Dargo
-
Posts
23,106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
73
Posts posted by Dargo
-
-
42 minutes ago, Mike Kobe said:
Recently during a screening of A and C Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I was surprised to hear Ben Mankiewicz say that 1939 Hound of the Baskervilles and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes were Universal pictures. I believe the were Fox. Same night he said that Jekyll and Hyde were Universal pics. If he was referring to the March or Tracey versions, I think both were Paramount. Universal were the undisputed king of horror but not the only ones.
A&C Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and almost all of A&C's movies, were indeed made at Universal Pictures, as they were under contract to that studio.
The first two Sherlock Holmes films and which you mentioned and that starred Basil Rathbone were indeed 20th Century Fox films, but a few years later when Rathbone starred in that series of B-pictures as the great British detective, those were made at Universal as well.
The 1931 Fredric March version of DJAMH was a Paramount Pictures production, but the 1941 version of it starring Spencer Tracy was made at MGM.
-
Just now, Bethluvsfilms said:
Who can forget that classic episode?
Many seem to prefer the same story from the 1983 film, and while it is good in its own right, the episode scared the living daylights out of me.
BTW, Dargo, are you serious about Asner being the creature, or are you just pulling our leg here?
Actually Beth, I must admit for YEARS I thought the creature out on the wing of Bill's flight might have been Raymond Burr, and because it always reminded me of him.
(...however NOW, I must admit that, no, said creature wasn't Ed Asner...I just made all this up and because, well because, you know ME, don't YA?!!!)
LOL.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Mr. Gorman said:
I wonder if ED and WILLIAM SHATNER ever worked together? SHATNER, 90, was also a work-a-holic with a busy filmography dating back to the late 1950s. I know Ed and William both appeared on episodes of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" -- but not the same episode . . . but did they work together on a TV show, Tv movie or theatrical movie? Each one of them has so many credits I just don't know! 🤔
Yes Mr. G. In fact, Ed and Bill DID once work together on an old TV series, although Ed's part has always gone uncredited.
Uh-huh, sure. You remember this Twilight Zone episode I'm sure, RIGHT?!...
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, MovieCollectorOH said:
All caps = you're a corporation, not a living breathing soul.
But WAIT!
Didn't the Supreme Court rule a while back that that's one and the SAME????
LOL
-
1
-
-
Just wanna say here slayton (and warning, it might not be exactly the point of your thread here) but your OP somehow reminded me of something that happened to me back when I was about 12 y/o.
My father and mother and I were watching the first of John Ford's "cavalry trilogy" on that old Zenith TV set in our living room. I fell asleep on the couch near the end of it. After the movie ended, my mother then attempted to wake me and tell me that it was time to go to bed.
Well, I must have been dreaming about being a character in that film, because as I awoke but still in a groggy state, I blurted out to her, "I can't go to bed. I've got to get water to the Apaches!"
(...Mom kidded me about this for years)
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, TopBilled said:
But I don't think THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES would be any less classic if Goldwyn had made it in color.
I agree. And especially in the case of THIS film's exceptional overall quality in all aspects of its production, from Wyler's direction, Sherwood's script, Friedhoffer's score and to all the terrific acting done within it by a great cast. Yep, it would still be considered a classic and no matter what film stock it was shot in.
11 minutes ago, TopBilled said:We should get away from the idea that black and white films are more classic. Or that black and white works better for war films and noir, while Technicolor works better for westerns and musicals.
Not sure what you've posited HERE is actually true, TB. I mean sure, there are many movie fans of an older generation who might feel this way (heck, we get those "One Post Wonder" types on here all the time, don't we), but overall I think you might have overstated your case in this regard.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, TopBilled said:
Thanks for the reply Dargo. I prefer black and white cinematography. But unfortunately kids (what's the matter with kids today) prefer color.
Anyway many films from 1946 were made in b&w not because that made them look more artistic, but because it was cheaper than paying for the Technicolor process.
Sam Goldwyn made GUYS AND DOLLS in Technicolor. Should that one have been in black and white like THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES..? Both are considered his most successful films.
No, and because first, Guys and Dolls was made a decade later than the immediate postwar era. And secondly, because most ALL big production musicals by the mid-'50s were being filmed in Technicolor--a process along with wide screen Cinemascope--as an inducement to get people from sitting home and instead watching what was on their television sets, and which as you know was quite a problem for the movie industry at the time.
(...and which was something TBYOOL didn't have to contend with, and due to the fact that in 1946, televisions were a rare commodity in American households)
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, TopBilled said:
Why wouldn't Toland have been just as capable in Technicolor?
I think the film would have a bigger audience today if it was in color because modern generations do not like B&W films.
OH well, in THAT case, then why not just colorize it and MAYBE even add some kind'a CGI effects to where Homer Parrish can transform himself into a superhero with just a click of his hooks?!
Now THAT would SURELY bring the kids around to seein' how great a film this truly is, wouldn't ya say, TB?!!
(...yep, we must surely cater to the tastes of the modern generation of movie-goers, alright!)
LOL
-
3
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, yanceycravat said:
How can you beat Gregg Toland's cinematography? So sad he died at 44.
15 hours ago, Toto said:The Best Years of Our Lives is an amazing film and certainly as you describe "one of the great American films of all time". Gregg Toland's black and white cinematography is stunning.
And yet despite all these accolades and all the other Oscar recognition given this great film (and which as I've said many a time around here, this being my personal favorite film of all time) I've always found it extremely strange that Toland's terrific cinematography wasn't even nominated for one of those little golden statuettes.
(...and Toto...loved that you mentioned the beautifully shot and moving aircraft graveyard scene here)
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:
"Culture-forward." Political language and corporate language are starting to merge, probably because they share a source in higher education. I wish there were a present day George Orwell to lampoon this, but it's hard to make fun of things that are already kind of silly.
Whaddaya talkin' 'bout here, Dan?!
Love him or hate him, Bill Maher does THIS every Friday night on HBO, and especially during his "New Rules" segment.
(...and YEP, he skewers the "woke" out there JUST as much as he does the Conservative element in this country of ours TOO!!!)
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, skipd55 said:
Not talking about beer, Dargo. I'm talking about some of the senseless advertising slogans and catch-phrases unleashed onto the public by corporate America. "Where then meets now" is almost as bad as "It's it, and that's that."
I know, I know.
It was just that I couldn't resist raggin' on how lousy mass-produced American beer is, that's all.
(...ya see, about twenty years ago or so and after my first visit to a brew pub/restaurant which a friend of mine had opened up in SoCal and then being introduced to GOOD tasting brews, just the SMELL of a freakin' Budweiser/Miller's/Coors/You Name It Massed-Produced American beer makes me almost sick now days, and has brought me to the point of questioning how I EVER could've drank such swills)
-
1
-
-
Just now, skipd55 said:
Reminds me of the slogan of Miller Brewing Co. some thirty years ago: "It's it, and that's that!" Memorable for sheer insipidity.
Well, what did you expect comin' from a mass-produced American beer company, dude?!!!
I mean, they certainly COULDN'T play on the idea that their product actually TASTES good, now could THEY???!!!
(...and why almost EVERY freakin' mass-produced American beer company has ALWAYS played up the idea of what "fun" one can have while imbiding their swill, ya know!)
-
3 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:
"Then meets now" sounds like a way to impose today's sensibilities on yesterday's movies.
Uh-huh, and with this very sentence being said during that corporate brainstorming session.
(...and I'll bet whoever said it, got high-fives all around)
-
2
-
-
51 minutes ago, jvirt53 said:
Besides, I was strictly talking politics and Wayne's calling out Asner's own political liberalism.
Ya know, there's another thing about Asner that Wayne's "that New York actor" comment MIGHT have also been a veiled reference to, don't ya?
Uh-huh, yep. Asner's religion.
(...NOT sayin' this is a "fact" here pilgrim, but this DID cross my mind here)
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, scsu1975 said:
Say, it is just me, or did the fonts used for the forum headings change?
Not only THAT here Rich, but all of our monikers around here are now in uppercase lettering TOO!
(...NOT as you might have guessed, I personally would have ANYTHING against THIS, you understand)
LOL
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, NipkowDisc said:
why does the tcm big screen classics banner for Citizen Kane have his legs contorted? what is that? a stiffening of the knees?
So Nip. Maybe this explains why Orson gained all that weight later on.
Yeah, ya see, maybe because of those bad knees he had there, he wasn't able to exercise and keep himself in better shape when he got older, and so just started sittin' around on his fat butt, eatin' and drinkin' wine.
(...hey, just a guess here, dude)
-
10 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:
Ack! I knew that, but for some reason when I posted the name, LINDA came out! 
Sepiatone
Well, considering Helen at that time was about as short as Linda is, I suppose I can understand your confusion here, ol' buddy.
LOL
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, OldDood said:
More like when they promoted 'Batman'. TV shows of the Mid-1960's were promoting their shows 'In Color'.
Right, but I'm sure you know why I referenced "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" up there, don't ya?!
Because of your choice of an avatar.
13 minutes ago, OldDood said:To me Art-Deco would be most appropriate since it is a Timeless Design and never goes out of style.
Yes, Art Deco is timeless, but I also think Mid-Century is too.
And that's what TCM's new set appears to be in the style of.
(...btw...welcome to the boards)
-
4 minutes ago, OldDood said:
Well, I just viewed a bit of this 'New Look' after watching Freshman Love (1936) this morning.
Hmmm...I do not like it at all. BUT, it is better then what could of happened I guess.
I just do not understand why they could not just use an Art Deco Look. It would fit a lot better then this 'Fresh Look'.
This 'Fresh Look' kinda reminds me of 1960's TV when they blasted us with bight colors to push color TV sets of the time...
So, kind'a like when Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea switched from B&W to color after its first season, OldDood?
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Eucalpytus P. Millstone said:
IMO, the Internet has democratized mass communication. No more being ignored, edited, or censored by a select few, elitist -- sometimes self-appointed -- gatekeepers, "bouncers," and screeners on newspapers and magazines and on talk radio shows. Now The People have direct, unfettered access to express and share their opinions! Now Joe Blow/Joe McDoakes/Joe Sixpack can be heard and read!
I dig it myself. Democracy and vox populi in action! Bravo, say I!
And similar to the naive idealism of inventors of television who envisioned TV as a way of bringing people together and unifying Mankind, the starry-eyed utopianism of architects who had the same dream for the Internet also proved that things don't always turn out as planned and hoped.
But, you gotta take the bad with the good, IMO.
I genuinely and seriously believe that the reason for the seemingly increased polarization, alienation, division, and hostility in the world and among Mankind is the very medium through which we are communicating. Or as a radio pundit I heard long ago expressed -- regarding the philosophy that integration teaches us that we are more alike than we are not alike -- integration also teaches some folks that there are more people they can hate.
The Internet brings all of us together, making us One.
Except when it doesn't and when we aren't.
Now see, THIS is exactly what I've always liked about you since you've first shown up on these boards here, EPM!
Your ability to equivocate with the best of 'em out there!
LOL
Or in other words, and sorry, but it seemed to me that you were, as they say, "talking out of both sides of your mouth" up there.
(...BUT, very eloquently, I might add)
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, jvirt53 said:
Simple. Two sentences, one fantasy, one reality. But you knew that. Guess its just a state of mind. Thanks ElCid.
Btw, during production, John Wayne referred to Ed Asner as, " that New York actor". Now that IS reality, pilgrim.
Sure, while it might have been "reality" that John Wayne called Ed Asner "that New York actor", the fact actually is that Asner was Kansas City born and bred, and wasn't on the New York stage for very long before he moved out to L.A. and started getting work in both films and on TV.
(...pilgrim)
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
To address your question I don't think the Internet has increase the number that are offended by something. Instead it just increases the number we know are offended. I.e. when they were yelling at their T.V. or kicking their dog, the general public didn't know about that.
Yep, but pretty much the point I was attempting to make, James. Although, I'll now add the thought that perhaps because of this increased public awareness to all those poor "offended" people, this has created a "snowball effect" in these regards.
10 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:This is why I objected to the OP using the term "we", as if he represented the views of a significant portion of TCM viewers.
Yep, I saw that eariler post of yours and where you questioned the OP's use of the "collective we" or sometimes also referred to as the "royal we". And yes, I thought it a very good point made on your part.
12 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:As for your "insignificant" comment: My gut tells me this is a counter reaction to those that are offended by TCM showing certain films. I.e. the OP believes the reaction of the PC activist to ban films (which TCM has faced pressure to do), is over-the-top so they do a counter over-the-top counter-reaction. But I did find it ironic the OP threated to boycott TCM, just like the PC activist they despise.
Yep again, and thus yet another example of why there are often as many examples available to point to out there when it comes to the idea that people REGARDLESS where they might place themselves on the political spectrum can and often DO practice various forms of "political correctness", and of which it's always seemed those who position themselves on one particular side of said spectrum seem especially blind to this fact or lack the self-awareness to recognize this in themselves.
21 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:I feel TCM choice the best middle ground between these two opposing POV. Notice that TCM has been running their own spots to explain why they when with this middle ground approach. Of course there are those that believe TCM can't have it both ways. Oh well.
Yep, exactly...again.
-
Don't ya just love the Internet, folks?!
Remember, back before it was created the only options available to people who were offended by something they saw or heard on TV was to either place a telephone call to the local TV station or was to write a nasty letter to the TV station expressing why they were offended about something they saw and/or heard on it.
But NOW DAYS using this thing called the Internet, we can express these complaints as to why we were offended in a website's public forum section or in some other social media site, and so EVERYONE can then see why we were so offended about something.
Yep, what a wonderous thing this Internet is, isn't it.
Question though: Do you think the Internet might have contributed to why it seems EVERY freakin' American seems to be offended about SOMETHING now days, and in some cases even about something as seemingly INSIGNIFICANT as being told or reminded that there are older cultural practices such as blackface which now days some might find offensive?
(...just wonderin', that's all...and although I really think I ALREADY know the answer to this)
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:
Well BOGIE.....
General discussions is where I first noticed this thread. Anyway.....
Nothing personal DINA, But I did think your parents were very good at their craft. But the only problem I had in watching anything with your Dad was he resembled a guy I knew in high school who was a bitter enemy that relentlessly made my life miserable. With that in mind, it often made me feel sorry for your Father having that resemblance.
Sepiatone
Funny, but in a similar fashion to this Sepia, there was a gal I knew in high school who looked a lot like and was almost as strikingly beautiful as Dina's mother, and who made MY life miserable at the time.
(...but only because she never would even give me the time of day)
-
1
-
Ack! I knew that, but for some reason when I posted the name, LINDA came out! 
"...Time for a refresh?"
in General Discussions
Posted
If THIS turns out to be the case, then I can't WAIT to see how the hosts will explain Blazing Saddles to all those poor little overly-sensitive wokesters out there in the coming years!
(...hell, THAT would be worth the price of my constantly rising cable bill right THERE!!!)
LOL