clore
-
Posts
5,535 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by clore
-
-
>>The only downside to the barter system is that the films are pre-edited by the distributor to a standard running time of about 91 minutes regardless of what the original length was.
I can recall one time when it actually went the other way. MCA/Universal stretched the running time of REAR WINDOW by creating a dream sequence that never existed in the original film. It was just a montage of clips edited in while Jeffords was sleeping, meanwhile the "Lisa" song was playing on the soundtrack.
MCA only did this for the initial barter airings. It was a complex deal where a station had to agree to two barter airings, then a year-long window for cable airings, after that the films reverted back to the stations for the cash runs of the film.
I remember seeing a barter run of Attenborough's CHAPLIN which hacked the film down to fit into a two-hour time slot. It cut almost an hour out of the film.
-
>>The blow by blow remake, LOVE THAT BRUTE (1950) stars Paul Douglas and Jean Peters.
That remake demotes Cesar Romero to the Sheldon Leonard role of the original.
In another thread I mentioned KATHY O' which is a Christmas film starring Patty McCormack as a spoiled child star who learns humility from Dan Duryea and Jan Sterling. How's that for offbeat casting?
-
>>TCM could find any number of obscure old classic Christmas films that we would enjoy, but if they are really good films, they might eventually be taken over by channels that run commercials.
I think that the upside of this is that there aren't that many Christmas films that have that kind of reputation. Tribune used to syndicate MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS on a similar basis, and I suppose that THE BISHOP'S WIFE may be up there in terms of marketability as is A CHRISTMAS STORY. I doubt that CHRISTMAS IN CONNECTICUT or THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER enjoy that kind of status.
Plus, if it gets TCM to dig up things such as SUSAN SLEPT HERE or IT HAPPENED ON FIFTH AVENUE, films that seemed to be sitting on the shelf for ages, then there is that benefit. Maybe the deal with Universal will prompt them to schedule KATHY O' next year. I made do with a YouTube version this year, but it was a pan-and-scan that was obviously sourced from an old AMC broadcast.
-
>>The original version of A Star is Born: TCM has shown this with no problems in the past but recently (apparently, I didn't watch at the time) the aforementioned anomalies. You wouldn't expect those things to happen with a film frequently shown on the channel.
And for similar reasons, no one will have to sit and watch every feature scheduled every month as there is enough duplication of titles through the year to minimize that necessity. The channel will just have to check the prints of any premiere titles or films which have just been transferred to the digital format. On the other hand, such a policy may cause them to run BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S and CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF even more often.
Still, if they want to continually refer to themselves as the place to see films in their proper format, they have to be prepared to take the heat when they don't follow through on their own promise.
>>(My own personal quality control request for TCM: Earlier this year in March you showed a terrible print of Jean-Luc Godard's Contempt. Duplicated quality print, cropped, and worst of all, particularly for the content of this film, dubbed. This was apparently the second time this version showed up on TCM after the initial airing and the follow up/make up from a proper Criterion source. Throw that crap copy out, get rid of it so that it never happens again, even by accident. I wouldn't want anyone to be introduced to that masterpiece that way.)
They did air a proper print subsequent to that screening that you saw. There was a lot of outrage in this forum on account of that. However, your complaint does go to show that one does have the right to complain, it's just that this film means enough to you for you to do so.
-
David Clennon comes to mind.
-
>>If I'm not mistaken, Cary Grant was hired to play Dudley and Niven was recast as the Pastor.They didn't trade parts...
It's true - Grant was originally hired to play the role that went to Niven. The parts were swapped and after a few days shooting, Grant was getting antsy and wanted to swap again, back to the role of the minister.
It was a very troubled production that saw the original director (William Seiter) as well as the screenwriter (Robert E. Sherwood) sacked. Plus, Grant and Young could both be rather demanding and setting up some scenes to accommodate each one's preference for a left profile proved trying.
Caught in the middle was David Niven, who was friends with his two co-stars and going through a rough period of his own as his wife had died in an accident just prior to production.
-
The worst case that I've seen was the recent airing of the original A STAR IS BORN where just a 30-second check would have revealed that the credits were blacked out. But that wasn't the worst, it was the rapid-rewind and replaying of a full nine minutes that should have mandated some new system, even if all of the previous flubs were merely excused.
As I said at the time, it could have been even worse, they might have ended up airing A STAR IS PORN. It wouldn't have been the first time that a film was mislabeled.
-
>>It was the '74 version of ATTWN that I read a bunch of really awful reviews for,
I can still remember the point at which I began to suspect that some movie critics just might be on the producer's payroll. The first was in 1972 when the newspaper ads for THE VALACHI PAPERS had a quote from some critic saying "Is it as good as The Godfather? No, it is better!"
The second time was when an ad for the 1974 version of TEN LITTLE INDIANS had a critic declaring that "if you liked Murder on the Orient Express, you will love this film."
These events were long before it was discovered that some Sony execs created a fake critic named David Manning who gushed over the company's releases while supposedly working for some small Connecticut newspaper.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010609225327/www.msnbc.com/news/581770.asp?cp1=1
-
>>Not mentioning that something is a remake when it is may not have anything to do with opinion. It could very well be ignorant. I was referencing the OZ example, not necessarily GRIT.
Well, the two OZ films have some basic similarities courtesy of the source material. But the slapstick approach to the 1925 version, along with a more mature Dorothy (18 years old and supposedly the rightful ruler of Oz) and quite a few different characters along with some missing ones (no Munchkins) have me seeing them as diverse enough to think that the 1939 film is not a remake. I do think that it's open to interpretation. I just wouldn't consider someone else ignorant if he/she disagrees.
If anything, the people at MGM might have looked at the earlier one to determine what not to do. The silent one is on tonight for anyone interested in comparing the two. Personally, as much as I love silent films, I could not bear to sit through it again. It's the kind of film that would have me wishing for a commercial.
-
>>Those that don't are espousing ignorance.
No they aren't, they are just expressing a difference of opinion. That is, if they care to express their "ignorance" and risk being subjected to such arrogance.
-
I'm fairly certain that it has aired, but not in about two years. I had it on one afternoon and my son walked in. I pointed out Cliff Robertson and said "that's Uncle Ben of SPIDERMAN some 50 years ago."
It's not a bad film at all. but it was one of RKO's last (if not the last) and like BUNDLE OF JOY, it was a musical remake of an earlier Ginger Rogers film. It ended up being released by Universal rather than RKO.
-
>>after 2 minutes of watching scrooge i noticed tcm hacking again, why does tcm zoom on people, we dont see the full background anymore, so many close-ups. the camera angles have changed, i know people dont pay attention to details, but the true classic movie lover has seen these films butchered by high school kiddies
I'm a lover of the language who can't stand to see it violated by people who are shift-key challenged. However, i share your pain. When I watch SCROOGE, not only are the camera angles all changed, but they've replaced Albert Finney with Peter Ustinov and a fat Scrooge is so disconcerting. Then he goes around telling everyone to "touch nothing" and insists he's not French.
-
The only reason that I stuck it out was because I'm a bit under the weather and was actually hoping to fall asleep since I had only two hours of sleep last night. I actually figured that it would be so boring that I'd nod out. No such luck, I did get a few winks during OPERATION MAD BALL but that one I've seen numerous times.
-
I don't count things made by Ed Wood or imported by K. Gordon Murray in that category. Did anyone ever really expect something much to come out of such beginnings?
But THE EXTRAORDINARY SEAMEN may be the absolute lowest ever, or at least the poster film for the 1960s. This was up there with SKIDOO for all-around awfulness, but at least that one had some cast members to gawk at.
John Frankenheimer was responsible for some of the best films of the 60s, how he got involved with this mess is a mystery. David Niven managed to keep his dignity, but maybe he was really drinking all through the film. No matter, he had THE STATUE in his future, a film that few have seen and that even fewer will admit having seen.
Faye Dunaway gets the Natalie Wood "Girl Left Behind" (I named it after one of her films) award for this, she probably doesn't remember being in it. Mickey Rooney swears that he doesn't recall a thing about making it and this is one time I'm willing to believe him.
As for Alan Alda, no wonder he had to resort to TV, he's just lucky that he came up with a winner on the small screen.
I've waited years to see this film, I remember the savage beating it took from the NYC press when it came out. From my perspective now, they were being kind.
-
>>What are your thoughts about 3 GODFATHERS? Isn't it a cute, fun movie? TCM broadcast the original version awhile back. The first film was made in the 30s, in black-and-white, and featured Lewis Stone, Chester Morris and Walter Brennan.
That's probably the fifth version of the story. Harry Carey had already been in two silent versions (one of them by John Ford) and Hoot Gibson made one also. The first sound version was Wyler's HELL'S HEROES with Charles Bickford made in 1929.
There's a 1915 film BRONCHO BILLY AND THE BABY from a Peter Kyne story, but I've never verified whether it's adapted from the same Kyne story. Sources differ and as for years some sources claimed that Ford's THREE BAD MEN was another adaptation (it wasn't). I'm taking a "seeing is believing" approach.
-
I've got five of them, all Randolph Scott titles. Each of them has been played more than once, so that isn't a worry. But I had a "welcome to the Archive" coupon for 20% off which they refused to honor despite the coupon saying it was good for ANY purchase made within the next 30 days.
What annoyed me was that when placing the order, on one screen it said that I could enter the coupon code before my final acceptance. I clicked that I reviewed the order and was then given the confirmation number. I never had the chance to enter a coupon code. When I complained, I was told that it wasn't their policy to allow further discounts on five-pack deals, but that they would be glad to honor it within the specified time period. I've not bought another disc from the Archive since.
On November 26 of this year, I ordered a regular DVD box set from the WBShop (all ready-made DVDs) and was told it would ship BY December 6. It had not arrived by the 15th so I sent two emails over the next few days. The package finally just arrived an hour ago.
I'm not likely to deal with them again in any way, shape or form.
Oh - some people say they've read that the discs won't last more than 20 years. I'm nearly 60, I don't consider that much of a problem. I've got 30-year-old VCR tapes that weren't supposed to last more than ten years.
-
AA kept in there, in the 70s they had CABARET, PAPILLON and THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING.
-
>>How about Christmas Carols that never were. I could envision BORIS KARLOFF, BASIL RATHBONE, GEORGE ZUCCO, or ERNEST THESIGER as Scrooge.
Here's Rathbone:
-
>>There's one remake in particular, I think Herbert Lom is in it, that is regarded as really awful.
Lom was stuck in two of the three Harry Alan Towers-produced remakes. He was in the 1974 and the 1989 versions.
-
>>Anyone who recorded it, take another look (and listen) to the opening and notice how clumsily and abruptly the music jumps from the logo to the titles of the movie.
Yes, it was a sloppy edit.
-
>>As for the Raft thing, I think his name gets thrown in because of all the other roles that he turned down and Bogie excelled in. The three examples that I know of are IT ALL CAME TRUE, HIGH SIERRA, and THE MALTESE FALCON.
Also ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT.
Raft was lobbying for the role in CASABLANCA, but Hal Wallis was dead set against it. In a memo to Jack Warner, Wallis clearly stated his vendetta against Raft as "he hasn't made a picture around here since I was a small boy." Wallis wanted to reward Bogart for pinch-hitting on those previous occasions.
-
>>What you see today is the complete film. And it never had a Warner Bros. shield at the beginning.
Well, tonight's screening of the film has one. I've never noticed it on previous airings of the film on TCM. Going back to my first viewing of the film in 1971 on WOR-TV, I doubt that they even aired the opening credits.
-
Given that HOME FROM THE HILL was an anamorphic, 2.35:1 ratio, it was definitely a widescreen film.
-
A man was trapped on his rooftop by the rising waters of a flood.
A fellow came over in a rowboat and called to the man, ?Hop into my boat! I?ll save you!?
The stranded man refused, saying, ?No ? God will save me!?
The water rose to the man?s knees, and along came a rescuer in a motorboat. ?Get in my boat! I?ll save you!? cried the boater.
?No!? the man on the roof replied. ?God will save me!?
Soon after, the water was up to the man?s chest. Now came a helicopter with a sling suspended from it. ?Grab onto the sling!? called the pilot.
?I?ll pull you up and save you!?
As the man called, ?No, God will save me!? a wave swept him off the roof and he drowned.
As he entered into heaven, God greeted him, saying, ?Welcome to heaven! Glad to see you! Before I show you around and introduce you to some of the angels, do you have any questions??
?Well, yes Sir, as a matter of fact I do have one question.? the man replied. ?There I was, stranded on my roof, with flood waters rising all around me! Why didn?t you save me??
?Well!? replied God. ?I sent you two boats and a helicopter! What more did you want?
The point being that as you have stated often enough, TCM has aired HOT SPELL many times. It's not their fault that you didn't record it.
12/26 schedule: seriously TCM, you just quit trying, didn't you?
in Hot Topics
Posted
>>What I am about to say might get some of the posters on this thread upset with me.....
>>But you know what? I could care less.
How much less?