Stephan55

I could really go off on a rant here, but suffice that I certainly believe that it is disgraceful for the pharmaceutical industry to have such political clout in this country that they are allowed to "rape" the general populace with impunity for the sake of obscene levels of corporate gain (read that greed). Of course those sentiments can easily be applied to a host of corporate "industries" in the states, and elsewhere. sadly.

...REMOVE THE CHAMP FROM ON-DEMAND! Either Remove THE CHAMP (1931) from the TCM ON-DEMAND line-up this week, or MAKE IT COMPLETELY VIEWABLE! Leaving less than Half of the movie ON-LINE only makes TCM look Bad, and makes those of use who try to view it frustrated and angry! I reported this issue here last Sat. AM (2/17/2018), You promptly DELETED that thread without comment. It's NOW late Monday and the issue is still unaddressed and unresolved! And Moderator, Please DO NOT DELETE MY THREAD this time, without at least showing me the courtesy that you have forwarded this concern to "whomever" it is that you occasionally forward our concerns to, and that "they" are aware of the problem, and are addressing it (one way or the other)!

I agree 100%. Great topic for a thread. Too bad we don't have access to that second Flynn film, cause in his third (also missing in action) Murder at Monte Carlo (1934) he was already being cast as the lead. Tom would've been the ideal person for that one. So which of you guys are going to follow through with this???.... Right now I'm being stumped by this thread, but off the top I'm thinking of some silent star like Valentino who may still have some of his very early films around before he became the great heart throb of women everywhere. I feel certain there are many others. Very few, aside from Flynn, seemed to become a lead star practically over night. Most of them had to work at it for awhile. I mentioned earlier BEN HUR (1925), there was a whole shebang of future stars as extras in that one. But try as I may, even freeze framing, it's like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack trying to locate any of them in those massive crowd scenes. But then they're all in costume, and I'm not exactly sure of what they'd look like to recognize them even if I saw them. But I'm certain there are many others. Which one of you guys wants to step up to bat on this one?

You're very welcome TJ, I much enjoyed them myself. Without looking I couldn't have identified the titles, but I was aware of a couple of "lost" British films that he'd been in after In the Wake of the Bounty (1933) and before Captain Blood (1935). I would love if a copy of those would be "rediscovered" in someones private collection sometime. I have tried to get a look at practically everything he's been in, or that has been made about him. Even read a couple of his books. I had a "black sheep" elder uncle who I saw photos of when he was a young man in the late '30's-early '40's and he could have been Flynn's twin. My mom, aunts and uncles told me stories about him, how he had the gift of gab and was able to charm the socks off of both women and men. He was married several times simultaneously. He would charm a girl and her entire family, marry her, treat her like a queen, and then up and vanish. All his wives apparently still loved him and wanted him back, even after they'd hire a detective and discover that he'd be in another town, often in a different state, and married to another girl, doing the same thing all over again. He was hauled into court for bigamy on more than one occasion, but none of these women ever prosecuted. They just wanted him back. He sounded so amazing to me that I once fancied following in his footsteps. But I never had Flynn or my uncle's fantastic looks or charm, so my early efforts at juggling more than one girlfriend at the same time often ended in dismal failure. I think my mistake was trying to conceal one girl from another in the same school. Girls and women do talk to each other, and share stories about their boyfriends. I'd eventually be confronted and end up losing out on both. When I obtained my own set of wheels and could cavort with girls from different schools I had better luck. But sadly my eyes always seemed to be bigger than my... ahem, in those days. And I do reflect with a sense of shame about some of my behavior from back then. Sorry about straying off subject a bit, but that is how Flynn indirectly affected me when growing up. After all, what adolescent in their juvenile mind, after watching Captain Blood, and Robin Hood, et al, wouldn't want to be like Errol Flynn.

You may be right about that Nipper, but the two sci-fi horror precodes directed by Michael Curtiz Doctor X (1932) and Mystery of the Wax (1933) were also filmed in full color, albeit using the two-strip technicolor process, still pretty good, esp. back then. Both of those films were "horrific" and featured the lovely Fay Wray (as the heroine) and Lionel Atwill (who could also be pretty sinister)...

Isn't it though... I marvel as as well. Some people I know, that know little about any of this stuff themselves, think that I know a lot. Then I come on these boards and realize how much of a "piker" I really am. I'm thankful we've got folks around here like Tom and several others who really do know a lot about this stuff we all seem to love, and are so non-condescendingly willing to freely share their wisdom with the rest of us here! Learned much over the years, but there's always so much more to learn....

My thoughts as well. I'm confusing myself as well on the different distinctions. What ("who") exactly are they, and how would they all stack on a pyramid chart? Is this correct, in front of the screen we have: Lead Actors (to include both genders) Support Actors Character actors (which can also lead or support) Professional Extras (which can also be character actors) Bit players (are these the "Little People" CG is trying to delineate, or would they be the "Professional Extras," or are they an separate "group" entirely? I think she said they are "more obscure" than "Support Actors," but are regularly enough employed to make a living as a "professional" what?) Non-professional Extras (pretty safe to say that these folks are the "civilian" non-actors that appear in large scenes) Am I missing anything here? I don't know Tom, I'd think he probably comes close enough to "fit-the-bill" but we'll likely have to wait until CG comes back to see if he meets her criteria??? Whenever I'd see Irving's name appear, I'd confuse him with Lloyd and think Oh, he must have occasionally "acted" in a film or two before and after he became a director... The distinction of my error didn't become readily apparent to me until just now with your post. BTW Tom, I know what big a fan you and Speedracer are of Errol Flynn (I am too). I came across several music and tribute videos on YouTube last night and posted them over there http://forums.tcm.com/topic/160004-programming-changed/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-1655274 There were a few dedicated to Errol that I think you may enjoy. Being the fan that you are, you probably have already seen all there is to see of Flynn, but maybe not.... You might want to take a "look see" over there just in case. Thanks Tom, Sepia and Jakeem for all your great and very informative posts, thru the years, I've learned a lot from you.

I just reread myself with that thought in mind, and I'll be darn if I don't hear ole Will myself in those words. Saw Seconds in the theatre when it first came out. It was such an odd-offbeat role for Rock, at that time I didn't quite know what to make of it. But for a long while afterward I couldn't use a drill without thinking of that movie.... In fact, I can hear that sound now in my head.... I don't think he made another sci-fi type flick until Embryo was released, about 10 years later. That was another kind of freaky/kinky futuristic film. Artificial wombs, hormone intervention, accelerated growth... aside from Jeremy Rifkin, who'd of guessed. But I had the hots for Barbara Carrera back then so I was game for it!

Well Longtimer, I'm a Longtimer and an Old timer. Been with TCM since '94.... I remember well those Gay 90's here, before the stampede. We were all so young and optimistic then. I'm sorry you waited so long before you made your first post. And now yer leavin' us, before we even had a chance to get to know each other. I can't help but feel kinda sad about that, because like ole John Donne said (I like to quote Ole John whenever I can)... No man is an island, Entire of itself, Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thy friend's Or of thine own were: Any man's death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind, And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. So I sorta feel like we're lesser aroun here without ya stay'n. But I also think that you're losen out too! And Longtimer, I'm sorry that you aren't giv'n any of us here a chance to know ya longer. I agree with ya about these bein some very sad days, with the politics and way of the world and all. I thank my lucky stars that with all that sadness and change go'in on aroun' us, that we still have this here ole TCM channel doin an show'n the same things that it always has, ever since ole Robert first greeted us back in '94. I know how us old time Longtimers can get set in our way of thinkin, but as I recall, from '94 to present, the only real things that have changed about this TCM place is that we've gained and lost a host or two. We lost Robert a year ago now. TCM started that new fangled streaming service a few years ago, and it's still as buggy as hell. They did start that wine club up, trying to get us all swooshed aroun here. They're really try'n to push that Backlot Club down our throats, but some of us just aren't swallow'n it. They've still only shown some movies one time ever, and some of the others they just seem to show all the time. The mix and match genre ratio really hasn't changed a whit. They're still a show'n those good ole All American films from the 20s, 30s, & 40s, that we old longtimers love best. They're still throw'n in the same ole number of them ferin films, and a handful of others from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80's and a smatterin' of newer ones, just like they always have. They did start that 31 Days of celebrating ole Oscar durin the month of February and the first three days of March, and that does kinda upset things abit aroun here, though some of the youngins seem to get a kick outa it. But they began that many years ago, as you know, so that's old hat for us old time longtimers. Ole TCM is still as non-responsive to us here as they've always been. And other than a few board members coming and going, there really hasn't been a whole lot a change aroun' here, that I've noticed. For some that's a bad thing and for those of us that like for TCM to stay basically the same it's a good thing, I guess. Anyway, that's the lowdown as I see it, and like I say, it's going on 24 years now for this here Longtime Old timer. If we don't have a chance to speak again, I want to tell you thanks for startin this here thread and for given me a chance to say my piece. Were it not for this here thread I might not have made that post I did here a little while back. It's a long'n cause I found this site with a lot of music videos and they just struck me as somethin that might appeal to most of us here. Maybe even you'n. I'd be mighty abliged if ya took a gander at that post and kind a rested yer eyes an ears on some of those pieces there. I'm a thinkin that since we're both old longtimers that you might just like to see and hear some of that. If you do, and are still not moved to stay a while longer with us, then there's not much else I think I, or anyone else here can do to persuade you otherwise. But I'd still like to thank ya for this here thread. And allow'n me to make that long post here just the same.

Ahh yes, Arthur Hunnicutt, another very good character actor. Not obscure enough for this thread, I'm sure, but very enjoyable all the same!

That's it "reaction" options. Hah, Love it. That song was very popular among the "green" crowd I hung with in the late eighties. Along with that dancing baby, what was the name of that dance....??? Ah yes, The Macarena I'm not really personally worried about such things, at least not for myself. But I do have some grave concerns for others. Including my daughter and grand kids. Though there is very little any of us can do to change the inevitable, I think that the Amish and people already knowing how to be self-sufficient enough to make it "off-the-grid" will probably fare better than the rest of us. Sorry, I know this is depressing stuff for "youngsters" to hear. Long version, Full song Another goody And another.... And.... You Likey?.... Take that, Dancing With The Stars! More! And More.... For those romantics among us.... Come on, you know you Love this... A beautiful woman with beautiful music.... More Music please.... Just one more.... How about... And for the Ladies... And for us Boomer boys! Sadly.... For Speedracer & Tom.... For those who Can't get enough Flynn? In with Flynn... Back to the beginning... And Forward, Toward the End.... Ahhh those glorious 50's.... Really loving this YouTube channel, one fused hit after another! Finding it extremely addictive... a lucky find. Well I'm sure I could keep this up all night, in fact I just did. I certainly hope that those of you who stuck with this enjoyed it as much as I did sharing it with you. So for all you Lovely Ladies and Fine Gents out there in TCM land, this is radio Stephan55, wishing you pleasant dreams, and goodnight! EDIT reposted this thread over here: http://forums.tcm.com/forum/26-musicals/ Just in case this thread got deleted or "vanished" for some reason... Please visit and share (post) your favorite montages and tributes in that thread, so that I and others interested in this sort of stuff, can continue gain enjoyment from it. Thanks all And now, back to... The Macarena Everybody Loves The Macarena! Let's Dance....With the Stars! Show us How it's Done, Ladies!

I mean the emoticons we use to respond to another's post without actually posting a response. Yeah when I was a kid having a fin, a ten or twenty in your pocket made you rich! A six pack of Coors beer (in glass deposit bottles) was only a buck and a quarter. A case of 24 for a fiver. You could even get a dime bag of grass for five, and a four finger baggie for $10 (lots of stems and seeds, but cheap). A gallon of Red Mountain Vine Rose for a buck fifty. It was rot gut and we used to have puke contests after a chug fest, but again cheap, and enough to get you there. I remember as a young adult that the rule of thumb was always to carry a hidden C-note for emergencies. It was enough money to get you halfway across the country, maybe further, if you were frugal. In contrast to Tiki, I find that it's the remembering of what things used to cost (even with inflation factored in) that really makes me feel "older" today. And I find the ever increasing dependence on friable electronic technology today to be really frightening. I'm afraid all of the worlds most "advanced" societies are setting themselves up for a terrible, most devastating fall, sometime in the not so distant future. I may even live to see it happen!

I wish we had a "scary" emoticon to use, as those are not really funny thoughts to contemplate. Consider my response as very nervous laughter.

I would also have considered actors like Richard Erdman to be in the "little people" category, but he had bigger and more notable roles than James Flavin ever did, so I'm wondering if CG will think he's "obscure" enough to qualify. A bit of subjectivity here I think, as what is seemingly obscure to one, may not be to another. A lot of faces and names have been popping into my head, but when I contrast them with Flavin, if they appear to have had a career equal to or greater than, I've been ruling them out. I'm now trying to think of "seen but not heard" (or rarely heard) "background" actors generally found in crowded scenes. But to separate the "extras" from those that actually made a living doing such parts is not as easy as I thought it would be. At least I'm finding it that way for my little brain. I'd give Erdman a pass, but I'm not the "teacher" in this class, er thread, and I think that CG's strict catholic upbringing may be surfacing.... ouch, my knuckles are beginning to ache at that thought. So far only TomJH and Thenryb have gotten A's I think, for movie and TV "little people." So unless she starts grading with a bell curve, I may end up flunking this one.

Well, half of those guys on the ground waving an arm back and forth, as if beckoning for help, were actually dummies, er mannequins. There would be a live person next to them, also in confederate garb, who would be writhing in agony and moaning while pulling strings and wires causing the "guy" next to him to appear to be moving as well. Next time GWTW is on pay close attention and you'll see what I mean. It was Selznick's creative way of making a few look like a lot in the days before CGI. So the dummies probably have long ago ended up in a wood chipper. As for the "real" people in that scene.... 79 years ago.... hmmm, not many left I'd imagine.

Tiki, you're younger than I am and now are making me start to feel really bad. A 10 cent loaf of Bread at the day old bakery, a dollar. A nickel candy bar, a dollar. Of course if one does most of their shopping at the dollar store, then that simplifies things a lot.

Well the Moderator deleted my separate thread about the above described issue. That's both good and bad I suppose. Bad in that there was no comment or rationale from the Mod that my post was deleted, say for redundancy... Bad because there is no acknowledgement here by the Mod that the concern has at least been read and forwarded to someone at TCM Central. Possibly Good, in that if the Moderator deleted it perhaps it was read, and dare I hope that it was reported in spite of no courteous acknowledgement or affirmation of such???? Perhaps that last bit might be too much to hope for here since the Mod/s of late appear to be fond of anonymously deleting posts and threads without any explanation whatsoever.

Your cartoon story reminded me of another cartoon story (also from long ago) and I can't remember at all where I first saw it. Similar to yours in that there was this skinny, pale kid on the beach also not having any luck with the ladies. Whereas his friend seemed to have no problem at all. So his friend shares with him the secret of his success. He tells him that what he needs to do is take a large potato and stuff it into his trunks, then nonchalantly stroll past any lady of interest, and he'd be guaranteed to received admiring glances and attention from them. The next day they meet again on the beach and the skinny lad shares that he did exactly as he was instructed, but the attention that he received had been finger-pointing and laughter, not at all what he had been hoping. He had no idea what had gone wrong. So his buddy walks around him, looking at him up and down appraising the situation, and then says, "You're supposed to put the potato in the front of your shorts...."

Stephan55 said: Haha, I recognize that guy. But I can't put my finger on from where? CaveGirl said: I recognize him too! It's Uncle Martin, from "My Favorite Martian" as played by Ray Walston! Nah, just kidding, but ya gotta admit they do resemble each other a bit... Well, yeah, that was my immediate impression as well. I thought I was was going to learn that Ray's real name was Owen and he had once been a sports reporter on TV that pre-dated his movie and TV acting career. Then I looked Owen Bush up. Lots of TV stuff, no wonder he looks so familiar! Yep, Owen is the kind of "little guy" that fits this thread to a "T" (for TV that is). He dwells in that grey area that lies below the better known, recognizable professional "character actors" and above the tier of "one-shot" "stand-in" "fill-in" "walk on" "walk-by" mostly non-actor "extras" (i.e. as seen in Lionel Rogosin and Robert Flaherty films). That "special realm" of screen regulars that may get credited every now and then but are generally "unknown" (by most viewers) & mostly uncredited. That fits that "sweet spot" of not too much and not too little screen recognition. The little "bread & butter" actors of the industry. But some may consider it a bit subjective, because if they are really highly tuned to a lot of movies and various genres (as is CG) then they likely will have a far greater face and name recognition of many of those that remain an obscurity to others. If I were to mention most of the cast names of Kong to a casual viewer, for example (as I sadly have), most persons outside of these boards would have no idea of whom I'm talking about. Whereas many of the filmophiles here probably would. I once knew a girl who was a member of the Lainie Kazan fan club (back in the 60s mind you). I had no idea (nor did I care at the time) who Lainie Kazan was. But to this girl who followed everything that Lainie did, she was already a big star, while to me she was an obscurity. So I feel challenged by this thread to come up with a name, or names that many of us (esp. CG) would concur fit that "sweet spot" above. This thread may actually require me to do a little work.

Haha, I recognize that guy. But I can't put my finger on from where?

Not "little" enough, eh. I got the distinction though (I think?) We could even include RO in that crowd (i.e. a soldier in Spartacus, a man (likely the pastor at the door) in Psycho, and a handful of other nondescript little parts that added a little essential flavor to the movies in question. But RO's filmography is too minuscule to even mention when contrasted with Bess and Cosmo. I am reminded of the thousands of unknowns that made up the HUGE essential cast in BEN HUR (1925). Several that within the next decade would become well recognized notables. Okay, I'll have to see if I can up up with a few more apropos names for this thread. BTW, in our twenties a lot of us were considered to be "quite handsome" (or at least at our "most handsomeness")

Well there were a lot of rumours about him.... some of which I hope were not true.

Ah, again CG, you've snatched two of the most iconic visages of "mad scientists." One of my favorite scenes from TBOF was in the crypt when Doctor Pretorius encounters the "monster" and with no hint of fear, shock or surprise, begins a polite conversation... "Do you like gin? It is my only weakness." But for evilness Dekker is hard to beat in "Dr. Cyclops." The scene that confirmed this for me as a kid was when he shot little Pedro, who had endeared me because he was an animal lover. "Tipo" (the dog) had saved the little group from Thorkel's cat "Satanus" (love those names). Then Thorkel used Little Pete's dog to find the tiny survivor's and that's when it happened! Poor little Pedro. Anything bad that happened to Thorkel after that was just fine with me. BTW, when I was older and got to re-see this favorite on a color TV, I found the technicolor to be amazing! Okay, how about Peter Lorre as Dr. Gogol for pure (and evil) "madness" in Mad Love (1935). Can't get much madder than that, but then Lorre always excelled in such parts. But wait, Gogol was more a "Mad" doctor than "scientist." Okay, how about this one.... the "mad" (but not evil) Seth Brundle in Cronenberg's 1986 remake of The Fly. In that one we get to witness Jeff Goldblum as he gradually loses his mind (and body parts) while he metamorphoses into the dreaded creature. And, with the unquenchable sexual appetite that all flies possess (after they've had a little sugar, or landed on something nasty), we observe him on his quest to make more little flies (er maggots) with his real life h o t t i e of a wife Geena Davis. BTW, really liked the Chris Walas' sequel to that one, The Fly II (1989), with Eric Stoltz and Daphne Zuniga, oh and Lee Richardson as the totally unsympathetic Anton Bartok. There was another dog in that one as well, which of course endeared me to young Martin Brundle and made me loathe Bartok all the more! In as much as when I was a kid I enjoyed the 1950s originals, these were a couple of remakes that I believe truly outshined them. Little side observation: I always saw the "teleportation pods" as a precursor to what would eventually evolve into those fantastic "Beam me up/down, Scotty" transporters in Star Trek.

Uh, maybe they'll be a little more discerning this time and just delete the repugnant odor of my specific post/s.

Ha ha, I trust that we are both referencing Marcel Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past" aka "In Search of Lost Time" I have a digital compilation of his work in French with English translation. Even in english I really get a kick from his very nuanced discriptions. “No sooner had the warm liquid mixed with the crumbs touched my palate than a shudder ran through me and I stopped, intent upon the extraordinary thing that was happening to me.” I'd like another one of those cookies, please.