has to first believe Robert Osborne. Who does?????
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> > he only time I do, is when someone attempts to give TCM a free pass, makes a lame excuse, or claims, as with this thread, that all questions have been answered
> I did not claim nor did I post anywhere in this thread that the article I provided the link to answered all the questions that posters have ever had here.
>
> The title of the thread (and the article) is *10 Things to Know About TCM* not Every Question Ever Answered.
>
> I did say in my original post: "He gets answers to these questions (and more) that many here have asked or been skeptical of when others have posted similar responses" but that is not the same as claiming the article answers every question ever posted here.
>
> Another posters (SanFin) wrote: "I believe that most of the common complaints which are oft repeated on this board are addressed."
>
> But I could not find a post in this thread that says "that all questions have been answered"
To the extent that the questions I raised were not answered or even addressed in number 3, even though they are of major concern to TCM VIEWERS when they arise means that number 3 was an incomplete answer. If I was to dig into the other 9 I'm sure I could find other relating issues left unsaid, for one reason or another. So, therefore, the premise of 10 things to know about TCM is inherently flawed and the answers incomplete because there were only 10 partial answers. Think of it as an essay test. You are only given partial credit if you do not answer every facet of the question. Of course, there may have been answers to questions that were not reported in Mckinley's post. We may have been given the Reader's Digest condensed version. That, I do not know.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> > Why TCM does not screen problem films well before they air them to determine if they are still edited versions?
> Perhaps because in the digital age we live in, the files arrive at the last minute and such screening as was possible years ago, no longer is. TCM does not exist in a vacuum but in a modern age where they would love to be able to do more but, they are like other businesses, trying to do all they can do with the staff and budget they have.
>
> > Why are there no on air apologies to viewers who have waited for particular films only to find they are cut, have chopped off endings, or are different from the films that are being discussed by the hosts?Probably because the wrap-arounds of films are filmed anywhere from 30 to 90 days ahead of broadcast. TCM requests films from the studios or distributors but they don't always receive the version they have requested. Sometimes, they receive an edited version.
>
> TCM may not have taken delivery of the films that Robert O, Ben M or other hosts are talking about when the wrap arounds are filmed.
>
> As for chopped off endings, TCM broadcasts off of digital servers and the information that the digital servers operate from are based on information input by people who have the best intentions but make mistakes. Sometimes, humans mis-type information into databases and that misinformation has a ripple effect.
>
> That ripple effect can cause problems with the broadcast of *Gandhi* (which happened a two years ago), can cause a car commercial to air on TCM though it never should have, can cause a film to abruptly end before the actual ending.
>
> There is no fool-proof technology even in this digital age and until humans learn to not invert numbers into a database, mistakes will happen. It happens on paid cable channels, tiered cable and basic cable and to hold TCM to a higher standard than other channels is unrealistic.
>
> As long as humans are inputting the database information there is no 100% guarantee that mistakes won't happen whether you are TCM or Showtime or NBC or FX or any other broadcast channel.
I do hold TCM to a higher standard than other channels because I have a higher regard for TCM then I have for other channels. But, this is really the fault of TCM who sells itself as the VANGUARD of classic cinema, the premiere advocate of film preservation, and the all-around lovers and caretakers of classic film. If asking for an apology is too much to expect from such a channel as I have described, then feel free to damn me. Maybe, I have listened to their hype too well, I actually believe all of the above. Are you telling me I shouldn't, that they are on the same level as any other station and so I shouldn't expect any better service from them then I can find on commercial TV?
-
> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}Yet you do not take other steps to find out the answers you imply TCM is avoiding. You've never stated whether you've tried to contact them via e-mail or snail mail. No, you might actually get answers and then have no reason for further complaint.
>
> I guess it's easier to sit on your can and rage against the machine than be proactive and find out for yourself. And then insult those who are gracious enough to try to unsuccessfully, in your opinion, are trying to answer your questions.
>
> I'll butt out now.
We were just told in this thread that they do read comments on these boards. Now you are saying they only read private emails or snail mail. Interesting. Also, I assumed that these are issues that interest others as well as myself since there are other posters that complain about similar problems on other threads. The fact that you and a few others don't care what is shown and in what condition it's shown, is no concern of mine. Also, there is no possible way that you can know one way or another if I have gone the routes you suggest. If you do have a secret way of knowing, please share that knowledge with us as I am sure that would make for an interesting topic in and of itself.
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}I guess you really believe TCM's staff has some hidden evil agenda as it relates to showing what you call 'problem films'. As I have said before I also wish TCM would explain in the intro that there are multiple versions and which one they are showing and why, but I see no need for any apology. I find it silly that anyone would think TCM did something wrong because they didn't shown the version that person expected.
>
> PS: You must have the time to waste on this topic since you bring it up very often at this forum.
Actually I do not bring it up as often as I used to. The only time I do, is when someone attempts to give TCM a free pass, makes a lame excuse, or claims, as with this thread, that all questions have been answered to prove how unfounded are concerns are. I am just reminding one and all that not every question or problem has been addressed.
But, as to your point regarding apologies. That is just something called "good customer service" as opposed to no apology and no attempt to fix the problem. That is what's known as "poor customer service". I expect TCM to WANT to show the best version available and to make every effort to show the best version possible. When they can't get the best version they have an obligation to let us know they can't. They have a reputation as well as a brand to live up to. An "it's too hard to fix the problem" response is a lame excuse that wouldn't fly in grade school, much less at a job. That smacks of laziness, a form of bad behavior. An "I don't care attitude" on our part just reinforces that bad behavior.
-
> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}*"1. It depends on the audience listening to the answers. You can fool some of the people some of the time and the other half you can fool all of the time. I prefer to count myself in the former category instead of the later one."*
>
> That presupposes that you are going to be lied to no matter what the question. TCM has nothing to lie about or dissemble to their audience.
>
> *"2. It depends on the questions being asked, in other words how the questions are framed. That is why lie detector tests are oft times thrown out of court, because a clever administrator of the test can frame questions to get answers that lean towards one direction or another."*
>
> Again with this "lie detector" attitude. See reply above.
>
> *"3. Question and answer sessions like the ones reported in this post are not sporadic. Questions are submitted at some earlier date, they are reviewed and the ones deemed "safe" are chosen, manipulated, and the answers are the standard pat answers that allow no follow ups, or challenges..."*
>
> Not true. Having attended these gatherings in the past, I can say with certainty no questions from the audience were pre-selected or pre-screened. Iknow this won't stop you frombelieving what you wish to believe. But your ideas are not found in the truth.
Fine. Then please elucidate as to what TCM's response was to the following questions:
Why TCM does not screen problem films well before they air them to determine if they are still edited versions?
Why are there no on air apologies to viewers who have waited for particular films only to find they are cut, have chopped off endings, or are different from the films that are being discussed by the hosts?
Don't tell me that these questions and others that have been the topic of so many threads were not on the minds of any one in this so called give and take. And don't suggest that I attend one of these love fests and ask them myself. I have neither the time nor the money to waste.
-
> {quote:title=Fedya wrote:}{quote}
> > I read the whole post and was not impressed. It's as simple as that. Why do I care? Because nothing I am concerned about was answered.
> They were answered; it's just that you don't like the answers. So your reaction to that seems to be, "That can't be true because it's not what I believe!"
There are many ways to answer a question without answering the question. It depends on three
factors- 1. It depends on the audience listening to the answers. You can fool some of the people some of the time and the other half you can fool all of the time. I prefer to count myself in the former category instead of the later one. 2. It depends on the questions being asked, in other words how the questions are framed. That is why lie detector tests are oft times thrown out of court, because a clever administrator of the test can frame questions to get answers that lean towards one direction or another. 3. Question and answer sessions like the ones reported in this post are not sporadic. Questions are submitted at some earlier date, they are reviewed and the ones deemed "safe" are chosen, manipulated, and the answers are the standard pat answers that allow no follow ups, or challenges, because the audience is either so dazzeled by their surroundings, brain dead from the day's activities, or such a die-hard fan that they ignore the substance of the answers so they can concentrate their full attention span on the awe of having these personalities speaking to them live. In other words it's the old stars in the eyes syndrome. Unfortunately, some folks don't wake up when they come back to reality. But, that's what makes the world go round. And why things never get answered and problems never get solved.
-
WHY!
in MOD REVIEW
> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}They do it just to infuriate you?
Good answer, except I would substitute an exclamation point for the question mark.
They do it just to infuriate you!
-
> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}But if they exist just to lie and mislead you, why do you care, and why don't you get your classic films from other sources?
I am just responding to izcutter's original post. In it Iz claims that Will McKinley (hmmm any relation to William McKinley, the 25th President of the US that was assassinated on September 14, 1901?) has the answers to specific TCM questions (and more). I read the whole post and was not impressed. It's as simple as that. Why do I care? Because nothing I am concerned about was answered. Why don't I get my classic films from other sources? I do, but some times, like you and everyone else I am too lazy to move from my couch. It's so much easier to put on TCM. Frankly, I have come to accept the TCM lies and BS as inevitable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but like Penn and Teller I sometimes feel the need to call a spade a spade.
-
If I was a corny gangster character from one of WARNER'S 1930s films I would say something like "I've never heard so much double talk in all my life".
Take number #3 for example,
“We don’t edit the films, and that’s rare on basic cable,” Tabesh said.
Maybe TCM dosen't edit the films, but they're not opposed to showing edited films. Even after it's brought to their attention they still ask for and get the same edited film for subsequent showings.
What about problems with films like missing endings????? Why are there never any on the air apologies to viewers? How about showing films different from the ones that Robert Osborne, Ben, or their guest programmers are rambling on about. Sort of kills the illusion that they are watching the films at the same time that we are dosen't it?
Then there's Robert Osborne once again spewing untruths “Basically, what we have is the (pre-1986) MGM library, the pre-1950 Warner Bros. library (actually pre-1948), the entire RKO library and some of the United Artists films that we got, along with the MGM films, because they merged for a while.”
It took the author of the post to clarify the above, but poor old Robert is still stuck in 1995, giving outdated information as if Ted Turner was still running the show. Maybe that's why we're still waiting for all the UNIVERSAL films that he said TCM made a deal to show a few years ago. Half the stuff he "reports" is years old, the other half he either gets wrong or makes up.
But none of this still answers the question as to why there are so many repeats in the course of a year. Tabesh claims “We can’t license every classic movie ever made; financially, it’s impossible to do that.” I don't think anyone wants or expects TCM to do that. In the first place most of those films no longer exist, so the claim is ridiculous. What we want is more variety and to cut down on the usual subjects that are being shown more often then ever before. That's not too much to ask is it?
-
> {quote:title=dpompper wrote:}{quote}Take a deep breath, infinite1. All will be well in a minute.
>
>
>
>
> You don't have to like Cher (or any other entertainer). But I think she deserves respect. She's an Oscar, Golden Globe, and Emmy winner, if those hold any credibility with you. I think she's a very fine actress. She sings . . . and has something that few other women of her generation possess . . . staying power. She's an icon.
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm looking forward to her picks. . . no matter what they might be.
>
> Edited by: dpompper on Mar 11, 2013 6:14 PM
>
I didn't know we were talking about someone of the acting caliber of Katharine Hepburn or Bette Davis. I forgot that her comedic banter with Sonny Bono was on an equal par with HOPE AND CROSBY. I didn't realize that she had the staying power, singing ability, and is an icon like STRIESAND. GOD, TCM IS SOOOOOO LUCKY TO HAVE GRABBED HER.
1 FILM IN THE 60S
0 FILMS IN THE 70S
6 FILMS IN THE 80S
7 FILMS IN THE 90S
3 FILMS IN THE 2000S
YES, I CAN SEE IT. WHAT A MOVIE CAREER. SO FAR SHE HAS THE MARX BROTHERS BEAT BY FOUR AND IS STILL CHUGGING ALONG. I'm sure she'll pull in a lot of gals of Kim Kardashians' generation, OOPS then again maybe not.
-
> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}
> > I've been thinking similar thoughts myself. I wonder whether weekends are the best places to show the TCM franchises and whether the audience that typically watches TCM on Friday/Saturday/Sunday is best served with this decision.
> Bring in the weekend-watching kids with Cher! The rock star!
The OLD rock star!
What was the appeal of Adolphe Menjou?
in General Discussions
Posted
He was good at what he did. He was the definitive Sorrowful Jones in LITTLE MISS MARKER, moreso then Bob Hope or Walter Matthau.