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

Recommended Posts

I have visited the site several times. I wish the owner of the complete films would share them with TCM audiences. He (or she) has listed also Paramount, Columbia, KSB/Tiffany/World-Wide, and other studios stuff in complete form which I'd love to see!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

"Those Carl Laemmle-era Universals seem to buried away in some vault or archive."

I agree on this. But once in a while.....I just got a beautiful transfer of GRAFT, the 1931 Universal which stars Regis Toomey, Sue Carol and Dorothy Revier. Also in the film is Boris Karloff--it was his performance in this title that put him on James Whale's radar and ultimately led to his getting the role of the Frankenstein monster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

One thing that is odd about vitaphone.org - the owner defines the pre-code era as 1925-1935. The cut-off period of the pre-code era is pretty definitive at July 1934, which is when the code began to be enforced. As for when the pre-code era began, I would say about 1928. The 20's might have been roaring in 1925, but films still largely displayed Victorian values up until 1928.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote}

> One thing that is odd about vitaphone.org - the owner defines the pre-code era as 1925-1935. The cut-off period of the pre-code era is pretty definitive at July 1934, which is when the code began to be enforced. As for when the pre-code era began, I would say about 1928. The 20's might have been roaring in 1925, but films still largely displayed Victorian values up until 1928.

 

Not a large number of films I've seen from 1925 were thoroughly Victorian, but many still had the whiff of Victorianism in them. Things were changing fast, though. If you look at Broadway in 1925, you couldn't call it Victorian by any stretch of the imagination, Nor could I call much of Hollywood's output by 1927 Victorian, either. Even in 1926, you had films like Lubitsch's So This Is Paris, with nary a whiff of Victorianism. The problem is the large number of lost silents from the era which would give us a better view of how Hollywood was following Broadway's trend. Remember that 1925 was the start of the speakeasy and clubs like Texas Guinan's. Prohibition wiped away Victorianism by the sheer lawlessness of that time. Other parts of the country were more conservative than New York and much the northeast, but that's where the money was, and a great number of people as well.

 

The 1935 end date is certainly an error, but I've seen a couple of releases said to be after July 1934 (by the ever-unreliable IMDB) which were still a bit salacious or immoral in Breen's way of thinking. They also didn't have certificate numbers, either. I expect it's just a mistake on IMDB's part, but I am not totally comfortable with that explanation without proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's frustrating that this Vitaphone group was instrumental in helping restore the early part-talkie THE BARKER but the film will never be seen..... It won a best-actress Oscar nomination for Betty Compson who starred with Milton Sills and Dorothy Mackaill.... this is an important early part-talkie but it's been shown like ONCE (at UCLA or AMPAS) since its restoration a few years ago. The Vitaphone people repaired several broken sound disks, the video of the film is apparently fine..... and where is TCM is showing this important film???????

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same situation with the silents in the WHV library made in 1928 and 1929. The vast majority have synchronized scores and sound effects, so no score need be commissioned. This is the case with the flapper trilogy - Our Dancing Daughters/Our Modern Maidens/Our Blushing Brides (this last one is a full-fledged talkie). They should have been out on DVD as a set years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Does anyone know what the plus signs mean next to various titles on this website? At first I thought that it might indicate a particularly good film or a film that is a good represenative of the precode era, but the author has a plus sign next to "Captain Thunder" and none next to "Blonde Crazy" with James Cagney. So this can't be the case.

 

Also, is this site abandoned? The owner seems to indicate that he/she has many rare films I have never seen anywhere, but is missing several common ones that have played recently on TCM.

 

Just wondering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where on the website are you seeing the (+) symbol. On various titles, there's a plus sign to click on to reveal the full synopsis of a movie. Is this what you are referring to? If not, maybe a screen shot would most helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clicking on the "+" sign causes no action. It is just text adjacent to the movie title. Some of the movies listed have links to wikipedia articles on them, but there is no correlation between the plus signs and the films that have articles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Screen shot?*

 

Taking a picture of a particular page or section of the Vitaphone website in question and posting it here for clarification.

 

Not to be confused with screen caps.

 

Message was edited by: lzcutter

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote}

> Does anyone know what the plus signs mean next to various titles on this website?

 

He says on his website:

 

Codes:......................Meaning:

 

+ .....................I have these titles in Great Condition.

minus...............Good to Very Good Condition.

asterisk............Titles in Poor to Fair condition, Looking for upgrades on these.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been on that site in years so forgive my ignorance, but: does this guy Jason operate as a bootlegger? What would be the point of doing this kind of thing, putting up a website claiming he has this rare film and that rare film, if it wasn't to have people email him for copyrighted films that have never been released officially and that he has no legal right to conduct transactions on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intellectual property owners might care. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes if he's tracked down legally for bootlegging. Neither would I want to be on his customer list if the FBI came in and raided his computer and checked his PayPal account for past sales and profit amounts, etc. People who bought from him could also very well receive a knock on their door some day from the government. The way both parties think on this issue today is to equate copyright infringement with terrorism! I've seen the language in their documents.

 

I would tread very carefully in dealing with this guy. He has been confronted several times in the past on other silent movie boards, including my own.

 

If someone broke into your house and stole something that belonged to you would you find that "fascinating"? Or would you want the book thrown at him?

 

In fact I'm not sure who is in charge of security for the boards on TCM but if it was my board I would remove this entire thread so as not to give him any more free publicity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...