JamesJazGuitar

I do agree with you that here is herd mentality going on as it relates to DDL. This is likely due him winning 3 Oscars (or even having 2 before this week), his many nominations by various film groups and the fact he has played historical figures (which tend to elevate actors in the eyes of these groups as well as the general ****). I just viewed your list of actors you feel are right up there with DDL. I agree all of them are very fine actors and yea, I cannot really say DDL is better as an actor than they are. (and I also agree that these 'X is best' discussions tend to be folly). But one thing that does seperate DDL from other actors of his generation to some degree is that he has picked his roles very wisely. i.e. he hasn't been in a lot of movie since he gained attention in 1985 (16 if I counted correctly), and almost of all of those are well respected movies.

Thanks for all the great feedback. So to kind of sum it up it looks like Darnell kind of ran into the perfect storm; i.e. a combination of events, some due to her choices, that lead to pre-mature downward spiral. Compare that to DeHavilland; She ended her WB contract and came into the perfect sunshine (sorry for being corny!). Paramount was glad to utilize her (I wonder if some of their motive was to stick it to Jack), as well as 20th Century; great roles as well as high quality production backup. As you noted she was a major WB star but if Olivia didn't have that post WB post WWII run today I think she would only be known as Melodie in GWTW and for the Flynn movies. When the 50s started Olivia wanted to start a family and live in Paris and thus she willingly did only a movie every other year or so. Thus any so called downturn was welcomed.

Well I agree ratings were a reason, so forget that I said 'primary reason'; i.e. both are solid reasons. What we cannot measure is if the additional 4 movies that received nominations did increase their box office take. First we don't know what 4 movies would NOT of received a nomination (but of course we can guess!), and what the box office take would of been if they were NOT nominated. But I have to assume that a nomination can only help.

As I stated before (but I wonder if you read it), I believe your POV on Director's cut is a very modern one that does NOT apply to studio-era movies. Note that generally on this site my focus is on studio-era movies (i.e. the era of movies TCM mostly shows). I also commented on the fact you stated you don't 'like' (are not into?) many pre-1965 movies. Thus your focus is 180 degrees different than mine and that might explain why we often have a disconnect. How many director cuts have their been of studio-era movies? Thus for studio-era movies I do NOT support the contention that the director is the 'overall artist'. Again, with a director like Hitchcock that is the case (but even he had to 'edit' his work to conform to studio bosses, producers and censors). I also provided the example of Michael Curtiz and Warner Brothers studio. To me the movies directed by Curtiz while under contract for WB are more the artistic vision of WB as a whole than Curtiz as an individual (the 'A' production unit at WB was tops). In cases like this often there really isn't a director's artistic version. i.e. the studio version from the entire A unit team, is THE artistic version. Back in that day if an alterative version of a WB movie was going to be released it would make more sense for it to be a Hal Wallis 'cut' than a Curtiz cut. So while I understand your passion for director cuts I do NOT think it applies well to studio era movies. I don't know how I can make that anymore clear.

I'm not sure the primary reason for increasing the number of nominees was to increase the ratings for the Oscar telecast. I think the primary reason was to help the film industry market product. e.g. 4 more films could promote their movie as a best picture nominee. As you know all ads for a picture highly promote any nominations. So the more nominees, the more promoting, and hopefully more revenue for the film industry. Based on this paradigm, why nominate a blockbuster. They don't need an Oscar nomination to promote their film. So called 'adult' films (serious pictures), typically need something "extra" to lure in viewers.

So just based on the actresses listed, especially those in her age group (Ava Susan) is it fair to say that Darnell's career started on a downturn mostly because of her poor choices? (please note mostly). I mean Darnell still had the looks (I would say one of the top 2 - 3 best looking actresses at the start of the 50s) and had now learned the craft (which is where age is often relevant). Note that I'm not trying to put Darnell down but only reacting to your comment about the 50s and the studios trying to trim cost. In your view what was the main factor for Darnell? To me it starts to look like her choices since other actresses her age were able to 'make it big' even with the studios cutting back. But don't get me wrong I agree there are so many factors that any comparisons are difficult and thus can become very complex. I say the same thing when someone here asks 'why didn't XYZ become a bigger star' (e.g. this came up in a Ralph Mecker thread, and it his case it was because he refused to sign a studio contract).

To you have anything to back that up? I would hope they had asked someone like Crystal and he just didn't feel like doing it, but my assumption is (since I have no other info on this topic), is that they want someone they feel is a more younger hipper host. I assume this since, their 20 - 40 (or so), viewer rating has been on the decline for sometime now.

I agreed that it would be great if TCM didn't show as many repeats and even TB idea of a year without any repeats. My comment related to TB's point about marketing. To me marketing is about bringing in new customers more than retaining old ones (I view the later as more customer service than marketing). I assumed that when TB mentioned marketing heshe also meant bringing in new customers. Thus you and I agree. Regardless of what TCM shows they cannot do much to bring in new customers but they can do more to retain the existing ones. The best way to bring in new customers would be to NOT show any movies NOT made in the last 10 years or so.

So who would you say is the best actor of Day's generation. He was born in 1957, and thus I would say actors like De Niro are from a prior generation. I only mention De Niro since his name often comes up related to this topic. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Feb 25, 2013 8:56 PM

I see that you use the term 'yours'. Again, unless the product is in the public domain no one has the legal right to colorize a movie without getting permission. So who do you mean when you say 'yours'? You clearly do NOT mean the legal owner of the movie (and yes you already told me your POV wasn't driven by legal concerns). I assume (but please correct me if I'm mistaken), you mean the director when you say 'yours'. The director does NOT own the movie OR the artistic vision content. It is NOT his her movie, especially in the studio-era. In the studio-era in most cases the director is just ONE OF the people responsible for the final product. Thus to me it is folly to say a movie is the vision of the director and the director alone. Take Michael Curtiz; are these movies mostly his artistic vision OR that of the producers and the WB studio system? I say the latter. (but with Hitchcock I would say the former). So while I somewhat understand your disgust I believe it is misdirected. It should be direct towards those that own the rights to the movie and lease those rights to third parties that colorize movies. For example, some people were disgusted that Garbo's personal effects were sold to private parties. Well it was her own family that sold her stuff. In my view one should be a lot mroe disgusted with her family than those that purchased her stuff. Oh, I agree with you on people that purchase colorized movies but hey, I feel the same about people that purchase soda pop. > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}If the people that colorize a movie make a profit by doing so that means there is a demand for their product. So are the people who purchase colorized movies also morally wrong? > > > > > > > > NO, EASILY MANIPULATED, GULLIBLE, FOOLISH, OR JUST PLAIN IGNORANT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, I personally don't see a need to colorize movies but I don't view colorizing movies OR preferring to view a colorized movie as a morality issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POSSIBLY BECAUSE YOU'VE NEVER HAD A BLACK AND WHITE FILM OF YOURS COLORIZED WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT MORALITY IS IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Feb 25, 2013 8:46 PM

I hope you're not really saying that getting an Oscar should be based on a performers OFF the screen behavior. An actor deserves an Oscar based on their ON-screen performance and should be judged on that alone.

While I agree with no repeats for a year I question the comment about ",,,this has wonderful marketing potential". While most of us studio-era movie fans would like to see pictures they haven't seen before, those that do NOT watch TCM are way more likely to be drawn in by those studio-era movies that are at the top of their class and many, if not most, of the movies TCM repeats often fall into that category.

The question of who owns the rights (or who controls them), is something I'm very interested in. It came up in the colorization thread. I assumed that ONE 'body' (company, corporation, person), owned the rights; i.e. they are NOT divided up by percentage. I also assume, baring any other type of contractual agreement, this 'body' determines if a film can be altered; e.g. colorized, a so called director's cut is done, language can be changed, a different ending applied etc..... Someone said that Welles had a unique contract that prevent 'messing with' (being vague here on purpose), Citizen Cane. I wondered when this contract expires or who took over those rights after Welles died. e.g. could the current owners of CK, alter the movie and release this altered version? Sorry for so many questions.

How about 5 very negative post, implying the person who posted the original positive comment is clueless. Par for the course. I'll admit I'm a complete sucker for Charlize Theron. But, then again, I'm no goddess.

Your comment on Hitchcock relates to the topic of 'director's cuts' I was discussing somewhere else (and I don't even know if that concept existed in the studio-era but it does today). One of the questions I had was how much of the end-result one can attribute to the director versus others associated with the film; producers, studio boss, censors, screenwriter, book author, and even actors. For example, compare a director like Curtiz with Hitchcock. Are these good examples of polar opposites as it relates to the above question? (you're post clearly implies one can attribute a very high percentage of the 'end-result' to Hitchcock). With a director like Curtiz, how much would a director's cut differ from the original? OR with Hitchcock can one say the original release IS a director's cut (well except maybe for Suspicion?). Sorry if I should have create a new thread related to this.

I don't understand why you say there is no reason to wonder what the ending should of been as it relates to a director's cut. Are you saying that if a director's cut has a different ending then the original general release that that ending is the 'true' ending? i.e. director's cuts by definition are the true (or pure), version? I don't see the director as being the visionary on a picture; while the director is a main leader in this area he she is just one of the visionaries. As I pointed out this is especially true in the studio era (but a lot less true today and since I just saw you don't like many pre-65 movies maybe this is why we often have a disconnect since my focus on this forum is 99% on pre-65 movies). Thus related to a director 'vision' (and artistic control) in a discussion about Michael Curtiz here, one of the main topics was if he had a vision and how much of this was 'transfered' to the movies he directed. Many felt the producers of his movies had just as much, if not more, to do with the 'end result' than Curtiz. But it was funny that when I opened today's paper the lead story was related to Ben Affleck; it said 'his movie' won. With Curtiz would people say, for example, Casablanca was HIS movie? I don't think so. I think most people would say it was a WB movie before a Curtiz movie.

Do you care to explain what it is that makes you not like many pre-65 films? How would you compare those reasons, to say, books written prior to 65? (or even books written hundreds of years ago). I only mention books because often with movies the term 'dated' is used and I rarely see people use that term with books. Typically with books people will say the theme of the book still packs a punch today just like it did many decades (if not centuries), ago. e.g. a love story; since how we love (or not), each other, hasn't changed much with the times.

Webster defines greedy as: marked by [greed|http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed] *:* having or showing a selfish desire for wealth and possessions To me, everyone is greedy, to some degree. As for directors; Well a director can avoid working with a studio, form a group that helps finance the movie and use his own wealth. The main reason most don't do this is because of the financial risk. Remember that studios also lose vast amounts of money on unsuccessful projects. So I don't believe it is as black and white as many feel it is. It is more colorized! Also in the studio era the director didn't control the artistic vision of the movie. Yea, the director was typically the main source but only one source. There was the studio boss (who often ordered the director to make changes), the producers, the censors, and even actors and screenwriters that had some artistic say. Even directors like Hitchcock had to put up with these other 'sources' e.g. the ending of Suspicion.

Apology accepted. I clearly understand why many may be miffed that I'm justifying colorization. Like I said I don't see the need for it, but based on my comments in some ways, I do justify the process. That really wasn't my intent here. My intent was to say I see no harm in the process as long as access to the original isn't lost to future generations. Like my director-cut comment this comment may also be off topic but the concept of alterative versions got me thinking. A while back in RO's statements after a movie (sorry I forget which one), he mention there were two different endings; In Europe the ending was darker and in the USA it was a happy ending. I believe some movies had versions created for the southern part of the USA. One of the solid points against colorization is that future generations may only be exposed to the colorized version. i.e. that while the original would be available it would no longer be the so called primary version. If that was to happen I agree it would be sad. But I wonder in cases of alterative endings what is the original version? How does a station like TCM determine what version to show? (I believe in the case of the movie RO was discussing they showed the darker, but more realistic, Euro version). Of course I understand there is a BIG difference between the various versions I mention and the colorization of a movie (i.e. a major overall verses minor tweaks). With advancements in technology consumers might gain access to the entire amount of 'film' (but it would be digital and not film). They could edit it anyway they wish, add their own music, etc.... Is that just allowing another creative outlet or is it a disgusting thing (like colorization). I have mixed feelings.

I believe I remember FanofBabs posting that 'Babs' is *Streisand.* i.e. that she is a fan of *Streisand.*

Now you're just being mean. I know what a director's cut is. But note that the original release is NOT a director's cut. i.e. a director's cut is a subsequent version and thus an altered version. Again, a director has to get premission from the owners to create a director's cut unless the director is the owner. If the director is the owner than he can legally prevent colorization.

Well one excellent point and one ridiculous one. That makes for a balanced day. I like that phase; an illusion of choice. This is true with cable TV, but using the Internet one does have access to a range of movies that people even 25 years ago wouldn't of dreamed of.

I don't see how your reply has anything to do with what I posted. Again, the director does NOT own the rights to the film. It is NOT his her film. So there is no need to ask the director anything. Unless there was some unique type of legal agreement, the owner of the rights can alter the material anyway they wish. Again, colorization is just ONE form of altering a work. For example, they have versions where cuss words are replaced with PC words. (and it drive me figgin nuts!). BUT as long as the original version is available I fail to see where the harm is. What I beleive people are forgetting is that there is a market for these altered works.

Funny you use the term 'their' as if those directors owned the rights to those films since clearly they didn't (otherwise they wouldn't need to protest since they could of just NOT authorized it). Even director cuts are NOT owned by the director. i.e. in most cases the director has to get permission to create a director's cut from the parities that actually have the rights to THE (not their), picture. Your Welles example is a good one and one of the points I have been making all along. IF those that created works do NOT wish them to be altered they need to retain the legal rights to them. The people that do own the rights authorize colorization. I would think those that feel colorization is some type of mortal sin would have more disdain towards these owners than the people that colorize the movies (people that in my view are just filling a need).

The two are similar because each is a different version then the originally released version (or general release version). Please tell me how why you feel that statement is ridiculous. Really I'm interested in your take on this. Of course I understand that a director's cut is the director's artistic version of a movie (verses, say, the studio or producers artistic version), and that a colorized movie is the artistic version of someone NOT originally connected with the creation of the movie. But I say 'so what' and as I pointed out before unless the movie is in the public domain, the owner of the rights to the movie has to authorize any revised versions. To me it is safe to assume these owners don't feel colorized is some type of major sin. Either way, I see no harm with additional versions as long as access the original version isn't made less available. What I see from many here with colorization is the same type of hate many have for remakes because, in their mind, remakes somehow harm the original. To me that POV is ridiculous. Remakes and colorization bring more exposure to the original.