clore

While the vast majority of the time I like the original I see no reason for producers to NOT do a remake. If the source material is good and with a new set of actors, writers, etc.. a remake can be a creative event. As long as the originals aren't forced to disappear, I have no problems with remakes. Back when I was in my teens, you could not legally see the 1931 DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, or the first two versions of SHOW BOAT or the British version of GASLIGHT because when MGM bought the remake rights, they also bought the distribution rights to the earlier versions. It wasn't until Ted Turner bought the library from MGM that we got to see those earlier versions on TV and in home video. As long as a remake doesn't ban the original from being screened, they can remake everything if they want. I still have the option of ignoring the remake and seeing the original.

C'mon TCM, you're pushing the DVD promos pretty hard for a commercial-free network. Start paying for some Widescreen transfers... Now here is where I will defend TCM. They claim that they air the movies "uncut and commercial free." That is true - they don't claim to be a commercial-free channel, just that the films are commercial free. As far as I'm concerned, they could have 15 minutes of uninterrupted commercials between each movie as long as they don't edit and/or interrupt the films. And as long as we get the proper aspect ratio.

Seriously try coming up with at least some original movies! I felt that way back in 1941 when I heard that Warner's was going to do a third version of THE MALTESE FALCON. I mean, how could anyone hope to beat Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade? Warren William tried and failed, so who is this Humphrey Bogart to attempt to do any better?

Funny, the experts thought that Turner was crazy for buying MGM. When the deal transpired, the stock was at the low end of the scale, just about bottom for the year. I had a hunch and bought some shares, I knew the value of the library in the period where home video was just beginning to explode. I sold it a couple of months later at nearly double what I paid for it and after he announced his plans for a new station. However, what was OK for TCM just a few years ago isn't OK now. They're using digital servers now and not every film is available in that format, or so I'm told. Yeah, it shouldn't be too much of a job to convert a title, that would make sense for the Time-Warner titles. But it seems that even duping off a Warner Archive DVD to a format compatible with TCM's servers is too great an expense. Take BAND OF ANGELS - The DVD is in widescreen, but the print that TCM airs isn't. But that raises the question of why the old syndication print was converted to a compatible digital format rather than the source print used for the DVD.

Bette is not very good in this film. Oh, are we still talking about STORM CENTER? Well, given the circumstances of a disjointed storyline, a fist-time director (and only-time director) working from a self-written script that was perhaps too close to his heart, I can't blame Bette or anyone for not coming off well. As I look over the credits for Daniel Taradash, I don't see too many films that really impressed me. Taradash seems to be one favored to adapt screenplays from another medium. This was a story that he co-authored and like KNOCK ON ANY DOOR, it collapses under the weight of good intentions. Maybe Bette Davis didn't enjoy pinch-hitting for Mary Pickford who was originally announced to be the star.

If TCM only shows movies from *their* library, that is, movies that are owned by the Turner Company or Turner Broadcasting (whatever it's called), how can they then turn around and claim that the "only version" of the film they have available is the Pan & Scan? If the original print of the film exists, then Turner owns it, no? Even if the films are owned by the Time-Warner parent company, TCM still has to lease them just as any other channel would have to do. The issue arises because not all films have been transferred to digital form in the original ratio by the owner of that film. I just happen to be of the opinion that if a distributor of a film is going to tell me that a given title isn't available in the wide-screen format, then I would request another title that is in widescreen. At least that would be my policy if the channel I worked for was the one that keeps hammering its audience over the head with the letterboxing promo. Were I to turn to HBO to watch a film, I don't expect to see it in anything but pan-and-scan. But then, they don't claim to do otherwise either.

I can only counter that by saying that I'll take as many movies as possible, so please schedule more - no matter how they're formatted. I'm certainly not suggesting that they air a test pattern for the intended time period. There are still thousands of movies to offer in place of an altered film. However, since TCM is going through the process of educating the audience in terms of letterboxing by running that promo several times a month, it does seem rather hypocritical to air a 2.35:1 ratio film in the Academy ratio.

Did it work? It got my attention.

As one of the "resident apologists", I resent that because I don't really care whether, in some cases, a film is pan & scan that I'm put in a category of being an apologists or my favorite epithet that used to get tossed around here, sycophant. If I want to watch a film bad enough, I'll take what I can get. It must be nice to be so easily satisfied. Really, no joke. However, I really don't know you or of you and if you feel singled out as a resident apologist, then all I can say is that you're not the one that I have in mind. I'm sorry that you take it so personally. But if TCM wants to be fair, then they should stop taking the moral high ground of claiming to be THE channel to offer films in their original format if they aren't going to deliver. It's called bait-and-switch in the advertising trade. I've even seen that letterboxing promo air right before a pan-and-scan print. What if, every time someone complains about this, or if a host misspeaks & gives incorrect information, someone on here called you an **** retentive nitpicker? Not good, huh? As long as I then get to call that someone an **** retentive apologist, then they can go ahead and do so. Sorry, as one who invests a lot of time on the channel, I've earned the right to comment. If this forum were only for the praising of TCM, it would become a very dull place and TCM can just then rest on its laurels. That's not good for anyone, complacency is a dangerous thing. As my sixth grade teacher used to have on the chalk board for us all to see everyday: "Good, better, best Never let it rest Till your good is better And your better, best"

To BillyBrown !!http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1291279797105&id=b6aa1cdbf3ded3aa252b22b4f86e9c00!!|http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1291279797105&id=b6aa1cdbf3ded3aa252b22b4f86e9c00%21%21 You've been reading too many of those groovy threads. Only one exclamation point at each end is needed.

You do see that I have Julie Adams in the shot below just panting in anticipation of what image you will be posting.

It's simple. First find a photo on the web and copy the pic's link location by right-clicking while the cursor is over the photo. A menu box will give you that option. Then open a response box on the boards and first type an exclamation point. Then paste the address of the desired photo by hitting CTRL-V or using the right mouse button. Finally, add another exclamation point at the end of the address and you're done.

I've seen HIGH FLIGHT on TCM previously and it was a pan-and-scan then. I mentioned it at the time, but the usual excuse is that they didn't get a widescreen copy and they're forced to use what they get.... OK, that works the first time, but why continually slot films that go against what is supposed to be TCM policy? Or is it that since the promos don't say that they will air all widescreen movies in that format, do they get a pass? Believe it or not, that was the excuse that one of the resident TCM apologists tried out on me once. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. Stop running the letterbox promo if you're going to make exceptions. It gives the impression that we're always going to see films in their intended format. And if they can't get them in the proper format, don't schedule them. I'm sure it's not as if there was any great demand for today's Anthony Newley festival.

I watched the whole thing, and it never looked to me like it was cropped top and bottom, as would be necessary for "fake letterboxing" a 1.37:1 film. I'm inclined to believe, for *Storm Center*, anyway, that the IMDb was wrong, and it was shot to be shown in 1.85:1. If it was cropped, I agree, it wasn't obtrusive. Today TCM has aired both HIGH FLIGHT and now THE BANDIT OF ZHOBE in pan-and-scan versions. Among the saving graces of both films is Ted Moore's Cinemascope lensing. Oh well, it gives me the chance to watch something else instead of sitting here with the heebie jeebies.

Leonard Maltin is so lowbrow and his writing style is pretty much grade school. He's more of a reviewer than a critic. His style is appropriate enough for his target audience. This is not a knock on him or his readers, not everyone wants to immersed into the study of film, they just want to know if they should bother to watch a film and they want it in as few sentences as possible. What he lacks in style, he makes up for in enthusiasm. By coincidence, I've known him since we were in grade school - or close enough to it. I was 14 when we first met, he's a year older.

Mine are long-gone. Manny Farber, James Agee and Graham Greene would be the ones whom I can read, disagree with and still want to read more of them.

I'm sure there's countless more examples but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Each of the three male characters in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST has a signature theme.

I think that this is the crown jewel of the Universal horror/sci-fi films. The praise given to Whale and Rains for it (justifiably) has somewhat overshadowed that which deserves to be heaped upon cinematographer Arthur Edeson. The man is responsible for some of cinema's greatest acheivements such as ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, FRANKENSTEIN, THE MALTESE FALCON and CASABLANCA, as well as the wide-screen version of THE BIG TRAIL. In fact, with both TRAIL and ALL QUIET in 1930, Edeson accomplished more in one year that most will do in a lifetime. Also praiseworthy perhaps are the effects of John P. Fulton, truly astounding as they set a standard for every sequel and ghost film to follow. It's rather interesting to note that this film and KING KONG were released in the same year. Despite improvements in techniques both thespic and filmic, the very charm of these two films keep audiences amazed generation after generation. That Claude Rains would never have to worry about work for the rest of his life is a testament to his performance here despite not being seen until the last 30 seconds of the film. And some of those lines he is speaking: "We'll start with a reign of terror. Murders of little men and murders of big men - just to show that we make no distinction." "Even dirt between my fingernails can give me away." The latter comes from a scene where Jack Griffin is describing the ins and outs of invisibility, such as not going out in the rain or areas of heavy soot (such as the mining town in which Whale was raised?). Or of how he can't appear until his food is digested. The quaintness of Whale's origins shows in some great lines, such as near the end when the old farmer tells the police "There's breathing in my barn" or earlier when the policeman who first makes the claim that there is an invisible man at the Lion's Head Inn is told "Next time, you put more water in it!" The film also contains what might be the first uttering of "He meddled in things that man should leave alone."

If you want to insult someone, about the worst thing you can say is, "You dirty, stinkin', no-good chiseler". Or if you want to be vulgar, you can call them a "four-flusher". And on the other hand, anything described in a good way is "swell." Six-shooters contain an endless supply of ammo. If you don't see Ward Bond in a given movie, chances are that you'll see Barton MacLane. Great movies such as THE MALTESE FALCON, G-MEN, YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE, MANPOWER and KISS TOMORROW GOODBYE will feature both. The lower the budget, the more newspaper headlines you'll see pushing the story along. Men wore hats that must have been glued on as they never lose them in fight scenes. Cab drivers can make a living just hanging around waiting for the protagonist. Said hero doesn't even have to pay his fares. There's always a parking space right in front of the city's busiest office buildings.

If the comments here REALLY weighed in, Joel MacRea (Do I still have the spelling wrong?) would have been SOTM six months ago. That's McCrea. A lot of people flub that one. Anyway, a SOTM request is a bigger deal - that's asking for at least 16 titles. Not that they should have trouble finding enough in the RKO and Warner (including AA) library. It's not as if these are titles that are in demand by other cable channels, so if it's a matter of supply and demand, I should think that there's a surplus and it would be rather minimal cost. Please, don't anyone jump in and tell me that TCM has to license titles from the parent company - my point is that it's hardly as desirable a group of titles as would be the Eastwood titles also owned by the same parent company.

Off the top of my head, I can recall OF MICE AND MEN, NO ORCHIDS FOR MISS BLANCHARD, THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE and THE CONSTANT NYMPH as things that generated considerable support in these forums, either in wish lists or programming challenges. They all made the schedule and none of them had aired previously. I'm sure that some other posters can recall these things better than I. I'm not one who usually posts in such threads but I read them with interest.

The book was still better, though, and I actually wish the movie was longer. One of the few films you'll ever hear me saying that about. You can blame that on Harry Cohn. He forced Zinnemann to deliver a movie that was no more than two hours in length. Zinnemann had to cut several sequences to bring in the film at 118 minutes.

I have to believe that the need to reach a certain level of viewer ratings pushes TCM programmers to put well known popular films on, especially during the prime time evening hours. Having spent more than a few years programming local TV stations, I would have to agree with you. In order to do the job effectively, a programmer would have to base the schedule upon some measurement of the audience. Whether it is using Nielsen data or some other form of survey (such as telephone surveying) to determine quantification, or perhaps even a quantification study (meaning upscale versus downscale audience composition), given the fierce competition of hundreds of channels, some gauge would appear to be necessary. And I believe that comments made here must weigh in also. We're the die hards in the audience and there seems to be too many coincidences of things mentioned here and realities on the schedule happening. The advertiser supported channels have additional ways of determining successful strategy. If they generate more interest in the HoverRound chairs with certain types of programming than with others, then they know the plan is working.

What I read made me blush- and I'm a sick, perverted, lonely, lonely man who does not shy away from creative uses of profanity. Keep in mind that the original James Jones manuscript was edited before publication. Apparently a lot of expletives WERE deleted and there were passages concerning gay sex going on. This original version was released earlier this year as an e-book.

Why do you think it was/is so popular? It seems boring to me. I have to agree with JonnyGuitar on this - the public went to see it to determine just how they managed to turn the book into a film. In "King Cohn" - the bio of Harry Cohn - the chapter on the making of the film is titled "Why Would Harry Cohn Buy a Dirty Book Like From Here to Eternity?" I'm reminded of the trailer for LOLITA. It all centered on the fact that they made a movie out of the book. That and a lot of suggestive snippets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHSUYVrvyCg