infinite1

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}They also kept working, not because of the money, but because they loved to perform and entertain audiences. Well, when that's all you know how to do, you better force yourself to love it, no matter how degraded you feel.

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote} > > Some character actors were leading men and women during the silent era, and their careers evolved considerably with the advent of talkies. > Don't you really mean devolved? It must have been no small shock to their sensibilities as well as their oversized egos to have to be relegated to playing character parts in the new "upstart" talking pictures medium after they were stars in the silent era. I consistently read that if LON CHANEY would have lived well into the talkie era, rather then be annointed with the mantle of HORROR star he would have had to settle for character parts like so many of his peers. Do you really think that someone with CHANEY'S ego would have considered that a career evolution? Most of the actors that went with the flow did it because they had to eat and because they couldn't bear to be forgotten, not because they liked it.

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}His movies (at least all the ones I've seen in part or whole) are awful. > > Ain't that the truth, Addison. Elvis couldn't act, and labelling him a 'star' is supposed to make him palatable. > > Since Kim Kardashian is a 'star', I suppose that makes her SUT*S* worthy next year. Sad people. > > *Have to take issue with you here. I don't think KK made any films, but there's always a good chance that TCM would honor "stars" like Lindsay Lohan or, heaven forbid, Drew Barrymore with SOTM or a SUTS day long before they honor, if ever, BEULAH BONDI or EDNA MAY OLIVER.* > > Oh, and Dargo, Fairbanks was only mildly talented. You want him, you have him. I'll take Powell, who like Levene and Gleason (if singers who can't act can count as *STARS*, then character actors who can act can count as *STARS*, got it yet? Good), could act rings around Fairbanks.

How about a SUTS day next year for these stars: GEORGE RAFT WARD BOND LIONEL ATWILL WILLIAM BOYD BUSTER CRABE LON CHANEY JR. EDNA MAY OLIVER JIMMY DURANTE RAMON NAVARO JOHN BARRYMORE JOHN CARADINE WARREN WILLIAMS PAUL DOUGLAS BEULAH BONDI HATTIE MCDANIEL HELEN WESTLY FLORA ROBSON MAY ROBSON W.C. FIELDS WHEELER & WOOLSEY RAQUEL WELCH ANN-MARGRET

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}infinite1 wrote - > *But you did say the following:* > "But TCM's most valuable asset is its well-cultivated and high-regarded "brand". Being commercial-free, it is important that it not make changes that will harm that perception of being the repository and presenter of "the greatest films of all-time". > *Obviously you don't feel showing rock concert films would harm TCM's brand, even though you find them far less then the "greatest films of all time" and they would be a change from the normal TCM programming, but I don't understand why you fail to grasp that some people do feel that way."* > ----- > Once again, you've reverted to being obtuse just for the sake of being argumentative. > > You still won't admit that my comment that you keep quoting was made in response to a poster's desire to see regularly scheduled Classic Television Dramas on TCM. I didn't agree and believe showing regularly scheduled Television Programs on the channel would be harmful to the "TCM BRAND". Hence my comment. > > *I never denied that your comment was directed at the IDEA of showing regularly scheduled Classic Television Dramas on TCM. But, as you were not word* > *S P E C I F I C in your comment, which I quoted verbatim, there is no law that says they can't be applied to anything that is perceived to harm TCM's brand. They are your words after all, if you don't like them, don't blame me, try to be more word specific. After all, you know we obtuse fellows just love when you smart guys provide openings for us.* > > "One of these things is not like the other." It's Films vs. TV. Got it? > > *Got it. But, it's also classic movies VS. rock concert films. Got that?* > > If you or others think that TCM should be cautious and exclusionary in their approach to film programming, that is your choice. But I believe films such as *Monterey Pop* and *Don't Look Back* (1967), *Gimme Shelter* and *Woodstock* would be interesting to show on the channel. > > *If you seriously believe that, then I guess you would not be opposed to Metropolitan Opera performances that were shown on movie screens being shown on TCM.* > > If TCM can show a month of the very best documentary films ever made by the most famous documentary film directors of all time, as it did in 1999, TCM could present theatrically released concert films - especially as part of the TCM Underground franchise. > > *The fact that an encore month hasn't been scheduled since 1999 speaks volumes as to the success of that experiment.* > > Within the past six years, TCM has found room for the documentary films *Grey Gardens*, *For All Mankind* and *Standing In The Shadow Of Motown*. The world did not end. > > *And if they continue to air documentaries TCM's world might end when enough people start switching channels for alternative programming and find something better to watch, or simply shut off the TV.* > > Good films will always have a place on TCM. At least I hope so. > > *I do too, unfortunately we have a difference of opinion as to what type of films belong on a MOVIE channel, not a film history channel, or a film concert channel, a MOVIE CHANNEL. I want traditional classic movies you want anything that can be defined as a film, as long as it first appeared in a movie theatre. That's too broad a definition for my liking.* > > Kyle In Hollywood > +And I hope the channel has pencilled in *Four Days In November *for presentation in November

> {quote:title=}{quote} > *"The rock concert film may have been, as you say, a "popular theatrical film genre" I don't know enough about it to agree with or deny your claim. But you did not say, in your above post, that they were representative of "the greatest films of all-time". That is the real contradiction."* > > {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > > TCM does show the "greatest films of all-time." > But I never said that TCM shows *ONLY* "the greatest films of all-time" to the exclusion of everything else, did I? No one would ever make that comment. There are many far-from-great films on TCM. It can present both types and still be described as the one channel that shows "the greatest films of all-time", can't it? > > And as the presenter of the greatest films and those less than great, showing theatrically released concert films on TCM is possible without it being contradictory in any way. > > *But you did say the following:* > > *"But TCM's most valuable asset is its well-cultivated and high-regarded "brand". Being commercial-free, it is important that it not make changes that will harm that perception of being the repository and presenter of "the greatest films of all-time"."* > > *Obviously you don't feel showing rock concert films would harm TCM's brand, even though you find them far less then the "greatest films of all time" and they would be a change from the normal TCM programming, but I don't understand why you fail to grasp that some people do feel that way. You said there is a perception, (real or imagined???) of TCM being the repository and presenter of "the greatest films of all-time" you did not say "greatest films and so so films" or "greatest films and bad films" you specifically said "greatest films of all time". That comment makes a definitive statement that everything that TCM presents is of the "greatest film of all-time" category or should be and anything less would harm that perception. Since you feel there are already bad films being shown on TCM or films that are viewed as bad by a sizable viewership why are you giving TCM a free pass to further harm their brand with the addition of rock concert films and thereby further calling that perception of TCM's mission into question? Yet I never see any posts from you deriding anything that TCM shows. If there is the slightest possibility that showing rock concert films would harm the perception you speak of, why are you joining the chorus requesting them? It is not logical to speak out in defense of TCM and then request something that will harm the perception of their brand.* > > Kyle In Hollywood

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}If TCM was only showing the "greatest films of all time", we'd be seeing NORTH BY NORTHWEST, SOME LIKE IT HOT, and FROM HERE TO ETERNITY even more than we do now. Frankly, I don't find any of the above to be worthy of the classification of "greatest". Entertaining, yes, but "greatest", no. But that really depends on TCM's definition of "the greatest films of all time", dosen't it? I personally feel that TCM lumps all the films it shows into the same category. In their eyes every film aired on TCM is a "great" film. They rave about them all equally, don't they? Did you ever hear ROBERT O or BEN M say the following film is just plain bad or awful? That is why the station dosen't give a damn what they show. They know there will always be viewers with various degrees of taste. RO and BM must know that some of what is shown is garbage, but the station will never allow them to admit it. Obviously TCM has chosen to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to attract new viewers and it's a damn rotten shame that a fine channel like TCM has to stoop to these tactics to entice viewers. So, you folks who are dying to see rock concert films on TCM will probably get your wish because the channel has degenerated down to that level. Me, I'll watch a DVD or VHS tape of something really "great" that TCM could show, but no longer wants to.

How about the two FIRST NATIONAL 1931 JOHN BARRYMORE films SVENGALI and THE MAD GENIUS?

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}*"But, now you want ROCK concerts and Rock and Roll films? So much for consistency from Kyle in Hollywood."* > > I know each and every title I listed in this thread was a theatrically-released motion picture. Some were even nominated for an Academy Award as Best Documentary. > > In the days before pay-cable television and home video, the rock concert film was a popular theatrical film genre. (For some musical artists, it still is.) These films were made to be seen in a theater. They were not made for television. As such, if TCM so chose, they could fit into the channel's broad approach to the films it shows. Especially as part of TCM Underground, which is the topic of this thread. > > Besides, you might want to go back and re-read exactly what I wrote in that thread about TCM's "judicious use" of some non-film titles. > > So, I haven't been inconsistent or contradictory. But you certainly have jumped at the chance to try and "call me out", haven't you. > > Hmmm? This all smells so very familiar. > > Kyle In Hollywood *"But TCM's most valuable asset is its well-cultivated and high-regarded "brand". Being commercial-free, it is important that it not make changes that will harm that perception of being the repository and presenter of "the greatest films of all-time"."* This is the comment you made that I am "calling you out" on. The rock concert film may have been, as you say, a "popular theatrical film genre" I don't know enough about it to agree with or deny your claim. But you did not say, in your above post, that they were representative of "the greatest films of all-time". That is the real contradiction. You would be content to watch a rock concert movie on the channel just because it was a popular theatrical film genre even though it would run the risk of harming TCM's "well-cultivated and highly-regarded "brand" which is the perception of being the repository and presenter of "the greatest films of all-time" which rock concert films, you obviously feel, are not. Or do you? If you stand by your above comment, which I highlighted, you should be opposed to the whole idea of TCM UNDERGROUND. How do you reconcile your two diametrically opposing views of the type of programming that TCM should show? One is brand conscious the other says anything goes as long as it's a theatrical film. You are right, it does smell familiar.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}It is my understanding that the "Turner Library" of pre-1948 WB films, RKO films and MGM films is still intact. It exists at Warner Brothers as a single entity among the holdings of Warner Home Video. > > Most everyone around here still refers to that package of film titles as the "Turner Library" even though control of the films is with WHV and TCM has to lease those films from them just like any other television station would. > > Kyle In HollywoodKyle, Could you take a stab at answering the OP's question? I too would like to know why TCM is reluctant to show the films on his list. There must be digital masters of some of the films on the list as some of them are available through WARNERS ARCHIVE COLLECTION and have been for a few years, so why withhold them from the channel? Also, I really hate to bring this up again, but if the "Turner Library" package of films is controlled by WHV and TCM has to lease them, why are they still referred to by ROBERT OSBORNE and others connected with the channel as "our film library" or "TCM's film library"?

"I'd enjoy seeing some concert / Rock & Roll films too" That's pretty funny Kyle. I thought you were the champion of the TCM brand. At least you were when the suggestion was the occassional classic TV SHOW that featured a big name classic movie star. But, now you want ROCK concerts and Rock and Roll films???????? So much for consistency from Kyle in Hollywood. Remember, old threads never die, they just come back to bite you when you contradict yourself.

WOW, I went through all the posts in this thread and was kind of surprised that GEORGE RAFT didn't top everyone's list. I guess that means that there a lot of closet GEORGE RAFT fans out there, either that or you didn't even think him worthy of a dishonorable mention.

> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}What is happening? Are there negotiations? When will we see titles like UP FOR MURDER, AFRAID TO TALK, SCANDAL FOR SALE, THE CROSBY CASE, HALF A SINNER, GIFT OF GAB, NIGHT LIFE OF THE GODS, the Crime Club series, ZANZIBAR, DRUMS OF THE CONGO, FLESH AND FANTASY, GYPSY WILDCAT and LADIES COURAGEOUS on TCM? Same goes for Paramount pre-Codes. Why aren't more people talking abouth this? I've also anxiously been awaiting the promised flood of films from UNIVERSALS' vast library that ROBERT OSBORNE spoke about in the interview he gave FILMS OF THE GOLDEN AGE a few years ago. According to RO, it was a done deal, but he was ambiguous as to the exact date. He claimed it would start once TCM's deal with COLUMBIA was over. I am not sure how this all works as we are still seeing COLUMBIA films on TCM. Perhaps the promised flood is really a trickle as we are seeing some UNIVERSAL films here and there, but you're right, I want SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM, MURDER IN THE BLUE ROOM, THE GREAT IMPERSONATION, THE BLACK DOLL, THE APE WOMAN SERIES, ETC., ETC., ETC.

LON CHANEY SR.'s make-up kit, LON CHANEY JR.'s wolf head cane from THE WOLFMAN, BELA LUGOSI's cape from DRACULA (not the one he was buried in), and One of GEORGE RAFTS' fedora hats from his 1930s films.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}How about this for an idea - TCM should have it built into whatever contract they make with a studio or distributor that if they find themselves stuck with a lousy or cut print, TCM can refuse to pay for said print. You'd be amazed how quickly the problem would be resolved. > That would make sense, wouldn't it? B-) > > UNLESS...before they actually get the print sent to TCM...their contract they agree to stipulates they take what they get, that there may be circumstances beyond their control and the studio can only provide whatever they currently have available to send to TCM. If the contract they have made up doesn't allow TCM such a luxury to stipulate what they WANT, then they may not be able to sign any contract...TCM could end up not getting anything at all from the studio. > > In which case your suggestion (as good as it may sound in theory) would be useless. :0 If TCM agrees to sign such a contract, as you suggest, knowing that a better print does exist, or without asking if a better print is available, then TCM rightfully deserves whatever barbs are tossed their way by outraged fans. We have come to expect the best available prints from TCM. If nothing better exists, that is one thing, but to just accept a film in any condition because they are afraid to ruffle the feathers of some studio execs is a cop out, if that is the case. TCM is a prestigious channel, after all. The studios should be bending over backwards and kissing TCM's --- for the honor of showing their films on TCM in the best possible light. Showing a lousy print does nothing to further the reputation of TCM or the film they are showing.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=rosebette wrote:}{quote}One would think Turner could do better. > They could...if Turner had anything to do with it. TCM is stuck with whatever the studio sends them. There is alot that TCM can do. How about this for an idea - TCM should have it built into whatever contract they make with a studio or distributor that if they find themselves stuck with a lousy or cut print, TCM can refuse to pay for said print. You'd be amazed how quickly the problem would be resolved.

> {quote:title=RayFaiola wrote:}{quote}I actually misstated. Britt Reid is the GRANDSON of Dan Reid, nephew of the Lone Ranger. > > As for the serial, gorgeous 35mm print! But Gordon Jones is sorely miscast as Reid. Universal bettered the situation by casting Warren Hull in the follow-up serial.Ray, I am actually surprised how good Gordon Jones was as Reid and THE GREEN HORNET. I think you're channeling MIKE THE COP from the old ABBOTT AND COSTELLO show or one of Jones' later film roles as dopey side kick Alabama Smith to John Carroll in John Wayne's 1942 film FLYING TIGERS.

A babe to be sure, but her character always has a slutty look to her, the look of a ****. That is how she was presented on screen and sold to the public. She was typecast that way, so although she may have deserved better, she created an image that prevented her from getting better roles. But, did she need them? I doubt it. She may not have been an actor the caliber of a Betty Davis or Katherine Hepburn, but who cares, I'd rather dream about VIRGINIA then those other two any time. And that's better enough for me.

> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}When will we see RETURN OF THE TERROR (FN, 1934) on TCM? Based on the TCM synopsis there's nothing to it.

JACK BENNY could really play his violin. At least *he* thought so.

> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote}This is sort of an offshoot of my most recent blog, something I had thought about for a while but was brought to my attention once more. > > I recently wrote about my contact with actress Gloria Jean. She wasn't ever a big star, but put out a solid body of work and worked with some pretty big names. She's now in her mid-eighties and in fairly good health. > > It seems to me that the actors and actresses who still survive from the classic era, such as Gloria, should be contacted and interviewed by TCM before it is too late. I know they already have done some of this with bigger stars, many of whom are now gone, but to expand this to the regular working actors of the period would be worthwhile. > > An offshoot of this might actually be that TCM could show some films they have rights to but that would be new to us. Gloria made a fair number of movies at Universal and Columbia which now go virtually unshown. > > I mention Gloria because I wrote to her, but I'm sure many of you can think of others to be considered. ginnyfan, I doubt they (tcm) would even attempt it. I might be wrong, but I don't even think they ever approached GLORIA STUART, who was not camera shy, and this after her amazing work in TITANIC. Ms. Stuart also made a number of films for COLUMBIA and UNIVERSAL, but I have yet to see a tribute to her work on TCM.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}My point is that PHANTOM is simply too important a film to NOT do a proper and complete frame-by-frame (IMHO) digital cleanup and restoration. The Photoplay release (and I do have that DVD set) is fine, but not good enough. Universal itself should be involved in such a massive digital restoration of the movie to it original form and length, and quality. At the very least, whatever footage that can be obtained from the 1929 edition should be used in conjunction with full digital restoration of the remaining footage, and piece it all back together. You're absolutely right. I'm a bit sad and dissapointed that UNIVERSAL did not spend the time and money doing the restoration work on PHANTOM and HUNCHBACK, two of their biggest moneymakers of the 20s, that they spent on DRACULA. Incidently, this just in from the CLASSIC HORROR FILM BOARD - october 2 is the official release date for UNIVERSAL CLASSIC MONSTERS: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION on BLU RAY. The films will include 1. DRACULA (1931) bonus SPANISH DRACULA 2. FRANKENSTEIN (1931) 3. THE MUMMY (1932) 4. THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933) 5. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) 6. THE WOLFMAN (1941) 7. PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1943) 8. CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954) in 3D An exact duplication of their release order on DVD back in 1999, but only now in HD. Details can be found below. I know this is great news, but it would have been much sweeter if they would have included BLU RAYS of restored versions of Chaney's HUNCHBACK and PHANTOM. h1. UNIVERSAL CLASSIC MONSTERS: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION *By:*Robert T. Trate *Date:* Thursday, June 28, 2012 *Source:* Universal Studios {size:small}For the first time ever, eight of the most iconic cinematic masterpieces of the horror genre are available together on Blu-ray^TM^ as *Universal Classic Monsters: The Essential Collection* debuts on October 2, 2012 from Universal Studios Home Entertainment. Digitally restored from high resolution film elements in perfect high-definition picture and perfect high-definition sound for the first time ever, *Universal Classic Monsters: The Essential Collection* brings together the very best of Universal’s legendary monsters—imaginative and technically groundbreaking tales of terror that launched a uniquely American movie genre. This definitive collection features eight films on Blu-ray^M^, a collectible 48-page book featuring behind-the-scenes photographs, original posters, correspondence and much more. Each iconic film is accompanied by an array of bonus features that tell the fascinating story of its creation and history, including behind-the-scenes documentaries, filmmaker commentaries, interviews, storyboards, photo galleries, and trailers. Especially appealing for fans are a never-before-seen featurette about the restoration of Dracula and the first ever offering of The Creature from the Black Lagoon in its original 3D version. {size:small} {size:small}From the era of silent movies through the present day, Universal Pictures has been regarded as the home of the monsters. *Universal Classic Monsters: The Essential Collection* honors the studio’s accomplishments withthe most iconic monsters in motion-picture history including Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, Phantom of the Opera and Creature from the Black Lagoon. Featuring performances by legends of the horror genre, including Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, Jr., Claude Rains and Elsa Lanchester, these eight iconic films also feature groundbreaking special effects and innovative makeup that continue to influence filmmakers into the 21^st^ century. Sure to be a Halloween favorite for years to come, *Universal Classic Monsters: The Essential Collection* is the ideal gift for film buffs and horror aficionados alike. {size:small} {size:small}*Synopses and Bonus Features* {size:small}*Dracula (1931)* {size:small}The original 1931 movie version of Bram Stoker’s classic tale has for generations defined the iconic look and terrifying persona of the famed vampire. Dracula owes its continued appeal in large part due to Bela Lugosi’s indelible portrayal of the immortal Count Dracula and the flawless direction of horror auteur Tod Browning. The *Universal Classic Monsters: The Essential Collection* includes the original version of this chilling and evocative tale, as well as the rarely seen Spanish version of Dracula. Filmed simultaneously with the English language version, the Spanish version of Dracula is an equally ominous vision of the horror classic shot with the same sets and script. Cinematographer George Robinson and a vibrant cast including Carlos Villarias and Lupita Tovar deliver a chilling and evocative tale filled with the same terror, mystery, and intrigue. {size:small} {size:small}*Bonus Features:* {size:small}· Dracula, the 1931 Spanish version, with Introduction by Lupita Tovar Kohner {size:small}· The Road to Dracula {size:small}· Lugosi: The Dark Prince {size:small}· Dracula: The Restoration – *New Featurette Available for The First Time*! {size:small}· Monster Tracks: Interactive Pop-Up Facts About the Making of Dracula {size:small}· Dracula Archives {size:small}· Score by Philip Glass performed by the Kronos Quartet {size:small}· Feature Commentary by Film Historian David J. Skal {size:small}· Feature Commentary by Steve Haberman, Screenwriter of Dracula: Dead and Loving It {size:small}· Trailer Gallery {size:small} {size:small}*Frankenstein (1931)* {size:small}Boris Karloff stars as the screen’s most tragic and iconic monster in what many consider to be the greatest horror film ever made. Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) dares to tamper with the essential nature of life and death by creating a monster (Karloff) out of lifeless human body parts. Director James Whale’s adaptation of the Mary Shelley novel and Karloff’s compassionate portrayal of a creature groping for identity make Frankenstein a timeless masterpiece. {size:small} {size:small}*Bonus Features:* {size:small}· The Frankenstein Files: How Hollywood Made a Monster {size:small}· Karloff: The Gentle Monster {size:small}· Monster Tracks: Interactive Pop-Up Facts About The Making of Frankenstein {size:small}· Universal Horror {size:small}· Frankenstein Archives {size:small}· Boo!: A Short Film {size:small}· Feature Commentary with Film Historian Rudy Behlmer {size:small}· Feature Commentary with Historian Sir Christopher Frayling {size:small}· 100 Years Of Universal: Restoring the Classics {size:small}· Trailer Gallery {size:small} {size:small} {size:small}*The Mummy (1932)* {size:small}Horror icon Boris Karloff stars in the original 1932 version of The Mummy in which a team of British archaeologists accidentally revives a mummified high priest after 3,700 years. Alive again, he sets out on an obsessive—and deadly—quest to find his lost love. Over 50 years after its first release, this brooding dream-like horror classic remains a cinematic masterpiece. {size:small} {size:small}*Bonus Features:* {size:small}· Mummy Dearest: A Horror Tradition Unearthed {size:small}· He Who Made Monsters: The Life and Art Of Jack Pierce {size:small}· Unraveling the Legacy of The Mummy {size:small}· The Mummy Archives {size:small}· Feature Commentary by Rick Baker, Scott Essman, Steve Haberman, Bob Burns and Brent Armstrong {size:small}· Feature Commentary by Film Historian Paul M. Jensen {size:small}· 100 Years Of Universal: The Carl Laemmle Era {size:small}· Trailer Gallery {size:small} {size:small} {size:small}*The Invisible Man (1933)* {size:small}Claude Rains delivers an unforgettable performance in his screen debut as a mysterious doctor who discovers a serum that makes him invisible. Covered by bandages and dark glasses, Rains arrives in a small English village and attempts to hide his amazing discovery, but the drug’s side effects slowly drive him to commit acts of unspeakable terror. Based on H.G. Welles’ classic novel and directed by the master of macabre, James Whale, The Invisible Man fueled a host of sequels and features revolutionary special effects that are still imitated today. {size:small} {size:small} *Bonus Features:* {size:small}· Now You See Him: The Invisible Man Revealed {size:small}· Production Photographs {size:small}· Feature Commentary with Film Historian Rudy Behlmer {size:small}· 100 Years of Universal: Unforgettable Characters {size:small} {size:small} {size:small} {size:small}*Bride of Frankenstein (1935)* {size:small}The acclaimed sequel to the original Frankenstein has become one of the most popular horror classics in film history. The legendary Boris Karloff reprises his role as the screen’s most misunderstood monster, now longing for a mate of his own. Colin Clive is back as the proud and overly ambitious Dr. Frankenstein, who creates the ill-fated bride (Elsa Lanchester). The last horror film directed by James Whale features a haunting musical score that helps make The Bride of Frankenstein one of the finest and most touching thrillers of its era. {size:small} {size:small}*Bonus Features:* {size:small}· She’s Alive! Creating The Bride Of Frankenstein {size:small}· The Bride Of Frankenstein Archive {size:small}· Feature Commentary with Scott MacQueen {size:small}· 100 Years of Universal: Restoring the Classics {size:small}· Trailer Gallery {size:small} {size:small} {size:small}*The Wolf Man (1941)* {size:small}Originally released in 1941, The Wolf Man introduced the world to a new Universal movie monster and redefined the mythology of the werewolf forever. Featuring a heartbreaking performance by Lon Chaney Jr. and groundbreaking make-up by Jack Pierce, The Wolf Man is the saga of Larry Talbot, a cursed man who transforms into a deadly werewolf when the moon is full. The dreamlike atmospheres, elaborate settings and chilling musical score combine to make The Wolf Man a masterpiece of the genre. {size:small} {size:small} *Bonus Features:* {size:small}· Monster by Moonlight {size:small}· The Wolf Man: From Ancient Curse to Modern Myth {size:small}· Pure in Heart: The Life and Legacy of Lon Chaney, Jr. {size:small}· He Who Made Monsters: The Life and Art of Jack Pierce {size:small}· The Wolf Man Archives {size:small}· Feature Commentary with Film Historian Tom Weaver {size:small}· 100 Years of Universal: The Lot {size:small}· Trailer Gallery {size:small} {size:small} {size:small}*Phantom of the Opera (1943)* {size:small}This lavish retelling of Gaston Leroux's immortal horror tale stars Claude Rains as the masked phantom who haunts the Paris Opera House. A crazed composer who schemes to make beautiful young soprano Christine DuBois (Susanna Foster) the star of the opera company, the Phantom also wreaks revenge on those he believes stole his music. Nelson Eddy, as the heroic baritone, tries to win the affections of Christine as he tracks down the murderous, horribly disfigured Phantom. {size:small} {size:small}*Bonus Features:* {size:small}· The Opera Ghost: A Phantom Unmasked {size:small}· Production Photographs {size:small}· Feature Commentary with Film Historian Scott MacQueen {size:small}· 100 Years of Universal: The Lot {size:small}· Theatrical Trailer {size:small} {size:small} {size:small}*Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)* {size:small}Captured and imprisoned for scientific study, a living “amphibious missing link” becomes enamored with the head researcher’s female assistant (Julie Adams). When the hideous creature escapes and kidnaps the object of his affection, a crusade is launched to rescue the helpless woman and cast the terrifying creature back to the depths from which he came. Featuring legendary makeup artist Bud Westmore’s brilliantly designed monster, Creature from the Black Lagoon is an enduring tribute to the imaginative genius of its Hollywood creators. {size:small} {size:small}*Bonus Features:* {size:small}· The Creature From The Black Lagoon in 3D {size:small}· Back to The Black Lagoon {size:small}· Production Photographs {size:small}· Feature Commentary with Film Historian Tom Weaver {size:small}· 100 Years of Universal: The Lot {size:small} · Trailer Gallery

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=TCMfan23 wrote:}{quote}dream on guys. TCM is going to re-run the same old crud like every other year. > > > > The same Val Lewton's , the same Hammer's , the same 60s and 70s stuff , > > > > > > the usual silent stuff : Nosferatu , Phantom of the Opera (1929 re-release version) , Hunchback of Notre Dame , Cabinet of Dr. Caligari , Vampyr (TCM imports) ... > > > > > > Why don't they show the ORIGINAL 1925 Phantom of the Opera for once ?! > > > I agree....which is why I don't watch TCM on Halloween any longer each year, because it's the same old, same old (and I have them all on DVD anyways). > > They don't show the original 1925 edition of PHANTOM simply because the best-quality prints were done from the 1929 edition...that's what got restored and preserved. It WOULD be nice if someone saw fit to restore the original 1925 edition though...it's also much longer than the shorter 1929 edition. Too true. But, perhaps in conjunction with UNIVERSAL'S 100th anniversary and the promised Blu-rays of DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, etc., due out around Halloween we'll get something special on TCM. Heck, I'd even be happy if TCM showed the four films that were included in their joint UNIVERSAL/TCM CULT HORRORS COLLECTION of a few years back. Don't you think the 1925 Phantom that was included in the MILESTONE Ultimate Phantom Collection would be good enough for TCM to show? I didn't think it was too bad and the novelty of watching something PHANTOM related that was different from the usual oft played 1929 version far outweighed any shortcomings due to it's quality. It would be no better or worse then some kinescopes of old TV dramas shown on TCM from time to time, don't you think?

> {quote:title=obrienmundy wrote:}{quote}Many times recently, I have seen people here saying that TCM will become modern films only and with commercials. But I don't know if I believe that. After all the TCM Boxed Sets on DVD are still going strong, and TCM has a loyal fanbase. One that the Fox Movie Channel or for that matter AMC (Aside from their original programming) do not have. So, am I the only optimist? I don't know what you call "going strong" as in "all the TCM Boxed Sets on DVD are still going strong"? If they were "going strong" they wouldn't be just retreads from prior sets that were previously released, but new to DVD releases on pressed DVDs. The fact that Warners is withholding new to DVD releases from TCM and relegating them to the MOD DVD-R market shows that TIME-WARNER has no faith in the TCM brand to sell brand new pressed DVDs of films never released on DVD. They are leaving TCM to repackage the same old same old, dress it up in a new package, sell it cheaper, and hope someone bites. But TIME-WARNER has no guts and no confidence in TCM's "loyal" fanbase to sell NEW product. It appears that your optimism is misplaced. Maybe you need to see an Optimitrist.

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}Of course not. The majority of people here believe TCM is classic and will stay that way. It's only a few noisy people who say it going the way of AMC. As a matter of fact, some of them have been saying that for many years now. ; ) Of course the majority of AMC viewers believed that AMC would stay classic and NEVER EVER go commercial. Why? Because that was what AMC's management told them. "We will never go commercial. We have too much love and respect for our film heritage. After all we support film restoration", and blah, blah, blah. And it was only a few noisy people who kept asking about commercials and not believing or trusting the powers that be to keep their word. Well after a number of years AMC became, well, you all know WHAT it became. I guess we should have listened to the few noisy people. Usually, you will find that the majority of anything become lazy, apathetic and self dillusional that things will always stay the same. And you know what? That's when they change. The trick is to always be on your guard and ask questions. I'm not saying it's as important as national security, but why take a chance?