darkblue
-
Posts
22,191 -
Joined
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by darkblue
-
-
Well, I'm sure not gonna have any sleepless nights about THAT, dark!
You know my ol' sayin', doncha?:
(...btw, ever notice the resemblance between "Friends' " David Schwimmer and THIS guy???)
There was a guy in grade 9 who looked a LOT like that. We began calling him "Alfred", much to his displeasure.
Another particularly good Mad Mag takeoff was on the terrific western 'Hombre' (1967) which starred a great cast including Paul Newman, Barbara Rush, Fredric March, Richard Boone, Diane Cilento, Martin Balsam, Margaret Blye and Cameron Mitchell! Quite a downbeat story it was and Mad's title for it was 'Sombre'. It was a very funny parody.
-
The Mad Magazine version of this movie was titled 'Midnight Wowboy'.
-
They are more interested (like some people on these boards) in coming up with one-liners than in analyzing the films.
Most of your posts don't go much beyond one line, so I guess we know which camp you're in.
-
1
-
-
Bundling would have to be completely eliminated to prevent this.
Not gonna happen. Bundling is here to stay.
Do you actually believe that cable and satellite companies are gonna program your specific receiver your specific way - doing that for every individual customer - and not charge for that?
And that's not even getting into the prices that the most popular content sources will begin to charge.
-
So you are saying if someone wants all 200 channels they will be forced to pay $2000 a month? This is a scare tactic used by the cable industry to keep the same duopoly system.
I didn't say that at all. People who want everything will continue to subscribe to a bundled package and get the bundled price.
It's people who insist on getting only the ones they want who will pay a whole lot more for those at an "each" price point. The savings (if there are any) will be very small.
-
Thanks for the "vote of confidence" here, dark.
(...I THINK!!!!)
I just wanted to use the letter 'u'.
Superfluously - and in upper case.
-
In reality we are just spouting off about ourselves aren't we??
Not me. I'm not the jealous type.
As Paul Harvey always said: "Good Day".
Well.....don't go away mad.
-
I must be out there to suggest that having to buy 200 cable channels to get only 10 is a bad thing. This system is so wonderful as it is, lol.
What's the dif? You'll pay just as much for just the 10 - if not more, and won't have any opportunity to see the other 190 IF anything should ever be on one of them that you heard might be worth checking out.
Al la carte isn't gonna save anybody anything. Individual pay stations will just get more expensive if bundling goes.
-
2
-
-
(...and speakin' of "Overplayed Hall of Fame" here...do you folks think I might be "overplaying" this whole "superfluous British u" thing now TOO around here???????)
But, it's so U!
-
For Wayne to win the award the same year the counterculture peaked with Woodstock seems somehow inappropriate.
Inappropriate is Oscar's nickname.
-
(...I'm talkin' about Gene Shalit here, of course)
Gene Shalit's the best!
I remember his entertainment tonight review of 'Slap Shot' (1977).
He said, "any parent that would take their child to this movie should be slapped - or shot!"
Seriously, though - they're all a-holes at some time or other. I NEVER read their reviews or listen to what they say until AFTER I've seen the movie.
-
1
-
-
(I mean, how did Favre become "FARVE"? Was it the aftereffects of too much cheese?)
French pronunciation is wacko.
-
Not to turn this thread into a history of economics lesson here gentlemen, but in both cases, Communist AND Fascist economic models, State controls of industry, labor and the general commerce are tightly regulated in order to supposedly achieve "the common good".
(...but still, I do NOT see how EITHER extreme economic model here has ANY freakin' bearing at all on this whole satellite/cable issue????????)
Yep. That Amerika and Comrade crack, in relation to cable company channel bundling, struck me as pretty "out there" too.
After all, communist nations have historically had so few state-approved channels allowed to the citizenry that any notion of "bundling" has pretty much been moot. I guess some people are still seeing commies everywhere - just like in the golden age.
-
1
-
-
Invalidate? Is that the same thing as disagreeing?
Again, you appear to be using words of provocation to describe a simple difference of opinion. Is it that you have a need for others to feel the same about "today's movies" as you do?
-
yeah, that is a big word for me to use. not sure I even know what it means. you seem to dismiss the notion that today's garbage is inferior and maybe you are right. it's just...different.
I disagree that today's movies (I don't generally waste time paying mind to garbage) are inferior to those of the studio era.
Is that the same thing as dismissing notions? I find your phraseology to be unclear, yet somehow provocative.
-
Welcome to Amerika Comrade, where you have to buy 200 to get 10 of what you want, lol.
I don't get it.
Wouldn't it be capitalism (ie/ most profitable for the business) that you're commenting upon, rather than communism. Seems like a reference to fascism would be more appropriate.
-
I think that you are wrong and too dismissive, jamesjazzguitar.
I get the "wrong" - but I'm not sure I get the "dismissive". Isn't that just a word for him thinking you're wrong? And if so, aren't you both "dismissive"? And if you both are, what's you're point in using the word?
-
I do recommend James Leo Herlihy's novel. It is much more than a "so-so book." Like the wonderful movie adaptation, the book is often painful, but what's wrong with feeling?
It probably is a better book than I gave it credit for back then.
I was a pretty avid reader then, and I can't tell you how many movies came off as less to me than to others precisely because I'd read the books prior to seeing the film adaptations. In this case, it seems the opposite effect was manifested - having seen the movie first. Having read the novel just once, much has recessed into the sub-conscious where it's no longer accessible to recall - whereas the film version has been revisited over and over, and been considered much more often.
I do remember the last line of the book. It was something like (Joe is on the bus with the now dead Rico), "and for the first time, Joe felt very afraid". That ending has stuck with me - in fact, I say it whenever I'm watching the movie and the last visual is on screen.
-
The thing about the movie---This was my (and most people's) second significant film encounter with Hoffman, and it was sucht a contrast to THE GRADUATE, that it really stunned me, as it did most filmgoers.
Absolutely. I was knocked out by his performance - convinced that it was, hands down, the best of 1969. I considered that robbing him of his Oscar and handing it to - of all people - John Wayne, was criminal. I don't think it was criminal anymore, mind you - just phony nonsense. But I actually took the Oscars seriously when I was a youth of 19.
-
Has anyone here mentioned that Capote felt that Audrey Hepburn was totally miscast as Holly Golightly? He always envisioned Marilyn Monroe in it. I don't know, after half century of Audrey in this iconic role, that I could see MM in it.
I know I would've enjoyed watching the movie a heck of a lot more if Marilyn was in it.
-
I wouldn't say the movie is superior to the novel since they are two different media and as such have different strengths
I would (and I do).
I've only read Herlihy's novel one time - back around 1971 - and once was enough.
I've watched the movie about 15 times now. I don't recommend the novel to anyone, but I'd recommend the movie to everyone. John Schlesinger and Waldo Salt took a so-so book and created a masterpiece of cinema from it.
I've filled in the back story my way, which is the way I believe the movie wants me to (with the book helping to inform me when needed). If I'm "wrong" about anything, I don't care. Each viewing has just reinforced my interpretation, in my eyes.
I feel that the Mexico experience for Joe was very smartly eliminated from the screenplay. It would have changed the way we feel about Joe's story - how could the audience possibly feel the same sweet dumbness, naivety, and hopefulness in Joe's character if they have to accept all that seedy information in his past. That's where the script is superior to the novel. True, it's a different movie than it should've been perhaps, but it's better for it. Joe's rape is much better explained as I've placed it in the context of Annie and the boys, and I believe the screenplay was constructed exactly so we WOULD take it that way.
As for Joe's mother, even Wiki is unsure, stating that she may or may not have been a prostitute and the women she would leave Joe with also may or may not have been prostitutes. I believe she was, but the movie does not go into detail about this background, so I'm really just carrying over from what I took to be the truth from the book.
-
Not to mention that it's a horror movie with a zero body count. That sometimes works, but not often.
-
darkblue- I checked I liked your post, that's not strong enough. I think this is one of your best posts. Just terrific and I thank you for this post. Midnight Cowboy is one of my favorite films. I've loved the film since seeing it when it first come out in theaters. I didn't read the novel, but I'm checking the local library to see if there's copy. Thanks again for the best post of the day
I'm blushing. I just wanted to explain the flashbacks a little and got carried away.
-
The script for the movie was not the same as the novel. Some aspects were eliminated, changed or downplayed.
The movie is superior to the novel. Wow, that's not something I say very often.
NEWS: Mike Nichols has died
in General Discussions
Posted
Mike Nichols was a brilliant director. Hard to think of a better example of a leading light in the new age of movies (post 1963).
He's been on my list of favorite directors since I first composed it.
When I saw 'Angels in America', all I could do was marvel at his craftsmanship.