*giggle*

[kawaiikaylee]

Thank you, Turner Classic Movies, for the line I just heard on your station:

Kid: "Gee, if 'Singing in the Rain' was so great, why didn't they have any sequels?"
Host: "Well, y'see kids, back then they had something better than sequels! They had *writes on blackboard* 'ideas'!"

This makes me happy ^_^

Comments

[borogove13]

Really, instead of sequels, they had actor formula movies. If it's a Gene Kelly musical, you already know what you're going to see. Lots of actors had a series of films that were tailored around them and were set up to hilight a that person's famous tallents. In a Gene Kelly film there's going to be a comedic montage with physical comedy, an upbeat dance number, a "dream sequence" or "imagination sequence" and some kind of overblown set piece. There will always be a love interest and a comedic sidekick. Beyond that structure, the "plot" becomes a vague consideration. The Marx Brothers were a similar way as far as structure goes, as were W.C. Fields, Jerry Lewis, Carey Grant and others. Nowadays, there are still actor vehicles, but not so many actor-driven movies. The story tends to be more important than the actor these days, and with the stories getting the following and the fanaticism and the focus, they're the ones that get trotted back out for film after film instead of the actors. It used to be that people would say "

[sketchington]

Damn, were those Marxes ever formulaic. Delightfully so, of course.

[sketchington]

Hey there,

Couldn't find your e-mail and wanted to send you a message. Do you have any pictures online that I could cut your image out of and paste into a Year Off environment for the "Year Off" pitch I'm developing? Something that Roz might wear, not one of the many lovely rennie pics of you on Myspace. I'm just going to grab one of those Mindgames pics for Kat.

Thanks a lot for your interest in this project.

Hugs,

"Sketch"