kriegerg69
-
Posts
2,471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by kriegerg69
-
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}Thank you, Michael. The only way this would be relevant is if the original poster took the grosses for Chester Morris' film THE BAT WHISPERS (1930), adjusted it for inflation, and compared it to the grosses of this latest version. Then, maybe a few words could be added about the cultural and economic aspects of a long-running idea/franchise.
Then go ahead and enlighten us so, because I have no idea how to do that.
-
> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}I agree, and it is still in poor taste.
Then be so kind as to let us know how long we should wait before discussing this subject or the movie specifically?
-
> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}A piece written by Chris Wickham for Reuters (London) reports:
>
> Pop music too loud and all sounds the same - official
>
I agree...and it has for a long time, too.
-
Probably I'd choose Marx Brothers films for classic laughs. Not necessarily belly laughs, but they always make me chuckle.
Woody Allen films I laugh "mentally" on an intellectual level. Not usually out loud. It's the complex wit my mind appreciates.
In the past week I've been finally getting around to watching the Medea comedies from Tyler Perry...and those have had me (at least during the funny portions with Tyler as Medea) laughing out loud quite consistently.
-
> {quote:title=EugeniaH wrote:}{quote}I'm just watching TCM right now, and Robert Osborne was saying that he got to be on the set of Baby Jane as it was being made. He said he looked at Bette Davis and thought that the movie was going to be "terrible".
But that she and Crawford seemed to be getting along very well. Interesting tidbits..."Seemed to be" doesn't mean a thing...he couldn't have possibly been there ALL the time, not to mention that was a LONG time ago, and no offense to R.O., but his memories from the set may not be as accurate as he might remember them to be.
-
> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}It doesn't.
>
>
>
>
> It's just an attempt to troll up argument, but with a disguise of movie-related discussion to hide behind. It's a re-starting of another thread that was closed - one that generated all kinds of nastiness. The intention is to duplicate that phenomenon just for the fun of it.
>
Hardly. Any trolling that is being done here or "nastiness" that was started in the other thread...and this thread does have a different intent than the other one...is being started or "trolled" up by other people and their reactions...NOT by any intention of mine.
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}
> I like BERSERK. Joan still looks good, and she gets to share screen time with Ty Hardin.
>
>
Ty looks much better to me than Joan.
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}West Side Story @ 5:15pm on Sunday - too bad it won't be in HD.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread.
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}...how does this relate to TCM?
You already posted that same question below, as:
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}What does this have to do with TCM?
You're repeating yourself, just like you keep doing in that TCM HD thread.
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}...I didn't say I was attacking myself. Wow. You've completely misinterpreted the meaning of the statement. It's a reflexive pronoun.
Then EXPLAIN yourself instead of continuing with these pointless, twisting, and redundant attacks on people. Your purpose for this thread, as has ALREADY been stated by others, has become completely pointless and redundant.
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}...how does this relate to TCM?
Well, Michael Caine, a legendary actor, is in it.
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}Thank you, Michael. The only way this would be relevant is if the original poster took the grosses for Chester Morris' film THE BAT WHISPERS (1930), adjusted it for inflation, and compared it to the grosses of this latest version. Then, maybe a few words could be added about the cultural and economic aspects of a long-running idea/franchise.
Then why don't you do so since you came up with the idea?
-
> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}I agree, and it is still in poor taste.
Why is it in poor taste? How long should we have to wait before discussing the film and so forth?
-
> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote}If you're attacking yourself, whose fault is it?
Methinks this thread has become an exercise in pointlessness and redundancy.
-
In a little over a week of release, it's barely made back its production cost. That's not even considering whatever was spent on publicity and advertising. No question that it's underperforming...it still remains to be seen if it will ever pick up anytime soon.
-
I don't see how anyone can actually connect Nolan's film to the shooting, because the movie had not been released prior to the event...so how could the film have possible influenced the gunman? The man was off his rocker before the shooting event...unless the nutcase was influenced by Nolan's previous two movies....but I still don't believe that a simple movie can make someone go crazy like that. Such a person has to have a few screws loose (or missing) before that.
-
> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}
>
> Does the Dark Knight qualify as a classic movie and is it likely to be seen anytime soon on TCM? If not, perhaps there are other film boards (imdb.com) that might be better suited to such a discussion.
>
Do any other number of topics and/or replies and comments spread all over the forums have anything to do with TCM or classic movies? What if people wanted to dicuss Tim Burton's *Batman* (1989), which I believe has been on TCM once? Same difference.
-
> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote}
> As we're in the board that's tagged as "general discussions", there's absolutely nothing wrong with the subject matter.
Amen to that, brother...General Discussions quite often contains non-classic and non-TCM related subjects.
There's nothing I could find anywhere which says people can ONLY talk about TCM and/or its films.
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}Why don't we get back to discussing the topic, rather than attacking myself or the issue at hand? Sound good?
There is NO topic or discussion...it's your repetitive complaints about the same thing over and over again (as someone else pointed out below), as well as attacking others who have anything to say in response to you, no matter what they say.
-
I like REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE...probably my favorite of Dean's movies.
-
> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}Eddie Cantor in PALMY DAYS, ROMAN SCANDALS and KID MILLIONS.
??
What does that have to do with the topic? Absolutely nothing whatsoever at all.
-
YEARS ago, I actually used to keep such a list of EVERY movie I ever saw. I stopped doing that years ago when it was somewhere around 3,000. I suspect by now it's gone to somewhere around 4,000.
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}False. It serves as a reference for a TCM representative when I do eventually reach them. Not to mention that it allows for the opportunity to correct some false statements made by others.
Hogwash. It's not going to change anything, "reference" or not. Even if you do contact a TCM rep, they'll look at your posts here and just read them the same way others are reading them.
"it allows for the opportunity to correct some false statements made by others" simply sounds like that's the only reason you keep going at this pointlessness. What does "false statements" have to do with your original, initial intent for this post anyway?
-
> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}I have a feeling that you have been contacted by someone at TCM & now you're just jerking everyone around. Not a very nice thing to do, in my opinion.
I agree 100%. What's going on here is not going to change anything.
But that she and Crawford seemed to be getting along very well. Interesting tidbits...
TDKR grosses so far
in General Discussions
Posted
> {quote:title=sfpcc1 wrote:}{quote}
> I've mentioned the 60 Batman series numerous times and I've never gotten any negative feedback, (yeah I've been obssesed with that thing most of my life.) However, that show contained a lot of classic Hollywood actors.
Exactly...but veteran Michael Caine has been in this Nolan series, so...
Box Office Mojo reports that, as of July 27, it has done $243,061,000. That's domestic grosses only.