Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:09 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
jurasic1968 wrote:In this interview of July 1972 Elvis spoke about his deception regarding his Hollywood career. It's sad and speak volumes about how his state of mind was looking back to the missed 60's.


Agree completely.

His comments were a revelation to friend Jerry Schilling, who was there that day, because they had previously been considered not for public view.



Deception? From 1956-1969? EP signed all the deals and knew what his commitments where. That´s the way it was...

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:16 am

That doesn't mean he wasn't disappointed with them.

The deals Elvis signed didn't specifically state what films he would be doing.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:28 am

brian wrote:That doesn't mean he wasn't disappointed with them.

The deals Elvis signed didn't specifically state what films he would be doing.


That is true, but don't you think he should have approved the script or demanded something better than what he was doing, especially by the time Harum Scarum came around and the films weren't doing so well anymore. I don't know but I think an artist has the right to pick & choose even if he is under contract. Elvis was a puppet of the highest order in many peoples eyes.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:37 am

brian wrote:That doesn't mean he wasn't disappointed with them.

The deals Elvis signed didn't specifically state what films he would be doing.



So he was just a victim...for 31 (or was it 30) movies? LOL...

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:34 am

r&b wrote:
brian wrote:That doesn't mean he wasn't disappointed with them.

The deals Elvis signed didn't specifically state what films he would be doing.


That is true, but don't you think he should have approved the script or demanded something better than what he was doing, especially by the time Harum Scarum came around and the films weren't doing so well anymore. I don't know but I think an artist has the right to pick & choose even if he is under contract. Elvis was a puppet of the highest order in many peoples eyes.


Elvis didn't have script approval.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:36 am

Scarre wrote:
brian wrote:That doesn't mean he wasn't disappointed with them.

The deals Elvis signed didn't specifically state what films he would be doing.



So he was just a victim...for 31 (or was it 30) movies? LOL...


No.

But the matter was more complicated than you were making out.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:27 am

Scarre wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
jurasic1968 wrote:In this interview of July 1972 Elvis spoke about his deception regarding his Hollywood career. It's sad and speak volumes about how his state of mind was looking back to the missed 60's.


Agree completely.

His comments were a revelation to friend Jerry Schilling, who was there that day, because they had previously been considered not for public view.



Deception? From 1956-1969? EP signed all the deals and knew what his commitments where. That´s the way it was...


An open question to anyone:

Have you ever signed a contract you didn't want to sign? Ever betrayed your own ideals in the face of a carrot being dangled in front of you? And that's us; most of us came from backgrounds that taught us about our choices. Who among us can say what we would have done had we landed in Dreamland at age 21, ready for everything, and prepared for nothing?

I'm not defending his poor choices, because even Elvis blamed himself, always. He took responsibility. Perhaps you could say he even took too much responsibility for what happened, because had he realized what was happening earlier on, if he hadn't trusted . . .

What I'm saying is that he was just a kid, and he trusted these people. He trusted the whole system, because he knew nothing of it. And his father came from nothing, and knew nothing of this alien world; he couldn't help. All he could do was to be frightened, and encourage his son to be frightened.

If you were this manchild in the Promised Land of Hollyweird, coming from where he did, could you have done better? Not as yourself, with your background, but as him?

Why did Presley allow this? Because I guess he never knew he had a choice NOT to allow it. He did have these choices, of course, but he had no idea. Even on the tape, he says he didn't think he could do anything about it. And he meant it. "I couldn't do anything about it." On a strictly theoretical level, that's not true, but it was his truth.

rjm

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:20 am

Right, rjm. But Elvis made some changes, I think beginning with Stay Away, Joe in his film career. I don't know who made the choice to change (his manager, the MGM directors or Elvis himself) but this is a fact. Unfortunately, the quality of the script didn't improved much.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:53 am

rjm wrote:
Scarre wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
jurasic1968 wrote:In this interview of July 1972 Elvis spoke about his deception regarding his Hollywood career. It's sad and speak volumes about how his state of mind was looking back to the missed 60's.


Agree completely.

His comments were a revelation to friend Jerry Schilling, who was there that day, because they had previously been considered not for public view.



Deception? From 1956-1969? EP signed all the deals and knew what his commitments where. That´s the way it was...


An open question to anyone:

Have you ever signed a contract you didn't want to sign? Ever betrayed your own ideals in the face of a carrot being dangled in front of you? And that's us; most of us came from backgrounds that taught us about our choices. Who among us can say what we would have done had we landed in Dreamland at age 21, ready for everything, and prepared for nothing?

I'm not defending his poor choices, because even Elvis blamed himself, always. He took responsibility. Perhaps you could say he even took too much responsibility for what happened, because had he realized what was happening earlier on, if he hadn't trusted . . .

What I'm saying is that he was just a kid, and he trusted these people. He trusted the whole system, because he knew nothing of it. And his father came from nothing, and knew nothing of this alien world; he couldn't help. All he could do was to be frightened, and encourage his son to be frightened.

If you were this manchild in the Promised Land of Hollyweird, coming from where he did, could you have done better? Not as yourself, with your background, but as him?

Why did Presley allow this? Because I guess he never knew he had a choice NOT to allow it. He did have these choices, of course, but he had no idea. Even on the tape, he says he didn't think he could do anything about it. And he meant it. "I couldn't do anything about it." On a strictly theoretical level, that's not true, but it was his truth.

rjm


Excellent post Robin!!

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:53 am

jurasic1968 wrote:Right, rjm. But Elvis made some changes, I think beginning with Stay Away, Joe in his film career. I don't know who made the choice to change (his manager, the MGM directors or Elvis himself) but this is a fact. Unfortunately, the quality of the script didn't improved much.


If you read the liner notes / booklets with the FTD releases, somewhere it was stated that Parker wrote MGM telling to look for better scripts for Elvis' movies.
It was MGM who made the travelogues, it was MGM who paid a lot of money for an Elvis movie, It was MGM who dictated what story would be in the movies.
The 3 more or less serious movies Elvis made were with 20th Century Fox but although the movies were no financial loss, they were no blockbusters either so they did not re-sign Elvis. Which is a pity.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:32 pm

rjm wrote:
Scarre wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
jurasic1968 wrote:In this interview of July 1972 Elvis spoke about his deception regarding his Hollywood career. It's sad and speak volumes about how his state of mind was looking back to the missed 60's.


Agree completely.

His comments were a revelation to friend Jerry Schilling, who was there that day, because they had previously been considered not for public view.



Deception? From 1956-1969? EP signed all the deals and knew what his commitments where. That´s the way it was...


An open question to anyone:

Have you ever signed a contract you didn't want to sign? Ever betrayed your own ideals in the face of a carrot being dangled in front of you? And that's us; most of us came from backgrounds that taught us about our choices. Who among us can say what we would have done had we landed in Dreamland at age 21, ready for everything, and prepared for nothing?

I'm not defending his poor choices, because even Elvis blamed himself, always. He took responsibility. Perhaps you could say he even took too much responsibility for what happened, because had he realized what was happening earlier on, if he hadn't trusted . . .

What I'm saying is that he was just a kid, and he trusted these people. He trusted the whole system, because he knew nothing of it. And his father came from nothing, and knew nothing of this alien world; he couldn't help. All he could do was to be frightened, and encourage his son to be frightened.

If you were this manchild in the Promised Land of Hollyweird, coming from where he did, could you have done better? Not as yourself, with your background, but as him?

Why did Presley allow this? Because I guess he never knew he had a choice NOT to allow it. He did have these choices, of course, but he had no idea. Even on the tape, he says he didn't think he could do anything about it. And he meant it. "I couldn't do anything about it." On a strictly theoretical level, that's not true, but it was his truth.

rjm



The point is...not all movie deals where signed at the same time. I don´t remember how many deals that where made, but he signed them over and over again. Surely he must have seen where it all was going after the first 15 movies. Still, he agreed to them...

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 4:39 pm

If Elvis didn't have script approval, he undoubtedly had options and a right to refuse what was handed to him. His initial contract with Hal Wallis was non-exclusive, which allowed him to become a free agent anywhere he chose providing his obligations to Wallis were met. And that first contract was amended and re-amended several times, both in 1958 and 1960. Elvis's hands weren't tied. But he was compliant at a time when actors were carrying more heft than ever in Hollywood. Elvis was the one exception to the rule and for that he remained bound to the backlots and destined to hit a wall.

What was likely inclusive of many contracts was the agreement for Elvis to sing and produce an accompanying soundtrack album. This was a managerial decision, eeked out before any ink dried or opportunity to earn diminished. Tom Parker, as I've mentioned before, had no substantial power or influence in Hollywood. His trump card, and what could be bargained on from that, was Elvis. And what would have been essential to his greater mechanisms was ensuring the best financial deals he could barter before the cameras started rolling. If Parker's contractual terms for Elvis dictated X, Y and Z, it left little room for substance or manoeuvre if a script had to include a dozen songs, the budget had to be a two million negative cost and production would only last a fortnight. And if Hal Wallis didn't want those terms, perhaps MGM would or United Artists. Wallis, for all some fans hold against him with regards to Elvis, invested well in the vehicles he produced. And that shows on screen and in the personnel and actors whom he employed. When Parker came to appreciate that a slashed budget could increase participation, that's when the wheels fell of and new contracts came at a price for Elvis's credibility and his services, but little else.

With regards to the films Elvis starred in for 20th Century Fox, Love Me Tender probably represents the most commercially successful film he was involved in. Certainly with regards to tickets sold and profit earned. This was one of Fox's big successes of 1956, having earned $4.5 million on the domestic market, from a budget of $1.25 million. Viva Las Vegas may have earned more at the box office, bearing in mind increased ticket prices, but it wasn't as profitable. Love Me Tender earned its budget back almost four times over. And that's not taking into account the international market. Flaming Star earned less and is often thought of as being a bit of a commercial failure, but that's not entirely true. As is the notion that Fox didn't resign Elvis because Flaming Star and Wild in the Country failed to meet the commercial success of G.I. Blues or Blue Hawaii. The fact of the matter would be that Fox simply couldn't afford Elvis. This was a studio in severe financial distress during the late fifties/early sixties. In 1959, Spyros Skouras, the president of 20th Century Fox, made a 25% budget cut throughout the entire studio. This would have affected the way Flaming Star and Wild in the Country were marketed, whilst the chance of Elvis signing a major contract renewal would be slim considering Fox lost over $22.5 million in 1961 and were on their way to spending $42 million on the production of Cleopatra. Flaming Star cost $1.7 million to produce and earned $2.0 million at the North American box office. Which was considerably less than Love Me Tender or G.I. Blues, but did represent a profit for a studio who had only eight releases in 1960 that earned over a million dollars. Those eight releases (including Flaming Star) generated box office rentals of $17.7 million. In 1956, Fox boasted eighteen films that earned over a million dollars and profited to the tune of over $57 million. With Elvis now commanding double the salary he was paid by Fox, it's no surprise they didn't renew his contract. Had Wild in the Country proven to be a major earner, things may have been different. But Wild in the Country actually lost more money than Flaming Star earned.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:05 pm

brian wrote:
r&b wrote:
brian wrote:That doesn't mean he wasn't disappointed with them.

The deals Elvis signed didn't specifically state what films he would be doing.


That is true, but don't you think he should have approved the script or demanded something better than what he was doing, especially by the time Harum Scarum came around and the films weren't doing so well anymore. I don't know but I think an artist has the right to pick & choose even if he is under contract. Elvis was a puppet of the highest order in many peoples eyes.


Elvis didn't have script approval.


I am aware of that. My point is, he should have, especially when he was getting more frustrated with each film. After all, it was his career .

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:29 pm

r&b wrote:
brian wrote:
r&b wrote:
brian wrote:That doesn't mean he wasn't disappointed with them.

The deals Elvis signed didn't specifically state what films he would be doing.


That is true, but don't you think he should have approved the script or demanded something better than what he was doing, especially by the time Harum Scarum came around and the films weren't doing so well anymore. I don't know but I think an artist has the right to pick & choose even if he is under contract. Elvis was a puppet of the highest order in many peoples eyes.


Elvis didn't have script approval.


I am aware of that. My point is, he should have, especially when he was getting more frustrated with each film. After all, it was his career .


The only solution would have been to fire Parker around 1963 or 1964 and then bring in another manager to renegotiate the contracts.

Since Elvis always stayed with Parker things never changed because that is how the Colonel wanted it.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:23 am

Because that's the way the Colonel wanted it? What? Where was Elvis in all this? Oh, he screamed from time to time about how unhappy he was about things, BUT then he really never took charge and did anything about it. Things never changed because Elvis "went along."

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:33 am

JerryNodak wrote:Because that's the way the Colonel wanted it? What? Where was Elvis in all this? Oh, he screamed from time to time about how unhappy he was about things, BUT then he really never took charge and did anything about it. Things never changed because Elvis "went along."


You are missing the point.

Colonel Parker was the driving force behind all of that and he never would have changed his way.

The solution would have been just to fire him and get a more helpful manager.

It would have got old for Elvis to have to stand up and fight the Colonel every time he didn't like something.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:23 am

No! I'm not missing the point. Yes, the Colonel was the driving force. Why? Because Elvis allowed it. Elvis "went along." If he was sick of making the movies, fire Parker and get a new manager. Make changes. If he was tired of Vegas, fire Colonel Tom. Make changes. If he really wanted to do a world tour and the Colonel said no, fire him and make changes. Elvis pissed and moaned a lot, but he never made the "Big Change" that needed to be made. He just "went along." Actions speak louder than words. It was his career and for the most part he just "went along." Elvis needed to grow a set.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:27 am

Elvis fired the Colonel in September 1973 but Parker requested too much money. Vernon was very worried and I think he convinced Elvis to hire Parker again.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:11 pm

So Parker ran a bluff and Vernon and Elvis went for it. Asked for too much money? You don't just hand it over. You get yourself a crack team of accountants and lawyers and make Parker prove he's owed what he's claiming. But then again, we are talking about Vernon and Elvis.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:56 pm

JerryNodak wrote:So Parker ran a bluff and Vernon and Elvis went for it. Asked for too much money? You don't just hand it over. You get yourself a crack team of accountants and lawyers and make Parker prove he's owed what he's claiming. But then again, we are talking about Vernon and Elvis.


I know what you mean, and with the wisdom of hindsight that is obvious.
But look at it from his perscpetive back then: he knew nothing about business, career management and movie making - he went from driving a truck to stardom at a very young age. He had to go along with the decisions of those who knew how things worked: he couldn't get himself a crack team of accountants and lawyers, he didn't know where to start; he was not able to negotiate contract, run projects, give priorities, design strategies etc. Such a move was too risky for his career - a career that was somehow being "successfull". He just couldn't do it because he was afraid to lose it all. That simple.

He was doing a job and things were going well compared to other artists of the 50s, but he was just hoping that the guys that were managing him, those that made him a star and knew how to make things happen, would help him doing something that would satisfy his artistic ambitions not only his bank account.

In many ways his career mistakes would be lessons for all other rock artists to follow, but Elvis was the first.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:49 pm

Elvis has been called the King of Rock and Roll for over 50 years; he starred in dozens of movies that made money; he had a record-breaking concert career spanning three decades. His face is recognized by millions of people born long after his death and re-releases of his recordings still make the charts.

It seems that some people here believe he had no guts (or whatever) because he didn't change managers and pursue a serious dramatic acting career. Besides Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, how many music stars had successful second careers in major films in the 1960's? How many actors of that era have said their requests for script changes were granted? What film offers did Elvis turn down during that decade because he was "just going along"?

It's easy to say he wanted to do a world tour and he wanted to be a serious actor. Maybe he did but did he want it more than everything else? Was a world tour so important that he should have permanently ditched Parker? Who else was qualified and available to do Parker's job? As for acting roles, does anyone think other actors don't become bored with the roles they are offered? Why would or should Elvis have been any different? Do we wish he had won an Academy Award for a great dramatic role instead of recording Suspicious Minds and Kentucky Rain? What if there hadn't been a TTWII because he didn't have time for a Las Vegas tour? Most decisions are a trade-off.

No one who is selling something has control over their career. They may control what they do but not the results. Even though Elvis wasn't a risk taker he left just about everyone else at the starting gate in terms of name recognition and star power. Somebody did something right.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:48 pm

JerryNodak wrote:No! I'm not missing the point. Yes, the Colonel was the driving force. Why? Because Elvis allowed it. Elvis "went along." If he was sick of making the movies, fire Parker and get a new manager. Make changes. If he was tired of Vegas, fire Colonel Tom. Make changes. If he really wanted to do a world tour and the Colonel said no, fire him and make changes. Elvis pissed and moaned a lot, but he never made the "Big Change" that needed to be made. He just "went along." Actions speak louder than words. It was his career and for the most part he just "went along." Elvis needed to grow a set.


That's my point.

He needed to fire Colonel instead of just demanding better.

The Colonel never wanted to help Elvis achieve his goals of becoming a serious actor, tour overseas or record the best songs possible.

Around 1963-1964 The Colonel should have been fired.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:04 pm

bluegreencaper wrote:Elvis has been called the King of Rock and Roll for over 50 years; he starred in dozens of movies that made money; he had a record-breaking concert career spanning three decades. His face is recognized by millions of people born long after his death and re-releases of his recordings still make the charts.

It seems that some people here believe he had no guts (or whatever) because he didn't change managers and pursue a serious dramatic acting career. Besides Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, how many music stars had successful second careers in major films in the 1960's? How many actors of that era have said their requests for script changes were granted? What film offers did Elvis turn down during that decade because he was "just going along"?

It's easy to say he wanted to do a world tour and he wanted to be a serious actor. Maybe he did but did he want it more than everything else? Was a world tour so important that he should have permanently ditched Parker? Who else was qualified and available to do Parker's job? As for acting roles, does anyone think other actors don't become bored with the roles they are offered? Why would or should Elvis have been any different? Do we wish he had won an Academy Award for a great dramatic role instead of recording Suspicious Minds and Kentucky Rain? What if there hadn't been a TTWII because he didn't have time for a Las Vegas tour? Most decisions are a trade-off.


Here is something to consider about singers in Hollywood.

A list of singers nominated for academy awards.

Doris Day
Bing Crosby
Frank Sinatra
Bobby Darin
Barbara Streisand
Diana Ross
Cher
Will Smith
Jennifer Hudson

I've heard several people on this board over the years say who else was qualified to manage Elvis except the Colonel.

The answer is that there were dozens of managers that could have replaced the Colonel.

Elvis could have and should have pursued a serious acting career in Hollywood and recorded ''Suspicious minds''.

It's not either or it's both.

I believe every leading man in Hollywood besides Elvis did have script approval in the 1960s.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:06 pm

I think the best moment to fire Parker was in November 1963, after Elvis finished Kissin' Cousins. Elvis saw an abrupt decline in the quality of his films. He maybe compared Viva Las Vegas with KC and he also saw the the Colonel's attitude: completely unhappy with the big budget, very good but expensive musical scenes and the director's affection towards Ann Margret in some scenes and in KC very happy with a low budget, cheap production and a very short rushed schedule in filming. This was a very turning point in Elvis movie career. From now on, the things became worse and worse.

Re: Why did Presley allow this?! Jack Good speaks out, 1960

Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:12 pm

Brian is absolutely right. As early as 1955 an intelligent and educated Bill Randle could be Elvis' manager. And there were many others. Ironically some said Parker admired Peter Grant, Led Zeppelin's manager. But Peter was light years ahead from the Colonel. So the legend that only the Colonel could manage Elvis Presley is nonsense to me.