Jerry Lewis' Sci-Fi 60's! in '60s Horror and Sci-Fi Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Jerry Lewis' Sci-Fi 60's!

Author	Comment
skull island escapee		#61	[-]
Apr 21 12 2:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I note that no less than John P Fulton provided the SPFX for 'visit'.......I thought the FX were pretty darned good for the time, theres traveling matte stuff in there that is handled fairly well considering the timeframe. POSTSCRIPT: just watched [thru reading this fine thread] the first portion of VISIT.....on youtube, the first time I have savored even a single frame of this movie for almost 40 years: verdict, so far: an interesting curio of considerable promise, although some elements like the early spaceship shots are feeble by todays standards--I want to see the whole movie though and will return for a bloated reassesment later. For those still interested, heres part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg6c178Q5t0&feature=related Last Edited By: skull island escapee Apr 21 12 3:10 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
kcor.tylerandjacksmo...		#62	[-]
Apr 22 12 5:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Visit to a Small Planet is sf. But only by definition. Nutty Professor is sf. But only as much as Jeckyll/Hyde is. Think how keen it would have been if Kelp had not really invented an effective serum but was just drawing on his own possibilities. Way Way Out is not sf. What I'd think would be a perfect Jerry Lewis movie would be The Bellboy with a supporting cast let loose like the supporting cast in The Big Mouth was. All his movies had great upporting casts, except for some female leads. And I always am overwhelmed by the ones shot in color, so it should be in b&w. And no sf.
Rick		#63	[-]
Apr 22 12 5:18 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	kcor wrote: Way Way Out is not sf. Ummm...yes, it is. I realize we all have different definitions and different parameters applied to those definitions. But I find it difficult to imagine what reasonable definition of science-fiction would not include such as WAY....WAY OUT.
kcor.tylerandjacksmo...		#64	[-]
Apr 22 12 5:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick wrote: kcor wrote: Way Way Out is not sf. Ummm...yes, it is. I realize we all have different definitions and different parameters applied to those definitions. But I find it difficult to imagine what reasonable definition of science-fiction would not include such as WAY....WAY OUT. Here's my argument: When it was made everything science-y in it was already possible, to the point that we could actually do them (unless I am forgetting something in it, frankly haven't seen it for maybe 30 years). I do think it belongs in discussions in the forum, just think that the cold equations render it not-sf.
Rick		#65	[-]
Apr 22 12 7:24 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, I also haven't seen it in ages (and I'm not about to watch it again, just for the benefit of this discussion.) I'm assuming we have different takes on what makes science-fiction. I think it's questionable that everything in WAY...WAY OUT was possible at the time. Even if it was, it would still meet my level for science-fiction. For one thing, it involved manned landings on the moon, something which had not been done at the time, and something still considered iffy even if possible at the time. For another, it involved humans living in a moon base of some sort. Again, probably possible, but not achieved or attempted. To me, the very fact that the movie involved space travel -- a traditionally s-f concept -- puts it automatically pretty close to s-f. If it had simply involved shooting a rocket into space and bringing it back, then, sure, not s-f. 'Cause that was not only possible in '66 but had been achieved. Trips to the moon had not been achieved at that time. Living on the moon, in all but the most technical of senses, still hasn't. Finally, to me, almost any story set in a technically advanced future (however near that future might be) is automatically s-f. As I vaguely recall, WAY...WAY OUT is set in the future from 1966 (it would almost have to be.) I actually did a smudge of online research, but could only find that same sort of vague time designation -- "some time in the future." As I said, it's been ages, so I don't recall if there are any other s-f touches or gadgets in the flick. Obviously your definition of s-f is much, much more stringent than mine. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just not in agreement. So I really don't think we should get into MAROONED or COUNTDOWN.
kcor.tylerandjacksmo...		#66	[-]
Apr 23 12 7:52 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick wrote: [1] Well, I also haven't seen it in ages (and I'm not about to watch it again, just for the benefit of this discussion.) [2] I'm assuming we have different takes on what makes science-fiction. [3] I think it's questionable that everything in WAY...WAY OUT was possible at the time. [4] Even if it was, it would still meet my level for science-fiction. [5] For one thing, it involved manned landings on the moon, something which had not been done at the time, and something still considered iffy even if possible at the time. [graf] For another, it involved humans living in a moon base of some sort. Again, probably possible, but not achieved or attempted. To me, the very fact that the movie involved space travel -- a traditionally s-f concept -- puts it automatically pretty close to s-f. If it had simply involved shooting a rocket into space and bringing it back, then, sure, not s-f. 'Cause that was not only possible in '66 but had been achieved. Trips to the moon had not been achieved at that time. Living on the moon, in all but the most technical of senses, still hasn't. [6] Finally, to me, almost any story set in a technically advanced future (however near that future might be) is automatically s-f. As I vaguely recall, WAY...WAY OUT is set in the future from 1966 (it would almost have to be.) I actually did a smudge of online research, but could only find that same sort of vague time designation -- "some time in the future." [7] [...] I don't recall if there are any other s-f touches or gadgets in the flick. [8] Obviously your definition of s-f is much, much more stringent than mine. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just not in agreement. [9] So I really don't think we should get into MAROONED or COUNTDOWN. 1 Agreed 2 Granted 3 Agreed, even in light of my proviso of "science-y" things. 4 Granted 5 Granted/agreed combo 6 Withholding my granting or agreeing, reserving a disagree for other (future!) times. 7 See answer 1 above. 8 Agreed 9 Hearty agreement. I love these forums!
Godziwolf		#67	[-]
May 1 12 4:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	kcor wrote: Rick wrote: kcor wrote: Way Way Out is not sf. Ummm...yes, it is. I realize we all have different definitions and different parameters applied to those definitions. But I find it difficult to imagine what reasonable definition of science-fiction would not include such as WAY....WAY OUT. Here's my argument: When it was made everything science-y in it was already possible, to the point that we could actually do them (unless I am forgetting something in it, frankly haven't seen it for maybe 30 years). I do think it belongs in discussions in the forum, just think that the cold equations render it not-sf. 2001?
kcor.tylerandjacksmo...		#68	[-]
May 5 12 8:17 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Godziwolf wrote: 2001? If 2001 had been (will be?) made in, say, 2050 and had no monolith or monolith-planting "culture" (whatever) in it and no HAL in it, and was instead about Poole or Bowman exhibiting a confusion between transvestism and gayness, then it would not be sf. Was that the question?
Godziwolf		#69	[-]
May 7 12 4:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	kcor wrote: Godziwolf wrote: 2001? If 2001 had been (will be?) made in, say, 2050 and had no monolith or monolith-planting "culture" (whatever) in it and no HAL in it, and was instead about Poole or Bowman exhibiting a confusion between transvestism and gayness, then it would not be sf. Was that the question? Can science fiction encompass only what is already possible? All of the human tech in 2001 was arguably possible with circa-1968 technology. I could make a similar argument for Firefox -- you can make a neurologically-controlled fighter using only mid-1980s parts. Dr. Strangelove arguably fits that criterion as well.
kcor.tylerandjacksmo...		#70	[-]
May 8 12 6:49 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Godziwolf wrote: kcor wrote: Godziwolf wrote: 2001? If 2001 had been (will be?) made in, say, 2050 and had no monolith or monolith-planting "culture" (whatever) in it and no HAL in it, and was instead about Poole or Bowman exhibiting a confusion between transvestism and gayness, then it would not be sf. Was that the question? Can science fiction encompass only what is already possible? [...] Before I reply, pls confirm if you mean "only what is already possible" or "what is currently impossible." Thanks.
	Remove this ad
WalesGuy		#71	[-]
May 30 12 12:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Watching the German DVD of WAY WAY OUT, a few laughs and a more restrained Jerry. One fault with the DVD is the German soundtrack invades the English track for a few moments (hope it doesn't occur again). As this is a 20th Century Fox film, strange how they have a clip from 1931's FRANKENSTEIN in it. Last Edited By: WalesGuy May 30 12 12:59 PM. Edited 1 times.
WalesGuy		#72	[-]
Jun 7 12 2:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Update to my last post, the German soundtrack replaces the English soundtrack several times on this disc, and it seems it's on all pressings, as others on Amazon have reported the same fault. Also today I watched the German DVD of DON'T GIVE UP THE SHIP, some funny scenes, but a horrid transfer with a VHS like fuzzy picture with lots of combing/interlacing evident, plus German titles. At least the soundtrack remains English from start to finish. I hope Paramount or (probably) Olive will release the remainder of Jerry's films from the late 50s onwards that aren't yet available. Did those Martin+Lewis movie sets ever include THREE RING CIRCUS? Not their best, but curious as to why this has not had an official release. I thought I saw it on one of the European Amazon sites a year or two ago, but can't find it now.
doktorgoulfinger		#73	[-]
Jun 7 12 2:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	WAY, WAY OUT is pretty laugh-free, except for a wonderful sequence involving Dick Shawn and some "instant vodka." The scene shows a lot of potential for a Lewis and Shawn team. I wish they had done something else together. The film is notable for using the same space suits on display in IN LIKE FLINT. THREE RING CIRCUS was not included in the Martin and Lewis sets - though I can't recall the reasons offhand. MONEY FROM HOME was missing from th sets as well, but enjoyed a separate DVD release.
WalesGuy		#74	[-]
Jun 7 12 2:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	WAY WAY OUT had some amusing scenes (Robert Morley is as good as always) but was certainly a big step down from his earlier work. DON'T RAISE THE BRIDGE LOWER THE RIVER was a DVD I saw a month or so ago, and quite enjoyed it as Lewis gave a fairly straight performance (plus it had Terry Thomas on good form)
doktorgoulfinger		#75	[-]
Jun 7 12 5:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's interesting to see Lewis in films of this period that he did not direct. I can't say I was impressed by DON'T RAISE THE BRIDGE, but having heard dreadful things about HOOK, LINE AND SINKER for years, I was surprised how much I ended up enjoying it. The reviews I'd read had given no indication of this as film noir spoof, so it caught me off guard - in a good way. Of films he directed around that time, I was impressed with his color scheme in the otherwise unimpressive THREE ON A COUCH. As an experiment in the psychological use of color, I think it would be a worthy double bill with Hitchcock's MARNIE. I'm also convinced Quentin Tarantino was a big fan of WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT?, as a number of elements are in harmony with INGLORIOUS BASTARDS. I would seriously love to see those booked together on the big screen. By the by, I say WAY, WAY OUT in the theater as a child. I remember being tickled by Howard Morris' grotesque capering. Also loved the theme song and comic strip design. Can't say it's a good film by any stretch, but nostalgia forgives a bit.
Lawrence Fechtenberger		#76	[-]
Jun 7 12 5:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	doktorgoulfinger wrote: THREE RING CIRCUS was not included in the Martin and Lewis sets - though I can't recall the reasons offhand. MONEY FROM HOME was missing from th sets as well, but enjoyed a separate DVD release. Someone on the Home Theater Forum quotes someone from Olive Films saying that THREE RING CIRCUS has "major music clearance problems." No details on that. I vaguely recall reading that some complication regarding the Damon Runyon story on which it is based required separate negotiations for MONEY FROM HOME.
Rick		#77	[-]
Jun 7 12 7:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm also convinced Quentin Tarantino was a big fan of WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT?, as a number of elements are in harmony with INGLORIOUS BASTARDS. I would seriously love to see those booked together on the big screen. Boy, I don't know. I'd like to think that Tarantino's taste for even low-grade "B"/cult/exploitation films is a little more refined than that. I just saw WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT? for the first time a few weeks ago. It really ranks with the least-funny comedies I've ever seen. I thought as I watched it that it was understandable that Jerry didn't get to make another movie for a decade or so. Personally, I never want to see it again, even on the big screen, even doubled with INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, which I truly love.
doktorgoulfinger		#78	[-]
Jun 7 12 8:13 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yeah, WHICH WAY is a pretty laugh-free comedy - though there a few energetic moments toward the end. The connections I see between the this and BASTARDS stem mostly from the fact that both take the Valkyrie plot against Hitler as their inspiration and feature a small unit of Americans (including American Jews) and British fighters successfully carrying out the killing. Add to that the French's love of Jerry Lewis and the focus on cinema (a French movie theater) in BASTARDS, Tarantino's own obsessive passion for film and movie directors - and I'm convinced he at least saw WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT? at some point and it had an effect. Again, I agree that it's a pretty barren landscape when it comes to laughs, but I also admire some of Lewis' experiments with timing - particularly at the beginning, where he stretches anticipation well beyond the breaking point before the first line is uttered in the film. The opening shot (color and and set design) is wonderful, even if the content is kinda painful. And continuing on the topic of experimental timing: The film's opening credits don't hit the screen until the film is 20% into its running time. I can't help but think someone like Tarantino would slap his knee over that one.
Ollie Pope		#79	[-]
Jun 8 12 12:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	And let's not forget, it's Jerry Lewis AS "Which Way To the Front", according to those painfully belated opening(!) credits.
WalesGuy		#80	[-]
Jun 8 12 12:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Is there a version which gives the full title JA JA MEIN GENERAL, BUT WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT ?
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Jerry Lewis' Sci-Fi 60's!