Dargo2

Well cg, did I NOT admit much earlier in this thing that when he was younger I also thought he was "a cute little guy"?! Oh, and yeah, "fiery" TOO!!! (...though CERTAINLY ill-suited to play ROBIN HOOD...though now that I THINK about it, that might've been in another thread somewhere!!!) LOL Edited by: Dargo2 on Jul 9, 2013 3:17 PM

Hmmm...I didn't know you couldn't swim, finance!

>For me, Monterey will always be 'Monterey Pop", as depicted by Eric Burdon's "Down in Monterey". Well, of course you would, finance! THAT'S 'cause you're just an ANIMAL!!! (..or at least a fan of 'em, anyway)

Sort of the same take as when Olivier once supposedly asked Dustin Hoffman just before the "dentist' scene in "Marathon Man" was filmed "if he had thought of acting" instead of staying up all night before the cameras rolled that morning, eh Tom?!

>I didn't get to watch Monday. Did Ed McMahon get even one second of camera time? He didn't the first week, which I found more than a little odd. I assumed there was some legal reason he couldn't be shown, or the Carson estate just wants to make sure the focus is all on Johnny, all the time, and screw Ed's legacy. Did he appear on screen at all this week? Well sewhite, IF ya wanted to see the jovial Ed, then here ya GO, dude...though I DO have to admit Johnny somewhat upstages Ed a little in this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8O1zi2FYQs (...boy, I sure hope these folks are appreciatin' all I'm doin' in this thread to give 'em their wishes!) LOL

>I'm doing a lot of anlayzing here, though. Yes Tom, indeed you were. BUT once again, I can't argue with you here 'cause I think you NAILED the reasons for Cagney and Bogie's "appeal" to some women. (...uh huh...in Cagney's case, some women just can't resist the "Bad Boy", and TO their very own detriment occasionally, AND in Bogie's case, "The Cynic" HAS always been able to hold the interest of intelligent people, but in MOST cases those of BOTH genders)

>Didn't TCM already show Dick Cavett episodes a few years ago (also, why don't you ever see full episodes of his stuff)? parvulus, I hope you received my underlying message when I kiddingly presented my little "abridged version" of the Johnny's old "Tonight Show" down there earlier that I feel showing just these interview sections of his program is probably already "stretching the TCM envelope" a bit, though is something of which like mrroberts stated here I feel is "acceptable" and unlike some others around here such as willbefree who feels this is not. You see, my reasoning here is once again much like mrroberts and that I also don't see anything wrong with presenting ONLY these interviews because the interviewEE is someone who might converse with Johnny about classic films. However, I'm sorry, but I feel to show the COMPLETE "Tonight Show" episodes in which these old stars would have been guests would give our friends such as willbefree a legitimate reason for their concerns, because as you might remember, most of what Johnny did back then was "topical humor" which would seem very dated today, and in most cases really wouldn't have anything at all to do with the topic of classic movies. (...btw, I have a theory here that the REAL reason willbefree doesn't like these programs shown on TCM is because Warren William died in 1948, and thus there would be NO way that HE could ever sit on that couch opposite Johnny...'cause if he WOULD have lived long enough to have been a guest of his show, you can almost BET willbefree would be singin' a different tune here!!!...ain't that right, willbe?!) LOL Edited by: Dargo2 on Jul 9, 2013 9:07 AM

Gotta say, as a straight male, for the LIFE of me I JUST don't see how any woman could think of ANY one these very talented actors as "sexy"??? (...ahhh, but then again, "they say" women "have always cared more about what's on the inside of guys than how us guys fall for the outside appearance"...and to which I SAY, that's okay, I'd GLADLY take JUST the OUTSIDE of Ava Gardner ANY day of the week!!!)

>I wish TCM would show Orson Welles on Carson. I don't believe he is scheduled. What a shame. Orson and Johnny were magic. +1 to that, heuriger!

I've spent many a day in Steinbeck Country myself, clore. For about 12 years every summer and up until just a few years ago, a bunch of us guys would ride our motorcycles up from L.A. and to the Monterey and Salinas area and where the Laguna Seca Raceway is located, and in order to watch Superbike motorcycle racing take place. As you stated, the central CA coast and the immediate inland area is truly some of the most beautiful sections of our country. What might be especially noteworthy is that while the Salinas Valley is still primarily as Steinbeck would have remembered it with a population of low-rent homes inhabited by farm workers, the Monterey area which of course was the location for his stories of "Cannery Row" and some parts of "East of Eden", is now a very expensive location to reside.

>This puts a whole new spin on "The Grapes of Wrath". (Isaiah 63: 2-3) Hmmm...sorry MissW, but Isaiah was only 6-1 when he played for the Detroit Pistons, though yeah, his free throw percentage WAS usually about 2 for 3 from the line like ya said here. (...finance is gonna LOVE this one, seein' as how he's a big NBA fan TOO!)

>I want Spielberg to remake that movie THE COBWEB, aka THE DRAPES OF WRATH. The plot will have the Joads finding shelter at a Los Angeles psychiatric clinic where the staff and the patients are all embroiled as to what fabric will be used for the drapes. The Joads decide that Southern Californians are crazy, so they decide to go north to the wine country where they make their way picking grapes for Ernest and Julio. Ya know clore, I actually LIKE this proposal of yours here! Yep, I think it definitely has potential! (...and who would know better about all those crazy SoCal-ers out there than ME, considerin' that I spent most of my life out there in La La Land, AND the fact that all ya have to do is read almost any of my postings around here to get the sense I would know about all that craziness out there TOO, right?!) LOL

Fred?! Fred?! Are you still out there, ol' buddy? I asked ya a question here, dude. Yeah, that one about how easy it really is to not get all defensive at the drop of hat after you mistakenly believe you've been "insulted", and maybe bein' able to laugh at yourself now and then! (...eeh, maybe Fred's tucked himself into beddy-by for the night, eh?!...well, I'm sure I'll get some overly defensive-minded reply by tomorrow, so no big deal) **** some more (...oh, and btw Michael the Admin...PLEASE note that all I'm doing here is asking Fred a simple little question after he very cleverly mocked by comment about the Holocaust survivor I knew and in regards to Spielberg's "Schindler's List"...and thus if you would PLEASE allow Fred and I to discuss this further and NOT mistakenly believe I was "zinging" him and then place him and I on that "detention list" of yours, then I would appreciate this EVER so much...now THAT'S not too much to ask, is IT?!) LOL Edited by: Dargo2 on Jul 8, 2013 10:21 PM

>Well, FlyBack, I know a lady Osteopath out in California who says she knows exactly what His greatest movie is, and I suggest you call her any time, night or day and ask her. You can reach her at the Hong Kong Oriental Massage Palace in Encino. That"s in the San Fernando Valley just Northwest of Hollywood. Ask for Susie. LOL Now THAT was actually a pretty funny and clever mocking of my earlier rather serious take about Holocaust survivors maybe knowing about the validity and accuracy of Spielberg's film than Roseanne Barr does and as TB posited, Fred! Yep, I have to say that wasn't bad at all! Yep, that was pretty funny and clever, alright! (...now, SEE how easy it is to laugh at one's self instead of gettin' all defensive and callin' people "cops" for askin' 'em to explain somethin' that they said???...uh huh, it's pretty easy after all, ISN'T it Fred?!) **** here

Here ya go parvulus! Maybe THIS'LL help ya feel a little bit better about this whole thing!... "MAN, was it ever hot in Burbank today! How HOT, ya ask?! Well, as I was heading to the studio today here, I saw Joan Rivers' FACE melting!!!" ..and now for a word from our sponsor, Alpo... "Thanks Doc! And welcome back folks. And now, that Master of the Understatement, Soothsayer and part time salesman at Cal Worthington's Ford dealership...CARNAC, the magnificent!" "A carp, Dr. Christian Bernard, Doris Day." "Name a sturgeon, a surgeon and a virgin!" "And now after our next commercial, our first guest with be the lady Carnac just named". (...sooooo parvulus...feelin' any better NOW???...oh, and btw, welcome to the boards...and yep, I'm sorry to report IF you stick around, you're SURE to run across much more of my brand of levity around here...sorry)

>Even worse, a few nights later Sophia appeared in one of my dreams again but I somehow got her confused with Curly and threw a pie in her face. Since then Sophia has refused to appear in any of my dreams. WOW! What a coincidence here, Tom! Believe it or NOT(though I would advise you to "not"), sometimes in MY dreams Ava will transform into one of the Three Stooges ALSO, but in MY case it's Larry Fine! (...I'm thinkin' it's the hair!)

TB, I fully understand the issue of "Time-Constraints" which definitely have a bearing upon one's availability to read each and every post at this website. However, when I'm in a semi-serious discussion with another member of this website, I do attempt to take the time to discern what the other person is attempting to say and to answer some counterpoint of theirs in response....though yes, maybe more than I should in a joking manner. And so, please don't think I'm "picking on you" here, but I occasionally feel you really don't read my replies to you in these sorts of situations and/or at least often feel you have a tendency to skirt or even completely ignore it when I might bring into a discussion we're having some point I might attempt to make or to reply to a question which I might have asked you in these sorts of replies....and the most recent example of my stating that the Holocaust survivor I knew would override the importance of what Roseanne Barr thought of "Schinler's List". (...and this is all I'm asking here, kind sir...that when I feel I might bring up what I feel might be a very valid counterpoint to yours, that you take the time to respond to it, because I DO very much respect your opinions around here, and even though it might not seem so because of my joking nature...and now please enjoy your dinner) Edited by: Dargo2 on Jul 8, 2013 6:05 PM

Okay TB, while I admit I added some more stuff at the end of my response about my taking my friend's father's word over Roseanne Barr's word about Spielberg's Holocaust movie and maybe after you first viewed it, but I gotta say I'm startin' to get the impression that you don't REALLY peruse ANY of MY posts to you around here as thoroughly as I peruse YOURS to ME!!! (...I mean, I KNOW you have gotten me "pigeonholed" in your mind here as some kinda "lightweight jokester", but PLEASE in the future TRY to at least discern what I'm sayin' around here, OKAY???!!!) ****

>My guess is that Charlie just used his dad's last name of Sheen since it was a fairly well known name in the industry. Yep! And why I'm thinkin' that lucky SOB married to the GORGEOUS Ms. Zeta-Jones doesn't go by somethin' like "Mikolas Danielovitch" EITHER!!! LOL

Yeah, the Goldie Hawn flick WAS a pretty well done movie by Spielberg, alright. Not "over-produced" at all. Just a simple little picture done well. (...btw...are ya gonna call my friend Phil or NOT???) LOL

>And no, the only Spielberg film that gets passing marks with me is not SCHINDLER'S LIST. The ending is too much like A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN. And Roseanne Barr was right to mock it (and she's Jewish, so one would think she might have more identification with the subject than others). Well, all I can say about THIS TB is... My best friend in L.A. is a doctor with a very successful practice in the Northridge area of the San Fernando Valley. and HIS father was(he just died last year) a Holocaust survivor(Auschwitz as I recall), and Phil(my friend) took his father to go see "Schindler's List" when it first hit the silver screens, and when I asked Bill(the father) what he thought of it, HE thought it was a near perfect re-creation of the horrors that HE went through, and that HE thought it was a wonderful film!!! (...and so, sorry, but in THIS case, I THINK I'll take Bill's word for this over the fat-azzed and obnoxious Ms. Barr's...and IF you think I'm bein' "funny" here, my friend's name is Dr. Phil Shore, and you can locate him the "Shore Medical Group" in Northridge, and you can ask HIM if I'm being "funny" here or not..PLEASE do it, and tell him Dwight said to say hello, and ask him for me what new classic motorcycle has he purchased for his collection lately?) Edited by: Dargo2 on Jul 8, 2013 4:28 PM

And in reply to this comment of yours, TB... >I think Spielberg only made one good picture. And it is not SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (which is a rip-off of FIGHTING SULLIVANS with heavy Kubrick-inspired doses of violence at the beginning). Any guesses which film of Spielberg's I like...? I can only say that it appears your distaste for this potential Spielberg project stems mostly from your personal distaste of Spielberg's previous works....which is certainly your prerogative to have, but which of course colors all of your attempts in this thread to "poo-poo" the whole concept of a new version of Steinbeck's novel. Btw, if you go back to the very first page of this thread, you will find ME actually being the first one to make fun of this Spielberg project...yep, pages before YOU attempted your humor at this, I attempted MY humor by equating "The Grapes of Wrath" with 'E.T." and sayng something such as "I can see it all now..."Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll phone home, Ma!" However, I was just joking there(as you know, I love to do that a whole lot, but unfortunately it seems "some people" only think of me as being able to sufficiently do ONLY that ) , BUT while I made fun of "The Steven" there, I DO actually feel he has made some very good films, "Schindler's List" perhaps being his best to date.

That's okay QuadSix, I found it. Okay TB, this is your post I take it you're referring to here: >Would people go to see a remake of JIGGS AND MAGGIE IN JACKPOT JITTERS? Has Spielberg considered remaking this film? I am asking this question, not to sound flippant, but because there is a point to be made about why he is picking a classic with a built-in audience instead of picking something more obscure. In my opinion, he is trying to cash in on the anniversary of Steinbeck's story; and also, to capitalize on the familiarity of the story previously built up by Zanuck and Ford. If this was about just doing a simple remake, then JIGGS AND MAGGIE would be a contender in the redux sweepstakes. But it's much more than that... And so kind sir, here is my reply to it... What you stated was just another manner of sayin' what a few of the other "naysayers" said earlier...something to the effect of "Why remake a "classic" or already well done story(notice I said "story" and not "movie" here...but I'll get to this distinction later and why I used the term "story") instead of redoing an earlier failed attempt at one?", and then bassically all you did was supply an example of one which you think wouldn't be "sacrilegious" in someone attempting one. Sorry, but I see no "new" thought in THIS argument of yours. I mean, even one for your original "allies" in this mindset you have, one Mr.FredCDobbs later in this thread seemed to have a change of heart about this after it was brought to his attention by a few people that MAYBE Spielberg has in mind to keep more to Steinbeck's original text than Ford did, and thus in essence would NOT be making a total "remake" of Ford's work...which btw, is what I meant earlier by using the word "story" instead of 'movie" in my above parenthetical. And secondly, I'm sorry but I have to say I believe you were also once again being "presumptuous" in your attempt to suggest what Spielberg's motivations are for this project and what is in his mind for it. No one, other than him and maybe a few of those with whom he may have confided know what is in his mind at this point. Yes, it IS of course to "make money", though I believe the idea that "making it off of Zanuck and Ford's back" would be a leap in judgement on anyone's part...once again at THIS point in time. You know, there is ALSO the possibility that what he is PRIMARILY after IS just to bring this story to a whole new generation's attention...and a thought which we "Spielberg Apologists" (as you seem to regard us) have already mentioned a number of times in this thread COULD be a very positive reason for doing so.

Oh, okay. Then give me a few minutes while I find it, TB. (...I'll report back "shortly"...kinda like Danny DeVito!)

Yes sir, that is indeed what I wrote, TB. However, sorry, I don't see any reply of your's below it?! (...was there something you wished to add to that?...saaay, how about that "bombshell"?...I really AM lookin' forward to that, ya know...so where is it?...trust me, I WILL keep an open mind to whatever it is, ya know...I'm just that sorta guy, that's all...well, THAT and very quick-witted, of course!)