ValentineXavier

> {quote:title=smileys wrote:}{quote} >*They have shown Orson in Jane Eyre.* - VX > > I'm pretty sure TCM has never shown it. > I know I saw it in the last year, or two at most. Perhaps it was on FMC. I think it is a Fox film.

I'll drink a bottle of Guinness to that!

That was Harrison Fonda.

> {quote:title=pturman wrote:}{quote} >Really Valentine? I would have to say I have the opposite opinion. I LOVE GWTW. Seen it a million times (once on the big screen) & read the book twice. I saw LOA once & for the life of me didn't see what the big deal was. My guess as to why I didn't like LOA is because I saw it on a small tv. My guess as to why you didn't like GWTW is because of the racial stereotypes (which seems to be what the vast majority who don't like it point to). I like other David Lean movies but just couldn't get into LOA. It's interesting that we're comparing these two movies since they seem to have quite a lot in common: long, epic storytelling, both famous for their visual elements, both in historical settings. Well, at this point, others have said much of what I would say, but... GWTW is an overly dramatic soap opera. The plot seems very contrived, and much of the dialog laughable. I can overlook the racial stereotypes, given when it was made, and the period it depicts. Although I'm from Oklahoma, both sides of the family came from Mississippi. Supposedly I have several Confederate generals for ancestors. So, I'm hardly unfamiliar with a Southern POV, even if it isn't exactly my own. GWTW has a great cast. I haven't read the book, but I gather it is fairly faithful. If they had given it a rewrite, to make it more of an adventure film, and less of a soap, I might have liked it. The 'burning of Atlanta' scene was good, for the day. LOA must be seen on a big screen, to be appreciated. I have a 56" HDTV, and even it doesn't do *Lawrence* justice. I have seen the restoration in the theater, on a big screen. Watching that film can actually parch my throat, it is so affecting. It's also a great story. Apart from being historical epics, I see no real relation between the two films, regardless of what I think of their quality.

> {quote:title=Ascotrudgeracer wrote:}{quote}Can't understand why there has never been a big-budget film bio of a man who -- although he didn't invent the car -- invented the car industry. > > Ford's hatred of Jews? > His anti-union views? > Not enough interest; not a sexy subject? Well, Ford said "History is bunk," so he wouldn't want a historical film made about him, because that would make him bunk. Or, maybe it's in part because he was a supporter of the Nazis.

> {quote:title=sanniti wrote:}{quote} >... it's always the same Orson Wells films they show each year. They are showing *Trent's Last Case*, which I had never heard of. They have shown Orson in *Jane Eyre*.

This is not a response to this thread. It is merely a notification that I have observed what is going on in this thread. I've been too busy watching great Garfield noirs to respond to it.

I agree that the four Flynn films you cite are the best. In fact, *Captain Blood* is one of my favorite films, period. But, there are others that are good, and entertaining - *The Spanish Main* with Paul Henreid, *The Crimson Pirate* with Burt Lancaster, and the already mentioned *The Black Swan*. Gerard Depardieu has made several good modern swashbucklers. I love *Brotherhood of the Wolf* and *V for Vendetta* which are modern quasi-swashbucklers.

> {quote:title=Capuchin wrote:}{quote}People have definitely changed over time. In 1930, 5' 5.75" was the height of the average male in an industrialized country. That rose to 5' 10.9" by 1980. > > Although I'm clearly not an expert, I assume that difference in height did not happen in isolation -- other changes in musculature and skeletal growth had to happen at the same time. > You are quite correct, there have been definite physical changes, with height, for men, and women, being one. Another factor is improved childhood nutrition in industrialized countries. Lots of people, even in the US, suffered from various nutritional deficiencies, well into the 30s and 40s. I'm not an expert either, just an amateur interest in anthropology and archaeology, but I do see people in old films that look to me like they had bad childhood nutrition, in part because of their facial look. > > I can state with some confidence that for photos taken between 1880 and 1930, and with three or more women pictured, I can date it to within ten years by the shape/firmness and height of the breasts. (The length of the legs is also a clue, but it's mainly the breasts.) > What you describe here sounds mostly like a product of the popularity of wearing bras, which continue to affect the anatomy when they are off... But, average (natural) breast size in women, has also risen. So, changes in styles, makeup, tastes, have all played a part in making people look different, but there have also been some real changes in human anatomy.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > > Somewhere a village is missing an idiot. I think it would take a larger municipality to produce one of that caliber.

Did anyone ever see Elvis and Marilyn together? Maybe they were the same person.

> {quote:title=Cobolt wrote:}{quote} >But this is the same formatted print I have been seeing aired for decades. I know it is not widescreen but shouldn't the theatrical print have a little bit more of an area than the full blown 4:3 format? I mean alot of non-widescreen movies from that era have more screen area then the old 4:3 TV format. The original film ratio is 1.37:1, also called "Academy Ratio." When Television was invented, 4x3 was chosen as the standard because it is so close to 1.37:1 So, with a 'perfect' transfer to 4x3, a slight amount of picture is lost on the R&L sides. However, I doubt that transfers were ever perfect. Usually, some picture is lost from all four sides, to avoid ever seeing a raw edge. My favorite Betty Boop cartoons were transferred so badly, that a LOT of image is missing, from the top and bottom. Add to this the fact that almost all TVs, unless they have been professionally adjusted, typically have 3-5% "overscan" on the edges, and sometimes as much as 6-8%. That means you are losing that much picture, on any given edge. The amount will vary, from edge to edge. So, in total, you can lose a lot of the image. It is my wish and hope, but sadly not my expectation, that as new transfers are made for the digital age, and for HD formats, that they will do them carefully, preserving the entire 1.37:1 image.

I agree that *Breaking Point* is an excellent, and under-appreciated film. Another Garfield film I'd place in that category is *We Were Strangers*. I had never seen it, until TCM ran it a while back. It's quite an unusual film about Cuban revolutionaries, in 1949.

> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote} > Shatner is too old and portly to reprise his role as Kirk. On the other hand, if he grew a handlebar moustache, he might make a good Harcount Fenton Mudd. That's Harcourt Fenton Mudd. *I, Mudd* is my favorite ep of ST:TOS. I'd love to see the final two years of the Enterprise's original mission. They would have to recast the original characters. It wouldn't require a reboot, or changing ST history. They would, of course, update the sets, and the Enterprise, but keep in spirit with the original.

On Aug. 2nd, in the General Discussions forum, Mike M. opened a thread about exactly the same subject, so the Admin. should close one of them. But, I'll just say the same thing here I said there: I see fins circling in the water... -~~^~~~~~~^~~-

I have a copy of *Exterminating Angel* that says you are wrong.

Well, I'm definitely don't believe in censorship, and I'm not smug, just a bit tired of seeing "chum thrown in the water" as someone else phrased it. Sorry if you don't see the humor intended in my shark-in-the-water.

I don't know. *The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living, and Became Mixed-up Zombies* is awfully hard to beat.

YOW! What a story! It would make a good film.

Wikipedia's film noir article says that *Wonder Man* was the first known deliberate parody of film noir!

Having your set professionally adjusted is a good idea. You would probably find it looked a lot better. But, a couple of caveats. There are professional adjusters that do an excellent job, usually charge $300-400 to do it, and some of them travel around the country. I called the high-end audio store, where I bought my 56" DLP TV, and AVR, and asked them how much to adjust my set. I think they wanted about $150, which seemed a great bargain. Well, they came out to do it, but their adjustments did not include setting a gray scale, or adjusting the overscan. Their picture adjustments were almost identical to what I had done, using an AVIA test disc. A repair man can probably adjust the overscan, but probably wouldn't do the other settings. So, before you agree to have someone do it, make sure you, and they, are clear on what will be done.

You're probably talking about Talkietime. I have two DVDRs, with 160GB HDDs, and two two-tuner DVRs, with 250GB HDDs. They capture far more than I have time to watch. That's part of why I don't sympathize with those who complain that TCM shows a few films that 'don't belong' on TCM. I mean, really, they show so much worth watching, who can watch all they'd like to?

-~~^~~- more sharks circling -~~^~~-

He was The Bride of Frankenstein's husband. Addendum: Okay, I'm a little slow. I noticed the mispelling right away, but it took me a minute to get it. :8} Edited by: ValentineXavier on Aug 2, 2011 9:43 PM

I haven't watched it yet, but a best-of program of one of my favorite 70s TV shows, PBS' The Great American Dream Machine just showed up on one of the sub channels of one of the three PBS stations I can get on cable. I thought I'd never get to see any of it again!