kriegerg69

I ALWAYS sit through any Overture, Intermission, and Exit Music, whether it's on a DVD I'm watching or on TCM. To me that's part of the grand experience. Any time I ever had the chance to see a movie theatrically with those interludes intact, I always enjoyed it. It's showmanship...something sadly lacking in many movies today. These days, with the movie industry as seemingly thought of as more business than art, it seems to be the old "Get 'em on, get 'em off, and get 'em out" train of thought.

MissW, I don't see any reason someone from another country should have to explain themselves as far as what their language is. If you have a look at OP's post....and not needing to look too carefully....it's easy to figure out that they're from another country. OP's references several times to American and "American" are the tipoff that OP is from a country other than the United States.

In the video I saw of the Studio 54 revival, it was Mariette Hartley and Tom Bosley who played the landlady and the Jewish boarder. Bosley was competent singing, but Hartley was amazing....had no idea she had such a good singing voice! Of course, when I think of Lotte Lenya, I always recall her as the killer lesbian Colonel Klebb in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

Kathy Bates started out as a singing waitress before starting in a few low-budget films and comedies, then hit the big time with her Oscar-winning role in MISERY, and then she floored me as Miss Hannigan in the Disney tv remake of ANNIE.....wotta singing voice! Go in reverse for a moment....how about actors that didn't start out as singers, and proved to be astounding? Neil Patrick Harris is a good starter.....once he began doing his stage singing career on and off-Broadway, he found his true calling. The man is absolutely amazing when he sings. David Hasselhoff may not be the greatest actor, but once he started doing stage work as a singer, he found his true calling. Saw the video performance of him in Jekyll & Hyde, and he was another incredible one. He needs to do more stage performance work as a singer. ....then there is Anne Hathaway. Very good actress, but when she first sang publicly on the Oscars two years ago with Hugh Jackman, she floored everyone...including Shirley MacLaine, who urged her "to keep on singing". Anne was stunned by that compliment, and on this year's Oscars, she floored me again when she did that musical number.....the woman is an astounding singer! Glenn Close is another actress who is a terrific singer....oh, and Hugh Jackman, of course, is know as a great singer and has done some stage work. Hopefully he'll get the chance to do more musicals throughout his career, as he's both a great actor and a great singer. Johnny Depp is another actor who has....surprisingly.....turned out to be a phenomenal singer...and with NO formal training at all. Surprised the hell out of everyone in SWEENEY TODD.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote} > But what about the romance between the landlady and the Jewish boarder? That was completely cut! Exactly...and the sexuality of Brian (Michael York in the movie) was very subdued/downed. In the play, it's much more overt. So is the sexuality of the Emcee at the Kit Kat Klub. The movie is rather a "sanitized" version of the play.....when I saw the video of the Studio 54 revival, I started thinking that the movie is a shameful representation of the stage show. The focus of the movie seemed to shift to the relationship between Sally and Brian, either subduing or completely blocking out other characters (such as the couple you mention, who are barely even seen in the movie). The original musical NEEDS to be remade either for the big screen or even television, and done correctly. I'd throw in there another one that....although it's a 70's classic by now....was shamefully represented on-screen. I'm talking about GREASE, which I had the chance to see on stage before the movie came out, and looking back the film recently, it's shameful how much was changed for the film. Remake GREASE and do the stage show justice this time.

Saliano is rude? The person who started this thread clearly does not have English (NOT "American") as their first/primary language....so to criticize/criticise them for spelling or grammatical error is just plain rude.

I love the movie...it's a undeniable classic.....however, I recently got to see a bootleg video of the stage revival at Studio 54 with Neil Patrick Harris, and having never seen Cabaret performed on-stage, I have to say that the production is in need of a serious remake. Why? There's a lot....and I mean a LOT....which was either changed or simply left out from the 1972 film. It needs to be remade and done intact as it was created for the stage. There's a couple of other stage-to-screen adaptions I recently got to compare, and IMHO some of them were an insult to what the original material was like.

Nope....Connors was doing the same thing every time I saw him in something. Almost playing himself. Not especially good at all.

I agree with you. I don't mind sex or violence when there's a REASON for it and it serves the story, but when they include it just because they CAN show it, and for no other reason...I don't care for it much. Same thing applies to practically every other tv show these days....the sex and violence. The nudity is there because they CAN show it. Etc.... Like the British tv series SKINS which I saw recently...I watched the first four series (there's a new one which has started recently...and no, I don't mean the lambasted U.S. "remake" on MTV), but I hope the newest season from the U.K. holds up, because I really enjoyed the firs two seasons, and then I got to the cast change and the 3rd and 4th seasons....and it seemed like ALL these kids were doing was drugs, having sex, swearing with the F-bomb (not that I don't use it myself now and then) every other sentence, and constantly taking their clothes off....none of which seemed to really help the storyline at all. Seriously....it's as if that's all the scripts were: Sex, drugs, and swearing. It was becoming a tad boring and almost a turn-off to watch.

"Name some great actors that didn?t start out as actors" Well, many....if not most....of the actors mentioned in this thread I would hardly classify as "great", especially Sinatra.....he was competent, but I never thought of him as "great".

> {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > What I'd like to know is what was the first film to usher in the modern practice of listing every damn credit at the end of a film and why was that started? That Wiki answer someone linked still doesn't provide the answer as to WHY the practice was started, but it's easy to reason out: Over the years, too many creative personnel who worked on movies were simply overlooked, and I'd guess that at some point the various unions insisted that if a director/actor/etc. got credited, then THEY should get credit. Not too hard to figure out. Most ridiculous credits length-wise? The DVD releases (I never saw them theatrically) of the Lord of The Rings movies....Peter Jackson, for some bizarre reason, insisted on crediting everyone on the LOTR fan club or something....and the credits go on for over 15 danged minutes! Did he REALLY expect anyone to sit through all those? When I watch the LOTR movies, when the credits start at the end I stop the DVD. The now-old gag of having an additional clip or scene AFTER the end credits finish? Who the hell knows....it can be frustrating if one doesn't sit through to the very end of the film. Sometimes such a clip can be funny and suggest something "to follow" (such as the shot of Skeletor at the very end of Masters of The Universe....a fave of mine), or they can be pointless.

I much prefer the original 1927 silent Ben-Hur to the remake with Heston, which....frankly...I've never liked. The original is much more exciting to me. The 1937 A Star Is Born is the one and only for me. Never cared for any of the remakes, even the Garland version (highly overrated, IMHO). Never liked High Society....I find The Philadelphia Story FAR more entertaining. To me, Fredric March IS Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I have several versions of the story on video, but given a choice I'd take March's Oscar-winning version over any other. Never especially cared for Spencer Tracy's version. Can't say on King of Kings...haven't seen either one in years. For telling the story of Jesus in old-Hollywood style, I like The Greatest Story Ever Told. Got the chance about 30 years ago to see an original 70mm print, and it blew me away. Have also never seen any version of The Maltese Falcon other than the one with Bogart. Impossible to judge without seeing the earlier versions, but can't imagine any other version being any better.

Charlie Sheen is a waste and an idiot.....along with a LOT of other celebrities these days. I get sick of hearing about the same people every other day, and hearing one thing after another these days about Oprah....who IMHO should just shut up. Along with Rosie O'Donnell and Elton John and Cher and (etc).....there's several celebrities who I now wish would just shut the hell up. The media also needs to shut the hell up and stop reporting all this crapola they THINK is news and that people want to hear.

I'd turn it off....who would want to see the exact same story three times in a row in one night? Not me.....I'd rather they show different versions on consecutive nights.

I can't stand Spike Lee....either his movies or him. There's a lot of people out there who seem to think that he's just an absolute jerk. I don't recall ever hearing anything particularly positive about him....and then there was that stupidness several years ago when he attempted to sue SpikeTV for rights to the named "Spike"....as if Mr. Lee has ever been the ONLY person to have the name Spike.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > For me, probually "Warriors of the Wasteland" in a theatre and "Noahs Ark" for TV. You mean "probably"....there is no such word as "probually".

Miss W, whether one likes it or not, the fact remains that we've gone into the digital age when many forms of home entertainment and such are all coming together. One day people will have their computers and televisions as ONE unit, through which they obtain everything.....tv programming and internet downloads. Organizations and companies which DON'T keep up with the advances in how media is gotten to the public will be left behind while other groups move ahead. The same thing applies to TCM....they not only have to keep up with their regular tv/cable programming, but they have to keep up computer/internet-wise as far as what they provide to the viewers out there.

> {quote:title=audreyforever wrote:}{quote} > I'm not against remakes, but I'm against them when they essentially rip off the original and take all the credit Absolutely...that burns my beans also. That's the worst thing about remakes, when they don't even acknowledge the fact they're doing something which has been done before...and especially when they deliberately mislead the public into thinking they're doing it for the first time. Like there's this movie coming out from the director of Twilight (the first movie) called "Red Riding Hood" (the classic story done as a werewolf tale)....but on IMDB and other places, those who KNOW are already saying it's been done before, as the 1985 classic "The Company of Wolves". This also made me think of that Xfinity Tv App for iPad commercial, with that bouncy tune which starts out with whistling and near the end gets to a few lyrics "Good is Good, but Great Is Better" (which also is the song's title, according to what I've read online)...but what NO ONE seems to have pointed out or recognized is that the music itself is adapted from a classical piece by Haydn...just bounced up for today's younger generation. First time I saw that commercial I immediately recognized the Haydn piece because years ago, when I played the piano as a kid, that was one of the pieces I used to play (I don't recall its title however). Anyway, this is an instance of something musically being "remade" for today's younger generation....who will have NO idea this tune is ripped off....er, I mean ADAPTED from a classical composition.

> {quote:title=babydiapers wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > > > > *(and if a board admin reads this, I don't appreciate the censorship in this thread...several replies have gotten deleted since I was here yesterday. That's nonsense.)* > > Not to worry, krueger69, I'll get to the bottom of that if I have to knock up every programmer at the TCM front office! Don't you worry about that! Brilliant....also can't spell my name when it's right in front of you.

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > > Oops, what's that sound. Oh oh, babydiapers, tha's the recess bell, you better head back in. Recess is over....it's snack time with milk and cookies. *(and if a board admin reads this, I don't appreciate the censorship in this thread...several replies have gotten deleted since I was here yesterday. That's nonsense.)*

The whole "controversy" over Song of The South is utterly ridiculous and meaningless...not too long ago I tracked it down online and finally got to see it....and saw NOTHING wrong or offensive with the movie. It's ridiculous, IMHO.....there is absolutely NOTHING to be held against the movie. The only reason i can see for it being held back and unfairly slandered is because of the URBAN LEGEND, as it were, surrounding the movie.....the "myth", so to speak, that there IS or there MIGHT be something wrong or offensive with it. Might as well hold back and censor Gone With The Wind for the same reason.....an "unfair" or "stereotypical" portrayal of blacks. I just don't understand what people find so wrong with Song of The South.

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > Go to the very first page of this thread and check the third post. It was actually the first post on the second page.....it's gotten pushed up or something.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > There is a 1978 animated version of "The Lord of the Rings". Its not Oscar material but it did told the whole story in one movie. and someone else said "(although the Ralph Bakshi LOTR is still my favorite even though Return of the King was not part of the LOTR films he made)" You are both wrong...Bakshi made ONE LOTR movie....he did not make "LOTR films". The movie he made was the first book, as was the first of the Jackson films, based on "The Fellowship of The Ring". The Bakshi film bombed, which is why he never made another one. It didn't tell "the whole story in one movie", unless you mean the story of the FIRST book. Also, Return of The King was a tv movie... ....and Babydiapers is still a troll in this thread.

Baby is nothing more than a troll AND an idiot...hasn't anyone figured that out yet? "Personally, Veda's convinced me that alligators have the right idea. They eat their young. " (Mildred Pierce, 1945)

> {quote:title=Scottman wrote:}{quote} > > If I understand it correctly, the b/w version of DR.X is just a copy of the two color Technicolor version. The color version was thought to be lost for many years until a print was found and restored by UCLA in the 1980s. > Not quite....later b&w prints (such as what may have circulated on 16mm prior to the color restoration) may have been created from a color print, but the film was originally shot twice back when it was made, a second time with a black & white film camera because back then they weren't able to simply "create" black & white prints from the Technicolor versions.....it simply didn't work. They couldn't do that, hence the reason it was shot a second time/simultaneously with a b&w camera. I recall seeing the movie in old 16mm rental catalogs back in the 70's and early 80's, with two listings and two rental prices for the b&w and color versions...but it's hard to say if those b&w prints were from the alternate b&w shoot or simply created from the color prints of the time.