kriegerg69

There most certainly are still tv horror hosts (the correct term) working today, although not as widely as many years ago. Elvira is still doing her thing in a newly syndicated program, and many other hosts are either on local cable access channels, or with the age of the internet, do their shows online. Look around through Google...there's many sites and such specifically devoted to the horror host community. There's so many I can think of that were along the lines of Count Floyd, including the well-known Sir Graves Ghastly (Dawson Lemming, who died a few years ago) to one I almost grew up with, The Cool Ghoul from Cincinnati, Ohio (Dick Von Hoene, who died several years ago). Not all horror hosts were based around vampire characters...many were either simply "ghouls" or freaky characterizations, aand some were straightforward humans (such as Hoolihan and Big Chuck, whom I grew up watching in Cleveland...Big Chuck is still on the air there with Lil' John, a midget who started off on their original show). Let's also not forget the first one, Vampira (Maila Nurmi, who died a few years ago), and the legendary Zacherle (John Zacherle, who is still alive and with us). As far as SCTV is concerned, I believe Flaherty started off doing that as a recurring joke sketch on the show and then actually started hosting horror movies as Count Floyd. Also don't forget John Candy's recurring spoof character Dr. Tongue, who was also a sort of horror host.

> {quote:title=obrienmundy wrote:}{quote}Not necessarily. I am 17 years old, and I really do have intense feelings of disapproval with most modern-day films (Oscar season excepted). I love the films that were made from the 20s through the 60s and those decades will remain the nearest and dearest to me. Good for you!

> {quote:title=Stephen44 wrote:}{quote}I would agree that Keeler is a little unpolished but, like you said, it has become one of the charming elements in the film. She is certainly more interesting to watch in black and white than a more polished, slick performer like Esther Williams in Technicolor. She was a great dancer, but personally I've always found her very dull to watch.

...and none of his films are scheduled on TCM? Shameful.

It's generally only necessary to quote the part you're specifically replying to. You can highlight and remove whatever isn't really needed.

It might be better to ask in the Information Please thread here: http://forums.tcm.com/forum.jspa?forumID=149

No offense, but there's no reason to quote an entire post all the time when the original is just below. It's just a waste of space to have to scroll down until one gets to your reply. ?:|

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > > I get that she doesn't like some of the films that were shown today but if she wants to rant about, start a new thread and do it there. Don't derail an existing thread where the OP is trying to have a serious talk about one of the films that were shown. > Excellent point, and you're absolutely correct about that.

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}Awwwwwww, come on, Dargo, if you know who can post you know what about you know whose you know what, then Fred and I can dither about the POG EUTS and the lovely TROPG. Huh??? What the heck is POG, EUTS, and TROPG??

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}This is not classic, the era is not classic. And I don't see Mason in the film. This IS classic...and James Mason IS in the film (although not too much)...which is why they're showing it today.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > If they actually produced the intro IN HD FORMAT, they would have to use an HD studio camera, which would produce the 16:9 format. > > But since they switch back an forth between 16:9 and 4:3 intros, I suspect they shoot with an SD camera and simply cover up the top and bottom of an SD image with an electronic matte whenever they want to show a 16:9 intro. That's the other possibility I thought of but hadn't mentioned...matting an SD image (and it's also possible, since much of TCM HD is actually upconverted, that they could crop the SD image down to 16x9 and upconvert that....but who knows?). It IS also possible that they CAN take an HD-produced 16x9 image and add matte borders to create an SD 4x3 letterboxed image (did you understand that or do I need to explain further?).

Weird...not in my case. Can't think of anything at the moment. I understand what you mean....something in a movie suddenly reminds you of something you need to do (or want to do) in real life.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}If you understood me, then why did you say: > > > > > Wrong...they don't just "cover the top and bottom of the screen", > > > > If they photographed the intros with an SD camera, then they must be covering up (masking, matting) the top and bottom in some way, electronically. This is getting to be ridiculous, Fred...I WAS REFERRING TO my understanding of what you said HERE: > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}When I said "all they do is cover the top and bottom of the screen with black bars", I didn't mean they used masking tape. I meant they do it one way or another, with some modern technological means. MY COMMENT about "Wrong...they don't just "cover the top and bottom of the screen"," was in reference to if they actually produced the intro IN HD FORMAT, and for SD purposes added the bars for a 4x3 screen. It was NOT in reference to YOUR explanation of the process.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}When I said "all they do is cover the top and bottom of the screen with black bars", I didn't mean they used masking tape. I meant they do it one way or another, with some modern technological means. Duh...I understand what you meant perfectly. I didn't think you meant masking tape. :| I'm not a child (I turned 52 last week)...I understand HOW it works. My comment below regarding how much better lzcutter explained it doesn't mean I didn't UNDERSTAND what you meant.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}I love the Godfather movies. I even kind of like the much-reviled third one. > > > Shameless bump, because I think the Godfather movies are worth discussing. > I agree...and I'm pretty sure I've read over the years a few times where others have said they consider II to be even better than the first one.