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

Yuletide Intro Blunder


PrinceSaliano
 Share

Recommended Posts

> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote}Correctly put, it's "not that big a deal," not "...big of a deal..." Why some people drop an utterly superflouous "of" into locutions like this is an enduring mystery...

There's a superfluous "o" in your spelling of "superfluous."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}It's really not that big of a deal...and correctly put, the original British title, SCROOGE, was changed to A CHRISTMAS CAROL for its U.S. release. The first release on home video on VHS back in the early 80's was indeed the CHRISTMAS CAROL titled print.

Actually, it is a big deal if you're a fan of accuracy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kriegerg69 wrote:

 

Whatever....it seems that all some people do is to nitpick on every little inaccuracy in Robert's intros, instead of spending time ENJOYING the movie.

 

There was some conversation about a superfluous "o".

 

Speaking of things superfluous, how about a superfluous "*to*"?

 

 

Musikone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Whatever....it seems that all some people do is to nitpick on every little inaccuracy in Robert's intros, instead of spending time ENJOYING the movie. ]:)

 

If they're not going to be informative, then what's the point of showing them at all? They just waste our time.

 

Or is the whole point just finding work for Osborne so that he won't have to sleep on park benches and subway gratings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}

> Whatever....it seems that all some people do is to nitpick on every little inaccuracy in Robert's intros, instead of spending time ENJOYING the movie. ]:)

I've yet to read of anyone saying that it spoils their enjoyment of the film. Most seem to be of the mindset that such goofs don't present Mr. Osborne in the proper manner, or that it shows him being ill-prepared by his staff.

 

I've made such comments, I'll admit that. But if I saw Mr. Osborne giving a flawless intro while his hair had an Alfalfa cowlick sticking up, and only half his face bronzed, I'd blame the make-up person for not doing his job properly.

 

If he came out all dressed impeccably except for a big mustard stain on his jacket, I'd blame wardrobe for not noticing. Ditto if his shirttail was sticking out of his open zipper.. I doubt that anyone in this forum would show up to say that we should be happy just to see him show up, or "so what if he appears slovenly, at least he's there."

 

But such things are not likely to happen because they are something that others (such as the cameraman) would likely spot, so the make-up person and the wardrobe person are easily "accountable" and thus one could say forced by that into doing his job properly.

 

Not so with the words written for Mr. Osborne. Sometimes it has appeared that a researcher is too dependent on either a failing memory, such as crediting William Keighley instead of Michael Curtiz for THE KENNEL MURDER CASE or upon the likelihood of others on the staff to not notice the errors. Maybe the person is just too lazy to use the TCM data base at his fingertips.

 

Why should this person have the continued luxury of slacking off just because his errors are less apparent?

 

So, for those who may think that correcting the script errors isn't appropriate, just how far would you let the make-up or wardrobe departments fail to properly prepare Robert Osborne for the camera before you commented in this forum?

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...