https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/bill-hayes-dead-days-lives-1235787188/

In article <4a91d123-c04f-4f46-8092-00b927c2f4dfn@googlegroups.com>,
That Derek <thatderek@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/bill-hayes-dead-days-lives-123578
> 7188/

The obit doesn't mention the coolest part of the Crockett story:
Hayes's version was unauthorized by Disney. (Perfectly legal, though.)
Hayes's people got it out fast, and it sold like crazy. It almost
certainly cut into sales of the authorized version. Walt Disney never
let anything like that happen again.

A Friend wrote:
>That Derek <thatderek@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/bill-hayes-dead-days-lives-1235787188/

>The obit doesn't mention the coolest part of the Crockett story:
>Hayes's version was unauthorized by Disney. (Perfectly legal, though.)
>Hayes's people got it out fast, and it sold like crazy. It almost
>certainly cut into sales of the authorized version. Walt Disney never
>let anything like that happen again.

You said he paid the licensing fee and Disney didn't have a record label
at the time, or didn't hire him for its record label recording.

A pity that he doesn't even appear in the Halliwell's Filmgoer's and Video Viewer's Companion. (Or at least, not my 9th edition from 1988, with Fred Astaire on the cover.)

But most of his work was on TV and he was only in six theatrical movies - none of which I recognized, offhand. (Maybe I SHOULD recognize "The Cardinal," from 1963, but I don't.)

Anyway, this 2002 film has a 6.2 rating at the IMDb (not too bad - granted, he seems to have only a tiny role in it):

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0336910/reviews/?ref_=tt_ov_rt

"Two Irish lads stumble through London's gay scene."

A great, silly, hysterical waste of time
Ashley_Kamine26 July 2005
"This movie is a completely pointless work of art. It's hysterical, silly, and lewd, and everything that could possibly be related to those words. However, it never makes any claims to be anything BUT hysterical, silly, and lewd. There are a few moments where it might drift into a realm a bit more serious, but then someone will say or do something to bring it right back into crazyland.

"While some people may feel that this is a tasteless work of stereotypical junk, and it does make use of a surprising number of stereotypes, it doesn't do it in a way that is offensive. It's more of an affectionate mocking between friends (much the way that Kenny and Byron mock each other from time to time). All in all, this movie is absolutely hysterical, and a great movie to watch with your friends, straight or not. Just... no small children or old people not as accommodating as the three park bench biddies."

In article <bfc13566-ed27-4c17-89c2-45de17ae2407n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A pity that he doesn't even appear in the Halliwell's Filmgoer's and Video
> Viewer's Companion. (Or at least, not my 9th edition from 1988, with Fred
> Astaire on the cover.)
>
> But most of his work was on TV and he was only in six theatrical movies -
> none of which I recognized, offhand. (Maybe I SHOULD recognize "The
> Cardinal," from 1963, but I don't.)

It's been a long time. The Cardinal was endlessly promoted via TV
commercials, unusual for the time for a film that didn't have any
monsters or flying saucers in it. Tom Tryon had recently done some
light comedies for Disney. They were initially released to theaters
but, of course, Walt was making them for his TV show.

Tryon wrote several books, too. I remember reading one, a long time
ago. I couldn't tell you a thing about it.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article <bfc13566-ed27-4c17-89c2-45de17ae2407n@googlegroups.com>,
> Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> A pity that he doesn't even appear in the Halliwell's Filmgoer's and Video
>> Viewer's Companion. (Or at least, not my 9th edition from 1988, with Fred
>> Astaire on the cover.)
>>
>> But most of his work was on TV and he was only in six theatrical movies -
>> none of which I recognized, offhand. (Maybe I SHOULD recognize "The
>> Cardinal," from 1963, but I don't.)
>
>
> It's been a long time. The Cardinal was endlessly promoted via TV
> commercials, unusual for the time for a film that didn't have any
> monsters or flying saucers in it. Tom Tryon had recently done some
> light comedies for Disney. They were initially released to theaters
> but, of course, Walt was making them for his TV show.
>
> Tryon wrote several books, too. I remember reading one, a long time
> ago.

Seriously,you remember one and not The Other?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

In article <uo0bft$pm$2@reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein
<le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:

> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > In article <bfc13566-ed27-4c17-89c2-45de17ae2407n@googlegroups.com>,
> > Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> A pity that he doesn't even appear in the Halliwell's Filmgoer's and Video
> >> Viewer's Companion. (Or at least, not my 9th edition from 1988, with Fred
> >> Astaire on the cover.)
> >>
> >> But most of his work was on TV and he was only in six theatrical movies -
> >> none of which I recognized, offhand. (Maybe I SHOULD recognize "The
> >> Cardinal," from 1963, but I don't.)
> >
> >
> > It's been a long time. The Cardinal was endlessly promoted via TV
> > commercials, unusual for the time for a film that didn't have any
> > monsters or flying saucers in it. Tom Tryon had recently done some
> > light comedies for Disney. They were initially released to theaters
> > but, of course, Walt was making them for his TV show.
> >
> > Tryon wrote several books, too. I remember reading one, a long time
> > ago.
>
>
> Seriously,you remember one and not The Other?

Heh. Good one. And literary, too!