PDA

View Full Version : Fired Colonel



SatninLove
09-26-2008, 01:08 AM
Do you think Elvis should or would have fired the Colonel as he was claimed to have been thinking about in late 77?Do you think he could have made it without Colonel?:hmm:
-SatninLove

Ronn
09-26-2008, 02:00 AM
Elvis had relied on the Col during his entire career and had he lived, I think he would still stick with him. Perhaps, they would come into an agreement onto what Elvis really want to do and work around that. It seems that Elvis need to do something new every now and then, and the Col. sure knows how to ride on that.

Joe Car
09-26-2008, 06:51 AM
Do you think Elvis should or would have fired the Colonel as he was claimed to have been thinking about in late 77?Do you think he could have made it without Colonel?:hmm:
-SatninLove

The answer to both questions is yes!

Diane
09-26-2008, 07:13 AM
Also yes to both questions but he should have gotten rid of the Colonel right after he left the army.

Diane

Unchained Melody
09-26-2008, 07:24 AM
Yes, I do think he could have made it without Parker, but I really don't know if he would've fired him...

TotallyInsane
09-26-2008, 07:35 AM
Well, he could have had the "mafia" take care of him!! :lmfao::lmfao:

Brian
09-26-2008, 08:37 AM
I was reading a Eddy Arnold obituary a few months ago and in it, it stated that Eddy was the only person ever to successfully fire Colonel Tom Parker after reading it I sort of laughed out loud because the writer acted like it was a hard thing to do. I don't see Elvis ever firing the Colonel but I do see them splitting up in say 1980 as Colonel Parker was getting really old and probably wouldn't have been up to doing the job anymore.

john carpenter
09-26-2008, 08:59 AM
IMO Elvis could've found a Manager who wasn't a compulsive gambler, and didn't take 50% or whatever % he took!

tony70
09-26-2008, 09:18 AM
Yes Elvis could of made w/out parker and anyone would of been his mngr

tony70
09-26-2008, 09:19 AM
I mean come on it's ELVIS

SleepyJack
09-26-2008, 09:59 AM
He should have fired him.....out of a canon into a wall! And it should have happened shortly his return from the army....I think his career would only have only been better for it.

KPM
09-26-2008, 10:07 AM
I think he should have.

DIAMOND1871
09-26-2008, 10:20 AM
I cant understand why Elvis and everyone else in the circle never questioned Colonel about Elvis performing in Europe and other countries He was probably a good manger in some areas of Elvis's career but Elvis had so much more to give and was never given the oppurtunity to totally shine especially in his acting career and the only person I can blame for that is The Colonel He was after all the Manager.He was defiantely held back by the Colonel.

Albert
09-26-2008, 11:08 AM
No, the fact that he did movies way too long, recorded way too many songs he didn't like, not performed in movies that he liked, performed in Vegas way too long and often, and still had Parker as his manager, almost is a rocksolid proof that Elvis couldn't do it without Parker.

He didn't had the guts and was way too uncertain. And why? That the most puzzling question for me as an Elvisfan. I have no idea.

DIAMOND1871
09-26-2008, 11:35 AM
I dont think Elvis believed in himself enough.and he also had too many yes men around him to give him constructive critisim.

Elvislives72
09-26-2008, 11:50 AM
Elvis wanted to fire the Colonel around 1967 but the Colonel threatened to blackmail him if he did. Apparenly Parker had dirt on Elvis and there was fear it could destroy his career. Maybe it was all a bluff on Parker's part but it worked in his favor. There have been speculations and rumros from those close to both Elvis and Parker that Elvis was about to let the Colonel go after the August tour. But we'll never know if that was true or not.

Brian
09-26-2008, 12:16 PM
Elvis wanted to fire the Colonel around 1967 but the Colonel threatened to blackmail him if he did. Apparenly Parker had dirt on Elvis and there was fear it could destroy his career. Maybe it was all a bluff on Parker's part but it worked in his favor. There have been speculations and rumros from those close to both Elvis and Parker that Elvis was about to let the Colonel go after the August tour. But we'll never know if that was true or not.


I bet the stuff you heard about Elvis firing the Colonel in 67 and Colonel threatening him is just a myth. The only time I know of that Elvis got anywhere close to firing Parker was in 1973 after Elvis made some remarks about Baron Hilton and the hotel staff because his favorite Chef Mario had been fired. The Colonel told Elvis that he shouldn't do that so Elvis got mad at him for saying that and fired him but it only lasted a couple of days.

Tony Trout
09-26-2008, 01:02 PM
The answer to both questions is yes!






Also yes to both questions but he should have gotten rid of the Colonel right after he left the army.

Diane

I agree.



Yes, I do think he could have made it without Parker, but I really don't know if he would've fired him...

I think he actually probably would've fired him. He said many times that he wished Parker would quit managing him (at least, that's according to Billy Smith in "Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations From The Memphis Mafia".




IMO Elvis could've found a Manager who wasn't a compulsive gambler, and didn't take 50% or whatever % he took!


Beginning in the Spring of '67, Parker took 50%





I bet the stuff you heard about Elvis firing the Colonel in 67 and Colonel threatening him is just a myth. The only time I know of that Elvis got anywhere close to firing Parker was in 1973 after Elvis made some remarks about Baron Hilton and the hotel staff because his favorite Chef Mario had been fired. The Colonel told Elvis that he shouldn't do that so Elvis got mad at him for saying that and fired him but it only lasted a couple of days.


I agree, Brian. I'd never heard of Elvis threatening to fire Parker as early as '67 (although, it wouldn't surprise me had he entertained the thought of doing so by that time).

Elvislives72
09-26-2008, 01:34 PM
The threat came when Elvis and Parker had a big argument in an on the site trailer about his ridiculous movie roles at the time that many of those close by overheard. I believe it had something to do with the Old McDonald scene in Double Trouble.

Diane
09-26-2008, 01:49 PM
Having to sing Old MacDonald in the movie was enough to almost put Elvis over the edge...too bad he didn't get mad enough and fired the old colonel right then and there.

Diane

Donut
09-26-2008, 01:52 PM
Having to sing Old MacDonald in the movie was enough to almost put Elvis over the edge...too bad he didn't get mad enough and fired the old colonel right then and there.

Diane

I'd say enough to put him against a wall and shout, Fire!

Diane
09-26-2008, 02:04 PM
Nothing wrong with your English Donut

(y)(y)(y):lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:

Diane

KPM
09-26-2008, 04:18 PM
No, the fact that he did movies way too long, recorded way too many songs he didn't like, not performed in movies that he liked, performed in Vegas way too long and often, and still had Parker as his manager, almost is a rocksolid proof that Elvis couldn't do it without Parker.

He didn't had the guts and was way too uncertain. And why? That the most puzzling question for me as an Elvisfan. I have no idea.
Thats the way Parker wanted Elvis to feel. IMO
I truely think its because, like water torture, the drip drip drip of Parkers way of talking to Elvis and warning him of others-took its toll over the years.
Elvis was like us all and he had some insecurities. Parker knew how to push those buttons. In 1955 Parker was the savour for a young Elvis being bombarded with deals and offers of every shape and kind. Elvis needed someone he could trust to make the most of them and to weed out the horrid deals. Parker convinced him of his trustworthyness.
Parker did weed out the bad horrid deals-but he also advised Elvis to take the long term movie deals. This locked Elvis up for years to come with the movie business-and with little say so of the type of movie made.
He also kept Elvis at arms length from anyone the Col. did not approve of. (Usually really creative individuals)
Elvis it seems did begin to seriously question the Col. and his motivations in the late 60s it-but he still had the same insecurities- and after all the years of Parker using his "snowman tactics" reinforcing those insecurities- they were even more promounced and intrenched. IMO

Diane
09-26-2008, 05:19 PM
I agree 100%. He wasn't called the "snowman" for nothing.

Diane

Unchained Melody
09-26-2008, 07:15 PM
I think he should have.

That should have been made obvious to even Elvis after the taping of the 68 special, then and there they should have parted ways. Parker was obviously out of touch with show buiz.

MojoElvis
09-26-2008, 07:17 PM
I bet the stuff you heard about Elvis firing the Colonel in 67 and Colonel threatening him is just a myth. The only time I know of that Elvis got anywhere close to firing Parker was in 1973 after Elvis made some remarks about Baron Hilton and the hotel staff because his favorite Chef Mario had been fired. The Colonel told Elvis that he shouldn't do that so Elvis got mad at him for saying that and fired him but it only lasted a couple of days.

this is correct the 1967 or 68 theory started with the CBS movie,Elvis, with Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Elvis Presley. That part was totally wrong. Looks to me like they needed another dramatic scene before the it ended. It ended with a terrible impersonation of, "If I Could Dream". I think Jonathan Rhys Meyers is an outstanding actor. I've seen him in other movies and a Showtime series.
but musically the man looks like he had no Elvis moves down at all.

Unchained Melody
09-26-2008, 07:22 PM
this is correct the 1967 or 68 theory started with the CBS movie,Elvis, with Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Elvis Presley. That part was totally wrong. Looks to me like they needed another dramatic scene before the it ended. It ended with a terrible impersonation of, "If I Could Dream". I think Jonathan Rhys Meyers is an outstanding actor. I've seen him in other movies and a Showtime series.
but musically the man looks like he had no Elvis moves down at all.

Well, he's the worst lip singer i've ever seen :doh::doh:

MojoElvis
09-26-2008, 07:30 PM
Well, he's the worst lip singer i've ever seen :doh::doh:

That's what I mean, when it came to the music side of the performance, he needed a lot of coaching. Acting wise he was good but the script and movie itself was terrible.

Brian
09-26-2008, 09:25 PM
That should have been made obvious to even Elvis after the taping of the 68 special, then and there they should have parted ways. Parker was obviously out of touch with show buiz.

Colonel Parker could have pulled out of the deal with NBC to stop them from showing the special but didn't.

I disagree with people that say Elvis would have become a serious actor and played in a bunch of great movies had Parker not been managing him.

For one thing Elvis didn't have script approval as actors didn't have in those days and I believe Hal Wallis and the other studio bosses were the driving force behind the musicals so if another manager were managing him he would've had to make those movies anyway.

Aloha seen by many fans as the pinnacle of Elvis career was Parker's idea and I think he did a great job in not letting Elvis get overexposed in the 70's as that was a problem for many stars especially Johnny Cash and Tom Jones

I do think Colonel Parker became too greedy at a certain point and only did things for the money and took too much of a commision.
I do think putting Elvis in Vegas for the first 2-3 engagements was a good thing but he kept him there to long.

SatninLove
09-26-2008, 09:31 PM
I actually am surprised i'am saying this but I don't really have a problem with the Colonel..
Yes i'm mad at Colonel for letting Elvis turn down many WONDERFUL oppurtunities,and for basically runing Elvis' life,but Elvis I'am not sure if he would have fired him..My opinios are this,I think they were just both completley diffrent people,that could not ever really get along well.And I know Elvis wanted to branch out on his own,But I also know that Elvis would have had second doubts,as I would about such a decision...Lordy I'am torn!
I choose NOT to have an opinion!
-SatninLove

MojoElvis
09-26-2008, 10:37 PM
I actually am surprised i'am saying this but I don't really have a problem with the Colonel..
Yes i'm mad at Colonel for letting Elvis turn down many WONDERFUL oppurtunities,and for basically runing Elvis' life,but Elvis I'am not sure if he would have fired him..My opinios are this,I think they were just both completley diffrent people,that could not ever really get along well.And I know Elvis wanted to branch out on his own,But I also know that Elvis would have had second doubts,as I would about such a decision...Lordy I'am torn!
I choose NOT to have an opinion!
-SatninLove

I have a big problem with the Colonel being his manager for so long. He should have fired him in 1958. That ARMY trick he pulled would have been the last straw. Elvis was on top in 58 and when got back, Rock n roll seemed like a big joke.
Read the book, THE COLONEL, By: Alana Nash and you'll see just how much he really took from Elvis and didn't care at all about the quality of music and movies he put out as long as it put money in his & his friends pocket. His friends even had rights to Elvis' songs, how sick is that?

rickb
09-27-2008, 03:38 AM
The Colonel clearly had a magician-like hold over Elvis but his management after the 50s was disgraceful and simply after a quick dollar

beckelvis
09-27-2008, 06:19 AM
On one report thanks to the colonel,he was where was but also he fault to the environment of ELVIS.
I never leave him to go to EUROPA that?,That hide ELVIS cuold open a way towards EUROPA.
Who is what to want to go there,I donīt belive that the colonel,was doing for benefit of ELVIS,but for it same I belive that I exploit to ELVIS of such way,which when ELVIS realized was late the colonel I lake advantage of up to the last drop of blood of ELVIS,is very sad,:cursing:

Stryx
09-28-2008, 06:31 AM
I have a big problem with the Colonel being his manager for so long. He should have fired him in 1958. That ARMY trick he pulled would have been the last straw. Elvis was on top in 58 and when got back, Rock n roll seemed like a big joke.
Read the book, THE COLONEL, By: Alana Nash and you'll see just how much he really took from Elvis and didn't care at all about the quality of music and movies he put out as long as it put money in his & his friends pocket. His friends even had rights to Elvis' songs, how sick is that?

That's just business on the Colonels part. It was Elvis's choice to have Colonel and he kept him.

I don't think it is sick about the songs, it's just business. The book by Alana is very good - but some of the stuff in it as in all biographys is speculation.

elvisfan92
09-28-2008, 06:48 AM
from all the Doc. aparently he would tell one of the MM to tell Parker he was fired. So When they Did col. Parker would always say tell Elvis To TEll me himself Elvis Never Did 'cuz of Fear Of Confrontation -quote

KPM
09-29-2008, 03:53 PM
Colonel Parker could have pulled out of the deal with NBC to stop them from showing the special but didn't.

I disagree with people that say Elvis would have become a serious actor and played in a bunch of great movies had Parker not been managing him.

For one thing Elvis didn't have script approval as actors didn't have in those days and I believe Hal Wallis and the other studio bosses were the driving force behind the musicals so if another manager were managing him he would've had to make those movies anyway.
Aloha seen by many fans as the pinnacle of Elvis career was Parker's idea and I think he did a great job in not letting Elvis get overexposed in the 70's as that was a problem for many stars especially Johnny Cash and Tom Jones

I do think Colonel Parker became too greedy at a certain point and only did things for the money and took too much of a commision.
I do think putting Elvis in Vegas for the first 2-3 engagements was a good thing but he kept him there to long.
If someone else had been managing Elvis-would they have recommended the long term deals with Wallis which started the ball rolling on the musicals.
Remember Elvis did not think he was going to make musicals-"someone" led him to believe he was going to be in in the non musical "The Rainmaker"
He said he had no desire to make movies where he would sing-in at least one interview. "Someone" sold him on this idea of the "Rainmaker" as his first "acting" role- either Parker or Wallis or both (who else could it be)-and then he was told he would be making "The Reno Brothers" (not even for Wallis)-but for 20th Century Fox. Then songs were added to the Reno Brothers-and the title was changed to "Love Me Tender" Now if Wallis lied, then Parker bought it and Parker negotiated the contract. If Parker lied to Elvis to convince him to sign the deal-then he misrepresented the situation to Elvis. If they both worked together to get Elvis to sign then thats even worse.
One thing is sure-Elvis was led to believe his movie career would be one thing, and then that was changed after he signed the deal. Elvis relied on these men to be honest, and to level with him- somebody was not. IMO

Brian
09-29-2008, 04:47 PM
If someone else had been managing Elvis-would they have recommended the long term deals with Wallis which started the ball rolling on the musicals.
Remember Elvis did not think he was going to make musicals-"someone" led him to believe he was going to be in in the non musical "The Rainmaker"
He said he had no desire to make movies where he would sing-in at least one interview. "Someone" sold him on this idea of the "Rainmaker" as his first "acting" role- either Parker or Wallis or both (who else could it be)-and then he was told he would be making "The Reno Brothers" (not even for Wallis)-but for 20th Century Fox. Then songs were added to the Reno Brothers-and the title was changed to "Love Me Tender" Now if Wallis lied, then Parker bought it and Parker negotiated the contract. If Parker lied to Elvis to convince him to sign the deal-then he misrepresented the situation to Elvis. If they both worked together to get Elvis to sign then thats even worse.
One thing is sure-Elvis was led to believe his movie career would be one thing, and then that was changed after he signed the deal. Elvis relied on these men to be honest, and to level with him- somebody was not. IMO

I was talking about the fact that Elvis wanted to be a movie star and it was standard to sign long term contracts back then. It was clear to me from the begining that Wallis was only interested in Elvis singing in movies to capitalize off of his popularity as a singer. Loving you, Jailhouse Rock and King Creole were decent films and Elvis even gives good acting performances in the latter 2 but they were made to sell soundtracks and not to develope Elvis as a dramatic actor. I believe it was Wallis who was the driving force behing the musicals and Colonel Parker went along with it for the money and he felt that Elvis wouldn't draw box office in a non singing role. The same view Wallis held.
I think it was Wallis who led Elvis to believe he was going to get a role in the Rainmaker. If Elvis had another manager who signed contracts for movies roles he would've had to make the same movies because he didn't have script approval as actors of that time didn't.

Unchained Melody
09-29-2008, 07:28 PM
I think he should have.

I think everybody thinks that way now Ken :blush::P

Unchained Melody
09-29-2008, 07:29 PM
I just think its sad how the concert years turned out just like the movies did in way. It really showed what Parker was all about all one has to do is look at how it all went down.(n)

Brian
09-29-2008, 07:58 PM
I just think its sad how the concert years turned out just like the movies did in way. It really showed what Parker was all about all one has to do is look at how it all went down.(n)

I don't blame Parker for Elvis dying.

Also like I said about the movies I think Hal Wallis was the driving force behind the movies as the producers back then made the decisions on what movies the actors would make.

I think Colonel Parker was a bad manager in 2 areas.

1. taking 50% of Elvis income from 1968 onward. If Parker needed or wanted more money he should have took on more clients imo.

2. The Hill and Range song publishing: This was a shrewd but brilliant move to get publishing rights from songwriters for Elvis to record there songs but in 1964 when bands, singer-songwriters etc. moved in and it was harder for a non writing performer to get a hold of hit material this policy should have been changed.

elvispresleytheking
09-29-2008, 08:21 PM
I think Elvis needed the Colonel to kickstart his career, but you know, after 1957, Elvis could have done it with any manager.

SatninLove
09-29-2008, 09:13 PM
I think Elvis wanted to get rid of Colonel,but then he'd think of where he'd gotten...I think he could have easily gotten rid of him,but as late as it was in the 60's,70's,I don't think Elvis could have really found anyone else willing to do the job that Colonel did.I also think Elvis took that into consideration,and also didn't know who to look for or anything...
I think Elvis also had doubts about if he would be as big as he was without Colonel....
-SatninLove

1100ccRider
09-29-2008, 11:19 PM
I think he could have easily gotten rid of him,but as late as it was in the 60's,70's,I don't think Elvis could have really found anyone else willing to do the job that Colonel did.

I think there'd have been several great candidates willing and able to not only do what the Colonel did but much more (and, in positive ways, much less...also taking far less than the colonel's cut, that was nothing short of criminal). I seem to recall Jerry Weintraub being eager for the job and I think he could have been an ideal choice. At some point, too, I think Albert Grossman expressed his desire to manage Elvis as well as Bob Zimmerman. Weintraub, though, would have perhaps have been an excellent choice not only because he knew what he was doing and was a real up-and-comer with a lot of drive, who understood the way the Colonel did things but did not choose for himself those carny ways, but because he had a relationship with Elvis already since teaming him up with Concerts West and Elvis trusted him and his competence.


I also think Elvis took that into consideration,and also didn't know who to look for or anything...


I'm sure he didn't really know how to go about the actual nitty-gritty of seeking new management, or even of making less severe changes. And that is exactly how the Colonel liked it and it's therefore how he did his level best to maintain the situation.

Also, if Elvis were a little more connected with people in show business, without the Colonel or his own minions running interference, perhaps he'd have learned a little more about the business side of things -- enough, at least, to grasp that the business of Elvis Presley benefited certain others disproportionate to their effort and didn't particularly place a great deal of importance on the personal welfare or artistic integrity of the man himself. Elvis was thus complicit in his own various professional downfalls, to an extent, but I believe he was very deliberately confined to an environment in which dissenting opinions were minimized or simply excised. He was primarily a commodity, to some, and the less self-awareness and knowledge he had (in terms of just how big and important -- and, therefore, potentially powerful -- he was, as well as in concrete knowledge relevant to escaping Parker's grip), the better. Elvis' personal failings in such aspects if his career -- loyalty to a fault (by which i mean to the point of detriment) and a tendency toward inertia and the path of least effort -- played right into the master plan.

Look at Larry Geller, as one example of what Colonel feared: an intelligent man with a different impression of what Elvis found important and a man who could potentially exert some influence on Elvis' thinking that'd be contrary to the Colonel's selfish mission. It's perhaps no big surprise that he was ousted at about the same time that the Vegas shotgun wedding was arranged, the Colonel seized a half share in everything Elvis (later augmented so that he'd actually profit more than Elvis off Elvis' sweat and hard work), and Priscilla burned all Elvis' philosophy and 'occult' books; all of this hard on the heels of Elvis' hospitalization and sedation for a rather nasty head injury. What a slimeball the Colonel was.

Unchained Melody
09-29-2008, 11:26 PM
I don't blame Parker for Elvis dying.


Yeah, and neither do I buddy youve missed my point. The movies started out good, but then Parker and Elvis got lazy, and saw ok we can make a million dollars a film with these formula movies so why change it. It was the same thing with the tours, why tour overseas and such when we can stay here and make tons of money, it was that mentality of Parkers that killed Elvis YES because Parker could CARELESS about creativeness, and Elvis lived off of being creative with his work, and once he realized there was nothing left, its like he just said the hell with it...

SatninLove
09-29-2008, 11:32 PM
Yeah, and neither do I buddy youve missed my point. The movies started out good, but then Parker and Elvis got lazy, and saw ok we can make a million dollars a film with these formula movies so why change it. It was the same thing with the tours, why tour overseas and such when we can stay here and make tons of money, it was that mentality of Parkers that killed Elvis YES because Parker could CARELESS about creativeness, and Elvis lived off of being creative with his work, and once he realized there was nothing left, its like he just said the hell with it...

Your right Col Jon Burrows...
I think if Colonel would have let Elvis do an overseas tour,and do some of the serious acting movies like "A Star Is Born",Elvis might be with us today...Elvis just wasn't excited with anything going on in his career life...what was there to be excited about..Doing the same old tours,and visiting the same cities,doing the same vegas engagements...I would get bored too,and enventually go insane!
I give Elvis credit for putting up with stuff..I fully understand what he went through...
-SatninLove

Unchained Melody
09-29-2008, 11:44 PM
do some of the serious acting movies like "A Star Is Born",Elvis might be with us today...
-SatninLove

Supposedly Elvis backed out of that deal, and told Parker to make the deal to where they would turn Elvis down because Elvis realized he would have to get back into shape and stuff and I guess he just thought he wasn't capable of such a change at that point in his life. When was it exactly that Streisland offered the script to Elvis in his suite in the Las Vegas Hilton????:hmm:

SatninLove
09-30-2008, 12:04 AM
Whew..Took me a minute to find the book but..
According to Jerry Schiiling's "Me And A Guy Named Elvis"
Barabra Streisan and her boyfriend Jon Peter's came to see Elvis at his next to last night of his March 1975 Las Vegas run at the Hilton...
Barbara wanted to redo the dramatic Hollywood tale A Star Is Born.The film had been originally made in 1937,starring Janet Gaynor,and again in 1954 starring Judy Garland.The film's female lead character climbs the slippery ladder of Hollywood success while her husband,a former star,sees his career head in the other direction and proceeds to drink himself into oblivion.In the original the husband's character,Normain Maine,had been played by Frederic March,and in the Garland version,James Mason.For Streisand's version,the story would be set in the world of rock and roll rather than Hollywood.And when Streisand stepped into the lead role,she wanted Elvis as her Norman Maine.
When we all first sat down,Elvis was simply attentive and courteous,willing to hear whatever she had to say.But as he got ahold of what she was ofering him,he got very excited.Elvis thought that his role in A Star Is Born could be like Frank Sinatra's From Here To Eternity.
Although Elvis was excited,the Colonel insisted that the only way Elvis would agree to the deal,was that if he was billed over Streisand,and demanded double what was being offered to Elvis,plus half of the film's back-end profits and all kinds of creative apporval.Streisand's people tried to negotiate in good faith,but eventually had no choice but to give up...
-SatninLove

Unchained Melody
09-30-2008, 12:10 AM
Whew..Took me a minute to find the book but..
According to Jerry Schiiling's "Me And A Guy Named Elvis"
Barabra Streisan and her boyfriend Jon Peter's came to see Elvis at his next to last night of his March 1975 Las Vegas run at the Hilton...
Barbara wanted to redo the dramatic Hollywood tale A Star Is Born.The film had been originally made in 1937,starring Janet Gaynor,and again in 1954 starring Judy Garland.The film's female lead character climbs the slippery ladder of Hollywood success while her husband,a former star,sees his career head in the other direction and proceeds to drink himself into oblivion.In the original the husband's character,Normain Maine,had been played by Frederic March,and in the Garland version,James Mason.For Streisand's version,the story would be set in the world of rock and roll rather than Hollywood.And when Streisand stepped into the lead role,she wanted Elvis as her Norman Maine.
When we all first sat down,Elvis was simply attentive and courteous,willing to hear whatever she had to say.But as he got ahold of what she was ofering him,he got very excited.Elvis thought that his role in A Star Is Born could be like Frank Sinatra's From Here To Eternity.
Although Elvis was excited,the Colonel insisted that the only way Elvis would agree to the deal,was that if he was billed over Streisand,and demanded double what was being offered to Elvis,plus half of the film's back-end profits and all kinds of creative apporval.Streisand's people tried to negotiate in good faith,but eventually had no choice but to give up...
-SatninLove

So that would make it March 31st 1975...Thanks..Jerry's book was a good one, really like that one.

SatninLove
09-30-2008, 12:19 AM
I agree,Loved Jerry's book..Jerry's one of the few people I really trust..
-SatninLove

KPM
09-30-2008, 09:17 AM
I was talking about the fact that Elvis wanted to be a movie star and it was standard to sign long term contracts back then. It was clear to me from the begining that Wallis was only interested in Elvis singing in movies to capitalize off of his popularity as a singer. Loving you, Jailhouse Rock and King Creole were decent films and Elvis even gives good acting performances in the latter 2 but they were made to sell soundtracks and not to develope Elvis as a dramatic actor. I believe it was Wallis who was the driving force behing the musicals and Colonel Parker went along with it for the money and he felt that Elvis wouldn't draw box office in a non singing role. The same view Wallis held.
I think it was Wallis who led Elvis to believe he was going to get a role in the Rainmaker. If Elvis had another manager who signed contracts for movies roles he would've had to make the same movies because he didn't have script approval as actors of that time didn't.
If it was clear to you-wasn't it clear to Parker? Since Elvis was saying "he had no desire to sing in the movies" in interviews the COl knew what Elvis wanted and was expecting. They had to have conversations discussing this-yet Parker recommended Elvis sign the deal.
Even if Wallis was the "driving force" and even if Parker agreed with Wallis-it was the COl. job to try and secure his client what he wanted-not what Wallis wanted. Since Elvis says his first picture for Wallis will be "The Rainmaker" that was what he was led to believe when he signed the deal.
Parker, in his clients best interests, could have easily made sure that this was part of the contract-he did not. So as I said I have to think Elvis's interests to become an actor were not the reason the Col. made this long term deal-long term money coming in was.
I think starting off with "Love Me Tender" and the songs in it-set the stage. After that the expections were always for songs to be in them. IF they had started off with a strictly acting role then IMO it may have been a different ballgame and fans and others may have accepted a non-singing Elvis easier. Instead the singing overshadowed the film, and fans then expected it-and non fans were not that interested in seeing it. Non musicals did less-because fans wanted singing and non fans just said-its a Presley film-with a pre-conceived idea of what to expect.
Viscious circle which IMO right from the start tainted Elvis's hopes of acting seriously.

KPM
09-30-2008, 09:25 AM
I don't blame Parker for Elvis dying.

Also like I said about the movies I think Hal Wallis was the driving force behind the movies as the producers back then made the decisions on what movies the actors would make.

I think Colonel Parker was a bad manager in 2 areas.

1. taking 50% of Elvis income from 1968 onward. If Parker needed or wanted more money he should have took on more clients imo.

2. The Hill and Range song publishing: This was a shrewd but brilliant move to get publishing rights from songwriters for Elvis to record there songs but in 1964 when bands, singer-songwriters etc. moved in and it was harder for a non writing performer to get a hold of hit material this policy should have been changed.
See I do not see it as shrewd-I see it as greedy.
In the 50s it worked because Elvis was selling so many records and everyone wanted him to record their songs-but right out of the Army that policy should have been discarded. Once again the extra profit was the driving force-not creativity and quality of material not the best music you can make.

Brian
09-30-2008, 09:30 AM
See I do not see it as shrewd-I see it as greedy.
In the 50s it worked because Elvis was selling so many records and everyone wanted him to record their songs-but right out of the Army that policy should have been discarded. Once again the extra profit was the driving force-not creativity and quality of material not the best music you can make.

up until 1964 I have no problem with Elvis getting rights to songs. The songwriters gave it to him. It wasn't until 64 onwards that Elvis had trouble getting quality songs imo Little sister, his latest flame were great songs in the early 60's.

Brian
09-30-2008, 09:38 AM
Yeah, and neither do I buddy youve missed my point. The movies started out good, but then Parker and Elvis got lazy, and saw ok we can make a million dollars a film with these formula movies so why change it. It was the same thing with the tours, why tour overseas and such when we can stay here and make tons of money, it was that mentality of Parkers that killed Elvis YES because Parker could CARELESS about creativeness, and Elvis lived off of being creative with his work, and once he realized there was nothing left, its like he just said the hell with it...


As I have said I don't blame Parker for Elvis not touring overseas if Elvis had really wanted to he would have, I know he told his friends he wanted to but their is a difference between saying you want to do something and actually doing it.

Elvis had no say so in the films he was making.

I believe when you get right down to it it was the drugs that killed Elvis and his inability to beat his addiction. The same thing happened to countless other people over the years and will continue to happen because they just love the feeling it gives them and they can't stop.

KPM
09-30-2008, 09:40 AM
up until 1964 I have no problem with Elvis getting rights to songs. The songwriters gave it to him. It wasn't until 64 onwards that Elvis had trouble getting quality songs imo Little sister, his latest flame were great songs in the early 60's.
If a snowball is never started at the top of the hill-theres no problem in stopping it-but once its started and it grows the momentum carries it and its near impossible to stop. That was the problem with all these extra profit ideas the COl. had IMO.

KPM
09-30-2008, 09:41 AM
As I have said I don't blame Parker for Elvis not touring overseas if Elvis had really wanted to he would have, I know he told his friends he wanted to but their is a difference between saying you want to do something and actually doing it.

Elvis had no say so in the films he was making.

I believe when you get right down to it it was the drugs that killed Elvis and his inability to beat his addiction. The same thing happened to countless other people over the years and will continue to happen because they just love the feeling it gives them and they can't stop.
Do not agree and we have been down this road before ;)

Brian
09-30-2008, 09:51 AM
If it was clear to you-wasn't it clear to Parker? Since Elvis was saying "he had no desire to sing in the movies" in interviews the COl knew what Elvis wanted and was expecting. They had to have conversations discussing this-yet Parker recommended Elvis sign the deal.
Even if Wallis was the "driving force" and even if Parker agreed with Wallis-it was the COl. job to try and secure his client what he wanted-not what Wallis wanted. Since Elvis says his first picture for Wallis will be "The Rainmaker" that was what he was led to believe when he signed the deal.
Parker, in his clients best interests, could have easily made sure that this was part of the contract-he did not. So as I said I have to think Elvis's interests to become an actor were not the reason the Col. made this long term deal-long term money coming in was.
I think starting off with "Love Me Tender" and the songs in it-set the stage. After that the expections were always for songs to be in them. IF they had started off with a strictly acting role then IMO it may have been a different ballgame and fans and others may have accepted a non-singing Elvis easier. Instead the singing overshadowed the film, and fans then expected it-and non fans were not that interested in seeing it. Non musicals did less-because fans wanted singing and non fans just said-its a Presley film-with a pre-conceived idea of what to expect.
Viscious circle which IMO right from the start tainted Elvis's hopes of acting seriously.


Back then it was wow I'm going to get to go to Hollywood and get a chance to make movies and meet some big stars and if I want to make movies I have to sign this standard contract. imo Elvis hollywood career started off good and then when he got back from the army and made Gi Blues and Blue Hawaii and they made a lot more than Wild in the country or Flaming star all the studio bosses wanted to repeat the success of Blue Hawaii by putting Elvis in vehicles like Girls, Girls, Girls, Fun in Aculpalco, Paradise Hawaiian Style and movies with a lot of songs as they saw that Elvis couldn't draw big box office in a non signing role.


If John Wayne, Clark Gable, Peter Sellers, Elizabeth Taylor, Bette Davis etc. didn't have script approval how can you expect Elvis to?
It was the way it was back then.
Could Colonel Parker lobby and do more to try and get Elvis better roles sure he could but I just don't think it would have made a difference as the movie producers didn't see any potential in Elvis as a non singing actor because he was brought to Hollywood because of his popularity as a singer and his roles in limited singing movies didn't bring in big box office.

Brian
09-30-2008, 09:54 AM
Do not agree and we have been down this road before ;)


I know you do but I don't exactly know why because if it was any other singer we wouldn't have any been discussing it.

Brian
09-30-2008, 09:59 AM
I think there'd have been several great candidates willing and able to not only do what the Colonel did but much more (and, in positive ways, much less...also taking far less than the colonel's cut, that was nothing short of criminal). I seem to recall Jerry Weintraub being eager for the job and I think he could have been an ideal choice. At some point, too, I think Albert Grossman expressed his desire to manage Elvis as well as Bob Zimmerman. Weintraub, though, would have perhaps have been an excellent choice not only because he knew what he was doing and was a real up-and-comer with a lot of drive, who understood the way the Colonel did things but did not choose for himself those carny ways, but because he had a relationship with Elvis already since teaming him up with Concerts West and Elvis trusted him and his competence.



.

I've heard Jerry Weintraub turned Elvis down when asked by Elvis in 1973 if he would manage him because he had like 20 clients and was a friend of the Colonel's and he also told Elvis that he'd be better off sticking with the Colonel.

KPM
09-30-2008, 10:54 AM
Back then it was wow I'm going to get to go to Hollywood and get a chance to make movies and meet some big stars and if I want to make movies I have to sign this standard contract. imo Elvis hollywood career started off good and then when he got back from the army and made Gi Blues and Blue Hawaii and they made a lot more than Wild in the country or Flaming star all the studio bosses wanted to repeat the success of Blue Hawaii by putting Elvis in vehicles like Girls, Girls, Girls, Fun in Aculpalco, Paradise Hawaiian Style and movies with a lot of songs as they saw that Elvis couldn't draw big box office in a non signing role.


If John Wayne, Clark Gable, Peter Sellers, Elizabeth Taylor, Bette Davis etc. didn't have script approval how can you expect Elvis to?
It was the way it was back then.
Could Colonel Parker lobby and do more to try and get Elvis better roles sure he could but I just don't think it would have made a difference as the movie producers didn't see any potential in Elvis as a non singing actor because he was brought to Hollywood because of his popularity as a singer and his roles in limited singing movies didn't bring in big box office.
If that is the case how do you account for the non singing roles that were offered to Elvis during his career.
Elia Kazan thought Elvis could act, so did Robert Wise, Robert Mitchem wanted him in "Thunder Road" Stanley Kramer considered him for the movie "The Defiant Ones" with Sammy Davis instead of Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier, a producer for the movie "Midnight Cowboy" suggested Elvis for the Jon Voight role. Not to mention the "Star is Born" offer which would have had music in it.
Do you find it curious that most of the co-stars who worked with Elvis always said there was so much more there that was not used in his movies?
Barbara Stanwick, Walter Mathau, Mildred Dunnock, etc all somewhere along the way have praised Elvis the actor. I have always felt the best judge of any talent is someone who does it for a living themselves.
Other actors have said they saw acting talent in Elvis-Martin Sheen is the one who comes to mind. Kurt Russel is another.
You missed my point that the moment "The Rainmaker " was out and the Reno Brothers added songs and became "Love Me Tender" it set in motion the viscious cycle that became the trap of Elvis's movie career. If the songs had never been added-the acting would have been first.
Parker knew Elvis wanted to act yet it appears he did nothing in the negotiations to guarantee what his client wanted and that is a managers job.
It also appears Elvis thought this had been done by his comments after signing the deal to the press. Elvis was the hottest property in show business in 1956 (which is why offers like Wallis's came in) surely the Col. could have protected what Elvis seemed to want better than he did in this deal. Parker understood dollars and cents-percentages, profit sharing but in setting up every deal for maximum profit-he helped kill creativity and growth IMO. Elvis trusted him-that can not be denied. I think the biggest mistake he made was in that trust.

Brian
09-30-2008, 11:29 AM
If that is the case how do you account for the non singing roles that were offered to Elvis during his career.
Elia Kazan thought Elvis could act, so did Robert Wise, Robert Mitchem wanted him in "Thunder Road" Stanley Kramer considered him for the movie "The Defiant Ones" with Sammy Davis instead of Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier, a producer for the movie "Midnight Cowboy" suggested Elvis for the Jon Voight role. Not to mention the "Star is Born" offer which would have had music in it.
Do you find it curious that most of the co-stars who worked with Elvis always said there was so much more there that was not used in his movies?
Barbara Stanwick, Walter Mathau, Mildred Dunnock, etc all somewhere along the way have praised Elvis the actor. I have always felt the best judge of any talent is someone who does it for a living themselves.
Other actors have said they saw acting talent in Elvis-Martin Sheen is the one who comes to mind. Kurt Russel is another.
You missed my point that the moment "The Rainmaker " was out and the Reno Brothers added songs and became "Love Me Tender" it set in motion the viscious cycle that became the trap of Elvis's movie career. If the songs had never been added-the acting would have been first.
Parker knew Elvis wanted to act yet it appears he did nothing in the negotiations to guarantee what his client wanted and that is a managers job.
It also appears Elvis thought this had been done by his comments after signing the deal to the press. Elvis was the hottest property in show business in 1956 (which is why offers like Wallis's came in) surely the Col. could have protected what Elvis seemed to want better than he did in this deal. Parker understood dollars and cents-percentages, profit sharing but in setting up every deal for maximum profit-he helped kill creativity and growth IMO. Elvis trusted him-that can not be denied. I think the biggest mistake he made was in that trust.


Elvis signed the contract which meant he had to make a certain number of films and had multi picture deals in the works so when an offer came for a better movie or Elvis was considered for a better role he was unavailable.
Elvis was free to do A Star is Born if he wanted as that offer came in the 70's and the studio system had been done a way with by then.

I didn't miss your point about the Rainmaker and Love me Tender, Hal Wallis didn't think much of Elvis as an actor and thought he would be blown off the screen by Burt Lancaster and Katharine Hepburn so he didn't want Elvis to do it and Earl Holliman did it instead. As far as the Reno brothers Hal Wallis signed Elvis to sing not to act and it didn't make sense for the worlds most popular singer not to sing any songs. Fans complain about Elvis having to sing in films now but if Elvis had made the Reno brothers with no signing I bet the film would've bombed as the stength of the film was the song Love Me Tender.

KPM
09-30-2008, 11:47 AM
Elvis signed the contract which meant he had to make a certain number of films and had multi picture deals in the works so when an offer came for a better movie or Elvis was considered for a better role he was unavailable.
Elvis was free to do A Star is Born if he wanted as that offer came in the 70's and the studio system had been done a way with by then.

I didn't miss your point about the Rainmaker and Love me Tender, Hal Wallis didn't think much of Elvis as an actor and thought he would be blown off the screen by Burt Lancaster and Katharine Hepburn so he didn't want Elvis to do it and Earl Holliman did it instead. As far as the Reno brothers Hal Wallis signed Elvis to sing not to act and it didn't make sense for the worlds most popular singer not to sing any songs. Fans complain about Elvis having to sing in films now but if Elvis had made the Reno brothers with no signing I bet the film would've bombed as the stength of the film was the song Love Me Tender.Well someone forgot to tell Elvis this-at least if you go by what he said in the interviews after the contract was signed. Think about it for a second-do you think before the contract was signed that Wallis or Parker actually said,
"Elvis now understand we are not signing you to act-we want you to make basically mindless movies with 10 songs to fill a soundtrack album. If you want to be an actor-this contract will not help you. We want to make as much money off your singing in the movies as we can. We are not worried about your growth as an actor!"
They pulled the wool over his eyes-he trusted them and he got taken. Sure he made good money and he became a movie star but his dream of truely acting like the actors he admired James Dean, Humphrey Bogart etc was just not considered by Wallis or Parker.
Love Me Tender was the strength of the film only after it was ADDED. How can you know how the movie would have been-before it was rewritten to make room for the songs? Movies are complicated-story, pacing, direction etc....the Reno Brother had to be revamped to accomodate the songs and that changed the movie..........so you can not know how it would have turned out because you have no idea how it would have been as originally planned.
I'm not saying it would have been "Gone with The Wind" but the acting and the story would have been what was concentrated on if no song had been added. Elvis would have not had to worry about the staging of the songs and the singing scenes he would have been concentrating on his performance as an actor in his first role. Plus it had to irk him that what he did not want to do-he was forced to do.

Brian
09-30-2008, 12:01 PM
[/B]Well someone forgot to tell Elvis this-at least if you go by what he said in the interviews after the contract was signed. Think about it for a second-do you think before the contract was signed that Wallis or Parker actually said,
"Elvis now understand we are not signing you to act-we want you to make basically mindless movies with 10 songs to fill a soundtrack album. If you want to be an actor-this contract will not help you. We want to make as much money off your singing in the movies as we can. We are not worried about your growth as an actor!"
They pulled the wool over his eyes-he trusted them and he got taken. Sure he made good money and he became a movie star but his dream of truely acting like the actors he admired James Dean, Humphrey Bogart etc was just not considered by Wallis or Parker.
Love Me Tender was the strength of the film only after it was ADDED. How can you know how the movie would have been-before it was rewritten to make room for the songs? Movies are complicated-story, pacing, direction etc....the Reno Brother had to be revamped to accomodate the songs and that changed the movie..........so you can not know how it would have turned out because you have no idea how it would have been as originally planned.
I'm not saying it would have been "Gone with The Wind" but the acting and the story would have been what was concentrated on if no song had been added. Elvis would have not had to worry about the staging of the songs and the singing scenes he would have been concentrating on his performance as an actor in his first role. Plus it had to irk him that what he did not want to do-he was forced to do.

Yes that's what I've been saying all along Wallis told Elvis that he was going to get to be in movies and Elvis thought that meant do some acting but Wallis never really had any intention of letting Elvis play in a great non singing dramatic role especially after he started to see the grosses and as for Parker he thought that the movies would be extra promotion for Elvis and a way to make extra money. So yes Elvis was duped by Wallis

As far as Love me Tender and those movies bombing had he not sung I believe they would have look at Flaming Star I thought that was a good movie with a good performance from Elvis but it bombed because no signing.
It was not a success that Gi Blues or the pre army films were. You would have gone to see Elvis act instead of sing but there are many who wouldn't.
Elvis needed to get some good non singing supported roles in good fims with noted dramatic actors to begin to build a reputation as a serious actor and Hollywood and Wallis didn't want that.

KPM
09-30-2008, 12:21 PM
Yes that's what I've been saying all along Wallis told Elvis that he was going to get to be in movies and Elvis thought that meant do some acting but Wallis never really had any intention of letting Elvis play in a great non singing dramatic role especially after he started to see the grosses and as for Parker he thought that the movies would be extra promotion for Elvis and a way to make extra money. So yes Elvis was duped by Wallis

As far as Love me Tender and those movies bombing had he not sung I believe they would have look at Flaming Star I thought that was a good movie with a good performance from Elvis but it bombed because no signing.
It was not a success that Gi Blues or the pre army films were. You would have gone to see Elvis act instead of sing but there are many who wouldn't.
Elvis needed to get some good non singing supported roles in good fims with noted dramatic actors to begin to build a reputation as a serious actor and Hollywood and Wallis didn't want that.
Well we have partial agreement-I think Parker also did not level with Elvis about the contract and the full impact of signing it. He had to know Wallis's intentions (even though Elvis obviously did not) he had to know what Elvis wanted- yet he advised him to sign the deal. Parker had to understand fully what this deal was about-yet Elvis did not. So IMO Wallis and Parker both had a hand in duping Elvis. Elvis was at fault for trusting them both-which is a universal fault among most humans-we all have to trust someone and sometimes we get taken.

kathy parkinson
09-30-2008, 12:30 PM
[/B]Well someone forgot to tell Elvis this-at least if you go by what he said in the interviews after the contract was signed. Think about it for a second-do you think before the contract was signed that Wallis or Parker actually said,
"Elvis now understand we are not signing you to act-we want you to make basically mindless movies with 10 songs to fill a soundtrack album. If you want to be an actor-this contract will not help you. We want to make as much money off your singing in the movies as we can. We are not worried about your growth as an actor!"
They pulled the wool over his eyes-he trusted them and he got taken. Sure he made good money and he became a movie star but his dream of truely acting like the actors he admired James Dean, Humphrey Bogart etc was just not considered by Wallis or Parker.
Love Me Tender was the strength of the film only after it was ADDED. How can you know how the movie would have been-before it was rewritten to make room for the songs? Movies are complicated-story, pacing, direction etc....the Reno Brother had to be revamped to accomodate the songs and that changed the movie..........so you can not know how it would have turned out because you have no idea how it would have been as originally planned.
I'm not saying it would have been "Gone with The Wind" but the acting and the story would have been what was concentrated on if no song had been added. Elvis would have not had to worry about the staging of the songs and the singing scenes he would have been concentrating on his performance as an actor in his first role. Plus it had to irk him that what he did not want to do-he was forced to do.

You my friend speak volumes of sense, wholly agree with this, thank you.:notworthy