markfp2
-
Posts
3,178 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by markfp2
-
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}
> Was it Ira that tried to have them destroyed? Was he still alive at the time?
I don't think it was Ira. The references I've seen usually just say the Gershwin family or Gershwin estate. Somewhere in the back of my head (it's hard seeing past all the cobwebs) I seem to recall somebody saying it Ira's wife, but I can't remember where I might have heard or read that so don't take it as gospel. At this point I guess it really doesn't matter who it was.
-
I wonder if the negative still exists at all. It's always been said that the Gershwin family hated the film so much that they tried to have the negative and all prints destroyed. It would seem to me that if this was true, they would have had easier access to the negative than to prints already in circulation. It's obvious that they've missed at least a couple of prints.
-
Look at the thread about the January 2010 schedule being up, in General Discussions, the tcmprogrammr mentions that there's an rights issue with the film and it can't be shown right now.
-
If January is an example of what the new year holds, it's going to be a terrific year. Thanks TCM, great work!
-
That's OK Holly, a lot of things make me feel old. That just comes with the territory called aging.
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} Some theaters had no room to widen their screens on the sides for Cinemascope and other wide formats, so they just showed a Cinemascope film on their old square screens.
I have a book about old theaters here in upstate New York which has a list that includes the years of operation. It's easy to see that there were many theaters, especially neighborhood second-run houses and those in small towns, that closed within a two year period following the introduction of CinemaScope.
As you pointed out many simply didn't have room for a larger screen and also probably couldn't afford the cost of new equipment. Interestingly, the same thing happened in the late 1920's when sound films came out. In both cases the studios helped subsidize the conversion of the big city first-run theaters that they owned or those controlled by large, powerful circuits, but offered little or no help to the smaller, less profitable operations.
I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing we'll see the same sort of thing happen again if digital projection becomes standard.
-
25 years! Holly, you're making me fell very old today. It doesn't feel like it's been out that long. I always liked GREMLINS. It's a lot of fun.
-
Holly, by any chance did you see it? If so, what was the print like?
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} Potemkin and Metropolis seem to academic to me. I think you can show films that the kids will enjoy and learn from, but I wouldnt show films that would bore them.
I agree with you Fred. Metropolis is a favorite of mine, but the film is long and slow in spots. Starting off with films like that will be the kiss of death for the class. Start off with light, fun films and slowly build up to the more serious films.
Since all kids today have seen JURASSIC PARK and others like it, the original THE LOST WORLD would work. It would give them a modern film to compare it to and open up all kinds of discussion.. It also only runs about 60 minutes.
-
> {quote:title=mateo107 wrote:}{quote} i seem to remember the movie being in color, although i wouldn't trust my memory too much there; it took me the longest time to find "Silk Stockings" because for some reason I remembered that one in B&W.
It's not just our memories. It's the decades of watching b/w TV sets. There was a whole generation of kids who never knew THE WIZARD OF OZ was in color.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} I recall Fred Astaire's widow held up "That's Entertainment" because she wouldn't agree to let Astaire's image be used until her monetary demands were met. But she had no problem selling his image to Dustbuster or Hoover for use in a vacuum cleaner ad.
>
> Go figure.
I'll bet she got alot more money from the vacuum cleaner ad then she ever got from MGM for THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT.
-
I was about to suggest the same film. It has been shown a number of times over the years a TCM. Perhaps it will turn up again.
-
> {quote:title=jimmydee wrote:}{quote} ...instead you ran 7:30 Child of Manhattan (1933) 8:45am Circus Queen Murder, The (1933)
> 10:00am Man's Castle, A (1933)
JIm, what schedule did you use? All three of the above films were listed in the September NOW PLAYING program guide which came out early in August. If you are looking ahead in the TCM online schedule, which goes out up to three months ahead,keep in mind that it's always subject to change. The best thing to do is check it often to see if there are any changes.
-
See. As I told you whenever TCM pre-empts a film they always do their best to make it good with a reschedule. It just takes a few months. Enjoy!
-
> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}
> I'm cautiously optimistic about the (alleged) upcoming Paramount-Universal titles. I'm hoping for rare early 30s stuff. But I'm worried we'll only end up with the Hope-Crosby "Road" pics; Doris Day & Rock Hudson; and 1950s westerns.
There's no doubt in my mind that TCM would love to play the rare titles, but I think that what actually gets shown falls to Universal. We all know what happen to the Columbia films. Sony didn't have digital transfers made of many of the B films and others so TCM couldn't show them. I'm hoping that Universal has its act together and will take good care of TCM.
-
Although it's not as detailed when it comes to things like tv roles and sticks pretty much to movies, the TCM database is also very helpful. It's right here, just click on "DB HOME" on the banner at the top of this page and search whoever you want.
-
Films were made to be seen with an audience, not in one's living room. Seeing one like THE WIZARD OF OZ on the big screen with a crowd that's really into it makes it a true experience. Glad you had that chance.
As for WHITE CHRISTMAS, that's a Paramount film and that studio doesn't seem as interested in their classics as Warner Bros. is. A couple of years ago there was a 35mm showing of it at a local historic theater and the print was horrible, faded with scratches and splices. Warner, it seems, knows how to do it right. Paramount hasn't caught on yet.
-
I'm still having the same problems when using IE, but it seems fine with Firefox. Over these many months of problems I've had better luck with FF, but even so, in recent weeks even its been iffy. Perhaps others are right and the whole thing should go and start over with a new software program. Might be a good chance to resolve some other issues at the same time.
-
It's interesting how impressions of films change over the years. I just read the review for THE THING that was printed in Variety on April 4, 1951. While overall they gave good marks for the technical work, the first line of the review starts off with:
"The Thing, an exploitation special, lacks genuine entertainment values..."
Could it be the reviewer was watching a different film?
As for the print quality, I didn't see the latest showing, but I assume that it's the same tape they've run before and I'm pretty sure that's the same as the DVD. I seem to recall, that, some years ago, somebody found a couple of short sequences that were missing, but had to be copied from a 16mm print. It's pretty obvious where they were cut in. I wouldn't mind seeing a full restoration done. I'd sure buy it.
-
I'm always cautious of places that don't have phone numbers and postal addresses, just a web site. It always smells of bootlegger to me.
If people want to buy from bootleggers that's their business, but beware. Enter (your credit card #) at your own risk.
-
well, I've always said that if you're going to remake a movie, choose one that could have been great, but didn't quite make it. Then do everything you can to improve on the original and make it great. Instead they remake classics which can't be improved, turn out lousy films and profit off the title of the original.
-
Actually, I'm surprised that somebody didn't make a Barbie movie a long time ago. If it's good (or even if it isn't) every little girl in the world will want to see it, not to mention the merchandising. It should be a gold mine for Universal and Mattel. $$$$$$
-
I'm pretty sure that it was indeed HOLLYWOOD AND THE STARS you saw. I don't recall seeing it around since the early 1970's. As Ray pointed out most likely rights problems keeps it from being re-released. It's too bad though, I'd love to see it as a DVD release and on TCM.
-
I sure agree with you. I've cut back on my book buying and unless it's something like a reference book that I'll need to keep going back to, I just get them out of the public library. You may have to be put a reservation list and wait a bit for new books and recent bestsellers, but the price is certainly right. Most libraries have a good DVD collection for loan too.
1983 version of "Pygmalion"?
in General Discussions
Posted
I didn't think it was nearly as good as the original, but it's worth watching if only to see Peter O'Toole.