November 3, 1956

TV, Movies, Music and the Rest!
Post Reply
marindem01
Posts: 1763
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:10 pm
Location: S.F. Bay Area

November 3, 1956

Post by marindem01 »

The Japanese Monster Flick, "Godzilla" is released by Toho Company. American Actor Raymond Burr was added to movie to attract U.S. Audiences.

Yeah, it was a bit chessy, suffered over acting and way to many wind up toys but I still enjoy watching it. The recent remakes are very disappointing.
Love of Country is not Blind Patriotism. It is not devotion to one person or one party. It is knowing fighting for your country is single most important thing you can do. Do not accept the notion violence is the answer.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by Libertas »

I love the story about him insisting his character be in a wheelchair in "Ironside" so he would not have to stand all day.

BRILLIANT idea, if any of you have ever spent time on a set, whether as talent or production, nobody hardly ever sits.

I purposely have stopped quoting posts I am responding to or part of the time because of the room it takes, nothing personal, MD.

I guess I could start editing the quote I am responding to only for brevity purposes, not sure what you and others think. This is a bad example as your post is quite short, but you get my meaning.
I sigh in your general direction.
Motor City
Posts: 1802
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by Motor City »

marindem01 wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:56 pm The Japanese Monster Flick, "Godzilla" is released by Toho Company. American Actor Raymond Burr was added to movie to attract U.S. Audiences.

Yeah, it was a bit chessy, suffered over acting and way to many wind up toys but I still enjoy watching it. The recent remakes are very disappointing.
Yea the newer special effects cant match up to the charm of the cheesiness.
Image
User avatar
Number6
Posts: 3476
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:18 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by Number6 »

Motor City wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:07 pm Yea the newer special effects cant match up to the charm of the cheesiness.
The special effect in Godzilla may seem cheesy by today's standards but back then the were pretty good. I remember watching it as a young kid on TV and from my kid's perspective it was fairly realistic. I'll admit, the follow-up movies with Godzilla and the monsters he battled were definitely cheesy. The remake of [/i]Godzilla[/i] in 1998 was good in the sense of better characters and the CGI of Godzilla was excellent but the monster, to me, just didn't compare to the original.

One classic scifi movie that scared me a kid in the late 50s was The Thing From Another World with James Arness, aka Matt Dillon of TV's Gunsmoke. It wasn't an elaborate costume but the buildup to when you saw the monster completely for the first time was done well. While many may think The Thing From Another World is also cheesy the more I watch it the more impressed of how good this movie really is. Decent story and characters and I especially like the role the way the female lead, Margaret Sheridan, made her character a strong woman who could hold her own against the male characters like the way Katherine Hepburn did. I have a DVD of this movie and I watch it a couple times a year and when it's on TMC.
When you vote left, you vote right.
Motor City
Posts: 1802
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by Motor City »

Number6 wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 5:03 pm
The special effect in Godzilla may seem cheesy by today's standards but back then the were pretty good. I remember watching it as a young kid on TV and from my kid's perspective it was fairly realistic. I'll admit, the follow-up movies with Godzilla and the monsters he battled were definitely cheesy. The remake of [/i]Godzilla[/i] in 1998 was good in the sense of better characters and the CGI of Godzilla was excellent but the monster, to me, just didn't compare to the original.

One classic scifi movie that scared me a kid in the late 50s was The Thing From Another World with James Arness, aka Matt Dillon of TV's Gunsmoke. It wasn't an elaborate costume but the buildup to when you saw the monster completely for the first time was done well. While many may think The Thing From Another World is also cheesy the more I watch it the more impressed of how good this movie really is. Decent story and characters and I especially like the role the way the female lead, Margaret Sheridan, made her character a strong woman who could hold her own against the male characters like the way Katherine Hepburn did. I have a DVD of this movie and I watch it a couple times a year and when it's on TMC.
Oh yea Im not puttin em down Im scentimental for em too, I miss the simplicity of the effects and the depth of the stories in those days. The self absorption of modern movies and the advance in special effects often drown out those places that use to be free for the mind to wander and imagination to play out.
Image
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by ZoWie »

For me, the tragedy of CGI special fx replacing mechanicals, opticals, stop-frame animation, etc is the permanent retirement of the formerly wondrous phrase, "How the F did they do that?"
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
User avatar
Number6
Posts: 3476
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:18 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by Number6 »

ZoWie wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:22 pm For me, the tragedy of CGI special fx replacing mechanicals, opticals, stop-frame animation, etc is the permanent retirement of the formerly wondrous phrase, "How the F did they do that?"
CGI and stop-frame animation both have something in common; both are expensive and time consuming. So if you're the director and/or producer which do you go with? If it were me I'd go with the most realist one which would be CGI. I know it puts a lots of talented people out of work but then again it puts a lot of talented people to work. Times change and if people in an industry don't change with it they'll find their talents are no longer needed.
When you vote left, you vote right.
marindem01
Posts: 1763
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:10 pm
Location: S.F. Bay Area

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by marindem01 »

I remember "20,000,000 Miles To Earth", about manned ship returning from Venus. William Hopper (son of Heda and play Paul Drake on the Burr version of "Perry Mason" starred. Any the outer space monster was a stop action creature from the mind on Ray Harryhausen.

I find it on VUDU now, Fandango folded.
Love of Country is not Blind Patriotism. It is not devotion to one person or one party. It is knowing fighting for your country is single most important thing you can do. Do not accept the notion violence is the answer.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by Bludogdem »

My favorite was and still is Forbidden Planet. First time I saw it I was probably 5 or 6.
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by ZoWie »

Number6 wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:27 pm CGI and stop-frame animation both have something in common; both are expensive and time consuming. So if you're the director and/or producer which do you go with? If it were me I'd go with the most realist one which would be CGI. I know it puts a lots of talented people out of work but then again it puts a lot of talented people to work. Times change and if people in an industry don't change with it they'll find their talents are no longer needed.
I agree. Cgi takes just as much talent to be artistic and convincing, and post-production still consists of a truly inordinate number of all-nighters. What I meant is that now we know just how the F they do it, so the old saying is obsolete.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by gounion »

Filmmakers are able to tell stories now they were never able to tell before. Lord of the Rings comes to mind. Or the Marvel movies, for that matter.

To me, we're in a golden age of cinema.
User avatar
Number6
Posts: 3476
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:18 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by Number6 »

gounion wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:12 am Filmmakers are able to tell stories now they were never able to tell before. Lord of the Rings comes to mind. Or the Marvel movies, for that matter.
The days of having 100s of extras for films like Spartacus are no longer needed when you can make an army using CGI like they did in LOR.
To me, we're in a golden age of cinema.
I'll agree in the technical aspects but I think we've passed the golden age when it comes to acting and stories. Too much of today's movies seem scripted on a template where you can easily change the names and locals to make "new stories." Also, too many remakes of original movies which rarely rises to the level of the original.
When you vote left, you vote right.
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by ZoWie »

Golden ages are in the eyes of the beholder. The Hollywood "Golden Age" of the 1930s is partly about the movies being the only game in town, and being guaranteed a steady audience pretty much every Friday and Saturday night in any one-horse with a single-screen theater. The glamorous stars and general infatuation with wealth that symbolizes the period were partially an economic thing, somethings explained as an escape from the hard times being experienced by most of the audience. You could sit in a seat for 2 hours and see what for the time probably was akin to a magic show.

The technical achievements were wonders for their time, using equipment with sprockets and interlocked 3-phase motor driven devices the size of cars and costing way more, requiring operators with decades of very specialized training. This is sometimes also used to argue for a golden age, since it meant that the money people were willing to spend some serious bucks to bring magic to the screen. I tend to consider it more as the fortunate effect of the monopoly economics that I mentioned above.

Today's market is so awash in quantity that any kind of golden age argument would have to be about the democratization of the process, and how one does not have to secure access to walled mastabas in fortified and heavily guarded LA studio complexes to get their vision out before the masses. Sort of an apples vs oranges thing.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by gounion »

Number6 wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 12:36 pm The days of having 100s of extras for films like Spartacus are no longer needed when you can make an army using CGI like they did in LOR.
Yes, but LOTR would never have been able to be made without CGI. It's also hard to find war elephants, for instance.
I'll agree in the technical aspects but I think we've passed the golden age when it comes to acting and stories. Too much of today's movies seem scripted on a template where you can easily change the names and locals to make "new stories." Also, too many remakes of original movies which rarely rises to the level of the original.
As Zowie correctly states, it's all in the eye of the beholder. But there is also a lot of very creative new movies made, besides the effects-heavy sci fi and superhero extravaganzas. One that comes to mind is Tropic Thunder, which was VERY out-of-the-box. And, lessee, Goodfellas, Fargo, Big Lebowski, Toy Story, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, Groundhog Day, My Cousin Vinnie and Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

Just to name a few.

But again, that's just my personal opinion. One may think the entire last quarter of a century has given us nothing but drek.
Motor City
Posts: 1802
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by Motor City »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo8oTH4vpJA

I think its more the mass self absorption that pushes movies towards the theme of being all powerful and in control of everything, the national fantasy that has evolved from the conditions we live under. There are great stories and ideas out there and stories and ideas is where it all starts, It comes down to how the might of the film industry is applied to the stories themselves.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc0TFNr8o2I
Image
User avatar
Number6
Posts: 3476
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:18 pm

Re: November 3, 1956

Post by Number6 »

gounion wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 3:41 pm Yes, but LOTR would never have been able to be made without CGI. It's also hard to find war elephants, for instance.
I agree. CGI makes it easier for complicated movies, that is where large numbers of people or special effect are needed, to be made.
As Zowie correctly states, it's all in the eye of the beholder. But there is also a lot of very creative new movies made, besides the effects-heavy sci fi and superhero extravaganzas. One that comes to mind is Tropic Thunder, which was VERY out-of-the-box. And, lessee, Goodfellas, Fargo, Big Lebowski, Toy Story, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, Groundhog Day, My Cousin Vinnie and Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

Just to name a few.
I don't discount there are good movies being made but there are just as many bad movies being made. Two recent movies I've enjoyed are Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle and Jumanji: The Next Level, which aren't remakes of the original Jumanji, with Robin Williams, but parody's of video games and their characters.

But again, that's just my personal opinion. One may think the entire last quarter of a century has given us nothing but drek.
And that's how we see movies, through our own perspectives. I've noticed in the last 15 years, as I age ever so gracefully, most movies hold no interest for me. I need something better than just action flicks with lame plots and shallow characters.
When you vote left, you vote right.
Post Reply