Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Interact with your favorite SCM authors, producers, directors, historians, archivists and silent comedy savants. Or just read along. Whatever.
Bob Birchard

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Bob Birchard » Sat May 18, 2013 12:56 pm

Richard M Roberts wrote: . . . it is amazing to know that you could actually read Harold Lloyd’s mind in the exact running speeds that he wanted his films run apart from 24 fps. Gaylord Carter told me that Lloyd always wanted his films run at 24 fps, period, and when playing for them he demanded that speed even when more rheostatic flexibility was available. I think Gaylord knew Harold better than you did, and certainly worked with those films a lot longer, though perhaps he couldn’t pierce the veil and read his mind. And to the Lloyd Estates credit, the speeds on their last Lloyd DVD set were for the most part fine (too slow on some of the one-reelers, the features were good).


Never claimed to be able to read Harold Lloyd's mind, only that I had conversations with him on the topic of film speeds, and that he preferred 24 fps to then available alternatives. He was well aware that 24 fps did not always reflect the speeds at which the features had originally been projected--but he preferred 24 to other options availavble at the time. As for variable speed projection, back in the 1960s such capability didn't really exist. Nor did full frame projection. (Yes, there were exceptions, but you could count them on the pitching hand of Three-Finger Brown). Lloyd was interested in making sure his pictures would play as well as they could with the technologies then available. So, no step printing, and rather than leave the films to the mercies of whatever aperture plates and lenses a theater might have, he prepared "window box" prints with the original Full Frame image reduced to 1.85 safe with matted-in curtains right and left of the image to avoid black on the sides.

Also never claimed that I knew Harold Lloyd as well or as long as Gaylord Carter knew Harold Lloyd, which was about 45 years. I first met Lloyd in 1963, but can't claim to have really known him before 1969. But, to respond to your irrelevancy with one of my own, I'm reasonably certain that I knew Gaylord Carter longer than you did (37 years). What I was able to do was to sit in on many of the scoring sessions that Gaylord did for Lloyd. The films were scored reel by reel, with Gaylord improvising and then Lloyd would often make comments and suggestions and Gaylord would go for another take. As I have mentioned before elsewhere, this was really the last creative film work that Harold Lloyd did. His desire was to have scores that would reflect what audiences had heard in the 1920s. There was no mind reading involved, Lloyd was very articulate about these points.


Awwwwww-----did you hear that you bitches in Cell Block 11! He misses me!

Well, if you miss me so damn much, one public apology and a retraction on Nitrateville would wipe the slate clean (careful Roberts, if he does it, you’d actually have to be nice to him again). I still won’t come to Cinecon unless you actually show something I want to see, but at least I’d nod to you if we’re passing each other in a Theater Aisle.

And see, I was right, book sales are not affected by personal likes and dislikes.

RICHARD M ROBERTS



On a scale of one to ten, ten being best, I'd have to say maybe a three, and rather than apologize for some imagined slight I may or may not have committed, I'll just borrow a quote and say that "Love means never having to say you're sorry" and let it go at that. Have a good life, Richard, and don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Looking forward to reading your book. I'f you'll sell me one in Culpepper, I'll buy it. If not I'll order it from Jack Hardy when he makes it available.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Richard M Roberts » Sat May 18, 2013 6:08 pm

Bob Birchard wrote:
Richard M Roberts wrote: . . . it is amazing to know that you could actually read Harold Lloyd’s mind in the exact running speeds that he wanted his films run apart from 24 fps. Gaylord Carter told me that Lloyd always wanted his films run at 24 fps, period, and when playing for them he demanded that speed even when more rheostatic flexibility was available. I think Gaylord knew Harold better than you did, and certainly worked with those films a lot longer, though perhaps he couldn’t pierce the veil and read his mind. And to the Lloyd Estates credit, the speeds on their last Lloyd DVD set were for the most part fine (too slow on some of the one-reelers, the features were good).


Never claimed to be able to read Harold Lloyd's mind, only that I had conversations with him on the topic of film speeds, and that he preferred 24 fps to then available alternatives. He was well aware that 24 fps did not always reflect the speeds at which the features had originally been projected--but he preferred 24 to other options availavble at the time. As for variable speed projection, back in the 1960s such capability didn't really exist. Nor did full frame projection. (Yes, there were exceptions, but you could count them on the pitching hand of Three-Finger Brown). Lloyd was interested in making sure his pictures would play as well as they could with the technologies then available. So, no step printing, and rather than leave the films to the mercies of whatever aperture plates and lenses a theater might have, he prepared "window box" prints with the original Full Frame image reduced to 1.85 safe with matted-in curtains right and left of the image to avoid black on the sides.

Also never claimed that I knew Harold Lloyd as well or as long as Gaylord Carter knew Harold Lloyd, which was about 45 years. I first met Lloyd in 1963, but can't claim to have really known him before 1969. But, to respond to your irrelevancy with one of my own, I'm reasonably certain that I knew Gaylord Carter longer than you did (37 years). What I was able to do was to sit in on many of the scoring sessions that Gaylord did for Lloyd. The films were scored reel by reel, with Gaylord improvising and then Lloyd would often make comments and suggestions and Gaylord would go for another take. As I have mentioned before elsewhere, this was really the last creative film work that Harold Lloyd did. His desire was to have scores that would reflect what audiences had heard in the 1920s. There was no mind reading involved, Lloyd was very articulate about these points.


Awwwwww-----did you hear that you bitches in Cell Block 11! He misses me!

Well, if you miss me so damn much, one public apology and a retraction on Nitrateville would wipe the slate clean (careful Roberts, if he does it, you’d actually have to be nice to him again). I still won’t come to Cinecon unless you actually show something I want to see, but at least I’d nod to you if we’re passing each other in a Theater Aisle.

And see, I was right, book sales are not affected by personal likes and dislikes.

RICHARD M ROBERTS



On a scale of one to ten, ten being best, I'd have to say maybe a three, and rather than apologize for some imagined slight I may or may not have committed, I'll just borrow a quote and say that "Love means never having to say you're sorry" and let it go at that. Have a good life, Richard, and don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Looking forward to reading your book. I'f you'll sell me one in Culpepper, I'll buy it. If not I'll order it from Jack Hardy when he makes it available.





Bob Birchard everyone! Give him a hand as he exits a completely pointless snit and snarkfest!

(Whew, dodged that bullet, knew he’d choke on the terms. Birchard ever apologize or admit he was wrong? Never. )




RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Richard M Roberts » Tue May 21, 2013 2:36 am

Well, it has been somewhat fun and somewhat boring taking a gander at Nutrateville this last week as they try to pick up the pieces without me. It’s looked like several nameless ones have tried to shoot for position as the new Roberts, momsnee and ftwerp had a spit-fest on the MPAA Starts Website Listing Legal Ways to Download thread, then some other newbie alias called tonic lotion got on and had a snit fit about someone possibly impuning the sacred name of Harold Lloyd on the Re: Safety Last Blu-Ray thread and even David Shepard got on to remind them what happened to the last guy who crossed him…..I mean got out of line on that newsgroup and Bruce Calvert already threatened them with groupal extinction. The Censor Police and the right-minded elite are in force over there for sure. Jim Neibaur felt it safe to show his face, especially since I can’t correct him, hoping someone might consider him a comedy expert, and apart from that, it was just basically kinda deadly dull. Keep up the good work Kids.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Louie Despres
Associate
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Louie Despres » Tue May 21, 2013 3:03 pm

Pretty boring over there now :(

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Richard M Roberts » Fri May 31, 2013 4:23 pm

Snuck over to Nutrateville for a peek today, boy, is it dull over there, not even anything worth correcting or commenting on in weeks, but it was fun to see the "all collectors and/or archives are greedy hoarders and we have the right to see anything anyone owns whether they like it or not" arguement going on again for one more endless time, and that important Nutrateville "civility" going down the tubes whether yours truly is there or not. I won't even post the old Roberts rules of film viewing again here as it's still over there on Nutrateville plenty of times (unless Gebert has censored all of them), but once again the fact remains that a lot of the Cinenerd population are just whiny uber-consumer babies that think they're entitled to see whatever they want, however they want, for as little as they want to pay. And when the ones with sense call them on this, they bang their pacifiers and get nasty, whether it's me telling them that or someone else.

And the cool thing, is that they populate Nutrateville, not here.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh.........


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Louie Despres
Associate
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Louie Despres » Fri May 31, 2013 6:03 pm

Richard M Roberts wrote:Snuck over to Nutrateville for a peek today, boy, is it dull over there, not even anything worth correcting or commenting on in weeks, but it was fun to see the "all collectors and/or archives are greedy hoarders and we have the right to see anything anyone owns whether they like it or not" arguement going on again for one more endless time, and that important Nutrateville "civility" going down the tubes whether yours truly is there or not. I won't even post the old Roberts rules of film viewing again here as it's still over there on Nutrateville plenty of times (unless Gebert has censored all of them), but once again the fact remains that a lot of the Cinenerd population are just whiny uber-consumer babies that think they're entitled to see whatever they want, however they want, for as little as they want to pay. And when the ones with sense call them on this, they bang their pacifiers and get nasty, whether it's me telling them that or someone else.

And the cool thing, is that they populate Nutrateville, not here.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh.........


RICHARD M ROBERTS


Pardon my French, but that thread is fucking ridiculous. Some prick who thinks everything needs to be saved but will be the first to bitch when a DVD release comes from a 16mm dupe. Dipshits galore.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Richard M Roberts » Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:14 pm

Louie Despres wrote:Pardon my French, but that thread is fucking ridiculous. Some prick who thinks everything needs to be saved but will be the first to bitch when a DVD release comes from a 16mm dupe. Dipshits galore.



I loved you nailing the one whiner as being a greedy bastard who won't give to charities without getting something in return. ( I once gave to a home for wayward girls, and they didn't send me one wayward girl!!!!!).

I also see that same fellow is whining about Festival showings not being good enough because he doesn't have the cash to go to them, which makes me ask, do a lot of the nameless paople actually understand how the Movie Business worked? When these movies were new, you had to have the quarter to a dollar to see them, if you didn't have it, you didn't get to see it. Today, these are archaic old films that the majority could care less about and are completely out of the distribution system for current films, so it costs a bit more to see them? This is why they are so damn lucky to be seeing so much, but one does have to make extra effort to see even those archaic films that are so obscure that even so few in this niche' area of interest would pay to see them. This is an elitist hobby by force and circumstance, not choice. If you can;t deal with that, go to current movies, they are easier to get to see.

And yes, you know this is the same person who would scream to high heaven if their DVD's transfers are not pristine perfect.

Again, the level of maturity at Nitrateville is a bit sad, but even sadder is the level of reality.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Jim Reid
Cugine
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:31 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Jim Reid » Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:20 pm

It's pretty annoying listening to them whine.

Do you think this is part of the me generation? A film doesn't exist unless I can have a copy.
If I can't have it, don't bother restoring it!

I'm starting to sound like an old man. Get off my lawn!

Joe Migliore
Cugine
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:57 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Joe Migliore » Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:52 pm

Jim Reid wrote:
It's pretty annoying listening to them whine.

Do you think this is part of the me generation? A film doesn't exist unless I can have a copy.
If I can't have it, don't bother restoring it!

I'm starting to sound like an old man. Get off my lawn!


There does seem to be a misplaced sense of entitlement that can only come after the advent of the internet and the VCR. Those of us of a certain age, who had to actively seek the information we needed, had no reasonable expectation of actually seeing many of these these films, but were always happy when a print turned up somewhere. Remember how many Laurel & Hardy shorts were still missing in Bill Everson's book? I never thought I would see WHY GIRLS LOVE SAILORS or even DUCK SOUP, but I am grateful that I can, and I would bet that most of the posters here feel the same way.

Don't get me started on the blu-ray whiners. Infants.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Richard M.Roberts Banned from Nitrateville

Postby Richard M Roberts » Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:21 pm

Joe Migliore wrote:Jim Reid wrote:
It's pretty annoying listening to them whine.

Do you think this is part of the me generation? A film doesn't exist unless I can have a copy.
If I can't have it, don't bother restoring it!

I'm starting to sound like an old man. Get off my lawn!


There does seem to be a misplaced sense of entitlement that can only come after the advent of the internet and the VCR. Those of us of a certain age, who had to actively seek the information we needed, had no reasonable expectation of actually seeing many of these these films, but were always happy when a print turned up somewhere. Remember how many Laurel & Hardy shorts were still missing in Bill Everson's book? I never thought I would see WHY GIRLS LOVE SAILORS or even DUCK SOUP, but I am grateful that I can, and I would bet that most of the posters here feel the same way.




And Bill Everson was lucky that Youngson turned up SHOULD MARRIED MEN GO HOME? in time for him to update that part of the book before he turned it in to Citadel.

As someone who has spent a lifetime turning up prints one at a time, staying up till all hours to see rare showings of films on the late, late shows, and squinted at nitrates on flatbeds or 8mm prints shown in the wall in someone’s bedroom, I just want to slap any of these whiny idiots who go nuts if they see a cuemark on a Blu-Ray or babble about tiny frames of missing footage in a transfer. Yes, we are all getting to be old men who had to walk twenty miles in the snow to go to school, but this Me Me Generation indeed has no clue how fortunate they really are, and to blame the Archives which are just trying to survive at the moment when so many of these treasures that do come out on TCM or DVD’s have indeed come from materials preserved or restored by them is such a classic biting the hand that feeds them that they should be muzzled, leashed and hit with a stick.

In fairness, there are a few sane heads trying to argue with them (and I’ll even argue with Jack Theakston, who says the Collectors, Archives, and Studios are still circling each other with suspicion. Well, perhaps, but nowhere near what it was thirty years ago, as a collector, I have had good relations with most of the Archives for going on thirty years now, and Archives are definitely way more collector friendly. A lot of collectors are donating their collections to Archives these days.), but whether done politely or not, it does not seem to shake any of these babies from their opinions. They want it now, and they are never wrong. What a bunch of assholes.


RICHARD M ROBERTS


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests