ValentineXavier

> {quote:title=Bone_dddy wrote:}{quote}HEY THERE FOLKS! > > I saw this film on TCM in the summer of 2010. It was B&W. The main character seemingly had two side kicks and was helping a damsel in distress. During a fight with some gangster types, I believe a side kick in a bowler opens his jacket, produces a jar of bees and opens jar causing the bees to attack the gangsters. > I'm pretty sure that was *Nick Carter, Master Detective*. I think that was the last one they showed, prior to the recently shown *Phantom Raiders*, which does not have that scene. The only other Nick Carter film, and so the only other film with Bartholomew the "Bee Man," is *Sky Murder*.

Yeah, I'm not much of a Tarantino, or *Kill Bill* fan. I mainly mentioned it because it was just about the last thing Carradine did, and it was popular.

Or any Monty Python movie...

The only way to resolve the question of which film is better is with a dogfight.

:^0

So, why do we celebrate Thanksgibbon, but not Thanksorangutan, or Thankschimpanzee? I like most tubers, like carrots, parsnips, even rude-abagas, but turnips turn me into a spit personality. I spit them out.

> {quote:title=cody1949 wrote:}{quote}Wouldn't it be terrific if threads like this were totally ignored? Maybe it would make the poster come up with a more sensible subject. +1

Harpo's on your original list twice. Well, sometimes he does seem to be in two places at the same time...

Hmmm... Fred C. Dobbs can't remember Bruce Bennett ... Cody Barton MacLane ... McCormick Alfonso Bedoya ... Gold Hat Well, okay, I guess I can see why you would want to forget those guys, but you remembered Howard and Curtin. Also, You remember Groucho, but forget Chico and Harpo? Well, memory's a funny thing. I'm sure I'd overlook lots of names, making such a list.

> {quote:title=TomJH wrote:}{quote} > > We truly are a lucky and, yes, spoiled lot of movie buffs today, with our vast libraries to which we can refer anytime we want. It's a great treat for me to know that any day I want I can sit back and pull out a DVD of a Way Down East or Grand Hotel or Best Years of Our Lives, among thousands of titles that I possess. And added to that, are those hundreds of titles I have that are not available anywhere else except on TCM. > You're so right. We don't know how good we have it. In the cynical words of Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, we are "amused to death."

Thriving in the 30s? Perhaps you've forgotten about The Great Depression.

*Seven Brides for Seven Frankensteins* In this re-imagining of the classic film, Steven Spielberg succumbs once again to his impulse to over-do things to the point of absurdity. The mad Dr. clones Elsa and Boris. He hopes that giving the brides choices of mates will result in less screaming. Also, chasing seven monster couples in the finale will divide the townspeople, making it more likely that at least one couple will escape. A film for the multiplexes, starring Daniel Day-Lewis as the mad Dr., Gwyneth Paltrow as the brides, Brad Pitt as the monsters, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Igor.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Oh, I get it...sort of like, "no news is good news"... Given that this is a noir thread, 'no noose is good noose' might be more appropriate. The reason I'm not adding anything substantive, is because we've swept this beach so many times before. "We've been down this alley so many times before" would probably be more appropriate for a noir comment, but that would make me feel too much like Miles Archer.

It might be *The Battle of Algiers*. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/

Although Oliver Stone took much of his plot for *JFK* from DA Jim Garrison's investigations, he never meant that *JFK* presented what actually happened, and said so at the time. I think it's an intriguing and entertaining film. I've read too much about it, about the many impossibilities in the Warren Commission Report, to believe Oswald acted alone. I doubt we'll ever know what really happened. Gee, this is a "blank thread," so I guess we're not even OT.

Ben looks more like Ryan O'Neal to me.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}Wasn't there another poster with this same issue about a year, year and a half ago? > > Or am I just imagining that? Seems to me more like a month and a half ago, a month and a half before that, and a month and a half before that, and... Why some people would imagine that TCM is cropping films is beyond me. It would take time, money, and effort, not to mention making an inferior film presentation, disappointing viewers. Why would they do that? It would be ridiculous. I much prefer films in OAR, and often won't watch them, if they are not. I assume that TCM requests OAR films, as they state that's what they want to show. I'm sure that sometimes they are not available in OAR format, and I know that in the past they have been sent films they thought were in OAR, but were not. Those things are beyond their control. How long before showing do they get films? How soon do they check them, and are they diligent about checking the OAR? If the film is in the wrong aspect ratio, do they try to get a replacement before air time? I don't know. Perhaps they could be a little more diligent. But, no channel I know of is better at having OAR films.

In theory, practice is the same as theory. But, in practice, it isn't.

> {quote:title=Filmgoddess wrote:}{quote}52" HDTV Samsung. $2000 free delivery; just let me know. How do I know his work has aged badly? Watch it without wincing. It's impossible. > > As for his being unpleasant ... he is one of the few people, if not the only one, who upon receiving an Honorary Oscar didn't receive a standing ovation. As Army Archerd wrote at that time ... "it suprised some in the viewing audience but he's not one of the most well-liked people out here." I'm too busy laughing to wince, when I watch Danny Kaye. I think most of his stuff has aged very well. *Court Jester* and *Wonder Man* are two of my favorites. Whether he was a nice guy, a jerk, or a complete a-hole IRL doesn't enter in to my enjoyment of his films. BTW, you can get a bigger Mitsubishi DLP set, with a beautiful PQ, for less than half of what you ask for the Sammy... Edited by: ValentineXavier on Oct 9, 2011 1:35 AM

Well, let's see... I wouldn't mind living the life of Howard, in *The Treasure of the Sierra Madre*, as it looks in the end of the film. Or, maybe hanging out at the Latin American bar, in the end of *The Great McGinty*. Those would both be pretty laid back. Constantly jumping through time and space, like Billy Pilgrim in *Slaughterhouse Five*, or Zaphod Beeblebrox in *The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy* would be very interesting.

I find that the best strategy is to set/leave "Plain Text" as your default. If you wish to quote someone: Click the reply balloon Click on the "Rich Text" tab Click on the "Quotes" balloons Click on the plain text tab immediately, before you do anything else Move the cursor to a spot below the quote, so that there is at least one vacant line between it and the quote above it Type in your reply If you don't keep "Plain Text" as your default, and you have to edit later, everything will be a mess when you try to edit, because it will come up in "Rich Text.".

*In a Lonely Place* isn't one of my favorite Bogart films, he's just done so many, so much more appealing. *The Big Sleep* is my favorite Bogart film. But, like some others, I think Fred C. Dobbs was his best performance.

> {quote:title=WilliamP. wrote:}{quote} >My guess is TCM is using its technology to *move the picture in* - they are not editing the movie as such but pan and scan is not editing either. Its unethical to alter the frame of a movie. by pulling the picture in you remove detail from the edges - & people who are on the edges are characters in the movie. They disappear when you pull in. If you have 6 people in the movie - by pulling in it becomes 4. Its not editing but its really bad because once you start, there is no stopping it. I am really surprised WB is doing this but I shouldn't be. Corporations are not people. "Move the picture in" is commonly called zooming. TCM does not alter the aspect ratio of films. That would take special equipment, and extra effort. They show them as they are provided to them. My guess, in the particular case you mention, is that these early films were in the now almost forgotten aspect ratio of 1.20:1. It was used in the early days of film. This aspect ratio is narrower than the standard 1.37:1 ratio. Standard definition TV is 1.33:1, so, if everything is done correctly, very little is lost. But, showing a 1.20:1 film in its OAR (original aspect ratio,) would leave black bars on the sides of a 1.33:1 frame. For this reason, when transferred, 1.20:1 films are usually cropped on the top and bottom, so that they fill a 1.33:1 frame. It's a disgusting practice, but it's common. That's probably what WB did, and supplied such copies to TCM. When WHV released the first season of the 70s TV show Kung Fu, they heavily cropped the 1.33:1 frame to make 1.79:1 anamorphic DVDs. That's how dumb they can be. There is a similar problem with the more modern (popular in the 60s and 70s) aspect ratio of 1.66:1. It is commonly cropped on the sides to produce a 1.33:1 version, and/or cropped on the top and bottom to produce a 1.79:1 version, to fill a HDTV screen.

*What's New Pussycat*, and *The Loved One*, both from 1965.

I'm a noir fan, and a Kubrick fan. *The Killing* is an excellent film. But, for me, Kubrick's best film is a toss-up between *Dr. Strangelove* and *A Clockwork Orange*. But, *2001* may be his most influential.