DisneyBoy

Paramount did that? Weird. This is more TV-related, but the original NTSC (North American broadcast) versions of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe and She-Ra: Princess of Power possibly no longer exist. The company Hallmark bought the Filmation animation library a bunch of years ago and then apparently decided they only wanted to keep the PAL (UK broadcast) versions of these shows...so the official DVDs that currently exist have the PAL versions, which run faster, meaning the episodes are shorter, the framing is zoomed in a bit and all the characters voices are higher pitched. According to one fan there are some episodes that still exist in NTSC format but we've yet to get any details on whether or not it's the complete run of either show. All these years, we have been under the impression that the originals were destroyed by Hallmark and the only ones that were kept were the PAL versions. Because why bother keeping the original version of something?*facepalm*

Oh my god....did you watch season five too?! *sympathetic hug* I thought I suffered alone! Remember the flying cancer man in the 100th episode? And the cow sex video? And Hayden Panettiere as Maddie the miracle baby? And the edited-in clips of Robert Downey Jr? And John Cage in a mariachi band? *weeps* Hold me. I definitely mock-watched it for half of its run. It's too insane to hate. But Tyra's BS got old and stifled all the fun. Another kindred spirit! Smallville was the show that broke me. I could only hate watch bits of the last two seasons, and now I dont watch superhero at all. I could not believe how many times they started to set up something new and interesting only to pull the football away and then force the show into being more like the comics again no matter how much that didn't make any sense. The treatment Chloe received was abysmal and I still can't believe she managed to survive the run of the show without getting killed off. Small miracles, I suppose. But I actually found season 8 to be one of the best of the series because of great characters like Davis Bloome and Tess Mercer...before they butchered them and turned Lana into Jesus Christ and pretended Jimmy had never been Jimmy and brought in Not Zod and made Clark into a Super Douche who blew up the Twin Towers. I can't believe that last sentence is actually factual. Smallville everybody!

Really though....when is Kassie back?

She can't bear to be second best?

Ugly Betty had a million funny moments, but one in season three really caught me off guard (mainly because that season was so bad). Hilda is confronted by her boyfriend's Ex and they start comparing themselves to ice cream. The Ex starts by saying "Archie loves him some vanilla ice cream". Hilda, being Latina, calls herself "Caramel Surprise". The Ex, bluntly and hilariously, fires back: "what's the surprise - your fat ass?" I die every time. I'm not saying it's highbrow, mind you, but the timing is perfect.

UO: LOST was dumb. I could tell right off the bat they were pulling things out of their butts (smoke monster??) and had no solid plan. They were letting the format reel folks in and not especially caring about the long-term goals of the narrative. I felt a bit badly when friends, four seasons in, were getting annoyed and wondering WTH was actually going on...but part of me was also going "I told you so". All that religious mumbo jumbo suggested by the finale sure was a great cover for the nothing they had planned, wasn't it?

Thanks for the reply. TTP is waaay too recent. This was some 1990 TV series thing. Man I wish I could remember more about it...but the lead character was this girl who traveled in the sphere thing. The SFX weren't much but it was played rather seriously if I recall... Maybe it was a British import?

It's a pet peeve of mine too, so don't worry - you are not alone!

London After Midnight is another famously lost movie starring Lon Chaney.

I'm so glad this thread exists - there was some show that I think was Canadian that played in either the late eighties or the early nineties where this girl emerged from this white plexiglass octagonal sphere thing that I think transported her through time maybe and I have no idea what the premise of the show was. Or what it was called. Or who starred in it. I just remember that it was kind of a fantasy show with this sphere business going on... ... but I also wonder if I'm not conflating it with another show that I think was called The Odyssey that aired in the late eighties/early nineties that was about a boy who fell into a coma and the coma transported him into this fantasy world where all the people in his life were playing kind of Lost Boy-style characters in the woods and they were in the middle of this conflict between all the kids. I think those were two different shows. It's just this visual of some kind of octagonal spherical ship made of white plexiglass or gray plexiglass or something like that and a girl walking out of it that has stayed with me for a long time. I hope someone else knows what on Earth I'm talking about because I have absolutely no leads on this one.

This still drives me crazy. I realize more often than not these things are filmed in LA and it is too warm for actors in the middle of a 10 to 12 hour shooting day to put in the extra effort to shiver and try to bundle up. But it bugs me nevertheless. It's like those dinky skinny scarves that were popular few years ago that all the actresses seemed to wear in all of their scenes. That won't keep you warm! Wear a real scarf and wrap it around your neck! I realize that this is just something desperate writers throw at a series when they have no other ideas, but I'm really fed up with how all fictional characters on TV seem to win or inherit a lot of money at some point in their lives. Most of us never do unless it's 50 bucks here or $200 there. Stop making it seem like lotteries or gambling pay off! And stop making it seem like everyone has rich wealthy relatives that never visit but love you enough to leave you a couple of thousand.

Blanche and Jane Hudson in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. I think the movie has a swiss cheese plot but even still one can't deny that these are two really messed-up sisters with a supremely messed-up relationship. Also, Crawford and Davis look nothing like one another and it's hard to believe they're related. I really enjoy the kids from Mrs. Doubtfire and how they balance each other out. Obviously the youngest is the cutest and gets the most attention and love (little Mara Wilson!) but I think the film does a decent enough job of fleshing out the personalities of all three. I think it's especially interesting that the script chooses to let the two older siblings in on their father's secret while keeping it from the youngest, knowing she wouldn't understand. And there are some nice little throwaway moments where the older sister is looking after her younger sister. One gets the sense that the divorce has brought the kids together. They never seem to argue but that never rings false. And even after the courts and their mother basically forced their father out of their lives they don't turn bitter and spiteful towards Mom. There's something very tempered about them which is rare in these kinds of divorce movies.

With Barry Manilow having come out this week, in spite of having been married for decades apparently, it's got me thinking about whether anything has changed in Hollywood. Are gay actors really still at a disadvantage - the men in particular here - when it comes to trying to land straight roles? I think looks and tone of voice have a lot to do with whether or not a gay man will get cast in a straight role. Someone like Matt Bomer can "pass" but I still think he's got an uphill climb in store for him if he wants to get those bigger movies. Maybe it's not so much that the gay actors need to have access to the straight roles as that we need more gay roles written into major Hollywood pictures. I would like to think that audiences don't need an actor to be legitimately straight in order to buy into their character arc as a fictional person in a movie, but at the same time, as Barry Manilow has attested, the fantasy of the performer being accessible to the audience member sexually is pretty vital to maintaining said performer's appeal. And the majority of audiences are straight. And then there's the whole issue of gay actors finding success by playing straight. For so many gay people, being able to pass as straight or lie to those around them that they are straight is a daily struggle and an unfair burden. Should it really be the goal to be so good at fooling people in that way that you're able to land a big role in a big-budget movie? When straight actors play gay in the movies they can win Awards and get acclaim for it. Would the reverse be true? Lately with so many celebrities slowly coming out and trying to have careers in spite of it, I can't help but wonder what we are moving towards. Media is changing an awful lot and so is Hollywood, so are these actors going to be able to play predominantly gay parts for the rest of their careers, or will they prefer the challenge of playing whatever roles offer them the most exposure even if the majority are straight characters? And how will they be viewed for passing themselves off as straight? People still sneaker and make comments about Jodie Foster in spite of her great body of work. Will the snickering stop...but the bewilderment continue?

It was interesting to read that piece because it clued me in to the fact that so many interviewers probably do flirt with their subject if they happen to be female actresses...or portray themselves as having been flirted with. I haven't seen very much of Nicole Kidman's body of work, but I don't think that's because I ever saw her as an extension of Tom Cruise. I just don't think I liked all of her Botox and I felt like there was something remote and fussy about her. I enjoyed her and Batman Forever and I really enjoyed her in Moulin Rouge and I should probably check out one or two of her other movies ... but she just doesn't have the chameleon-like quality that makes me want to see her disappear into various roles. She has definitely earned her success but I personally have very little interest in seeing her at the multiplex. As for Tom, I haven't had any interest in his movies in quite a long time, although from the box office receipts it seems I'm alone in that camp. When he was younger there was a sort of softness to him that I think was really compelling. He could play emotional scenes and action scenes. Now he only seems to do action movies - perhaps to keep up his reputation as Mr. Macho Scientologist. I find myself wondering if he'll ever be playing another character that would be of any interest to me.

I can't help but love Angela Lansbury's Mrs. Potts from Beauty and the Beast. She just brings so much heart to the whole movie and humor and she sings well too. I know there's a long list of terrific vocal performances in Disney films but this one just stands out. She does so much with so little screen time.

Scott I totally hate you :) You saw exactly the shows I wanted to see (plus Groundhog Day). Sounds like you had an amazing time. I'm super jealous.

Thinking back, it was Hope that encouraged Marlena to wear a wire and secretly record Kristen confessing her plans about seducing Brady. I think Hope just has a thing for recording devices.

From the trailer it looks like Harley and Nightwing get into some kind of sexual relationship...which would really bum me out. I had a hard enough time believing he would knowingly flirt with Catwoman in the TNBA episode You Scratch My Back. Thankfully, that was all just a ruse at the time. I definitely don't want to see him legitimately involved with Harley. That just feels like fanfiction. I'm cautiously optimistic, but after being burned by Brainiac Attacks and Mystery of the Batwoman I'm going to hold off on getting really excited just because they are using the old character designs.

I agree with you completely but I think the key to help the audience understand these characters was in showing us exactly who they had become pre-accident when Blanche was at the top of her game and an actress. The film just gives a brief look at them as children and from that I'm sorry but I don't really see Jane as some monster as much as an overworked kid. Nor can I find any concrete reason why Blanche is so determined to hate her (why the jealousy? You can see showbiz is hard on your sister). Everything you said makes sense but I feel like you have to paint that into the movie a little bit because the movie has no time to devote to actually showing it and exploring it. With just a few scenes of movie star Blanche being irritated by Jane and her realizing she's being supported by her sister, we could have had a nice lead-in to the accident that would make more sense out of everything else in the movie still to come. Maybe the book does a better job with it. I do get a kick out of the fact that they were trying to make the title into a hit song way back when. I thought that was something only recent movies did. Wrong!

Hmmm...interesting. But...the ending they kept did fail to punish the characters.

Perfect way to put it! Nope. He gets away with the murder and he and Diane Lane stay together with some kind of false "newfound appreciation" for one another for having survived her affair and covered up a murder. Lesson: don't be a boy toy?

Human beings suck - what else can we say? In a weird way I kind of feel like that's the same thing we see play out in Unfaithful with Diane Lane and Richard Gere. That movie bothers me a lot more because it's set in contemporary times and I felt like the ending played it safe and got a bit schmaltzy. Would Diane Lane seriously stand by her husband knowing that he killed a man? Would they actually be able to fall in love again? It seems like their mutual guilt holds them together and that's pretty sad statement to make...but possibly a very realistic one. I don't know. I guess I just felt like the movie was building to a place where Richard Gere would end up being exposed as a murderer and Diane Lane would have to face the music and deal with the consequences. I just don't see how the events of the film could end in a sort of happy fashion with the family staying together. On a completely different note, I really don't think they could get away with Eliza Doolittle returning to Henry Higgins and then being asked to fetch his slippers. That ending makes me rage at the filmmakers even though I know it's in keeping with the stage musical. Being "accustomed to her face" does not constitute love Mr. Smarty-Pants Professor. And Eliza is all set up with a wonderful guy who wants to marry her and a new flower shop to run...why return to essentially being Henry Higgins' assistant?

I thought it might be interesting to have a thread that chronicles famous lost footage from movies. There's the Jitterbug scene from The Wizard of Oz that doesn't seem to exist anymore. I don't particularly think the movie is worse off without it though. Lon Chaney's black and white Phantom of the Opera movie has been missing its original ending for decades, in which the Phantom dies of a broken heart at his organ the exact same way he did in the original book. Apparently test screenings went badly because the audiences were so angry at the character that they wanted him to suffer for all he had done. That's why the studio brought in another director who filmed Westerns for a living to create the big chase scene that now ends the movie. The original footage of the Phantom dying at his organ after being kissed by Christine has never been found. There's also some footage from Ridley Scott's Legend that went missing. Apparently it's a dance sequence involving the Gump character right after he meets Tom Cruise's Jack. I'm so relieved the original ending to Frank Oz's Little Shop of Horrors was found and restored to the movie. It's a fantastic elaborate destruction scene and musical number exactly in the style of the original Broadway show (the theatrical cut neutered the original message of the show by giving the heroes an easy victory, which is apparently what audiences wanted in early test screenings). I like both versions of the movie but I think I'm partial to the grittier destructive ending.

I think there was some lines of dialogue about it happening again or about how Jane already had doctors once looking after her. I totally understand the concept that Blanche would feel responsible for lying to Jane, but Blanche was also hateful enough to try and murder Jane. Even if she feels remorse over that I think the most responsible thing to do would be to distance herself from the person she wanted to kill rather than hanging around pressing a buzzer day and night. Again, I think I get what they were going for with this movie but the setup for the premise just doesn't work. It undermines my ability to enjoy these characters on any level. But it really must have been something to see when it first played in cinemas. I wonder how it would have compared to Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera in terms of spooking audiences out.

*loses his mind* Bummer we aren't getting the original VA's for Harley and Ivy though. :( :(