|
Post by Fading Fast on Apr 26, 2023 16:23:22 GMT
Two things jump out at me from this and the 1940 Project: one, how many movies, despite decades of watching old movies, I haven't seen and, two, that Warner Bros is the studio I've seen the most movies from (grammar be damned).
These are fun. I hope you are copy and pasting and not typing them all out. I typed some of these out a few years ago, and found these files on an old thumb drive in a drawer! But I am having to go through the files since there were some typos and I want to add the studio logos.
I only did the 1940s...this is why I started with 1940. But my goal is to do all the sound film years of the studio era, 1930 to 1959. So after I finish posting 1949, these will slow down, and I will continue from 1950 to 1959...then I will go back and get the 1930s.
I guess I have to think about moving them to a separate area on this message board, so they can all be found together. But I will decide that later.
Re: your comment about there being a lot of films we haven't seen...there are probably several factors...first, during the VHS and DVD eras, studios were quick to cash in by releasing the Oscar winners and the well-known "A" films meaning a lot of the "B" films fell out of circulation. When cable channels like American Movie Classics and Turner Movie Classics came along, they also tended to focus on the "A" films. TCM is very guilty of this practice, and they even give short shrift to "A" films that don't feature household names.
One reason I wanted to make these lists by year was to study the annual output...it's amazing to me when a studio releases 50 or more features per year. But then in the years before television, I guess there was a huge demand for product at the local cinemas.
Another reason I wanted to make these lists is that I will eventually start marking off which ones I have seen, then of those, which ones I have written reviews for...I know that there is no way I will see them all, because as we've discussed, they are not all available in viewable form, and since there are so many, I'd have to live to 150 to have enough time to watch and review each one! That's a cool project you've set for yourself.
What you say about TCM is true, which is why when they do show a lesser-known A or B movie that isn't in regular rotation, I always try to record it. Plus, and your "Neglected Films" thread has got me doing this, I've watched a lot of "non-TCM" movies on YouTube, etc. over the past year or so. It's been fun as heck because there is so much more out there - and good stuff - than just what TCM shows or shows very infrequently.
In additional to all that you said, up until the government forced the major studios to divest themselves of their ownership in theater chains, they were producing movies to make sure their theaters had enough "product," meaning new movies to show each year, which also accounts for some of the heavy output of movies.
Considering that TV in the '50s broke whatever "monopoly" Hollywood had on moving-picture entertainment, I wonder if the studio system would have survived longer and if Hollywood, right down to this day, would have evolved differently if the government hadn't forced that divestiture and major studios had still owned theater chains into the '50s and '60s.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 26, 2023 17:10:05 GMT
That's a cool project you've set for yourself.
What you say about TCM is true, which is why when they do show a lesser-known A or B movie that isn't in regular rotation, I always try to record it. Plus, and your "Neglected Films" thread has got me doing this, I've watched a lot of "non-TCM" movies on YouTube, etc. over the past year or so. It's been fun as heck because there is so much more out there - and good stuff - than just what TCM shows or shows very infrequently.
In additional to all that you said, up until the government forced the major studios to divest themselves of their ownership in theater chains, they were producing movies to make sure their theaters had enough "product," meaning new movies to show each year, which also accounts for some of the heavy output of movies.
Considering that TV in the '50s broke whatever "monopoly" Hollywood had on moving-picture entertainment, I wonder if the studio system would have survived longer and if Hollywood, right down to this day, would have evolved differently if the government hadn't forced that divestiture and major studios had still owned theater chains into the '50s and '60s. Yeah, these are interesting what-ifs. I try not to criticize TCM too much, but I approach classic film differently than TCM's programmers do...probably because when I was at the USC School of Cinema-Television (as it was known in the 1990s), some of my professors were writers, directors and actors who worked in classic film of the 30s/40s/50s. Since my college days I have always looked at this as a survey of the whole history of Hollywood. Not just "A" product from the elite studios, and way more than the output of the most famous people.
This is why I don't get too bent out of shape when I am watching something that is not politically correct by today's standards, because I see this is part of cinema history which was evolving. I feel we have to examine EVERYTHING not just bits and pieces here and there which is what TCM does. Also, TCM picks films that fit themes which sometimes have an overt political agenda, and I don't filter film that way. And I guess I should go on record as saying I think TCM promotes a fair amount of ignorance, because its viewers become over-exposed to films from MGM, WB and RKO and they come away with scant knowledge about the output from other studios. I can't control TCM's schedules, but I can control how I approach and survey all of Hollywood history from those years.
***
After my previous post to you, I realized that yes originally I did type all these titles and when I get to the 1950s and 1930s, I will type those too. The main reason is because it is not possible to do a 'clean' copy and paste of the studio lists off the wiki pages or the IMDb...since in both cases, this procedure brings over all the formatting errors and just makes more work for me!
It's easier to just retype it all and I type 75 words a minute anyway, so I can speed through them if I have the time. I should also point out that the lists on wiki and the IMDb sometimes don't include titles in the right year. There is a bit of verifying I may have to do, especially if something went into wide release in early January, but had a special sneak preview somewhere in November or December. I choose to list them by premiere.
As for studios providing product to the movie theater chains before television, we can see by some of the lists I've posted that if they are releasing around 50 films a year, then there may be a new movie coming out every weekend. Though there are some months when only one or two releases occurred. When we get to the 1950s, especially with a dying studio like RKO, you will see that some years the output drops to under 20 and they may go a month or two without releasing a new film...evidence that television was taking over.
|
|
|
Post by sewhite2000 on Apr 27, 2023 1:54:06 GMT
I clicked on this at first to see if it had something to do with the World War II comedy that was (so far) the most-panned movie of Steven Spielberg's career! I guess I missed the 1940 thread altogether. I'll have to scroll down and look for it. My first thought is, I haven't even seen all the movies with the big stars! So I'm not too put off by TCM's focus on them. It is a business after all, and they want viewers. And I still have plenty to see. I liked how you started with Universal and had high on the list studios like Monogram, PRC and your much-loved Republic, and shoved ol' MGM and Warner Bros. (which, after 22 years of watching TCM are certainly the studios whose product I've seen the most) down to the bottom!
Did anyone ever have the old hardback books that were tall but thin and contained year-by-year output of each major studio? Well, except for Fox, of course. I don't think they ever did one for them, although I did once see a book with info about that studio published by another company. I regret now I didn't buy it, because I never saw it again. I bought the ones for all the other studios at my local Half Price Books, and they were valuable references for me for a number of years, though I guess I must have ended up selling them back, because I don't have them anymore. They took up a lot of room. All that information is available on the Internet now, I guess, if you look hard enough. Nice to find it all in one place here.
Your lists remind of me of similar ones of a more modern vintage published on the old message boards by Lawrence A. who would list, I don't know, something like the 100 biggest-grossing movies of 2002, for example, then let us know which ones he'd seen, which whatever given year, was always a sizable percentage. I marveled first at just how many films had ever been released and second how many he'd seen. I could get defensive and say "Well, I have a life outside of old movies!", but the truth is I'm jealous. I want to watch more.
I'm currently very slowly making my way through the "talking heads" book called Hollywood by Jeanine Basinger and a male film historian whose name I've forgotten. I'm still at the dawn of Hollywood, but I marvel at the volume of the output, which I'm sure existed for the reasons you mentioned, Top. There's one account by a silent film actor named Hoot somebody who made eight pictures a year at Universal, he says, from 1919-1930. Eight! Did he get time off? There's another anecdote from a director who customarily would shoot two pictures simultaneously with the same cast periodicially changing costumes and the same crew.
Thanks for doing this.
Edit: My apologies. I just now started the 1940 thread, and you've got MGM right at the top. You could just be shuffling the studios up every month, rather than exhibiting any bias that I was initially reading into it!
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 27, 2023 4:27:55 GMT
Thanks for doing this. Edit: My apologies. I just now started the 1940 thread, and you've got MGM right at the top. You could just be shuffling the studios up every month, rather than exhibiting any bias that I was initially reading into it! You are welcome. Thanks for reading and commenting. You are right, I am shuffling the order of the studios each year, because I don't want it to seem like I am putting one studio ahead of the other studios. As you noted, Republic is my favorite studio...but I know other people like other studios.
***
A few comments before we go on to Project: 1942...
Republic was formed in mid-1935 by Herbert Yates and remained in business all the way to 1959. However, I just read that Paramount, which owns the Republic catalogue, is now restarting Republic so there will be some new Republic Pictures coming out within the next year. That's kinda cool and exciting!
When I go back and do the 1930s, I will include Grand National Pictures, a poverty row studio that made about 100 features between 1936 and 1939. I am a fan of Grand National and think their product deserves some attention.
I haven't decided if I will make lists for some of the defunct poverty row studios from the 1930s like Mascot, Liberty, Tiffany, Sono Art-World, Chesterfield, etc. Most of those companies were absorbed into Republic in 1935, but their catalogues did not transfer over. With a few exceptions, practically all those films were 'abandoned' and are now in the public domain.
Speaking of poverty row, Monogram started in 1931 and its early films were made on the cheap. Monogram was not too successful during those initial years and went out of business in mid-1935. There were no releases for Monogram in 1936, but in mid-1937, the company resumed operations and it continued to turn out low-budget fare until the mid-1950s.
Monogram's output finally ended in mid-1953. And the owners' high-end label, Allied Artists, took over in '53, though AA films first began appearing in 1947. So when we get to the years 1947 to 1953, I will include lists for both Monogram and Allied Artists. But from 1954 on, I will only list Allied Artists.
For those who are wondering, I will also be including lists for Eagle-Lion, since they turned out some very interesting films from 1947 to 1951. Eagle-Lion was a Hollywood studio financed by British owners, with the goal of making U.S. films for the American market that could be screened alongside British films that usually had limited release in the U.S. My lists for E-L will only include their Hollywood films, not the imported British titles as I will probably make separate threads later that focus on the British film studios.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Apr 27, 2023 5:20:25 GMT
Thanks for doing this. Edit: My apologies. I just now started the 1940 thread, and you've got MGM right at the top. You could just be shuffling the studios up every month, rather than exhibiting any bias that I was initially reading into it! ... Republic was formed in mid-1935 by Herbert Yates and remained in business all the way to 1959. However, I just read that Paramount, which owns the Republic catalogue, is now restarting Republic so there will be some new Republic Pictures coming out within the next year. That's kinda cool and exciting!...
I know it's just the name, but it is cool and exciting. It will be interesting to see how they plan to position the the new Republic.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 27, 2023 14:09:13 GMT
... Republic was formed in mid-1935 by Herbert Yates and remained in business all the way to 1959. However, I just read that Paramount, which owns the Republic catalogue, is now restarting Republic so there will be some new Republic Pictures coming out within the next year. That's kinda cool and exciting!...
I know it's just the name, but it is cool and exciting. It will be interesting to see how they plan to position the the new Republic. It will be interesting to see if they remake some of the older films in the catalogue, or if it will be mostly new stories. They've retained the eagle but updated the font style for the new logo:
|
|
|
Post by Swithin on Jun 25, 2023 21:01:12 GMT
King of the Zombies (Monogram, 1941) is one of my favorite movies. It was actually nominated, deservedly, for an Academy Award for Best Music Score of a Dramatic Picture (Edward J. Kay). When videos became a thing, King of the Zombies was the first video I purchased, even before I had a VCR. I ordered it from Video Yesteryear, a company out of CT. I could not believe I actually owned a film that I loved! Two of the actors in the film were pioneers in the history of movies: Madame Sul-Te-Wan was the first Black actress to have been given a contract by a major studio. Leigh Whipper was the first Black actor to join the Actors' Equity Association and one of the founders of the Negro Actors Guild of America. The movie is creepy, funny, and well written, and adheres to some of the traditional rules of zombieness, unlike the later bastardizations of George Romero. Madame Sul-Te-Wan, Leigh Whipper, Marguerite Whitten, and Mantan Moreland in King of the Zombies
Madame Sul-Te-Wan in King of the ZombiesLeigh Whipper in King of the Zombies
|
|