lzcutter
-
Posts
12,344 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by lzcutter
-
-
Brad,
If I recall correctly, those are the words that Joey is yelling as Shane is riding away.
"Shane, Shane, come back! Pa's got things for you do! Mother wants you. I know she does!"
Shane keeps riding.
They are easy lines to miss because I think the music is beginning to swell as Joey is yelling.
No harm, no foul.
-
And I've never tried to "browbeat" anybody, >>
I don't know about anyone else but after this argument carrying over into three other threads, I sure am feeling browbeat.
-
I'm just wondering, do any of you think that Jean Arthur's character had a little bit of a crush on Shane? I'm not sure how I feel about it, would be interested to hear some opinions. >>
Brad,
This line from Joey probably sums it all up best:
Pa's got things for you to do. And Mother wants you. I know she does!
-
SPTO,
If it's any consolation, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg are in pre-production at HBO for
a Band of Brothers type miniseries that focuses on the Pacific Theater.
Also, Ken Burns is working on a Civil War type epic documentary on WW2. I believe he just got the big thumbs up from PBS when he signed a non-exclusive contract to provide them with content for the next 20 years.
-
I'm not at all sure. That's why I'm asking... anyone know?
"How did they get the rights to this? It must've cost a fortune, right? Is The Family Guy produced by Sony? Oh wait, the rights would have to come from
Warner's, wouldn't it?" >>
Jack,
I believe that Family Guy is produced by Fox. Either way, they would have had to get the rights from Warners to use the idea.
It seems the studios, in light of all the possibilities with new media, are starting to play way nicer with one another.
Let's hope it stays around.
Think of the possibilities for TCM!
-
Third times the charm
Message was edited by:
lzcutter
-
Love it when the server hiccups.
Message was edited by:
lzcutter
-
KF,
I saw "Sugarland" when it was first released many years ago. It is early Spielberg and definitely worth catching.
I'm surprised it is not on DVD. I wonder why?
It does have some Looney Tunes cartoons in it (Roadrunner and Wiley Coyote). I wonder if that has something to do with it?
-
There's also a huge difference in the ownership of the studios -- today, they're all part of huge conglomerates and run with usually ruthless corporate mentality. In the classic era, the decision-makers were people who were passionate about movies, whether or not you agreed with their artistic preferences. It was people like L.B. Mayer, Irving Thalberg, Jack Warner, Daryl Zanuck, Samuel Goldwyn, Harry Cohn, Carl Laemmle, Adolph Zukor, David O. Selznick, and Walt Disney, who are responsible for much of the output of Hollywood during its golden age.>>
Yes, the moguls of the studio era were passionate about movies. Anyone that is a lover of film history agrees with you on that. They also had some rather pedestrian directors working for them and some geniuses. Not every film produced by the studios was a classic. They were all churning out a film a week for years. Some real filler and some bad movies got made as well.
Today, the studios are owned by conglomerates and as you say are subjected to the business clime of today.
That said, there are still some incredible films being made by men and women who are passionate about film.
Will they stand the test of time?
Of course they will. Good films, like anything else, always stand the test of time. Some of our beloved classic films bombed at the box office and were forgotten rather quickly by the audiences of their day.
Today, we can't imagine life without them.
30 to 50 to 75 years from now, the same will hold true about some of the films today.
-
My point is none of those quotes can hold a candle to any from the classics era.......... no matter what AFI says. >>
Brad,
I don't care what the AFI says either about its list of films (top 100, best comedies, quotes, etc). The best part of any group or critic putting a list together of films is to talk about the films with others.
As for the quotes I mentioned earlier, those were ones off the top of my head. Good lines, whether from classcis or modern films, stay with me and I don't make the distinction between eras.
Anne,
The last quote about the stop light is from "Starman". Whenever I run a yellow light, I tell Mr C that line.
-
It would be great if TCM could get these documentaries and run them:
MGM: When the Lion Roars
The RKO Story
Here's Looking at You: The Warner Bros. Story
The Universal Studio Story
Was there one done for Columbia?
-
> I think it's the best documentary on Hollywood ever
> made [....] It's not a disguised commercial for a
> studio and its films, like so many of these things
> wind up being.
Could it be simply because RKO is no longer a major Hollywood studio, therefore no need to get RKO execs to give their approval to the project, authorize the clips, etc.? >>
The RKO film library was owned by Ted Turner at the time this documentary was made. So, they would have had to license the clips from Turner.
I believe the documentary was based on the book: The RKO Story by Professor Richard Jewell. Rick is the head of the Film History/Criticism department at USC as well as teacher. His class on Westerns is great. He wrote the book back in the late 1970s/early 1980s I believe. It is out of print but if you can find a copy, I highly recommend it.
He is great guy and a great teacher.
-
I agree the dialogue was much better "back in the day" How many "classic lines" do we have from modern movies as opposed to classics? >>
"Miss Jean Louise I'd like you to meet Mr. Arthur Radley"
"Hey Boo"
"We're going to need a bigger boat"
"This is not a boat accident! It wasn't a propeller and it wasn't Jack the Ripper"
"Make him an offer he can't refuse"
"Red light stop, green light go, yellow light go very fast. "
"I'll... be... right... here. "
I could go on.....
-
Bill,
TCM aired "Hallelujah" last May during their Race on Film month.
As for the Jolson films, I am hoping that the Race in Film month was successful that TCM might consider doing a similar month that features films with blackface. Put them in a historical context with Donald Bogle or someone of his stature talking about the films and air them.
Hoping, hoping, hoping.
-
But you're ignoring the problem that not everyone will want their kids taught the same moral code. Some people will wnt their kids taught a Christian moral code. Others, like me, will strenuously object to having their kids taught a a Christian moral code. So which moral code will the movies teach? Will you still be so enthusiastic about the idea if it's not your moral code that gets taught? This isn't the 1950s, when you can have a dominant ideology imposed upon everyone whether they like it or not.
The point is that if you need movies to teach your family "moral codes," then there's a big problem much, much closer to home than what is, or is not, up on the screen at the local movie house. The same is true of elected officials. We don't elect presidents, or anyone else, to role models. If they are, fine, but don't be disappointed or critical if they are not.
You and the other parent are the only role models for your children that matter. If they grow up nont knowing right from wrong, it's no one's fault but yours, and if you then blame it on television, movies and bad politicians, you're a blame-shirking hypocrite on top of everything else.>>
CSJ,
Thank you.
On a side note, I also agree you with about the 1970s being a decade of good film making.
-
"Which classic actress would you like to bring home to meet your parents?
The Big M! Pull yourselves together, family members, and have a seat!
Which classic actress would you like to dance with? The Big M!
Which classic actress would you like to see as a Playboy centerfold? The Big M! ..."
How refreshing to see that Marjorie Main is so well regarded and remembered today! >>
Jack,
I hope Larry isn't drinking coffee when he reads this in the morning!
-
Anyway, what do you do? Do you stick the classics or the newer films or will you watch anything because I will watch anything, if it's good to me, I like it, if its' not good to me then I just forget about it. To me there is no such thing as a good film or bad film because to me It's all about opinions, are any of you the same way? I will not judge if your not, it's your opinion.>>
Kubrick,
Welcome. You will find that this is one of the most contentious subjects that we talk about here second only to TCM running post-1960 films.
There are folks here who like only classic films and some here who like both. Sometimes we all agree on a film (classic era films), most times not (post-1960s).
As for me, I grew up loving film and love films from all decades. Some films are good, some are great and some are very, very bad. Each decade is filled with examples.
When I was younger and had more time, I used to see a great number of films. Now I am older and while I still love going to the movies, my free time revolves around friends and home more. However, Mr Cutter and I do try to make it down to Hollywood to see films as we both believe there are some films that just have to be experienced in a good theater.
However, Mr Cutter is an audiophile so we have a good home theater system (working our way to flat screen and high def one of these days) and watching DVDs in our house is alot of fun audio wise.
As for passing judgements on films, films are very subjective and their power comes from striking different people in different ways.
It's not important to me as to what my top ten films are because when you are talking with folks, their top ten is always going to be different. The fun is in how many films you have in common and why.
A classic film is not a classic because of when it was made or because a critic or anyone else says it is.
A classic film is one that you carry with you always because it touched your heart in a special way.
At least to me.
-
Kubrick,
I'm thinking you mean February 7th as January 7th has come and gone.
As for "Starman", I saw it when it was initially released back in the 1980s. I love the movie.
Jeff Bridges is great, Karen Allen is great and the score by Jack Nitsche is one of my favorites (along with "The Razor's Edge" and "Cutter's Way").
Love the on-location footage in Arizona, though the little diner at Space City that they stop in for pie on the way to the Meteor crater was torn down a few years back. There are still roadside boards for "Space City" along the highway.
-
Kubrick,
Every February TCM does its 31 Days of Oscar Salute. This is the month usually with the highest quota of recent films (post-1960s to todays). So, they often show some of the best of modern films that were nominated for Oscars (not just Best Picture nominees but acting and sometimes other craft positions as well).
City of Angels was on TCM last year with Wings of Desire. I believe that Rushmore was part of the Oscar Salute two years ago and I believe Jurassic Park was as well.
Meet John Doe was just on in December as part of the Gary Cooper salute. Bringing Up Baby used to play almost every month but they seem to have put that one on retirement for a while.
As for City Lights and the Kubrick Films, as I said in your other thread it may be rights issues or ownership or monetary issues that keep them from being aired.
Hang tight though, because TCM is making some great strides on all fronts. They recently made a wonderful agreement with Sony to broadcast many of the Columbia films and they have made a short agreement with Disney as well.
Last year, TCMProgrammr told us they were working on a long term deal with Paramount as well.
I would expect Halloween to be on TCM Underground at some point, perhaps just before Rob Zombie's remake is released.
As for TCM only showing films that important to film history that creates more problems.
Who decides what films are important? My list won't be your list, won't be Kyle's list, won't be Moira's list and on and on.
TCM, instead, takes a big tent approach to the films it shows. All films from all decades are shown regardless if they are silent, foreign, bad, classic, modern.
There is something for everyone 24/7 at TCM.
-
Is this what passes for "intelligence" these days?>>
No, this is what passes for one poster sticking up for another.
Anne was sticking up for Brad and now I am going to stick up for Anne.
She and Brad don't always agree on the movies they like or dislike.
I often don't agree with either one of them.
But, I don't believe that either one of them warrants the reply you posted.
-
There's no question that the tools available to filmmakers have changed quite a bit, in terms not just of CGI effects but also digital technology for editing, etc. But I see those changes applying only to the tools of filmmaking rather than to the medium itself. Many of these changes won't even be noticed by the casual viewer.>>
I think we all have noticed and appreciated the incredible improvements in sound recording and mixing that have taken place in filmmaking in the last quarter century or less. I think you short change the casual viewer because I think they do notice the differences.
<>
This is the part of the argument that I never understand around here. Why is it always necessary to put down modern movies (and by modern movies I mean movies made in the last thirty years) and modern filmmakers and actors?
If we are here because we are all movie lovers why do we have such little respect for those among us who like movies regardless of the year or the era they were made?
I have seen some films in the last thirty years and in the last ten years that I would consider to be just as noteworthy and just as good as LOA.
Filmmaking didn't stop being good when the studio era finally imploded. Good films have been made every year of every decade since silent films were born. Some filmmakers have always gone to extraordinary lengths to be able to tell the stories that they are passionate about.
It was true in Buster Keaton's day, in John Ford's day, in David Lean's day and it is true today.
-
no huge transition has taken place since the introduction of Cinemascope in 1953. Whereas filmmakers from the early 20th century had to adapt to the changing medium (and find new ways to get their messages across audiences), today the biggest changes have to do with CGI and other technological details. >>
Cinemascope,
I would put the changes made in recent technology right up there in terms of big changes for filmmakers.
Less than twenty years ago, painted matte work was still the norm and cutting on flatbeds and moviolas was the way it had been for as long as most of us could remember.
The changes that came, behind the camera, from adapting to non-linear editing to sound mixing to CGI and other technical breakthroughs had a tremendous affect on the crafts people involved. Early CGI, like bad matte work, is easy to spot but if you look at it within the context of breaking new ground, its sometimes easier to be more forgiving.
<>
I agree with what you say in the appeal of classic movies but I believe we live in an era of extraordinary challenges but because these challenges don't command our attention the way the Space Race and others have in the past, we don't view them the same way. We are bombarded daily with so much information from so many sources that it becomes increasingly difficult to keep on top of the important stuff. After awhile, we give up and wait for the two sentence condensed version from yahoo or google or netscape news. Either way, it's no way to get the inforamtion that's needed.
Computers technology alone has changed so much in just the last fifteen years but because everything seems to be happening so much faster now and we fall into that trap that we have to be doing something of every minute of every day (why is beyond me, but everyone keeps telling us we do) we don't give some of these challenges the thought we should.
As for the movies of today, I think many movies today are just as good as the studio era classic films and many filmmakers and actors as well.
-
A Clockwork Orange should be allowed to air on TCM, or do you think that the film is not worthy enough to be aired, or do you think that the violent content of the film is too intence to be aired uncut and commercial free.>>
I don't think the problem is that TCM is reluctant to air Clockwork Orange but there may be rights issues or monetary issues involved that are keeping it from being broadcast by TCM.
-
Classic movies are "better" because - simply - LIFE was better;>>
Otter,
I don't know that life was really all that much better fifty to seventy years ago.
To us, looking back at that time in the reel world, it looks terrific and who would not want to live there?
But in the real world that these movies existed in there was blatant discrimination of people of color, gender and different religions. Black people in the South could not vote at the polls with the ease of white people. Women could not have their own bank accounts, credit or own homes without a mister in the house. Jewish people were denied membership in country clubs, denied access to civic and service organizations.
Few neighborhoods had anyone of color living in them.
There was incredible poverty during the Depression. 25% of the country was unemployed. People abandoned their children because they could not afford to feed them. Farmers on the high plains endured five years of drought and black blizzards because the top soil was blowing away.
World War II, while uniting the country in a common cause, was still filled with rationing of everything. Men and women went off to fight the war and many never returned. Others returned with what we now call post-traumatic stress.
The movies of that era rarely portrait what life was really like back then because movies were where people went to fantasize about their lives. Most of the movies made during the middle of the Depression rarely show the extent and the daily coping in realistic terms.
But for us, looking back at the reel world, it is often filled with beautiful deco apartments, penthouses and homes. Women are dressed to the nines no matter what time of day often in material that was far beyond the financial reach of those in the audience. Men are suave and handsome. Everyone talks in witty patter and they go to the great nite clubs and restaurants.
It's a world we covet because it is different from what we have in our own time. Life was slower then and there are things that resonate with us because they seemed so important then and are less so today.
But, life in the reel world was, for the majority of films, a fantasy world for the audience to forget their troubles.
That is still true for us today as we watch them.
Are classic movies better? Many of the classic films we all love failed at the box office.
The only reason they are considered classic now is because of the resurgence and appreciation of many of the films, filmmakers and stars from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s. During the 1960s and 1970s, hundreds of books were published about the stars, the films and the eras.
All of this was before VCRs so seeing these movies were not easy. The one exception, the Wizard of Oz, which was presented every year on CBS. Otherwise, we had to rely on the Million Dollar Movie, the networks Night at the Movies, Film Societies and the occasional revival/art house to see them.
Because it was not easy to see them, that, too, added to the mystique and the luster.
Today, we tend to forget that before the studios had to sell off their movie theaters, there was an incredible number of movies made every year not only by the majors: MGM, Paramount, Universal, Warners, Columbia, Fox and Disney but also smaller "poverty row" companies because there were so many theaters to fill. There were a large number of not great and some really bad films made, not only by the lesser studios but by the major studios as well.
Before the advent of "Entertainment Tonight" there was more of focus, by the public, on the films themselves. With the coming of Entertainment Tonight and other silly shows, it became all about the box office. Jaws and Star Wars helped propel the trend of summer blockbusters.
Today there are fewer films made on a yearly basis so the flops now are more apparent than ever before.
But there are still some wonderful films that get made every year.
However, we often prefer the older films because the state of our lives, our country, our culture, the world is moving so quickly that we feel we have no control over events and technology. Everything seems to be moving at lightning speed these days.
But in the reel world of classic films, it may move with lightning speed (His Girl Friday for example) but they sure look more beautiful, more handsome, have wittier banter and more fun jobs than we have in our lives right now.
And that says more about all of us than it says about the state of films today vs then.
Your candidate for most over-rated movie?
in Hot Topics
Posted
OK, but tell me -- how do you *really* feel? =-)>>
Tired and browbeat.
You and Brad have now carried this argument into two forums and three threads.
No one is telling you how to post, what to post or anything else.
But people are trying to tell you that they have had enough.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion and to post that opinion.
But it has gone way beyond that into insulting each other and other people.
You both made your points about a hundred posts back.
The rest of us got your points the first time we read them.
People are asking you to call it a day and move on because they are tired of seeing threads hijacked so that you two can continue to make the same points over and over.