FredCDobbs
-
Posts
25,502 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Posts posted by FredCDobbs
-
-
> Anyone else excited to see this wonderful movie
> tonight?
>
Yeah, me too!!!
-
Speaking of things changing, I liked my old Windows '98 quite a lot, then I bought a new computer and got Windows XP, which is a monster that has tried to take over my computer. It's like HAL in 2001. One time I tried to shut it off and it wouldn't let me. It said "You Don't Have the Authority To Do That".
The hell I don't!?
I pulled the plug on it. I pulled the AC plug out of the wall. That shut it off.
-
I think a lot of us have gotten so used to Cinemascope, it doesn?t bother us anymore to see extraneous stuff on each side of the screen, while two people are in the middle of the screen talking or kissing. Cinemascope is really not necessary for hugging and kissing scenes.
Hmm.... maybe that?s why so many ?hugging and kissing? scenes eventually went ?horizontal? by the 1960s. Before then, most people sat upright or leaned over only a little to hug and kiss on the screen.
-
Here's an interesting website:
http://www.dvdaust.com/aspect.htm
I do recall that nobody realized anything was "missing" before there was Cinemascope.
GWTW in 1953 and probably in 1939 represented basically the aspect ratio and normal vision our eyes concentrate on anyway.
When I saw "The Robe" in Cinemascope in 1953, it was spectacular. Many wide scenes in films like Dr. Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia were designed specifically for Cinemascope.
-
> So, Fred, I'm curious, in your opinion, which of the
> video versions of GWTW do you think comes
> closest to what the movie looked like in theater
> screens in 1939?
I saw the film for the first time in 1953 and I think the format was the original standard.
-
How many color films were made in 1939.
-
> Cinesage,
>
> I was wondering if it was possible if Selznick tied
> up a couple of cameras to have as back ups in case of
> malfunction?
>
> Just thinking out loud....
True, and he could have tied up several of them just to keep other companies from using them.
-
If I?m not mistaken, GWTW was actually shot on black and white film. Iz is right about the Technicolor cameras. The cameras were rare and expensive. There weren?t many of them. They shot three rolls of B&W negative film at the same time. A beam splitter behind the lens, along with three colored filters, something like red, green, and blue, broke the image up into the three primary colors, and each beam went to one of the B&W films.
The color was added in a dye process when the three strips of B&W film were printed onto one piece of final film with the color dye added to it. It was a difficult and expensive process.
Kodak already had Kodachrome color film, which was a very good positive color film, but it was designed so that the original film would be both used for the photography and for the projection, with no copies being made. Old Kodachrome has a very long lifespan without the color fading, but color prints made from it weren?t very good, the contrast was way too high.
Kodak didn?t invent a good color negative film until the early ?50s, and the prints were good, but the prints had a problem of fading (turning pink, or blue, or green) after just a few years. That?s why recent color movies have to be ?restored?.
Regarding negative film, Hollywood had to use copies to make their final ?release prints? from the very beginning, and they preferred to use a negative film for their cameras, rather than a positive film. The negative allowed for more control over lighting and the overall brightness of the final product when release prints were made.
-
(because I find it stupid,
> juvenile, crass, just for starters)
> '
I agree. I didn't like it either when I first saw it in a theater. I sat through the full 8 hours of it, with Ethel Merman screaming all the way through it.
-
Would that be The Prince and the Showgirl?
-
> You're on, Fred! I'll bring a big water gun, it'll be
> hotter than a Laredo parking lot in the summer out
> there!
Yeah, water guns sound good!
Let?s have a big cook-out too!
I?ll bring the Hot Tamales....
.....Anita, Rosita, Papita, Juanita, and Maria!
-
Hey! Let's all meet in Monument Valley this summer and have a big shoot-out!
-
> Your post is full of innuendo, insinuation, and
> misrepresentation of what others have said or done...
>
Well, heck, without those things, internet message boards wouldn't be any fun at all!
-
> With a hat on, he looks just like the guy. >>
>
> And all these years, I thought it was you.
Lol.
Nope, I don?t have the big creases in my face like that guy has. I now look more like an old Charlie Brown with a round head and face, something like the Charlie Weaver character back in the ?50s.But if you get a chance to see that guy in the 1931 ?Maltese Falcon?, just as soon as the camera first pans over to him... I think he still has his hat on. It looks just like him. He's an older guy, heavy-set, with the big creases in his face.
-
I don't know. But this is one of the cheapest, sleaziest, low class, trashy pre-codes ever made. That means it's a "must see" for pre-code fans.
-
> I disagree... it's certainly been different, but I
> wouldn't call it worse than other years... and it all
> goes back to normal next March, doesn't it?
Why go "away from normal" in the fist place?
-
It's strange. More people ask about this movie, and the dog training book movie, and the lady who jumps into the volcano. I wonder why?
-
> What the Blue blazes is going at TCM , A once
> tasteful up market cable channel as descended in to
> the gutter!
> What do I speak of t?
> The new Programming Policy which now spews out
> trashy movies from the 80s up to 2000.
I agree. This has been the worst month so far.
-
It's anyone who disagrees with me.
-
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1229/Mptv/1229/19715_0001.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Long,%20Walter
With a hat on, he looks just like the guy.
-
The tough guy in the hat looks just like Walter Long, the guy who played Miles Archer in the 1931 version of "The Maltese Falcon".
When I first saw him in that movie, I said, "Hey! It's the guy in the hat!"
-
>
> I watched the whole thing back in the 1960s, but I
> don't remember much about the movie.
Ha ha, I saw the movie back then too and I don't remember much about it. In fact, I don't remember much about the '60s.
-
> But I'll never recover. I'm traumatized.
I?ve always thought TCM should have a resident psychiatrist for when they show films people hate.
-
> Another really interesting cinematic American public
> official who has a real edge of menace is the
> president played by Walter Huston in
> Gabriel Over the White House, (1933). After a
> near fatal car crash, a newly elected president
> undergoes a personality change that seems to be
> inspired by God. While a callous, gladhanding,
> superficial figurehead prior to the accident, he
> becomes deeply concerned with the plight of the
> unemployed, the veterans, the threats internally
> posed by gang warfare and internationally by rogue
> nations. Eventually, Huston shouts down any
> objections to wielding his power expressed by his
> cabinet and Congress--becoming pretty much a
> (somewhat) benevolent dictator.
Yeah, Lol, I like it when he has the military go out and round up gangsters. They are found guilty by a three-military-judge tribunal, then they are taken out and shot before military firing squads. Lol.
Need help finding a movie
in Information, Please!
Posted
Jane Eyre 1944
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036969/