Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

slaytonf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,210

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Posts posted by slaytonf

    ♣ MOVIES with different versions you can buy legally on homevideo released in 1995 and before ♣

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    7 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

    Take The Good The Bad And The Ugly

     

    "When Sergio  Leone was making his Westerns the Italian film industry's practice of post-looping dialogue allowed for the introduction of alternate modes of creative expression into the film/s produced. Some of this had to do with the different performances supplied by the different vocal talents recorded for different markets. But there were other factors as well, including changes to the script, sound design, music, etc. The aggregate changes made from one print to another could be substantial. When, after opening a bottle, you start adding water after every sip you take, eventually you have something that isn't wine.

    I will rehearse a story known to us all. After premiering his third Italian Western in Rome in 1966, Leone took the film and recut it, then recut it again for distribution in English-speaking countries. Mickey Knox was hired to write dialogue. Vocal talents such as Eastwood, Wallach, and Lee Van Cleef  were assembled to record lines and match them to the images on screen. For whatever reason, changes to the soundtrack were also made. A new title was chosen. When The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (GBU) was released in 1967, it was a very different film from Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo. (BBC)

    Is GBU a version of BBC, or is BBC a version of GBU? Where lies the essential film? BBC was released first--is that sufficient to establish primacy? GBU uses vocals supplied by the three principal actors--is that sufficient to establish primacy? Is the question of primacy important at all? It isn't if you consider BBC and GBU two separate films.

    Again as we all know, in 2003 an attempt was made to extend GBU by adding material from BBC with dodgy new English dubbing. Successful or not, this new version of GBU is just that--a new version of GBU.  Is it also a new version of BBC? It doesn't seem very useful to think so. It is simpler to see GBU 1967 and GBU 2003 as two versions of one film, just as the Roman premier of BBC is a different version of the Western that went into subsequent release around Italy. But having looked at those films in that way, the word version then seems completely inadequate when comparing BBC (1966) to GBU (1967)." 

    DJ

     

     

    The answer is simple.  Watch Once Upon a Time in the West (1968).

    Mel Brooks’s Life Stinks 1991

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    7 hours ago, EricJ said:

    Yep.  Otherwise, your comedy tends to be about First-World Problems, like your car, or your real-estate, other celebrities, or wacky trends.  Or drugs.

    When you freeze your butt off during part of the year, it knocks you out of Self-Absorbed mode, and into everybody else's problems, that you can't really do anything about because Nature, Fate, and/or Karma are against you.

    (It's similar to the same political reason I can't retire to a sun-belt state, even though it's harder to get around New England winters--I'd like to move to Florida, California or Texas, but they're all nuts!)

    Ah, the song of envy.  So sweet.

    Mel Brooks’s Life Stinks 1991

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    2 hours ago, NipkowDisc said:

    siskel and ebert trashed it for it's 'bathroom humor'.

    idiots.

    you see I think we the public are better judges than arrogant critics.

     

    Two out of four stars for a movie by Mr. Ebert.  That's a meh, but not trashing.  Mr. Siskel  gave it three out of four.  That's approval.

    There is no greater arrogance that to claim you are the public.

    The TCM Liberary

    in Information, Please!

    Posted

    As far as I can tell from what others have posted, the fabled TCM library is more of an idea now than a reality.  When Ted Turner bought Time Warner he got the collected film repositories of MGM, Warner Brothers, and RKO.  Maybe not all of their production, but much of it, and all the studio era stuff.  So he had lots of movies he could show on his networks for free.  Thus the 'library.'  As a way of monetizing it, he created TCM.    Later, he sold his interests and the movies with them, so now TCM has to negotiate rights to broadcast movies--even the ones in the original library.  So this set of movies with negotiated (and paid for) rights is what forms the present day library.  Naturally, it changes over time as old rights expire and new ones come onboard.

    I may be wrong in some details--or about everything.

    • Thanks 1

    Mel Brooks’s Life Stinks 1991

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, NipkowDisc said:

    History of the World Part 1 gets no respect being one of mel brooks' funniest hilarious pictures. it was savaged by Hollywood critics like siskel and ebert despite being loved by the movie-going public.

    be guided by the public and not arrogant Hollywood elitists who really doan give a **** about what the public thinks.

    It wasn't savaged and it fizzled.

    Fallen Angel

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    I'd have to go back and listen.  Not that I am particularly adept at identifying blues singers.  Can you say when that scene occurs?  If you don't have the movie recorded, its available on YouTube.

    Coronavirus Film Festival -- movies that suddenly became relevant!

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Janet0312 said:

     

    I have my doubts about TCM playing anything Charlie Chan and I am very happy that I have  a whole shelf of CC DVDs. I met George Takai and he is a wonderful man, but I  don't agree with his cynicism about the Chan series. And I've said this before around here somewhere.  My father was a Swede and there  are so many negative movies about Swedes being dumb. Just my take on it, of course.  There are several movies where Swedes are portrayed as dumb clucks and, yes, I have come across that in the real life fold.  The dumb blonde thing.  I am very happy to report that my hair has turned blondie white at age 60 just like Daddy's.  

    So because your ethnic heritage has been the object of bigoted stereotyping, it justifies you in ignoring that when it is directed at others.

    Sherlock Holmes

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Swithin said:

    Pip and Estella do not get together in the end, though Pip does meet the widowed Estella in a poignant scene at the very end of the novel.

    Dickens wrote different endings to the novel.  The first where Pip and the widowed and remarried Estella meet and part, seemed to acquaintances too grim.  He changed it, making them meet at Satis House and with a variably interpretable conclusion.  It's seen as the first truly modern novel, with a decidedly less than heroic protagonist and ambiguous ending.  Many people prefer the original end, as it is more in line with the rest of the book.  The revised end doesn't bother me, as it is a small non-congruence in comparison to the rest of this really great book.

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...