Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

kriegerg69

TCM_allow
  • Content Count

    2,471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by kriegerg69

  1. 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.

  2. > {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.

  3. > {quote:title=Capuchin wrote:}{quote}Unfortunately, most of the science fiction movies that really pushed the envelope were made in the 1970s.

    So what? There's still no reason TCM couldn't show those. They're CLASSICS.

  4. > {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.

     

    2wg6gk5.jpg

  5. > {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?).

  6. > {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.

  7. > {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. :P

    My comment below regarding how much better lzcutter explained it doesn't mean I didn't UNDERSTAND what you meant. ;)

  8. > {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}

    > About Sofia Coppola: True, she's not much of an actress. But she turned out to be her father's daughter in terms of another talent. She's quite a good director. Not as prolific or iconoclastic as her dad, perhaps, but not bad. *Lost in Translation*, at any rate, is a fine little movie.

    I haven't seen that one yet. Been wanting to because of Bill Murray's nomination he got for it.

  9. > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

    > > it's more likely the image area you see in the middle of the screen between those bars IS the actual image area of the intros as they are produced.

    > The intros are exactly the same, photographed on the same sets, but with the top and bottom strips covered up by black bars, so we receive LESS of a picture, not more.

    Okay, that's a very backwards way of looking at it....you obviously didn't read my other reply thoroughly or something.

     

    The "image area you see in the middle" IS THE ACTUAL IMAGE AREA as it's produced. The black bars are added as an SD SIGNAL COMPROMISE to fill the remainder of the 4x3 screen.

     

    Theatrically, based on your description, you're describing it as an "open matte" type of widescreen process....and bear in mind that with open matte the VISIBLE image area is what was INTENDED to be seen. There may be more "visible" when seeing the unmatted full frame, but that's NOT what was INTENDED to be seen.

     

    Again...the way you're thinking of it with the "less of a picture" comment is backwards thinking which one usually hears from people who don't understand letterboxing or widescreen on home video...they complain about it.

     

    ALSO as I said below....someone here who has both the HD and SD versions of TCM would have to do a comparison and possibly even post screen captures here as evidence of what is ACTUALLY done...otherwise, anything you or I may say is just speculation.

  10. > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

    > Letterboxing doesn't make any sense for the intros, since all they do is cover the top and bottom of the screen with black bars. Why do that? Nobody is going to bother to reach for their TV remote control and change the picture size to 16:9 just for the introduction.

    >

    > This first film is wide screen, so maybe they do it for the wide screen intros but not for the 4:3 film intros? I don't know.

    Wrong...they don't just "cover the top and bottom of the screen", but it's more likely the image area you see in the middle of the screen between those bars IS the actual image area of the intros as they are produced. Same thing would apply to any widescreen movie shown on TCM...the transfers are produced for 16x HD screens, but the SD signal has added black bars to make it fit a 4x3 SD screen. People seem to keep forgetting that TCM has an HD channel, so it's likely they do some things a certain way for the 16x9 HD channel. The non-HD compromise for the SD signal is to have those 16x9 intros letterboxed...that's the common industry compromise for something produced in HD vs. an SD signal. There's PLENTY of network HD programming which is produced in 16x9 widescreen that I always see letterboxed...because I only get an SD signal and that's the compromise for someone who has a 4x3/SD tv...it gets letterboxed with the bars.

     

    As to the second point...hard to say if they do it two ways for widescreen vs. full screen movies, but the only way to tell is if someone here who has both the TCM SD and HD versions to compare the two.

  11. It's already been said many times here that TCM has to license out airing rights to most of the films it shows. There's only a handful that TCM actually owns. When they license out from a studio, it's for a certain number of showings within a certain period of time. To start another channel would still mean they have to license out film rights. It wouldn't work...it simply wouldn't be cost-logical. I would agree that they should try to get different films they haven't shown as much, if at all, rather than re-gaining airing rights to the same films over and over again.

  12. > {quote:title=Stephen444 wrote:}{quote}Can't agree with The Brady Bunch Movie on this list. It's funny and, I think, successully pokes fun at this type of television.

    I agree...I really liked it. The critics even liked it and understood what the whole point of the movie was.

     

    Satire.

© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...