Charlton Heston Forums

The only forum on the internet dedicated to Charlton Heston
It is currently Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:07 pm

All times are UTC



Welcome
Welcome to Charlton Heston Forums - The only forum on the internet dedicated to the legendary actor Charlton Heston!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Earthquake
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:22 am 
Offline
Damned Dirty Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:18 pm
Posts: 2636
Location: Sweden
EL-CID-1983 wrote:
Now if they had stuck to the original ending with Chuck living and Kennedy dying, would that have made the ending less shocking or touching?

Definitely. Chuck was the star of the movie and though we're certainly used to see him die on screen ( :lol: ), it was quite a way for him to go out. Totally unexpected. Both reasons mentioned is right on the money. Him surviving with his mistress would have been in pretty poor taste.

_________________
Image
You know, McKay, you're a bigger fool than I thought you were. And to tell you the truth, that just didn't seem possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Earthquake
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:37 pm 
Offline
Call Me Harry
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:36 am
Posts: 274
Detective Thorn wrote:
EL-CID-1983 wrote:
Now if they had stuck to the original ending with Chuck living and Kennedy dying, would that have made the ending less shocking or touching?

Definitely. Chuck was the star of the movie and though we're certainly used to see him die on screen ( :lol: ), it was quite a way for him to go out. Totally unexpected. Both reasons mentioned is right on the money. Him surviving with his mistress would have been in pretty poor taste.

And I'm inclined to agree. Doesn't Chuck hold the record for most on screen deaths for a leading man?

It seems they planned on doing a sequel that would have focused on the surviving characters facing another disaster, but it never got beyond the script phase. Probably just as well, since the film didn't really lend itself to having a sequel. Some films lend themselves to sequels and some just don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earthquake
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:42 am 
Offline
Prince Judah
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:18 am
Posts: 1360
I actually watched this film again only about a week ago; by chance, I noticed that it was playing on one of the HD Pay channels and the picture was even better than on my DVD so I watched all of it again. After all this time, Heston's demise still gets to me so - yes, I'm on board with the feeling that his character's death generates more impact than if it had been someone else. I liked George Kennedy in this and his death would have also been sad, but there's something about how Heston's death scene was presented - what happens is that Ava Gardner wails as she drowns; you hear her death cries; Heston hears them and is still about to go up that ladder, but Gardner wails again; he can't take it and joins her in death even as Genevieve Bujold beckons to him. Every time I watch this climactic scene, I think 'no Chuck, go up - not down into the water' - it's against all logic for me to think this since the movie is NOT going to change for me this latest time that I'm watching it, but I still think this every time. It's kind of a grand tragedy the way it's done - unusual in such a disaster pic - as if the crazed wife summons her husband to join her in her doom... :twisted: Heavy! (they still used that term back then) ;)

As for the planned sequel, I think it would have taken place in San Francisco - where, of course, the same thing happens. Since it would have featured the survivors of the first film, I suppose that George Kennedy would have been the main star, along with Victoria Principal. I doubt Bujold would have returned; I think she only did the Earthquake film as some contractual obligation and wasn't really into it. I've also been a bit surprised that this and The Towering Inferno didn't have sequels, because they were such big hits, but the whole disaster genre was in the dumps by 1976 so that may have something to do with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earthquake
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 2:24 am 
Offline
Prince Judah
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:18 am
Posts: 1360
San Andreas opened today in theaters and it occurred to me that it's like a very late sequel to Earthquake. As mentioned in the above posts, there was a sequel planned - Earthquake II - in the later seventies which would have probably switched the story to San Francisco... and now we finally get San Andreas. And, I just read one comment on IMDb that claims there's a reference to Earthquake in this new film, but it didn't say what it was, asking others if they caught it. I haven't seen it, just previews, so now I'm wondering what this reference is. (btw, the comment refers to Irwin Allen's Earthquake, which is erroneous of course, so maybe the comment is wrong about the reference anyway)

Based on reviews and other comments, this latest film isn't very good - it rehashes the same characters and plots of other films like 2012, i.e. there's the main character (Dwayne Johnson as a helicopter pilot, sort of the 21st century version of George Kennedy), his ex-wife, and the ex-wife's new rich boyfriend, who I read is a horse's ***. So, it all sounds very familiar. The main plot has Dwayne's pilot searching for his daughter (remember The Day After Tomorrow - the father searches for his son... uh-huh). San Francisco also gets hit by a big wave, besides the quake. It also seems like plugging in a tsunami in many films is very popular these days (Exodus just had one, too).

I'm wondering if they write these rehashes of the same old stuff on purpose, to give audiences that sense of familiarity. But, to me, it sounds dull. It's funny how many people complain about poor writing in the very old seventies disaster films and how these new films seem to be written by high school graders in comparison; at least the old films had a kind of adult feel to them and the characters seemed a lot more real than the cardboard ones in the latest films, which are like video games. Or, these new films are not much different than the SyFy Channel movies I used to watch, done cheaply and quick, except for the expensive computer FX. That's the shame of it - if they could only combine the big FX with good writing; for some reason, they just can't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earthquake
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:21 pm 
Offline
Damned Dirty Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:18 pm
Posts: 2636
Location: Sweden
I prefer the older disaster films for two major reasons: the characters (and actors playing them) and the effects. Today's disaster films are like watching a cartoon, I much prefer mayhem with models being destroyed, the work put into that seems more like a labor of love. Since effects weren't 90% of the movie back in those days, we got more interaction between the characters which made it easier to root for them (or in some cases, hope they get it in the end).

_________________
Image
You know, McKay, you're a bigger fool than I thought you were. And to tell you the truth, that just didn't seem possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earthquake
PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:55 am 
Offline
Prince Judah
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:18 am
Posts: 1360
I don't think this has been mentioned in the Forums and it's not that great a revelation, but this film is playing on a TV set in an early scene of Scarface (1983), at about the 20-minute mark, when Al Pacino as Tony Montana enters an apartment to make his first drug deal; on this TV, it's the scene of George Kennedy chasing after a suspect in his police car and, because the scene in the apartment goes on so long - 6 to 7 minutes - we also see scenes at the Seismological Institute and the actual earthquake of the film, on this TV set, which continues to broadcast the movie as mayhem breaks out in the apartment, including bullets flying all over the place (but the TV survives).

One question I've always had since first seeing Scarface many years ago is why did director Brian DePalma select this film - Earthquake - as the one to be playing on the TV during that famous, pivotal scene? What's the connection, what's the meaning..? Maybe there is none, and it just sets a time and place (Earthquake first aired on TV in 1976 I think). I guess we can speculate that Tony Montana was like a human earthquake about to hit Miami, Florida. :-? Also, this isn't a Heston reference since he doesn't appear in the scenes shown, though it is one of his more popular films.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earthquake
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:47 pm 
Offline
Damned Dirty Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:18 pm
Posts: 2636
Location: Sweden
Chrysagon wrote:
I don't think this has been mentioned in the Forums and it's not that great a revelation, but this film is playing on a TV set in an early scene of Scarface (1983), at about the 20-minute mark, when Al Pacino as Tony Montana enters an apartment to make his first drug deal; on this TV, it's the scene of George Kennedy chasing after a suspect in his police car and, because the scene in the apartment goes on so long - 6 to 7 minutes - we also see scenes at the Seismological Institute and the actual earthquake of the film, on this TV set, which continues to broadcast the movie as mayhem breaks out in the apartment, including bullets flying all over the place (but the TV survives).

One question I've always had since first seeing Scarface many years ago is why did director Brian DePalma select this film - Earthquake - as the one to be playing on the TV during that famous, pivotal scene? What's the connection, what's the meaning..? Maybe there is none, and it just sets a time and place (Earthquake first aired on TV in 1976 I think). I guess we can speculate that Tony Montana was like a human earthquake about to hit Miami, Florida. :-? Also, this isn't a Heston reference since he doesn't appear in the scenes shown, though it is one of his more popular films.

I think I missed that when I watched Scarface a couple of months ago. I don't know if there's any meaning behind it, I don't necessarily think there always is when a movie is playing in the background at some character's home and such. But I do love spotting the movies the characters are watching.

_________________
Image
You know, McKay, you're a bigger fool than I thought you were. And to tell you the truth, that just didn't seem possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earthquake
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:35 pm 
Offline
Prince Judah
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:18 am
Posts: 1360
Detective Thorn wrote:
I think I missed that when I watched Scarface a couple of months ago. I don't know if there's any meaning behind it, I don't necessarily think there always is when a movie is playing in the background at some character's home and such. But I do love spotting the movies the characters are watching.

Sometimes a director chooses these films and scenes for very personal and obscure reasons, such as being in L.A. at the same spots where scenes were filmed; or, it could be simpler: that it's his favorite disaster film of the seventies. And, Tony Montana is heading for a disaster of sorts... ;)

btw, the earthquake scenes were used in an episode of The Incredible Hulk show, in a first season episode late in the season called "Earthquakes Happen." This was in 1978 or 1979. These were cropped versions, having to fit a TV show box shape format. Though it also happened in the L.A. area in the episode, most of the story took place in one spot underneath an atomic lab of some sort, and the hero, Banner, had to help some people escape from the rubble, along with his green alter ego, the Hulk. At the end, when Banner exits and is on the road again, there are no signs of a huge earthquake having hit the rest of the city. :-?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Earthquake
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:29 pm 
Offline
Damned Dirty Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:18 pm
Posts: 2636
Location: Sweden
I have the first season on DVD, but haven't watched it since 2008 I think. I don't remember if I noticed that when I first viewed it. I wonder how many movies of Chuck's has been used as stock footage, if you can call it that? We already know an episode of MacGyver used shots from The Naked Jungle.

_________________
Image
You know, McKay, you're a bigger fool than I thought you were. And to tell you the truth, that just didn't seem possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

suspicion-preferred