All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:13 pm

Chris - in the states, they spell it offense, whereas here in the UK, it's offence. A bit like color / colour!

In the old days, Ersnt was interviewed for this website, and used to give completely honest answers. BMG got wind, and restricted what he was allowed to say. It's a similar situation with Tom - i'd much rather he continued to try and give us snippets of info, and help us out, without giving his role / identity away, then to tell us what he does exactly, and have his bosses ban him from comminicating with us.

I think we just have to take his word for it, and see what happens. It's much the same with Joe Tunzi - he is able to speculate without accountability. The difference is, Tom doesn't charge us for the privilege!

The info that Tom gives is always credible, and his intentions are always good.

Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:05 pm

DarrylMac wrote:Chris - in the states, they spell it offense, whereas here in the UK, it's offence. A bit like color / colour!


Ah yes, US English, as opposed to proper English. It did hit me later after I posted my confusion.

DarrylMac wrote: The info that Tom gives is always credible.


But what info? Again, I really am not trying to cause offence (or offense). I really can’t remember any tangible information. I can only recall speculation or news from press releases.

It is a pretty safe bet to say ‘Elvis On Tour’ or ‘This is Elvis’ will be released at some unspecified point in the future, that they will be sourced from ‘best possible’ prints or that they will be “special/deluxe” editions. What does that really tell us?

DarrylMac wrote:his intentions are always good.


Of that, I have absolutely no doubt. I am just curious to understand whether he has any unique insight into the industry or just spends more time reading the trades than most of us.

Chris

Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:39 pm

ChrisM,
I am perplexed. You say that you are not meaning to be offensive, and yet you continue to try to personally and professionally insult me with your unfounded insinuations. I provide information on this board from a number of different sources and am not about to justify myself to you or anyone else for that matter. My reputation speaks for itself and I stand behind any and all information that I have posted. If you doubt me or my sources then just ignore my posts. Other than that, even if I tried really, really hard, I still wouldn't give a **** what you think.

Tom

Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:25 pm

Tom in North Carolina wrote:You say that you are not meaning to be offensive, and yet you continue to try to personally and professionally insult me with your unfounded insinuations.


How could I "professionally insult" you? I have no idea what you do for a profession. That was my question all along.

Chris

Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:36 pm

ChrisM wrote:
Tom in North Carolina wrote:You say that you are not meaning to be offensive, and yet you continue to try to personally and professionally insult me with your unfounded insinuations.


How did I "professionally insult" you? I have no idea what you do for a profession. That was my question all along.

Chris


I didn't say that you professionally insulted me, I said you tried to. For me to be insulted, I would actually have to give a rat's ass what you think, which I don't. I work as a independant contractor in the film and entertainment industry and have done so for close to 30 years. I am not prepared, nor should I have to, give any further details, despite you asking so very nicely. Don't believe me, don't like what I write, don't read it. End of story.

Tom

Tom

Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:50 pm

Tom in North Carolina wrote:I work as a independant contractor in the film and entertainment industry


So does the guy who cleans the toilets at my local cinema.

Chris

Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:19 pm

Come on, guys...........

Time for another group hug, I think...

I'll be between Elvis Babe & Carolyn [again] but I want Rusty within arm's reach...

All together...... mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:42 pm

ChrisM wrote:So does the guy who cleans the toilets at my local cinema.


Thank goodness you're not trying to offend anyone. I'd hate to see your idea of impolite.
Last edited by elvissessions on Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:42 pm

Tell you what, dicksmack, you get a few more posts under your belt and we'll talk. Until then, go waste someone elses time trying to make a name for yourself.

Tom

Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:44 pm

ChrisM wrote:
Tom in North Carolina wrote:I work as a independant contractor in the film and entertainment industry


So does the guy who cleans the toilets at my local cinema.

Chris


Gold! :lol: :lol:

Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:02 am

TOM - that is 100% correct about some of Elvis films. Most of the unused footage was order to be destory by Colonel Tom Parker. Some did escape it but the quality sucks on all of them. The only surviving unused footage that is available is That's The Way It Is and Elvis On Tour. The rest of the most very little survived. Only thing you will find on some of those movies are 8mm filmed footage. That is all. If people thinks that one day some unused footage will see the light of day from Love Me Tender to Change of Habit then I would that you will never buy his movies on DVD. All you will see is what is available right now - The Movie and the Trailer. That is it for the most part but there is exceptions to the rule. That's The Way It Is and Elvis On Tour are the only exceptions to the rule of the Elvis movie because they were concerts and not the regular movie he did.

Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:03 am

Tom in North Carolina wrote:Tell you what, dicksmack, you get a few more posts under your belt and we'll talk. Until then, go waste someone elses time trying to make a name for yourself.

Tom



:smt005 :smt005 :smt005 :smt005 :smt005 :smt023

Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:45 am

Tom wrote: End of story.

********************

I have a feeling it's not the end yet.

Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:45 am

elvislennon wrote:TOM - that is 100% correct about some of Elvis films. Most of the unused footage was order to be destory by Colonel Tom Parker. Some did escape it but the quality sucks on all of them.


UGH! As if we needed another reason to loathe Parker...

Axe

Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:05 am

ekenee wrote:Tom wrote: End of story.

********************

I have a feeling it's not the end yet.


It is for me. I don't know who this insignificant little asswipe is or why he feels the need to attempt to impugn my reputation on the board. However, I have neither the time nor the interest to continue this pointless banter, especially when it's painfully obvious that the guy has a personal problem with me. He can either get the Hell over it or not. I honestly don't give a ****.

Tom

Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:31 am

Tom while your still here I have some questions for you and feel free to speculate if you like.

Concerning outtakes of his non-concert movies, do you think that there is more of a chance that outtakes exist from certain studios.

For example in your opinion, was any one studio such as, 20th century fox, MGM, Paramount, more apt to save film outtakes?

And what is your feeling about the Film Charro, made as an agreement with the 68 special, that outtakes may exist since it was made under a seperate agreement than the others?

And lastly, this is strictly speculation on my part, but as you know, Ernst has said that some of the movie studios never turned over the studio sessions tapes for some of the movies, and this is why no outtakes from some soundtracks have never been found.
This being said, if colonel parker ordered all outtakes distroyed, is it not possible that a given studio, editor, or producer, failed to follow thru with this request and they are still in some wherehouse gathering dust?

Tom, l am an optimist, and just hope someday, that some pristine outtakes are discovered. It would be really cool if it did happen.
My feeling in the Elvis world it is surprising of how much stuff does turn up somewhere. Weren't we all shocked to see the binuaral stereo tapes released when pictures of the tape boxes were published years before, stamped, "erase"? Do you not see any hope in this area at all?

Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:56 am

ekenee wrote:Tom while your still here I have some questions for you and feel free to speculate if you like.

Concerning outtakes of his non-concert movies, do you think that there is more of a chance that outtakes exist from certain studios.

For example in your opinion, was any one studio such as, 20th century fox, MGM, Paramount, more apt to save film outtakes?

And what is your feeling about the Film Charro, made as an agreement with the 68 special, that outtakes may exist since it was made under a seperate agreement than the others?

And lastly, this is strictly speculation on my part, but as you know, Ernst has said that some of the movie studios never turned over the studio sessions tapes for some of the movies, and this is why no outtakes from some soundtracks have never been found.
This being said, if colonel parker ordered all outtakes distroyed, is it not possible that a given studio, editor, or producer, failed to follow thru with this request and they are still in some wherehouse gathering dust?

Tom, l am an optimist, and just hope someday, that some pristine outtakes are discovered. It would be really cool if it did happen.
My feeling in the Elvis world it is surprising of how much stuff does turn up somewhere. Weren't we all shocked to see the binuaral stereo tapes released when pictures of the tape boxes were published years before, stamped, "erase"? Do you not see any hope in this area at all?


Well, not that I know what the Hell I'm talking about or anything, but here goes.

It is my understanding that it was the Colonel who insisted that the outtakes be destroyed. In fact, I have heard that it was in their contract. If that's the case, then it doesn't matter which studio produced the film, they would have to honor the contract. That being said, the outtakes I saw (which were actually alternate takes for the most part) were from different studios, so some of it has obviously survived. As I said before though, the quality of these clips was pretty bad, so I can't imagine what the film stock looks like now, if it hasn't totally disintegrated. Even when filmstock is stored in climate controlled "vaults", such as the infamous MGM salt mines, it still slowly dries out and eventually just falls apart. If the stock is not kept cool, dry and out of any kind of direct light, the shelf life is much, much shorter. I have personally witnessed film cannisters being opened and there be nothing left but a pile of dust. This is why there is such a push from the AMPAS and folks like AFI to transfer ALL old films to a digital format that will last forever. We are losing hundreds of old films a year and they can never be replaced.

Anyway, back to the outtakes. In the old days, as a general rule, once a film was officially "in the can", all outtakes, soundtracks (not the album, but the actual production soundtrack), alternate takes, "bloopers" and pretty much everything else that was shot became the property of the studio and was usually stored either on the lot or in one of the studios "vaults". Well, that was all well and good, but the problem came when they ran out of room. Millions of feet of film from obscure documentaries to classics like Gone With The Wind, Cleopatra, Ben Hur, King Kong, and The Wizard of Oz were simply tossed in a dumpster, along with props, sets, wardrobes and tons of other "useless junk". You have to keep in mind that in those days, once a film had run it's course at the theater, it was maybe sold to TV and then just written off. No one ever, ever, thought about home video and certainly not about a medium like DVD.

Nowadays, movies are shot expressly with the future DVD in mind, which is why you're seeing all of these "production diaries" and so many other extras of that nature. Alternate takes for future "unrated" DVD versions are shot at the same time as the regular versions. I was on the set of Cabin Fever during production and Eli constantly talked about material for the DVD...much more so, in fact, than the theatrical release. Filmmakers these days are slowly realizing that DVD is their future.

All of that being said, I sincerely hope that there are some pristine outtakes out there somewhere, but I am very doubtful. As one source, RCA, was primarily in control of Elvis' sound recordings (master tapes, etc.) it stands to reason that the occasional jewel is found here or there. Granted, even they have been know to re-record over tapes or just toss them out. With movie studios though, you're dealing with a whole different animal and they rarely had the foresight to keep what they didn't need or want.

As far as Charro! goes, personally I like the film. Despite a second rate cast (with the exception of Victor French and James B. Sikking) and a sometimes laughable script, I think Elvis pulled off a very powerful performance, given what he had to work with. I know for a fact that there are outtakes from Charro! floating around because I have personally seen them. The infamous nude scene with Ina Balin is but one of many. When this film is released on DVD, my guess is that you will see many of these scenes included.

I hope that helps.

OK, I need a beer and I think I have some toilets to clean.:wink:

Tom

Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:27 am

Tom, you have to do something that we see those scenes. It would be great christmas present to Elvis fans that you go to Warner's office and say "If we don't see those scenes on DVD soon, you ain't gonna see nothing" :)

I've seen the nude scene and photos from another non-released scenes.

I guess MGM has also the milkbottle scene from Kid Galahad?

We should start address and get names for new MGM DVD releases :?

Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:30 am

Tom in North Carolina wrote:I have neither the time nor the interest to continue this pointless banter


And yet you do.

I had a genuine and valid question. I believe the record shows that it was you who resorted to the childish name-calling.

Chris

Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:27 am

Tom, thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. And I like Charro as well.
I normally don't like westerns, but I think Elvis pulled this one off.

Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:33 pm

changeofhabit wrote:Tom, you have to do something that we see those scenes. It would be great christmas present to Elvis fans that you go to Warner's office and say "If we don't see those scenes on DVD soon, you ain't gonna see nothing" :)

I've seen the nude scene and photos from another non-released scenes.

I guess MGM has also the milkbottle scene from Kid Galahad?

We should start address and get names for new MGM DVD releases :?


My guess is that Charro! will be released on DVD in the next year or so, although I have heard no rumblings of any kind. I won't speculate on any extras, but I will say that Warner does in fact have the outtakes, so that's a good sign. As I have said before, the main problem is that historically Elvis DVD's have not sold well at all, especially the films. The studios are not in the habit of throwing good money after bad.

Tom

Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:41 pm

ChrisM wrote:
Tom in North Carolina wrote:You say that you are not meaning to be offensive, and yet you continue to try to personally and professionally insult me with your unfounded insinuations.


How could I "professionally insult" you? I have no idea what you do for a profession. That was my question all along.

Chris


Actually, Tom has previously gone into a little more detail about what he does on this board, so there's no evasiveness on this part. Hardly his fault that you didn't read the posts. Or should he put his credentials in his signature so they are there for all to see 24/7? :?
Last edited by TJ on Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:01 pm

Charro outtakes does exist because it was filmed by a low budget company. Plus, it also needs to be added that Charro was part of the deal along with the NBC special. So I can imagine that outtakes exist on this movie. It is also true of once a film was officially "in the can", all outtakes, soundtracks (not the album, but the actual production soundtrack), alternate takes, "bloopers" and pretty much everything else that was shot became the property of the studio and was usually stored either on the lot or in one of the studios "vaults". You can find on Ebay every now and then a movie, example It Happened At The World's Fair. It isn't uncommon that if you find the 16mm film of this that it will have the TV logo that it come from on the reel or on the can that the film it is in. Most movies that ran it course in the theaters to be sold to TV companies like CBS or ABC. As for Elvis' movies, you can find copies of his contract for certain movies and the contract will say that all outtakes would be destroy. Copies of these contracts can be found on the internet.
But this is for movies for the old days.
Now, it is alot different. They keep all outtakes for future DVD releases. That is what important this day in time because the normal movie fan wants to see special features and see alternate scenes, outtakes and so on.

Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 pm

Tom in North Carolina wrote:once a film was officially "in the can", all outtakes, soundtracks (not the album, but the actual production soundtrack), alternate takes, "bloopers" and pretty much everything else that was shot became the property of the studio and was usually stored either on the lot or in one of the studios "vaults".


elvislennon wrote:once a film was officially "in the can", all outtakes, soundtracks (not the album, but the actual production soundtrack), alternate takes, "bloopers" and pretty much everything else that was shot became the property of the studio and was usually stored either on the lot or in one of the studios "vaults".


Dude,
If you're going to quote me word for word, at least have the common courtesy to give credit where it's due.

Tom

Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:31 pm

Hey, No desrespect man. I know where it came from. I just was saying the stuff I know of the films since I collect them. That is why before the sentence I said that IT IS TRUE THAT. I used that in reference that someone else had said it. So you did get credit but not by name.