markfp2

> {quote:title=FlyBackTransformer wrote:}{quote}But you're not answering my question which is given all the times that TCM has shown Creature From The Black Lagoon lately, shouldn't they show the sequel Revenge Of The Creature *at least ONCE???* The answer is really very simple. They can't show it because, for whatever reason, TCM can't get the rights to it from Universal. Most likely, some other cable network has the rights locked up (even if they aren't showing the film right now). I don't doubt for a minute that if the rights become available to TCM the programmers will schedule REVENGE OF THE CREATURE.

It's the only non-Disney produced film I can think of that Disney's distribution arm Buena Vista released back. IMDb shows the production company as Centurian which I've never heard of and can't find out anything about. For decades, it's only been available from bootleggers and mastered from a very worn 16mm print that had turned pink. Don't know where TCM got it, but perhaps they had been promised better. It's not the way I'd prefer to watch it, but because it's rare, I'll be interested in seeing it and am glad I recorded it.

While it's not on the top of my favorites list, ever since I saw the 70mm roadshow version of SONG OF NORWAY, I found it to be a pleasent two and a half hour diversion. There are greater musicals, of course, but also a worse ones. I have a two-tape VHS set of it, but it's never been released on DVD in this country. Perhaps, if it were available, more people would be inclinded to check it out and might be surprised.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}LOL. Considering our age (most of us) more like fatty grissle. What'd I do leave my computer cam on again? :^0

Cinecolor was never considered a very good process and was often used by the smaller studios and independent producers because it was cheaper than Technicolor, but the prints simply didn't hold up. If black & white prints hadn't been made for television in its pre-color days some of those films not exist at all today.

Welcome Renee. Feel free to jump right into the conversations. Now, how about telling us a little about what your tastes in films are and what you like and don't.

If people renew it online or by mail as soon as they get that first notice it should be fine. After than it can be iffy. As for me, I've gotten in the habit of writing it on my calendar and renewing it six-months early. Never a problem then.

I don't know exactly how it's done, but remember most movies aren't shot on film anymore. Everything is shot with digital cameras and computer edited. Amazing things can be done that way.

A lot of people have issues with 3-D. I don't know how it is in other parts of the country, but around here when a 3-D film plays at one of the multiplexes usually a 2-D version is shown on one of the other screens too. From what I've heard, the 2-D version usually draws very well, sometimes outdrawing the 3-D. Of course, some of that could be due to the fact that there's a $4.00 surcharge for 3-D films. As for reworking older films in 3-D, I haven't seen one yet. I'm curious to see JURASSIC PARK in 3-D, but I'll wait until it hits our local 2nd-run theater that only charges three bucks.

I don't remember the details, but there use to be a formula that was used to determine how big a screen should be. It had to do with many things including the length and width of the auditorium, the projection "throw" from the booth to the screen and what would be considered the optimum amount of light needed on the screen to have a properly lit picture. In the old days, this worked very well, but in the late 1960's when the old movie palaces were cut up into shoebox sized multiplexes those formulas were often tossed out and either the owners would go with a smaller picture in order to use less powerful and cheaper projection lamps or wanted the biggest screen that could be fitted in even if it resulted in a flat and dull picture, again because they didn't want to go with the more costly lamps. At least today, as theaters convert from film to digital projection, the studios are again requiring certain standards as to screen size and brightness. From my experience, it seems that the trend is to go with bigger, properly lit screens.

> {quote:title=allthumbs wrote:}{quote} > > it's my understanding that the basic package is to include ALL (my emphasis) local stations which can resonably be received over the air. .....am i wrong? > Cable companies operate under franchise agreements between communities and themselves. Usually, when they negotiate with that government body they agree to pay the community a yearly fee. Sometimes, a community may require certain channels, but not always. Check with your local government offices and see who handles those deals. That person should be able to tell you what the facts are. In your case, it sounds like your landlord cut back to a cheaper cable package and that might be perfectly legal unless your lease says otherwise. If the channels you're missing are local, you might want to consider buying good indoor antenna and then you could pick them up off the air. Your local electronic store could probably tell you what kind would work best for you. Just make sure you can return it if it doesn't work. Antennas have come a long ways since the days of "rabbit ears". Good luck.

Widescreen films were suppose to be Hollywood's answer to television which was killing the movie business, but in a lot of cases it speeded up the demise of small town theaters. As you pointed out, Fred, many were just too small to have a wider screen often because fire exits were required on each side of the screen. Some did try to show them on their existing screens, but the public was not stupid, they knew the difference and when given a chance would drive to a neighboring city to see a film on a giant screen as opposed to a smaller one in their own hometown. I don't think there's any question that widescreen would have come into existence sooner or later, but back in the early 1950's theaters may have been better served if the studios had put their money into bigger and better films and not just bigger screens.

It's pretty standard in the magazine publishing world for a new subscription to take 8-12 weeks before you get the first issue.

> {quote:title=GoodGuysWearBlack wrote:}{quote}The Virginian (1946) totally awesome! > THE VIRGINIAN has run at least a couple of times this month on the Encore Westerns channel. Beautiful technicolor copy.

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote}You can also post what you know about the movie here, and have the fellow messageboarders have a try at it. Yup, it's amazing what the collective minds on these boards know. Even I'm surprised sometimes when, with minimal details, folks come up with the right answers.

Ben has no say in what's running. He just reads what's written for him. His intros are recorded, sometimes weeks before the movie runs, so he has no idea what's actually being shown.

Thanks for mentioning HELLO DOLLY. I know a lot folks don't like it, but it's one of those musicals that I always enjoy. I happened to see part of it recently on one of the HD movie channels and it sure looked great. I'll have to keep an eye out for a deal on the Blu-ray.

Sounds like it could be a blessing for those who can't get TCM, but they'd have to add a lot more movies before it's really worth it. Heck, if it included the entire WB/MGM/RKO library I'd drop Netflix and go with it in an instant.

> {quote:title=mm123 wrote:}{quote}If you check out this link you'll see the Studio-Canal DVD is 100 min.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nowhere-To-DVD-George-Nader/dp/B008LU8NPU/ref=pd_sim_d_h__4 > > Apparently it was cut before release. > Thanks for pointing that out, still all the sources that list it as 87 minutes are technically correct since they are reporting on the original version released. Hopefully, all the various databases will update their info and indicate there's now a longer version available. It would be nice if TCM would run the longer one, but perhaps Studio Canal hasn't made it available to them yet. I sure hope that somebody at TCM actually timed the movie when it arrived and didn't rely on the databases I went to, otherwise if it turns out to be 100 minutes there's gong to be some last minute schedule shuffling. I think I'll add extra pad on my recording just to be safe.

> {quote:title=mm123 wrote: }{quote}The time listed is 87 min. But they are selling a 100 min. version in England on DVD. Its a good and interesting movie. I've checked three reliable British sources and all show a runnng time of 87 minutes. Here's a link to one: http://www.britmovie.co.uk/films/Nowhere-to-Go_1958/listType/alpha (Caution: there may be SPOILERS) I've never put much stock in advertised running times of DVDs.

Yes, indeed, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS has been a winner for ABC for decades. With their very long-term contract it's got to be a lot cheaper, per showing, than any other movie or program they can get, it always does well in the ratings and there's never a lack of sponsors who love to buy into family programming. Especially one that has become a yearly tradition in many homes. The only time it didn't perform well was once, a long time ago, when they ran it as a two-parter ending the first night at the point where the original intermission came. I can't remember if it was on Saturday and Sunday or Sunday and Monday only that it was a disaster for ABC. They only did that once as I recall. It would surprise me if ABC ever gave it up.

> {quote:title=NoraCharles1934 wrote:}{quote}I don't expect to have any real impact on the powers-that-be, but I just thought I'd throw out that a night of this memorable gentleman's pics would be a great treat on July 28. Actually, I think that would be a great idea, but unless TCM already has it planned, it's probably too late for this year. Being April is just about here, it's a pretty sure thing that the July schedule is already wrapped up (even if it hasn't been released yet). So perhaps, since we know that the TCM programmers read these boards and do take viewer suggestions seriously plus more and more Fox films are showing up, Laird will be given his due next year. I'm afraid that Mr. Cregar doesn't get the appreciation he deserves, but once people get acquainted with him they can't get enough of his films.

Too bad, you'll miss it. In this version, Tim Considine's casting as FDR was one of the greatest performances I've ever seen and who would have guessed that Ralph Bellamy would have been so good playing his son.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}I have an honest question. > > Has anyone ever heard the term "tar baby" used as a racial slur, either in general or toward a specific child or person? > > To the best of my memory, I never have encountered the term used in that fashion. Although not in common use today, I can recall that when I was growing up we had a rather racist neighbor who used the term all the time. He had other terms too, but we'll just leave it at that.

> {quote:title=lavenderblue19 wrote:}{quote}MM and Fred- I posted that question under Technical Problems yesterday. Rich was kind enough to respond. Click on More Info above (next to users) Chaplin's photo will appear, wait a few seconds then the screen will allow you to get the schedule, also do this if you need the TCMDb. I'm using Firefox and couldn't get it either, however, I tried the above and it worked fine.