Elvis films - your thoughts?

[Yin Yang]

On the "demo's for Elvis" CD there is a track with lyrics like "you are too young for me now but one day you will be old enough" (quoted from memory).
I am not surprised that song was not used!

[John]

On the "demo's for Elvis" CD there is a track with lyrics like "you are too young for me now but one day you will be old enough" (quoted from memory).
I am not surprised that song was not used!

Tell us more.

[Colin B]

On the "demo's for Elvis" CD there is a track with lyrics like "you are too young for me now but one day you will be old enough" (quoted from memory).
I am not surprised that song was not used!

On a similar there is Elvis' Your Time hasn't come yet baby & Maurice Chevalier's Thank heaven for little girls...

[davrid]

On the "demo's for Elvis" CD there is a track with lyrics like "you are too young for me now but one day you will be old enough" (quoted from memory).
I am not surprised that song was not used!

On a similar there is Elvis' Your Time hasn't come yet baby & Maurice Chevalier's Thank heaven for little girls...

Neither YTHCYB nor THFLG are even remotely sexual - they are both intended as pseudo-lullabies. THFLG is a father singing to his daughter. It has been recorded hundreds of times by both men and women. Obviously, if people want to interpret a lyric in a particular way based upon their own sensibilities that is up to them, but it in no way rewrites the intention behind, or meaning of, the song.

[Glyn]

What about Clair by Gilbert O’Sullivan - lovely song but could be accused of being a bit incestual/paedo ?

[davrid]

What about Clair by Gilbert O’Sullivan - lovely song but could be accused of being a bit incestual/paedo ?

It can if you want to take the context out of the song or don't understand what it's actually about,

The song is actually about the purely nepotic and platonic love between Gilbert O'Sullivan and Clair, the daughter of Gordon Mills (O'Sullivan's manager, also the manager of Tom Jones, Engelbert, Engelbert Humperdinck and obviously also a song-writer), for whom, as the song makes very clear, O'Sullivan used to babysit - it is her laughter used on the end of the song. Certainly, the real Clair never seems to have been threatened by it, and neither did her parents - O'Sullivan and Mills fell out over money not a song about the latter's daughter.

As I said previously, ascribing or projecting sensibilities to lyrics that were never intended will change the interpretation, but obviously cannot change the actual intention behind the song. Probably given changes in the way society interprets certain things, many such songs couldn't be written in the same way today but again, it doesn't change the original meaning.

Certain songs like Abba's 'Does Your Mother Know' or Gary Puckett's 'Young Girl' can be perceived differently to the likes of 'Your Time Hasn't Come Yet Baby' (which is a lullaby and clearly about a young girl growing up and is no way sexual) but again context does matter - it's never stated in either song how old the 'girl' actually is, and therefore with changes in things like age of consent and majority, some of these songs could paradoxically actually be considered more innocent today then when recorded. Although the natural tendency is to jump upon them as sexualising children, given how society and values have changed.

[javilu]

I think he could have made better films if he had been allowed. I loved them anyway as it was a way of seeing Elvis.

Yes he could have.

The stumbling block to that was Parker, who only saw the quick buck...

The stumbling block to that was Hal Wallis, who only saw the quick buck.

It was Parker. After the high cost of making Viva Las Vegas he demanded the costs were cut down significantly from the next movie on. And we got... Kissin' Cousins.

[davrid]

It was Parker. After the high cost of making Viva Las Vegas he demanded the costs were cut down significantly from the next movie on. And we got... Kissin' Cousins.

I think that is a bit of a myth. Not sure why anyone would think Parker was overly interested in production and marketing budgets - his concern was his and Elvis' cut. Indeed, Viva Las Vegas is actually supposedly one of Elvis’ cheaper films to make - certainly compared to Frankie and Johnny, which had a not insignificant budget of $4.5 million.

[javilu]

I think that is a bit of a myth. Not sure why anyone would think Parker was overly interested in production and marketing budgets - his concern was his and Elvis' cut. Indeed, Viva Las Vegas is actually supposedly one of Elvis’ cheaper films to make - certainly compared to Frankie and Johnny, which had a not insignificant budget of $4.5 million.

Well, it says so on the FTD booklet so perhaps you should say to Ernst he has his facts wrong.

[davrid]

I think that is a bit of a myth. Not sure why anyone would think Parker was overly interested in production and marketing budgets - his concern was his and Elvis' cut. Indeed, Viva Las Vegas is actually supposedly one of Elvis’ cheaper films to make - certainly compared to Frankie and Johnny, which had a not insignificant budget of $4.5 million.

Well, it says so on the FTD booklet so perhaps you should say to Ernst he has his facts wrong.

Maybe he has - if indeed he ever actually wrote the 'booklets'. F&J certainly was not a cheap film in any regards. I have seen various budgets quoted for VLV from $1 - 3 million, even at its highest cost in this range, F&J cost 50% more.

[javilu]

I think that is a bit of a myth. Not sure why anyone would think Parker was overly interested in production and marketing budgets - his concern was his and Elvis' cut. Indeed, Viva Las Vegas is actually supposedly one of Elvis’ cheaper films to make - certainly compared to Frankie and Johnny, which had a not insignificant budget of $4.5 million.

Well, it says so on the FTD booklet so perhaps you should say to Ernst he has his facts wrong.

Maybe he has - if indeed he ever actually wrote the 'booklets'. F&J certainly was not a cheap film in any regards. I have seen various budgets quoted for VLV from $1 - 3 million, even at its highest cost in this range, F&J cost 50% more.

So is it a coincidence after VLV films became cheaper and crappy with few exceptions like F&J?

[davrid]

I think that is a bit of a myth. Not sure why anyone would think Parker was overly interested in production and marketing budgets - his concern was his and Elvis' cut. Indeed, Viva Las Vegas is actually supposedly one of Elvis’ cheaper films to make - certainly compared to Frankie and Johnny, which had a not insignificant budget of $4.5 million.

Well, it says so on the FTD booklet so perhaps you should say to Ernst he has his facts wrong.

Maybe he has - if indeed he ever actually wrote the 'booklets'. F&J certainly was not a cheap film in any regards. I have seen various budgets quoted for VLV from $1 - 3 million, even at its highest cost in this range, F&J cost 50% more.

So is it a coincidence after VLV films became cheaper and crappy with few exceptions like F&J?

Well, firstly, that makes absolutely no sense given you were previously adamant budgets declined after VLV, which 100% is untrue. But then I far prefer the truth than to promulgate fantasy that fits a pre-ordained narrative. Parker did not control studio budgets, that appears to be more fantasy someone has invented, so cutting said budgets made no difference to him. As I said, his concern was his and Elvis' cut (primarily his own, hence nonsense such as 'Technical Advisor') in salary plus profit share, although as revenue and profitability declined so obviously did the profit share, but Parker preferred money upfront anyway.

VLV made circa $10 million in theatre revenue upon release, and from there revenues declined, with F&J, given its significant budget, losing money on its theatre release. Studios closely track costs against budgets and theatrical revenue - I think there was a realisation or acceptance, however you wish to define it, that regardless of budget (and production values). revenues were fairly constant from the mid 60s onwards, so budgets began to fall alongside revenue. Simple as that. No Parker machinations at all. No Elvis film was really a 'budget' film in the sense of being dirt cheap; post F&J, budgets were still fairly analogous with more mainstream films, for example, Bond films cost $2-3 million (Dr No, the first bond film had a budget of only $1 million) albeit much of the cost was Elvis' salary. Compared to AIP's 'beach films', Elvis films were far from cheap.

I'm sure that if Parker had controlled budgets, and there was some correlation between those and revenue /profit, he would have made damn sure the budgets were higher not lower, as ultimately he would have made more money. But that wasn't the case. So, whatever else he can be blamed for, studio budgets were not his responsibility.

[javilu]

Well, firstly, that makes absolutely no sense given you were previously adamant budgets declined after VLV, which 100% is untrue. But then I far prefer the truth than to promulgate fantasy that fits a pre-ordained narrative. Parker did not control studio budgets, that appears to be more fantasy someone has invented, so cutting said budgets made no difference to him. As I said, his concern was his and Elvis' cut (primarily his own, hence nonsense such as 'Technical Advisor') in salary plus profit share, although as revenue and profitability declined so obviously did the profit share, but Parker preferred money upfront anyway.

VLV made circa $10 million in theatre revenue upon release, and from there revenues declined, with F&J, given its significant budget, losing money on its theatre release. Studios closely track costs against budgets and theatrical revenue - I think there was a realisation or acceptance, however you wish to define it, that regardless of budget (and production values). revenues were fairly constant from the mid 60s onwards, so budgets began to fall alongside revenue. Simple as that. No Parker machinations at all. No Elvis film was really a 'budget' film in the sense of being dirt cheap; post F&J, budgets were still fairly analogous with more mainstream films, for example, Bond films cost $2-3 million (Dr No, the first bond film had a budget of only $1 million) albeit much of the cost was Elvis' salary. Compared to AIP's 'beach films', Elvis films were far from cheap.

I'm sure that if Parker had controlled budgets, and there was some correlation between those and revenue /profit, he would have made damn sure the budgets were higher not lower, as ultimately he would have made more money. But that wasn't the case. So, whatever else he can be blamed for, studio budgets were not his responsibility.

I guess we need to notify the quality department at FTD they screwed up on their booklet notes!

[davrid]

I guess we need to notify the quality department at FTD they screwed up on their booklet notes!

Duplicated discs, poor mastering, wrong speeds (ranging from 3-5%), wrong take numbers, wrong dates. They haven't even been able to get the music right on so many occasions, let alone the background insert information. Without resorting to getting out my cds and reading the booklets - I never have done - if Ernst (or whoever actually wrote the notes) has stated budgets declined after VLV and it was Parker's fault, then he is completely wrong.

[javilu]

I guess we need to notify the quality department at FTD they screwed up on their booklet notes!

Duplicated discs, poor mastering, wrong speeds (ranging from 3-5%), wrong take numbers, wrong dates. They haven't even been able to get the music right on so many occasions, let alone the background insert information.

I cannot argue with that!