Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Columbia Pictures made Charley Varrick?


clore
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's what Dave Karger said last night. I'm sure he doesn't write his own intros, but whoever did doesn't have to look too deeply to discover that this is a Universal film.

 

At least the programming staff is on the top of the game as the letterboxed print was much better than the full frame Universal DVD which is loaded with specks and scratches. There's no Region 1 Blu Ray available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what Dave Karger said last night. I'm sure he doesn't write his own intros, but whoever did doesn't have to look too deeply to discover that this is a Universal film.

Have to agree with you on this, clore. Movies are TCM's business...and the most accurate information should be conveyed by the hosts in their commentaries. Anything less looks amateurish. Especially when we consider that these guys are supposed to have a background in journalism where facts should always be checked and rechecked to avoid these kinds of errors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe with all of the legalizations Columbia was on their mind.

 

LOL

 

Ya know MM, and maybe THAT'S why Karger seems to smile so much while he'll intro-ing these films?! And even when what he's talkin' about doesn't seem smile-worthy, and in fact might be a serious subject!

 

(...yep, maybe the dude is HIGH???)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

 

Ya know MM, and maybe THAT'S why Karger seems to smile so much while he'll intro-ing these films?! And even when what he's talkin' about doesn't seem smile-worthy, and in fact might be a serious subject!

 

(...yep, maybe the dude is HIGH???)

 

He seems to wiggle a lot also, as if his underwear is bunching up. And he blinks less than Donald Pleasance.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Southern Peru...'74 before the rains." LOL

 

LOVED that sitcom, clore!

 

Thanks for the posting.

 

(..."Whaaaat doooes aaaaa yeeeelloooow liiiight meeeean?"...just another of the great bits in that show, and as I bet you know) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can see in that clip that Danny DeVito is clearly on the verge of cracking up. Maybe Christopher Lloyd added something - like the way he shakes his head after the inhalation - but he even appears to walk out of frame.

 

I happened to catch a rerun about a month ago during one of my bouts of insomnia and it was the yellow light episode. Taxi and Barney Miller were my favorite sitcoms of that period. The latter had its own great episode about brownies laced with hashish.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to agree with you on this, clore. Movies are TCM's business...and the most accurate information should be conveyed by the hosts in their commentaries. Anything less looks amateurish. Especially when we consider that these guys are supposed to have a background in journalism where facts should always be checked and rechecked to avoid these kinds of errors.

 

Things such as this bug me as it is too easy to verify. It's the first thing one would see if one watched the movie and unlike anecdotal info as given in the outro, a film's credits are accessible all over the web. Hello - TCM has their own database, use it.

 

I've long said that when someone writes an intro, they should have to provide footnotes. In this case, tell us where they found the info that Columbia produced the film. I'm inclined to think it was pulled from hind quarters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things such as this bug me as it is too easy to verify. It's the first thing one would see if one watched the movie and unlike anecdotal info as given in the outro, a film's credits are accessible all over the web. Hello - TCM has their own database, use it.

And it kind of suggests they are not in tune with what the long-time viewers want-- more films from Universal and Paramount. So when they have a Universal film to broadcast, they should be all over it, promoting it like there's no tomorrow. Misidentifying it as a picture from another studio would be something they should not want to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things such as this bug me as it is too easy to verify. It's the first thing one would see if one watched the movie and unlike anecdotal info as given in the outro, a film's credits are accessible all over the web. Hello - TCM has their own database, use it.

 

I've long said that when someone writes an intro, they should have to provide footnotes. In this case, tell us where they found the info that Columbia produced the film. I'm inclined to think it was pulled from hind quarters.

 

You believe the person responsible for this goof really believed that this was a Columbia film?   To me what is more likely is that they were writing up the intro,  got a text they just had to read,   and when they went back to writing the intro wrote Columbia instead of Universal because the last film they wrote about was a Columbia film. 

 

As you note what studio released a film is really easy to verify so I highly doubt the person who made this goof had a source that incorrectly said the film was from Columbia.      Of course maybe the simple explanation is along the lines of where MovieMadness went;  The person had some really good Columbian weed and they had Columbia on the brain.       :wacko:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You believe the person responsible for this goof really believed that this was a Columbia film?   To me what is more likely is that they were writing up the intro,  got a text they just had to read,   and when they went back to writing the intro wrote Columbia instead of Universal because the last film they wrote about was a Columbia film. 

 

As you note what studio released a film is really easy to verify so I highly doubt the person who made this goof had a source that incorrectly said the film was from Columbia.      Of course maybe the simple explanation is along the lines of where MovieMadness went;  The person had some really good Columbian weed and they had Columbia on the brain.       :wacko:

 

Actually, what I see here is that the attitude is "Who the hell cares? Nobody is going to check our work. Those that might know better are wiling to pay 87 bucks a year to be part of our exclusive club."  :)

 

As I've pointed out before, if a host comes out and his zipper is open, someone would notice and that would be corrected on the spot. If Karger had some spinach on his teeth, that would be noticed - especially since he can't close his mouth. ;)

 

But if Karger refers to John FIEDLER as FIELDER - and he did last night - who cares and what does it matter if they do care?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the way corporations think. Having worked for a few of them in the past, this is exactly how they think.

 

Last night, Ben referenced Tallulah Bankhead as the only woman in the cast of Lifeboat.

 

Well, she was the only woman besides Mary Anderson (billed fourth) and Heather Angel (billed seventh).

 

But who cares. It's really time to start considering abandoning the host concept or else put up disclaimers that any resemblance to actual cinema history is coincidental and unintentional.

 

I suppose it could be worse. Melania Trump could come on and read old Robert Osborne intros and claim that she wrote them herself.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night, Ben referenced Tallulah Bankhead as the only woman in the cast of Lifeboat.

 

Well, she was the only woman besides Mary Anderson (billed fourth) and Heather Angel (billed seventh).

 

But who cares. It's really time to start considering abandoning the host concept or else put up disclaimers that any resemblance to actual cinema history is coincidental and unintentional.

 

I suppose it could be worse. Melania Trump could come on and read old Robert Osborne intros and claim that she wrote them herself.

I didn't see last night's introduction to LIFEBOAT. Even Ben should have known there was something erroneous with such copy. 

 

It's almost like the person writing the wraparound text has never seen the movie and is relying on publicity stills to make generalizations--in this case, stills that were cropped and only show Tallulah with the male costars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it kind of suggests they are not in tune with what the long-time viewers want-- more films from Universal and Paramount.

 

Well, I consider myself to be a "long time viewer", and I don't really care!

 

Except in the case of cutting down on "frequent flyers".  The more the merrier in this case.  Columbia, Paramount, Universal, United Artist etc., etc.....

 

ALL have been known to grind out both masterpieces and mediocrity.  I really don't wish to see the schedule bloated with third rate tripe just to have MORE movies from some particular studio being shown.

 

And of course, "third rate tripe" IS subjective.  ;)

 

But introducing a film by stating the wrong studio's name as it's production IS a mistake that could have been easily avoided.  But if the HOST wasn't aware of which company actually produced the film, he(she) of course isn't to be blamed.  But, if he DID know, it should have been encumbent on HIM to make an "on the spot" correction.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...introducing a film by stating the wrong studio's name as it's production IS a mistake that could have been easily avoided.  But if the HOST wasn't aware of which company actually produced the film, he(she) of course isn't to be blamed.  But, if he DID know, it should have been encumbent on HIM to make an "on the spot" correction.

Well, what it suggests is they need a continuity person to check the facts in all wraparound text before going on the air. It should be assumed most of the wraparound text is subject to error-- even the host should assume that-- and everyone should go over it with a fine-tooth comb. It's their reputation on the line, and the errors make them all look silly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see last night's introduction to LIFEBOAT. Even Ben should have known there was something erroneous with such copy. 

 

It's almost like the person writing the wraparound text has never seen the movie and is relying on publicity stills to make generalizations--in this case, stills that were cropped and only show Tallulah with the male costars.

 

This was a guest programmer night, so I don't know how much of a prepared script is involved. But the way to handle that is for Ben to ask the person something like "Bankhead's the only woman in the cast, right?" Of course, Lou Gossett may not have remembered either, but it takes the onus off Ben.

 

I keep seeing the wine club spot with Ben talking about how they curate wine as TCM curates film and I don't see that as a recommendation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a guest programmer night, so I don't know how much of a prepared script is involved. But the way to handle that is for Ben to ask the person something like "Bankhead's the only woman in the cast, right?" Of course, Lou Gossett may not have remembered either, but it takes the onus off Ben.

 

I keep seeing the wine club spot with Ben talking about how they curate wine as TCM curates film and I don't see that as a recommendation.

 

clore, I could be wrong here but I thought I remembered Ben modifying that remark of his and later saying in passing something to the effect that there were a few other women in the movie.

 

And if he did, I also remember thinking it somewhat a disservice to Mary Anderson especially and by not mentioning her by name. As you know, she's also featured all the way through the film, and even though she was never on the A-List, her role in it was quite extensive and I felt held her own with the bigger names. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a guest programmer night, so I don't know how much of a prepared script is involved. But the way to handle that is for Ben to ask the person something like "Bankhead's the only woman in the cast, right?" Of course, Lou Gossett may not have remembered either, but it takes the onus off Ben.

 

I keep seeing the wine club spot with Ben talking about how they curate wine as TCM curates film and I don't see that as a recommendation.

Thanks for the information. As you said, the TCM employee (Bob, Ben or Tiffany) should be clarifying a guest's remarks, especially if they are obviously in error. It's like someone coming on and saying Liz Taylor had never been married. You wouldn't just let that comment go without correcting it.

 

The wine stuff is a whole other issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

clore, I could be wrong here but I thought I remembered Ben modifying that remark of his and later saying in passing something to the effect that there were a few other women in the movie.

 

And if he did, I also remember thinking it somewhat a disservice to Mary Anderson especially and by not mentioning her by name. As you know, she's also featured all the way through the film, and even though she was never on the A-List, her role in it was quite extensive and I felt held her own with the bigger names. 

 

Did he correct himself? I may have been yelling out "You idiot" too loudly to hear that.  ;)

 

Sweet Mary Anderson played a black woman in the film THE UNDERWORLD STORY. I wonder what brother James Anderson thought of that - he's quite the bigot in FIVE, FRIENDLY PERSUASION and TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD.

 

Just kidding folks, I know that he's an actor playing roles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the information. As you said, the TCM employee (Bob, Ben or Tiffany) should be clarifying a guest's remarks, especially if they are obviously in error. It's like someone coming on and saying Liz Taylor had never been married. You wouldn't just let that comment go without correcting it.

 

The wine stuff is a whole other issue.

 

I can't watch that Elvis Mitchell interview with Tarantino. The latter says several times that he loves the Garland musical THE HARDY GIRLS and Elvis doesn't bother to tell him it wasn't part of the Andy Hardy series.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...