Sign in to follow this  
calvinnme

Wow this guy really doesn't like TCM anymore!

43 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, calvinnme said:

http://thedamienzone.com/2017/01/19/tcm-sucks-without-robert-osborne-and-heres-why/

I will warn you that this guy is given to some colorful language. Especially in the comment section if you disagree with him.

"A website dedicated to human stupidity and dumbness." Yeah, that kind of says it all.

Another politically-fixated troll who seems to be an awful, miserable human being, ranting about nothing while spouting the same old BS about the channel ("They show too many new movies now!").

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, another expletive-riddled internet rant from someone who undoubtedly marvels at his own ability at a put down, claims to like Robert Osborne but never bothered to pick up a few pointers on the man's class or elegance when it came to himself.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

"A website dedicated to human stupidity and dumbness." Yeah, that kind of says it all.

Another politically-fixated troll who seems to be an awful, miserable human being, ranting about nothing while spouting the same old BS about the channel ("They show too many new movies now!").

Yes, one person commenting on the article on January 31of this year said they looked at the next week's schedule and said :

  1. I just looked at the schedule for week Saturday to Friday and they had just 6 1930’s films listed: Errol Flynn’s famous version of Robin Hood, the classic “A Farewell to Arms”, the color epic “The Four Feathers’, the Astaire and Roger’s biggie “Swing Time”, the large scale Busby Berkely musical “Gold Diggers of 1935” and only “The Great Waltz” as a relatively obscure picture (which I really haven’t much interest in)

    This person does not watch TCM enough to know that this was the first week of 31 Days of Oscar and thus you are not going to see TCM's typical fare on display.

     

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, it's people like this who always manage to annoy me. It's not difficult to do research and type up an opinions piece without being obnoxious. There's a way to voice your opinion without coming across as a completely miserable person. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TomJH said:

Ah, yes, another expletive-riddled internet rant from someone who undoubtedly marvels at his own ability at a put down, claims to like Robert Osborne but never bothered to pick up a few pointers on the man's class or elegance when it came to himself.

Reading through the comments is a "treat", too. What a bunch of sad wretches who have let their politics twist them into seething knots of rage and paranoia.

It particularly cracks me up with how often the author laments the "vulgar, coarse" direction that TCM has taken, while himself seeming to be incapable of a complete sentence without a word that would be censored on this website.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I was no big Robert Osborne fan either, but hey, it's not all about me or any individual, is it? He certainly fit the bill for many many people and was the face of TCM. Whether I personally cared for him or his hosting duties, you must admit he had class-he always looked beautiful and spoke well on camera.

Why do people feel the need to voice their opinion? Filter it people!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody pay attention to TCM's daytime programming? There are a lot of vintage classics usually on in those hours that are hard-to-find films. I love their daytime programming with all the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s gems that I crave.

And honestly, regarding films made after the 60s, it makes perfect sense that more praised ones should pop up, because I have begun to notice that even films as recently as the early 90s have all but vanished from most other TV channels with only a few exceptions (ie things like James Bond or Back to the Future, and HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax are currently carrying things like The Doctor, Doc Hollywood, The Color of Money, Good Morning Vietnam, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, What About Bob, and Class Action) So, if the films are of high quality and everything why should they be discriminated against just because they are a bit more recent if they aren't getting airtime elsewhere? The alternative (for quality films to go unseen) is not a good one. And its not as though its a recent phenomenon as when TCM debuted back in 1994, they showed a film that was only 13 years old at the time (Rich and Famous) during their first week of programming. Just let the majority be vintage classics, with a polished smattering of later films, like TCM has been doing and it will be as good as ever.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

ther politically-fixated troll who seems to be an awful, miserable human being, ranting about nothing while spouting the same old BS about the channel ("They show too many new movies now!").

YES!

That's what I want it to say FOR ME, right under my name instead of "Advanced Member."

Anyone know how I can do this?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

Does anybody pay attention to TCM's daytime programming? There are a lot of vintage classics usually on in those hours that are hard-to-find films. I love their daytime programming with all the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s gems that I crave.

And honestly, regarding films made after the 60s, it makes perfect sense that more praised ones should pop up, because I have begun to notice that even films as recently as the early 90s have all but vanished from most other TV channels with only a few exceptions (ie things like James Bond or Back to the Future, and HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax are currently carrying things like The Doctor, Doc Hollywood, The Color of Money, Good Morning Vietnam, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, What About Bob, and Class Action) So, if the films are of high quality and everything why should they be discriminated against just because they are a bit more recent if they aren't getting airtime elsewhere? The alternative (for quality films to go unseen) is not a good one. And its not as though its a recent phenomenon as when TCM debuted back in 1994, they showed a film that was only 13 years old at the time (Rich and Famous) during their first week of programming. Just let the majority be vintage classics, with a polished smattering of later films, like TCM has been doing and it will be as good as ever.

And TCM has done so since literally day one when Robert Osborne stated the channel's intention to show films from the old to the new. It's been repeated over and over again that this was stated in Osborne's very first intro. And someone has tried to remind the people complaining about this subject ("Why all the new movies? TCM never showed new movies!"), but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Here it is, again.

If you read that website's main complaint, and that of many of the commenters below, it's as much about the "lefty liberal bias taking over TCM." Ugh.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

YES!

That's what I want it to say FOR ME, right under my name instead of "Advanced Member."

Anyone know how I can do this?

Yes, go to your profile, then click on "edit profile" then type in whatever you want in the box for "member info." I'd be curious to see if all that stuff fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, scsu1975 said:

Yes, go to your profile, then click on "edit profile" then type in whatever you want in the box for "member info." I'd be curious to see if all that stuff fits.

i tried but it cut it off and for some reason, it came off as a little harsh.

(go figure)

and then i couldn't think of a new something to write in the place so i just left it blank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, scsu1975 said:

Yes, go to your profile, then click on "edit profile" then type in whatever you want in the box for "member info." I'd be curious to see if all that stuff fits.

Well, I never got box for "member info" which would allow me to add anything but my birthday and nothing which would affect "rank" when trying to edit the profile, so I guess I will remain a boring not-so-advanced "advanced member"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thenryb said:

Well, I never got box for "member info" which would allow me to add anything but my birthday and nothing which would affect "rank" when trying to edit the profile, so I guess I will remain a boring not-so-advanced "advanced member"

You don't see a box for "Member Title" right above where you add your birthday? If not, you may need 250 posts to be able to change it. There used to be a minimum number of posts to do so, but I thought it was only 50.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy, among so many others on the internet, feels that their blog or social media (or what not) is their platform to express their opinion, which they are correct and they have every right to do so.  However.  The internet seems to have brought out the worst in many who choose to express their opinion.  Reading the comments sections of places like Yahoo or on different articles is the worst.  People will say the absolute most vile things to people online--I believe they think they are commenting under the guise of anonymity.  They think they get a pass when it comes to saying something awful because they aren't using their real names.  Bloggers, like the genius linked above, think that they can use their free blog to spout off about everything they hate.  I don't know if they're just venting or whether they really think they'll affect some sort of change by whining.  These bloggers however do not realize that there is a way to be critical without being mean.  If the blogger here had stated what it was about TCM that he disliked without resorting to using vulgar language maybe he'd be taken more seriously.  As it is, he's more of a troll than anything else. Trolls should be ignored. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

The internet seems to have brought out the worst in many who choose to express their opinion

Yes, in the good old pre-internet days, every town had its crazies and now they can connect with one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thenryb said:

Yes, in the good old pre-internet days, every town had its crazies and now they can connect with one another.

Some comments sections and various forums seem to have replaced the sleazy Yahoo chat rooms of the late 90s.  At least, nowadays, you can take part in conversations online and someone doesn't immediately ask you "a/s/l"? I remember being in high school just wanting to play online Canasta and having to ignore the other people in the room who were looking for some dirty talk.  I do appreciate that there are still some forums, like TCM, where there seems to be some moderation and allows for (mostly) intelligent and insightful conversation, or at the very least, entertaining conversation.  I just cannot even take part in any sort of discussion where someone tells someone to "go kill themselves" when they say something that another person disagrees with.  Why you would ever say that to someone is beyond me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of trolls loved to stir up trouble on social media. It was that way on the IMBD message boards, it's still like that on Facebook and other entertainment forums.

Here on the TCM forums, there's a lot less drama and much more civility, thank goodness. With the exception of the occasion visit of the 'spam fairy', the topics stay on topic with thoughtful discussion rather than the old 'overrated' and 'this movie/actor sucks blah blah blah' threads that dominates a lot of other forums.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

A lot of trolls loved to stir up trouble on social media. It was that way on the IMBD message boards, it's still like that on Facebook and other entertainment forums.

Here on the TCM forums, there's a lot less drama and much more civility, thank goodness. With the exception of the occasion visit of the 'spam fairy', the topics stay on topic with thoughtful discussion rather than the old 'overrated' and 'this movie/actor sucks blah blah blah' threads that dominates a lot of other forums.

Overrated (and underrated) for that matter, are just terms that are thrown out so often that they almost lose meaning.  The thing that bugs me about "overrated" is that often the person stating that "such and such is overrated" is stating it as a fact.  Like "Citizen Kane is overrated." When in reality, they didn't care for a particular film and didn't think it was worth the hype.  That's their prerogative to feel that way, however, them stating that something is overrated (or underrated) is an opinion.  Things can be significant for different reasons and be worth the hype even if someone doesn't care for the film.  People may not like Citizen Kane, but because of its film-making techniques and unique cinematography, that doesn't make the film overrated. It is a milestone in the art of film-making. 

I also hate when people just say "so and so sucks." But they don't say why.  Just like someone throwing out praise for someone but not saying why.  It's the why that makes the conversations interesting.  If someone cannot throw out any examples or anything to back up their opinion, then I don't tend to take much stock into what they say regardless of whether or not it was a positive or negative comment. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

I also hate when people just say "so and so sucks." But they don't say why.  Just like someone throwing out praise for someone but not saying why.  It's the why that makes the conversations interesting.  If someone cannot throw out any examples or anything to back up their opinion, then I don't tend to take much stock into what they say regardless of whether or not it was a positive or negative comment. 

Sometimes it is difficult for an average viewer to articulate the reasons for not liking a movie or a performer. I think that most people who use a term like "overrated" they are simply omitting the phrase "in my opinion". In one of Somerset Maugham's books (title forgotten) he said he thought it was "boring" to use the phrase "in my opinion" to qualify a statement which was obviously an opinion. So when someone says a movie or actor is "overrated", I assume it is that person's opinion. I agree that it does not make for a very interesting conversation if an explanation is not included.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree mostly Thenry, but too, there's other uses the word "rated" is applied to.  Like, the "R" "rating" and so forth.  So when someone says a movie is "overrated", they don't make clear as to WHICH "rating" they're referring to.  Now, giving say, an "R" rating to a movie that seemingly might only deserve a "PG-13" rating would make THAT movie "overrated". ;) 

But the individual being discussed here does have a right to his opinion, and we have the right to disagree.  However, I don't think any disagreement to his opinions will get any attention on his site.  He does appear to be that kind of guy.

Sepiatone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, speedracer5 said:

Overrated (and underrated) for that matter, are just terms that are thrown out so often that they almost lose meaning.  The thing that bugs me about "overrated" is that often the person stating that "such and such is overrated" is stating it as a fact.  Like "Citizen Kane is overrated." When in reality, they didn't care for a particular film and didn't think it was worth the hype.  That's their prerogative to feel that way, however, them stating that something is overrated (or underrated) is an opinion.  Things can be significant for different reasons and be worth the hype even if someone doesn't care for the film.  People may not like Citizen Kane, but because of its film-making techniques and unique cinematography, that doesn't make the film overrated. It is a milestone in the art of film-making. 

I also hate when people just say "so and so sucks." But they don't say why.  Just like someone throwing out praise for someone but not saying why.  It's the why that makes the conversations interesting.  If someone cannot throw out any examples or anything to back up their opinion, then I don't tend to take much stock into what they say regardless of whether or not it was a positive or negative comment. 

Using 'overrated' can be a fact,  but it is NOT  a fact about the quality of a movie but instead a fact as it relates to the "opinion of the majority" regarding the quality of a movie. 

Kane was listed as the #1 American film by the AFI for decades (now it is Vertigo I believe).    Therefore it is a fact that Kane is a highly rated film.   Those that believe Kane is just a 'good' film are disagreeing with the 'opinion of the majority' and thus Kane is overrated.   

Note I don't see the need to use the term overrated or underrated.   Like you I prefer one just tells me what they think about the film and why.    Overrated and underrated don't communicate any additional info.   E.g. if someone tells me they feel Kane is a run-of-the-mill movie I know that they also feel it is overrated. 

PS:  What really bugs me about using overrated is when someone has no data as it relates to the 'opinion of the majority'.    They just assume the majority feel differently than they do. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, calvinnme said:

http://thedamienzone.com/2017/01/19/tcm-sucks-without-robert-osborne-and-heres-why/

I will warn you that this guy is given to some colorful language. Especially in the comment section if you disagree with him.

K..... Good for him. He doesn't have to like it. Not sure why you're expecting us to care about some dumbazz's blog though. :unsure: 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

If you read that website's main complaint, and that of many of the commenters below, it's as much about the "lefty liberal bias taking over TCM." Ugh.

I'm sure their head exploded if they heard Ben give the intro today for The Grapes of Wrath.    Ben did make one comment I found odd;   that the depression signaled that capitalism failed.     To me this is a gross overstatement.   Also, if capitalism failed,  the comment implies it was replaced with something else.  NOT.   It was just modified\regulated. 

I would have said laissez faire capitalism failed.    But maybe he didn't use that phase since that could be viewed as being too political.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us