Menzies was better known as a cinematographer?

[clore]

That's what was said in the intro for THINGS TO COME after it was mentioned that Menzies directed the film.

 

For the record, William Cameron Menzies was never, ever credited as a cinematographer, the bulk of his credits were as an art decorator and as production designer.

 

Additionally, while it was mentioned that George Sanders has an early role in the film, it's likely that someone had THE MAN WHO COULD WORK MIRACLES, another H.G. Wells adaptation in mind. Sanders is not in THINGS TO COME.

 

Also, the film does not start in the year 1936 as claimed, the first thing we see after the credits is that it is 1940.

[Sprocket_Man]

You're absolutely right, and it underscores why TCM had either better revamp its writing staff, top to bottom (and it seems to have a lot of bottom), or get rid of Osborne's commentaries altogether, as they're an embarrassment to the whole organization.

[clore]

As I wrote here recently, I really don't look for this stuff, but I can't help but comment when I see it.

 

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? It's no different with the intro errors, he's not being taken care of properly.