Tikisoo

I am amazed at the criticisms bombarded on this board for "incidental" hosts on TCM. Remember, I don't get TCM, so I haven't seen Cher, Drew or any of these hosts. But I am interviewed on TV enough to know how it goes... You may spend an entire day conversing with another person on a subject you are knowledgeable and passionate about and it's edited down to 4 minutes and only a couple of key statements. How can anyone get a real sense of anything in 4 minutes? While I think Robt O does an OK job as a host because he's personable & well spoken, his spots are well rehearsed but could be much better written and more informative. OTOH, when you put two people in the mix, you're looking at spontaneous conversation and getting an entertaining & informative few minutes is much more a crapshoot. I think TCM goes far out of their way to present interesting mixes of celebrity participation, informative documentaries and genre spotlights all concerning classic film. No other CABLE CHANNEL bothers with any "extras" for their viewers, instead it's about money. If I had TCM, I'd be grateful for the intelligent variety they offer.

Oh Kyle! I love those pastel on medium color paper portraits... I once had the Clara Bow with the parakeets, seeing it brought back memories! I do archival framing & conservation professionally and my walls are covered with original movie posters, (and my framing room full of more waiting to be done) so I have a few tips for you: Original posters come in several sizes, and usually each size has different images. The typical "one sheet" is 27" x 41". This is important because standard size materials are 32"x40". Once you go that extra inch, everything is "oversize" and more expensive. I am more apt to buy "half sheet" posters that are 22"x28", a standard size that you can find cheaper "ready made" frames for. But I love the "insert" size posters that are 36"x13", tall & thin. You have to have the framing materials custom cut (well I do it myself) but the finished size is small and fits anywhere. Lobby cards and publicity photos are even smaller, but can get pricey. Reproduction posters of full size originals are reduced just enough to fit standard frames, and I own a Clark Gable & a Thin Man of those because I could never afford it otherwise. It's the way to go if you want a "famous" movie poster. But if you don't mind "lesser" or obscure films, they can be found for under $10. Also be aware posters are made from different grades of paper-my Paper Moon from the 70's is very thin and shows the folds when framed. Older posters can be heavier and made from "pulpier" paper. Any original artwork needs to be kept out of direct sunlight and is best kept in the room on the north side of your house just to avoid ambient light. They fade fast. It's BEST to sandwich your poster between acid free foamcore (to keep it flat) and a mat or spacers (to keep the paper off the glass) I can't tell you how many posters I have to chemically peel off glass because it was shoved right next to the glass without spacers. Popcorn sells 11x17 reduced reproduction posters & their selection is vast. PM me if you want any more info.

I don't mean to judge, but if I saw one of those USB port mouthed figures on my shelf, I'd have nightmares! Techno creepy. (while full size mannequins blankly staring out my windows are MEANT to scare people!)

C-lover2, thanks for posting that photo of the Enterprise table. (regretsy's a hoot!) I actually like the table, despite the inaccuracies-could you imagine living in that shades of BEIGE living room? I sent the photo to my brother since we're both ST original series nuts and he sent me back this: Still going a bit overboard on the "theme" inho.

>"lawn jockey" is definitely offensive Really? Too bad because the "Jocko, Faithful Groomsmen" is a tradition based on a Revolutionary War story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_jockey Don't know how accurate the Wiki account is, but I was told the Jocko story along with the "Underground RR beacon" story when I was given the crumbling old Jocko family heirloom to restore. This is why Jocko has his hand in his pocket (to keep warm) and he is bent over, because he is frozen. And I still see Disney as a conservative right corporation. Their ethics, not their animation. Do you see a lot of charities or foundations funded by Disney Corporation? I see a lot of cheaply made chotchke in stores decorated with princesses and superheros perpetuating mass consumerism.

Are you asking if anyone here has "homages" to movies decorating their homes? I suppose you can consider my pinball machine the ultimate homage-just the back glass: Along with a pair of M-R baby spots resting on the top, I like real artifacts. I use old film reels to organize all the crazy wire cording running from the TV to the sound system and empty film cans to organize home recorded DVDs (a can for horror, a can for musicals, etc) Have I made anything? Well, I have a big rubber millipede that I glued a magnet to so it crawls up the refrigerator-bonus points to anyone who yells out "The Tingler!" when they see it. And just recently I dressed mannequin legs in my old garter belt/fishnets/sparkle platforms as an homage to Rocky Horror Picture Show realizing I'll never fit into that costume as a 50 year old lady! (ew)

>Sepiatone said: What the HELL is WRONG with people? Exactly. Good post. What's wrong with these people is Disney Corporation is run by (and geared to) rich white men who haven't a clue about diversity in America and only see other cultures as caricatures. C'mon, their cartoons are still dealing with basic feminism (Brave) >Pretending that those attitudes and situations never happened doesn't actually change the FACTS. Those running DisneyCorp are so disconnected, they're afraid of offending other uptight white conservatives so the preferred tactic is to disguise charactors as animals or monsters. Can you imagine them making Snow White today? I saw Song Of The South recently and found nothing offensive and believe me-I was looking for it. Their uptight attitude just reinforces my distaste of the Disney Corporation and their "product".

>Dargo said...if any of you out there don't "get this", then you also probably have never heard of "Dr.Demento", a Sunday night mainstray of L.A. Alternative Rock radio station KMET back in the '70s, and who played a lot of really rare and funny old novelty songs on his program...) I listened to his syndicated show as a teen in Rochester NY-loved him! A very close movie friend has a Dr Demento award framed in his office for a parody CD he created that was a fan fave on DD Show-so it must still be up & running! He said I was one of the only people who recognised his award. :-(

Well I just watched John Garfield double feature: Blackwell Island & Castle On The Hudson and noticed Mr Garfield has his own rather large rear end. (I immediately thought of the Geo Brent thread) I also thought if Garfield brushed his hair forward he'd bear a striking resemblance to Moe Howard.

I would have thought hands down it would be Ward Bond with Thomas Mitchell a close second. Those two show up in EVERYTHING-sometimes even in the same film!

>Residents Get Screwed by Cox (Communications) Am I the only one who sees the off color humor in this statement? >kyle said: Make a few inquiries to all the other services to see what kind of deal they offer a new customer. It helps to play one off the other when negotiating with them. So definitely take notes. And don't leave your cable company before you call them back telling that you're leaving, why you're leaving and which company you have chosen to give your business to. Good advice, but futile with MY negotiations last January with TWcable, which was exactly my tactic. They've been calling me ever since trying to "get me back". Suckers. These companies have realized how valuable TCM is to the viewing audience (interest in classic film is on the rise) since the other 99% of their offerings are either biased news, sports or reality show crap. I think it's awful they changed your line up over night without warning, but indicative of the "hostage" type attitude they have towards their customers. I want you to go to your window, stick your head out and yell, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" (and then just stop buying that rotten meat they're selling)

Thank you kevshrop for your descriptive post. Anyone who has experienced this will better understand my disgust with these digital "presentation events". I think it's mostly up to the staff handling the theater's equipment, if they're not familiar with the equipment (or simply don't care) the experience is substandard. I find I get a better picture and sound at home on a DVD than what is offered in the theater. And I don't have to listen to constant talkers or distracted by phone screens. OTOH, sitting in an audience of true historical film lovers is a joy and enhances the film watching experience, as is the case at a classic or rare film festival. Maybe a modern public multiplex just isn't the right venue for this sort of thing.

>TCM Underground Admin on Facebook " I'm going to try to respond to some of the folks on there." Yeah, he's gonna post, "Shut the heck up with your lousy suggestions!" OK just saw the worst exploitation film, "Goke, Body Snatcher From Hell" This is the alien/vampire/villan: Unfortunate make up job, isn't it? This pic from the TCM website, so they must have it in their library.

>denote "hypochondriacal or hysterical affections" Funny you should say that....I am both a hypochondriac AND hysterical! (I often whimper & moan about having a "24 hour tumor" - a favorite movie line - quick-what movie?) My beef is anyone complaining about TCM, you're lucky to have it. I can't afford cable and February marks the one year point of cutting off my TCM, I sure miss it. And glad to know there's others that enjoy Underground!

*I didn't make him for YOU!* Boy, am I glad TCM programming isn't conducted by those on this board. It's amazing the amount of posts complaining; ? Don't show THIS film, it's not worthy ? Show THIS long lost film, *I* want to see it ? Don't broadcast it at this time slot, it's inconvenient for ME ? Don't repeat broadcasts, *I'VE* seen it ? Get rid of this host, add this host ? Get rid of THIS feature, *I* don't like it ? They showed THIS version, WAH! I think the TCM programmers do a tremendous job scheduling classic films that are available. And they do a great job securing deals to broadcast all sorts of interesting programming that fits into "classic film" genre. This includes contemporary taped studio & festival interviews, along with classic TV interviews and shows. Special TCM "overview" features like the Val Lewton, Warner Brothers & Moguls & Movie Stars documentaries. And well designed "fillers" like What A Charactor & the year end memorium. The special guests, hosts and features shown each month are fantastic, and a great way for everyone to learn more about classic films. Each month contains several "themes"-star of the month, focus on a filmmaker or subject, and daily themes. And there's ALWAYS a few "premieres" each month. All without commercial interruption. Do you have any idea how hard it isto maintain a cable network without commercial revenue? Sheesh. What a bunch of crybabies. Let's instead of complaining, understand there are thousands of TCM viewers who all love classic film in different ways. If you give things a chance, you just may find out why something you aren't familiar with is popular with others.

Glad you enjoyed it-that gives me hope. I just heard Eddelstein's review of it on NPR and according to him it seemed pretty poor in the story department. Which doesn't surprise me, since your first comments were on "effects". He said the 3 witches performances were the high point, well 2 out of 3. And his impression was that Oz was small & weak, not great & powerful. As typical, I'll wait for it to come to second run theaters and judge it upon the overall storytelling and ability to capture my imagination. For me, without a well told story, effects are easily forgotten.

Along the same lines as Dicken's fantastic naming abilities are the Marx Brothers.... Groucho in particular: Dr Hackenbush, Wolf Flywheel, Kornblow, Otis B Driftwood, Rufus T Firefly and my favorite Attorney Cheever Loophole.

To get back to original question...yes, I think Robert O is slowly phasing himself out. I think that's a GOOD thing- not that I dislike him-I just think he deserves a semi-retirement. I like him being the "grande host" of TCM *special events* and leaving the grueling TV schedule behind. While I love Ben M, I think TCM would be well served hiring a true film historian for the "copy" and bonus if they have TV experience. I can think of two people off the top of my head, but no one listens to me. ;-) >LZ said: I was just trying to make you aware of some of the problems of watching classic films on YouTube vs watching them on archive.org or streaming via Netflix. I have a problem with ALL of them. First, I do not want to sit in my office chair to watch a movie on a computer monitor-I want to be in my comfy living room with my big Sony and 5.1 surround sound. When I've streamed Netflix to the TV the result has been wholly disappointing-the picture is dark, the sound poor quality, and I get pixelation at times, especially in the "black" areas. I also found this happening viewing TCM via cable or dish. >Just get rid of cable and go on your cranky way. I did and very much enjoy DVDs, BRs & classic 35mm film screened in theaters. Although I admit, I miss endless hours of TCM.

Another THANKS to you Dobbsey. I always wondered what that "previous page" glitch was & you ID'ed it. Just goes to show the difference between those who just use a computer and those who actually learn how it works. Everyone should know basic HTML, but most don't bother. They think they are high tech because they can post a photo on FB. I liken it to those who simply drive a car and those who truly understand what's going on inside. I know you're a car guy, so the analogy fits!

Nothing "allthumbs" about your post-excellent points explained. My personal disdain for copyright laws are their extensions beyond the death of the talent. I simply do not understand why the HEIRS of a talented person deserve any royalties from what someone else did. Sure, some kids make sacrifices for their parent's work, but certainly no descendant deserves royalties forever. Am I thinking correctly on this? So Mr Jones writes a novel made into a movie. Silver Smith sings the theme song and appears in a cameo. MGM makes the movie and copyrights (cr) the collaborative finished product. MGM wants to sell the broadcast rights but Mr Jones & Silver Smith's estates don't allow it without a new royalty deal. As for restoration, if the above MGM movie falls into PD and I take it upon myself to restore it, I then now become owner of the restored version, my own cr for 50 years or whatever the expiration. I now have 50 years to recoup my costs. Now an IMAGE, a NAME, like the dreaded Mouse or Elvis or MM to name the obvious, I can understand the reason behind the cr. It's not necessarily to gain royalties, but to protect the use on an inappropriate item. CRs allow the "estate" to decide what products should bear the image or name of a beloved celebrity and sue any bootleg items, which there are many. That said, I love my Elvis toenail clippers but was disgusted finding a poster of child Shirley Temple photoshopped as a dominatrix-and hope both companies were requested to desist.

LOVE your verse Sepiatone-you touched on a lot of valid points there. I will never understand the appeal of the fat blob guy with the shaved head. It's exactly like the girl with the hair pulled back in a tight bun-"easy" trumps "attractive". Yet there are entire stores dedicated to cosmetics! >darkblue said: Work harder, become meaner, take our example from the ethics of the selfish who were and are televised in full force It's easier for kids to be "meaner" because even the company you work for and are supposed to be loyal to, is faceless. Any service employees left (cashiers/nurses/bankers) are all faceless and are here to provide your every need. Really, we can just about do without other people in our society, we have self checkouts, online banking, etc. In a healthy society, children realize they are not the center of the universe by time they are teens. The original appeal of online social media was that EVERYONE can be a star! This generation has the assumption they are the star of their own reality show and no one else matters. I think the "individual anger" darkblue speaks of is the truly disturbing trend. It was only 40 years ago people were angry and protesting how badly PEOPLE were treated: blacks, hippies, soldiers, women, the handicapped. Now, it's a big complaint-fest about how "I'm so hard done by" others.

>a quote from Socrates about how bad the young people of his time were And I always bear that quote and the Dead End Kinds in mind when I start thinking of the "youth of today". Really, it's always been an issue. The appeal of watching these charactors is because while the viewer cannot feel "financially superior" or even visually "prettier" than these spoiled reality charactors, they instead feel morally & intellectually superior. But feeling smarter than the charactors only goes so far-these shows are tiring and lose viewers easily. (thank god) Viewers tend to stick with charactors they actually IDENTIFY with morally and intellectually, like Friends, Raymond & the Big Bang nerds. Reality shows are a direct result of the TV writers strike over a decade ago. It'll phase out once the advertisers realize they are not as sensationally popular as the "developers" make them out to be. That'll get a head start once the viewers realize there's nothing real about them. Now what concerns ME is the absolute need for talking/texting every waking minute of both youth & adults. No one can even DRIVE without it for goodness sake. Ever look into a restaurant and see couples, wordless with their handhelds glowing in their faces? And people trying to keep the illusion of popularity with "likes" & "friends"? Oy. While TikiKid enjoys her handheld, I encourage her to be well spoken, well written and sociable. I think it will give her a distinct advantage as an adult in the business world, like college degrees were in my day.

Briggs would be a good Underground host, but John Waters-YES! He seems to really understand the appeal of these films culturally without ridicule or cheap comments. >including a few with nudidity I can only hope that was an intentional misspelling. Funny that my RL parallels this board....yesterday I discovered a cardboard box full of Something Weird? DVDs left by a friend who bought them and thought they were awful. (and rightly knew I'd LOVE them) SW offers all sorts of exploitation films most likely first shown at drive ins and porn theaters. No, they're not classics in any way, but seeing Betty Page dancing in kooky costume underwear and topless stoned hippies cavorting in the park makes you wonder why these were ever considered "filth". A few titles: The Hippie Revolt Damaged Goods The Hard Road Hot Rod Girl Maniac Narcotic Forbidden Fruit

Thanks HF for articulating your feelings regarding the Underground-I too think it's under appreciated by many classic movie fans. >Today?s teens and college students have a connection with ?vintage? culture - look at all the 14-year-olds wearing clothing referencing brands and TV shows Just as I did as a teen in the 70's with my Charlie Chaplin and Groucho Marx shirts. Any gateway to appreciating film as an historical art form wins in my book. >TCM Underground doesn?t just show American psychotronic schlock horror but also showcases (snipped) films that are outside of TCM?s usual oeuvre but deserve to be discussed. Boy, do I agree 100% with you on this. While busy concentrating on vintage "classic" film, I actually missed seeing films like the ones you mentioned when they were first shown in the 70's/80's. TCMUnderground is a great introduction for these films for the classic movie fan, especially expanding a library for the one who has already "seen everything". >TCM Underground shows unique short films between features, dealing with topics as disparate as the drug wars and Tupperware. Another genre I enjoy but feel is an untapped resource. These "educational" shorts are a huge hit when screened at film festivals and between features, much more so than Newsreels. Not only are they little cultural time capsules, but they often display the elements of filmmaking (writing, directing, acting, set design) not yet at the big studio level...much the same appeal as Ed Wood films. There are "horror" festivals (on 35mm!) held in my town along with a bi monthly series of exactly the sort of films shown on TCM Underground. They are very popular and well attended by all age groups. It's a lot easier getting 15 y/o TikiKid and her friends to join me at _these_ screenings than our "classic" film night. They often raise their hands in the air and say, "Yay! Color!" TCM wastes no expense focusing on crappy digital presentations of commonly seen classics. While many people snub their noses at the type of film the Underground shows, I too think it is an untapped market and good introduction for the young classic movie fan.

>Capuchin said: You might have hit the nail on the head. I do understand the character. Yup, that's what I figured. At least I saw the movie once and now see Fosse as a tragic charactor. And I'll always love the art he created. It's kind of like Kirk Douglas in The Bad & The Beautiful. I identify with that charactor and actually like him, when I know you're supposed to hate him. We'll leave the Minnelli portion alone. The only people in film more polarizing are comedians. Matter of taste, I guess.