| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Gregbert |
#221 | |||
|
Posts: 6 07/05/09 11:00:08 |
Drac39 wrote: I was just checking in for the same reason. I know things take time, I just hope the scent on finding this film hasn't gone completely cold. Since this article came out, I have gotten into more and more silent films and been loving it. Now I hope that we can all see this one soon! Take care, Greg |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Jason Grove |
#222 | |||
|
Posts: 339 07/12/09 19:54:25 |
Drac39 wrote: Drac, From where I am sitting, I have a view behind the scenes here. Yes there are updates. No, they just can't be made public at this time. And Drac, this is no way aimed toward you, but I also know that if some of our most vocal critics had ACTED on their own on this matter, rather than just REACTING to information Sid first made public in his article, we'd have probably seen some major movement on this matter decades ago. Which makes me wonder if any of these armchair 'experts' who seem to have the most to say are really very expert at all? Or if all the naysayers who claim to be on the inside, really are on the inside or just running their mouths in order to sound important publicly. I strongly suspect the 2nd choice to be true. Sid was, after all, telling this story verbally in public for well over a decade before this article came out. While on one hand we may be in a bit of a race against time when it comes to the Nitrate aspects of some film stocks, realize that London After Midnight was considered lost for most of the last century. For us to expect it to get unlost overnight (or even in a year) would be folly. Only one who was truly a complete outsider would expect that. Love,
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Drac39 |
#223 | |||
|
Posts: 15 08/04/09 23:53:16 |
I look forward to any new details |
|||
|
|
||||
|
digger |
#224 | |||
|
Posts: 1 08/24/09 15:27:16 |
Hoax? Maybe. That would be the easy answer.
we all learn ther are no monsters. No giants. No magic. I say tilt at your windmills. For once this windmill was a Giant and it should be again. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
FilmFan |
#225 | |||
|
Posts: 5 10/18/09 16:39:53 |
I'm new here & I'm so hoping that this is the real deal. I'm a huge horror film fan, especially the early ones, & have seen Mark of the
Vampire(the re-make) & the strung together version made of production stills, but would love to see the real movie. BTW, does anyone know anything about a
lost scene from the original King Kong?
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Sid Terror |
#226 | |||
|
Posts: 603 10/19/09 17:15:13 |
FilmFan wrote: There were several of what were long considered "lost scenes" from King Kong. Most of them have been restored now and have been since the 1980's. The scenes of King stomping - eating - throwing natives and doing the same to the citizens of New York are probably the highlights. For the 50th anniversary of the film at the Grauman's (now Mann's) Chinese Theater in Hollywood, I sat behind Fay Wray during the screening. Talking to her afterwards I asked what she had thought of the restored scenes and how it felt to see them again, and was surprised to learn that she had only seen the film herself about three or so times since it had been released in 1933! So I was lucky enough to be there with her during one of the few times she ever saw the film! Of course, the one notorious scene that has not been restored and is now considered lost is the Spider Pit sequence that took place on Kong Island after Kong shook Carl Denham's men off of the log bridge and they fell into the crevasse. In the recent remake (one of the few remakes that I can stomach because it is one of the few that truly honors the original film) Peter Jackson included a Spider Pit scene. I've heard that on the DVD in the extras, he included a recreation of the original Spider Pit scene, but I have to admit that I've not seen it. It is, after all, only a recreation that is based on wild speculation and a couple of rare grainy photos that exist of the sequence. SID TERROR
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
FilmFan |
#227 | |||
|
Posts: 5 10/19/09 18:05:21 |
Thanx, the spider Pit is the one i was wondering about yeah. :) Has there been any progress in the Hunt for London after Midnight? I remember hearing about
this film from my grandpa, who saw it when he snuck into his local movie theater at 10 yrs. old. He said it was one of the greatest movies he ever saw, I hope
one day I can sit down & watch this movie & think of my grandpa. :} You have my support! Keep fighting the good fight.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Sid Terror |
#228 | |||
|
Posts: 603 10/19/09 21:28:19 |
Any updates or progress concerning LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT that can be talked about publically is in the other folder at: http://thehorrordrunx.yuku.com/topic/753
Other than that, nothing new to report. --Sid Terror
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
FilmFan |
#229 | |||
|
Posts: 5 10/22/09 15:35:13 |
I just read that before died, Lon Chaney was originally supposed to play Count Dracula in the original Dracula. I wonder how different that movie would have
been if the Man of 1,000 Faces had put his own spin on Dracula's appearance. Does anyone know if any uhh, audition or test shots or a scene was ever filmed
of this? 'Cause that would be amazing to see :)
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Jason Grove |
#230 | |||
|
Posts: 339 10/23/09 04:32:06 |
FilmFan wrote: Yes, that would be amazing to see, but I don't think it was ever done. You know, it was Bela Lugosi that actually used his influence and friendship with Bram Stokers widow to help Tod Browning, Lon Chaney, and the studio secure the movie rights for Dracula. I think that had Lon Chaney portrayed Dracula, we may have seen something a bit closer to his description in the novel, that is if he'd followed the same pattern that he did with The Phantom Of The Opera and The Hunchback Of Notre Dame. Then again, it was Lugosi's version of the Count that had become popular on the stage at that time, so Chaney may have followed his lead. I always thought that Chaney had patterned his London After Midnight character more on Varney The Vampire in the penny dreadfuls... 
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Gregbert |
#231 | |||
|
Posts: 6 11/01/09 09:05:16 |
Sid,
Thanks for the update. Have you seen the print or is this going off their word? This is not meant to be an offensive remark to the people who have it, I am just curious. I suppose this collector is big collector of film compared to some who dabbles? As you said you are in for the long haul and so are many of us with you. I certainly appreciate your efforts and work. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Sid Terror |
#232 | |||
|
Posts: 603 11/04/09 06:11:52 |
Gregbert wrote: Greg, Yes, it is in the archives of a big and very well-known collector in another country. I was first made aware of this particular print through a close long-time friend of mine who had viewed at least part of it projected on a screen. It was shown to them several years ago by an assistant to the collector. They were not even sure at the time exactly what it was that they had seen, not being quite as well schooled in the film, it was only later that they made the connection. My article jogged their memory, which would have remained forgotten otherwise. Through my friend, we contacted the assistant, who they are still friends with. The assistant confirmed that it was indeed exactly what we thought it was. From there, negotiations began. That is as detailed as I can get without saying something I have given my promise I would keep confidential. Thank you, SID TERROR
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Gregbert |
#233 | |||
|
Posts: 6 11/08/09 11:18:17 |
This is great news! Thank you for the reply!
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Neanderthal78 |
London After Midnight | #234 | ||
|
Posts: 1 02/22/10 00:49:03 |
Hey Sid,
I'm new to this board but not knew to the story of London After Midnight. I just got done reading your article and some of the updates and I was floored. All I can say is that you've got a fan in Pittsburgh who's pulling for you. Good luck and please keep us up to date on any breaking news. If there's anything I can do to help please let me know. |
|||
|
|
||||
