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
2555 replies to this topic

#2321 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36,551 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 04:02 PM

Bump:P  How is a Cary Grant docu-short at ten tonite suppose to beat out Terence Fisher's The Brides of Dracula on Me TV?  :D

I will be very eager to see tomorrow's top ten database searches...


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


#2322 AndyM108

AndyM108

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 28 June 2014 - 03:44 PM

 How is a Cary Grant docu-short at ten tonite suppose to beat out Terence Fisher's The Brides of Dracula on Me TV?  :D

 

And how are either of them supposed to beat out the final innings of Masahiro Tanaka going against the Red Sox?



#2323 primosprimos

primosprimos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,083 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 03:43 PM

A la Carte channels would be nice but that would mean that my family's cable package would be only about 40 channels (or less).

That would be nice, but the cable channels have made sure their bribes have landed in the proper pockets to never let that happen.

 

It's all about the bottom line, after all, not customer satisfaction.



#2324 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,662 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 28 June 2014 - 03:26 PM

Bump:P  How is a Cary Grant docu-short at ten tonite suppose to beat out Terence Fisher's The Brides of Dracula on Me TV?  :D


  • TopBilled likes this

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


#2325 Swithin

Swithin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,179 posts
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 27 June 2014 - 05:51 PM

I'd like an ala carte approach. I live in terror of the World Cup taking over the world! They are trying to force it on us, and one day it will be fully covered on US cable! I'm in London at the moment and people are pretty keen on it here, but I don't want my cable bill to go up because of the cost of sports channels. Now if they had a cricket channel, I might feel differently...

 

I have three cable choices in my building: FIOS, Time Warner, and RCN, which is my cable company. FIOS would be cheaper, but I like RCN. And FIOS doesn't have TCM in HD.

 



#2326 AndyM108

AndyM108

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 27 June 2014 - 02:49 PM

Like so many discussion this one about 'is cable today better than T.V. in th 'old days' becomes too black and white.   Anyhow Andy, you make some very valid points and I tend to agree; overall T.V.  is WAY BETTER than the 'old days' as far as access to content.  It is crazy to think otherwise.

 

What is concerning about T.V. today is the lack of pricing options.   Even if al-carte isn't the answer it would be great if cable providers offer multiple T.V.  station bundles packages instead of starting out with 'basic' (which already is too expensive and has too many stations),  and than going right to extended basic etc....

 

e.g.  have stations in pricings tiers.   allow users to pick a set number of stations from these tiers with limits on the number of choices from the upper tiers.     

 

Hey,  I'm sure one can pick holes in my idea here but you get the general idea.

 

Sounds like a good idea to me.  What might be a good place to begin would be to get a list of what each cable network charges the providers in order to carry their content in their non-premium packages.  I know that ESPN is the most expensive network in my Fios lineup.  That doesn't bother me, since I watch ESPN a lot, but I can see the complaints of non-sports fans in having to subsidize people like me. 

 

Of course I doubt if many people at all ever watch more than a dozen or so "regular" channels.  For me it's just TCM, ESPN, TBS, the two local Comcast Sports channels, PBS, the occasional CBS/ABC/NBC/Fox sports presentation (never any of their regular programming), Al-Jazeera America (infinitely better than the competition for serious 24 hour news coverage, as opposed to nonstop partisan flaming), the MLB, NFL and NBA channels, and that's it.  Adding them up, it's 14 networks,10 of which I watch exclusively for sports.  Overall TCM is far and away the one I watch most, especially if you count the overnight recording hours.

 

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My family pays $85 a month for cable, and I am still furious that TCM disappears from their lineup for periods of weeks at a time sometimes.

 

We've got Fios, and so far so good.  I dropped Comcast in favor of DirecTV because at that point it didn't carry TCM.  Had to switch to Fios because of satellite problems during bad weather.



#2327 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,662 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 27 June 2014 - 01:22 PM

Nope, thanks for the insult, but not crazy or insane at all. Didn't you see Fred getting all hot and bothered about personal insults? :blink:

 

Point by point:

 

  • Today, you have one channel on basic cable that shows movies (redoubtable movies mostly, but movies nonetheless) without commercials. All others you pay extra. I wouldn't commend cable for that. In the old days, you had Playhouse 90 and the GE Theater and Rod Serling et cetera on regular FREE television. Guess you didn't have WNET where you lived? I watched free movies without commercials since WNET began. Sorry you missed that.

 

  • Don't care two figs about sports. You call the filth passing as sporting events today 'sports'? Um, okay.

 

  • History and science, ditto. I have to take your word for that. I get all my documentaries on PBS, which used to be free.

 

  • Analog flickered and distorted? Really? My CRT set was fine. Must have been your set.

 

  • Good for you, I'm happy that you're happy to pay your cable company for a zillion channels on basic cable, out of which a dozen are watchable, and pay even more for pay channels, which have a few excellent shows, but also have a ton of garbage.

 

But hey, I am assuming your opinion is the only opinion, so suit yourself.

 

EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH?????????????? Wow................................you DO live in North America, yes? :o

I've been a TV-watching space cadet for 50 years now and I never had a problem with crt-based analog TV either. The quality was just fine never having had full 20/20 vision myself.  :P The big sales line 30 years ago was that with the advent of multitudinous cable channels we were gonna see this explosion of variety. Bull! All most cable channels are doing is beating the same 90s sitcom crap into the ground and all those CSI spin-offs too. Channel after channel after channel it's the same dam 90s sitcom and CSI garbage and if it's not that it's Jerry Springer and the numerous divorce court judge whomever garbage. Variety my foot!  :angry:  TV content 40+ years ago was better.  :angry:

RCA's ground-breaking CT-100 with the 15GP22 tricolor kinescope CRT

i266mh.jpg


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


#2328 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,059 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 27 June 2014 - 11:57 AM

Andy, just out of curiosity, is your cable tv bill connected with your internet service? Like is is all "bundled" together in a package?

 

It's part of a Fios bundle, but the TV connection, the Set Top box and the taxes add up to almost exactly $85.00 a month.  What really kills me is keeping both a landline and a cellphone, not so much the TV or the internet connection.

 

Like so many discussion this one about 'is cable today better than T.V. in th 'old days' becomes too black and white.   Anyhow Andy, you make some very valid points and I tend to agree; overall T.V.  is WAY BETTER than the 'old days' as far as access to content.  It is crazy to think otherwise.

 

What is concerning about T.V. today is the lack of pricing options.   Even if al-carte isn't the answer it would be great if cable providers offer multiple T.V.  station bundles packages instead of starting out with 'basic' (which already is too expensive and has too many stations),  and than going right to extended basic etc....

 

e.g.  have stations in pricings tiers.   allow users to pick a set number of stations from these tiers with limits on the number of choices from the upper tiers.     

 

Hey,  I'm sure one can pick holes in my idea here but you get the general idea.  



#2329 AndyM108

AndyM108

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:23 AM

Andy, just out of curiosity, is your cable tv bill connected with your internet service? Like is is all "bundled" together in a package?

 

It's part of a Fios bundle, but the TV connection, the Set Top box and the taxes add up to almost exactly $85.00 a month.  What really kills me is keeping both a landline and a cellphone, not so much the TV or the internet connection.



#2330 AndyM108

AndyM108

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:19 AM

Point by point:

 

  • Today, you have one channel on basic cable that shows movies (redoubtable movies mostly, but movies nonetheless) without commercials. All others you pay extra. I wouldn't commend cable for that. In the old days, you had Playhouse 90 and the GE Theater and Rod Serling et cetera on regular FREE television. Guess you didn't have WNET where you lived? I watched free movies without commercials since WNET began. Sorry you missed that.

Of course WNET is nothing but the local PBS affiliate in NYC, just like WETA in Washington.  WETA showcases all of one movie a week, and 99% of the time it's identical to one of those "Essentials" that gets shown half a dozen times a year on TCM.  Maybe WNET goes beyond that, but I wouldn't know that by watching WETA.

 

As for Playhouse 90, etc.:  Put them all together and they added up to less than 10 hours a week.  With commercials. And anyway, you can see all those shows today on YouTube, or on your TV if you want to connect your computer to it.

 

My $85.00 cable bill for TV includes TCM but not HBO, Showtime, etc.  For the most part I have no interest in the movies those premium channels show, and anyway, for $8.99 a month more, I can get those movies via Netflix.

 

And BTW when did PBS cease to be free?  I know more than a few people without cable hookups who watch PBS every day.

 

Sorry you don't like sports.  To each his own. :)



#2331 fxreyman

fxreyman

    I never shot nobody I didn't have to.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,784 posts
  • LocationLibertyville, Illinois

Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:12 AM

And BTW if your cable TV bill runs about $85 a month as mine does, that works out to about $11.00 a month in 1964 dollars.  How many people in 1964 do you think would have complained about a deal like that, complete with a big screen color TV that costs less in real dollars than their cheesy 21" RCA?

 

Andy, just out of curiosity, is your cable tv bill connected with your internet service? Like is is all "bundled" together in a package?

 

Where we live in Colorado Springs, the only cable internet 50mbps is with Comcast. Yes, I am aware of ALL of the concerns around here about the supposedly "evil" Comcast. I have two elements with Comcast. I have their highest speed internet and basic cable TV, which does not include TCM (my choice). I pay approximately $90 per month. The TV part of the bill is "only" $12.00. If I were to receive a higher tier that included TCM I'd still be paying a whole lot more for the internet than the cable TV part of the bill.

 

That is just simply the way it is now. I need the highest speed due to my graphic freelance capabilities. I know that some consider TV as a vast wasteland like former FCC chairman Newton Minlow once described it. But until the cable companies decide to offer al carte programming this is what we have. Some have chosen to not get cable TV and that is okay. For me I would not have even basic cable, but to get the high speed internet I need, I have to have at least basic cable to get that. Hey, I still get AMC and Fox News!!!



#2332 fxreyman

fxreyman

    I never shot nobody I didn't have to.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,784 posts
  • LocationLibertyville, Illinois

Posted 27 June 2014 - 09:54 AM

"TikiSoo, one of the faults of the new TCM board is that original posts are no longer identified in responses. Who said this? I can't find it for the life of me, and I wanted to 'like' their post, since 'likes' are the be-all and end-all of everything these days, as exhibited by the moronic television entertainment journalism that used to pose as 'news', where empty headed anchors DEMAND that we LIKE them on Facebook and FOLLOW them on Twitter..........morons, every one of them. Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow would slap the living heck out of all of the viewing American audience..........and I would 'like' him when he did it."

 

I am not sure what you mean by not being able to identify original posts in responses. Sort of like what I am doing now, I am responding to your post using the "quote" button at the bottom of your post. Is this what you are talking about? Or is it the fact that some threads and one Forum was deleted and you can not access them? You can get certain threads brought back. Just ask the administrators.

 

In a white space directly before the post you want to respond to there is room for you to type your response. You can also go into the post you are responding to and edit their post so that you can respond to certain paragraphs or sentences without having to use their entire quote like what I have done with your post above.

 

As far as likes are concerned, we are limited to five likes per day. You can still "like" a post by selecting the "quote" button at the bottom of each post. Then a new window opens up showing the post you want to respond to with a space below for your comments.

 

There is another feature I like which is "More Reply Options". This feature allows you to style your reply with more type options plus if you would like to add attach a file, like a photo, they allow you to do this. Like I am doing right now. Just click on the thumbnail and a larger view appears. Hope this helps.

 

As far as your original post, the one I am responding to I withhold my opinion of the other parts of your response to Tiki.

Attached Files



#2333 primosprimos

primosprimos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,083 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 09:53 AM

Yes, the cable companies are the death of good television.

 

Is this crazy or is this insane? 

 

In the pre-cable days we had four networks, featuring:

 

No movies without commercial interruptions;

 

A tiny handful of selected sporting events;

 

History and science confined to a few "specials" that were largely starved for funding;

 

"Entertainment" that consisted of a mix of a few great shows and a ton of wholly forgettable ones;

 

All on an analog screen that often flickered and distorted the color, if indeed it was in color to begin with.

 

Sorry, but when it comes to TV, the "good old days" are now.

 

And BTW if your cable TV bill runs about $85 a month as mine does, that works out to about $11.00 a month in 1964 dollars.  How many people in 1964 do you think would have complained about a deal like that, complete with a big screen color TV that costs less in real dollars than their cheesy 21" RCA?

Nope, thanks for the insult, but not crazy or insane at all. Didn't you see Fred getting all hot and bothered about personal insults? :blink:

 

Point by point:

 

  • Today, you have one channel on basic cable that shows movies (redoubtable movies mostly, but movies nonetheless) without commercials. All others you pay extra. I wouldn't commend cable for that. In the old days, you had Playhouse 90 and the GE Theater and Rod Serling et cetera on regular FREE television. Guess you didn't have WNET where you lived? I watched free movies without commercials since WNET began. Sorry you missed that.

 

  • Don't care two figs about sports. You call the filth passing as sporting events today 'sports'? Um, okay.

 

  • History and science, ditto. I have to take your word for that. I get all my documentaries on PBS, which used to be free.

 

  • Analog flickered and distorted? Really? My CRT set was fine. Must have been your set.

 

  • Good for you, I'm happy that you're happy to pay your cable company for a zillion channels on basic cable, out of which a dozen are watchable, and pay even more for pay channels, which have a few excellent shows, but also have a ton of garbage.

 

But hey, I am assuming your opinion is the only opinion, so suit yourself.

 

EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH?????????????? Wow................................you DO live in North America, yes? :o



#2334 AndyM108

AndyM108

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 27 June 2014 - 09:42 AM

Yes, the cable companies are the death of good television.

 

Is this crazy or is this insane? 

 

In the pre-cable days we had four networks, featuring:

 

No movies without commercial interruptions;

 

A tiny handful of selected sporting events;

 

History and science confined to a few "specials" that were largely starved for funding;

 

"Entertainment" that consisted of a mix of a few great shows and a ton of wholly forgettable ones;

 

All on an analog screen that often flickered and distorted the color, if indeed it was in color to begin with.

 

Sorry, but when it comes to TV, the "good old days" are now.

 

And BTW if your cable TV bill runs about $85 a month as mine does, that works out to about $11.00 a month in 1964 dollars.  How many people in 1964 do you think would have complained about a deal like that, complete with a big screen color TV that costs less in real dollars than their cheesy 21" RCA?



#2335 TikiSoo

TikiSoo

    sprockethole

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,809 posts
  • LocationSyracuse, NY

Posted 27 June 2014 - 06:00 AM

Primos....do yourself a favor and invest $100 in a good DVD recorder. It works exactly the same way as the old VCRs and you can record things that broadcast while you're sleeping. It's not giving more money to the cable companies, it's a convenience for yourself. 

 

A very good film friend records any "must have" movies from TCM for me, usually 4 or so a month. Paying $75/month for cable to see 4 movies is just crazy. The library has all the movies TCM doesn't, like Disney & Fox films. 

 

Saturday night with Svengoolie is a favorite of mine, but they exclusively show Universal films and that's rather limiting too. You can tell a new episode from a repeat by the coffin design.

I tune into Batman for 3 minutes just to see if Eartha Kitt may be on, but she never is.



#2336 LuckyDan

LuckyDan

    Adjunct Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • LocationCarrollton Texas

Posted 26 June 2014 - 11:57 AM

Once again.  MeTV does NOT show old movies.  They show old TV shows.  The Werewolf movie was actually the old TV show Svengoolie.
this network shows mostly old movies.


this post got me curious so i asked sven if he is still in production. he replied, "We are still in production- when Universal assigns us a movie we've already shown, there are older segments and updated ones."
  • TopBilled likes this

#2337 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,662 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 26 June 2014 - 09:30 AM

Mostly though, when I look through TCMs schedule, there are very few movies I actually want to see.

 

Amen, sista! :)

 

I consider it a good day, utility wise, when TCM is doing what it now does best, i.e., show garbage. It's when it is doing what it used to do, i.e., show classically classic movies, especially those I haven't seen, that my set is running all day, since I refuse to give the crooks in the cable company MORE money for a DVR. Thanks to TCM, I am not missing anything by not having a DVR, since there is nothing much on TCM anymore.

 

Yes, the cable companies are the death of good television. When PBS is having a pledge week and TCM is doing what it now does best, I watch NO television unless there is a show I follow on the PAY channels, where schmucks like me pay MORE for what I SHOULD be getting by paying for cable. And even THEN, the pay channels on the overpriced cable for which I pay for the privilege of having, are sometimes m-e-r-d-e (how 'bout that, the idiot censor knows French). The show with David Duchovny, whose title I dare not type, is utter and complete garbage, but it ending, mercifully, and I have to see it to the bitter end. OTOH, True Detective, albeit replete with a facile finale, no doubt to leave the two leads open to more money, was masterful and mesmerizing television.

 

This is, imo, a sensationalistic thread, much like TMZ, since ME TV and even GET TV, which DOES have old movies, are GLUTTED to the gills with commercials, horrid, moronic commercials, and are no threat whatSOEVER to TCM. The good, old, classically classic TCM, that is.

 

AH, the good old days of the good old classically classic TCM.

 

Let the flames begin. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

As stated over and over on this thread ME-TV is NOT a threat to TCM,since it mostly shows old tv shows and NOT movies, and has commercials to boot. The title of the thread is misleading, imo.

 

TikiSoo, one of the faults of the new TCM board is that original posts are no longer identified in responses. Who said this? I can't find it for the life of me, and I wanted to 'like' their post, since 'likes' are the be-all and end-all of everything these days, as exhibited by the moronic television entertainment journalism that used to pose as 'news', where empty headed anchors DEMAND that we LIKE them on Facebook and FOLLOW them on Twitter..........morons, every one of them. Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow would slap the living heck out of all of the viewing American audience..........and I would 'like' him when he did it. :)

Good post!  :D


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


#2338 lavenderblue19

lavenderblue19

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 22,651 posts

Posted 26 June 2014 - 06:48 AM

primo- to answer your question about who posted that, that was a quote from my post that tiki used

#2339 primosprimos

primosprimos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,083 posts

Posted 26 June 2014 - 06:02 AM

 

As stated over and over on this thread ME-TV is NOT a threat to TCM,since it mostly shows old tv shows and NOT movies, and has commercials to boot. The title of the thread is misleading, imo

 

No, ME-TV is no "threat" or competition to TCM. The cable companies are the threat to TCM. The cable companies raised their costs too high for this citizen to afford. (recently reviewed my old check book register & was stunned cable charge was $32/month five years ago-now over $75/month!)

 

Now that I no longer subscribe to cable, I've been enjoying ME-TV, PBS and DVDs from the library. 

Very often I'll borrow a film after it's been discussed on this forum, after it's been shown on TCM. 

Mostly though, when I look through TCMs schedule, there are very few movies I actually want to see.

 

Mostly though, when I look through TCMs schedule, there are very few movies I actually want to see.

 

Amen, sista! :)

 

I consider it a good day, utility wise, when TCM is doing what it now does best, i.e., show garbage. It's when it is doing what it used to do, i.e., show classically classic movies, especially those I haven't seen, that my set is running all day, since I refuse to give the crooks in the cable company MORE money for a DVR. Thanks to TCM, I am not missing anything by not having a DVR, since there is nothing much on TCM anymore.

 

Yes, the cable companies are the death of good television. When PBS is having a pledge week and TCM is doing what it now does best, I watch NO television unless there is a show I follow on the PAY channels, where schmucks like me pay MORE for what I SHOULD be getting by paying for cable. And even THEN, the pay channels on the overpriced cable for which I pay for the privilege of having, are sometimes m-e-r-d-e (how 'bout that, the idiot censor knows French). The show with David Duchovny, whose title I dare not type, is utter and complete garbage, but it ending, mercifully, and I have to see it to the bitter end. OTOH, True Detective, albeit replete with a facile finale, no doubt to leave the two leads open to more money, was masterful and mesmerizing television.

 

This is, imo, a sensationalistic thread, much like TMZ, since ME TV and even GET TV, which DOES have old movies, are GLUTTED to the gills with commercials, horrid, moronic commercials, and are no threat whatSOEVER to TCM. The good, old, classically classic TCM, that is.

 

AH, the good old days of the good old classically classic TCM.

 

Let the flames begin. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

As stated over and over on this thread ME-TV is NOT a threat to TCM,since it mostly shows old tv shows and NOT movies, and has commercials to boot. The title of the thread is misleading, imo.

 

TikiSoo, one of the faults of the new TCM board is that original posts are no longer identified in responses. Who said this? I can't find it for the life of me, and I wanted to 'like' their post, since 'likes' are the be-all and end-all of everything these days, as exhibited by the moronic television entertainment journalism that used to pose as 'news', where empty headed anchors DEMAND that we LIKE them on Facebook and FOLLOW them on Twitter..........morons, every one of them. Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow would slap the living heck out of all of the viewing American audience..........and I would 'like' him when he did it. :)



#2340 TikiSoo

TikiSoo

    sprockethole

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,809 posts
  • LocationSyracuse, NY

Posted 26 June 2014 - 05:52 AM

As stated over and over on this thread ME-TV is NOT a threat to TCM,since it mostly shows old tv shows and NOT movies, and has commercials to boot. The title of the thread is misleading, imo

 

No, ME-TV is no "threat" or competition to TCM. The cable companies are the threat to TCM. The cable companies raised their costs too high for this citizen to afford. (recently reviewed my old check book register & was stunned cable charge was $32/month five years ago-now over $75/month!)

 

Now that I no longer subscribe to cable, I've been enjoying ME-TV, PBS and DVDs from the library. 

Very often I'll borrow a film after it's been discussed on this forum, after it's been shown on TCM. 

Mostly though, when I look through TCMs schedule, there are very few movies I actually want to see.


  • primosprimos likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users