PDA

View Full Version : I heard it said that Elvis made 31 movies, is that true?



potoole
2012-Aug-15, 12:28 PM
If so, that would be 31 very bad movies.

I don't think it was 31, but even if it was only 10, that would still be 10 very bad movies. :D

PO'T

Noclevername
2012-Aug-15, 12:39 PM
33, according to his filmography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley_filmography).

Tog
2012-Aug-15, 12:39 PM
IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000062/#Actor) knows about 31 of them.

I also seem to recall at least one being regarded as pretty good for a movie, not just good for an Elvis movie, but can't remember which one.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Aug-15, 01:38 PM
33, according to his filmography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley_filmography).
The last two are concert documentaries, not movies, so 31.

Gillianren
2012-Aug-15, 04:31 PM
I can never talk about Elvis movies without mentioning how much he hated them and how sad they made him. He really wanted to make good movies, and he wasn't a bad actor. But no. Love Me Tender isn't quite bad, and Jailhouse Rock isn't quite good. But Change of Habit is terrible.

DonM435
2012-Aug-29, 12:49 PM
As someone pointed out, all of Elvis' movies were science fiction.

Because, in the films, whenever Elvis' character broke into a song and dance, nobody ever says "Hey -- he looks and sounds just like Elvis!"

Ergo, these films take place in some alternative universe that is almost exactly like ours, but one in which there is/was no Elvis.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Aug-29, 01:18 PM
That is true of every movie ever made with a well-known person in any role other that as themself.

SeanF
2012-Aug-29, 01:45 PM
Even if we accept the premise, that just makes them "alternate history" (or perhaps "fantasy"), but not "science fiction." For it to be science fiction, there'd have to be some science- or technology-based reason for the discrepancy.

Although, I've heard it said that the reason there's no "Star Trek" in "Star Trek" (specifically why no-one recognized the crew in "The Voyage Home") was because, in the "Star Trek" universe, it was Gene Roddenberry's father who accidentally incinerated himself with McCoy's phaser in "The City on the Edge of Forever"... :lol:

jokergirl
2012-Aug-29, 03:38 PM
Even if we accept the premise, that just makes them "alternate history" (or perhaps "fantasy"), but not "science fiction." For it to be science fiction, there'd have to be some science- or technology-based reason for the discrepancy.

Although, I've heard it said that the reason there's no "Star Trek" in "Star Trek" (specifically why no-one recognized the crew in "The Voyage Home") was because, in the "Star Trek" universe, it was Gene Roddenberry's father who accidentally incinerated himself with McCoy's phaser in "The City on the Edge of Forever"... :lol:

TvTropes calls this the Celebrity Paradox. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CelebrityParadox)

;)

NEOWatcher
2012-Aug-29, 07:40 PM
Even if we accept the premise, that just makes them "alternate history" (or perhaps "fantasy"), but not "science fiction." For it to be science fiction, there'd have to be some science- or technology-based reason for the discrepancy.
That's also one of my pet peeves. Even fantasies set in space or the future I have problems with on occasion. (Star Wars: Ok, xenon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0186726/): NO)

DonM435
2012-Aug-29, 10:11 PM
It's a joke, people!

Trebuchet
2012-Aug-29, 11:30 PM
That's also one of my pet peeves. Even fantasies set in space or the future I have problems with on occasion. (Star Wars: Ok, xenon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0186726/): NO)

Hey, if Hannelore Ellicott-Chatham (http://questionablecontent.wikia.com/wiki/Hannelore_Ellicott-Chatham) can grow up on a space station, why not Zenon?