John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Interact with your favorite SCM authors, producers, directors, historians, archivists and silent comedy savants. Or just read along. Whatever.
Rob Farr
Godfather
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Our Nation's Capitol

Re: John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Postby Rob Farr » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:25 am

"There's gonna be a fight!" - Stan Laurel, Blockheads
Rob Farr
"If it's not comedy, I fall asleep" - Harpo Marx

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Postby Richard M Roberts » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:25 pm

Okay, wasting even further time, I realized last night that I did indeed have a digital transfer of the scene in CAREFUL PLEASE that John Wayne is incorrectly alleged to appear in, we used it for SLAPHAPPY, so here are a few scans from the transfer. Remember, this is a fast moving scene,with undercranked fast-moving fighting guys, so pretty much any video transfer is going to look a bit on the fuzzy side due to the more numerous movement frames, but we caught grabs where the Guy in question is visible and stable. So we also enclose one of the scans the John Wayne looneys have put on their site as proof towards Wayne’s appearance in the film, oddly enough, because it obviously shows that its not Wayne as well.

Here are the scans we did from the SLAPHAPPY DVD, the alleged fellow wrongly purported to be Wayne is the fellow in the cloth cap and open-necked shirt to the left of Dick Sutherland in the window shot, and the fellow to the far right (just above the Slaphappy watermark) in the group shots:

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff4 ... mith/2.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff4 ... mith/3.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff4 ... mith/4.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff4 ... mith/5.jpg


And here’s the scan from the John Wayne Fan Club site:

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff4 ... mith/1.jpg


BTW, I showed these scans to Scott Eyman, and he concurs, it isn’t Wayne.

Say, anyone notice on Mr. Tuttle’s John Wayne blog that the only follower listed appears to be Elly Reid? We’re talking a “big time” John Wayne Fan Club site here.



RICHARD M ROBERTS

Gary Johnson
Cugine
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:15 am
Location: Sonoma, CA
Contact:

Re: John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Postby Gary Johnson » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:51 am

From one sycophant to another I guess I'm the reason that that 'goll dern whippersnapper' intruded into our isolated ranch house here. Mr. Tuttle contacted me through my FB page as I'm the only idiot who leave his address link in my signature. He was quite indignant about the need to rebut our boy Richard but was stymied by our closed sequestered group -- who are we, 12 Angry Men? He pleaded with me to post his letter unless we were some 'chicken-livered, cowardly reprobates' (why does Gabby Hayes keep breaking into this post?) who are afraid of the facts! Yes, he was in quite the quandary. What could he possibly do to get his voice heard? After all, this is no longer Bush's America. Free speech is BACK!! (as long as it doesn't upset Clear Channel, of course) Well, he could had just joined our happy little group and voiced his opinion. That's what being American is all about. That's what the Duke fought for (....on screen...). It's a Democracy here...........And after he had his say then we would have had our neck tie party! Or he could had just contacted Richard 'The Ringo Kid' Roberts privately but I guess that takes all of the fun out of an open letter.

Try to ignore my closing signature below. It may bring more varmints to our doorsteps...

Louie Despres
Associate
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:31 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Postby Louie Despres » Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:06 pm

Gary, you're not the only one. He contacted me through my photography web site.

Joe Migliore
Cugine
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:57 pm

Re: John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Postby Joe Migliore » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:30 pm

Wow! They want this badly. You would think that somewhere in Mr. Tuttle's bullet-point manifesto would be the evidence to support his claim. When Richard writes that Scott Eyman agrees with his assessment, it is dismissed as "name-dropping", as if Richard casually mentioned that he just got back from hang-gliding with Sting. The person arguing in the affirmative bears the burden of proof, and if those stills constitute his case, Mr. Tuttle has not met his burden. That leaves him with the option of elevating dissent to the status of "cyber-bullying", and exhibiting fake outrage: "How dare you call that other website, I also never heard of, a minor one!" (He's obviously never needed a question answered about Mermaid Comedies in a hurry.) Gary makes a good point that this has taken on political overtones; it's science versus faith. As Richard Dawkins is fond of saying, no scientist can prove that the cosmos are not ruled by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Paul E. Gierucki
Godfather
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 4:23 pm

Re: John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Postby Paul E. Gierucki » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:43 pm

For the record, this is not a closed forum. I personally handle the bulk of board maintenance and the other Godfathers (both Richard and Rob) kindly agreed to temporarily disable new memberships while I am away working on new restoration projects. Anyone claiming anything to the contrary is incorrect.

Paul E. Gierucki

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Postby Richard M Roberts » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:51 pm

Paul E. Gierucki wrote:For the record, this is not a closed forum. I personally handle the bulk of board maintenance and the other Godfathers (both Richard and Rob) kindly agreed to temporarily disable new memberships while I am away working on new restoration projects. Anyone claiming anything to the contrary is incorrect.

Paul E. Gierucki



Ahm, well, no, while not technically a closed forum, we are also not a public forum (re-read the opening rules folks), nor are we a Democracy. As said in those opening rules, this is our clubhouse, and some members of the Public are allowed to join if they behave themselves (which automatically has eliminated Ms. Reid and Mr.Tuttle from any chance of getting in at this point) and we feel like letting them in, but I do enjoy someone frothing that we are not communicating with them as they post an immediate response from us. The wonderful thing about the internet is that anyone’s blog or website is just a click or two away, so the lines of communication appear to be open. But once one goes whacko and starts into personal insults and threats of bodily harm, we will not waste time speaking directly to them, we will deal with the facts and put their names on the Security list for the next public appearance.

Yet I think they would at least appreciate that we did link their tirade and everything else they had written (at least, until they deleted or removed it from their website), especially after Mr. Tuttle’s blog, having appeared to be open about six or seven months and having less hits on it than our thread on this subject has gotten in the last few weeks, now has gotten a hundred or so more hits just from being seen on our newgroup. Hey, he might even get another follower apart from Ms. Reid.

In any event, we are done with this nonsense. The pictures are posted, the real experts seem to agree, (or do we? What sort of synchophants are you! Anyone think that’s John Wayne in the picture? Speak up now!). Though I’m sure we’ll hear more nattering from the John Wayne looneys, the word has gotten out to those who really know what in the hell they’re talking about that this one’s not so. We can leave the rest to the usual conspiracy theorists, tea-partyers, and ones who’ve seen Elvis on the UFO.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Frank Flood
Cugine
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:04 pm

Re: John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Postby Frank Flood » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:28 pm

My favorite part of all of this is that the dates just don't work. CAREFUL PLEASE was produced too early to match up with the rest of what is known about Wayne's early career. I agree that the pictures don't look like him, but then again there can always be pictures that do not look like who they are. I seem to remember that a couple of years ago there was a pretty clear picture of a comedian displayed, and the assembled group here could not agree whether or not it was Jimmy Adams (or maybe Charles Dorety, or someone else altogether), a person well known by sight to the group. So, you never know about pictures. But if the dates don't work, the pictures are beside the point. It's hard for anyone to identify people in 80-90 year old films. It turns out it wasn't John Wayne. Let it go, guys.

Frank

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Postby Richard M Roberts » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:35 pm

To be fair, here's the latest word from the John Wayne looneys:


http://dukefanclub.blogspot.com/2012/04 ... wayne.html


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: John Wayne NOT in CAREFUL PLEASE with Lloyd Hamilton

Postby Richard M Roberts » Tue May 01, 2012 1:29 am

This is interesting, someone's trying to do some very fast learnin' in film history:


http://www.dukewayne.com/showthread.php?t=5644


RICHARD M ROBERTS


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests