We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

TCM and Other Sources for Classic Film


  • Please log in to reply
2398 replies to this topic

#2321 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,712 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 23 June 2014 - 11:33 AM

I wish Me TV would put those eps of the enhanced Star Trek and Lost in Space on weekdays. This past saturday it was Lost in Space ep Visit to a Hostile Planet, the one where a spinning time vortex sends the jupiter 2 back to 1947 and they wind up in Manitou Junction and have to deal with local yokel Cragmire (Robert Foulk) Smith goes nuts as usual and wants to stay and enjoy 1947 americana. I love it at the end when Cragmire quips about Smith "They ain't gonna drop him off in Chickasaw Falls."  :D

 

1z3q6q8.jpg


"okay, so we're moving right along, folks" -al pacino, dog day afternoon


#2322 clore

clore

    Let no Advanced Members be left behind.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,530 posts
  • LocationSitting in front of the PC or TV

Posted 23 June 2014 - 11:32 AM

While TCM does not subscribe to traditional TV rating systems (Neilsen family, etc), they do have other ways of gauging their audience from market research to public surveys. Based on what the staff has said in interviews, they are involved in market research and very aware of other classic film stations across the dial.

 

They are also interactive with their audiences on social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter. One of the more popular Twitter sites is TCM oriented. 

 

With all due respect, it is entirely possible that TCM does know its Nielsen status - not that I'm saying that they do. Sister station TNT could order a Nielsen report within parameters that would include TCM as a competitor. They could even leave a copy on a TCM desk and terchnically not be breaking any rules. The problems would come only if TCM were to publish the data or use it in any form of promotion/negotiation and get caught doing so.

 

Again, I'm not saying that this is being done, but as long as theories are being proposed in this thread...



#2323 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,201 posts

Posted 23 June 2014 - 11:31 AM

Or it could be telling us that after viewers watched ALICE B. TOKLAS (8PM start time), they turned to Me-TV to watch CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (10PM start time)  and they came over to research the Hammer movie during one of those interminable commercial breaks.  That's a more likely scenario than the one that you propose as the two movies did not compete in the same time period.

There is as much a flaw in your statement as mine. LOL You have no way of knowing whether or not people watched ALICE B. TOKLAS. They might have watched ME-TV's earlier programming before CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF started. 

 

It still doesn't negate the point I made that it is very possible ME-TV is cutting in on TCM's dance, I mean audience.


"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#2324 clore

clore

    Let no Advanced Members be left behind.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,530 posts
  • LocationSitting in front of the PC or TV

Posted 23 June 2014 - 11:25 AM


But, are you ready for this latest development?  Sit down and fasten your seatbelts.  The film that aired against ALICE B. TOKLAS, which was CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (with commercials) on ME-TV, did come in at number ten on the list.

 

So what does that tell us?  That people are not watching something they don't consider a true essential and that they going off to see what the competition has to offer...?  Is ME-TV cutting in on TCM’s action?

 

 

Or it could be telling us that after viewers watched ALICE B. TOKLAS (8PM start time), they turned to Me-TV to watch CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (10PM start time)  and they came over to research the Hammer movie during one of those interminable commercial breaks.  That's a more likely scenario than the one that you propose as the two movies did not compete in the same time period.


  • lavenderblue19 likes this

#2325 misswonderly3

misswonderly3

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,144 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 23 June 2014 - 11:07 AM

I think I am going to (nicely) challenge this. It would be dreadful if every time someone voiced a concern (as opposed to a complaint) about the lack of studio era movies on TCM that someone else kept digging this statement up to throw it on to a thread as a way to stifle conversation.

 

I agree that it is good to see what Osborne said at the beginning, but I do not think as many people watch TCM to see the more current and watchable stars as they do to see the earlier watchable stars.

 

So we have to take Osborne's statement and put it on the operating table and start to slice it open...ouch, that hurts, I know...LOL  

 

Well, it's always nice to be nice.

 

I don't think anyone's trying to "stifle conversation". They're simply pointing out to those who moan that TCM has wandered from its original mandate, that it has not. (wandered, that is.)

You know, to suggest that those who quote Robert Osborne's original opening speech for TCM, or the TCM mission statement, is tantamount to "stifling conversation" is itself a way of trying to stifle conversation.

 

Look, you're actually implying that just because it's in the TCM mission statement and Osborne's TCM launch speech (what? what's in those things?  - - - the commitment to air "international" films and films from more recent years ---) - that this is no reason for the station to stick to those policies. I'm inferring from your earlier posts here, especially the one I quote here, that you feel that TCM somehow owes it to the viewers who prefer 1930-1960 mainstream American films,to give that content to them, and little else.

 

Shirley it's up to Turner Classic Movies whether they decide to stick with that original intent with regard to what they air, or to change it.

It's kind of like...oh, I don't know...if a bread manufacturer pledged to make their bread a certain way, with maybe a variety of choices within that way (multigrain, unbleached white, rye, and hey, I'll throw in some trendy gluten -free) and someone decided they didn't like some of the types of bread they were making. You wouldn't expect the company to change their bread, especially if they'd come up with a mission statement and all about it, now would you?

 

Upon re-reading that, it's just about the silliest comparison I could make. I don't even know if it makes sense to people. Well, I've had only one coffee today, and one piece of toast (with extra gluten.)

 

Still, the song remains the same. I mean, the point remains the same.

A company that provides a product to the public to consume, whether it's a television station or a bread manufacturer, has the right to produce that product the way they want, without being told they need to change it to please a few squiffy naysayers.

 

Why should we tell TCM, its mission statement writers, or Robert Osborne that they need to get with the programme and change? It's their frigging programme, they can do anything they want with it.

 

Thank you, I now need to go have more coffee. With extra caffeine. And more toast. I always request extra gluten in mine.


  • HelenBaby2 likes this

"....What is it?"

"The stuff that dreams are made of."


#2326 AndyM108

AndyM108

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,195 posts
  • LocationKensington, MD

Posted 23 June 2014 - 10:12 AM

I agree that it is good to see what Osborne said at the beginning, but I do not think as many people watch TCM to see the more current and watchable stars as they do to see the earlier watchable stars.

 

Right, and this is reflected in TCM's schedule, which features far more vintage American films than films from any other time and/or place. There has never been, and never will be, any "lack of studio era movies on TCM".  That's little more than a baseless canard, no matter how many times some people (not you) like to repeat it.



#2327 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,201 posts

Posted 23 June 2014 - 10:05 AM

 

Someone needs to keep this on hand and repost it every time the old movies/new movies complaint is revived:

 

When Robert Osborne first spoke to the TCM audience on April 14, 1994 he said:

 

(paraphrasing) djfdkjfdkajfl eljleje adkjdl a kldjdkfldjdlj, etc.

 

Thanks to slayton for the transcript on Robert O's opening remarks which were featured in the recent Robert Osborne Private Screening.

 

I think I am going to (nicely) challenge this. It would be dreadful if every time someone voiced a concern (as opposed to a complaint) about the lack of studio era movies on TCM that someone else kept digging this statement up to throw it on to a thread as a way to stifle conversation.

 

I agree that it is good to see what Osborne said at the beginning, but I do not think as many people watch TCM to see the more current and watchable stars as they do to see the earlier watchable stars.

 

So we have to take Osborne's statement and put it on the operating table and start to slice it open...ouch, that hurts, I know...LOL  


"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#2328 rewrite

rewrite

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 272 posts
  • LocationBellevue, Wash.

Posted 23 June 2014 - 09:52 AM

Someone needs to keep this on hand and repost it every time the old movies/new movies complaint is revived:

 

 

When Robert Osborne first spoke to the TCM audience on April 14, 1994 he said:

 

"Hi, welcome to Turner Classic Movies. I'm Robert Osborne, I'm gonna be your host, right here, as we present some of the best, the--finest films ever made, twenty-four hours a day. We're going to be drawing not only from the great film libraries of MGM and Warner Brothers, but also from other outstanding catalogs, so: Come join us, and see not only great films and stars from the past, but also films from recent years, featuring some of our newest and most watchable stars."

 

He included the words films from recent years, featuring some of our newest and most watchable stars.

 

The mission statement that appeared on the original TCM website (courtesy of the Wayback Machine) said: 

 

Turner Classic Movies presents the greatest movies of all time, from the 1920s through the '80s--featuring the silent screen, International pictures, as well as all of Hollywood's genres--commercial-free, uninterrupted, 24-hours a day.

 

When TCM celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2004 they expanded the mission statement to include films made in the 1990s and this year they expanded another ten years to include films made in the 2000s.

 

TCM has always included foreign films and recent films in their line-ups and have being do so from the day they began broadcasting over twenty years ago.

 

Thanks to slayton for the transcript on Robert O's opening remarks which were featured in the recent Robert Osborne Private Screening.


  • AndyM108 likes this

#2329 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,201 posts

Posted 23 June 2014 - 09:46 AM

Just checked -- I don't get ME-TV. I'd love to have seen Curse of the Werewolf again. But whichever side of the argument one is on, this thread does make the point that there are still rarities out there that we'd like to see on TCM, and that I don't think it's always a question of the complexities of licensing and fees. I don't think that ME-TV is a particularly rich network, and if they could show Curse of the Werewolf, TCM should certainly be able to get hold of it, for cheap. There are a lot of old cheapies out there, just waiting for TCM to program them!

Exactly...which takes us back to the point of TCM programming movies they want to see and movies they think others should see, instead of some of the cheap horror pictures that people love (and I don't mean cheap Monogram horror, I mean cheap Universal horror from the 40s).


"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#2330 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,482 posts

Posted 23 June 2014 - 08:22 AM

Just checked -- I don't get ME-TV. I'd love to have seen Curse of the Werewolf again.

 

Absolutely!


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#2331 Swithin

Swithin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,824 posts
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 23 June 2014 - 08:17 AM

Boy, I gotta agree with Fxreyman on this one.

 

The title of this thread and its opening post is beyond ridiculous. Of course the Saturday evening audience is gonna tune in to see a rare showing of 'Curse of the Werewolf' over the often shown - on TCM - (I'd guess at least 6 times over the past 2 years) 'Alice B. Toklas'. It would have been likewise for almost any other movie TCM had chosen to run unless it was something awfully special.

 

The suggestion that people choosing the more rare treat in this one instance is evidence that a special movie network like TCM is losing any its audience to MeTV on any kind of ongoing basis is just inane.

Just checked -- I don't get ME-TV. I'd love to have seen Curse of the Werewolf again. But whichever side of the argument one is on, this thread does make the point that there are still rarities out there that we'd like to see on TCM, and that I don't think it's always a question of the complexities of licensing and fees. I don't think that ME-TV is a particularly rich network, and if they could show Curse of the Werewolf, TCM should certainly be able to get hold of it, for cheap. There are a lot of old cheapies out there, just waiting for TCM to program them!


  • fxreyman and TopBilled like this

#2332 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,482 posts

Posted 23 June 2014 - 08:05 AM

Boy, I gotta agree with Fxreyman on this one.

 

The title of this thread and its opening post is beyond ridiculous. Of course the Saturday evening audience is gonna tune in to see a rare showing of 'Curse of the Werewolf' over the often shown - on TCM - (I'd guess at least 6 times over the past 2 years) 'Alice B. Toklas'. It would have been likewise for almost any other movie TCM had chosen to run unless it was something awfully special.

 

The suggestion that people choosing the more rare treat in this one instance is evidence that a special movie network like TCM is losing its audience to MeTV on any kind of ongoing basis is just inane.


  • laffite, fxreyman and lavenderblue19 like this

I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#2333 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,037 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 23 June 2014 - 12:04 AM

I believe that Lifeboat should be seen by the kiddies. They could learn

how to write with lipstick and to catch fish using expensive jewelery as

bait. This knowledge could possibly be put to good use in the case of

some grave and unforeseen emergency.


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#2334 fxreyman

fxreyman

    I never shot nobody I didn't have to.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,783 posts
  • LocationLibertyville, Illinois

Posted 22 June 2014 - 11:22 PM

"You are doing exactly what I don't like. You are continually trying to subvert others' statements instead of taking the conversation forward. I find many of your posts very counter-productive and I try not to take it personally. The onus is not on me to provide the research any more than it is also on you. Each day i am providing the facts from the database searches and recording it in a thread before that information is gone."

 

I am not trying to subvert anything. Look the meaning of the word subvert up.

 

As far as facts are concerned about the database searches? What facts are those? The fact that there seems to be a certain number of films that are searched everyday and that for whatever reason some films are ahead in a non-substantial ranking based on no real information at all? Is this where you are coming up with facts?

 

If the searches had a counter to show exactly how many people actually are searching, now that would be more substantial than say “Oh, Gone With the Wind is in the number one place today”. This must be a revelation for you to know this without any idea just how many people actually did search that title.

 

"I am doing quite a lot. I do not see you providing any information, just picking apart others' data and downplaying it. That is very counter-productive, to sit there and try and negate claims. Whoa boy, it's too easy to cast doubt without creating your own thesis, except that TCM is perfect and has no room for growth or improvement. Sorry I am not buying that."

 

You are right. I am not spending everyday of my life here on the message boards with the sole intent of creating more and more posts just to see the threads I have created grow larger and larger. I am also not a big believer in counting how many posts I have created or how many threads I have started. I like to comment on those threads where I think I can contribute.
 

As far as bringing facts to the table, I will say this: I bring probably as much information that I can based simply on the fact that I do perform research on a wide variety of topics before I go and make statements which I can not back up in any substantial way. Unlike others who write here.
 


  • laffite, lavenderblue19 and HelenBaby2 like this

#2335 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,201 posts

Posted 22 June 2014 - 10:54 PM

Man, this is really a problem for you isn't it? Whenever anyone challenges you this is what you end up doing. Throwing it right back in their face with the "oh this isn't helping too much" argument. And or supposedly siding with those other complainers who always have the answers but for some reason just can not back up anything that they have to say. Or one of my favorites is when things don't go your way you complain that people are picking on you or are being disrespectful in some way. Geeze, I wonder if your next response to me will be of that?

 

It is all opinion, and nothing else.

 

Here is the thing. Whenever I do see someone write something that is clearly based NOT on fact but on an opinion, then I think their belief can and should be challenged and or discussed, so the poster can come up with a more viable answer based on facts with solid research. You tend to come up with these wonderful short essays where you have determined based not on fact but on your opinion what TCM and or others who write here have to say.

 

In fact I would say that almost every one of your posts here on this thread today are speculative at best, especially the one where you contend:

 

"Part of what is happening here, and I figured this would happen-- after the 20th anniversary when they brought the Fan Programmers on-- they have gone back to promoting their own agenda and getting away from what the viewers are wanting."

 

Wow, now that was an incredible post.

 

Be that as it may, you can sit here and twist anything I say with anything you want to say. I will say this: It amazes me that someone of your caliber and intelligence can only come up with speculation instead of actually performing some research into a particular subject.

 

Performing research actually informs people instead of what you accuse me of what did you write? Confusing people? Who are those people?

You are doing exactly what I don't like. You are continually trying to subvert others' statements instead of taking the conversation forward. I find many of your posts very counter-productive and I try not to take it personally. The onus is not on me to provide the research any more than it is also on you. Each day i am providing the facts from the database searches and recording it in a thread before that information is gone.  

 

I am doing quite a lot. I do not see you providing any information, just picking apart others' data and downplaying it. That is very counter-productive, to sit there and try and negate claims. Whoa boy, it's too easy to cast doubt without creating your own thesis, except that TCM is perfect and has no room for growth or improvement. Sorry I am not buying that.


"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#2336 HoldenIsHere

HoldenIsHere

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,000 posts

Posted 22 June 2014 - 10:54 PM

Sometimes the films aren't available; it's taken us four years to get "Shane" on the schedule.

.

 

I'm so happy you were finally able to include SHANE on the Essentials Jr schedule.

 

tumblr_m9h0kgM0rb1qbhsbe.jpg



#2337 fxreyman

fxreyman

    I never shot nobody I didn't have to.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,783 posts
  • LocationLibertyville, Illinois

Posted 22 June 2014 - 10:42 PM

Can you explain how you do not know this to be true? Where are your facts and where is your research that says people do not change the channel from TCM to Svengoolie?  I am just curious.

 

Do you see how easy it is to turn the conversation around? I do not think some of your posts are helping. All it is doing is serving to confuse people and it seems too easy to pick others' arguments apart instead of trying to see the validity in some of their claims. Thumbs down.

 

Man, this is really a problem for you isn't it? Whenever anyone challenges you this is what you end up doing. Throwing it right back in their face with the "oh this isn't helping too much" argument. And or supposedly siding with those other complainers who always have the answers but for some reason just can not back up anything that they have to say. Or one of my favorites is when things don't go your way you complain that people are picking on you or are being disrespectful in some way. Geeze, I wonder if your next response to me will be of that?

 

It is all opinion, and nothing else.

 

Here is the thing. Whenever I do see someone write something that is clearly based NOT on fact but on an opinion, then I think their belief can and should be challenged and or discussed, so the poster can come up with a more viable answer based on facts with solid research. You tend to come up with these wonderful short essays where you have determined based not on fact but on your opinion what TCM and or others who write here have to say.

 

In fact I would say that almost every one of your posts here on this thread today are speculative at best, especially the one where you contend:

 

"Part of what is happening here, and I figured this would happen-- after the 20th anniversary when they brought the Fan Programmers on-- they have gone back to promoting their own agenda and getting away from what the viewers are wanting."

 

Wow, now that was an incredible post.

 

Be that as it may, you can sit here and twist anything I say with anything you want to say. I will say this: It amazes me that someone of your caliber and intelligence can only come up with speculation instead of actually performing some research into a particular subject.

 

Performing research actually informs people instead of what you accuse me of what did you write? Confusing people? Who are those people?


  • laffite likes this

#2338 lzcutter

lzcutter

    Riding Point

  • Moderators
  • 12,320 posts
  • LocationCity of the Angels- San Fernando Valley division

Posted 22 June 2014 - 10:31 PM

Sorry in advance for my ignorance and for not reading all the posts in this thread, but: -- is it a fact that TCM does not know its ratings? Don't cable companies have an idea as to who is watching what, apart from the rating services?  And are there not other reasons why TCM would want to know ratings, having nothing to do with commercials? Every non-profit I know (and I know many) is deeply and passionately interested in its metrics/statistics. I don't know this for a fact, but I would think that, however they get them, TCM knows a lot about its ratings. And many companies apart from the ratings services do surveys asking what TV stations people watch. I recently earned $100 for participating in one, and of course I said I watch TCM!

 

While TCM does not subscribe to traditional TV rating systems (Neilsen family, etc), they do have other ways of gauging their audience from market research to public surveys. Based on what the staff has said in interviews, they are involved in market research and very aware of other classic film stations across the dial.

 

They are also interactive with their audiences on social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter. One of the more popular Twitter sites is TCM oriented. 


  • Swithin and clore like this
"Movies touch our hearts and awaken our vision, and change the way we see things. They take us to other places, they open doors and minds. Movies are the memories of our life times, we need to keep them alive,"- Marty Scorsese

#2339 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,201 posts

Posted 22 June 2014 - 10:25 PM

Sorry in advance for my ignorance and for not reading all the posts in this thread, but: -- is it a fact that TCM does not know its ratings? Don't cable companies have an idea as to who is watching what, apart from the rating services?  And are there not other reasons why TCM would want to know ratings, having nothing to do with commercials? Every non-profit I know (and I know many) is deeply and passionately interested in its metrics/statistics. I don't know this for a fact, but I would think that, however they get them, TCM knows a lot about its ratings. And many companies apart from the ratings services do surveys asking what TV stations people watch. I recently earned $100 for participating in one, and of course I said I watch TCM!

Excellent post, Swithin. Of course TCM's execs care about such information. Maybe not in the way other channels do, but it must on some level be important to them. When someone comes on here and says ratings are not important to TCM, I see it as a statement made by a person who is ignorant (maybe intentionally) to the industry's practices.

 

I think what is really happening is that people are afraid that at some point we are going to know exactly how many people are turning off Drew Barrymore's choices on Saturday night and how TCM is not maximizing viewership with some of its programming choices and choices in bargain basement guest hosts. I know that sounds harsh, but a few of the ones invited on to do the Friday Night Spotlights have just not performed as well as they could have, and various comments across the TCM message boards and out in greater cyberland are indicators of how poorly received some of those hosts have been.


"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#2340 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,201 posts

Posted 22 June 2014 - 10:22 PM

Can you explain how you know this?

 

How do you know? What facts that you know have made you conclude this? A few people here on the boards that watch him? Or have you done exhaustive research on this?

 

I am just curious.

Can you explain how you do not know this to be true? Where are your facts and where is your research that says people do not change the channel from TCM to Svengoolie?  I am just curious.

 

Do you see how easy it is to turn the conversation around? I do not think some of your posts are helping. All it is doing is serving to confuse people and it seems too easy to pick others' arguments apart instead of trying to see the validity in some of their claims. Thumbs down.


"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users