markfp2
-
Posts
3,178 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by markfp2
-
-
Most people think of The Three Stooges when somebody mentions shorts from Columbia, but the fact is that the studio turned out something like 300 other comedy two-reelers with Leon Errol, Andy Clyde,Tom Kennedy and Charlie Chase just to name a few.
If TCM can't get the Stooges, it sure would be terrific if they could get at least some of the other shorts. I can't imagine that other channels are lining up, with checkbooks in hand, for those shorts like they do whenever the Stooges go out for bid.
-
Welcome to the boards. While TCM would be the perfect home for the Stooges, it can't be done right now. TCM was outbid for them by another channel and as long as that one has the rights nobody else can show them. No doubt, when that contract ends the rights will be put up for bid again, and maybe TCM will be lucky.
-
> {quote:title=JarrodMcDonald wrote:}{quote}
> Errors in casting also apply to adaptations. Sometimes when I read a novel, I envision the characters a certain way. Then, I see the film, and I'm like, what a second, I do not think the author had that movie star in mind when he was describing that character.
I wouldn't necessarily call that a casting error. It's a matter of interpretation. You and I can both read the same book and come to entirely different conclusions about what the author meant. Which one of us is correct? The same is true with a film's creative team. You said it yourself, earlier, that unless the original author is actively involved in the production it may never be exactly what that person intended.
So, if an actor is cast in role based on the director's interpretation does that really mean it's a casting error? To me, it would depend on the actor's ability to do a credible performance with the material he has to work with. After all, he's no longer working with the original, only an adaptation of it.
Consider a musical for example. (No, I'm not even going to touch MY FAIR LADY.) Let's take OLIVER!. Just by making a musical out of what was a dark, social commentary on Victorian England, didn't it change what Dickens intended? Was casting Ron Moody as a singing and dancing Fagin a casting error? I don't think so because, while it certainly would have been in David Lean's, truer to the novel, dramatic version, it was perfect casting in Carol Reed's musical interpretation. Just my opinion.
By the way, thanks for starting this thread. We've had a lot of good back and forth comments from everybody involved. This is how forums should be.
-
Welcome to the boards. TCM shows films as they were made to be shown. Films made before the mid-1950s were all in the 4:3 ratio. That was the standard until 1953 when the first CinemaScope film came out. To show them in any other ratio requires either blowing the picture up and cropping off the top and bottom or distorting the picture by stretching it out on the sides. Thankfully, TCM doesn't do either.
Many people don't understand that just because new TV's are widescreen, every film wasn't made to be shown that way.
-
I'm surprised that nobody has figured it out yet. The theme for May will be "Mystery Month". Not mystery movies, but the mystery will be what TCM will be showing. No published schedule. They'll have all the titles on a big dartboard in the program office and every afternoon they'll take turns throwing darts and picking out the films for the next day.
-
That could very well be. As I mentioned before nobody puts schedules out as far in advance as TCM and I think we've gotten spoiled. Oh well, it's gotta bee this coming week.
-
TCM has run it before in prime and imagine will run it again sometime.
-
Welcome to the boards, irishmom. I like your name, I'm married to one.
You''ll find amazing wealth of information about films here and some of our regulars know just about every film TCM has shown. Feel free to ask questions and join in the discussions.
-
You need a little patience. TCM is the only channel that puts schedules out as far in advance as they do. Sometimes that third month schedule doesn't come out until a day or two before the end of the month. When that happens it usually means TCM's programmer has been holding it up while they try to lock in something really good.
As the old saying goes "Good things are worth waiting for".
-
> {quote:title=ziggyelman wrote:}{quote} As for AMC, I don't recall too many movies being cut.
When I first got AMC on my cable system many years ago, they were running just older films. Rarely, if ever, anything that might be considered newer. By virtue of that, there never was a need to cut anything for content and films were never cut for time.
-
That certainly is interesting news. Getting any older titles out of Paramount has always seem almost an impossibility.
Now my question is: Who is Olive Films? I thought I knew just about all of the companies, but this is a new one on me. I checked their website [olivefilms.com] and they do have a nice site and an interesting selection of films with some very attractive discounts (about 30% on Kino titles for instance), but I just don't know them.
Has anybody done business with them and how'd it go?
-
> {quote:title=JarrodMcDonald wrote:}{quote} ...I think there is a difference between miscasting and unusual casting.
Oh yes, I do agree with that. In terms of unusual casting, I remember there was a 1971 TV-movie called DR. COOK'S GARDEN in which Bing Crosby played a small town doctor who was actually a serial killer. As a recall, he was very good in it too. Now that was unusual casting.
As for Frankie Avalon, I don't think he was that bad as an actor and considering he was a popular star at American-International I can understand them putting him PANIC IN THE YEAR ZERO. It wasn't like some other studio wrote a totally unnecessary part for him in another movie just so they could put his name on the posters and in the ads.
-
Another example of casting just for name value would be the practice, especially in the '50s and '60s, of adding a popular young singer to a non-musical film.
I can think of Ricky Nelson in RIO BRAVO and Pat Boone in JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH. Of course, that kind of casting usually required working an out of place song or two into the plot. I've always felt that Nelson's casting was wrong and there were many younger actors of the time who could have done more with the role. As for Boone, his performance was OK, but I doubt he was hired for his acting abilities.
Another one I just thought of was casting comedian Bob Newhart in Don Siegel's war film HELL IS FOR HEROES. Not only was his character totally not needed to advance the plot, but they even wrote in a variation of Newhart's, then popular, "telephone" comedy routine to justify him being in the film.
-
Since Paramount didn't actually produce it and was just the U.S. distributor, most likely they lost the rights to it. Usually, distribution deals are for a specific number of years and while they generally include the option to renew, perhaps the film wasn't performing well and Paramount chose not to. It's very possible that nobody has the U.S. rights to it at the moment.
-
> {quote:title=LoveFilmNoir wrote:}{quote} ..but Rooney's role as the neighbor is so insignificant that it can almost be edited out and it doesn't change the film (for the worse anyway).
You got me thinking. I've never read Truman Capote's original story so I have no idea how he intended that character to be and whether it was expanded in the film to accommodate Mickey Rooney. I think I'll stop by the public library and take out a copy. Should be interesting.
-
> {quote:title=LoveFilmNoir wrote:}{quote} I'm going to have to disagree with this. Audrey Hepburn's name on a marquee was enough in 1961 to get movie goers in seats.
Well, you're right of course, she definitely had marquee value and I wasn't trying to take anything away from her, but it was also considered important to get other well-know names in supporting roles to broaden the appeal of the film.
This was very common with romantic films that might attract mostly women. With Mickey Rooney in the cast, the producers tried to gave the impression that it was a broader comedy in hopes of attracting a wider male audience.
This thinking was a two-way street. In westerns and war films, which were basically guy films, producers routinely added a female "love interest" to broaden the appeal to women.
If you think about it, it still happens today.
-
> {quote:title=JarrodMcDonald wrote:}{quote}
> What about Mickey Rooney playing an Asian role in 'BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S'
The only possible reason I can imagine he was cast in that role was for the marquee value of his name. Not only was he out of place in the film, it was a terrible performance to boot.
In thinking about Asian actors,I always wondered how Jack Soo would have improved the role. His laid-back comedy style in Barney Miller and FLOWER DRUM SONG might have worked very well in the film.
-
For one reason or another, I've never had a chance to see BUDDY, BUDDY and I'd love to. For me, when it comes to master directors like Wilder, Hitchcock, Ford, etc. even their weakest films are worth seeing if for no other reason than to complete the picture of their careers.
-
> {quote:title=fredbaetz wrote:}{quote} One thing always bothered me about this film is the credits. It is Strodes film, but the times dedicated that he get 4th billing and in smaller case letters....
Like salary, billing is something that is usually negotiated between the producer and an actor's agent. The more well-known an actor is the more clout his agent has in getting him a better deal and higher billing.
In 1960, Woody had another important role, in Andrew Stone's THE LAST VOYAGE for MGM, and he had fifth billing. In1959, he was billed eighth in PORK CHOP HILL. Prior to that he had lesser roles, both credited and uncredited in many films and TV shows going back as far as 1939 as an uncredited extra in Ford's STAGECOACH. So I think that fourth billing in a John Ford film would have been seen as a step up the career ladder for him.
I'm not at all trying to take anything away from him, I think he gave a great performance and in a perfect world, he would have gotten at least second billing. I'm just saying that the times and circumstances being what they were in 1960 he did pretty good.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} It would make all the sense in the world, imho, for TCM to have negotiated TV rights as well, being as they're a TV station that specializes in classic films.
It's not really a matter of sense. From a legal standpoint, getting a film for a film festival and leasing it for showing on television are two separate issues. A single screening at a festival might be arranged even when the TV rights are still in question.
-
> {quote:title=LoveFilmNoir wrote:}{quote}
> Fox Movie Channel currently plays A Tree Grows In Brooklyn 3 times a month.
Three times a month? By FMC's standards that's a "rarely" shown film. Some films like HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY and THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH are routinely repeated three times on the same day.
-
In general, I wouldn't want to see TCM run TV shows, there are far too many films that still need to be shown on TCM.
However, it might be interesting, on occasion, to show a classic film followed by an early TV adaptation, especially if, as in the case of THE PETRIFIED FOREST, it had the same star. Although not in the same league as that film, another one that comes to mind is Andy Griffith in both film and TV versions of NO TIME FOR SERGEANTS. Seeing both of those back to back would be a lot of fun.
Of course, the major issue is do kinescopes still exist? Not every live show was recorded on kinescope. Even when they were, many are gone. It's a fact that in the 1960's the networks destroyed thousands of kinescopes to make storage room for video tapes. Those surviving are mostly in archives or private collections and that doesn't necessarily mean that TCM would have access to them. Still, it certainly would be something for TCM to look into.
-
Actually, it's nothing new for them. While I don't remember MONEY, WOMEN AND GUNS off hand, the others have been shown numerous times.
-
People complain about repeats on TCM, but in cases like this some folks will be happy that most, if not all, of the films running opposite the Olympics will be repeated again at some point. As for THE KILLERS, it's showing March 6 at 4:15am and again on March 27 at 8;30am. I know that might be kind of early for people who don't record, but odds are it'll turn up again at a more civilized hour.
Show the Three Stooges
in General Discussions
Posted
If they've been running any, I've never caught one, but either way it would be great if they do in the future.