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

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:18 pm

greystoke wrote:
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.


Interesting points but Fabian's and Rick Nelson's filmographies don't really reflect what most people think of as hugely successful movie careers. Nelson made very few films and Fabian's credits, though more numerous, as a whole aren't very impressive.

Despite Elvis' discontent with the films he was making is there evidence that he was willing to give up his leading man image and accept supporting roles? And if so, did he expect to have "script approval" in those films?

Fabian has complained about his own contract problems and Nelson was dropped from his record label in the seventies. Looking back at their careers I don't see how anyone could argue that they or their management made better choices than Elvis and Parker...but I'm sure they will. :wink:

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:25 pm

brian wrote:
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.


and even then he got his dad to do it. and that was an extreme situation. and after writing a book that pretty much guaranteed they would never be back. It would have had to have been something HUGE for Elvis to fire the Colonel. The only way i could see a change of management is if the Colonel died.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:33 pm

mysterytrainrideson wrote:
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...


He has proven he'd rather type long-winded ephemera than actually read with care anyone else's comments. ;-)

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:46 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
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...


He has proven he'd rather type long-winded ephemera than actually read with care anyone else's comments. ;-)


I realise what the Doc was doing - picking up on the typo of "Roc" rather than "Rock" Hudson, in his normal facetious, I'm perfect kind of way.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:48 pm

bluegreencaper wrote:
greystoke wrote:
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.


Despite Elvis' discontent with the films he was making is there evidence that he was willing to give up his leading man image and accept supporting roles? And if so, did he expect to have "script approval" in those films?


Again I think it was the Colonel and not Elvis that wouldn't have been willing to accept supporting roles.

There is a story about Robert Mitchum offering Elvis a small part in his movie Thunder Road.

If the Colonel had accepted Elvis obviously would have done it.

I don't think Elvis ever expected script approval it was just something he needed to have.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:51 pm

DEH wrote:
brian wrote:
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.


and even then he got his dad to do it. and that was an extreme situation. and after writing a book that pretty much guaranteed they would never be back. It would have had to have been something HUGE for Elvis to fire the Colonel. The only way i could see a change of management is if the Colonel died.


I think there would have come a time when the Colonel would have got too old to be Elvis' manager.

The Colonel turned 68 years old in 1977.

I see him managing Elvis in 1978 and maybe 1979 but then after that he probably steps down.

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:56 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
mysterytrainrideson wrote:
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...


He has proven he'd rather type long-winded ephemera than actually read with care anyone else's comments. ;-)


I realise what the Doc was doing - picking up on the typo of "Roc" rather than "Rock" Hudson, in his normal facetious, I'm perfect kind of way.

Peter, I don't know if your "poor" or not, but your certainly "mad".

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

Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:08 pm

bluegreencaper wrote:
greystoke wrote:
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.


Interesting points but Fabian's and Rick Nelson's filmographies don't really reflect what most people think of as hugely successful movie careers. Nelson made very few films and Fabian's credits, though more numerous, as a whole aren't very impressive.

Despite Elvis' discontent with the films he was making is there evidence that he was willing to give up his leading man image and accept supporting roles? And if so, did he expect to have "script approval" in those films?

Fabian has complained about his own contract problems and Nelson was dropped from his record label in the seventies. Looking back at their careers I don't see how anyone could argue that they or their management made better choices than Elvis and Parker...but I'm sure they will. :wink:


On the whole, I wouldn't say that Fabian or Ricky Nelson made better choices than Elvis, bearing in mind my comments about them never becoming leading men. My point was that they found opportunity in good films next to great actors. Rio Bravo in particular, and one can see Elvis all over Ricky Nelson's performance and mannerisms in that film. Elvis was fortunate to have well-paying opportunities in Hollywood and a platform on which he could surely have achieved more than he did. But during the most productive years of Elvis's acting career, there's much to like and admire in the likes of Loving You, Jailhouse Rock, King Creole, Flaming Star, Follow That Dream and Viva Las Vegas. Whilst his credentials as a box office draw was impressive.

There's been a lot said in hindsight, and through friends and associates of Elvis, that he was unhappy with the direction of his acting career. How willing he would have been to earn less and find better roles in the process is debatable. As I mentioned in a previous post, Elvis - perhaps unknowingly - probably kept producers away because his salary was too high in comparison to viable production costs. I'm repeating myself again, but Hal Wallis paid Elvis less, but could invest more in the films he produced because of that. During the sixties, there were newspaper articles discussing the very fact that Tom Parker limited Elvis's options at every turn, and pricing him out of better interest was one such reason. If not during the early sixties, then certainly later in the decade.

Script approval is another matter altogether, but actors were more vociferous than ever during the sixties. Had Elvis started his own production company or tried to produce the kind of film he wanted to act in, then script approval would be a given. But Elvis rarely seemed to make his voice heard. Still, if contracts were inked on the premise of each film under those agreements containing twelve songs, script alterations are going to be for naught. Elvis needed better deals to begin with. Once under contract, the proverbial ball is rolling.

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

Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:52 am

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


He has proven he'd rather type long-winded ephemera than actually read with care anyone else's comments. ;-)


I realise what the Doc was doing ...


Ouch. Ignoring your grammar, let's just say you had zero idea what I was doing.

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

Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:09 am

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


He has proven he'd rather type long-winded ephemera than actually read with care anyone else's comments. ;-)


I realise what the Doc was doing ...


Ouch. Ignoring your grammar, let's just say you had zero idea what I was doing.


A bit like you then.

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

Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:06 am

greystoke wrote:
bluegreencaper wrote:
greystoke wrote:
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.


Interesting points but Fabian's and Rick Nelson's filmographies don't really reflect what most people think of as hugely successful movie careers. Nelson made very few films and Fabian's credits, though more numerous, as a whole aren't very impressive.

Despite Elvis' discontent with the films he was making is there evidence that he was willing to give up his leading man image and accept supporting roles? And if so, did he expect to have "script approval" in those films?

Fabian has complained about his own contract problems and Nelson was dropped from his record label in the seventies. Looking back at their careers I don't see how anyone could argue that they or their management made better choices than Elvis and Parker...but I'm sure they will. :wink:


On the whole, I wouldn't say that Fabian or Ricky Nelson made better choices than Elvis, bearing in mind my comments about them never becoming leading men. My point was that they found opportunity in good films next to great actors. Rio Bravo in particular, and one can see Elvis all over Ricky Nelson's performance and mannerisms in that film. Elvis was fortunate to have well-paying opportunities in Hollywood and a platform on which he could surely have achieved more than he did. But during the most productive years of Elvis's acting career, there's much to like and admire in the likes of Loving You, Jailhouse Rock, King Creole, Flaming Star, Follow That Dream and Viva Las Vegas. Whilst his credentials as a box office draw was impressive.

There's been a lot said in hindsight, and through friends and associates of Elvis, that he was unhappy with the direction of his acting career. How willing he would have been to earn less and find better roles in the process is debatable. As I mentioned in a previous post, Elvis - perhaps unknowingly - probably kept producers away because his salary was too high in comparison to viable production costs. I'm repeating myself again, but Hal Wallis paid Elvis less, but could invest more in the films he produced because of that. During the sixties, there were newspaper articles discussing the very fact that Tom Parker limited Elvis's options at every turn, and pricing him out of better interest was one such reason. If not during the early sixties, then certainly later in the decade.

Script approval is another matter altogether, but actors were more vociferous than ever during the sixties. Had Elvis started his own production company or tried to produce the kind of film he wanted to act in, then script approval would be a given. But Elvis rarely seemed to make his voice heard. Still, if contracts were inked on the premise of each film under those agreements containing twelve songs, script alterations are going to be for naught. Elvis needed better deals to begin with. Once under contract, the proverbial ball is rolling.


Jack Good would appreciate your well-thought out postings on this topic. Any way we can get him signed up?

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

Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:12 pm

Jack Good certainly was a character; I remember in around 1978, he was describing the current music scene and his words were something like; "The current pop scene is mostly as dull as ditchwater. take Barry Manilow; he's BORING. The Bee Gees - BORING....."
Well said that man.

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

Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:44 am

He was right.

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

Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:56 pm

jurasic1968 wrote:He was right.


Have you whipped out your copy of "Clambake" to see the sequence with Jack and Elvis? Has anyone??

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

Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:27 pm

Doc, about 1978: maybe the new pop music was boring, but the rock music was not: new groups like Clash, Sex Pistols, The Ramones (all from the new punk wave) and also the old ones like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, ACDC, Queen, Black Sabbath, Kiss, Jethro Tull were dominant forces.

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

Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:30 pm

jurasic1968 wrote:Doc, about 1978: maybe the new pop music was boring, but the rock music was not: new groups like Clash, Sex Pistols, The Ramones (all from the new punk wave) and also the old ones like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, ACDC, Queen, Black Sabbath, Kiss, Jethro Tull were dominant forces.


Hey, I loved "Saturday Night Fever."

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

Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:34 pm

John Travolta played great but I liked him much more in "Grease", in 1978 with Olivia Newton John.

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

Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:55 am

jurasic1968 wrote:He was right.


No! He wasn't (imo).

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

Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:57 am

Tony.. wrote:Jack Good certainly was a character; I remember in around 1978, he was describing the current music scene and his words were something like; "The current pop scene is mostly as dull as ditchwater. take Barry Manilow; he's BORING. The Bee Gees - BORING....."
Well said that man.


Sounds like his vocabulary was...BORING

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

Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:23 am

Tony.. wrote:Jack Good certainly was a character; I remember in around 1978, he was describing the current music scene and his words were something like; "The current pop scene is mostly as dull as ditchwater. take Barry Manilow; he's BORING. The Bee Gees - BORING....."
Well said that man.


Disco music became quite boring by 1978 with everyone trying to incorporate that sound. I did find some of The Bee Gees stuff from that period very good however, such as, How Deep Is Your Love, Too Much Heaven,etc. Their ballads were always very melodic and their late 60's stuff is pure class. Always one of my favorite groups and writers.

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

Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:36 pm

Back on topic, I found this news item also, with great pic;
GI REVIEW 2.jpg

GI REVIEW 2 2.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.