|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 17, 2018 16:02:43 GMT
Doghouse6 OF COURSE ! duh me .. so obvious , what in the world was I thinking ? coke /pepsi definitely #3 You were probably thinking existentially, while I was thinking only celluloid-ally. About that #3: D'ya mean why would anyone drink Pepsi when there's Coke? |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 17, 2018 16:05:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 17, 2018 17:47:56 GMT
And now he’s gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 17, 2018 17:52:51 GMT
he shall undoubtedly do an ahnuld  |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 18, 2018 0:41:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 18, 2018 0:53:22 GMT
Hi Salzmank,
I don't know about Koskiewicz but do you think if a person saw a movie 50 years back then he can recall anything major about it. I saw Thunder Road (1958) in 2009. If you ask me anything about it then I would go blank. I just saw that I rated it 7 on IMDB and that it starred Robert Mitchum. I might not even have known that much if you asked me about it 5 mins back. Of course, I do agree that there may be many people with better memory than I have and who would be able to recall many things about any movie they have seen before.
Yes, if the movie in question was of exceptional quality then it might be possible to keep it in mind forever for any person. I do not personally know how what was the quality of the movie in question.
That said I am not denying that people may lie about seeing a movie which they have not. As you said some people have done that before on old IMDB and of course it is entirely possible for people to lit about having seen a movie they have not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 18, 2018 14:09:11 GMT
You may fool me, but you can't fool them:   How did I not see the similarity before? This clinches it: Laurence Olivier was Peter Falk was the Sleuth singer! We’ve cracked it, boys, let’s pack up and go home. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 18, 2018 14:16:26 GMT
Salzmank Ok … but before we go … just one more thing !
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 18, 2018 14:56:24 GMT
Salzmank Ok … but before we go … just one more thing ! Lieutenant, please—I’m a very busy man, and my wife’s death couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with me… |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 18, 2018 15:03:11 GMT
….. couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with me…
Now just let me go wash this blood off of my hands and put that newly cleaned knife back in the drawer and then we can share a bagel or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 18, 2018 15:30:16 GMT
Aj_June, you may well be right, and the only thing we can really do is wait for koskiewicz to, er, do an Ahnuld, as Bat put it, and let us know. I do know people who remember films they saw from 50 years ago, but as you say usually those are films that made a big impression on them. Nonetheless, if koskiewicz did see it, then I’m hoping that he remembers at least something from it. My only concern, and I don’t mean to besmirch koskiewicz, is that it wasn’t just that one Ozzie guy; there have been many people who have written that they saw London After Midnight, even got into the media talking about it, and then revealed never to have seen it. It’s a weird phenomenon, but for some reason I’ve never exactly understood why LAM seems to be the Holy Grail of lost cinema. All that for a movie that probably wasn’t even that good! (I mean, I’d probably choose seeing the lost reels from The Magnificent Ambersons over seeing LAM, but that’s just me.) P.S. The only explanation I can conjure up, by the way, is that we have so much from LAM: posters, reviews, stills, the script, that incredible Chaney make-up. Everything except the actual film, which (as Doghouse noted) wasn’t even lost until the late ‘60s. Perhaps it’s a general feeling that LAM is so close and yet so far? Either way its Holy Grail status is assured—perhaps Indiana Jones should go after that in his next big-screen adventure? No—the Sleuth signer! 
P.P.S. It’s strange how much a movie few, if any, of us have ever seen has permeated into popular culture. Chaney’s vampire character even inspired a ghost in Disney’s Haunted Mansion ride! |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 18, 2018 16:09:06 GMT
It’s a weird phenomenon, but for some reason I’ve never exactly understood LAM seems to be the Holy Grail of lost cinema. All that for a movie that probably wasn’t even that good! (I mean, I’d probably choose seeing the lost reels from The Magnificent Ambersons over seeing LAM, but that’s just me.) My desires are modest: currently, my list would lead with Hats Off, the 1927 Laurel and Hardy short that was the forerunner of The Music Box (with a washing machine rather than a piano, but shot at the same location) as well as of the escalating public brawls in Battle Of the Century, You're Darn Tootin', Two Tars and others. |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 18, 2018 16:38:07 GMT
It’s a weird phenomenon, but for some reason I’ve never exactly understood LAM seems to be the Holy Grail of lost cinema. All that for a movie that probably wasn’t even that good! (I mean, I’d probably choose seeing the lost reels from The Magnificent Ambersons over seeing LAM, but that’s just me.) My desires are modest: currently, my list would lead with Hats Off, the 1927 Laurel and Hardy short that was the forerunner of The Music Box (with a washing machine rather than a piano, but shot at the same location) as well as of the escalating public brawls in Battle Of the Century, You're Darn Tootin', Two Tars and others. Of course Laurel and Hardy first!  But wasn’t the complete Battle of the Century recently found? And I’d also love to see the Boys’ first operetta, first feature, and only color film (other than that one short for the Department of Agriculture), The Rogue Song, though it probably isn’t all that great. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 18, 2018 16:45:24 GMT
My desires are modest: currently, my list would lead with Hats Off, the 1927 Laurel and Hardy short that was the forerunner of The Music Box (with a washing machine rather than a piano, but shot at the same location) as well as of the escalating public brawls in Battle Of the Century, You're Darn Tootin', Two Tars and others. Of course Laurel and Hardy first! But wasn’t the complete Battle of the Century recently found? And I’d also love to see the Boys’ first operetta, first feature, and only color film (other than that one short for the Department of Agriculture), The Rogue Song, though it probably isn’t all that great. Yeah, that's what I heard about Battle Of the Century. Coming right after Hats Off would be the four missing Oland Chans. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 18, 2018 16:48:19 GMT
escalating public brawls Reciprocal destruction ! I want to see this one !  Laurel and Hardy have just received fine jobs at Kwickway Washing Machine Co. where their first assignment is to go door to door trying to sell a washing machine. They stop at a high rise of terraced steps and see a lady waving to them, they think: a customer, so they carry the washing machine up the stairs and all she wants to know is if they would mail a letter for her. So the boys carry the washing machine back down the steps, stumble over themselves and their hats fly off. They retrieve them and put them on the wrong heads. They end up carrying the washing machine up and down the steps a few times and losing their hats. Then soon wind up in the street where everyone engages into a hat war. Soon the police arrive and cart off everyone but Stan and Ollie, who put on the wrong hats again. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 18, 2018 16:53:49 GMT
Battle of the Century Pie Trivia : www.imdb.com/title/tt0017664/trivia?ref_=tt_ql_2I have the Blackhawk 8mm version of Battle mentioned on the link and of Two Tars and a projector and screen... one of these days need to dig them out and watch them … maybe projected on a sheet in the yard .. now THAT would be fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 18, 2018 17:21:47 GMT
Of course Laurel and Hardy first! But wasn’t the complete Battle of the Century recently found? And I’d also love to see the Boys’ first operetta, first feature, and only color film (other than that one short for the Department of Agriculture), The Rogue Song, though it probably isn’t all that great. Yeah, that's what I heard about Battle Of the Century. Coming right after Hats Off would be the four missing Oland Chans. I know the missing Oland Chan scripts are available here… I’d love to have those as well. I’ve also long been intrigued by the never-filmed concepts that Everson mentions in The Detective in Film—particularly Charlie Chan at College, which apparently features a rather weird solution— none of the victims ever died, it’s all a trick Charlie invented to smoke out the real villain! Everson also mentions The Four Star Murder Case, which was supposed to feature Charlie, Philo Vance, Mr. Moto, and Michael Shayne all investigating a crime together! |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 18, 2018 17:47:35 GMT
Battle of the Century Pie Trivia : www.imdb.com/title/tt0017664/trivia?ref_=tt_ql_2I have the Blackhawk 8mm version of Battle mentioned on the link and of Two Tars and a projector and screen... one of these days need to dig them out and watch them … maybe projected on a sheet in the yard .. now THAT would be fun. I've got a 16mm print of The Hoose-Gow, which culminates in a battle involving hurled handfuls of cooked rice, but I haven't tried to fire up the ol' Movie Mite* in over ten years. *  There used to be a few film exchanges in L.A. from which prints of just about anything could be rented, most at fairly reasonable prices on a by-the-day basis, and we'd have movie parties with everything from Laurel & Hardy to South Pacific (for which they also rented the anamorphic projection lenses). And there was an old guy with a shop in the mid-Wilshire district who did maintenance on the projector for me. I'll never forget his name: Noble Hickey. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 18, 2018 19:26:36 GMT
Aj_June, you may well be right, and the only thing we can really do is wait for koskiewicz to, er, do an Ahnuld, as Bat put it, and let us know. I do know people who remember films they saw from 50 years ago, but as you say usually those are films that made a big impression on them. Nonetheless, if koskiewicz did see it, then I’m hoping that he remembers at least something from it. My only concern, and I don’t mean to besmirch koskiewicz, is that it wasn’t just that one Ozzie guy; there have been many people who have written that they saw London After Midnight, even got into the media talking about it, and then revealed never to have seen it. It’s a weird phenomenon, but for some reason I’ve never exactly understood why LAM seems to be the Holy Grail of lost cinema. All that for a movie that probably wasn’t even that good! (I mean, I’d probably choose seeing the lost reels from The Magnificent Ambersons over seeing LAM, but that’s just me.) P.S. The only explanation I can conjure up, by the way, is that we have so much from LAM: posters, reviews, stills, the script, that incredible Chaney make-up. Everything except the actual film, which (as Doghouse noted) wasn’t even lost until the late ‘60s. Perhaps it’s a general feeling that LAM is so close and yet so far? Either way its Holy Grail status is assured—perhaps Indiana Jones should go after that in his next big-screen adventure? No—the Sleuth signer!
P.P.S. It’s strange how much a movie few, if any, of us have ever seen has permeated into popular culture. Chaney’s vampire character even inspired a ghost in Disney’s Haunted Mansion ride!Yeah koskiewicz's total silence does feel a little perplexing. I hope he responds. Now even I am inquisitive about this movie, which I was unaware of before reading this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 18, 2018 19:36:43 GMT
Askign from a state of total ignorance
not knowing-ness about this BUT
Was LAM not "mostly lost" before it became "totally lost" or was there still a complete copy before that fire ?
|
|
