NipkowDisc
-
Posts
26,037 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NipkowDisc
-
-
I've thought this for a long time.
Cody Jarrett's in a rubber room strait-jacketed after hearing his maw's dead. he's already turned down two offerings of grub tellin' the guy to try it on the warden and governor. he then feigns hunger as cover for the break. the ay-whole doctor then remarks "hunger is always a hopeful sign."
I've always asked myself upon hearing that line of dialogue, a hopeful sign for what?
James Cagney is cody jarrett, a lifelong criminal and psychopathic killer. again, a hopeful sign for what??? that jarrett might escape the ravages of mental illness and go on to become a useful member of society in his later years? 
like maybe a fireman, mailman or a youth counselor?
this is how bureaucrats and intellectuals think...even in 1950!
who the hell would think in terms of a cold-blooded psychopathic murderer going on to become a useful participant in human society?...
but real ay-wholes...
maybe a mentally healthy reformed jarrett could find verna and they can start a family?
anyway, I've always found that line of dialogue unintentionally silly. -
It's only a matter of time before the Academy Award winners will thank their plumber, proctologist, mailman and mechanic...if they haven't already. I believe it's time to cut their long-winded speeches short after 15 seconds - the floor would open and they would fall into the void.
the whole circus oughta be cut short. just an hour to schlepp out the statuettes and call it an evening.
-
1
-
-
How strange that she co-starred in "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1935), and eventually lost Brando to Tarita, who co-starred in the 1962 version.
A salute to tahitian women.
-
first, not OT because it relates to star trek on the big screen therefore my remarks are film-related. what killed star trek?
stupid mishandling by too many ay-wholes at paramount, that's what. my credentials to comment thusly? the national star trek phenomenon began on two stations in the northeastern syndication market, WPIX channel 11 outta nyc and WKBS-TV channel 48 long defunct outta Philadelphia and I was there watching those 79 episodes every weeknite at six, watching them several hundred times and even before syndication I was there watching star trek at the beginning of the 2nd year on nbc.
saw my favorite episode The Doomsday Machine TWICE on it's original nbc run. so I know the original star trek TV series as well as any first generation trekker can know star trek. into the seventies I bought the blueprints, the fan mags and the paperbacks as well as assorted novelties like a non-working communicator.
shoulda gotten a working one but this company got cute and took alotta money without sending out the goods. years later gotta non-working one since they didn't wanna go to jail.
how did paramount successfully ruin what had been star trek? the abrams/chris pine films are not star trek but millennial starship troopers garbage.
here's what happened...
gone from post-TV star trek were Robert H. Justman and William Finnegan and paramount pussyfoots around for years. problems that were detailed in the pages of starlog magazine. a process called magicam considered then we read that SF/X guy Robert Abel was takin' too long and then we read that they can't decide on a story. they eventually decide to go with alan dean foster who novelized the cartoon episodes in paperback. SF/X guy Douglas Trumbull is now the man. to be directed by the great Robert Wise. how could he go wrong? the eventual result? a big fat secondary hull-**** turkey. how? here's how. first and foremost a blatant disregard for the long established television continuity. so much was done that never needed to be done. an ill-advised visual re-imagining had been undertaken and it was not necessary. what did the first generation television fans want? what nbc had cancelled in the fall of 1969...
and we never got it.
signs that time had passed? sure...but they went too dam far! here's a clear example of going too far. in the series the enterprise corridors are presented as wide and expansive and camera angles helped a lot. in ST-TMP the ship's corridors are now extremely narrow. wide and expansive to extremely narrow? doesn't wash, of course. the bridge still retaining the jefferies configuration is now what? some strange medi-scan complex. uniforms? ambiguously unisexual satin-looking pajamas. some light blue and some light tan. no red. I actually read in starlog that there was a feeling that the bright gold, blue and red TV uniform colors would be too distracting to a theatre audience.
the second feature film known as the wrath of khan and paramount's stupidity continues...
they coulda and shoulda gone with a simple story of revenge with the two protagonists khan and kirk but no, they throw in the genesis bs. wasn't necessary or needed. And what is the point in having ricardo montalban reprise khan and yet have no direct confrontation between him and kirk in the entire film??? episode space seed ended with a climactic fight between kirk and khan in the engine room. quite counter-intuitive to say the least. instead khan pays his respects to "his old friend" over the radio. now get this, we're suppose to believe that years after depositing khan and his eugenics-bred superhumans on ceti alpha five, they go completely forgotten by starfleet and the federation even to the extent that nobody knows that the sixth planet in the system has exploded?
kirk never reported the encounter with khan and his group to starfleet?
really?
then in the 3rd film they have shatner mix it up with christopher lloyd but by that time first generation trekkers are getting increasingly perplexed by paramount's stupid handling.
paramount dedicates the 3rd film to resurrecting spock with kirk stealing his own ship. they never had such bureaucratic troubles in the tv series.
then for the 4th film we get a timely humpback **** to indict whaling. khan wouldn't have liked that since he saw kirk as his moby dick. at least in the 5th film the stalwart shatner tried to slouch back to some of the TV interaction of the 1960s series.
hey, at least he tried. the 6th film was well-mounted but too political for it's own good. the klingons were now russians.
And with Generations in 1994 paramount finally decides to take a huge dump on the original fan base by removing shatner.
shatner probably had 3 or 4 more star trek films left in him which was a crime to classic star trek.
star trek today is dead and lies in ruins due more than anything else to the refusal of so many at paramount to respect star trek's television origin.
back in the seventies a constant theme in the fan mags I was buying was the way they played up the science fictiony aspects of Roddenberry's vision...but they did so at the expense of the action-adventure elements that nbc had insisted upon.
the filmation cartoon remained true to the primetime live-action series. the 1980s theatrical films never did.
that's what killed star trek.
is it too late for the great William Shatner to play Kirk again? I believe not. what do old school trekkers want? simple. an entire film devoted to the return of a living james t. kirk as only shatner can play him. leonard nimoy was afforded star trek 3: the search for spock. shatner deserves a film too. paramount must make amends for the damage they inflicted on star trek in 1994.
-
first, not OT because it relates to star trek on the big screen therefore my remarks are film-related. what killed star trek?
stupid mishandling by too many ay-wholes at paramount, that's what. my credentials to comment thusly? the national star trek phenomenon began on two stations in the northeastern syndication market, WPIX channel 11 outta nyc and WKBS-TV channel 48 long defunct outta Philadelphia and I was there watching those 79 episodes every weeknite at six, watching them several hundred times and even before syndication I was there watching star trek at the beginning of the 2nd year on nbc.
saw my favorite episode The Doomsday Machine TWICE on it's original nbc run. so I know the original star trek TV series as well as any first generation trekker can know star trek. into the seventies I bought the blueprints, the fan mags and the paperbacks as well as assorted novelties like a non-working communicator.
shoulda gotten a working one but this company got cute and took alotta money without sending out the goods. years later gotta non-working one since they didn't wanna go to jail.
how did paramount successfully ruin what had been star trek? the abrams/chris pine films are not star trek but millennial starship troopers garbage.
here's what happened...
gone from post-TV star trek were Robert H. Justman and William Finnegan and paramount pussyfoots around for years. problems that were detailed in the pages of starlog magazine. a process called magicam considered then we read that SF/X guy Robert Abel was takin' too long and then we read that they can't decide on a story. they eventually decide to go with alan dean foster who novelized the cartoon episodes in paperback. SF/X guy Douglas Trumbull is now the man. to be directed by the great Robert Wise. how could he go wrong? the eventual result? a big fat secondary hull-**** turkey. how? here's how. first and foremost a blatant disregard for the long established television continuity. so much was done that never needed to be done. an ill-advised visual re-imagining had been undertaken and it was not necessary. what did the first generation television fans want? what nbc had cancelled in the fall of 1969...
and we never got it.
signs that time had passed? sure...but they went too dam far! here's a clear example of going too far. in the series the enterprise corridors are presented as wide and expansive and camera angles helped a lot. in ST-TMP the ship's corridors are now extremely narrow. wide and expansive to extremely narrow? doesn't wash, of course. the bridge still retaining the jefferies configuration is now what? some strange medi-scan complex. uniforms? ambiguously unisexual satin-looking pajamas. some light blue and some light tan. no red. I actually read in starlog that there was a feeling that the bright gold, blue and red TV uniform colors would be too distracting to a theatre audience.
the second feature film known as the wrath of khan and paramount's stupidity continues...
they coulda and shoulda gone with a simple story of revenge with the two protagonists khan and kirk but no, they throw in the genesis bs. wasn't necessary or needed. And what is the point in having ricardo montalban reprise khan and yet have no direct confrontation between him and kirk in the entire film??? episode space seed ended with a climactic fight between kirk and khan in the engine room. quite counter-intuitive to say the least. instead khan pays his respects to "his old friend" over the radio. now get this, we're suppose to believe that years after depositing khan and his eugenics-bred superhumans on ceti alpha five, they go completely forgotten by starfleet and the federation even to the extent that nobody knows that the sixth planet in the system has exploded?
kirk never reported the encounter with khan and his group to starfleet?
really?
then in the 3rd film they have shatner mix it up with christopher lloyd but by that time first generation trekkers are getting increasingly perplexed by paramount's stupid handling.
paramount dedicates the 3rd film to resurrecting spock with kirk stealing his own ship. they never had such bureaucratic troubles in the tv series.
then for the 4th film we get a timely humpback **** to indict whaling. khan wouldn't have liked that since he saw kirk as his moby dick. at least in the 5th film the stalwart shatner tried to slouch back to some of the TV interaction of the 1960s series.
hey, at least he tried. the 6th film was well-mounted but too political for it's own good. the klingons were now russians.
And with Generations in 1994 paramount finally decides to take a huge dump on the original fan base by removing shatner.
shatner probably had 3 or 4 more star trek films left in him which was a crime to classic star trek.
star trek today is dead and lies in ruins due more than anything else to the refusal of so many at paramount to respect star trek's television origin.
back in the seventies a constant theme in the fan mags I was buying was the way they played up the science fictiony aspects of Roddenberry's vision...but they did so at the expense of the action-adventure elements that nbc had insisted upon.
the filmation cartoon remained true to the primetime live-action series. the 1980s theatrical films never did.
that's what killed star trek. -
Even if TCM never airs 'HOT SPELL' (though I think they ought to at some point!) it's not as if the movie cannot be seen anywhere. It was released on video circa 1986/87 on the old 'Kartes Video Communications' [KVC] label. I bought 'HOT SPELL' new many moons ago on KVC. I've still got it perched upstairs. > I admit what prompted me to buy it all those years ago was reading the review in Leonard Maltin's movie guide. The review says something along the lines of "Shirley Booth spouts irritating platitudes like 'Hazel' on speed". That cracked me up so I went out and bought it. I think Leonard and his buddies gave HOT SPELL '**' out of '****'. I'd up it a half-star from 'Average' to 'Worth Watching' so it gets '**½' out of '****' from me.
(Kartes Video Communications released another old movie I like quite a bit and I do not believe it's been released on DVD at this point: THE MOON'S OUR HOME (1936) with Margaret Sullavan and Henry Fonda. I bought it around the same time as I snagged 'HOT SPELL'. I don't know how long KVC was in business, but they started releasing titles in clamshell cases with insert artwork circa 1985. Some of those clamshell cases they used were verrry brittle and would chip and go to pieces. KVC's release of the 1958 Debbie Reynolds comedy THIS HAPPY FEELING was in a gold-colored (and very fragile) clam case and mine has almost gone to pieces. The insert artwork is basically holding the case together. At least the aging videocassette still plays well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I double-dog dare TCM to finally show P.J. (1968) with George Peppard, Raymond Burr, Gayle Hunnicutt, Brock Peters and Jason Evers. I know George P. gets beat up in a gay bar which I suppose is considered non-PC these days, but if Turner Classic would kindly show P.J. I'd be most grateful.
They could show it as part of a Private Eye Night with HARPER, MARLOWE and THE LATE SHOW.
But tcm was showing Hot Spell regularly more than ten years ago.
-
If there is a movie TCM should play but won't please dare them to play it.
there are OODLES of movies tcm oughta be showin' but they're not.
-
I DARE you to double dare them.
"I double dare ya!" -Capt. James T. Kirk, "Miri"
-
I defy tcm to show Hot Spell (1958) starring Anthony Quinn, Shirley Booth, Shirley MacLaine, Earl Holiman, Eileen Heckart and Warren Stevens.
produced by Hal Wallis
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051742/?ref_=nv_sr_1
directed by Daniel Mann and an uncredited George Cukor!...
and tcm won't show this now?...
why on earth not?
well, I can only say this...
slackers!
-
I dare..no!...I defy tcm to show THE FLAME BARRIER (1958) starring Arthur Franz and the lovely Kathleen Crowley.
...but of course they won't.
-
I dare..no!...I defy! tcm to show THE FLAME BARRIER (1958) starring Arthur Franz and the lovely Kathleen Crowley.
I defy tcm to show Hot Spell (1958) starring Anthony Quinn, Shirley Booth, Shirley MacLaine, Earl Holiman, Eileen Heckart and Warren Stevens.
-
I dare..no!...I defy! tcm to show THE FLAME BARRIER (1958) starring Arthur Franz and the lovely Kathleen Crowley.
-
I'm for tcm getting some new servers at the cost of ten showings of GWTW.
-
I am sorry to say that I do not know. I have not watched that movie.
-
Ok, I give up, I'll just abandon the SNL thread I started in "Off Topic Chit Chat" and join the discussion here.
So, I've watched this show intermittently over the years, but usually staying in touch with it enough to be familiar with its changing cast and sketch ideas.
Nipkow:
That's just nonsense about Kristen Wiig not developing her comic potential on the show. For years she was one of the funniest people on SNL.
You mention her "manic" quality. Wiig made the most of this in a hilarious series of sketches, I think they went on for two seasons, in which she plays an over-emotional woman who gets so excited and involved with her friends' social/celebratory occasions that she goes completely bonkers, right over the top.
In one episode where a group of friends was present at an upcoming engagement/marriage proposal, this hyper-excitable lady (can't remember if her character had a name) had a complete melt-down from the emotion and suspense she couldn't seem to contain, and ended up rolling around on the floor and doing somersaults; I think she ended up knocking the plates of food off the table or something.
I didn't describe it that well, but it's hilarious to behold.
Another really funny character Kristen Wiig created was "Penelope", whose goal in life was to always "one up" whoever she was standing beside, whatever the social occasion.
She'd pick up on something another person said and then multiply and intensify the experience they spoke of about 1000 times, applying it to her own life. And she talked in this nervous fast talking voice, all the while smoothing out a lock of hair.
"Penelope" was one of my favourite SNL characters at that time.
There were lots of other really funny cast members in the past 20 years, among them, Tracy Morgan, Darrell Hammond (his Bill Clinton imitation was absolutely priceless), Tina Fey (of course), Kenan Thompson (whose ongoing "What Up With That?" talk show, which invariably ended up with Thompson and an assortment of hangers on dancing and singing, to the neglect of his interview guests, and which always made me laugh my head off), Amy Poehler, and Jason Sudeikis, just to name a few, were and are extremely talented comedians.
While it's had some so-so seasons and some very wretched moments, it's just not true that the show has been consistently bad and unfunny for the past twenty years.
strange? I agree with all of that. most of the sketches are stupid these days because of the poor writing...
and lorne michaels can't see that? of course he does.
-
didn't zelda rubenstein say that in poltergeist?
-
Can you think of anything on there the past decade that was truly memorable ?
I can. Bill Hader as nyc news legend Herb Welch.
-
-
also hilarious is tony bennett on Tom Sawyer and I love it when Burt Reynolds sneaks up behind trebek and plants that cowboy hat on his head.
-
you know, it does bother me that when nbc has one of their frequent primetime snl specials lorne michaels or whoever it is insists on throwing alotta stuff with kristen wiig and the newer crappier regulars at us. just how stupid does lorne michaels think we are? kids with their ipads and iphones may be laughin' at some of this newer recent garbage but older fans are most definitely not. I find it insulting they throw scenes of the most recent newer crop of no-talents at us.
the last two regulars who had been carrying the show on life support in recent years had been bill hader and darrell hammond and the others stinkeroo.
snl's current writers have lacked even the fundamental comedic intuition to have had kristen wiig doing the kinda skits cheri oteri was doing ten years before.
wiig has a manic persona that could come off funny if she had been handed the right material but lorne michaels no longer cares who is writing the material for his show now. that's the problem.
-
This guy looks more like Robert Donat - with a haircut. It's difficult to find other photos of Donat's toothy smile to make comparisons, but there is more than a glancing resemblance.
that's who I was thinking of when I said Lew Ayres. I couldn't place the name. that's imo Robert Donat.
-
unfortunately I was only able to watch the first hour of that snl 40th anniversary special on nbc because of poor cable service all day sunday as a result of the recent overblown storm neptune.
the highlight for me was watching sean connery plague alex trebek during celebrity jeopardy. first he pronounces "who reads" as "**** ads" which has everyone in the place guffawing then later he pronounces "let it snow" as "le **** now" and after that connery and everyone were laughing just as hard as they could at trebek.
then later around midnite the cable goes out big time and even the few channels we were getting all day sunday were off,
terrific.
this morning everything's back on.
I be looking to ID this particular snl skit from either the late 80s or early 90s so maybe one of you geniuses can help me.
the guest host was an original cast member, either chevy chase or bill murray.
the skit: a jungle party runs afoul of a dinosaur. a t-rex grabs one of the party members in it's mouth and for about four or five minutes follows hilarity. the dinosaur keeps roaring and the guy keeps screaming in his mouth. I was laughing so hard I almost hadda go.
so if any of you know what season and ep that skit is from I would be grateful. -
I thought he was dead.
-
The Writers Guild of America awards went to Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness for "The Grand Budapest Hotel" (Best Original Screenplay) and Graham Moore for "The Imitation Game" (Best Adapted Screenplay).
Both films are nominated for Academy Awards in their respective categories.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/wga-awards-winners-list-773595
british films still have alotta intelligence and class behind them while our films are politically correct shot.
the world is still the world to the brits rather than a sesame street on steroids that american playwrights all to often like to envision.
british actors are better than ours too. they actually know how to act.
theactrically the brits have always been a class act. that's why guys like orson welles and chuck heston were always trying to emulate them.
this is how bureaucrats and intellectuals think...even in 1950!
Funny line in White Heat
in General Discussions
Posted
well put. I think that some erroneously attribute every evil criminal act by the er...human animal (they like that term)
to ignorance. in other words, if you inform a psychopath that the murders he contemplates are uh... not nice 
,he will automatically not want to commit them. silly. some people commit violence for two reasons unrelated to either insanity or ignorance...
1. they like it and 2. they just don't give a dam whether their acts are good or evil. the disconnected intellectual arrogantly assumes that all violent and negative acts are committed purely out of ignorance. (if only that were true) remove ignorance and not a single mother's son or daughter will commit a single negative act.
that silliness might have validity on sesame street but not in the real world.