JamesJazGuitar
-
Posts
35,217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by JamesJazGuitar
-
-
Well I still say you are stacking the deck. Yes, the pre-talking decades from 1900 - 1929 are not well represented so instead of the very general comment that AFI doesn't favor 'older' movies it is more accurate to say they don't favor pre-talking movies. As noted the data for 30s - 50s compared to 70s - 90s line up very closely. (I leave out the 60s on purpose since I consider this a transition decade).
What you call the 'golden era' I like to cal the studio era, which ended around 1968, but again, I left out the 60s on purpose. The 60s still had many films that feature our beloved classic stars. The Misfits having Gable, Monroe and Monty being just one example, and all the movies with stars that got started in the late 40s or early 50s like Brando, Lancaster, Douglas, Liz Taylor, Natalie Wood, etc...... To lump all of these movies in with the crap from the later decades makes no sense to me, regardless of what so called 'many people' might think.
And it clearly isn't that "selectors are either idiots or they have no idea what constitutes a great film" but that they have different tastes than you and they were raised during a different time period.
-
Well there is the 'bar' blog at CFU which is somewhat like a Chat room, but it is very difficult to follow the conversation based on how the text is posted. Then there is of course this site. I didn't find the 'bar' all that interesting since there wasn't any specific topic. Here at least I can pick topics I'm interested in.
-
Since TCM shows a lot of the Warner category, Jack Carson isn't ignored. He might not be featured in programs like SOTM of SUTS but films he is in are shown a lot. First because he made a lot of films and second, because many of them are very good films.
-
How did you determine that Singing in the Rain, or any film for that matter, is one of the most popular?
Hey, I have done this also. e.g. saying 'most people'. But I have to admit often I'm only guessing at what 'most people' believe or not.
-
I don't depend on TV as my primary source of entertainment. For example, I'm not one that turns on the TV as soon as I enter the house (like most Americans). So I think it is good you are watching less TV. Everyone should watch A LOT less TV.
So I highly recommend that all of those people that feel TV has let them down find other hobbies and ways to entertain themselves. The Internet even makes this more easy to do, but there are many, many other activities one can do besides watching TV and most of those are commercial free to boot.
-
Well Hitchcock liked to use Grant as a cad and did so years later in Notorious. Grant treated Bergman like crap in that movie but at the end he does save her and admit he was a fool. Hitchcock liked playing with the emotions of women who just couldn't accept that someone as good looking and charming as him could be a cad.
In this way Grant is perfect in the first half of Suspicion. While he is pushy and arrogant his charm and looks over come this and Joan falls hard for him. In this first half we only see a little of his bad side (selling the chairs his father in-law gave as wedding gifts, etc...) and Grant can pull that off.
But in the second half Grant doesn't really pull off the role of a major cad. i.e. someone that might kill his friend for money or his wife. Here someone like Mitchum would of been better.
I do agree with you that Mitchum would of been a better fit for both types of Johnnie's personality than Grant. While Mitchum doesn't have the charm and looks of Grant (who does!) he has enough to pull that part off and when it comes to menace Mitchum is way more suited.
-
Are political ads (directly by politicians or the new PAC type ads) run during an election cycle considered to be 'commericials'?
If YES, there is NO WAY any politicians is going to wish to limit the amount of time these are on. As we saw in Florida, politicians want to run political ads as much as they can. They also tell us these ads create jobs!
-
Of course not you Fred! Glad to see you understand I was making a joke. Trust me I heard what you are saying very clearly and get your POV. I play my guitar during commericials, which drives the wife nuts.
So while I might tune others out, I wouldn't do that with you.
-
The ending as written in the book sounds a lot more interesting, but I can understand why the studio and maybe even Grant himself wouldn't want such a dark ending. But that ending is a lot more true to all the events in the plot that had taken place. Of course, as you know, a lot of movies end up with happy endings (or less dark ones), that appear to come out of nowhere. This a function of the Hollywood dream machine. What I like about most noirs is that they don't do that but Suspicion was made before WWII.
-
This picture hits too close to home! When I was around his age I had hair very similar to him. Now it didn't stick up in back as much as his but it did stick up. It took a lot to convince my mom to allow me to not part my hair in the middle and too allow me to dress more casual. She was from Japan where they wear very formal uniforms so she felt going to school with a tie was a standard American practice!. (and if it wasn't she was going to make it so!!!!).
-
Yes, Fred you have explained what the FCC used to do a few times. But if you wish the FCC to put back those type of regulations, why shouldn't they apply to the Internet as well?
i.e. why not regulations that controls the number of pop-up ads, their length etc...
The Internet is the new media and as time marches on will be used more and more than over the air broadcasting and cable. So to me it is you that is looking at the "problem" (consumers being taken advantage by evil media coporations), the wrong way around.
-
Based on the stats you provided the AFI is NOT "skewed more toward more recent films".
Compare the aggregate of the 2007 nominations from 30s - 50s with the 70s - 90;
The totals are 155 verses 154. For chosen it is a tie at 39.
The data shows that the AFI is very balanced as far as what they pick per decade.
I'm no fan of the AFI (Olivia Dehavilland NOT being one of the top 25 actresses is a crime), but the data speaks for itself.
Also simple logic dictates that as more decades are added, LESS movies will be picked from any and all decades (unless one has the POV that there was only 1 or 2 high quality movies released in say the decade 1990, 2000 or 2010 or 2020 etc...).
Now if your point is that the AFI results should be skewed more towards 'older' (pre 1968), movies because the decades of the 30s - 60s had more higher quality films, I would agree with you.
Your slam of baby boomers is also misguided in my view. They may know "what constitutes really well made films from before 1950 or 1960" but given 100 choices just decide to pick movies from multiple decades instead of mainly just the 30s - 50s, because they believe well made films were ALSO made after 1968.
I admit my bias; My top 100 would have 90% of the firms from the 30s - 50s, but then some young pup could say I don't know what constitutes well made films from 1980 to today.
-
Why do you believe any remake would have an unhappy ending? Also if an ending is more faithful to the original source (e.g. book), how is that a bad thing? The book Suspicion was based on was written decades ago. Why didn't it have a happy ending if happy endings where the 'thing' back in the day (since it appears you are implying some type of social change has taken place with regards to endings).
But Fred is right. I forgot that the Lifetime network has run TV movies of the week with the theme Fred mentions many, many times. That network clearly favors plots where the lead man is a complete and total cad and the lead women is a dummy or fool (sometimes a little but mostly a lot) that falls for him, but at the end wises up and takes revenge. This story isn't new. Gaslight is a similar story.
-
I wonder if people who wish for the government to pass regulations that 'control' cable TV providers feel the same if the government passed similar regulation to control Internet providers.
If NOT, why? I.e. why should there be different standards?
-
I liked those Smoky movies because Jerry Reed was in them. He was a very good country bluegrass guitar player. People who like that style should check out the records he made with Chet Atkins. Even a jazz cat like me can see that these guys really knew how to play.
-
I'm not much of a fan of post 1968 movies (I to see a new release about once every other year and only catch them when I'm traveling for business and watching HBO in a hotel).
This is how I say *Catch Me If You Can.* I liked it because it does have a 'throwback' type of feel to it and of course the time setting (I'm a Mad Man fan also for the same reason).
Of course I'm sure there any many other 'modern' movies I would enjoy but typically they reflect time periods associated with studio era movie.
-
Wow, Requiem could be a hard movie for someone to like since it is very dark. My wife, being such a nice lady (really), often cringes at movies like this, yelling at the screen 'how could you do that to him!'.
Yes, if one doesn't feel for Mountain they have no soul.
The movie moves you but sometimes in ways we don't wish to be moved.
-
When the topic of remakes come up (and mostly by the 'I hate them all types), I use Suspicion as an example of where a remake could improve upon the original, as it relates to the ending.
Keep the first half light and romantic like the original but as we start to see the true character of Johnny, make the second half darker than the original. Either have Johnny killed by his wife for being the bad egg is was or have him kill her off and end with him finding a new dame to milk.
If the screenplay is tight and with solid direction there are many actors that could play the parts.
-
My humor must be so bad that you don't get it. Haven't you ever heard the joke about eating Chinese food and being hungry again a few hours later. Thus my comment about shows was a JOKE.
As for your GM example; Corporate law is very complex. Are you really qualified to say what is illegal or not? I'm not so sure it would be illegal for GM to say if you buy the car from us you must also buy X,Y, Z. The consumer still has the option to buy a car somewhere else. Thus your use of the term 'force' is way overstated. (someone else provides a great example with regards to Microsoft and operating system).
But what is clearly NOT illegal would be for GM to say if you buy the car from us and these other services we will discount these other services (i.e. provide bundled pricing). Insurance companies do that all the time which is why many people have their home and auto insurance with the same company.
-
Why no To Each His Own. In that movie Lund gets to play both the father and the son.
The movie was an ocsar winner for Olivia DeHavilland.
I just wondered what the selection process is here.
-
I didn't know that a city could contract with more than one cable company since cable companies lease the physical cables that run under city land into each house. But hey the more competition the better (generally).
As for your Chinese menu idea; that might work but after watching a show would we feel we need to watch it again in a few hours?
As for ESPN and what Disney does; Of course that isn't blackmail but I get your point. I wonder if they really demand a cable company take all of their networks if they want one like ESPN or if they just price it in such a way to achieve the same goal.
In other words if there was a law to prevent this, someone like Disney could just change their price structure. e.g. If a cable company only wants ESPN the cost is 10K. If they want ESPN and 3 other networks the cost is 10K plus 5 cents. Stores do this type of pricing (ok not to the degree in my example) all the time so I don't see how the Feds could make that illegal.
-
Fun little game, thanks for providing the link. I was able to guess all of the lines in the first one and missed one in the second (Beyond the Forest a film I haven't seen and one that isn't well liked by most).
-
I wasn't implying that violence didn't solve problems. Only that since the world is full of a lot of violence, that there must be a lot of problems to solve and after they are solve, more and more problems keep coming up and thus the need to solve them with more and more violence.
This is why I provided that Harrison quote. We all know the old saying that people learn from their mistakes. I know a few people that are learning day in and day out!
-
Wow it would be great to have this kit and I don't even like playing with dolls!
As for the clip; Of course this is from Of Human Bondage. Anyone that comes to a Bette Davis forum that doesn't know that should be ashamed!
-
1
-
TCM in the Year 2032
in General Discussions
Posted
Sorry to sound like a wiseguy but of course a list of the top 100 movies made in the 50s wouldn't have any films made after 1950. As I stated before, unless one is NOT going to have any movies (or very, very few), from more recent decades in a list, as time marches on, one has to TAKE from 'older' decades to 'give' to recent ones. There are only 100 choices. In the 50s that meant having only 5 or so decades to pick from. In 2007 that meant 10.
Can you admit that if you did a list it would be 'bias' toward movies made before 1960 or so? I can (my list would have at least 5 Bette Davis movies alone!). The AFI members that voted for the list are movie fans not just studio era movie fans like many of us that enjoy TCM as our primary movie station. I'm not defending the AFI list but would it really make much sense if a list of the top 100 movies had only, say, 5 movies, made after 1960?
I can support the idea of two list; one for the studio era and one for after with the cutoff being around 1968 (many early 60 movies feature stars from the 30s - 50s so I feel they belong there).
Oh, and Raging Bull is better than GWTW. GWTW is an overrated soap opera that is as overhyped as The GodFather IMHO.