[narfstar]

All the talk of complicated Nero Wolf plots and Sherlock Holmes and I watch cheap sci-fi. Just watched a move called Clone Hunter. It was cheap with bad special effects. I am glad I do not have to have perfection to watch a movie. I remember how the first episode of Lord of the Rings bored me. It had great special affects but was not that interesting. I thought the next two were better. Clone Hunter was good old fifties style sci-fi fun.

[bowers]

There's a lot to be said for good old '50's sci-fi movies with cheesy special effects! One of my very favorites was "Them". I guess I always was a sucker for giant mutant ants. Cheers, Bowers

[josemas]

Speaking of great, cheesy old sci-fi movies the Lil Missus and I watched -Atomic Rulers (of the World)(1965) last night.  This was one of four movies that popped up on American television in 1964-1965 and starred the super-hero Starman!  These were cobbled together from a 1950s Japanese series/serial featuring a character named Super Giant. 
I remembered being entirely enraptured when I first viewed these at the age of six back then.  I had already been taken by reruns of The Adventures of Superman as well as such those of such masked heroes as Zorro and The Lone Ranger so I was familiar with the mystery man/superhero concept on the screen.  These movies just further cemented my love for the super-hero genre that was growing at the time.
Over the last few years I've now re-watched three of those four American versions and find that they hold up well (in a cheesy, crappy f/x , just lots of fun sorta way).

On a side note I do remember being very disappointed when I ran across DC's 1960s revival of their Golden Age Starman.  Of course, at that time, I had no idea that the Dc character preceded the Japanese character by a good decade and a half so I just thought that DC had done a crummy job of adapting the character from those great films that I had so enjoyed.  I remember having much the same feeling when I ran across Gold Key's Lost in Space (which I had never seen before 1965 and which had recently been renamed from its original title of Space Family Robinson).  I loved LIS at the time and just thought that Gold Key had totally screwed it up- again not realizing that the comic had been around longer than the TV show.

Best

Joe

[josemas]

Been hearing good things about that sequel. I may have only seen the 1st one once (twice at most) and it's been a long time since either way. My main memory was it felt VERY primitive, barely past a silent film, and the acting didn't impress me much.  

Actually the first Bulldog Drummond movie, like most early talkies, seems very primitive both by today's standards and compared to most late silent movies-which were often lushly and fluidly photographed. 
Once sound took over Hollywood in the late 1920s that fluidity ground to a halt for awhile.  Actors had to often just stand around wherever the mike was hidden and clearly enunciate their lines.  Over the next few years with adventurous directors pushing artistic boundaries and numerous technical strides being made much of what had been lost was eventually regained.

Best

Joe   

[Ratty]

When I haven't been busy trying to study lately I've been watching Sherlock Hound. An Italian/Japanese co-production where Doyel's London is re-imagined with all the characters as anthropomorphic dogs, except Holmes ("Hound" in the English version) who is, of course, a fox. I was feeling very nostalgic after all of the talk of Sherlock Holmes films a few pages back, the conversation reminded that it had been too long since I'd last fallen under the spell of those tales years ago. Nice to spend some time with the Doctor and the Detective again, and this incarnation of them is so adorable at times it almost hurts.
Innocent without being dumb, sweet without being condescending and peppered with action without being violent, it's the kind of thing I'd want my kids to watch if I ever had any.
If you're in the US the entire series has been made available on youtube http://www.youtube.com/show?p=K162qI1LPF8 though the episodes are listed out of order for some reason.

Too bad its been relegated to being a footnote in Miyazaki's career (he helped start it and directed some of the episodes) instead of appreciated on its own merits as a series.

[narfstar]

thanks for the link Rat

[Ratty]

No problem. Hope you enjoy it what's listed as episode 2 (the show's adorable re-imagining of the Blue Carbuncle) is a great place to start. Though the proper first episode is on the list as #11, oddly enough a takeoff of The Five Orange Pips (klan replaced by pirates) and is also good.  

[profh0011]

2 today...


FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE

My favorite "spaghetti western" in which Clint Eastwood returns and is totally upstaged by the real hero of the picture, Lee Van Cleef as Col. Douglas Mortimer.  Some years back when I was in the habit of channel-hopping I wound up watching the first half-hour of this multiple times, and strangely enough THAT's how I got to like the film so much.  The 2 introductory sequences (first Van Cleef, then Eastwood) were both so well done I couldn't take my eyes off the thing. Then the 3rd introductory sequence is when we meet "Indio", and calling him the villain of the piece doesn't do him justice.  He's a MONSTER incarnate, and it cracks me up that they had the nerve to cast the SAME actor who had played the villain of the previous film, FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, in a different and even nastier role.


As I watched this again today, I was reminded that no less than THREE different bits of this movie have found their way into my own stories, twice as deliberate tributes, the third subconsciously. These are 1)the rape scene with the dead boyfriend's body lying right there, 2)the "shooting the hat" scene, and 3)the kid who befriends the stranger who just arrived in town.  (The rape scene was the one that slipped in subconsciously-- I was trying to do a tribute to a NIGHT COURT episode!)


I still remember being shocked when I first figured out years back that Van Cleef played two completely different parts between this and THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY (in the latter, HE was the villain). But then, more and more comments I'm finding online suggest the 3 films aren't REALLY connected, and Eastwood isn't necessarily playing the same character in them.  Could be!




THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES  (1959)


Strange but true-- THIS was the very 1st "HOUND" I ever saw. It remains one of my favorites, DESPITE the fact that much of it has NOTHING to do with the book it takes its name from! From that alone, you can tell it's a Hammer Films production. One of their trademarks (in addition to garish color, gothic horror, violence and sexy women in low-cut outfits) was playing around with any source material they were supposedly "adapting" and winding up with films that bore almost no resemblance to the original stories. Truthfully, when one compares a Hammer "remake" to a more famous, earlier version by Universal (or in this case, Fox), it's quite noticeable that they often scour the book for bits NOT used in the previous film version, so their films wind up being as "DIFFERENT" from the previous versions as possible.


Anyway, Peter Cushing, one of my all-time favorite actors, does one of his best roles here. He's actually quite similar to Jeremy Brett's version, but if anything, even more manic. Andre Morell proves one of the BEST Watsons (and certainly one of the best to be in a HOUND adaptation). And Christopher Lee gets to show off more of his acting ability than any other 10 Hammer films combined. Compared with almost every other Henry Baskerville, he doesn't seem quite "right" for the part, but this is a Hammer, after all, and in his own offbeat way, he's VERY good at it.


Then of course you have Francis DeWolff as Dr. Mortimer, who seems to have been cast specifically to have someone who looks similar to Lionel Atwill's Dr. Mortimer-- but while Atwill's character was (almost surprising for him) a nice guy, DeWolff is arrogant, argumentative, and egotistical, and for a good part of the film, a PRIME suspect, even though he's the one who brings Holmes into the case.


One outstanding part of the film is the flashback showing the legend of Sir Hugo. Cutting right to the chase, this version STARTS with Mortimer already at Baker Street and his story in progress, allowing more time to show off just what an unspeakably "godless" bastard Hugo really was. He not only kidnaps a local girl, he has the nerve to beat up and torture her father for daring to OBJECT to his wish to RAPE his daughter! But when he winds up delibrately KILLING the girl instead, well, that's just going too far.


Funny thing, after having watched these 5 different versions in 5 days, I'm actually tempted to watch the Ian Richardson version AGAIN.  With all the different characters and plot elements between the different versions, I'm not surprised that years ago I felt compelled to take notes as to what was in each film.

[Menticide]

FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE

I still remember being shocked when I first figured out years back that Van Cleef played two completely different parts between this and THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY (in the latter, HE was the villain). But then, more and more comments I'm finding online suggest the 3 films aren't REALLY connected, and Eastwood isn't necessarily playing the same character in them.  Could be!

The Man With No Name was a creation of United Artists when they handled the American release of the movies. Technically he has a different name in all three movies, he's Joe in one, Blondie in another, and Manco (or something like that) in For a Few Dollars More.

This is actually not that rare when it comes to Euro-Westerns. Actors would switch from one character to another in multiple sequels, there would be tons of unofficial sequels (the Sartana and Django series are good examples of that), and the names of the movies are switched around from one country to another.

The original Django was so popular in Germany that for years after every other movie that Franco Nero starred in was re-named to make it appear as if it was a Django sequel, even though there was only one official sequel, and it was made some twenty years later. There was also a ton of Spaghetti Westerns with the name Django worked into the title that are completely unofficial sequels.

There are also a lot of Euro-Westerns with names like Fistful of Lead, One Dollar too Many, and For a Few Dollars Less. There was even a Spaghetti Western actor that went by the name of Clint Westwood.

[profh0011]

As I understand it, THE GOOD THE BAD THE UGLY was actually released in the US before the other two. Which may explain the following...

Some years back, I figured out what "the man with no name" really refers to. In GOOD BAD & UGLY, the whole plot revolves around the search for stolen gold hidden in a cemetery. Tuco knows which cemetery, Blondie knows which grave.

As it turns out, the money is actually hidden in an UNMARKED grave. So, the secret Blondie had for half the movie was, he knew the grave had NO NAME on it.

I saw the movie all the way thru 3 times before this ever occured to me.

[Menticide]

As I understand it, THE GOOD THE BAD THE UGLY was actually released in the US before the other two. Which may explain the following...

Some years back, I figured out what "the man with no name" really refers to. In GOOD BAD & UGLY, the whole plot revolves around the search for stolen gold hidden in a cemetery. Tuco knows which cemetery, Blondie knows which grave.

As it turns out, the money is actually hidden in an UNMARKED grave. So, the secret Blondie had for half the movie was, he knew the grave had NO NAME on it.

I saw the movie all the way thru 3 times before this ever occured to me.

The films were released in the proper order in the U.S, all the same year, Fistful in January, For a Few Dollars More in May, and the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in December of 1967.

I believe the Man With No Name idea came from the original source material for Fistful of Dollars, the Kurosawa film Yojimbo, because the Toshiro Mifune character uses a gibberish name as an alias, and follows a rather similar course of action to that of Eastwood in Fistful of Dollars.

My question is this, is the Stranger from High Plains Drifter the same character? And, it strikes me as interesting that Harmonica from Once Upon a Time in the West has a lot of the same characteristics, but he was played by Charles Bronson. Is it possible that Sergio Leone originally intended to have Clint play that character?

[Ratty]

FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE

I still remember being shocked when I first figured out years back that Van Cleef played two completely different parts between this and THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY (in the latter, HE was the villain). But then, more and more comments I'm finding online suggest the 3 films aren't REALLY connected, and Eastwood isn't necessarily playing the same character in them.  Could be!

The Man With No Name was a creation of United Artists when they handled the American release of the movies. Technically he has a different name in all three movies, he's Joe in one, Blondie in another, and Manco (or something like that) in For a Few Dollars More.

This is actually not that rare when it comes to Euro-Westerns. Actors would switch from one character to another in multiple sequels, there would be tons of unofficial sequels (the Sartana and Django series are good examples of that), and the names of the movies are switched around from one country to another.

The original Django was so popular in Germany that for years after every other movie that Franco Nero starred in was re-named to make it appear as if it was a Django sequel, even though there was only one official sequel, and it was made some twenty years later. There was also a ton of Spaghetti Westerns with the name Django worked into the title that are completely unofficial sequels.

There are also a lot of Euro-Westerns with names like Fistful of Lead, One Dollar too Many, and For a Few Dollars Less. There was even a Spaghetti Western actor that went by the name of Clint Westwood.

That's interesting. I'm familiar with this kind of movie making/branding and marketing but in a very different place. Namely the ever divisive Hong Kong Brucesploitation genre of martial arts films, which gave us actors such as Bruce Le, Dragon Lee and Bruce Li with movies like "Bruce Lee the Invincible" "Fist of Fury 2" "Bruce Lee in New Guinea" and countless others. I personally love the genre and its actors and believe they played an incalculable role in cementing the memory and legend of the man and his work. Even if many (maybe most?) of those films are bad-to-dreadful as films they're fascinating as studies of popular culture of the time, and usually good as a late night brain rotter if you're in the right mood.
I had no idea this exact sort of thing was going on with Italian films at the same time, I suppose you just can't get away with that kind of misleading marketing these days.
Cross cultural norms in what some might call "sleaze" cinema, very interesting.

[Menticide]

FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE

I still remember being shocked when I first figured out years back that Van Cleef played two completely different parts between this and THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY (in the latter, HE was the villain). But then, more and more comments I'm finding online suggest the 3 films aren't REALLY connected, and Eastwood isn't necessarily playing the same character in them.  Could be!

The Man With No Name was a creation of United Artists when they handled the American release of the movies. Technically he has a different name in all three movies, he's Joe in one, Blondie in another, and Manco (or something like that) in For a Few Dollars More.

This is actually not that rare when it comes to Euro-Westerns. Actors would switch from one character to another in multiple sequels, there would be tons of unofficial sequels (the Sartana and Django series are good examples of that), and the names of the movies are switched around from one country to another.

The original Django was so popular in Germany that for years after every other movie that Franco Nero starred in was re-named to make it appear as if it was a Django sequel, even though there was only one official sequel, and it was made some twenty years later. There was also a ton of Spaghetti Westerns with the name Django worked into the title that are completely unofficial sequels.

There are also a lot of Euro-Westerns with names like Fistful of Lead, One Dollar too Many, and For a Few Dollars Less. There was even a Spaghetti Western actor that went by the name of Clint Westwood.

That's interesting. I'm familiar with this kind of movie making/branding and marketing but in a very different place. Namely the ever divisive Hong Kong Brucesploitation genre of martial arts films, which gave us actors such as Bruce Le, Dragon Lee and Bruce Li with movies like "Bruce Lee the Invincible" "Fist of Fury 2" "Bruce Lee in New Guinea" and countless others. I personally love the genre and its actors and believe they played an incalculable role in cementing the memory and legend of the man and his work. Even if many (maybe most?) of those films are bad-to-dreadful as films they're fascinating as studies of popular culture of the time, and usually good as a late night brain rotter if you're in the right mood.
I had no idea this exact sort of thing was going on with Italian films at the same time, I suppose you just can't get away with that kind of misleading marketing these days.
Cross cultural norms in what some might call "sleaze" cinema, very interesting.

Okay, now we're starting down a path where I can go on forever, and ever. Asian action cinema is probably my favorite general genre, followed by westerns, and I could probably write the most rambling, long-winded, and trivia-packed book on either subject.

[narfstar]

I like westerns but can not set through a kung fu movie

[profh0011]

What we need is a kung-fu western (oh wait, Carridine did that...)




HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER is about a sheriff who's killed (and depending on who you ask, either his brother avenges him, or he comes back from the grave to do it himself-- heh). it is most definitely a "tribute" to the style of the italian films, though.

However, my late friend Jim Neal strongly suggested years back that TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA did feature the same character, as evidenced by his clothes, his m.o., his use of dynamite...  I like to think, if the films are connected, in whatever order they may take place (and let's just completely forget about "historical accuracy" when it comes to weapons, heh), that TWO MULES is the "final" film, as after that I imagined he settled down with Sara.



"Do you mind taking off your hat?"
"There' NO TIME for that!!"

[profh0011]

Today:

DEADLIER THAN THE MALE


It's been at least 20 years since I saw this, and I'm shocked how much MORE I'm enjoying it this time. From the opening scene, you can tell by the fashions, the hairstyles, the decor, and THE MUSIC that this is a "60's" film thru-and-thru. And, it's packed to the gills with a veritable "all-star cast" of English character actors, including Laurence Naismith, Nigel Green, Elke Sommer, the incredibly gorgeous Justine Lord ("The Girl Who Was Death"!!) and other too numerous to list (or remember without looking them up). All led by a young and dashing Richard Johnson ("Who?"), some 25 years before he played Dr. Watson opposite Charlton Heston ("Oh, him..."). You know, he might have made a good BOND...


Perhaps the toughest thing to get my head around is that, while this has a better script and directing than most of the Roger Moore "007" films (but is just about on a par with Roger Moore's "SAINT" episodes), it's really a BULLDOG DRUMMOND movie.  No, really.  Honest!  (I'm not making this up!)


Pity the theme song is so bad... Oh well, now if I can just work my way thru all the commercial breaks on this videotape...

[profh0011]

Tonight:

SHERLOCK HOLMES  (1980)


Now here's an odd one. This is the sort of thing I wish would be done more often-- a film (or video, or wehatever) of a LIVE STAGE PLAY, recorded for posterity for future generations and those who would otherwise never get the chance to see it.


This was a performance of the William Gilette play from WAYYYYYY back, the very same one which introduced the line "Elementary, My dear Watson" that was never once uttered in an Arthur Conan Doyle story.


Among the cast: FRANK LANGELLA as Holmes (I wish there was a tape of his DRACULA stage play), Richard Woods as Dr. Watson, Stephen Collins (from STAR TREK: TMP and SEVENTH HEAVEN) and Dwight Schultz (THE A-TEAM) as 2 of the baddies.


Lots of fun as everything is over-acted for the sake of projecting to the audience, long hesitations waiting for applause or laughter to die down, and other dramatic or melodramatic things you only tend to see in a live performance.  Back in the early 90's, for several years I got regularly into the habit of going to a local theatre to see live plays, and it requires a somewhat different mindset than watching something made for TV or the movies. In this case, even though I'm watching something on TV, the mindset for enjoying a live play is still the same.


Langella is not by any means the best or most authentic Holmes, but then I doubt William Gillette ever was, either! If you would ever have a chance to see this, I reccomend it, if nothing else, it's lots of fun!

[josemas]

Well I'm about 18 episodes into those Green Hornet marathons that I recorded off of the SyFy Channel.  I haven't seen most of these since their original broadcasts during the 1960s (when I only saw them in black and white) but find that they are much as I remember them.  Now I'm recognizing a guest-star actor or two (such as stuntman/actor Harvey Parry or Jeffrey Hunter-Captain Pike in the original Star Trek pilot) that would have escaped me during my childhood watchings.
A pity these episodes were chopped up so SyFy could cram in more commercials as they generally look great.  I'd love to get a DVD collection of them.  Sorta' surprised that it hasn't happened what with the release of the new movie and all.

BBC America finally wrapped up our season of Primeval (we're always, at least, a few weeks behind the original broadcasts in Great Britain) this past month and started running the new season of Being Human on the same day.  Watching the new season of the BBC's Being Human has been sort of strange because SyFy is currently about half way through their first season of the American remake which has a totally different cast and is generally covering territory already covered in the original British series.  So I'm going a little schizo bouncing back and forth each week between the two versions of the same series.

Best

Joe

[paw broon]

The Green Hornet series. The dvd set I have of this is a bit dodgy and I bought it a couple of years ago at a Glasgow Collectormania thingy. I now think it's a copy of a box set because there are no ad. breaks and the quality, apart from the pilot episode, is good.  I'm now sorely tempted to watch the first serial tonight, or at least the first few episodes 'cos my wife is going out with some pals for a bit of a jolly to a classy Italian restaurant in Edinburgh and she doesn't really like this stuff. 
Don't want to say much about Primeval as I don't know how far on you are (apart from, Holy Macaroni, that was good). In the same way, I don't want anyone telling me what happens in the new season of Castle as it doesn't start here till next week.
Not fond of Being Human.
We recently re-watched Girl In The Headlines which co-stars a young Jeremy Brett.  This is a b&w British policier with Ian Hendry and Ronald Fraser made in 1963.  Quite gritty in places and really well done.
Last night, probably because it was mentioned recently, we watched Ask A Policeman.  Laughed our socks off.

[josemas]

I've seen a few of those bootleg Green Hornet DVD-R sets out there but have been holding out for the real thing.

The wife was the first one to watch Being Human (she's very much into the vampire stuff) and I started watching because I was off work those nights when it was on and then I got into it too (I'm more into werewolves which this series also has).

Don't believe I've ever seen Girl in the Headlines.  I'll watch for it.

Ask a Policeman-one of Will Hay's best. IMHO.

Best

Joe

[profh0011]

Just got done watching "SCAT! DARN CATWOMAN" Although ABC ran this story OUT OF SEQUENCE originally, and so it has been run OUT OF SEQUENCE every single time it's been seen on TV ever ever since, on MY videotapes I copied it IN THE PROPER sequence. See... this was the LAST Julie Newmar episode of BATMAN. (Or it should have been, barring HALFWIT IDIOT programmers.) And after her debut story, I'd rank it as her 2nd-best story.


It's like this... in the "SANDMAN" story, Batman tells Catwoman he'll put in a good word for her after she betrays her partner.


In "CATWOMAN GOES TO COLLEGE" (run last-- those IDIOTS), she's let out of jail on parole. Could it be any more obvious it was intended as a DIRECT sequel to the SANDMAN story?? At the end, she regrets having to go back to prison. She also tells Bruce Wayne he's a nice guy, but her "heart belongs to Batman".


"THAT DARN CATWOMAN" opens with her out of jail again, and this time with a young protoge, "Pussycat" (Leslie Gore). Robin is drugged, instantly becomes a "bully", attacks Chief O'Hara, and wants to make time with Pussycat. (In the previous Cat-story, Robin had told Batman, "You may have been taken in by her, but, I'M too young for that sort of thing.") At the cliffhanger, Batman is strapped to a giant MOUSE-TRAP, and Robin is sawing away at the rope holding it up. Catwoman says she wants Batman to become her partner-in-crime-- OR, Robin will be the cause of his death!


So in Part 2 (which network viewers had to wait 6 DAYS to see), Batman agrees, and after taking a Bat-pill (for a headache-- HE claimed), she drugs him.  "Heyyy, Cat-baby-- you got -- a lot of CLASS!" Next thing, the COPS are out to arrest Batman. They try tracing the line of the Bat-Phone, but he's worked out something to send them to the wrong address.  When an "anonymous tip" send the cops to the Cat-Lair (netting both Pussycat AND Robin, just as he was trying to put the moves on her), Catwoman says they'll need another place to hide out. She asks Batman to TRY and remember where the Batcave is (the drug causes amnesia), and he slowly remembers, then pulls out a spray can. "What's that?" WHOOSH! And she's unconscious.  BATMAN was FAKING it!


When she wakes up, she's IN THE BATCAVE! (Her first time there, following the likes of Molly, Miss Limpet, Penguin, his 5 guinea pigs, and later, The Joker, Penguin again, and 3 henchmen.) She asks if there isn't something he wants to DOOOOOO... but he says, first, the heist. She's pleased at how much of a crook he's become. Later, at the Gotham Mint, she asks him to put her arms around her, but just then, her men arrive. "We're READY for the job, boss!" "Your timing is INCREDIBLE!!"


Inside the vault, they find Robin waiting.  Somehow, this doesn't bother her-- she thinks he "escaped" from the cops.  (Actually, Alfred delivered a Bat-antidote, so Robin's alright now.) Batman reveals he was "acting", and merely wanted to find out the weakness in the Mint. FIGHT ensues, Catwoman flees, stealing the Batmobile.


"Chief O'Hara, may I borrow your police car?"
"Are you insured?"
"GIVE HIM the KEYS, O'Hara!!!"

: D


The Duo pursue, and via remote-control, cause the Batmobile to grind to a halt, next to a waterfront warehouse.  Catwoman runs and reaches the roof.  Batman follows.  "You'll NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE!!!" This continues until she reaches an unexpected edge.  He offers to help her reform. She suggests he marry her. He says a wife would interfere with crime-fighting. She says as an ex-crook she could be a great help. "What about Robin?" "Oh.... we'll KILL him." "I can see you're not ready to take your place in society."  "I guess you're right.  Give me your hand..."


As he reaches out, she suddenly FALLS backwards.  Looking over the edge, down to the river 100 feet below, there's no trace of her.  Batman is left in tears.


In the epilogue, everyone seems convinced she's dead and won't be coming back. 



You can see how MIND-NUMBINGLY STUPID it was for them to have run the "COLLEGE" story about a month after this... right?



Henry


PS: My theory is, whether she survived or not, Eartha Kitt was NOT her-- but somebody else, who decided to call herself "Catwoman", since the "real" one, as far as anyone knew, was DEAD! But you only "get" this if you watch them in the RIGHT sequence.


PPS: IF you watch Newmar's episodes in the "correct" order as I suggest, guess what? the VERY NEXT episode after her "death" features Lee Meriweather as heiress "Lisa Carlson". Really, now... her character SHOULD have been "Kathy Kane".  (Think about it!)

[josemas]

Henry, 

Good analysis of those Catwoman episodes of Batman.  I suspect you're right and that they were written in the order you point out.  However they seem to have been produced in the order that ABC ran them, judging by the productions numbers assigned each episode.  ABC did occasionally run episodes out of order of production (for example the Penguin three parter that was originally run after the That/Scat Catwoman two-parter was actually produced prior to that CW two-parter) but not those particular Catwoman episodes.

For the record here's the production numbers for each of those Catwoman episodes.

The Sandman Cometh (1)  (#9715-1)
The Catwoman Goeth (2)  (#9715-2)

That Darn Catwoman (1)  (#9743-1)
Scat! Darn Catwoman (2)  (#9743-2)

Catwoman Goes to College (1)  (#9749-1)
Batman Displays His Knowledge (2)  (#9749-2)

Best

Joe

[paw broon]

Didn't watch the Hornet serial last night.  Instead took in Dr.Who - The War Machines.  This is the first Polly story and despite the cardboard effects, there was enough Quatermass style impending doom atmosphere to make it enjoyable. Hartnell, as often happened, had problems with his lines, but, do we care? No, 'cos it's just too much fun. 

[profh0011]

I suspect you're right and that they were written in the order you point out.  However they seem to have been produced in the order that ABC ran them, judging by the productions numbers assigned each episode.

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.


What continues to surprise me about the show over the years is how many things can make a LOT more sense with just a tiny bit of work or thinking (which the writers usually didn't bother with).  If you reverse the order of those last 2 Newmar stories, a couple weeks later, Bruce Wayne gets involved with "Lisa Carson", an heiress whose father sees Bruce as a potential son-in-law.  She's played by Lee Meriweather. I've long believed KATHY KANE was based on her, since BATWOMAN debuted in the comics the same year she was MISS AMERICA. Just think-- they could have introduced Batwoman on the show, and not needed to create a new Batgirl.

Someone else just suggested it would have made more sense to have "Scat! Darn Catwoman" was the season finale. Not only was it on the heart-rending side, but the 1st scene in the 1st episode of the 3rd season apparently has Batman & Robin wondering if they'll ever see Catwoman again.  (Presumably they were referring to a story that was never filmed, but really...)



I still love the bit where O'Hara asks if Batman has car insurance...

[profh0011]

Tonight-- ONCE AGAIN--


THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES  (1983)


Yes, I watched it AGAIN! After sitting thru 5 versions back-to-back, beginning with Ian Richardson, I decided I just had to see Richardson all over again.  That makes twice I've seen Peter Cushing's in 6 months, twice I've seen Basil Rathbone's in 2 months, and twice I've seen Ian Richardson's in 2 WEEKS.



Having now watched the 2 most faithful-to-the-book versions back-to-back (the interminable Brett & the incredible Baker), it becomes much easier to see ALL the places this version deviates. 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.


From the start... Sir Charles dies in "the gazebo" rather than outdoors.  In the "legend" flashback, a horse falls into the bog, and as Sir Hugo is trying to strangle the peasant girl, the hound LEAPS upward out of the bog, as if FROM HELL itself!  (What a great visual!)  Sir Henry has NO intention of ever travelling to Baskerville Hall, he merely wishes his lawyers to settle the estate... until someone tries to SHOOT him dead in London. Lestrade is in Grimpen from the start, as we find HE was the one who originally apprehended Selden (the escaped murderer). Holmes' disguise as a gypsy (a deviation introduced in the Rathbone version) is repeated here and greatly expanded ("YER FORTUNE, SAAAAIRR???"). Poor Dr. Mortimer's dog, Sheba, runbs off at the sound of the hound, and is KILLED by it! Barrymore finds the remains of the note from Laura Lyons and passes it on to Watson early in the story, rather than midway thru. Laura's husband Jeffrey appears in this version, and becomes a chief suspect-- especially after his WIFE is murdered!


A major change I had to watch these films back-to-back in this fashion to realy take note of occurs when Holmes & Watson finally get to talk with Laura Lyons.  In the book (presumably, as it was IDENTICAL in both the Brett & Baker versions),  Sir Charles received a note to meet her. Her marriage had fallen apart, he'd befriended her, and helped set her up in business as a typist. Further, he'd agreed to help pay legal fees for her divorce, and idea hatched by their "go-between"-- Jack Stapleton-- who offered to MARRY Laura if she could obtain a divorce. But Laura did not show up for the rendezvous, and in both Baker & Bret's versions, we DON'T KNOW WHY. That bothered me. Both versions reveal at this relatively "early" point (75% in) that Stapleton LIED to Laura, because Beryl was Jack's WIFE!


In the Richardson version, Laura was having an AFFAIR with Sir Charles, and did not show up on the night of his death because Stapleton (the go-between) sent her husband Jeffrey an anonymous note telling of the affair, he came home, stopped her leaving, because (As Holmes put it), Sir Charles "had to be there ALONE". In this version, she doesn't get to tell Holmes WHO the go-between is, because onec more, the husband intrudes, giving them an excuse to borrow a scene from an entirely different story, as Jeffrey twists an iron fireplace poker-- and Holmes-- UN-twists it! But after they leave, Stapleton sneaks in and murders Laura to silence her, and Jeffrey winds up in jail accused of it. Holmes says "I was mistaken" and that the case is solved, to give Stapleton the impression that he's in the clear to murder Sir Henry. It's only as Holmes sets his trap he reveals Stapleton is the murderer, pushing this reveal much further to the end than in the book, Brett or baker versions.


For the climax, HOLMES fights the dog rather than Sir Henry, and after, Holmes, Watson & Beryl are all trapped in a hut by Stapleton, who plans to murder all 3 of them. But Holmes gets the drop on him, Jack runs, and falls into the bog, despite Holmes trying to pull him out.


And finally, the reveal that Beryl was Jack's wife is saved for the VERY last scene, where Sir Henry, a most sympathetic, caring person (the romance of them falling in love was built up even better here than it was in the Rathbone version), merely tells her, "That's all over for both of us now.  I would like to WALK upon the moor.", as he takes her hand.



It continus to amaze me that there are no less than FOUR very different films based on the same book that I love equally. Maybe someday someone may do a really "faithful" version which is ALSO beautiful, EXCITING, and a grerat movie at the same time. But I'm beginning to doubt it...