|
|
Post by reverendb on Mar 30, 2013 17:56:39 GMT -5
Hi all, I'm currently reading "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" by Stephen King. In the book, Andy Dufresne has a poster of Linda in his cell. In the book, the poster is described as thus
"Linda was looking back over her shoulder, her hands tucked into the back pockets of a very tight pair of fan-colored slacks. She was wearing a halter and she had a deep California tan."
My curiosity got the best of me and I figured I'd ask you folks. Does/Did the poster described exist? Or was it a product of Stephen King's wonderful imagination? I've gone through several picture search engines and couldn't come up with anything that seemed like it was a match.
Most of you have been fans since her heyday, and I thought some of you might recall something. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Mar 30, 2013 19:05:40 GMT -5
Quote by reverendb:
It wouldn't surprise me if such a poster/picture did indeed exist. And even if it didn't, we all probably ought to congratulate Stephen King on his good taste, and of course his ultra-vivid imagination.
|
|
|
|
Post by JasonKlose on Mar 30, 2013 21:54:42 GMT -5
Hi all, I'm currently reading "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" by Stephen King. In the book, Andy Dufresne has a poster of Linda in his cell. In the book, the poster is described as thus "Linda was looking back over her shoulder, her hands tucked into the back pockets of a very tight pair of fan-colored slacks. She was wearing a halter and she had a deep California tan." My curiosity got the best of me and I figured I'd ask you folks. Does/Did the poster described exist? Or was it a product of Stephen King's wonderful imagination? I've gone through several picture search engines and couldn't come up with anything that seemed like it was a match. Most of you have been fans since her heyday, and I thought some of you might recall something. Thanks! That's really cool! I never knew Linda was mentioned in that book. I saw the movie a number of years ago, but some things were changed from the book. I never read the book, but I bet it's pretty interesting. In the movie, Andy is in prison for twenty years. Originally there is a poster of Rita Hayworth in his cell, covering the hole that he was digging in the wall to eventually escape through. Over the two decades he was in prison, the posters changed; first to Marilyn Monroe, and then to Raquel Welch. I think in the book it was 1975 when he escaped, and the poster of Linda was there. But in the movie it was 1967 I think, and Raquel Welch was a popular pin-up girl at the time. I don't know why they changed that for the movie.....the number of years he was there, which was originally 27, and the year he escaped. I guess Linda wasn't good enough for them. To be honest, I would take a young Linda Ronstadt any day over Marilyn Monroe. Raquel Welch.......she WAS smokin' hot, but I'd still take Linda. She had this irresistible quality to her. Not a glamour girl but just naturally beautiful and SO CUTE! I don't think I've ever seen that picture of Linda.....the one described in the book. Maybe it WAS just in Stephen King's imagination. Linda sure did take a lot of pictures over the years. I have seen pictures of Linda that looked similar, but she was wearing tight jeans and not slacks, and with her hands in her front pockets. I did find "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" audiobook on YouTube. Linda is mentioned in part 5 of 6, at just past 9 minutes, and a couple more times. Pretty cool stuff! I wonder if Linda knows about this? |
|
|
|
Post by MokyWI on Mar 31, 2013 10:40:11 GMT -5
I remember the photo of her at a sound check in Centeral Park, Linda has her back to the empty seats, looking over her shoulder, in frayed cut off jeans, that brown print top that she tied above her belly with the buffallo platform heals on, I think it was from 1975 the photo I am remembering.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 2, 2013 16:20:35 GMT -5
[quote author=jcklose09 board=general thread=1188 post=9125 time=1364698482
I don't know why they changed that for the movie.....the number of years he was there, which was originally 27, and the year he escaped. I guess Linda wasn't good enough for them. To be honest, I would take a young Linda Ronstadt any day over Marilyn Monroe. Raquel Welch.......she WAS smokin' hot, but I'd still take Linda. She had this irresistible quality to her. Not a glamour girl but just naturally beautiful and SO CUTE!
I don't think I've ever seen that picture of Linda.....the one described in the book. Maybe it WAS just in Stephen King's imagination. Linda sure did take a lot of pictures over the years. I have seen pictures of Linda that looked similar, but she was wearing tight jeans and not slacks, and with her hands in her front pockets.
Pretty cool stuff! I wonder if Linda knows about this?[/quote]
Regarding why the poster was changed in the movie, a couple of things come to mind: first and the least likely is they couldn't locate the poster or a reasonable facsimile. Second and a more possible valid reason why it wasn't in the movie is that with all product placements, the movie studios ask for companies to pay money for their products to be in a movie, and a poster is a product. Complicating matters more is the fact that if the said object is a poster of an actual person, living or dead, the movie studios have to pay for the right to use the person's images in a movie (or tv show, for that matter). Linda's management could either have said no to a request for a poster of her to be used in the movie or it could've been a case of her management asked for too much money. So, I would think it possible Linda may have known indirectly about the reference if she hadn't read King's book. But, it's possible her management might not have told her or consulted with her over the possible inclusion. It's also possible she knew but just didn't want to see a poster of herself in any movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard W on Apr 3, 2013 12:33:12 GMT -5
The most obvious reason why Linda's poster was left out of the movie was that, as jason stated, the movie didn't extend the time period into the '70s as did King's novella.
You basically have 120 minutes to tell your story in film. More often than not there just isn't enough time to include everything from the book (unless you're Peter Jackson making The Hobbit) and so you are forced to compress time and/or incident.
I don't think we need speculate too wildly about why Linda's poster was not in the movie when you simply consider the fact that there would not have been a '70s poster of her in the '60s.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 3, 2013 12:50:43 GMT -5
In the 1960's-70's I actually had my own posters of Linda made through a camera store. I then used colored pencils to add life to them and they looked quite good.
Here is one of the photos I used: I've often wondered if this photo was taken at the same time as the video of the John Byner Show with Linda singing one of my favorite Linda songs? I believe it is. That rock she is sitting on appears to be the same rock at :10-15 seconds into the video behind John. She of course removed her bracelets to play frisbee. A wise move. And playing frisbee well seems to be another great talent gone unnoticed by most.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Apr 3, 2013 14:45:57 GMT -5
Speaking of posters. I remember my mom used to watch the daytime soap opera, Another World, and the character Joey Perrini (Goodfella's Ray Liotta) had the Simples Dreams poster on his bedroom wall.. of Linda posing with her hair down, black slip dress and flower in hair. Wonder if Ray is a fan!! I tried finding something on youtube but could not.. They would show it a lot. This was 79-80
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 3, 2013 14:52:28 GMT -5
The most obvious reason why Linda's poster was left out of the movie was that, as jason stated, the movie didn't extend the time period into the '70s as did King's novella. You basically have 120 minutes to tell your story in film. More often than not there just isn't enough time to include everything from the book (unless you're Peter Jackson making The Hobbit) and so you are forced to compress time and/or incident. I don't think we need speculate too wildly about why Linda's poster was not in the movie when you simply consider the fact that there would not have been a '70s poster of her in the '60s. All quite true, but what I was referring to could've just as easily have applied to any poster of Linda from the 60s as much as it applied to 70s posters. If a poster of Linda circa 1967 had been available, the steps I mentioned about product placement would still have been in effect, as well as the need to reach an agreement with Linda and her management for the use of her image on such a poster. |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Apr 3, 2013 15:45:18 GMT -5
The most obvious reason why Linda's poster was left out of the movie was that, as jason stated, the movie didn't extend the time period into the '70s as did King's novella. You basically have 120 minutes to tell your story in film. More often than not there just isn't enough time to include everything from the book (unless you're Peter Jackson making The Hobbit) and so you are forced to compress time and/or incident. I don't think we need speculate too wildly about why Linda's poster was not in the movie when you simply consider the fact that there would not have been a '70s poster of her in the '60s. All quite true, but what I was referring to could've just as easily have applied to any poster of Linda from the 60s as much as it applied to 70s posters. If a poster of Linda circa 1967 had been available, the steps I mentioned about product placement would still have been in effect, as well as the need to reach an agreement with Linda and her management for the use of her image on such a poster. True too, but we like to fill in between the cracks with mindless but fun banter and facts. It makes an otherwise plain thread (not that this one is plain) more interesting. Sometimes the unintended discussion is more interesting than what brung you. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Apr 3, 2013 17:38:39 GMT -5
True too, but we like to fill in between the cracks with mindless but fun banter and facts. It makes an otherwise plain thread (not that this one is plain) more interesting. Sometimes the unintended discussion is more interesting than what brung you. I know what you mean. I would love to have seen a poster of Linda in The Shawshank Redemption as well as it is one of my favorite movies. But, I've always been bugged by the fact that if a movie is based on a book, it often doesn't follow the book. Most of the time, the blame for that is that Hollywood compresses a book's content to fit a 90-120 minute movie. Sometimes, that is all too true, especially when the book in question is a 6-700 page book. But, there are also behind-the-scenes reasons why Hollywood doesn't film a book exactly as written, which can include references to real people. Stephen King could reference Linda or any other musical acts in his books (which he seems to do in many of them) but he doesn't have to pay a licensing fee to any of them. Hollywood is not that lucky. Any time they use a photo of an artist or a recording or what have you, they have to pay for the use. Sometimes the artists and their managers are reasonable in their licensing requirements and don't present a problem. |
|
