KidChaplin

If you haven't caught it on Youtube, there is an entry on there where someone put together the intros of tons of Saturday Morning cartoons/shows/commercials. I watched it the other night and was just jaw dropped at things I had forgotten about from my childhood. The Harlem Globetrotters, ISIS, Shazam!, The Flintstones (with Pebbles and Bam Bam as teenagers), plus tons more. I sat there remembering me in my PJs with my bowl of sugary cereal sitting cross legged on the floor.

I had a thought once that hit me as the perfect fit in a TV show. Once, when I was watching "Little House on the Prairie," they mentioned not having any law in Walnut Grove. Later, it hit me that Sheriff Andy Taylor would've been perfect for Walnut Grove. At least, IMO. He would've been great being in the town council, taking on Mrs. Oleson, and flexing toughness when needed. And all the fishing trips with Charles and Mr. Edwards. So I thought of this game......can you name a TV character from one show that would've been good in another show? You must name ONE character only.

"On the Waterfront" - I, too, watched this and went...."It was..ok." "The Searchers" - While I admit it is a great western, I can't see it as the greatest western of all time as some have titled it. And, in fear of getting blasted, I tolerated Jeffery Hunter. I didnt like his acting at all.

Given the subjects and atmosphere of this forum, I thought asking a question about method acting would be appropriate. Is method acting a better way to prepare for your role? Is it too "over the top" in preparation or is it seen as a legitimate form to get into the role and concentrate better? I had read something years ago that Eric Stoltz was supposed to be Marty McFly in "Back To The Future," but demanded everyone call him and treat him as Marty off camera and it drove everyone nuts. Then today, I read where Jim Carrey did the same while portraying Andy Kaufman. Do acting school

Thanks, Moe. But I was talking about the actual outdoor shots. Part of that was shot outdoors.

I was watching the Sydney Chaplin home movies of Charlie's "The Great Dictator" and wondered if anyone knew where the outdoor finale scene was shot? Looked too big to be at Chaplin's studios. I was thinking maybe a big clearing, field or park in or around L.A.?

I had a question about the outdoor backlots and city scenes of places like Paramount Studios. I just watched the "Chicago" episode of "Little House on the Prairie" and had read that Michael Landon used the Paramount backlot for Chicago and Old Tuscon studios for Sleepy Eye. I went to the Google overhead to look at Paramount's backlot and to then to their website to look at the Chicago set and it looks pretty different from LHOTP. Do the studios redesign and reconstruct outdoor sets after so many years to keep them fresh? I know they get decorated and set up for the shows and movies as needed,

Hopefully, I worded my point clearly. I didnt want to give the impression of misrepresenting animated acting to acting a scene that had to be emotional or intense. What I am referring to is something like the way a man would grab a woman by both shoulders and slam her into him, the eyes are darting all about, the woman looking like she is melting with love and scared to death at the same time. He slams his mouth into hers. Their faces smashed together. That kind of acting. I know there are scenes like that in modern day, but scenes like I described seemed more commonplace than now. One g

When I say ACTING!, I reference the over the top actor character of Jon Lovitz on SNL. I was wondering what your impressions are of how acting has evolved. How actors were more over the top or animated in the classic years compared to today. I'm not saying some actors of today dont overact, but I refer to the common over animated acting of the classic years to today's. Being in the silent movies, you had to really get yourself across with your face and body, but what is your opinion of why actors continued to be so active and animated in the classic years?

I knew the director controlled everything. I was just wondering if I was overthinking the process. If a close up shot goes wrong (flubbed or forgotten lines, someone trips and falls in the shot, etc.), did the background actors, as a crowd, just keep milling and mingling? Or did the entire crowd come to a stop? Did the director stop everyone? I have seen indoor crowded places, like a restaurant scene, all stop in bloopers. But that's a lot more easy to manage, I figure.

A background actors digest? 🤨 Sorry.....just trying to fathom a "background actors digest." I'da never thought something like that existed. 🤷‍♂️

Thanks Tiki. I didnt even notice that. 🙄

Again, my curiosity started in again while watching a "Little House on the Prairie" and it's something I never thought of before. There is one episode titled "Meet Me at the Fair" in which the Ingalls and Olesons attend the county fair. My curiosity peeked when they were doing close scenes of the Ingalls, but there were scores of people in the background. I didn't know if someone here could answer....if a tv show or movie is doing a close scene in a huge area where there are lots of people and something goes wrong where they have to cut the scene and do it again (or again and again), do t

THANK you, txfilmfan. I do not know how I keep missing things like this. I was looking all over and never saw this.

Some city scenes in "Little House on the Prairie" used an outdoor backlot that had a big fountain that Michael Landon liked to use a lot. This particular set was used for Chicago and a couple of other cities during the Little House run. Can anyone tell me what backlot they used and maybe where that fountain was? Again, I have been turning the internet inside out, but just cant seem to come up with the answer. I was thinking it was Warner Brothers backlot. If it was, it looks like the fountain is long gone from Google satellite view. Thanks!