Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

101 is designed for beginners with questions about the site, SCM, or early comedy. Use this forum without fear of taunting from advanced users or the local curmudgeons.
David B Pearson
Capo
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:15 pm

Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

Postby David B Pearson » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:06 pm

Because newbies might be intimidated by zero posts, and its the obvious starting question.

Other obvious ones...

Why is ranking beyond that utterly pointless? Why isn't (Fill in the blank) up there with the "Big Three?"

Where is the line between a short comedy and a feature comedy.

Where's the Girl comics forums? Like Dorothy Gish, Dutch Talmadge and Colleen Moore?

Why aren't there plots in Larry Semon films?

Why was Roscoe Arbuckle called Fatty when Mack Swain outweighed him by at least 50 pounds?

Why is Harry Langdon's face so white.

Why is Lloyd Hamilton so much better without Bud Duncan?

Why are Laurel and Hardy so darned funny?

Why didn't Lupino Lane make it bigger than he did?

Why is the sky blue, yet looks white on silent film?

What's a reel anyway?

Why did somebody dunk this film into brown and/or blue dye?

What is under/over cranking?

Why didn't Griffith make great comedies? (DW, not Raymond)

That should be a start....

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2414
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

Postby Richard M Roberts » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:32 pm

David B Pearson wrote:Because newbies might be intimidated by zero posts, and its the obvious starting question.

Other obvious ones...

Why is ranking beyond that utterly pointless? Why isn't (Fill in the blank) up there with the "Big Three?"

Where is the line between a short comedy and a feature comedy.

Where's the Girl comics forums? Like Dorothy Gish, Dutch Talmadge and Colleen Moore?

Why aren't there plots in Larry Semon films?

Why was Roscoe Arbuckle called Fatty when Mack Swain outweighed him by at least 50 pounds?

Why is Harry Langdon's face so white.

Why is Lloyd Hamilton so much better without Bud Duncan?

Why are Laurel and Hardy so darned funny?

Why didn't Lupino Lane make it bigger than he did?

Why is the sky blue, yet looks white on silent film?

What's a reel anyway?

Why did somebody dunk this film into brown and/or blue dye?

What is under/over cranking?

Why didn't Griffith make great comedies? (DW, not Raymond)



Why do you care?

Why am I bothering to answer?

RICHARD M ROBERTS (yeah, i know we're supposed to be nice to newbies here on the Bunny Slope, but Pearson ain't a newbie)

Sara Ackerman
Cugine
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:23 pm

Re: Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

Postby Sara Ackerman » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:35 pm

Let me give this a try. (clears throat--Don't yell at me, David; these are just my thoughts)

Why is ranking beyond that utterly pointless? I dunno.

The difference between a short comedy and a feature comedy is the comedian (and his staff) have to come up with more laughs for a feature comedy than they have to do with a short comedy. I mean, I know some of the features are only an hour long, but you have to come up with enough laughs to keep their audience's attention for that length of time.

I think somebody can come up with a Girl comics forum. That wouldn't be hard to do.

The plots in Larry Semon's films are to make people laugh. Period. Not all films have to have plots.

I'm not getting into the Arbuckle/Swain conversation. :D

Langdon's face is white because he applied too much makeup on before the camera's rolled. Buster's face is just as white as Langdon's was. Same with Chaplin and Lloyd.

I haven't seen any of Bud Duncan's films, so I can't reply to this.

Laurel and Hardy are so darned funny because...they just are. :D

Lupino Lane...good question. I've only seen his silent films. Maybe his type of comedy in talkies wasn't what the audience was interested in.

The reason the sky looks white in a silent film is because the film couldn't handle the dark tones; it would change the tones to white colors.

According to Wikipedia: A reel is an object around which lengths of another material (usually long and flexible) are wound for storage. Generally a reel has a cylindrical core and walls on the sides to retain the material wound around the core. In some cases the core is hollow, although other items may be mounted on it, and grips may exist for mechanically turning the reel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel

About tinting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_film#Tinting

Under/over cranking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_film#Projection_speed

If I could've interviewed DW Griffith, I would've been able to answer your question. Since I wasn't able to, I can't answer your question. ;D

Sara

David B Pearson wrote:Because newbies might be intimidated by zero posts, and its the obvious starting question.

Other obvious ones...

Why is ranking beyond that utterly pointless? Why isn't (Fill in the blank) up there with the "Big Three?"

Where is the line between a short comedy and a feature comedy.

Where's the Girl comics forums? Like Dorothy Gish, Dutch Talmadge and Colleen Moore?

Why aren't there plots in Larry Semon films?

Why was Roscoe Arbuckle called Fatty when Mack Swain outweighed him by at least 50 pounds?

Why is Harry Langdon's face so white.

Why is Lloyd Hamilton so much better with Bud Duncan?

Why are Laurel and Hardy so darned funny?

Why didn't Lupino Lane make it bigger than he did?

Why is the sky blue, yet looks white on silent film?

What's a reel anyway?

Why did somebody dunk this film into brown and/or blue dye?

What is under/over cranking?

Why didn't Griffith make great comedies? (DW, not Raymond)

That should be a start....

Louie Despres
Associate
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

Postby Louie Despres » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:44 pm

More of this pointless bull****??

Will there ever be a forum dealing with silent film comedy where this ****ing subject isn't brought up???

I mean, who really gives a f***, can't we all just laugh at everything???

David B Pearson
Capo
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:15 pm

Re: Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

Postby David B Pearson » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:51 pm

Louie Despres wrote:More of this pointless bull****??

Will there ever be a forum dealing with silent film comedy where this f****** subject isn't brought up???

I mean, who really gives a f***, can't we all just laugh at everything???


Hey, it's the questions newbies ask!

El Brendel? Did he do comedy?

DBP

David B Pearson
Capo
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:15 pm

Re: Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

Postby David B Pearson » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:54 pm

Richard M Roberts wrote:
David B Pearson wrote:Why do you care?

Why am I bothering to answer?

RICHARD M ROBERTS (yeah, i know we're supposed to be nice to newbies here on the Bunny Slope, but Pearson ain't a newbie)


Because ZERO posts implies the newbie is all alone in the forest.
Weren't you paying attention?

DBP

Louie Despres
Associate
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

Postby Louie Despres » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:59 pm

David B Pearson wrote:
El Brendel? Did he do comedy?

DBP


According to many people, no.
Last edited by Louie Despres on Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thomas Reeder
Cugine
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:40 am

Re: Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

Postby Thomas Reeder » Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:02 pm

More of this pointless bull****??

Will there ever be a forum dealing with silent film comedy where this ******* subject isn't brought up???

I mean, who really gives a ****, can't we all just laugh at everything???


Your diligent censor at work.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2414
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

Postby Richard M Roberts » Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:09 pm

Why do you care?

Why am I bothering to answer?

RICHARD M ROBERTS (yeah, i know we're supposed to be nice to newbies here on the Bunny Slope, but Pearson ain't a newbie)


Because ZERO posts implies the newbie is all alone in the forest.
Weren't you paying attention?

DBP[/quote]


Like this conversation isn't going to frighten them away. Being alone in a forest with a bear is no comfort either.

RICHARD M ROBERTS (Hmmm, if a silent movie is run in a forest, and no one is there to hear it, ........Ahhh, never mind.)

Paul E. Gierucki
Godfather
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 4:23 pm

Re: Why are Keaton, Lloyd and Chaplin the "Big Three?"

Postby Paul E. Gierucki » Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:59 pm

Okay children, this particular forum is for new folks. It is NOT for smart-assery by the pros. That's what the main board is for...

Ha!

Play nice or I'll take away your Charley Chase for two weeks.

-- PG


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest