NipkowDisc
-
Posts
26,037 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NipkowDisc
-
-
so tcm handed it over to a young host who didn't know her celluloid huh?
do you think I would ever get the particulars of hot spell wrong???
not me! I know my instrumentality.
"Thunderbird One, ready to go!"-Scott Tracy
-
1
-
-
hollywood know makes films for a global market. maybe that is the problem. go back to the old ways that produced most the the content that tcm relishes 24/7.
-
Does it have to be women? If not, there's 'Sssssss' (1973).
That's a great one wherein Strother Martin turns some poor guy into a snake-man.
I went to see that back in 1973 at the movie theatre. it was on a double bill with The Boy Who Cried Werewolf.
the poor snake guy was dirk benedict.
-
OR, as old man Potter once called 'em while he was tryin' to shut down the Bailey Building and Loan..."a bunch of garlic eaters".
(...but then again not ONLY was old man Potter a real freakin' jerk who kept the 8,000 bucks, but THAT old SOB was REALLY "politically incorrect" TOO, huh!!!)
LOL
-
2
-
-
they keep showing the same sci-fi and fantasy films from their stasus boxed unchanging film coffer. again we are treated to the same beaten to death harryhausen offerings like jason and the argonauts and the valley of gwangi.
okay, I'm convinced! tcm worships ray harryhausen...but what about all that tcm has chosen to ignore like the k. gordon murray english-dubbed horror imports from mexico?
what great fodder those gems would be for tcm underground...instead tcm continues to ignore them like they doan even exist!over the past 25 years tcm has done great justice to the crime and film noir genre of films but not so excellently by the science fiction and horror genres.
there should be equal time.
tcm should show william cameron menzies' invaders from mars (the superior uk version)
here's another point, tcm loves to pay homage to women as these great unsung pioneers of cinema...
and yet they have never seen fit to show the arthur c. gardner - jules v. levy 1958 sci-fi movie 'the flame barrier' with a screenplay written by Pat Fielder, a woman.
do they show it? no. why? somebody has to tell me why.
I suppose the flame barrier is for some reason as unobtainable as hot spell.
why?
I dunno.
it should be!...but it ain't.
go figure.
-
I have a PC example from 3:10 to Yuma
In the original, Ben Wade's Gang rides into town heads for the saloon and everyone breaks out their tobacco pouches and rolls a smoke, in the remake hardly a smoker in the film.
But here is a nice essay on the difference between the two.
The original 3:10 TO YUMA (Columbia, 1957) is a plaintive outlaw ballad that unfolds like a chamber play. I like its simplicity, the time it takes to layer a story and flesh out characters. The motivations are personal. It's about real things that can make or break a man -- like saving your livestock from dying in a drought, being a good role model to your kids, living up to your wife's expectations, putting food on the table, paying the bills, persevering through adversity, taking a risk, and doing the right thing in the face of all the temptations to do wrong. If the rancher Dan Evans stumbles just once, if he takes the easier path, he'll be no different than the killer Ben Wade he's escorting to prison. Evans is really tempted, too, because Wade knows how to tempt him. These two men are opposite sides of the same coin, and they recognize each other as such. The moral dilemma and temptation to sell out is carefully sustained right up to the closing moments giving the film a depth and emotional resonance few westerns can match.There are many understated moments that draw us into the film and involve us in the characters. When Alice Evans looks at her husband, her expression is an accusation and a disappointment, even though her words deny it. When the sheriff organizes a posse, one woman refuses to wake up her husband, who is sleeping off a drunk, knowing that he's foolish enough to join the posse and get himself killed. Watch how Ben Wade seduces the achingly lonely saloon girl, stuck in a dusty old town for the rest of her life if someone doesn't take her away from there. She'd follow Ben Wade anywhere, even though he gets the color of her eyes wrong. Instead, she opens the coach door that will take him to the train, her head nodding in agreement to his hollow promises while her expression is one of profound resignation.3:10 TO YUMA represents the best that the American western can achieve in the hands of film makers who know how. It is Delmar Daves best film, and one of the great westerns of the 1950s (that's saying a lot). No silly premise, no slap-happy gunfights, no trick shooting, no contrivance or artifice, just down-to-earth grit. The two leads -- Van Heflin and Glen Ford -- play off each other's similarities, sounding out weaknesses and strengths in quiet competition. Heflin seems to inhabit his worried rancher like a tailored suit of clothes, a simple man who works hard, hopes for the best, and has a lot to prove to his family. Glen Ford's ingratiating performance as the killer outlaw is as much a revelation as Henry Fonda's villain in Once Upon A Time In the West.A remake has to find new avenues within the story so it won't be a carbon copy. I understand that, and I welcome a fresh approach, but I had hoped for a more disciplined and insightful script. The new version throws in a kitchen sink's worth of political correctness masquerading as subtext. The scenes it has in common with the original shrivel in comparison, especially in the interaction with women characters who are marginalized before dropping out of the film completely. Unfortunately, the new material is no improvement. While the journey from Contention to Bisbee is prolonged, with two camping scenes and altercations first with bloodthirsty Indians and then with bloodthirsty miners, seems like one irrelevant distraction after another has been substituted for the main conflict between the posses and the outlaws. There's is no logical reason for every supporting and background character to be a vicious opportunist eager to kill the posse for money. They are well-matched to Ben Wade gang of outlaws, who are extreme sadists more in the tradition of spaghetti westerns than the American western. Worse, the twists and turns in the last few minutes violate the story's own logic and are not believable.Whoever is responsible for deconstructing Dan Evans did not think through all the neurotic changes made to the character. Instead of being a stoic rancher, Evans is a chronic whiner who lost a leg in the Civil War, shifting the emphasis from a morality dilemma to a plea for sympathy. He thinks of himself as a failure because the war never gave him the chance to be a hero. How believable is it for a man who is missing one leg to jump off buildings, run, fall, roll and get up as easily as if he had two legs? At first we are asked to sympathize and excuse his failings because of his handicap, and then he performs like an acrobat. In his last moments, Dan Evans is pathetic, a beggar, and a failure whom the outlaw feels sorry for. In making the male lead politically correct to appease the skirts in Hollywood and the men who wear them, the remake dumbs down the story and diminishes its poignancy. This is my strongest objection, and it's a big one.The original film provides romance that can be eroticized, suspense that can be intensified, action that can be prolonged, and internal tensions that can be probed by ensemble acting. But the remake is badly misdirected by James Mangold who blows every opportunity to improve and elaborate. His errors in judgment begin with the tone and attitude of the piece. There are no highs and lows here. Every moment is played at full throttle, proclaiming its self-importance. There are no gentle or amiable people: even the smallest part is played for aggression. There are no quiet interludes: when the action lets up, there is still plenty of noise. The original doesn't seem dated because of its dramatic minimalism. The audience is allowed to participate in those pregnant silences. In the remake, Mangold makes certain there are no pregnant silences.One of the great pleasures of the western genre is its attention to portraiture and landscape. But don't look for horsemen riding across pictorial vistas to establish a sense of how men relate to the landscape. There are no wide angles in this western. The Bonanza Creek Ranch is one of the prettiest locations in New Mexico, but Mangold relegates scenery to a blurry backdrop for talking heads -- or cussing, threatening heads. How can the western landscape be a presence in a film assembled almost entirely in mediums and tights? With the camera that close, there is no reason to be racking focus in the middle of a shot all the time. I've never seen a feature film with so many shallow depth and rack-focus shots. There's a way to group people so that the eye is led into the frame toward what's important, but Mangold's crowd shots are just chaotic, and sometimes, so are his groupings of twos and threes. Although the cutting is faster and the angles are closer, there is considerably less going on in the remake than in the original.I expected costumes, props, and accoutrements to be accurate to the period and sensible to the circumstances. Forget it. Ben Wade and his sidekick wear outfits on the silly side of historical inaccuracy. There are many similar offenses. After the high standard for accuracy established by TOMBSTONE (1993) and subsequent westerns, the remake of 3:10 TO YUMA is a regression.The American west was full of immigrants, so I welcome foreign actors with foreign accents playing westerners. But I do wish these new versions of the characters were not so one-dimensional and neurotic. Female characters are dismissed as quickly as possible. Russell Crowe was a good choice for Ben Wade. He has the sneaky charm that the character requires. Christian Bale is one of the most talented actors working today, but his Dan Evans shrivels up compared to Van Heflin's. It is partly the writing and partly the actor that undermines the emotional center of this remake. Bale gives his all, but he is miscast. The part demands an American actor whose stoic presence reflects a feel for the period and the life, the time and the place, someone like Tommy Lee Jones or Kevin Costner or Sam Elliott or Powers Boothe or Chris Cooper or even the excellent Thomas Haden Church (star of the recent BROKEN TRAIL). With a different actor, this remake would be a much better film, and its flaws would be easier to overlook.Perhaps 3:10 TO YUMA was the wrong classic to remake for today's audience. The original is a character driven suspense drama that achieves eloquence through dramatic minimalism. The remake cuts to another angle every 3 seconds, stepping on its own beats and never allowing the audience to feel the moment. Nevertheless, Mangold was wise to keep the story, such as it is, up close, fast, and bombastic. The audience had a good time with the over-the-top spaghetti western violence and non-stop action. Audiences are not critical if they are exposed to a lot of action, and this remake has action.If the box-office success of this slovenly mess helps to get more westerns financed and distributed in cinemas, it will serve a good purpose. Personally, I could not be more disappointed. Let's hope the next western gets a better script and a director who comprehends the genre he's working in.Richard W(who lived 18 years in southern Arizona situated between Contention and Yuma)the original is a product of a pre-politically correct Hollywood with A-1 talented guys as directors, writers and cinemaphotographers.
"to appease the skirts and the men who wear them."
my whole argument in a nut.
those who now control hollywood are immasculated and they doan even know it.
they're all knocking themselves out tailoring what decades ago was subject matter for men now recreated for women.
it is not about whether women can or can't but rather how viable today's hollywood male/female distorted re-inventings are in the real world.
-
english guy William Harvey didn't discover the circulation system of the human body and Robert Goddard wasn't werner von braun's hero? white heterosexual guys like fermi didn't split the atom and achieve critical mass at chicago pile 1?
white heterosexual guys aren't responsible for big man and little boy and reaching the moon?
of course we are. our record of moving the world stands bold and unmatched.
that's just the way it is.
reality cannot be changed by the fiat.of imagination
that's just the way it is.
the doctor is out.
all together now...
clowns never laughed before, beanstalks never grew...
-
I repeat, and for the last time, as this is getting repetitive, this is not true, and is the product of your politically correct mytho-history.
english guy William Harvey didn't discover the circulation system of the human body and Robert Goddard wasn't werner von braun's hero? white heterosexual guys like fermi didn't split the atom and achieve critical mass at chicago pile 1?
white heterosexual guys aren't responsible for big man and little boy and reaching the moon?
of course we are. our record of moving the world stands bold and unmatched.
that's just the way it is.
reality cannot be changed by the fiat of imagination
that's just the way it is.
the doctor is out.
-
You folks will have to excuse ND here. He's been a little more upset lately than normal.
It seems he was all set to attend his annual local performance of The Nutcracker this Christmas season until he recently heard that Tchaikovsky was gay!
(...and so, "standing on his Christian principles" and thus refusing to attend anything written by some gay guy, his Christmas was ruined this year!!!)
LOL
I didn't know Tchaikovsky was gay.
-
the problem is political correctness demands an equal proportioning of humanity's greatest accomplishments and reality doan work like that.
white heterosexual guys do have the lion's share of the technological advancements of western civilization. and that's the way it is.
-
Do you really think there were no important discoveries or advances made by women, blacks, Asians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, gays, lesbians, etc.?
And wouldn't IN THE HEART OF THE SEA, currently in release, qualify as a white male historical epic?
I think you had some bad progresso this morning, or maybe your steak-ums were spoiled.
maybe steak-umms tomorry nite. tonite it was buttered toast and herrs cheese curls.
-
1
-
-
throughout the whole of human history, maybe. but the white guy has got it done like no one else these past five centuries.
eat our progress, enviers!
however, I will grant you that not all white contributors were heterosexual such as michelangelo, probably the greatest human artist of all time. certainly the greatest sculptor.
-
First, that is not true. A number of those contributors were homosexuals. Second, there were contributions by people of all religions, races, and sexes.
throughout the whole of human history, maybe. but the white guy has got it done like no one else these past five centuries.
eat our progress, enviers!
-
This time I really can't tell if this classic Nip-style trolling, or just total cluelessness.
cluelessness of what? a NOW inconvenient history?
-
First, that is not true. A number of those contributors were homosexuals. Second, there were contributions by people of all religions, races, and sexes.
-
So your position is that it's impossible to be creative without being demeaning, patronizing, or contemptuous.
today's hollywood is prepared to slight white heterosexual men even to the point of historical inaccuracy. that is all three especialy the last one and imo it stems from hostility and resentment.
-
yeah, but you can't be so resentful of all the glorious accomplishments of white christian heterosexual men that you proceed to rob them of their due. all of modern civilizations' greatest accomplishments of the last 500 years from the renaissance to the space age courtesy of the white european christian heterosexual man. for others to be so resentful of that to be inclined to revision as a means of diminishing it all speaks a great deal of from where the other side is coming from.
and anybody would be resentful of undue demonization.
-
Well if white Christian able-bodied heterosexual men weren't so sensitive about letting people in and using films as a means to tell stories honestly and authentically, there would be no one whining about "political correctness."
yeah, but you can't be so resentful of all the glorious accomplishments of white christian heterosexual men that you proceed to rob them of their due. all of modern civilizations' greatest accomplishments of the last 500 years from the renaissance to the space age courtesy of the white european christian heterosexual man. for others to be so resentful of that to be inclined to revision as a means of diminishing it all speaks a great deal of from where the other side is coming from.
-
1
-
-
this is just my theory but I think the problem is political correctness. this mindset has killed the historical epic. this politically correct mindset is so prevalent in hollywood that any and all subject matter that requires that women either specifically or generally be cast as subordinate to men in any situation is a big no-no.
I mean if somebody wanted to make a WWII film, it would be required that there by at least one female commando who can kick the bejesus outta any man period! even though it goes against the realities of male/female physiology.
women must not be second place to men no way no how. THAT is the unwritten directive that is now even inhibiting hollywood's subject matter.
men can no longer be men but women can be amazons and harridans all over the place.
this attitude has choked off hollywood's very creativity.
this is all of course only MY opinion.
-
1
-
-
for it is written!...
a cactus in the sun is worth more than a thistle in the cold!
it's pretty mild here in the northeast.
and that's fine. why should we have all the frosty fun?
http://www.earthcam.com/usa/arizona/sedona/gateway/?cam=sedona_gateway
according to that webcam, it's 43 degrees there.
it's 66 degrees here, a 23 degree difference!
is that climate change? man oh man, I doan wanna get rid of that.
-
Well, truth be told here ND...it's been so dang cold here in Sedona Arizona lately that even I wouldn't mind TCM showing that damn Shirley Booth flick you seem to think is so good for some strange reason!!!
for it is written!...
a cactus in the sun is worth more than a thistle in the cold!
it's pretty mild here in the northeast.
and that's fine. why should we have all the frosty fun?
http://www.earthcam.com/usa/arizona/sedona/gateway/?cam=sedona_gateway
-
So Char, in a nutshell, and in the case of you and your sister and your eventual friendship...
"This isn't Minnesota anymore!"
(...is that about it???)
what kind of a woof-woof is toto? a scottish terrier?
-
doctor zhivago and the lion in winter. those two hall of famers. sunday just ain't sunday without that chilly train ride through the urals.
"those are your favorites." -oscar (jack klugman)
"and in time they'll be HER favorites!!! -felix (tony randall), odd couple ep 'the security arms'
-
Roddenberry also saw his show as "Captain Horatio Hornblower in outer space" and that is always why Shatner's Kirk was the guts of original star trek and that is why paramount removing shatner in 1994's Generations was such an abomination to the original fan base.
they kicked out shatner whether he wanted to go or not and this has had the effect of alienating first generation trekkers like myself and crippling star trek in total...
BRING BACK SHATNER AS KIRK!...and then we'll talk about considering anything called star trek.
we want a most fine valedictory encore exit worthy of Mr. Shatner as kirk...and if we doan get it, star trek continues to rot, that's all.
paramount thinks they can go on with just the millennial fans? fine. lets see for how long.
by doing essentially a remake of the first star wars film with harrison ford, carrie fisher and mark hamill, twentieth century-fox is demonstrating the proper respect for star wars' beginnings, something that paramount has never been willing to demonstrate towards trekdom...
okay! they brought han solo back so they could kill 'em off BUT at least they didn't chuck rocks on 'em like paramount did shatner.
Has Hollywood been throttled into submission by political correctness?
in General Discussions
Posted
I guess we're kinda like the evil galactic empire in star wars.