kriegerg69

That depends on what you mean by when I saw it. I have memories of seeing The Sound Of Music theatrically (not sure if it was the original 1965 release or a slightly later reissue), but I may or may not have seen that before Wizard Of Oz, which was probably the first old classic I saw on tv. First silent...probably Phantom of The Opera, and probably the original longer 1925 cut.

> {quote:title=TCMfan23 wrote:}{quote}bad news : the picture format is wrong. the black bars are cut off and the picture looks sort of blown up. I tried fixing it with the TV remote. Didn't help. The picture format is correct for HD. It's your understanding of how it should look that is wrong. A non-widescreen 4x3 tv screen looks like this: On a non-widescreen tv (an older tv which is a 4x3 ratio), a widescreen image will look like this...the size of the black bars varies depending on how wide the movie was filmed in: On a widescreen HDTV, which is 16x9, the image will look like this (again, there may still be some black bars at the top and bottom if the movie was filmed in Cinemascope or a 2.35:1 ratio,etc...This shows a 1.85:1 image on the screen.): A Cinemascope movie seen on a 16x9 HDTV screen: And an older, non-widescreen movie will usually look like this in HD on an HDTV screen:

"In Rememberance" of whom or what? I don't understand what you mean?

I didn't understand one thing about what you just said. ?:|

Everyone knows that the REAL purpose of the MPAA and the creation of the movie ratings was so the film industry could regulate ITSELF without any outside people or industries interfering in the movie industry. Yes, even without those things you mentioned, sex and violence and such would STILL have crept into films.

Absolutely. TCM should definitely show a few of his films, namely Enter The Dragon, Chinese Connection, and Fists Of Fury. At least, I've seen those and they're really good.

> {quote:title=TCMfan23 wrote:}{quote} > about 'same old stuff?' : the reason why TCM shows the same films every couple of months is because they're only given a certain amount of movies from each studio. The reason for the frequent repeats is because (as so many have often explained here on the forums) when TCM contracts to show a movie from a studio, it's for a required number of showings over a certain period of time. That's the reason why...TCM has to show a film a contracted number of times while they have it.

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}I kind of disagree as it relates to starting a new threat when there has been at least 25 of them all related to the same complaint. I read the initial post and it was written in such a way I couldn't understand it. Exactly...and you weren't the only one who couldn't. This is the post from below in this thread: > Each nite all I see but don't watch. I tire of 70-80 year old things. Once again, that programmer must > be out for a long, extended lunch! And why doesn't ole Osborne take some time and seek out & put on far better and a bit older films. They keep this up and i do think they'll lose 'classic' --it will just be Turner Films. What say U?? This is the one he posted just 2 days before: > Just why oh why, are they showing same old films; some back around 60 or 80 years? > Now all those programmers have to do is search their inventory & come up with some fresh titles like, 'WOLFIN' etc, etc...And in answer to that moron who thought I wanted some bach movie and who claims he'd be bored with thriller-horror films - well, just how bored were U with 'THE THING' and 'THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL' - both from the 50's I can go on but I believe u got the point!!! LEO You tell me, James. ?:|

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Wonder how the term hoosegow came into being? Always thought it was a funny term/word.... Word Origin & History hoosegow "jail," 1911, western U.S., from mispronunciation of Mex.Sp. *juzgao* "tribunal, court," from juzgar "to judge," used as a noun, from L. judicare "to judge," which is related to judicem (see [judge|http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/judge]). Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

Also, on September 25, Flicker Alley is releasing on Blu-ray/DVD *THIS IS CINERAMA* . This looks to be an incredible release! http://www.flickeralley.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=54 *This Is Cinerama* / Directed by Robert L. Bendick / 1952 / 127 min. / Color / Sound Presented in the "Smilebox" curved screen simulation Bonus Features Include: *Audio commentary track*: With John Sittig (Cinerama, Inc.), Dave Strohmaier (Cinerama Historian), Randy Gitsch (TIC Locations background), and special audio recording from Jim Morrison(original crew member). *This Is Cinerama Breakdown Reel* - 9 min. *Alternate Act II Opening for European Versions* - 2 min. *This Is Cinerama Trailer* re-created HD - 3 min. *TV Spots*: *This is Cinerama* and *Seven Wonders of the World* - 1 min. each *Tribute to the New Neon Movies*: A video short celebrating the Cinerama revival in Dayton Ohio, 1996-1999, in which a lone projectionist sets up Cinerama for special screenings to people from all over the country. - 14 min. *Tribute to the New Cooper*: The first Super Cinerama Theater - 4 minutes *Special Photo Galleries*: featuring behind the scenes shots, the original program booklet and press memorabilia newspaper ads, and publicity stills *Fred Waller Radio interviews audio only*: Original 1952 radio interviews with Fred Waller on the eve of opening night. - 15 mins.

> {quote:title=leobertucelli wrote:}{quote} > Each nite all I see but don't watch. I tire of 70-80 year old things. Once again, that programmer must > be out for a long, extended lunch! And why doesn't ole Osborne take some time and seek out & put on far better and a bit older films. They keep this up and i do think they'll lose 'classic' --it will just be Turner Films. What say U?? I say U need to stop complaining about the same thing over and over again, and watch a different channel. U just posted a thread with the same old complaint only 2 days ago...why was it necessary to start another kvetching thread on this same subject?? Obsborne has NOTHING to do with the film choices or programming.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}WOW. Hope it's not in just a few cities. But how will digitizing it effect the size? Will it just be 35mm print then? There will be no print...it's being shown digitally. Why would they go through the expense of making prints when most theaters these days are set up for digital-only?

It's actually not a theatrical release ...it's a one-time showing by The Academy. Nope...no film involved. This article on The Academy's website indicates it's a 4k digital restoration and presentation (4k is EQUAL to film quality). http://www.oscars.org/events-exhibitions/events/2012/07/arabia.html Film is basically DEAD.

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote} > > 1939 is overhyped. Gimme a pre-Code year like 1932 or 1933 (and THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD was released in 1938). > I am going to agree with the statement. It certainly was a great year in Hollywood, but there were other vintage years...I think 1974 is right up there. > > What most people fail to realize is that a lot of the films that were released in 1939 were actually filmed in 1938, and some like GWTW were on the drawing boards a year or two before that. What difference does that make, if they were actually filmed the year before? The whole point of 1939 being so praised is not necessarily the individual quality of the films, but the quantity of how many good to great films were released that year.

http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8660046&

Incidentally...the film's title is WOLFEN. It was the first feature directed in 1980 by Michael Wadleigh after his Oscar winning 1969 documentary WOODSTOCK.

Same here.

Good question.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}I wish you hadnt given away the plot like that. I might still have a chance to see it. Well, you're on a FILM DISCUSSION forum. Expect things like that...how is one going to discuss a film WITHOUT discussing the plot?? "Spoilers" and the concern over them are extremely overrated, IMHO.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Where's the pic??? :^0

> {quote:title=Dominick wrote:}{quote}I would like to see Madonna as Blanche and Cyndi Lauper as Jane. Ya know...THAT sounds interesting. Let's do it!

> {quote:title=leobertucelli wrote:}{quote}Just why oh why, are they showing same old films; some back around 60 or 80 years? > Now all those programmers have to do is search their inventory & come up with some fresh titles like, 'WOLFIN' etc, etc...And in answer to that moron who thought I wanted some bach movie and who claims he'd be bored with thriller-horror films - well, just how bored were U with 'THE THING' and 'THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL' - both from the 50's I can go on but I believe u got the point!!! LEO Because THAT'S the type of programming TCM shows...Good gawd, yet another b*tching complaint about repeat showings of movies. No, we did NOT get the point, except the point that you need to CHANGE the channel!

> {quote:title=gagman66 wrote:}{quote} > Flicker Alley is supposed to be coming out with a new collection soon. The old set is Out of Print. That is why it is selling for so high on Amazon. Like I already said below, Amazon is still selling it, and it's only $69.95. That's really not that much. Flicker isn't releasing a new collection...they've simply repacked the original one at a slightly lower price. They can't be releasing "a new collection" because the existing one IS all of the existing Melies films...period. http://www.flickeralley.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=38

> {quote:title=AlbertCD wrote:}{quote}It's available at Amazon, but it costs a bundle. Just type in "Georges Melies". I already posted a link for it below, but here it is again: http://www.amazon.com/Georges-Melies-Wizard-Cinema-1896-1913/dp/B0013K8J90/ It's only $69.95, and it's still being sold by Amazon.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}I corrected it. Actually its *Méliès* Technically, you ARE correct. It should include the accents over the e's in his name. MY point was the simple misspelling of his name...it just really started to bother me that it was misused several times in this thread...and by supposedly learned film fans. I knew the name when I was a pre-teen/young teen....way back when i was just beginning to get into the art of cinema. We're talking a little over 40 years here. :^0