kriegerg69

I like Morricone's score for *Exorcist II: The Heretic* (1977). Very underrated.

There's another Ro-man model which is no longer being made by a different company...Look that up and you'll find it. Surprisingly, there's a LOT of 50's creatures and robots that have been made into models in recent years...just about name any of them, and you can find a model for it somewhere. They're generally not that cheap, but they're usually very well-crafted.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Oh, krieger, ok, whatever...what do you think of my suggestion? Resurrecting drive-ins? It will never work...people's homes ARE the "drive-ins" of today. They can sit back and do whatever they want without worrying about others being bothered.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}clore wrote: > << The TCM ad gives the impression that the two robots were one and the same >> > > Actually both were designed by Robert Kinoshita. > Clore said the exact same thing in his original post...you just didn't quote far enough: "These are two different robots, although certainly "Robby" from FORBIDDEN PLANET was the inspiration for the design of the B9 robot featured on the Irwin Allen show indeed, they were designed by the same person, Robert Kinoshita."

I agree...Colorization is an abomination. At the very least, Legend includes a restored black and white version, but IMHO colorization is still hideous and should be outlawed, and the colorizers flogged in public.

> {quote:title=Terrence1 wrote:}{quote}One that comes to mind for me is Lorne Green playing Ava Gardner's father in "Earthquake". I believe there were only a couple of years difference in their ages. > > Terrence. 7 years, to be exact.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Too bad that little misunderstanding occurred, because I think it may have distracted readers from my point, which I think is a really good one. *I* understood what *I* was replying to perfectly . :8}

Technically, Ro-man is not a robot at all, but...Amazing what Google can turn up. This has been available for years now. http://www.monstersinmotion.com/cart/attack-of-the-b-movies-item-list-i-z-c-19_91/robot-monster-model-hobby-kit-p-1532

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}I wasnt being snotty. Neither was I, and that's my point. "Someone could easily read your post the other way........" Which is exactly what you did when you misread my reply.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > True, but some of us may be interested in advising others before they demonstrate their own "dopiness." Why, if you had the ability to prevent duplicate threads in advance, wouldn't that be better than playing board monitor and pointing it out nearly every time it happens? > > An ounce of prevention... > > > We all have out idiosyncrasies. > You just did that...played "board monitor", in effect, with your "ounce of prevention" post regarding the Robot ad. Whatever...

Neither do you, as your reply came across the same way to me. This is really a ridiculous thing on the internet, when people have to start a reply to their reply EXPLAINING what the MEANING of their reply was. Good gawd. :0

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > The story cites the need to turn the "blue-hued shadows" in the digital transfer back into black ones. And that there are subjective decisions being made about what shade of color the Yellow Brick Road should be. "Blue hued shadows" in a film as old as that can very obviously be due to the AGE of the film and the progressive deterioration of it over the yearsa, and prior bad transfers. As far as the shade of color on the Road....Jeez, how much of a difference can it possibly make?

Whatever... If someone wouldn't bother to check...that's their problem and their own dopiness. ]

What?...I'm quite aware it was the article content which said that, and THAT is what I was replying/reacting to. Just clarifying... Sheesh. :|

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} It's an on-air ad that I saw last night after one of the Leslie Howard films. I did say "I'm glad the on-air spot tipped me off to its availability" as well as noted that "the TCM Shop page on the site makes the clear distinction that there are two models available, one of each." Well, just for the record, I'm surprised you just found out about these...I've seen them online for quite awhile now. Okay...I assume your initial criticism was of that television ad and its incorrectness in suggesting the two robots were one and the same? What difference does that ad make when....once people search the Shop for it...find there are two different robots that are nothing alike? I'm still confused by all of this. ?:|

Where? I found the shop pages for the B9 robot and for Robby...but I can see NOTHING which indicates or suggests that "The TCM ad gives the impression that the two robots were one and the same and only offers a glimpse of the box for the "Lost in Space" robot". You're mistaken, Clore...unless you can give the link to the specific page you're referring to. This is the search I did...the results clearly display two DIFFERENT items. http://classic-movies.tcm.com/search?v=tcm&asug=&w=robot+model That link you gave is a Sci-Fi Channel promo...an old one at that....and it does not have anything to do with TCM or the models. I just watched it carefully several times. Do you mean you saw an ad on TCM for the models and that was the confusing ad? If the Shop here on the TCM website is correct, showing the two different models...then what is your point of bringing this up? I'm confused.

"Sick of restrictions"? That just sounds like childish whining to me, IMHO. Plus the "etc.." at the end just sounds like that person was simply whining about not being able to use their cell phone or smoke, and they couldn't come up with any other SPECIFICS instead of just a generalized "etc..." People using cell phones is just plain annoying and rude...Period. Smoking is inconsiderate to others...not to mention that it can be a safety hazard (and I'm a smoker, btw, who can remember that last time I ever smoked in a theater before they stopped that for various public reasons...1985). I consider myself a considerate smoker...I wouldn't light up around a non-smoker. "Want a more relaxed atmosphere"? Then try waiting for the DVD release and watch it in your own home, where you can do whatever you want to, you whining and inconsiderate s.o.b.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > "(Ned) Price also admits high definition can change a film in a way the original director never dreamed of. In a classic like The Wizard of Oz, HD might get you a much brighter yellow brick road, but you might also see the strings attached to the flying monkeys." > Well, things like strings on the monkeys (or more noticeably, the Lion's tail to make it move around), are visible ANYWAY. I don't think they're suggesting they're artificially adding such things. There's a LOT of supposition and presumption in that article. I don't recall reading one specific instance regarding anything that was deliberately done to artificially change a movie in the process...the article simply suggests that film people are CONCERNED that unintended changes may (and might) be made in a digital transfer. Lynch's BLUE VELVET is cited as having been done with the director's input...yet the article pushes the panic button by suggesting what MIGHT have happen had Lynch not been involved in that HD transfer. Look towards the end of that article...Richard Donner has NO problem with it and even states that SUPERMAN looks better now than when he shot it, that the HD process actually IMPROVED his film. The article seems to me to be little more than a "panic button".

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}With all the news lately focusing on the recent great white sighting around Cape Cod, and the photo out there (someone more tech savvy than me, wanna post it for me? 'cause I have the hardest time posting pics since they reformatted this site recently) of a kayaker being stalked by an ominous dorsal fin,

I find that surprising he disliked *Frenzy* because at the time most critics raved about the film, calling it a return to the Master's classic style. Personally...I happen to like *The Black Hole* (even though it's basically 20,000 Leagues Under The Seas set in deep space). Its' also one of those films that I find even more impressive on the big screen than on television (I got to see it in its original theatrical run).

I agree...I watched *The Bank Dick* again the other day and I have to say that Fields' films...at least the Universals and *Bank Dick* in particular...are almost surreal.

> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote}About 10 years ago when I was a cartographer, I'd include drive-ins as "point of interest" on all maps & atlases we printed. Has TikiKid ever been to a drive-in?

> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}Unfortunately, regardless of what USA Today says, within the next year or two, we'll be seeing a big decline in not only drive-ins but theaters in general. Maybe not those owned by large circuits, but the smaller independent theaters located in more rural communities. I agree...similar to the "mom and pop" type of video stores which have also suffered and closed in recent years.

From my favorite Bond soundtrack, *MOONRAKER* , here is "Flight Into Space", my favorite piece from that score, and of the THE best pieces from any Bond film. I'm pretty sure this score was the first 007 score to use a full symphony orchestra.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}OHMSS69 wrote: > << owned a laserdisc machine in the 90's because as I keep telling people, that was the ONLY way to own WIDESCREEN movies! The discs were pricey, because I remember paying SIXTY DOLLARS for "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (#1 UFO film ever made).>> > > I joined the Columbia House Laser Disc Fan Club back then and remembered only paying about $30.00 for my Widescreen "Close Encounters - Special Edition" laser disc. Somebody got ripped off. > Nobody got ripped off...he's referring to the Criterion Collection edition of the movie. THAT went for $60, not the regular Columbia Home Video version you're talking about. Criterion Columbia