RaquelVixen

I bet James A. FitzPatrick would know the answer.

It was quite an era. One of the most roaring.

This is the second time that Bacall has been star of the month. This way they can utilize her interview with Robert Osborne to stretch the programming. Another example of too much repetition.

I clarified it because you were confused. The only words he said were followed by his user name. That was plain. Why are you carrying on? By the way, you'll have to excuse me...I'm eating my burger. My comment posted at 11:24 PM was the only words I attributed to him and that is followed by his name. That's self explanatory. I am not changing who said what.

I'm gonna go have a Double Bacon Cheesbugga at my favorite restaurant. *McDonalds :^0 :^0* scroll down a few posts and you will see a line to separate who said what.

You're very noble to represent RMeingast. I felt his tone was slightly annoyed or that he really didn't want to discuss this topic *again.*

----- But yes, all this has been discussed on another thread in the another forum on the message board---*RMeingast.* ----- My post: When one posts a comment like that it suggests a slightly annoyed tone. I simply made a facetious comment about going to the library and then was told "all this was talked about on another forum, on another thread" But not presently on this thread. It's not too respectful to attempt to chill what others want to discuss or joke about.

> {quote:title=SonOfUniversalHorror wrote}{quote} Nothing wrong with that...I don't understand why some have such a negative reaction to someone pointing out information which is already in an existing thread. It's there for the useful reference if one should need it. Otherwise, why even bother having a Search function on a board? I wasn't interested in ascertaining how to get around a ban here on the message boards but apparently I was taken at face value. I wasn't asking how to find a way to do this but apparently the standard...this has been discussed ......here's the link.......was referenced for my benefit.

Oh, the old...... it's been discussed here....follow the link jazz. Sorry I missed the dreaded thread better yet glad I missed it.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}Ben would be fine if he always shaves, always wears a tie, and NEVER makes any liberal political remarks. How about NO political remarks at all? And no blaming "The South" for all the racist movies Hollywood made in the past. And why can't he refrain from talking about his favorite team, the Oakland Athletics?

I just prefer the relaxed and easy charm of Robert Osborne. It's just a matter of preference and not an indictment on Ben Mankiewicz. I guess I wasn't aware that the slightest criticsm of him (his lack of smiling) meant I wasn't cutting him slack. I mean he's been on the air for how many years now? He's not exactly wet behind the ears when it comes to this job.

Perhaps it's because he always seems to have a cold or some nasal congestion issue.

One thing I dislike about Ben's intros and outros is that you rarely see him smile. He seems to be working so hard to be serious and blase.

I saw it for the first time and although I did enjoy some scenes, I was surprised that it was shot on 16mm film. It was definitely a low budget looking film.

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote} > > One of the few good movies of 1972. Airs Tuesday night, Oct. 2: Butterflies Are Free (1972) > > > Edward Albert in this picture is definitely sexier than Clark Gable. Goldie continues to cement her inimitable screen persona. Is Clark Gable the standard by which are all men are measured? ?:|

What cinematic advantage is there to filming it as you state or just simply using a mirror. Would the end result be any different?

Poor Orson, he never gets much traffic.

*Not that today's has all gems, some are goats---willbefree25* I hear TCM is going to broadcast Goat's Head Soup. Sounds like a delicacy.

> {quote:title=RMeingast wrote:}{quote} > > BTW, will be interesting to see if banee(?) gets back on message board and under what new user name - going by past history on this message board that I've read about (users being banned and then simply re-registering under a new name)... But how will anybody know?? Oh well... > Life goes on...:| > One could simply go to a public library and register under a new account and toil from there, if one felt so inclined. The suggestion of this post was only a demonstation.. Do not, I repeat, do not try this at home!!

> {quote:title=classiccinemafan wrote:}{quote}the guy sounds like a idiot. > > TCM rocks. I love their October schedule. Let's try to be more respectful of others. It will make for a more enjoyable experience for all.

No Republic Pictures tribute would be complete without: Macbeth (1948) Orson Welles, Jeanette Nolan, Dan Herlihy

*I'm at Fort McHenry National Monument Historic Shrine and all is well as Chief of Interpretation Vincent Vaise, in full 1814 regalia. regales the crowd on the bombardment of Fort McHenry by the rockets red glare.* *http://www.nps.gov/fomc/* *The url was added without my doing as a result of typing the park's name.*

*BUMP*

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > > I was away at a music festival, and camping out, when this thread was hopping, as well as the locked flame war thread. I'm sorry I missed all the hot discussion. Acutally it was no flame war at all. It was a case of a couple of kids getting careless with sparklers and a gypsy moth was frightened. Everybody then went to bed.

> {quote:title=SonOfUniversalHorror wrote;}{quote} Not like that 2001 thread that got deleted when the politics started being discussed WITHOUT any further connection to the movie...it eventually became politics-only. Actually, the thread became torn and frayed when a smear campaign between two individuals commenced, and it didn't involve smearing poster paint on white paper in the billiard room. The hostilities were unmistakeable, but I tend to believe Professor Plum was lighting the candlestick in the conservatory with a blow torch and that combustion engulfed the poor thread in flames.