Nigel Farage obviously hasn't seen Secret of the Incas ....

I never saw that last Indy picture so can't comment on it. Which is why I have to ask, why would you have thought there might be a reference to This Island Earth in it?

I'm sure we could start up a thread or two over on the TIE board. Another actor in it, Robert Nichols, died in 2013. That leaves Rex Reason, and maybe Lance Fuller. Good color, and because Joseph Newman had a contractual right to direct, it was one of the few Universal sci-fi films not directed by the great Jack Arnold (though he was celled into direct a couple of scenes).

The novel might be worth reading. It has a slightly different title: This Island, Earth -- with a comma. Which really does make a difference.

I saw a list of 1950's movies that were "homaged" in the last Indy movie, and it was quite big. I'll try and dig it up later, hob.

My children despised watching THIS ISLAND EARTH with me in the 1980's because "nothing happens in it!" but I instantly recognized it as a stand-out of 1950's Sci-Fi, which I love. You mentioned abook called "Look to the skies" on another board with an aficionado of the genre, and I was wondering if it is worth buying, assuming its for sale on Amazon.

I asked Nicole Maurey if she had ever dated Lance Fuller ... and she replied (with her right eyebrow totally raised) "Who is he, is he an actor ... I never heard of him!"

Straight away I regretted asking her that question, but I explained that it was printed in a gossip column in a 1954 American newspaper.

"Don't believe anything you read in a newspaper, James!" she advised me (and I tend to agree with her, I am always misquoted on the rare occasions I am interviewed).

I'll have to take another look at THIS ISLAND EARTH before commenting on it further, that is, if I can find the bloody thing. I've got that many dvds now it takes about an hour to find the one I am looking for - and by the time I've located it, I'm past watching it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

The book is called "Keep Watching the Skies", from the famous last line of the movie The Thing From Another World. The author is Bill Warren. It was originally two separate books, covering 1950-1956 in volume I and 1957-1962 in volume II. But subsequent editions have been combined. I'm sure you can find a copy but it might be rather pricey. Just be sure you get the complete tome, not volume I or II alone. A very good source, but beware that it's a bit dated in its info now (the volumes were written in the early 80s), and that the vast majority of entries contain one or more errors of varying degrees.

Re Nicole's "date": maybe Lance Fuller was gay and someone simply paired Nicole with him for a publicity hook-up. No reason she'd remember it.

I'm with you on sifting -- or rather wading -- through my DVDs!

Good grief, you were right about the book being rather pricey, hob, but the reviews on Amazon all are ecstatic about Warren's book. The trouble is Dec - Feb is a rather exp[ensive period for me, three children's birthday, grandchildrena birthday, Christmas presents for everyone, plus the tv license bill comes through the door and my six month visit to the dentist always falls in Feb. This isn't to mention all the other bills that have to be paid promptly. There's more money going out than is coming in these three months. I will probably buy "Keep Watching the Skies" in March, it does sound a real trat.

It was Winchell who posted in his column that Nicole Maurey was dating Fuller, so it was probably hot air, hob, something to fill up his lousy column with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

Walter Winchell? Hot air?! The balloon is going up!

😵

Gee, James, no wonder you imbibed too much for the holidays! It is a rather expensive time for you, there, isn't it? You forgot to mention your pub bill.

At least one thing I don't have to worry about here is a TV license. No government-owned TV or radio to pay for, no government license fee. If any U.S. politician wanted to find a one-way ticket to political oblivion, it would be to propose a television tax!

I keep getting invitations to review things on Amazon but never have. Maybe I'll get involved. I'd like to chime in on "Keep Watching the Skies". My review would be good but not ecstatic, perhaps because I see all those mistakes.

I detest mistakes in books, hob. You are now putting me off buying the book. Have you contacted the author and pointed out "those mistakes." It sounds like they are plentiful.

I thought the author was supposed to be an expert!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

He is an "expert" (he must be 72 or so now), which is why I'm so astounded at the frequency and number of errors. I've thought of plowing through each entry again to take down the number of mistakes. I really believe my estimate that 70% of the entries contain some error is correct, perhaps even conservative.

Perhaps my favorite is for a 1956 film called Man Beast. It was made by a dreadful fast-buck artist of no talent and absolute contempt for his audience named Jerry Warren. (The book's author, Bill Warren, takes pains at each entry for a Jerry Warren film to point out that the two are not related!) Anyway, this is an abominable snowman movie, and actually not too terrible as Warren's films go. Now, because Jerry used stock footage from a couple of Mexican mummy movies in one or two of his later films, Bill states without any foundation whatsoever that Man Beast contains such footage -- which it does not. Even he writes that he's just guessing, but in all references still presents this speculation as fact.

But the real killer is this: Jerry decided that he needed a name that would look good on a theater marquee, so made up the name "Rock Madison" -- obviously a cross between Rock Hudson and Guy Madison. This is not a pseudonym for one of the actors; there is no such person in the movie; it's just a made-up name referring to nobody. But Bill Warren writes that he's found only a few credits in Rock Madison's career, and goes on with a few details of that career -- of a non-existent person! Nor is he confusing "Rock Madison" with an actual person in the film, since he mentions all the real actors in it. Laughably bizarre. I suspect he didn't know who (or what) "Rock" was and just made up some vague details to mask his ignorance.

Anyway, most of his mistakes are in plot details -- he gets many, many wrong, though often in comparatively minor things -- but he also errs in things like foreign names (he mixes up an actor and actress in Mothra); details on the original versions of foreign films that he obviously hasn't seen (mostly Japanese or British; he's clearly seen only the American versions, which were usually cut, and in the case of Japanese films, dubbed): career specifics (e.g., he claims Riders to the Stars was the only film directed by co-star Richard Carlson; in fact he directed half a dozen or so films, but this was the only one he appeared in); source material, and so forth.

For all that, it's definitely worth getting. He's a good writer and has some interesting observations, though I don't agree with a number of his opinions. Just be forewarned about the mountain of mistakes (mostly modest, to be sure) between the covers.

PS: You know, all this does make me sound obnoxious and self-assured: I know all the mistakes this guy made. Who am I to question a published author? Well, I spent a large part of my life watching these films -- my favorite of all genres -- I have an eye and ear for them and know them exceedingly well, many by heart. Yes, as it happens, in most cases better than Bill Warren. But in the scheme of things that does sound superficially arrogant. Nonetheless, I am right.

Now that's arrogant!

I've thought of plowing through each entry again to take down the number of mistakes. I really believe my estimate that 70% of the entries contain some error is correct, perhaps even conservative.

You know something hob, after reading your post I am having second thoughts about purchasing the book. The price is too high, and the biggest no-no is the number of errors in the book. I hate it when I am reading a book and I find something in it that obviously isn't the truth .... it makes me wonder how many other errors are in the book that I don't know about!

70% is ridiculously high, I can't believe the book received such glowing tributes on Amazon.co.uk now. If a book contains at least three errors in it then its totally worthless, in my humble opinion.

So thanks for the tip, hob, you have saved me a load of money. I owe you a pint when we do meet, mate!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

"...it makes me wonder how many other errors are in the book that I don't know about!"

That's precisely my worry when I find a significant number of mistakes in a book. If there are so many I can identify, how many are there I don't know about?

In a number of entries Warren does describe the short story, novel or other source material for a movie, and sometimes describes earlier script concepts. In most cases I'm unfamiliar with these things, but I can't help but assume that some at least contain errors too. The odds certainly favor there being mistakes.

I'm sorry to have put you off the book. As I said, most of his mistakes are small -- noticeable, obviously, since I for one noticed them -- but not crushingly terrible; some are large, and a few ridiculous.

The other thing that bothers me, though this affects only a few entries, is that he readily admits to not having seen all the films in the book -- perhaps 5 or 6 of them (out of almost 200 I think). What bugs me is that, by his own admission not having seen them, he nevertheless ostentatiously judges them and makes very firm pronouncements about them -- all without, in effect, knowing what he's talking about. He cites synopses of the films and others' reviews in making his judgments, but he doesn't say, "From what I've heard this film isn't very good" but rather, "Avoid this film, it isn't good." As it happens, I've seen most of those few, and I'll just say it'd been better had he seen them. Not that he's necessarily wrong (and this aspect is personal opinion anyway), but he should have an idea of what it is he's saying. In some other instances he has seen the film, but not in decades, and again by his own admission acknowledges that his memory on most of them is hazy. Yet he's not shy about making judgments.

At the moment I'm not where I have the book but I remember that two of the films he never saw were The Cosmic Man (1959) and a movie he calls The Cosmic Monster (also known as Cosmic Monsters) (1958), a British film originally titled The Strange World of Planet X in the UK. (He always uses US titles.) I rather liked the titular symmetry of these two unviewed films; yet notwithstanding his personal ignorance of them, he's cosmically certain they're lousy!

How much is the book selling for anyway? Is this in the UK or US?

I just want to know if the price of a pint is commensurate with what I saved you!!



hob, it isn't the cheapest book on the net, is it?
Library Binding £77.22
6 Used from £50.00
10 New from £61.09
Paperback from £57.24
6 Used from £57.24
6 New from £151.88

You have totally put me off the book now, the last straw is the author making absurd comments about movies he hasn't even seen. That is ridiculous. The book gets praised to the skies on Amazon reviews, the author is labelled an "expert" by all and sundry, and nobody points out any errors in the text. Thank goodness that I mentioned the book to you, hob, for I was just about to waste a load of money on a book that is virtually worthless.

Will just two pints be sufficient payment for your knowledgable advice, or should I throw in a packet of cheese and onion crisps as well?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

After posting last night I went onto Amazon US and found the book.

First, I hadn't realized that it had been updated in 2009 (I bought my copy, new, in 2007, two years before both the update and the mast). Also, it's only available in hardcover -- the paperback is the old edition. Here, the lowest price is $90 and some cents, which with the exchange rate is a bit lower than your £77 copy. Still, very expensive.

I read the reviews and am curious whether he's corrected his text sufficiently, with 30+ years to do it in. So -- I splurged and have ordered the new edition myself. I'll go through it once it comes and let you know what I've found. Since I know where all the mistakes were it'll be easy for me to check. I also gather he's added additional background and production information, so we'll see how that looks.

Another interesting entry he had in the original was for the 1957 film Quatermass 2, listed of course in his book under its US title, Enemy From Space. In it he describes conversations with Nigel Kneale, but more alarmingly he states that apparently no print of the film remains, that all the distributors in the UK as well as US had destroyed them!

Now, by the time I read this I knew it to be in error, since the film had by then long been available on tape and then DVD, complete and unharmed. But I wonder who gave him such titanically inaccurate information? I don't blame him for this whopper because he seems to have made inquires of people who should have known. This was one of the films he hadn't seen in many years but reviewed anyway, but at least he had seen it and gave it a good (meaning accurate) description. I'm assuming that at least this kind of mistaken information will have been corrected in the new edition.

Even so, I'm surprised he got it so wrong back then. I can't pinpoint the date precisely now, but around the time he was writing that book, the film was shown here on a national cable channel, though in the US Enemy From Space print, which is otherwise identical to the UK version. (By contrast, the US version of The Quatermass Xperiment, the first film -- known here as The Creeping Unknown -- is three minutes shorter than the original. But of course today we get all such films under their original titles and at full length.) Obviously it was too late for his book, but even the reprint of the two combined volumes didn't correct the information.

Anyway, I await his re-effort with baited breath.

So, hold the pints! 🍺 Cheese-and-onion crisps are good, however. We don't have that flavor here that I know of, though despite some national brands most are local or regional.

But speaking of original names, since the "crisp" is an American invention (Saratoga Springs, New York, 1854), its proper name is "chip". Of course, I realize you'd already co-opted that term for "fries"! 🍟

PS: If you've ever seen a photograph of Bill Warren, you'll know he's eaten plenty of both!

hob, you are a sucker for punishment, mate!

When you receive the updated edition, and you come across the first ten noticeable errors, why don't you contact the author via the publishers and point out the mistakes that the supposedly well-informed "expert" makes.

$90 is a wacking amount to pay for a book littered with ridiculous opinions of movies Bill Warren hasn't even seen, hob. You really do love those old sci-fi films, don't you?

I might be tempted to buy it if Warren has corrected all the very obvious broohas he made in the paperback first edition.

It sounds like there is more nonsense in Warren's book than there is in the Warren Commission though!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

Hey, you never know unless you investigate, right? I'll consider it an early birthday present to myself.

Though he had lots of errors -- and I'm getting the updated version in no small part to see if they've been fixed -- his opinions are usually -- not always, but usually -- well-informed and amusing, though I don't agree with him all the time of course. As I said, the number of films he hadn't seen is in the single digits. Also the book doesn't really have a lot of nonsense -- many errors, yes, but the bulk of it is reasonably accurate and informative. It's more the frequency rather than the severity of his mistakes that grates.

Anyway, if I still find lots of errors I will contact him and/or his publishers per your suggestion, James. It wasn't worth doing so before, when the book was 20 years out of print.

Now, and before Oswald gets to you, the Warren Commission Report does not contain a lot of "nonsense". Imperfect and with some good-faith errors born of ignorance and other limitations of the time. But its basic conclusions were spot on. Like Bill Warren's book: often inaccurate, but at base a worthwhile tome on the subject.

To answer your question, James,

You really do love those old sci-fi films, don't you?

I bet Bill Warren won't enjoy you pointing out all the errors, hob. I think he will have met his match if you get into an argument, as well!

My money's on you to win that one!

Is the book well illustated, hob?

And does Warren like WORLD WITHOUT END?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

You know what? I've thought the same thing -- Bill W. won't like being contradicted by a nobody. But truth is truth. Hopefully time has allowed the rectification of his more grievous faults.

The book (remember, this is the original volume) has only a limited number of illustrations. Every few films, depending on the length of an entry, has a one-page black & white photo, sometimes a publicity still, sometimes a shot from the movie itself, and usually only from the better films, or occasionally the odder ones. But the vast majority of the book is copy. Curiously, I never thought much about the paucity of pictures. I was more interested in what he had to say. The photos aren't really interesting or necessary. The mainly serve as breaks in the text.

Warren does like World Without End. Not a rave, but he finds it acceptable. He likes This Island Earth much better. But you know what he says is the "best" film in his entire book? It's The Fabulous World of Jules Verne, a 1957 Czech film made by the ingenious special effects artist Karel Zeman. This of course is the American, and I believe British, title, though I may be wrong about what it's called in the UK. The original Czech title is something like A Deadly Invention. Its American release was in 1961. The film conjures a late-19th century world in which all of Verne's inventions are reality -- clunky, convoluted 1800s reality -- and is designed to look like moving 19th-century book illustrations. The plot centers on pirates kidnapping a scientist performing experiments on a powerful explosive, and the efforts of his assistant to stop their nefarious scheme. It has a lot of wit and charm and is certainly unique. Whether this little fantasy is the "best" of the bunch is a matter of opinion, and I don't think I'd agree, but I can see his point. Definitely one to see, though.

R.I.P. the great Rod Taylor, by way of World Without End...the second death of a cast member in three weeks, though in two calendar years (our own Booth Colman, of course).

Incidentally, James, do you know what Charlton Heston role almost went to Rod Taylor instead? I'm sure you do.