Sprocket_Man

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > He killed 8 million people in Fail-Safe. Including his wife, which makes the crime suspicious.

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > Look at the cufflinks Sydney Greenstreet is wearing. The character he is playing is Casper Gutman. But the initials on the cufflinks are "S" and "G"...Sydney Greenstreet. No, no, no! The "S" and "G" stand for "selfishness" and "greed!" Perfectly in keeping with the Fat Man's character!

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > When I saw The Story of Will Rogers (1952) on TCM a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised by how much Will Rogers Jr. sounded like Jimmy Stewart, with his Western country-boy accent. Very much so. And Ive been wondering if he was imitating Jimmy Stewart, because he sounded more like Jimmy Stewart than he sounded like Will Rogers Sr. The "he" was Will Rogers, jr, playing his father. Both Rogerses sounded very much alike, though Senior grew up in Oklahoma, whereas Junior was born in New York City and was raised largely in Southern California. Jimmy Stewart, on the other hand, was from Pennsylvania (though, you can also say he was from Indiana -- Indiana, PA, that is). If one watches his films, it becomes clear that his drawl increased as he got older (and found himself in a lot of Westerns in the 1950's). I've always liked Stewart but, given the choice, I much prefer to watch his best friend, Henry Fonda. Stewart gave performances (albeit some splendid ones), whereas Fonda gave you the truth in his characters that few actors of his day could match.

> {quote:title=NZ wrote:}{quote} > While MGM did transfer ownership first to Lorimar Telepictures and then Sony in the mid to late 80s the backlot did not survive this transfer of ownership, suffering the wrecking ball in 1975 after Kirk Kerkorian's takeover to raise capital for his Las Vegas hotel; itself the scene of destructive chaos in 1981 when the second largest fire in hotel history claimed 85 lives. MGM's Lot 2, across Overland Avenue from the main studio lot, was still full of most of its standing sets into 1979; in 1978, when I spent a couple of days exploring it and taking photos, only the far western end of the property (containing the midwestern town and English lake/bridge) was being redeveloped. All the New York and London streets, as well as the big steamship fa?ade, were still there, though in varying states of disrepair (it had been common practice for decades to let those sets deteriorate, and then fix them up as needed). > One final point that should be cleared up: initially it was Ted Turner's intention to continue making movies at MGM once he acquired the studio from Kerkorian. Unfortunately for Mr. Turner, he was not the media giant then that he eventually became and quickly realized he had neither the capital nor the resources to resurrect MGM from oblivion. He was therefore forced to sell off the studio and other assets to save his own fledgling company from bankruptcy. I've never quite bought into Turner's story that it had been his original intention to make a go of running MGM. His finances were no secret to him, and I've always suspected that he just concocted the story to deflect the criticism that buying up the company only to keep the film library brought down on him.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *I guess what I meant to ask was what was the last MGM movie filmed on the MGM lot?* > > Jayo, > > No problem. *That's Entertainment* - the host segments- was probably the last or close to the last MGM film to shoot on the lot before it was shut down temporarily in the late 1970s. No, the lot was still occupied by MGM until 1986, when the company was acquired by Turner Broadcasting. As most here know, Ted Turner was only interested in the studio's film library; as soon as the deal was completed, he turned around and sold the studio lot to Lorimar Telepictures, which was later acquired by what was then known as Warner Communications. When Warner decided it no longer wished to share its Burbank Studios with Columbia Pictures, it offered the former MGM lot to Columbia for free in return for Columbia's moving out of Burbank (though Warner also asked for, and got, the Columbia Ranch, a fairly small tract of sound stages and standing sets in Toluca Lake, a few blocks from the Warner's main lot). So, the Culver City facility most closely associated with MGM ceased to be MGM in 1986, though I'm still not sure what the last MGM-released film made on that lot might have been.

> {quote:title=SoonerLady wrote:}{quote}> > The Jack Webb movie seems to be a lost classic. Hardly lost, just not often shown: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052526/ It's owned by Warner Bros., so it should eventually turn up on TCM and/or be offered as a burn-to-order DVD by the Warner Archive. > Add William Conrad, Joe Flynn, David Nelson and other stock Webb productions cast and a story about a missing child, lost in the LA storm drains, with a severe rain storm settling in over the city. Don't forget that the L.A. sewers were also crawling with giant mutant ants that wouldn't be intimidated even by Sgt. Joe Friday.

> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:}{quote} > calling [Zanuck] a mogul when they're talking about his producer status at WB (NOT a mogul at this time), but don't mention that he DID become a mogul with 20th Century Pictures, and a couple of years later, 20th Century Fox, OR its outstanding entry into the 'straight from the headlines" films, THE GRAPES OF WRATH (This chapter was supposed to extend to 1941). By the late 1920's Zanuck wasn't "a producer" at Warner's, he was head of production, generally the same position he held at 20th Century Pictures, and 20th Century-Fox when the former merged with Fox Studios in 1936. The difference is that at Warner's Zanuck was answerable to Jack, Harry and Albert Warner, whereas at 20th his superiors were the company's board of directors in New York. Those directors respected Zanuck's skills as a storyteller and administrator very highly, and gave him a lot of freedom; the studio lot in West Hollywood was very much his personal fiefdom, allowing him the unofficial title of "mogul," which his employ at Warner's did not, but while there he was no mere "producer." As for THE GRAPES OF WRATH, that was hardly "torn from headlines," since the 1940 movie portrayed the plight of "Oakies" fleeing the Dust Bowl of the mid-1930's. What it was torn from (very respectfully) was John Steinbeck's 1939 novel.

It sounds a bit like Powell & Pressburger's I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING!, though some of the details differ from your account.

> {quote:title=Hobsonschoice wrote:}{quote} > Any suggestions from the TCM Gang on what stocking stuffer to include this Christmas? Take Orson Welles's advice that a movie studio is the best toy-train set a boy ever had. That goes for girls, too. In case you missed it in the papers, MGM is for sale.

Mel Gibson and I were in the same school in Westchester County, NY, for a year or so. He'd be easier to remember if he'd gone on drunken anti-Semitic tirades back then, but I guess it's just something he had to grow into. Then there's Paul "Pee-wee Herman" Reubens (n? Rubenfeld), the cousin of one of my best friends in high school...

> {quote:title=cujas wrote:}{quote} > However, Mr. K didn't approve of *Can-Can*. Reportedly he said, "It's Capitalism that makes women kick like that and show their panties." Khrushchev, just an earthy country boy from the Kursk Oblast, surely loved the racy recreation of the 19th century Follies Bergere, but his duty to Socialism and the points he could score for it, both abroad and at home, from condemning Western "decadence" came first. His reaction was as phony as his famous shoe-pounding outrage at the United Nations (Khrushchev was wearing both his shoes at the moment of his tirade; the shoe he pounded on the desk in what was, upon closer examination, premeditated theatrics, was brought expressly for that purpose).

> {quote:title=wouldbestar wrote:}{quote} >I won a free pass and decided to see the Disney animated film, Balto. It's not a Disney movie; it was made by Steven Spielberg's Ambin' Entertainment, and released by Universal.

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} > I've been seeing the promo a lot over the last week. In it, there are several clips of the film's premiere throughout the world but the one that puzzles me the most is the one in Moscow with Gregory Peck in attendance. While I'm pretty sure it was a promo for a re-release of this film, wasn't that at the height of the Cold War? I'll admit I really don't know much about cultural exchanges back then other than the occasional ballet troupe on Ed Sullivan. I'm just totally surprised that a film about nuclear holocaust being shown in Moscow with a star of the film in attendance. > > Can someone with more knowledge of this enlighten me? > > Edited by: helenbaby on Nov 15, 2010 8:29 AM Because Nevil Shute's novel and Stanley Kramer's movie really don't assign the blame for the nuclear annihilation ON THE BEACH posits, the Soviets saw an opportunity to put an at least vaguely anti-American spin on it. Also, 1959, the year the film was released, saw something of a thaw in U.S.-Soviet relations (remember Nixon's "kitchen debate" with Khrushchev) -- at least until Francis Gary Powers's U-2 spy plane was shot down over the USSR and President Eisenhower denied the U.S. had ever sent aircraft over Russia. Then the Soviets produced the plane's wreckage and the very-much-alive Powers, whom they then put on trial...

> {quote:title=wouldbestar wrote:}{quote} > Are you for real? Does that second n in a Germanic name diferentiate a Gentile from a Jew? If so, this descendant of the Rhineland has learned something from what I suspect from the smiley face comment is one of Israel. It generally does, though you'll always find exceptions (the more generations removed people are from their ancestral homelands, usually the laxer the distinctions become).

The heavier make-up common in silent films survived into the early sound era. Improvements in film-stock technology and lighting, as well as the work of Max Factor to create the so-called "pancake" make-up formulations and application techniques served to create a more naturalistic look by the mid-'30's.

Please insert spacing between words, parentheses and punctuation (or is your internet provider charging you by the keystroke?). Without them, whatever you write comes across as gobbledygook.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time till the Warner Archive DVD-burned-on-demand service adds it to its offerings.

> {quote:title=DixHandley wrote:}{quote} > A mean guy off camera, as well. It is widely known that he routinely put out his cigarettes on cats. McGraw probably still takes a back seat to Bruce Cabot who, David Niven once said, was the meanest, most miserable human being he ever met (though baseball legend Ty Cobb, a certifiable psychotic, was probably nastier still).

What point is there in having a chimp if you don't send him up into the tree to prune the fronds and pick the coconuts?

Hey, "Errol," please learn to leave a space between the punctuation mark ending a sentence or clause and the first letter of the next sentence or clause. And break up your text into paragraphs, otherwise what you've written is too dense, cluttered and haphazard to bother reading.

> {quote:title=Bargar wrote:}{quote} > Hi, Everyone. > > I have been gone from this scene for quite some time but I am happy to say I am back and anxious > to get started. > > Bargar At least the above message wasn't from Richard Nixon.

> {quote:title=srdixon wrote:}{quote} > The film was made in the late 40's or earily 50's. Unfortunately my Grandfather was uncredited. As far as the other actors I dont know who they are. I do have a cast photo I can post if you think you would know them? Just because he received no screen credit doesn't mean that his name isn't listed in the full known cast and credits. Tell us his name.

No, the film's flaw is that its resolution is utterly preposterous. Jeff Smith has lost. Press baron "Boss" Jim Taylor has orchestrated a campaign that has inundated the Senate mail room with thousands of letters and telegrams, purporting to be from ordinary citizens of his state, condemning Smith for being corrupt. Practically every member of the Senate, spanning both parties, has turned hid back on Smith, demanding his resignation. Even Saunders has begged Smith to stop before his last few loyal Boy Rangers end up crushed under the wheels of Taylor's newspaper trucks. All Smith has left is the certainty of his own virtue, and the occasional warm grin from the President of the Senate. In the face of all this, why in heaven's name would Senator Paine, after years, if not decades, descending into the black pit of corruption, with its attendant monetary rewards and privilege, suddenly throw it all away -- guaranteeing an end to his remuneration and privilege, expulsion from the Senate and likely criminal prosecution -- by admitting his guilt on the floor of the Senate chamber? Because Jeff Smith reminded him that he'd been the best friend of Smith's late father, and that lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for? Please. The film actually does a disservice to anyone's understanding of the workings of government or society by more than suggesting that under the skin of every greedy, self-interested individual lurks a conscience. History and experience have proven otherwise.

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > Ending up here in L.A. at The Grove from Nov. 18-20, which is a Thursday through Saturday. Must mark it on my calendar so I don't miss it! I wonder where in the Grove they will have it? The movie theatre there is the logical place for it.

> {quote:title=molo14 wrote:}{quote} > This seems to be another example of the fact that most of the elite Hollywood community could care less about preserving their own history. $50 million isn't too large a sum for these guys if Reynolds's collection is the treasure trove it appears to be. They could step up in a collective effort if they cared to. It's actually a lot of money when the odds that such an investment will yield any financial return are slim and none. At least if you invest $50 million in the filming of a movie, you stand some chance of making a profit. PS: The expression is "couldn't care less" (though the confusion could probably be minimized if people would learn to avoid the contraction and say "could not care less"), not "could care less," which is diametrically opposite to the meaning you wished to convey.