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

Gone with the Wind…GONE!


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

He wanted GONE WITH THE WIND. That's why he went after MGM/UA.

Screen Shot 2020-06-11 at 11.31.06 AM

Kerkorian was obviously not able to buy back GONE WITH THE WIND. Basically Ted got what he wanted and what he didn't want (a lot of the other films) he sold back.

Ah. you gave me something to go on - so I did google this much:

 

Kerkorian’s Hollywood timeline:
1969: When the outsider first bought the fabled musical factory Metro Goldwyn Mayer in 1969, he was regarded as a true “barbarian at the gate” of the venerable Hollywood studio based in Culver City. He was one of the first investors who looked at the studios as an assemblage of assets to be exploited. He put James Aubrey in charge, who got rid of many studio assets and collectibles, including the ruby slippers from “The Wizard of Oz.”
1973: Kerkorian removed Aubrey and sold MGM’s distribution system.

1976: Kerkorian acquired a 25% stake in Columbia Pictures.

1980: After several legal wrangles he let it go at a profit.

1984: He made an abortive run at Disney. 

1981: Kerkorian bought United Artists for $380 million after the “Heaven’s Gate” debacle, when the New York-based studio was damaged by TransAmerica’s mishandling. And he founded his holding company, Tracinda Corp.  

1982: Kerkorian turned MGM/UA Home Entertainment into a public company, selling 15% of its stock to the public, and then bought it back.

1986: Kerkorian sold the two companies for $1.5 billion to mogul Ted Turner who was eager to get his hands on the vast MGM/UA library (which included pre-1950 Warner Bros. titles).

1986: Within five months, Kerkorian had reacquired the MGM name and Culver City lot as well as all of United Artists for $470 million. (The lot has been through many hands and is currently owned by Sony.) 

1990: Kerkorian sold MGM/UA to Giancarlo Parretti’s Pathe Communications for $1.36 billion, holding onto the MGM name, which he was planning to use for his Las Vegas hotels, theme park, and an airline. 
 
So I don't think Kerkorian even wanted Gone with the Wind. He bought back UA and its library otherwise Rocky, Annie Hall, Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, etc. would be TCM properties.  Gone with the Wind was made by Selznick International and never had anything to do with United Artists at all.
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

1986: Kerkorian sold the two companies for $1.5 billion to mogul Ted Turner who was eager to get his hands on the vast MGM/UA library (which included pre-1950 Warner Bros. titles).

This of course is significant because Teddy got GONE WITH THE WIND, THE WIZARD OF OZ and CASABLANCA, three films he was anxious to own/possess/control.

He wouldn't get CITIZEN KANE until the end of the following year (see my previous post in the thread).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Teddy boy didn't get his paws on CITIZEN KANE until the end of '87.

Screen Shot 2020-06-11 at 11.49.53 AM

So that explains RKO.  Then there is this:

 

 On February 13, 1956, Jack Warner sold the rights to all of his pre-1950 films to Associated Artists Productions (which merged with United Artists Television in 1958, and was subsequently acquired by Turner Broadcasting System in early 1986 as part of a failed takeover of MGM/UA by Ted Turner). 

 

So that is how the pre 1950 WB  library ended up at MGM and ultimately in Turner's hands. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

So that explains RKO.  Then there is this:

 

 On February 13, 1956, Jack Warner sold the rights to all of his pre-1950 films to Associated Artists Productions (which merged with United Artists Television in 1958, and was subsequently acquired by Turner Broadcasting System in early 1986 as part of a failed takeover of MGM/UA by Ted Turner). 

 

So that is how the pre 1950 library ended up at MGM and ultimately in Turner's hands. 

Interesting.

I think Teddy was eying the RKO library for awhile, because Orson Welles (who died in 1985) famously told him to keep his crayolas off CITIZEN KANE....when all that colorization was going on. So Orson probably anticipated that his black-and-white masterpiece would fall into kiddie tycoon's hands which didn't happen until after Orson's death.

Screen Shot 2020-06-11 at 12.02.13 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of ORSON WELLES there's a groovy upload on YouTube when Orson was drunk and trying to film the 'Paul Masson Wine' commercial.  It's 1m 20secs.

Then there's an audio recording of Orson attempting to voice a commercial about frozen peas (!)

And, finally, there's a 12-minute courtroom parody of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD from "The Richard Pryor Show" (1977, I think) that I think is well worth watching.  Richard plays Southern lawyer "Big Ed Garvey" (perhaps a nod to 'Marcus Garvey'?) who's pitted against opposition attorney Robin Williams.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I think Teddy was eying the RKO library for awhile, because Orson Welles (who died in 1985) famously told him to keep his crayolas off CITIZEN KANE....when all that colorization was going on. So Orson probably anticipated that his black-and-white masterpiece would fall into kiddie tycoon's hands which didn't happen until after Orson's death.

Given the guy who bought Rob Reiner's Castle Rock productions so that they would let him play Civil War, and then bought New Line so that they'd show it, this theory is entirely not with plausibility.   🤔

(Not to mention, the guy who insisted that GWTW show every day in Atlanta's CNN Center visitor theater...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mr. Gorman said:

Speaking of ORSON WELLES there's a groovy upload on YouTube when Orson was drunk and trying to film the 'Paul Masson Wine' commercial.  It's a 1m 20secs.

Then there's an audio recording of Orson attempting to voice a commercial about frozen peas (!)

And, finally, there's a 12-minute courtroom parody of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD from "The Richard Pryor Show" (1977, I think) that I think is well worth watching.  Richard plays Southern lawyer "Big Ed Garvey" (perhaps a nod to 'Marcus Garvey'?) who's pitted against opposition attorney Robin Williams.  

It's interesting all of the stuff I've had a chance to look over during quarantine. I guess the most interesting things I found were:

An interview on some youtube program called A Word On Westerns.  This particular one was interviewing Bob Mitchum's son, Chris.

An interview done by Skip E. Lowe in the mid 80s. The interviewee? Lawrence Tierney. The guy who drank and brawled his way through about 7 careers yet still got work acting from the 40s through the 90s.  Skip was just the anti Robert Osborne in this interview. He was being completely obnoxious. Considering Tierney's reputation I think he was on good behavior here.  Especially if you consider the fact that Tierney tried to land a punch on Eddie Muller back in the 90s during a showing of "Born to Kill" which Tierney  decided to show up at uninvited. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Why can't you try to understand the POV other others?  e.g.  African-Americans.    

I recommend you read some of the editorials they have written since they explain 'why a wraparound'.       (CNN has a few article on this,  with a picture from GWTW, since CNN and TCM are owned by the same company).

NOW,  I'm not saying one has to agree with that POV,   (DUH) but when one continues to ask 'why' I recommend they go ask the source.   

And I suspect you already know the reasons some feel a wraparound is necessary  (unless you have been living in a cave for the last 20 years).

 

Why can't you accept that I can have a different POV without claiming I don't understand others.  I probably have a life-time of understanding other POV's far better than you or TopBilled.  I have more experience understanding the African American POV than you or TB, unless one of you is African American.

Why is OK for others to continually state their POV, but I cannot respond with an alternative?  Sounds like discrimination to me.

TB wants that GWTW never be shown in America again - he said so!  He also wants that if it is shown there has to be a discussion (wraparound) before and after so some select politically correct individuals can criticize the movie and try to frame it as so horrible that it is not worth watching.  

Incidentally, what about "censuring" or wraparounding for God's Little Acre or Tobacco Road or hundreds of other movies that present white Southerners in a distorted light?

What about "censuring" the Nancy Drew and Hildegard Withers movies for Willie Best's roles.  You could also add the My Little Margie episodes that he was in.  And there are dozens of others, probably more.

2 hours ago, TopBilled said:

He's trying to play devil's advocate and point up extreme examples in order to defeat any movement to censure the film. Notice I said censure as opposed to censor.

Censure is not much different from censor in your viewpoint.  You have said you do not want it shown - period.  If that is not censorship, I don't know what is.

Incidentally, what about "censuring" or wraparounding for God's Little Acre or Tobacco Road or hundreds of other movies that present white Southerners in a distorted light?

What about "censuring" the Nancy Drew and Hildegard Withers movies for Willie Best's roles.  You could also add the My Little Margie episodes that he was in.  And there are dozens of others, probably more.

1 hour ago, LsDoorMat said:

Ah. you gave me something to go on - so I did google this much:

 

Kerkorian’s Hollywood timeline:
1969: When the outsider first bought the fabled musical factory Metro Goldwyn Mayer in 1969, he was regarded as a true “barbarian at the gate” of the venerable Hollywood studio based in Culver City. He was one of the first investors who looked at the studios as an assemblage of assets to be exploited. He put James Aubrey in charge, who got rid of many studio assets and collectibles, including the ruby slippers from “The Wizard of Oz.”
1973: Kerkorian removed Aubrey and sold MGM’s distribution system.

1976: Kerkorian acquired a 25% stake in Columbia Pictures.

1980: After several legal wrangles he let it go at a profit.

1984: He made an abortive run at Disney. 

1981: Kerkorian bought United Artists for $380 million after the “Heaven’s Gate” debacle, when the New York-based studio was damaged by TransAmerica’s mishandling. And he founded his holding company, Tracinda Corp.  

1982: Kerkorian turned MGM/UA Home Entertainment into a public company, selling 15% of its stock to the public, and then bought it back.

1986: Kerkorian sold the two companies for $1.5 billion to mogul Ted Turner who was eager to get his hands on the vast MGM/UA library (which included pre-1950 Warner Bros. titles).

1986: Within five months, Kerkorian had reacquired the MGM name and Culver City lot as well as all of United Artists for $470 million. (The lot has been through many hands and is currently owned by Sony.) 

1990: Kerkorian sold MGM/UA to Giancarlo Parretti’s Pathe Communications for $1.36 billion, holding onto the MGM name, which he was planning to use for his Las Vegas hotels, theme park, and an airline. 
 
So I don't think Kerkorian even wanted Gone with the Wind. He bought back UA and its library otherwise Rocky, Annie Hall, Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, etc. would be TCM properties.  Gone with the Wind was made by Selznick International and never had anything to do with United Artists at all.

Where does it say in all of this that Ted Turner purchased the MGM/RKOP/WB?whatever libraries just so he could get his hands on GWTW and show it as much as he wanted to.

My understanding is that Turner wanted to show old movies and GWTW happened to be one he favored, but he want lots and lots of old movies to show.

Incidentally, if not for Ted Turner and his actions we would not be having this discussion.  There would be no TCM; there would not any relatively cheap classic movie network showing movies without commercials.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Why can't you accept that I can have a different POV without claiming I don't understand others.  I probably have a life-time of understanding other POV's far better than you or TopBilled.  I have more experience understanding the African American POV than you or TB, unless one of you is African American.

Why is OK for others to continually state their POV, but I cannot respond with an alternative?  Sounds like discrimination to me.

TB wants that GWTW never be shown in America again - he said so!  He also wants that if it is shown there has to be a discussion (wraparound) before and after so some select politically correct individuals can criticize the movie and try to frame it as so horrible that it is not worth watching.  

Incidentally, what about "censuring" or wraparounding for God's Little Acre or Tobacco Road or hundreds of other movies that present white Southerners in a distorted light?

What about "censuring" the Nancy Drew and Hildegard Withers movies for Willie Best's roles.  You could also add the My Little Margie episodes that he was in.  And there are dozens of others, probably more.

Censure is not much different from censor in your viewpoint.  You have said you do not want it shown - period.  If that is not censorship, I don't know what is.

Where does it say in all of this that Ted Turner purchased the MGM/RKOP/WB?whatever libraries just so he could get his hands on GWTW and show it as much as he wanted to.

My understanding is that Turner wanted to show old movies and GWTW happened to be one he favored, but he want lots and lots of old movies to show.

Incidentally, if not for Ted Turner and his actions we would not be having this discussion.  There would be no TCM; there would not any relatively cheap classic movie network showing movies without commercials.

My posts suffer from "original subject" drift.  Forgive me for that. TopBilled and I got on the topic of HOW the MGM/WB/RKO library ended up in Ted Turner's hands.  I'm not really exploring the whys of it. My understanding was that Mr. Turner just liked old movies and GWTW just happened to be his favorite. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Dargo,

Sorry for the delayed reply. I was not dismissing or ignoring your comment. I had simply forgot which thread it was on, since we have multiple GWTW threads and it took me awhile to find this particular comment.

I think you're being a bit "harsh." Also you are assuming that I was making a personal jab at Cid. The You in my earlier remark was a General You in regards to conservatives in general that try to find a leg to stand on (in this case censorship) to support expressions of racism.

Also I think you are going out on a limb speaking so specifically on Cid's behalf. Why not let him speak for himself? He's obviously a conservative, so I find it interesting that you are defending a conservative given how liberal you've been on a host of issues in the forum over the years.

Just reread this and discovered a GROSS error and a personal insult.  TopBilled said:  "Also I think you are going out on a limb speaking so specifically on Cid's behalf. Why not let him speak for himself? He's obviously a conservative, so I find it interesting that you are defending a conservative given how liberal you've been on a host of issues in the forum over the years."

I pride myself on being a liberal in a very conservative state.  In fact, in college I once took a survey given to seniors.  I scored more liberal than any other student that took the survey.  Mostly based on my liberal civil rights views.  I once lost a girl friend because I supported interracial marriage.

On this very thread others have cited me as being liberal.  I do try to understand other points of view.

Oh and the bottom line for "Woke America" is they better wake up early on voting days and vote. If all these 'Woke America" people had been voting over the past 10-20 years, things would be a lot better in America.

It appears to me that we are moving into a debate over free speech.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Incidentally, if not for Ted Turner and his actions we would not be having this discussion.  There would be no TCM; there would not any relatively cheap classic movie network showing movies without commercials.

And, we wouldn't have the quote, "No commercials, no COLORIZATION!" channel if Ted hadn't been publicly slapped on the wrist by the Welles estate for what he thought were the built-in perks of buying the RKO library.

(Some of us, however, remember the late-80's, and Ted marketing the living f***ing daylights out of "his" Holy Trinity:  Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, and Singin' in the Rain.  It started with the 0z/GWTW 50th anniversaries in '89, and just snapped its tethers from there...  "Oh, you mean he showed them?"--No, I'm talking about the chess sets, the collector plates, thousands of people tap-dancing in front of Macy's, and the Saturday-morning cartoon.   And let's not even bring up that old argument about "Cats Don't Dance".)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

Why is OK for others to continually state their POV, but I cannot respond with an alternative? 

Why would a self-professed liberal (in one of your later posts) want to respond with an alternative POV (in this case a conservative POV).

A woke liberal would push for the film to be censured.

In another post of yours you say that because I don't want it aired on TCM, I am trying to censor it. 

If I was trying to censor it, I would push for all copies of it to be destroyed. I think the film should be left in the hands of responsible individuals. Airing it on a channel like TCM without the proper wraparound or disclaimer would be highly irresponsible at this time. I think it's best that the film go back in the vault for a while then re-evaluated when race relations have improved in our country, then for it to be decided at a later date if it is really necessary to ever show GONE WITH THE WIND again. If it's not necessary to air it, then don't air it.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Why would a self-professed liberal (in one of your later posts) want to respond with an alternative POV (in this case a conservative POV).

A woke liberal would push for the film to be censured.

In another post of yours you say that because I don't want it aired on TCM, I am trying to censor it. Not showing

If I was trying to censor it, I would push for all copies of it to be destroyed. I think the film should be left in the hands of responsible individuals. Airing it on a channel like TCM without the proper wraparound or disclaimer would be highly irresponsible at this time. I think it's best that the film go back in the vault for a while then re-evaluated when race relations have improved in our country, then for it to be decided at a later date if it is really necessary to ever show GONE WITH THE WIND again. If it's not necessary to air it, then don't air it.

I never said I was a "woke" liberal, whatever that is.  I am an American liberal Democrat, but I also try to understand other people's positions.  And I happen to believe that we should not start censoring movies because some people do not like them or what they believe they portray.

Incidentally, I am all for removing "Confederate" statues, monuments and so forth from public property.  I supported the movement in S.C. to remove the Confederate battle flag from the state capital and then from the lawn of the state house. 

Not showing GWTW IS censorship.  Sorry you can't understand that.   It is not "necessary" to air any movies or TV programs or publish any books, etc.  Why would it ever be "necessary" to show GWTW or any other movie?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect this is exactly what is going to happen. The movie won't air at all for a while, as long as tensions remain this high. Eventually, they may gradually reintroduce it under certain circumstances, like when they recently had Donald Bogle include it in a series of films about the presentation of African-Americans on screen. Whenever they do air it (if they do), there will be some mention in the introduction that it was a different time and certain racist portrayals were permitted back then, even though they certainly weren't acceptable, etc., etc. Frankly, they've been doing that already for a few years now, same as they do with the musicals containing blackface numbers (or else they put them on at three in the morning).  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a tempest in a teapot!

The protests in the streets today are about racism in society but police actions of violence, in particular, based on race, against black people throughout the history of the nation. There is a need for political reform, on all levels, local, state and federal, in order to deal with this, as well, in particular,  police procedures in, hopefully, a 2020 new awareness (among many whites) of the inherent racism that exists in society (in Canada, my country, as well as America).

Gone With the Wind is what it has always been, including its racial stereotyping and insensitivity.  There were black protests groups standing outside theatres showing the film in 1940. Despite that the film has endured as a shining example of the Hollywood studio system at its peak. Whether the film is still ranked among the top ten films of all time or not is a side issue. Selznick's production, always controversial because of its compromising, false portrayal of the South and slavery, still remains a favourite with many film buffs.

So to go on now about the racism to be found in the film, that is nothing new. And, to use the emotional churning of the news today created by the tragedy of George Floyd's murder, in order to proclaim with great indignation that TCM should hold off, or even completely cancel, future showings of GWTW is, to my way of thinking, much ado about nothing. I doubt that many of the protesters in the streets today have the racism to be found in an 80 year old film much on their minds as they proclaim that Black Lives Matter. They're thinking of the brothers and sisters and parents and friends that they've lost, as well as their children and the fear they have for their future. You know, something that really matters.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MusicalsGalore said:

Ignoring history will only cause us to repeat it again and again. You may not like our history and where we came from, but ignoring it will get us nowhere. 

One could say that having wraparounds is the opposite of 'ignoring history' and it is the ones that object to such wraparounds that are.

If I was in charge of a network like TCM I wouldn't routinely require wraparounds when showing such films,  but I would allow for them on certain occasions:    E.g. a specific host or other event programming as sewrite2000 indicates above.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

One could say that having wraparounds is the opposite of 'ignoring history' and it is the ones that object to such wraparounds that are.

If I was in charge of a network like TCM I wouldn't routinely require wraparounds when showing such films,  but I would allow for them on certain occasions:    E.g. a specific host or other event programming as sewrite2000 indicates above.

Great comment. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

I suspect this is exactly what is going to happen. The movie won't air at all for a while, as long as tensions remain this high. Eventually, they may gradually reintroduce it under certain circumstances, like when they recently had Donald Bogle include it in a series of films about the presentation of African-Americans on screen. Whenever they do air it (if they do), there will be some mention in the introduction that it was a different time and certain racist portrayals were permitted back then, even though they certainly weren't acceptable, etc., etc. Frankly, they've been doing that already for a few years now, same as they do with the musicals containing blackface numbers (or else they put them on at three in the morning).  

Great post. I like what you see in your crystal ball and I think it will play out exactly this way!

There is no way TCM, which has been tweeting that it is in solidarity with the BlackLivesMatter campaign, is going to just casually air GONE WITH THE WIND now. Those days are over, thank goodness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TomJH said:

What a tempest in a teapot!

The protests in the streets today are about racism in society but police actions of violence, in particular, based on race, against black people throughout the history of the nation. There is a need for political reform, on all levels, local, state and federal, in order to deal with this, as well, in particular,  police procedures in, hopefully, a 2020 new awareness (among many whites) of the inherent racism that exists in society (in Canada, my country, as well as America).

Gone With the Wind is what it has always been, including its racial stereotyping and insensitivity.  There were black protests groups standing outside theatres showing the film in 1940. Despite that the film has endured as a shining example of the Hollywood studio system at its peak. Whether the film is still ranked among the top ten films of all time or not is a side issue. Selznick's production, always controversial because of its compromising, false portrayal of the South and slavery, still remains a favourite with many film buffs.

So to go on now about the racism to be found in the film, that is nothing new. And, to use the emotional churning of the news today created by the tragedy of George Floyd's murder, in order to proclaim with great indignation that TCM should hold off, or even completely cancel, future showings of GWTW is, to my way of thinking, much ado about nothing. I doubt that many of the protesters in the streets today have the racism to be found in an 80 year old film much on their minds as they proclaim that Black Lives Matter. They're thinking of the brothers and sisters and parents and friends that they've lost, as well as their children and the fear they have for their future. You know, something that really matters.

This post seems kind of demeaning to me. All lives matter. And all issues about lives being free of racism and hate crimes, matter just as much. 

To suggest otherwise, as you seem to do in your post above, is just plain wrong in my view.

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...