Sign in to follow this  
VP19

'31 Days Of Oscar': A necessary evil?

154 posts in this topic

I have to agree. LOL. I tend to think what younger viewers who may turn in is minimal. I'd just as soon they did an Oscar night once/week. Or just a week during the month. Most of these films are in constant rotation anyway, and TCM is too cheap to even show what the films are nominated or won for.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(and that's fine, since all TCMDB is is IMDB copy-and-pasted with a few more errors to boot.)

 

Isn't it powered by the AFI? Not that it makes it any less prone to errors and I've given up trying to make any corrections in the TCMdb as they don't seem to welcome it. At least at the IMDb, I do have the chance to offer corrections and by this point in time, most likely given my track record over there, they are quick to respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re: TCMDB.

 

I have noticed that the trivia entries for a lot of films are copy-and-pasted from imdb, so that's why I said that. I know the (sometimes overly elaborate and very hard to read) plot summaries are copy-and-pasted from the AFI (with whom I have other issues, well, namely those boneheaded 100 best lists.)

 

Either way, it's a pastiche of misinformation and very little that is new, presented in a rather visually un-engaging way...although the viewer opinions and ratings are sometimes worth checking out.

 

Man, I am being a b-tch today, aren't I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*from the tcmdb trivia section for Cat Ballou:*

 

 

 

 

* Roy Chanslor's original novel was a serious western. The comedy elements were added for the film.

* When filming the scene where Kid Shaleen takes a bath and dons his costume, director Elliot Silverstein had all actions timed to the beat of a metronome, its pace increasing when Shaleen takes his guns. He planned to have the scene scored with Spanish guitars following this beat, but the producer was adamantly opposed to anything Spanish in a Western. In the end electric guitars were used.

* The film's horse trainer told Silverstein that the scene where a horse leans against a wall with its front legs crossed could not be shot because horses don't cross their legs, then that it might be possible if he had a couple of days. Silverstein invoked his rank as director and gave him an hour. The trainer plied the horse with sugar cubes while repeatedly pushing its leg into position, and they were able to get the shot.

* 'Kirk Douglas' turned down the role of Shaleen.

* At his acceptance of the Oscar, Lee Marvin opened by saying, "Half of this probably belongs to a horse out there somewhere".

* Nat 'King' Cole died several months before the film was released.

 

*from the imdb trivia section for Cat Ballou:*

 

[Roy Chanslor|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0151949/]'s original novel was a serious western. The comedy elements were added for the film.

 

 

When filming the scene where Kid Shaleen takes a bath and dons his costume, director [Elliot Silverstein|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0799033/] had all actions timed to the beat of a metronome, its pace increasing when Shaleen takes his guns. He planned to have the scene scored with Spanish guitars following this beat, but the producer was adamantly opposed to anything Spanish in a Western. In the end electric, guitars were used.

 

 

The film's horse trainer told [Elliot Silverstein|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0799033/] that the scene where a horse leans against a wall with its front legs crossed could not be shot because horses don't cross their legs, then that it might be possible if he had a couple of days. Silverstein invoked his rank as director and gave him an hour. The trainer plied the horse with sugar cubes while repeatedly pushing its leg into position, and they were able to get the shot.

 

 

[Kirk Douglas|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000018/] turned down the role of Shaleen. [Jack Palance|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001588/] desperately wanted the role but was never offered it.

 

 

[Ann-Margret|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000268/] was first choice for the title role but turned it down.

 

 

At his acceptance of the Oscar, [Lee Marvin|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001511/] opened by saying, "Half of this probably belongs to a horse out in the Valley somewhere".

 

Nat King Cole died several months before the film was released.

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Feb 1, 2013 2:06 PM

see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ADW wrote:

 

> (and that's fine, since all TCMDB is is IMDB copy-and-pasted with a few more errors to boot.)

 

Clore wrote:

 

> Isn't it powered by the AFI?

 

Clore,

 

Part of the TCMDB is powered by the AFI database. The upper sections of each film (including cast, crew, filmographies, biographies, notes, etc) is all taken from the AFI database.

 

Everything below that is either taken from IMDB (the trivia), or written by TCM staff (the Articles) or added to by viewers, etc.

 

The AFI database, I believe, was created back in the 1970s - 1980 and the staff that put it together researched film titles at the Academy's library, UCLA, USC and, in some instances, Eastman House.

 

The database was created to support the extensive AFI Catalogs of American Films (which are a tremendous boon to film researchers and historians) long before the AFI took a turn towards the more mainstream (via top 100 lists).

 

Though they are now more known for their Top 100 lists more than their film preservation efforts (their founding and their early roots), they still continue with the research efforts by continuing to compile and publish more AFI catalogs of American Film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} Do you believe that these opinions of yours should have some bearing on the schedule?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Of course.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsIxwM5Ok-PhCQoYKHvjC

 

Kneel before me. And bring me the head of Mankewicz...and a Caramello.

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Feb 1, 2013 2:12 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > Adw: "And there are lots of great films that they can (and do) show because they got a screenplay or a technical nomination, but not one for best picture or acting, even though they blow what did get nommed (and won) out of the water that year."

> And your point is that they should? Or that they shouldn't?

My point is they need to tell us what nominations the film got. I'd also be fine with it if they offered a more critical look at the AMPAS's choices (but that won't happen)

 

My other point was that the Oscars have just been flat-out wrong more often than not, and not just in my opinion. *Any monthlong tribute that delves into the choices made throughout their history is going to reveal a lot more lapses in judgement than times when they were right-on.*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}

> > Of course.

>

>

>

>

> Why?

>

I was kidding.

 

Believe me, after posting here for some four years, I've learned that *what I think* about TCM's programming and the choices they make in running the network carry all the weight of a wet mouse.

 

It isn't just what I think though, *numerous people have requested they simply show a card informing us what nominations a film they are showing got.* Voices always chime in wth "oh, that's too expensive/time consuming" but as Clore once cleverly pointed out, they don't have any problem inserting "christmas is for giving" ads at the end of December films, or "buy this specific film we just showed on Warner Archive DVD" ads after each film.

 

If they would just do *that,* I could shrug off the fact that (at the very least) a quarter of the films they are showing this go-round have shown EVERY OSCAR MONTH SINCE ITS INCEPTION.

 

ps- Lord also knows I'm not the only person who thinks the Oscars are a load of hooey.

pss- the General Zod thing didn't tip you off that I was kidding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> B. The Oscars are not about rewarding "great work." They have missed the mark roughly 95% of the time. I've brought this up 10,000 times, but here's 10,001- *if you want to get someone interested in classic films or show them how awesome movies used to be*, show them Touch of Evil, Scarface: The Shame of the Nation, Dinner at Eight, Trouble in Paradise, The Bank Dick, Scarlet Street, Gun Crazy, Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Night of the Hunter, Kiss Me Deadly, Cluny Brown, Stars in My Crown, My Darling Clementine, or Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (NOTE: I'm culling all this from memory so I may be off) but (to the best of me recollection) those films recieved a grand total of *zero nominations* (at least in the major categories, they might have gotten some technical nods, I can't say for absolute sure.) Show someone new to classic movies Come Back Little Sheba, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Great Ziegfeld, Blossoms in the Dust, A Free Soul, any scene of Luise Rainer in The Good Earth, Hamlet, Mourning Becomes Electra, Love is a Many-Splendored Thing, Viva Villa!, Doctor Doolittle, All the King's Men, Love Story, The Towering Inferno, The Country Girl, and yes, even Gigi, Ben-Hur and From Here to Eternity and they'll either laugh their **** off or never watch anything made before 2005 ever, ever, ever, *ever* again.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Translation: "Let's just run the movies I like, because my taste is universal."

 

Hey, it works for me, too. So let's ditch Gentlemen Prefer Blondes for And God Created Woman, get rid of anything by John Ford and substitute anything by Akira Kurosawa, nix Touch of Evil and replace it with Kiss Me Deadly, can The Bank Dick and run It's A Gift instead, and stick Scarlet Street back in the can and bring out The Killers. Because we want our girls to be nice, and Kitty is innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed breakdown. It is the "notes" section in which I've tried to correct a few errors, one title concerned was THE WALKING HILLS where I tried three times to submit the proper info, but I've given up trying.

 

Maybe, like Chief Dan George in OUTLAW JOSEY WALES, I'll have to "endeavor to persevere."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well no, I would hardly call my taste "universal"- quite the opposite.

 

But let's just say I think some of the first films I mentioned have aged a LOT BETTER and managed to still be compelling, relevant and/or ring true all these years later, ditto for the acting...notsomuch the films that the AMPAS awarded with major wins and nods.

 

Look, I don't pretend to be the most knowledgable or all-seeng, all-knowing film poobah, but I would dare to venture that if you took a group of people off the street, sat them down and showed them 1949's unnominated Gun Crazy followed by 1949's Best Picture All The King's Men, I dare venture to predict that quite a few more of them would dig Crazy than King's Men.

 

I'll break it down to this:

 

Times before 1968 that what really outright should've won did in fact win: 7%

Times before 1968 that something that was really good but not as good as something else that year won: 60%

Times before 1968 where what won should not have even been nominated in the first place: 33%

 

Of course all of this is set in stone, people.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Addison, I was just jerking your chain, and I'm sure that my taste is probably way less universal than yours. I don't pay any attention to Oscar ceremonies, and I doubt if off the top of my head I could name any actual winner since about 1972. So I won't argue with your percentages.

 

Though to me the cutoff date for distinguishing *"probably worth watching at least once"* from *"best have the mother-in-law taste it first"* is more like about 1958 rather than 1968, but an even better smell test is whether the picture is in B&W or color. I can say without looking it up that the vast majority of B&Ws are at least bearable, whereas the great majority of color films should've been coathangered in the developing room. When "production values" and "cinematography" start taking precedence over the story line, as was more and more the case once color took over, that's when I head off to the pool room or just walk over to one of my bookcases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor TCM. Poor TCM programming department. No matter what they try, they just can't please.

 

One reason I like 31 Days of Oscar is because I get to see ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS. What a great film.

 

By the way, I would love to see either Genevieve Bujold or Simone Signoret get a day for SUTS. If Bujold is selected, we might get to see ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS again. It deserves to air at least half as much as THE IRON PETTICOAT. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}

> C. TCM is providing said newbies to classic film *absolutely no context in which to view them or any backstory on the films and their nominations outside of "well, it's on this month so it must've gotten nominated for something."* For example, Little Caesar was on this morning, with no mention of the fact that it's sole nomination was for it's (rather weak) screeplay while Edward G. Robinson's iconic performance was not even nominated that year (1931)

 

That's the perfect example of why they shouldn't provide context!

 

List it simply as Oscar-nominated and the _average_ person might tune in because they think the Oscars are an indicator of quality.

 

List it as nominated for the screenplay and the _average_ person will ignore it because they'll think it's some convoluted mind-game with fancy words.

 

Keeping people in the dark is often the best way to get them to try something they'll probably like if they give it a chance.

 

All of today's movies are a good introduction to the classics, and their strengths are rarely associated in any way with their recognition by the Academy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote}

> I'd personally like to see the intro "cards" come back. It would be nice to know just HOW the following movie fits into the "31 Days of Oscar" theme.

I agree with you completely. TCM please let us know why the academy felt these movies were so special. TCM is using the same blue background promo titles as last year. Shoddy.

What kills me is that the on air hosts think 31 Days is so groundbreaking and unique. They don't tell you that at least half of the films are consistenly aired.

 

If a young viewer would not watch a film because it was nominated for only costume design for instance then that person turned to TCM by mistake. They wouldn't stick around anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s'allright.

 

1968 is more or less my cut-off date when it comes to my knowledge and enthusiasm for classic films, and to some degree the Oscars. At heart, I'm a 1931-1959 kind of guy, but there's enough from the sixties to keep me interest to some degree.

 

1968 is a year where I may not necessarily be a big fan of the films, but I like the "feel" of it and the variety of titles, some very retro, some really looking ahead. And if this means anything to you, my *favorite movie* from 1968, maybe even from the 1960s altogether is Bogdaonavich's brilliant and eerily prescient movie Targets, which has a lot to say about how film and the world were changing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, if I may, TCM's audience is hardly made up of average people, and I have to say, I think you're giving average people too little credit.

 

Black Legion is on right now *because it was nominated for its screenplay,* which is hardly wordy and high-fallutin- *in fact it's just the opposite.* If they show a film and let us know it was the (rather bold and ahead of its time) screenplay that got nominated, we the "average" viewers can watch and say "hmm, so that is what was so important about it."

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Feb 1, 2013 5:30 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(sigh)

 

Just now Manksie-BooBoo said Captain Blood was nominated for *five Oscars,* and yet he failed to specify that three of those "nominations" were *write-ins* and thus they are not *officially* regarded as nominations.

 

Whoever wrote the intro likely glanced at the title page for imdb where it says "five oscar nominations" but failed to note (unless it's mentioned it in the outro) that 1935 was a year where write-in votes were allowed and "based on the write-in votes alone, Curtiz would've won" but the whole tally tilted to John Ford.

 

 

I know I'll be accused of hair-splitting, but quite frankly, that is the sort of detail that absolutely should NOT BE LEFT OUT WHEN MENTIONING THOSE "FIVE NOMINATIONS"

 

 

And the fact that they were write-ins makes them *a little more of an honor.*

 

 

Please, if you're gonna foist this 31Days thing on us, get the info all the way straight.

 

 

FROM IMDB.COM:

 

 

Best Director

[Michael Curtiz|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002031/]

This was a write-in candidate, who came in second on the final ballots. It was not an official nomination.

 

 

 

Best Music, Score

[Leo F. Forbstein|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006079/] (head of department)

(Warner Bros.-First National Studio Music Department).

Score by [Erich Wolfgang Korngold|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006157/].

This was a write-in candidate, who came in third on the final ballots. It was not an official nomination.

 

 

Best Picture

(Cosmopolitan).

 

 

 

Best Sound, Recording

[Nathan Levinson|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0506080/] (sound director)

(Warner Bros.-First National SSD).

 

 

 

Best Writing, Screenplay

[Casey Robinson|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0732452/]

This was a write-in candidate, who came in third on the final ballots. It was not an official nomination.

 

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Feb 1, 2013 8:11 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zzzzzzzzzzz. . . .hey, Imitation of Life!. . . .zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. . . . .hey, Blood and Sand!. . . . .zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. . . . . . .

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