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

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

Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:42 pm

Elvis could not have brought himself to fire The Colonel. Had Elvis permanently fired anyone in his whole life??? He fired his entourage members many times but always brought them back. I don't think Elvis had it in him to do it. even if his dad had not panicked when Elvis and The Colonel had that blowup in 1973 i don't think that relationship would have ended.

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

Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:56 pm

DEH wrote:Elvis could not have brought himself to fire The Colonel. Had Elvis permanently fired anyone in his whole life??? He fired his entourage members many times but always brought them back. I don't think Elvis had it in him to do it. even if his dad had not panicked when Elvis and The Colonel had that blowup in 1973 i don't think that relationship would have ended.


That was true until he fired Sonny, Red and Dave.

I don't think he would have brought them back.

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

Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:17 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.


Elvis was not a savvy, smart guy for someone who was in the business for many years. Perhaps that is why he didn't feel comfortable outside his circle of friends, but he should have been able to socialize more. He would have felt more comfortable then in cities like NY. Many people come from the South and love touring overseas and coming to NY, some actually wind up living in NY as did Buddy Holly who was miles ahead of Elvis as far as the recording business goes. I also believe The Col liked to keep Elvis from people like Leiber/Stoller and others who would have made Elvis much more aware of what was going on. Sadly Elvis remained sort of a hick culturally and in business.

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

Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:20 pm

brian wrote:
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.


You misunderstood my question about the success of singers in film. I fully realize that singers have successfully transitioned from a recording career to movies, but my questions was which ones (besides Sinatra and Martin) were successful during the decade of the sixties.

The only names in your list besides Sinatra who received Oscar nominations during the sixties are Bobby Darin (1963) and Barbara Streisand (1969). My point was that Elvis is criticized for failing to demand better film roles in the 1960's, which was past the heyday of movie musicals.

Your belief that every leading man in Hollywood besides Elvis had script approval in the 1960's is based on what?

Elvis wasn't considered a leading man in anything other than the narrow genre he filmed in. He was considered for a role in A Star Is Born in 1976 but the producers and studio refused to meet Parker's demand for money and top billing.

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

Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:34 pm

bluegreencaper wrote:
brian wrote:
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.


You misunderstood my question about the success of singers in film. I fully realize that singers have successfully transitioned from a recording career to movies, but my questions was which ones (besides Sinatra and Martin) were successful during the decade of the sixties.

The only names in your list besides Sinatra who received Oscar nominations during the sixties are Bobby Darin (1963) and Barbara Streisand (1969). My point was that Elvis is criticized for failing to demand better film roles in the 1960's, which was past the heyday of movie musicals.

Your belief that every leading man in Hollywood besides Elvis had script approval in the 1960's is based on what?

Elvis wasn't considered a leading man in anything other than the narrow genre he filmed in. He was considered for a role in A Star Is Born in 1976 but the producers and studio refused to meet Parker's demand for money and top billing.


It's a fact that all leading men in the 1960s had script approval other than Elvis of course.

It's a fact because Hollywood was no longer in the studio system of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.

The leading men were all picking and choosing their own roles during that time.

A leading man is anyone that is starring in movies regardless of genre.

Even if I were to concede that Sinatra and Martin were the only two successful singers/actors during the 1960s that doesn't mean Elvis couldn't have got better roles.

Since Bobby Darin, Barbara Streisand and Diana Ross got Oscar nominations I believe with the right role Elvis could have as well.

He didn't get better roles because of a bad manager that didn't want him to get better roles.

With better management in the 1960s I firmly believe Elvis could have gotten some good dramatic roles, comedic roles and could have even done better musicals.

A Star is Born has been discussed a million times on this board and it's no wonder why that was the only major role Elvis was offered in the 1970s.

He was completely off Hollywood's radar because he hadn't made any movies since 1969 and his last few movies didn't do very well at the box office.

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

Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:46 pm

Now I reread on the Internet some articles about the managers of the greatest bands and singers of the 20'th century. And I was surprised of one thing: I read Allan Klein's short biography - who cheated in some ways Beatles and Stones - but otherwise he did tremendous deals for his clients. Every time i read about what other managers did for their clients I am shocked how The Colonel was locked in the past-after 1962 he made a time travel journey in the 30's and 40's after all the good things he did in the 50's with Elvis.

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

Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:54 pm

A Star is Born has been discussed a million times on this board and it's no wonder why that was the only major role Elvis was offered in the 1970s.

He was completely off Hollywood's radar because he hadn't made any movies since 1969 and his last few movies didn't do very well at the box office.


The producers considered him for DEATH WISH: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=63160&hilit=death+wish

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

Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:13 pm

brian wrote:
It's a fact that all leading men in the 1960s had script approval other than Elvis of course.



It's a fact because someone on this forum says it is? Got it now.

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

Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:18 pm

bluegreencaper wrote:
brian wrote:
It's a fact that all leading men in the 1960s had script approval other than Elvis of course.



It's a fact because someone on this forum says it is? Got it now.


"All leading men"? A "fact"? Don't think so.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:26 am

http://www.classicpopicons.com/was-elvi ... wish-role/

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:27 am

bluegreencaper wrote:
brian wrote:
It's a fact that all leading men in the 1960s had script approval other than Elvis of course.



It's a fact because someone on this forum says it is? Got it now.


:roll:

Thanks for ignoring what I said about the old studio system being over.

Good grief.
Last edited by brian on Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:28 am

HoneyTalkNelson wrote:
A Star is Born has been discussed a million times on this board and it's no wonder why that was the only major role Elvis was offered in the 1970s.

He was completely off Hollywood's radar because he hadn't made any movies since 1969 and his last few movies didn't do very well at the box office.


The producers considered him for DEATH WISH: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=63160&hilit=death+wish


That's been discussed before and opinions vary on how accurate that is.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:52 am

brian wrote:
:roll:

Thanks for ignoring what I said about the old studio system being over.

Good grief.


Are you the same brian who posted the comment below on Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:35 pm on a topic titled So you think Elvis' movies are crap. Do ya?

viewtopic.php?f=1&p=534354#p534354

brian wrote:
I'ts interesting to note that Elvis didn't have script approval as most actors back in those days didn't.

Sinatra got lucky when he got From here to Enternity which got him better roles down the line but back in the 40's he played in plenty of bad movies.
Darin, imo got maybe 3 good roles but that's about it and after Captain Newman I think his movie career had peaked. It's also interesting to me that Elvis was considered for Darin's role in Too late blues but was busy making other films.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:57 am

Yes, but that was a long time ago.

I have since learned that the leading men during the 1960s did have script approval.

Now quit being argumentative and stop trying to stir up trouble.

You are making a bid deal out of nothing. :roll:

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:03 am

brian wrote:Yes, but that was a long time ago.

I have since learned that the leading men during the 1960s did have script approval.

Now quit being argumentative and stop trying to stir up trouble.

You are making a bid deal out of nothing. :roll:


Where?

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:20 am

I don't know about all leading men, but certainly the vast majority of stars in Hollywood in the 1960s would have had script approval - but only because their contract included that clause. The problem with Elvis seems to be that his contract didn't include that clause, which was a big c*ck-up on the part of the Colonel. However, Elvis should have been having script approval given the times in which he was making films. The biggest mistakes in Elvis's film career were around the contracts - not least the length of them. At a a time when stars were normally signing deals for 3 or 4 films with a studio, Elvis was signing a deal for much longer than that with MGM. That may have been a good business decision, but it was an awful one artistically. Elvis would have been much better off having 3 or 4 picture contracts - the workload would have been less and the films probably would have been better.

Darin's movie career is not one we can really compare with Elvis's, despite the attempts here. For Darin, the movies were never a primary concern - they were fitted in when time allowed and when a script came his way that he liked. And Darin was always his own boss. The romantic comedies he made a nice enough, almost in the Rock Hudson/Doris Day style. But he was also willing to take chances with his acting, in the same way he did with his music. Elvis would never have gone anywhere near roles such as those taken by Darin in Too Late Blues and Pressure Point. As with his music, Darin's acting in these films was desperately veering between greatness and taking it too far and looking like an idiot. As with his music, there are times when he crossed that line - but at least he tried. The roles he took in the late 60s and early 70s were in less prestigious films, but he still managed to choose films that reflected his interests rather than tying himself to fulfilling a quota. Even Gunfight in Abilene, a rather small-scale western from 1967, his part as the violence-hating sherriff who refuses to wear a gun reflects some of the same concerns as his recordings on the Direction label would a year later.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:22 am

Don't any of you read about the careers of Cary Grant, Gregory Peck, Roc Hudson, Steve McQueen, Paul Newman and Jack Lemmon etc..

If you did then you would know these gentleman were picking and choosing their own roles by the 1960s.

Colonel Parker could have negotiated script approval into Elvis' contracts but didn't want it.

An old fashioned deal by the Colonel.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:24 am

brian wrote:Don't any of you read about the careers of Cary Grant, Gregory Peck, Roc Hudson, Steve McQueen, Paul Newman and Jack Lemmon etc..

If you did then you would know these gentleman were picking and choosing their own roles by the 1960s.

Colonel Parker could have negotiated script approval into Elvis' contracts but didn't want it.

An old fashioned deal by the Colonel.


Well, to be fair, we have to remember that at the time Elvis was still being viewed as a here-today-gone-tomorrow star. That wasn't the case with stars like Cary Grant who had been around for thirty years, or even with Paul Newman and Jack Lemmon who had already been recognised in a series a both commercially successful and critically acclaimed films by the start of the 1960s. At the start of the decade, Elvis would still have been viewed by studio bosses as a country hick whose career would never last. It was only after he was bigger than ever in 1960/61 that this view by the studio bosses would have been changed. By this time, the long-term MGM contract was already signed. The Colonel should have had faith enough to negotiate a smaller contract to start with - he could then have gone in a couple of years later and got pretty much whatever kind of contract he wanted. Sadly he was far too interested in long-term financial security.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:02 am

poormadpeter wrote:
brian wrote:Don't any of you read about the careers of Cary Grant, Gregory Peck, Roc Hudson, Steve McQueen, Paul Newman and Jack Lemmon etc..

If you did then you would know these gentleman were picking and choosing their own roles by the 1960s.

Colonel Parker could have negotiated script approval into Elvis' contracts but didn't want it.

An old fashioned deal by the Colonel.


Well, to be fair, we have to remember that at the time Elvis was still being viewed as a here-today-gone-tomorrow star. That wasn't the case with stars like Cary Grant who had been around for thirty years, or even with Paul Newman and Jack Lemmon who had already been recognised in a series a both commercially successful and critically acclaimed films by the start of the 1960s. At the start of the decade, Elvis would still have been viewed by studio bosses as a country hick whose career would never last. It was only after he was bigger than ever in 1960/61 that this view by the studio bosses would have been changed. By this time, the long-term MGM contract was already signed. The Colonel should have had faith enough to negotiate a smaller contract to start with - he could then have gone in a couple of years later and got pretty much whatever kind of contract he wanted. Sadly he was far too interested in long-term financial security.


It was just a bad move by Parker.

I think Elvis' first film contracts came up in 1963 but were again renewed without script approval.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:06 am

poormadpeter wrote:.Darin's movie career is not one we can really compare with Elvis's, despite the attempts here. For Darin, the movies were never a primary concern - they were fitted in when time allowed and when a script came his way that he liked. And Darin was always his own boss. The romantic comedies he made a nice enough, almost in the Rock Hudson/Doris Day style. But he was also willing to take chances with his acting, in the same way he did with his music. Elvis would never have gone anywhere near roles such as those taken by Darin in Too Late Blues and Pressure Point. .


I wasn't really trying to compare Elvis' film career with Darin's.

I was just pointing out that there were singers that got good roles and were successful in serious acting roles.

I've always felt that if Elvis had a more creative minded manager doing more challenging roles would have been possible.

I think Elvis was willing it was the Colonel that wasn't.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:59 am

brian wrote:Don't any of you read about the careers of Cary Grant, Gregory Peck, Roc Hudson, Steve McQueen, Paul Newman and Jack Lemmon etc..

If you did then you would know these gentleman were picking and choosing their own roles by the 1960s.


I never read a single book about the careers of "Roc Hudson" or "Jack Lemmon." Where may we find these?

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:10 pm

poormadpeter wrote:I don't know about all leading men, but certainly the vast majority of stars in Hollywood in the 1960s would have had script approval - but only because their contract included that clause. The problem with Elvis seems to be that his contract didn't include that clause, which was a big c*ck-up on the part of the Colonel. However, Elvis should have been having script approval given the times in which he was making films. The biggest mistakes in Elvis's film career were around the contracts - not least the length of them. At a a time when stars were normally signing deals for 3 or 4 films with a studio, Elvis was signing a deal for much longer than that with MGM. That may have been a good business decision, but it was an awful one artistically. Elvis would have been much better off having 3 or 4 picture contracts - the workload would have been less and the films probably would have been better.

Darin's movie career is not one we can really compare with Elvis's, despite the attempts here. For Darin, the movies were never a primary concern - they were fitted in when time allowed and when a script came his way that he liked. And Darin was always his own boss. The romantic comedies he made a nice enough, almost in the Rock Hudson/Doris Day style. But he was also willing to take chances with his acting, in the same way he did with his music. Elvis would never have gone anywhere near roles such as those taken by Darin in Too Late Blues and Pressure Point. As with his music, Darin's acting in these films was desperately veering between greatness and taking it too far and looking like an idiot. As with his music, there are times when he crossed that line - but at least he tried. The roles he took in the late 60s and early 70s were in less prestigious films, but he still managed to choose films that reflected his interests rather than tying himself to fulfilling a quota. Even Gunfight in Abilene, a rather small-scale western from 1967, his part as the violence-hating sherriff who refuses to wear a gun reflects some of the same concerns as his recordings on the Direction label would a year later.


Very good assessment!

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:23 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
brian wrote:Don't any of you read about the careers of Cary Grant, Gregory Peck, Roc Hudson, Steve McQueen, Paul Newman and Jack Lemmon etc..

If you did then you would know these gentleman were picking and choosing their own roles by the 1960s.


I never read a single book about the careers of "Roc Hudson" or "Jack Lemmon." Where may we find these?


You've never heard of Jack Lemmon? Really, Doc, if you're going to try and pick up on people's typos/spelling errors, you do have to make sure they were typos in the first place or you look a bit of a nitwit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lemmon

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:44 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
brian wrote:Don't any of you read about the careers of Cary Grant, Gregory Peck, Roc Hudson, Steve McQueen, Paul Newman and Jack Lemmon etc..

If you did then you would know these gentleman were picking and choosing their own roles by the 1960s.


I never read a single book about the careers of "Roc Hudson" or "Jack Lemmon." Where may we find these?


You've never heard of Jack Lemmon? Really, Doc, if you're going to try and pick up on people's typos/spelling errors, you do have to make sure they were typos in the first place or you look a bit of a nitwit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lemmon

Peter, i think you need to read again what the Doc posted....he didn't say he hasn't heard of Jack Lemmon...

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:40 pm

bluegreencaper wrote:
brian wrote:
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.


You misunderstood my question about the success of singers in film. I fully realize that singers have successfully transitioned from a recording career to movies, but my questions was which ones (besides Sinatra and Martin) were successful during the decade of the sixties.

The only names in your list besides Sinatra who received Oscar nominations during the sixties are Bobby Darin (1963) and Barbara Streisand (1969). My point was that Elvis is criticized for failing to demand better film roles in the 1960's, which was past the heyday of movie musicals.

Your belief that every leading man in Hollywood besides Elvis had script approval in the 1960's is based on what?

Elvis wasn't considered a leading man in anything other than the narrow genre he filmed in. He was considered for a role in A Star Is Born in 1976 but the producers and studio refused to meet Parker's demand for money and top billing.


Besides Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby was still acting during the sixties. He acted infrequently during the decade, but his screen presence and considerable experience was welcome in Stagecoach, Robin and the 7 Hoods, High Time and one final "Road" movie with Bob Hope, The Road to Hong Kong. His cameo appearance in Let's Make Love is a bit of a gem. As is Gene Kelly's appearance here. Milton Berle also made a cameo in a film that spoofs Elvis quite unashamedly. Perhaps a cameo of his own would have been fun. Barbra Streisand, of course, had tremendous success with Funny Girl and went on to have one of the most prominent acting careers of anyone during the seventies. Doris Day continued to find commercial success throughout the decade with numerous sex comedies, like Move Over Darling, That Touch of Mink and Lover Come Back. She stayed with a similar type of film as much as Elvis, securing tremendous box office returns in the process. Whilst Ricky Nelson, Frankie Avalon and Fabian may not have been of leading men calibre, Fabian certainly found some good roles in North to Alaska, The Longest Day, Five Weeks in a Balloon, High Time and Mister Hobbs Takes a Vacation. Connie Francis Francis certainly warrants mentioning, mainly for Where The Boys Are, but she acted in several films during the early sixties. As did Sammy Davis, Jr., who also found success on stage with his Tony nominated role in Golden Boy. Bobby Darin also gave some good performances in a few interesting films, such as Pressure Point, Too Late Blues and Hell is for Heroes. Cliff Richard was also successful in a string of films influenced by the typical Elvis vehicle, whilst the creativity, influence and success of A Hard Day's Night alone warrants The Beatles being mentioned here. And if only for a few films, we could mention Lulu, Nancy Sinatra and Petula Clark.

Elvis, however, most certainly was considered as a leading man, because that's what he was. And a successful one who, despite everything, was a reliable box office attraction. Especially during the years up until 1966, and the fact that studios could rely on his appeal, and done so with the knowledge that runaway budgets and the probability a major financial loss was never on the cards with Elvis. And that's important to mention, given, as I discussed previously on this thread, the kind of issues some studios had during the sixties. Elvis represented a sure pair of hands and the increased salaries he was afforded shows the value placed upon him. Even during a time of diminishing returns, a few contracts were signed and Elvis was paid top dollar for the likes of Easy Come, Easy Go, Charro! and Change of Habit.

With regards to movie musicals of the 1960s. The Golden Era of the big screen musical was gone, but the sixties proved important for the musical in Hollywood as elements of the traditional met with new directions and musical styles. Done with varying degrees of success. But some of the most successful and popular musicals of all-time were made during the sixties. West Side Story, for example. Which earned almost $20 million dollars in North America and brought to the screen a revolutionary style of dance met with story-telling. More traditional were Robin and the 7 Hoods and The Music Man, whilst a mid-decade resurgence in the genre had studios like Warner Bros. spend $34 million on producing My Fair Lady. Buoyed, of course, by the success of Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music. The latter, having earned in the region of $110 million internationally by the end of 1966. Making it the highest earning film of all time. Whilst studios were willing to invest in the genre right up to the end of the decade, with Fox spending over $25 million on Hello, Dolly!

Elvis wasn't out on a limb in Hollywood because of the type of film he was starring in. But the decreasing quality of those films, met with the increased production of such. Because, despite the aforementioned success of the musical during the sixties and the meeting of nostalgia with invention, Elvis need not have hung on a singular conceit when other avenues would have been open to him. Even a breed of singer like Fabian, who found success mainly because record companies were seeking another Elvis, landed better roles in more substantial films and among superior casts. And that's very telling, even if Fabian and Ricky Nelson played predominantly in support or smaller roles, the opportunity to act in quality productions like Rio Bravo and The Longest Day was there. But for the sake of repeating myself, with a manager whose priority was the bottom line, and Elvis proving compliant to a fault, there was a perpetual stalemate that was never going to be resolved.