kriegerg69

Not likely...dream on. Film is dead. Digital is here to stay.

**** ]

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Going in the other direction, Lewis Stone looked old enough to be Mickey Rooney's great-grandfather in the ANDY HARDY series. Yup!

The Bride of Frankenstein? :^0 ]

The old Hal Roach colorized version was just as bad. Why? Because the first zombie in the graveyard was GREEN...and that ruins the surprise and shock of that entire scene. People aren't supposed to be aware of them being zombies until it's too late...and giving the zombies color ruins that.

I really liked the AZKABAN score because of the song based on the "Double Bubble Toil & Trouble" bit from Hamlet. That song MADE the movie.

Time to hit the Ignore (twittish) Member button again... ]

Cut it with your VW obsession and dopey replies and just ANSWER the question. ]

*Trouble With Harry* has been mentioned...but YES, no one has brought up *Bucket of Blood* (bodies turned into sculpture), or *House of Wax* (or even *Mystery of The Wax Museum* ), with bodies being turned into figures in a wax museum. Just to point out and clarify for Skimpole's benefit....this is done AFTER the victims are dead. It is NOT creative ways in which they are killed. They are not turned into artwork WHILE they are still alive.

That doesn't answer the question. ?:|

> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote}I thought this was worth posting in its own thread away for my "In Search of..." thread. Why? It's still about her.

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}We can agree to disagree here. Like I said I'm not a fan of the process. I wouldn't buy a DVD for the colorized version. > > But if by doing so "the B&W original is restored or preserved" I'll accept the fact they are violating what you define as a principal. If you accept it...then we AGREE. What's with the "agree to disagree" nonsense? You just contradicted yourself.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > > Or HANGOVER SQUARE where a particular corpse is fed to a Guy Fawkes Day bonfire? Something similar happens in *THE MAD MAGICIAN* , when Vincent Price takes the body of one of his victims, wraps it all up like a dummy...and tosses it into a campus bonfire.

> {quote:title=skimpole wrote:}{quote} Because the point of the post wasn't people being murdered in interesting ways. It was about "normal" people violating an important cultural taboo and other normal people not criticizing them for it. ...and NOT one movie I cited (and I don't think any from others here) has been about people being "murdered in interesting ways" What I HAVE pointed out is what was done with the bodies AFTER someone was dead or killed....not about HOW they were killed. Try re-reading the posts before commenting like that.

*Dark Shadows* was the last film he produced.

Not even amusing. More b.s. ] ] ]

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Seriously? But I"m laughing, I though you were too. Truly. > > And let's face it, the "ignore" button is no fun. Then one just ends up wondering what's being said, -about them, no doubt. > > > Come on, I thought we were both sort of kidding, at least the last post or two. > Laughing? B.S. This is obnoxiously childish now....like some posts made by a certain other person here whose "laughing" posts always come across that way also.

Actually I did see it because Ignore isn't in effect when one is logged out of the forums.

I knew it...I'm tired of this. Time to hit the Ignore Member button for you. ]

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Like to have the last word, eh, krieger? Okaay...same 2 U. You recently accused me of using the "I'm rubber, you're glue" routine....and now you are doing the exact same thing you accused me of. YOU are the one who obviously likes to have the last word, especially in a thread such as this with anyone who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with your "suggestion". Your last paragraph to me sounded patronizing to me. Prove me wrong and DON'T post another reply to this one.

Regardless of whether the B&W original is restored or preserved, colorizing is a matter of PRINCIPAL. It's a case of intentionally and deliberating altering a film against the inentions of its creators.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > Anyway, the helium has sort of fizzled out of the hot air balloon of a debate ( argument?) that occurred yesterday. I still think it's an idea that would be worth the cinemas- the big muliplexes, anyway- looking into, but I don't have the energy or inclination to pursue it further. > ( Hey, this doesn't mean I "lost" ! ] ) Hey, this doesn't mean you "won" either! ] I just got really TIRED of trying to explain it to you. Too bad it took a "considered response" from Sepiatone when I basically tried explaining the SAME thing to you...that others DID "think" about your suggestion.

It wasn't a film "print", it was digital theater projection. Tell your glowing review to the person here who complained about it in this thread in Hot Topics: http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?threadID=165488&tstart=0

Why? What does it matter being so particular? > {quote:title=skimpole wrote:}{quote}I think we're getting off topic. Remember, we're dealing with corpses who have been mutilated by someone not responsible for their death. And just as Ward Bond doesn't arrest John Wayne or send him to an asylum once Wayne shoots the eyes out of an Apache brave, I'm thinking of mutilators by people who are not obviously evil or insane.

> {quote:title=OHMSS69 wrote:}{quote}I wanna go to THIS drive-in!! > > http://www.missiontiki.com/#/now/ Wow...that IS cool.