[josemas]

I might ask, WHAT "production numbers" and where did you get these, but never mind. It's very possible that the availablility of certain guest-stars may have dictated production order. In this case, for example, Leslie Gore as "Pussycat". I've also heard that (supposedly) sometimes more than one week of stories with a particular guest star (Cesar Romero or Burgess Meredith) may have been filmed back-to-back, then "spreads out" weeks apart from each other.

I first encountered the production number data on Batman quite a few years ago in some magazine I was reading that specialized in television series logs and such (can't remember the mag's name right now) but you can access the production numbers easily at epguides.com.
You're speculation about guest star availability dictating production order is quite possible.  Another possibility I thought of is when a particular script gets caught up in rewrites causing it to fall behind in the move toward actual production.
We'll probably never know for sure unless someone involved in the original productions comes forward with the answers.
Still I find all your evidence compelling about which order those Catwoman episodes were originally written in.  It just makes so much more sense the way you lay them out.

Best

Joe

[josemas]

A lot of younger movie fans seem to rank film adaptations these days SOLELY on how close to the book they are, or not, but I think that is missing a lot of important points.  Like, when you have a film THIS gorgeous, with such beautiful location work, sets, an incredible cast, a GREAT, intelligent script, FABULOUS directing & editing, and WONDERFUL music... why complain? And, like DRACULA (maybe even more so), I find it fascinating to take note of the various changes, and how in some ways they make the story more interesting, or gripping, or even better-sturctured than the real thing.

I don't think it's just younger movie fans who have problems with movies that deviate from original print sources.  I've been hearing this complaint from people for many years.
It usually doesn't bother me when a film has its own variations unless they do a really hatchet job of something I figured had real film potential.

Best

Joe

[profh0011]

It usually doesn't bother me when a film has its own variations unless they do a really hatchet job of something I figured had real film potential.

I agree. But I suppose that goes for any movie or series, adaptation or not. One of my pet peeves is sequels that don't live up to their potential. Take the HALLOWEEN movies (or, for God's sake, DONT!). HALLOWEEN 4 is my favorite in the series. Who would have seen that coming? But HALLOWEEN 5 is an INSULT to 4, and 6 went thru a dozen script drafts, each worse than the one before it, until they "assembled" a script (that's the word I read!!) from the "cheapest" elements of the dozen, with apparently no concern if the finished product made any sense at all. The result was-- surprisingly-- a well-made film, but the story was still a piece of S***. And then the director, after-the-fact, pulled a HATCHED job, added 20 NEW minutes to the film while cutting 20 existing minutes, and in the process, eliminated any "style" the original edit had. As my best friend (a big fan of these things) called it, "a bastaradization of an abortion".

With a bit more care, a LOT of things might be a lot better.

[profh0011]

You're speculation about guest star availability dictating production order is quite possible.  Another possibility I thought of is when a particular script gets caught up in rewrites causing it to fall behind in the move toward actual production.
Still I find all your evidence compelling about which order those Catwoman episodes were originally written in.  It just makes so much more sense the way you lay them out.

I was really surprised some years back when I taped the episodes that there was such obvious continuity between those stories.  ("COLLEGE" and "SCAT!" were both written by the same guy, Stanley Ralph Ross-- he had the best sense of humor on the show.)

The previous Cat-story, however, was an example of behind-the-scenes chaos. Writer Ellis St. Joesph figured out where the 2nd season had gone wrong, and determined to do better. The producer told him his script, "THE SANDMAN COMETH", was the best they'd ever had. But before it was filmed, all hell happened. First, it was decided to add The Catwoman to the plot (because Julie Newmar had been promised so many episodes that year). Second, Robert Morley, who'd agreed to do it, backed out because he didn't want to share screen time with some other villain. And somewhere in there, the millionaire they were going to fleece was changed from a man to a woman (which made utter nonsense of the fact that her MULTIPLE husbands ALL had the same last name-- what did she do, go thru a a whole set of brothers???).

I see Charles Hoffman was listed on the finished script. After writing the worst episodes of the 1st season, he was promoted to story editor. Figures-- the worst writer gets put in charge of everybody else's scripts. His stuff is NOT funny-- only ridiculous. Which is a shame, as "funny" can forgive a lot of sins. (see the 3rd season's "King Tut" and "Shame" episodes-- written by Stanley Ralph Ross. They border on NIGHT COURT-level humor. They're just about the only 3rd-season stories I can stand to watch!)

[profh0011]

Lonnnnnnnnnnnng movie today.


Quotes:



"Unk... unk... There's NO NAME here!"
"And there's NO NAME on this, either."



...and...



"There's two kinds of people in this world, my friend. Those with loaded guns--
and those who dig. You dig."

[profh0011]

Tonight:

AND THEN THERE WERE NONE  (1946)


I still remember when my Dad watched this with me around 25 years ago.  He said it was an "all-star cast". In the years since, I've come to know almost every actor in this film from other movies, and realize he was right.  But at the time, I thought the casting was "cheating"... because back then, the only actors I knew were the hero and the murderer!


This has been filmed at least 4 times (3 times by Harry Alan Towers-- when he gets ahold of something, he doesn't quit).  But this is the earliest, and probably the best version.  Among the cast are Walter Huston, Judith Anderson, C. Aubrey Smith, Barry Fitzgerald, Richard Haydn, and one of my favorite actors who've I've seen paifully few films with-- Louis Hayward!


The 1st time I saw this, I had already seen THE SAINT IN NEW YORK (1938) multiple times, and it's actually very easy to picture the character he plays in this as being "Simon Templar", in all but name.


This is of course the classic story where 10 people are lured to a remote island, and one by one are killed. It takes almost half the story before they realize ONE OF THEM is the killer. But which one?


Most strange was finding out recently that the 1932 Sherlock Holmes film A STUDY IN SCARLET (which has absolutely nothing to do with the book of that name) has a VERY similar plot, and came out BEFORE Agatha Christie wrote her novel!  Can it be a coincidence that she wrote something so similar, or did the movie inspire her?


I've also recently read online a description of how the book ends, and I must say, the MOVIE is a definite IMPROVEMENT. (I'd say the same goes for anothe story set on an isolated island-- THE ISLAND OF LOST SOULS-- and for almost the exact same reasons. I sometimes wonder about the judgment of some of these novelists...)


About 15 years ago I had the chance to see a live stage version of this.  The plot was very similar, and the main change was the addition of some humor at the end, with the line, "Thank God women can't shoot straight!"

[josemas]

My first exposure to this story (and Agatha Christie) was via the 1965 film adaptation (retitled Ten Little Indians) when it was run on TV in the late 1960s.  Not quite as stellar a cast as the 1946 version but when the Lil' Missus and I re-watched it last year we still thought it held up pretty well. 

I'm planning on showing her the '46 version soon as she's never seen it before and I managed to snag an inexpensive DVD of it.

Best

Joe

[profh0011]

I thought this time around it would be fun to watch both the Jeremy Brett HOLMES and the David Suchet POIROT at the same time.  So last night I dug out my Agatha Christie tapes.

But before I get there, I'm now planning to watch the older films first-- WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (another of the best AC films ever), the 4 MISS MARPLEs, TEN LITTLE INDIANS (I understand that was directed by the same guy who did the MMs), and even THE ALPHABET MURDERS (which is a real abortion, but I do like the Marple cameo in it-- the look she gives Poirot shows she holds him in utter contempt as a complete idiot).

Before Suchet, my favorite Poirots are DEATH ON THE NILE (John Guillerman) and EVIL UNDER THE SUN (Guy Hamilton).  Even the 3 updated ones Peter Ustinov did for CBS, I like better than the Albert Finney film. Go figure. Ustinov's final one, APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH, however, was really badly directed. I understand Michael Winner has a rep for doing bad movies... how did the guy ever make THE BIG SLEEP so incredibly good?

[bowers]

Ahh- Miss Marple. My first taste of Marple was, of course, the Margaret Rutherford series. I'm sure these are nothing like the books, but I absolutely loved her interpretation of the character. She played Jane Marple with a flair no one else has come close to. Her mugging and ramblings were priceless. I saw these a very long time ago- wonder if I'd still like them as much today? Just saw her the other day in "Blithe Spirit" as Madame Arcati, a bumbling medium. (Interestingly enough, "A Blithe Spirit" was also her epitaph!) I never cared much for Joan Hickson's interpretation. She played the character with a bit too malicious for my tastes. Cheers, Bowers

[profh0011]

I had NO idea at the time... in fact, back then, I had NO idea it was even an "Agatha Christie"... but way, way back, I caught THE ALPHABET MURDERS when the network ran itr some weekend evening. Couldn't make heads or tails of it.

My "official" 1st AC film was DEATH ON THE NILE, which I saw in a theatre-- TWICE! Amazing how KNOWING every detail of the plot doesn't ruin that one-- it just turns it into a completely different movie.  (I love that it is told SO clearly it is impossible to get confused... at least, once you've reached the end.)

My "1st" Miss Marple was THE MIRROR CRACK'D. I didn't know what to make of it. Saw that in a theatre (just lucky, it disappeared in 7 days flat). Funny but true-- I had NO IDEA Angela Landsbury was NOT really that old when she did it. Great make-up job.

Later I saw Helen Hayes (who I loved in THE SNOOP SISTERS in the 70's). What a sweet lady!

Joan Hickson took a long time to grow on me.  I taped most of them as they premiered, but compared to POIROT, it wasn't doing it for me.

I can't recall exactly whe I taped the 4 Margaret Rutherford films, but I got all of them off commercial TV (and they may still have the commercials, I forget). Careless of me not to get better copies off TCM when I had the chance. I will say, they definitely got better the 2nd time I watched them.

Imagine my shock, after having seen those 4, to catch THE ALPHABET MURDERS again... and to realize Rutherford had a wordless cameo in it. Poirot is written as a FOOL in that film, and HER character clearly knows it!

The sheer irony is that when David Suchet finally did THE ABC MURDERS, it was, truly, one of the VERY BEST of the series.  Wow.  How does one take a story THAT good and completely murder it, as they did in the late 60's?  It's just one of those films from a breif period when everyone in the film industry seemed to go completely nuts, throw out all the rule books, and any sense of logic. But on top of anything else, Robert Morley would have made a much better Poirot than he did a Hastings.  Honestly!!)

I understand there's not one but TWO Miss Marple series since Joan Hickson... and blast it, I haven't seen any of them!!!

[bowers]

PBS Mystery has shown both the Geraldine McEwan and Julia McKenzie series. Both are pefectly acceptable, and some episodes are quite good. McEwan plays Marple with a bit more "heart" and gives us a glimpse or two of her past, why she never married, etc. Neither McKenzie nor McEwan really makes the role her own and, unfortunately, many of the episodes are just remakes of the earlier series. Must say I prefer "Poirot" or "Partners in Crime". Cheers, Bowers

[profh0011]

Tonight:

THE ADVENTURE OF THE CLAPHAM COOK



This must be only the 3rd time I've ever seen this. Hugh Fraser looks so young in this! About halfway thru, I was suddenly reminded of "THE RED-HEADED LEAGUE", as I realized there just HAD to be an elaborate con going on... but to what end? After watching the entire NERO WOLFE series, I must say, Japp is such so refreshing. A "reasonable" Chief Inspector.  By comparison, Wolfe & Cramer DESERVE each other-- they both such insufferable blowhards!

Some years back I watched my entire AC collection-- everything I had-- in chronological sequence.  I figure, no need for that this time. More to the point, a few days ago I watched "A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA", and thought it would be fun to watch Jeremy Brett & David Suchet AT THE SAME TIME.  Never did that before!

[paw broon]

This is interesting because my wife and I both love Joan Hickson as Marple but don't enjoy the Geraldine McEwan version. Poirot gets almost endless reruns here and you can watch one pretty much at will. We're just getting through the Hickson Marple series again - last night was A Pocketful of Rye.
I thoroughly enjoy the Margaret Rutherford films and of course Stringer Davies as her sidekick. Have I spelt that correctly?  I watched Rutherford in Happiest Days of Your Lives, the other night.  It also stars Alastair Sim and Joyce Grenfell (from the original St. Trinians films) and a few other British stalwarts.  Great fun.
Michael Winner, who many people here see as a right annoying old sod, also made Lawman with Burt Lancaster, one of my favourite westerns.  By the way, I don't see him as that; I find him quite refreshing as he speaks his mind.  Don't agree with a lot of what he says but he says what he thinks.
Japp is rather good, isn't he.  Philip Jackson was the bad guy in last night's New Tricks rerun - so different from his Poirot part.

[profh0011]

I've also seen Rutherford in THE VIPS (the one about the people stranded by a blizzard at an airport), and THE MOUSE THAT ROARED (she plays the Queen, doesn't she?).

Anybody but me seen Tony Randall's AWFUL turn as Poirot? The whole thing looked like they desperately wanted Peter Sellers but couldn't afford him, so... And if the film was going to be SO insanely crazy (not quite CASINO ROYALE but heading that way), the least they could have done was sprung for color film.

Anybody but me seen Ian Holm as Poirot? It's not quite a "real" POIROT story, but it is interesting in a fantasy "what if" sort of way. (After seeing him as villains for decades, my favorite role of his was as Father Benito in THE FIFTH ELEMENT. He's such a well-meaning, if somewhat inept, character. I love how, after he SLUGS Bruce Willis, Willis wakes up, dig his ex-boss out of the freezer, and tells him, "I'll take the job."  Definitely my favorite Bruce Willis movie.)

[narfstar]

5th Element was a cool movie. I think it was less than successful because it did not appeal to those who were not die hard sci fi fans. Pardon the pun

[JVJ]

(After seeing him as villains for decades, my favorite role of his was as Father Benito in THE FIFTH ELEMENT. He's such a well-meaning, if somewhat inept, character. I love how, after he SLUGS Bruce Willis, Willis wakes up, dig his ex-boss out of the freezer, and tells him, "I'll take the job."  Definitely my favorite Bruce Willis movie.)

Here's one of the props from Fifth Element, prof, in the apartment of Jean-Claude Mazieres in Paris. Did you ever see the special feature with him and Moebius on the Director's Cut disc? Awesome!
http://www.bpib.com/paris/Karen@Jean-Claudes.jpg

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[profh0011]

5th Element was a cool movie. I think it was less than successful because it did not appeal to those who were not die hard sci fi fans. Pardon the pun

FUNNY!


I recall sitting in the theatre, not knowing what the plot was or where it was gonna go... I'd seen so many overly-serious bordering on depressing sci-fi films by then... so when the scene switched to NYC, and the flying cab (straight out of HARRY CANYON or THE LONG TOMORROW), it was rather jarring.  And the tone continued to get lighter as it went, despite the immmense seriousness of so much of the situation. Of course, when Ruby Rodd appears, it goes right off the deep end into comedy. I've seen it multiple times on TV since, and each time, it just kept getting better. I slowly came to feel it was one of the best-structured stories I had ever seen. Even if it hadn't been such a sumptuously-designed visual feast, the writing alone was just incredible.


My comics-shop guy said he thought it was played for laughs way too much. I feel sorry for people who feel that way...

[JVJ]

My comics-shop guy said he thought it was played for laughs way too much. I feel sorry for people who feel that way...

Me, too. I have always thought that the best part of life is the part played for laughs. Humor doesn't negate seriousness, just moderates it enough to make it palatable. I agree, prof. Good film.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[profh0011]

"Would you mind if I-- gave it a try?"
"No, no, not at all.  Go right ahead."
"Okay..."


"BLAM!!!!"


"Anyone else wanna NEGOTIATE?"


(the President:)
"Now I wonder where he learned to NEGOATIATE like that?"

[JVJ]

Probably from Indiana Jones.

(|;{>

[profh0011]

It's nuts, but I'm actually watching TWO different SHERLOCK HOLMES TV series at
the same time-- Ronald Howard AND Jeremy Brett. And so far, I'm enjoying Ronald
Howard more...


Today:

THE CASE OF THE PERFECT HUSBAND



What a surprise, to see a "known" actor guest-starring in this one. It was
Michael Gough-- the earliest and youngest I've ever seen him. And wouldn't you
know, his character is summed up by Holmes as, "the most INSANE murderer I've
ever encountered"!


Whatta guy...



Inspired me to look him up at the IMDB, and relive old times by reading reviews
of some of his films, including KONGA and TROG, both of which I actually saw on a big screen while down in Houston in '71! Apparently, back then, if you were making a movie in England and wanted an actor to play a really nasty S.O.B., you'd get Gough.

[builderboy]

Is that from "Mars Attacks"?  I love that film.

"Would you mind if I-- gave it a try?"
"No, no, not at all.  Go right ahead."
"Okay..."


"BLAM!!!!"


"Anyone else wanna NEGOTIATE?"


(the President:)
"Now I wonder where he learned to NEGOATIATE like that?"

[narfstar]

I saw Trog at a drive-in. I did not see Konga at the theater but did see King Kong Vs Godzilla I think it was a double feature with Tarzan's Three Challenges. Amazing the odd little things that come to you.

[profh0011]

Back in 1971 I spent 6 months in Houston, TX. There was this old place, the Venus Theatre, which ran triple-features on weekends for a BUCK! What a deal. Usually "themes"-- Elvis, westerns... I like the "horror" weekends.

I can't recall all the bills, but among the films I saw there (some of them as much as a decade old at the time) were KONGA, REPTILICUS, GODZILLA VS. THE THING (that actually was a triple-feature), CORRUPTION, THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD, TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA, TROG, and how's this for a quadruple-bill:  THE OBLONG BOX, THE CRIMSON CULT, HORROR HOUSE and THE CONQUEROR WORM.  I was astonished some time back to find out that what I saw was the "uncut" version of that, in England, they had about 4-8 minutes missing, and at least one UK critic still thought it was "utterly depraved".



I know one week they ran THE VAMPIRE LOVERS, DUNWICH HORROR and something else, but "VL" was "rated M" and my Mom wasn't able to take me that weekend.

[josemas]

Just down the street from where my folks moved to in 1966 was a closed up theater called the Sombrero Playhouse.  It had opened up sometime in the 1950s and put on live productions (I once saw an old playbill there for some show that they had done featuring Groucho Marx) but eventually folded.  It was closed up when we moved into the area but in the 1970s it was reopened as a repertory house.  They would run second run features, animation festivals ( I first saw Fleischer's Betty Boop and Superman 1930s & 40s cartoons there), classic double bills (A favorite of mine was the Errol Flynn DF of Adventures of Robin Hood and Captain Blood with the audience joining in for the chants of "Blood! Blood! Blood!"), silent films (saw some of my first Chaplin and Keaton features there) and, of course, vintage horror and sci-fi (I can well remember seeing It Came From Outer Space and Creature From the Black Lagoon in 3-D there).  It was also one of the first theaters in the country to start running the Rocky Horror Picture Show at midnight on the weekends.   IIRC, admission was all of $1.50.   It was eventually done in by competition from video, cable and the rising value of prime business property locations and was torn down in the early 1980s.  Almost all of our numerous drive-ins also vanished in the same time period.

BTW, Vampire Lovers was released with an "R" rating which is why you couldn't get in without a parent.  The short lived "M" (for mature) was just a precursor to the equally short lived "GP" rating which was itself replaced by the current "PG" rating.  None of which I've ever seen keep any kid out of a film.
A number of those later Hammer films tossed in enough nudity to get themselves an "R" rating in the states.

Best

Joe