infinite1
-
Posts
855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by infinite1
-
-
Yes, and you see the results.
-
Just what we need, another excuse to sneak NORTH BY NORTHWEST, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, SINGIN IN THE RAIN, GIGI, AN AMERICAN IN PARIS and all the other usual suspects into the schedule. Why dosen't TCM just create a separate channel for these films to play over and over ad nauseum and leave the rest of us alone.
BUT Cher??????, give me a break. Hey, they should have had her host films based on the following theme:
"She was a *scamp*, a *camp*, *and a bit* of a *tramp* She was a *V-A-M-P*, *VAMP*."
-
> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}
> Maybe no print exists to rent of that excised scene? TCM has to play with the hand its dealt with.
>
>
>
>
>
>
It exists. There is a remastered edition from WARNER ARCHIVES, available through TCM SHOP, MOVIES UNLIMITED, etc., that contains the complete uncut film. This has been available for a few years. I don't see any logical reason for TCM to NOT rent this version. I therefore attribute it to either chronic sloppiness, a lack of caring, or both.
-
> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}It was edited. I didn't watch the whole thing, just the end as I'm setting up to record the Perry Mason film.
Too bad I didn't bet real money, I could have retired early and rich. This is simply freaking amazing and after repeated showings and having this brought to TCM's attention they are still renting the same cut/edited, whatever, print. Seems to me like a bunch of silly twits are running the asylum. Frankly, at this point, I am fed up with TCM. They have proven themselves to be a phony "classic" movie channel that dosen't really give a damn about classic films, their mission statement, or their fans. Every movie they show is now suspect, as far as I'm concerned, as it appears TCM dosen't give a rat's a$$ as to the condition of anything they show. Color me one disgusted fan that's tired of TCM's BS. Robert Osborne and Ben M. can sound off all they want about their love for classic films, but their words do not match the actions of this channel. Why anyone in their right mind would believe anything this channel, or anyone associated with it, says is beyond me. I guess gullibility knows no bounds. Sorry for this outburst, but I feel like I'm banging my head against a stone wall and I have a headache.
-
Does anyone know if tomorrows CYCLOPS will be the same CUT version that TCM has shown for the past several years OR the UNCUT version that has been available on DVD-R for the past several years? I'm betting on the CUT version. Does anyone want a piece of that bet?
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}If the people that colorize a movie make a profit by doing so that means there is a demand for their product. So are the people who purchase colorized movies also morally wrong?
>
> NO, EASILY MANIPULATED, GULLIBLE, FOOLISH, OR JUST PLAIN IGNORANT.
>
> Again, I personally don't see a need to colorize movies but I don't view colorizing movies OR preferring to view a colorized movie as a morality issue.
>
> POSSIBLY BECAUSE YOU'VE NEVER HAD A BLACK AND WHITE FILM OF YOURS COLORIZED WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT MORALITY IS IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER?
>
>
>
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}How is showing KITTY starring Paulette Goddard (missing in action for a few years) or Laurel & Hardy's seldom seen AIR RAID WARDENS (which is in the Turner Library) something that would appeal to the intelligentsia?
>
> TURNER HAS A LIBRARY?????? I THOUGHT WE WERE TOLD THE TURNER LIBRARY NO LONGER EXISTS??????
>
> The more logical obstacle in a campaign of this sort is that TCM's programming department would have to admit they have shown A FACE IN THE CROWD too often. But swallowing pride can be a good thing, and it is time to bring some of these other titles back into rotation. That is only going to happen if we ask nicely for it, like we did for the Joel McCrea SOTM tribute. They will listen to us, and this has wonderful marketing potential.
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}
> While I agree with no repeats for a year I question the comment about ",,,this has wonderful marketing potential".
>
> While most of us studio-era movie fans would like to see pictures they haven't seen before, those that do NOT watch TCM are way more likely to be drawn in by those studio-era movies that are at the top of their class and many, if not most, of the movies TCM repeats often fall into that category.
>
>
>
jamesjazzguitar,
Here's a newsflash for ya, if those that do NOT watch TCM aren't here by now, they ain't coming. And no amount of repeats of NORTH BY NORTHWEST or FROM HERE TO ETERNITY is going to birth an instant TCM fan. So, what makes the most sense, trying to attract those who don't give a damn about old films with repeats of the same old films or keeping your base from wandering due to boredom with films that have NOT been played to death. I think the later makes more sense.
-
> {quote:title=BingFan wrote:}{quote}Although I haven't seen anything close to all of the episodes from the 14 seasons of *BONANZA*, it seems like I see classic movie actors on the show almost every time I catch a rerun on TVLand. Here's a list compiled from various sources (I haven't seen all of these folks on the show myself):
>
> Franchot Tone
> Ida Lupino
> Teresa Wright
> Jack Carson
> Joan Blondell
> Aldo Ray
> Ramon Navarro
> Peggy Ann Garner
> Virginia Grey
> Kim Hunter
> Vera Miles
> Mildred Natwick
> William Demarest
> Burgess Meredith
> John Carradine
> Mary Wickes
> Ed Wynn
> Keenan Wynn
> Glenda Farrell
> Andy Devine
> Patsy Kelly
> Cesar Romero
> Gilbert Roland
> Marie Windsor
> Tom Drake
> Sam Jaffe
> Audrey Totter
> Dina Merrill
> Jack Oakie
> Nina Foch
> Richard Haydn
> Sara Haden
> Elisha Cook, Jr.
> Harry Carey, Jr.
> Lyle Talbot
> Dean Stockwell
> Tom Tully
> John Litel
> Everett Sloane
> Dan Duryea
> John Qualen
> James Dunn
> Buddy Ebsen
> Jay C. Flippen
> Mercedes McCambridge
> Edgar Buchanan
> Ed Begley, Sr.
> Dub Taylor
> Dan Tobin
> Royal Dano
> Addison Richards
> Will Wright
> Ellen Corby
> Arthur Shields
>
> Of course, some of these folks -- e.g., Ebsen, Corby, Buchanan, Demarest -- are remembered more today for their TV work than their earlier movie work.
One could probably put together a much shorter list of TV stars in the 50s, 60s, and 70s who didn't appear in classic movies.
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}
> Unless a movie is in the public domain one has to obtain rights before they alter the work.
>
> So there is no stealing going on here and thus the Louvre comparison is way off base.
>
> I don't care for colorization (i.e. I would rather watch the movie as a B&W film), but in many cases those that colorize movies restore the B&W version before proceeding with the colorization process. Often this restored B&W version is included with the colorized version. Thus in most cases the colorization process allows future generations access to the B&W version. Thus I see no harm here.
>
>
>
When I refer to stealing I am not speaking in legal terms. I am speaking of the morality of taking someone else's work and changing it for whatever reason, whether it be greed, some artistic vision, etc., it dosen't matter. In any case, and for any reason, it is wrong. Those who, in this case, purport to love classic films and demonstrate their love by colorizing said films, may be protected by their "rights" in a court of law, but they should be damned in the court of public opinion, especially by people who truly claim to love classic films. Of course there are those that purport to love classic films as well. They are no better then the offenders because by remaining silent they are giving their tacit approval to the morally wrong practice of "stealing" someone else's work.
-
> {quote:title=classiccinemafan wrote:}{quote}I'm talking about the colorization of public domain material such as classic films and old cartoons like Betty Boop and Popeye.
>
> Recently , Legend Films has colorized and restored classics such as BABES IN TOYLAND (LAUREL AND HARDY) , ABBOTT AND COSTELLO , RED SKELTON , THREE STOOGES , OUR GANG , AND IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (in HD and color).
>
> They also restored and colorized Ed Wood films Reefer Madness , John Wayne films , Drive-In horror classics like Night of the Living Dead , The Killer Shrews , The Giant Gila Monster , Carnival of souls , etc
>
> They also colorized The Devil Bat , Little shop of horrors and the most dangerous grave.
>
> I thought they did a beautiful job on IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Some not so good. I hate the bonus material (the Mike Nelson ones aren't funny). I'm not a fan of Mystery science theatre. So that doesn't appeal to me.
>
> For some classics , I'm against colorization. Some films just need to be left alone like Maltese Falcon , Casablanca and King Kong.
>
> Colorization has improved since the days of Ted Turner and TNT/TBS.
>
> I'm not against it and i'm not for it. Ray Harryhousen and Legend Films recently worked together colroizing and restoring SHE and THINGS TO COME. I haven't seen them yet , but I did see the preview of SHE (looked awesome).
If any advocate of colorization can get the blessing from the original creators in writing then by all means, knock yourselves out. But if you can't, and 9 chances out of ten you can't because they're all dead, all you're doing is stealing someone else's work and changing their vision to make a fast buck. DISGUSTING. To anyone who's interested, stop by the LOUVRE on your next trip to FRANCE, bring your little amateur paint brush sets with you and commence defacing the world's greatest masterpieces because your egos tell you that your vision is BETTER. Then try explaining your vision of art to the Gendarmes as they cart you away to the Bastille OR whatever else constitutes a prison in FRANCE, heck, they might even guillotine you. Now that would be a real work of art.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}Warner Brothers, Fox and Sony (the Columbia film library) all have advocates inside their Home Entertainment divisions or their film libraries departments that want to work with TCM to bring more of their classic films to the network. These advocates also help convince the higher ups at their studios to spend the money on restorations and/or digital masters so that the more obscure films in their catalogs have a chance at being broadcast.
>
There are plenty of UNIVERSAL/PARAMOUNT films that have been converted to digital that are not being broadcast on TCM. Look at all the DVDs of UNIVERSAL films, obviously they have been converted to digital SO where are they? HBO every once in a while shows COBRA WOMAN. What is the excuse for TCM not to add that DIGITAL film to their roster, money? I doubt it would cost any more for TCM to rent THAT film then they had to pay out for such BLOCKBUSTERS as MONSTER A GO GO or some of the other drivel that TCM labels as "classics".
Izcutter also wrote:
"Universal and Paramount do not seem to have such advocates within their ranks and that makes it harder for TCM to gain access to those libraries."
ADVOCATES do not always have to come from within. One would think that TCM would be proud to be their biggest advocate, with ROBERT OSBORNE as their spokesman, working with UNIVERSAL on behalf of lovers of classic films. But, I suppose it's always easier to pass the buck.
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Is that a great deal of repeating? I don't know. You're saying the glass is half-empty. Others, viewing the same data, may feel that the glass is half-full.
It is a great deal of repeating when you also consider that a lot of these films are repeated with multiple showings year after year after year.
-
> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}I agree with Infinite1. What is going on with these Universal titles? Is the TCM Programming Department not being aggressive enough? Is the problem with Universal? Answers please...and from the programmers not the apologists.
> BAD SISTER
> THE COHENS AND KELLYS IN AFRICA
> DRACULA
> EAST OF BORNEO
> EX-BAD BOY
> FRANKENSTEIN
> FREE LOVE
> GRAFT
> HEAVEN ON EARTH
> THE HOMICIDE SQUAD
> IRON MAN
> LASCA OF THE RIO GRANDE
> THE LAST RIDE
> MANY A SLIP
> MOTHER'S MILLIONS
> MYSTERY OF LIFE
> NICE WOMEN
> RECKLESS LIVING
> RESURRECTION
> SEED
> THE SPIRIT OF NOTRE DAME
> STRICTLY DISHONORABLE
> UP FOR MURDER
> THE VIRTUOUS HUSBAND
> WATERLOO BRIDGE
>
> Waterloo Bridge '31 and Frankenstein air on TCM from time to time.Strictly Dishonorable was on just a few weeks back and actually it's one of the Universals owned by TCM's parent company. As for the others, perhaps that fire at Universal awhile back? Also, Universal changed hands after the Laemmles lost the studio in 1936. The new people running Universal perhaps didn't care much for Universal's product prior to them taking over. I'd think someone at Universal would see the virtue (and profit) in Bad Sister (early Humphrey Bogart AND Bette Davis), Graft (Boris Karloff as a gangster), and Iron Man (Jean Harlow). In the end TCM can only make offers to Universal. If they don't care about their early stuff then TCM can't make them care.
>
Yes, a vault fire is a wonderful excuse, but I doubt that in light of past vault fires due to the volatile nature of the *silver* *nitrate* *film* *stock* used by the *film* industry prior to 1950 that studios, UNIVERSAL included, are stupid enough to store films in one location without back-up copies in other locations. But, that aside, I still have to point back to that story a few years ago in FILMS OF THE GOLDEN AGE where ROBERT OSBORNE spoke of a contract with UNIVERSAL to start showing their films on TCM along with the early PARAMOUNTS once their contract with COLUMBIA ran it's course. Was OSBORNE just pulling stuff out of the air to fill up magazine space and make TCM look good? I think he was talking about more then just the handful of UNIVERSAL FILMS we have been getting up to this point.
-
Sorry, any other month but October. October is reserved for stars of the macabre, unless that is your reason for choosing her for October. Personally, I'd like to see BELA LUGOSI as SOTM for October 2013.
-
>
>
>
>
VERONICA, THE FACE ONLY A CYCLOPS COULD LOVE.
MMMM, VERONICA, I HOPE SHE GIVES ME THE EYE.
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}FHTE was heavy on Oscar noms. But some of the other suspects for deing aired too frequently, e.g. SLIH and NBNW, were not.
So, your point?
-
> {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote}Prince, (and everyone!)
>
> You need to come to the annual Capitolfest film festival held each August in Rome, New York at the historic restored Capitol Theater, built in 1928.
>
> Each year they manage to get rare early-talkie Universals, many of which you just ain't gonna see anywhere else - and in beautiful restored 35mm prints!
>
>
> From your 1931 list we've seen:
> GRAFT at the 2009 show.
> THE VIRTUOUS HUSBAND in 2010.
>
>
> EX-BAD BOY in 2012.
> And scheduled for Capitolfest #11 in August 2013 we'll be treated to the super-rare THE COHENS AND KELLYS IN AFRICA.
>
>
> And those are just the Universal rarities from 1931 that we've seen!
>
>
> Here's the Capitolfest 2013 schedule:
>
> http://www.romecapitol.com/capitolfest.html
>
Appreciate the invitation, but what we need to do is find out WHY WE CAN'T SEE THESE KIND OF FILMS ON TCM IN THE COMFORT OF OUR HOMES. If these films are available then I would like TCM to explain why they can't be shown on their channel. And I don't mean the usual excuses by the programmer(s)' surrogates that live on these boards, I mean the programmer(s) themselves. If UNIVERSAL is to blame, let us know and we'll go to their board, if there is one, and bother the hell out of them. This is ridiculous, they are sitting on their library and we're not getting any younger. What do we have to do, wait for their 2OOth Anniversary?
-
It's not so much that I mind "31 Days of Oscar", heck, I even like most of the films that are being shown during the 31 days. My big gripe is that the blockbuster OSCAR WINNERS, and you know which ones they are, that invariably will always rate a slot in FEBRUARY, are always repeated during the course of the year as ESSENTIALS, SUTS, or as is the case with FROM HERE TO ETERNITY which may get extra innings on MEMORIAL DAY, VETERANS DAY, DECEMBER 7th, anniversaries of some star's birthday, a guest programmer's choice (ha ha), and/or whatever other day can be dreamt up by the programmer(s) as an excuse to take a holiday from more creative programming decisions. If these films are so special as OSCAR WINNERS, then keep them for this month and this month only, and fill the slots that they might occupy during the rest of the year with different films. Is that too much to ask?
-
> {quote:title=heuriger wrote:}{quote}I wonder if Honoré Lachaille would say, Je suis fatigué aussi.
>
>
>
I think he would be more likely to say, Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? Always thought he had more pep then his nephew anyway. In any event Honore' wouldn't be bored.
-
> {quote:title=hoytereden wrote:}{quote}AKA *The Little Kidnappers* (1953). A delightful film.
I don't think they've even shown KIDNAPPED (1938).
-
Yes, I know what you mean. I was just talking to Gaston Lachaille this afternoon, I asked him what he thought about participating on the TCM mesage boards and to quote him he said " oh, it's a bore." I then pressed him, as to what he thought about the TCM cruise and the TCM Film Festival? He responded, "they're a bore". I asked him what he thought about 31 days of OSCAR, THE ESSENTIALS hosted by RO and DREW? He gave me an incredulous look and said "they're a bore". Getting frustrated I remarked how TCM shows the finest in continuous repeats of NORTH BY NORTHWEST, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, SINGIN IN THE RAIN, CASABLANCA, ETC., ETC., ETC. And can you believe that Lachaille, the nerve of him, he said "they're a bore". You know what, I finally had to agree with him, so buck up misswonderly you're in good company.
-
> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}
> > > {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote}I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but if you should, once they show it you'll have plenty of time to catch up. Considering that it's got a cast of Crawford, Gable, Fred Astaire and Robert Benchley, it's hard to imagine how they could've made such a snoozer, but somehow they managed to do it. It's amazing what the fear of censorship could do to some studios and producers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SNOOZER????? How could any film with TED HEALY and THE THREE STOOGES be a snoozer?
> > Actually I find Ted Healy to be insufferable. And oddly enough I think he fired the stooges! It was probably the best thing that ever happened to them! The movie really isn't very interesting. The best part is seeing Fred Astaire before anybody knew who he was actually going by the name "Freddie" in the film.I think he dances a number with Joan Crawford towards the end. It's been awhile since I've seen it.
He was insufferable. That and his drinking are what caused the Stooges to walk out on him. Moe had enough and it WAS the best thing that ever happened to them. Incidently, I think DANCING LADY was also the debut of NELSON EDDY on film.
-
This would HAVE to be official pressed DVDs, NOT MODs on DVD-Rs.
1. SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM
2. THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD
3. THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE
4. DANCERS IN THE DARK
5. NIGHT WORLD
6. MURDER IN THE BLUE ROOM
7. THE CAT CREEPS 1930 AND 1946
8. BLACK TUESDAY
9. HELL ON FRISCO BAY
10. THE MAD GENIUS / MOBY DICK
Will tomorrows CYCLOPS be the edited version or the uncut version?
in General Discussions
Posted
> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}infinite1, help us out here. What was in the unedited version?
>
> *In addition to two close ups of the spear in the eye, one of the spear being tossed right into the giant eyeball and the second of the monster pulling the spear out with a close up of the bloody eyeball there is a scene which shows an attack on a giant rodent by a giant hawk.*
>
> I felt sorry for Lon Chaney Jr., who apparently hadn't perfected his acting after all those years, witness his jerky hand movements and the need for a jumpsuit with pockets.
>
> I am sorry I read that Paul Frees was the voice of the Cyclops, because all I heard were his various intonations from Rocky and Bullwinkle. Did you notice that?
>
> *No, I didn't.*
>
> But I felt most sorry for Duncan 'Dean' Parkin, who made only one other movie in his lifetime, *[War of the Colossal Beast|http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052378/]*, and I'm guessing he played the monster in that one too.
>
> Would the audience seeing goo leaking from the one good eye of the poorly shot oft-transparent Cyclops *really* have made this sad little movie better?
>
> *Better????? Well, from the viewpoint of a movie fan and one that hates editing of any kind, yes, it would have made it better. But, the real point is that only fans of any film, that know said film backwards and forwards, know when something is being cut. The rest of the audience is being duped into believing that they are getting something that they are not. That being the complete film as it was originally shown, which is supposed to be the intent of this channel.*
>
> Yes, I understand what you are saying, but as you know, TCM is all we have. We have NO other classic movie channel.
>
> *Not saying that we should abandon TCM. I just feel that TCM must live up to it's stated goal 99% of the time. For the 1% when they can't, for whatever reason, they have more then enough time to indicate somewhere that they are showing an edited version. I would prefer not to watch an edited version of anything whether it be missing scenes or cut off endings as they did a few months back with THE MUMMY'S HAND. I am embarassed for TCM, even if they are not.*