infinite1

BUMP!

BUMP!

BUMP!

> {quote:title=ThelmaTodd wrote:}{quote}Tonight TCM will play the *Black Cat (1934)* at 11:15 PM Eastern time! A real *Lugosi/Karloff* classic- enjoy the show! Big deal, he's still not SOTM which is what this thread is all about. TCM couldn't even make it a BELA/boris night with BLACK CAT, THE RAVEN, THE INVISIBLE RAY, and BLACK FRIDAY.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > > {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}...what's so wrong with that, just because some don't like that ending? > > > > > > Nothing wrong with it... > > > Perhaps, IF you dislike horror films. Otherwise, it's a cheat. I'm sure the majority of patrons > > > > Well, I happen to LIKE horror films, so... so, you obviously like it for other reasons and ignore the cheat ending. Dosen't change the fact that the ending negates the horrific aspects of the film and ruins it as a bonified horror film. Because it is definitely NOT a horror film.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}Just because of the "hoax" ending makes it a bad ending? Why? I think it's a clever idea to have the "vampires" turn out to be actors setting things up to trap the real killer...what's so wrong with that, just because some don't like that ending? > > Nothing wrong with it... Perhaps, IF you dislike horror films. Otherwise, it's a cheat. I'm sure the majority of patrons

MARK OF THE VAMPIRE. This film had everything going for it and could have gone down in history as one of the truly great horror films of the 30s. As it stands, the ending that turned the whole vampire theme of the film into a hoax to trap a very human murderer ruined the film and relegated it to just an also ran of the 1930s film and horror genre. Some remark about it's excellent imagery, but that, in my opinion, makes it all the more dissapointing when the vampire elements are revealed to be a hoax.

> {quote:title=princessananka wrote:}{quote} > Fred, I didn't see your post so I went ahead and entered my own, "Halloween Comes to TCM..." > > Anyway, I am so excited about having a Halloween marathon festival of classic horror in early June. > > > Although I've seen each of these movies a million times, it's always fun to watch them back to back without having to change DVDs. > > > Am especially looking forward to seeing THE ISLAND OF LOST SOULS, one I have seen for awhile. > > > On another night this week, TCM is showing more horror: THE BLACK CAT as well as THE SPIRAL STAIRCASE and a real beauty, THE INNOCENTS. > > > i'm happy that Halloween will be here tomorrow. > > > > Probably will be a much better line-up then TCM's actual Halloween line-up which will probably be another Hammer Halloween marathon. Of tomorrow's films the only one that dissapoints is MARK OF THE VAMPIRE with it's IT WAS ALL A FAKE TO TRAP THE VERY HUMAN MURDERER ending. A better film, in my opinion, would have been 1931's DRACULA, but I guess that one is on hold until UNIVERSAL releases their remastered Blu-ray edition later this year.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > > Seriously? You want to discuss Deep Throat for TCM? > Chief, > > Guess he's never heard of TV's Standard and Practices. TCM is not a premium channel. It's considered basic cable channel that does have to adhere to standards and practices like other non-premium channels. > > If my memory serves me correctly, didn't they have to pull *Zabriskie Point* a few years ago because of the sexual content despite the fact it was to be shown in the late night hours? Yes, I have heard of TV's Standard and Practices, but you and Kyle are missing the point. I was not advocating for anything except respecting your fellow poster's opinions even if they contradict your own. Too often on these here boards, individual posters that express displeasure with modern films and don't consider them classics of the same stature as our Golden Age classics, and therefore not worthy to be seen on TCM, are piled on by the self appointed true "lovers" of the film medium who feel it their responsibility to show everyone else how narrow minded and stupid those posters are. My point was to show that even the folks who cry "there are classics of every type of film that deserve a place on TCM" can, when faced with some aspect of film that they don't like or agree with become the very people that they enjoy lecturing to whenever they see a thread that goes against their grain. Why, they even use the same arguments that the folks they rile against make, such as "there are other channels that cater to those kind of films and those that want to watch them should go there." That was part of fxreyman's lengthy response to me in the other thread "Why is TCM becoming less classic". fxreyman has described himself in the past as a lover of the film medium. I took that to mean the whole medium encompassing every element of it. But, if he hates an aspect of it that is fine, if he does not want to see it on tcm irrespective of TV's Standards and Practices that is also fine. But it is also FINE for some TCM FANS to complain about modern films which they don't like being shown on TCM and while no one has to agree, no one has a right to set themselves up as the real true blue lover of the film medium and THE real TCM FAN. As Penn and Teller would say that's just, well.... you get the message.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}*Note to readers:* > > *This is going to be a long post in response to infinite1. If you do not want to read the post, then I suggest you ignore the post entirely. I try to make certain positions that I have clear, and unfortunately for the rest of you, my writing is not as concise as some might like it to be.* > > fxreyman wrote: > > What you are looking for is a commercial-free channel that shows modern movies without commercials. Let me be perfectly clear with you Fred. I am NOT looking for a commercial free channel to show modern movies without commercials. If that were the case then I wouldn't have soooo many modern films in my DVD movie collection, okay? What I am advocating is that we should consider that films from all time periods can and should be considered classic. NOT ALL films, but that some films from all periods of time can and should be considered classic. > > > That's a fair comment. Read on. fxreyman wrote: > > The word classic is bandied around here to define ALL films made from the golden era of Hollywood. You know that this IS NOT the case. Not every film from before 1959 is a classic. There were a lot of duds made back then as well, just like today. > > > Yet you are also guilty because you refer to the "duds" as part of the GOLDEN ERA or GOLDEN AGE of Hollywood. The duds, as you call them, WERE part of that era so they are forever linked to the classics and have ridden on their coat tails into our psyche as classics of a stature perhaps lesser then the big guns, but classics nonetheless. Therefore the BOWERY BOYS films can be considered classic even though they were garbage made by a Poverty Row company like MONOGRAM. This is YOUR opinion. First of all, I indicated in my response to Fred that I was NOT looking for a commercial free channel to show newer films. I totally recognize the FACT that TCM shows a majority of pre 1970 films on it's channel. I also understand that TCM presents what they consider to be the "greatest films of ALL TIME, from the 1920s through the 1990s." That would indicate that they would include films up to and including the year 1999. Their mission statement does not indicate classic films, rather they indicate "greatest" films. Only in their corporate name are they identified with the word classic. > > This is not to say that the on-air hosts of TCM do not refer to any film as a classic. Some films throughout time should and are considered classic. > > I do not think I am guilty. I never said that the duds were part of the Golden Age or Golden Age of Hollywood, I wrote "Not every film from before 1959 is a classic." Where do I refer to the Golden Age? > > Some folks here on the message board think the Golden Age ended in 1948. Others believe it ended sometime in the early fifties. As I have indicated before, based on the research I have performed, that I believe that the so-called Golden Age of Hollywood ended in 1959. To me this is an appropriate year to select. Some have written that the era ended with the abandonment of the Hays Code in 1968 when the MPAA set up the original movie ratings system. We could go on and on about this but I hope you get the point. > > I agree with you that the so-called DUDs were part of the Golden Era of Hollywood, just as I believe there have been many DUDs created since the end of the Golden Era of Hollywood. And I am not going to sit here an argue whether or not The Bowery Boys can be consider "classic." Or that many of the so-called DUDs made before 1959 are not part of the classic genre. > > Here is the TCM mission statement circa 2009: > > > *"Turner Classic Movies, currently seen in more than 75 million homes, is a 24-hour cable network from Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., a Time Warner company. TCM presents the greatest motion pictures of all time from the largest film library in the world, the combined Time Warner and Turner film libraries, from the 1920s through the 1990s, uncut and commercial-free. The network also offers critically acclaimed original documentaries and specials, including Martin Scorsese Presents: Val Lewton: The Man in the Shadows, the Emmy®-winning Stardust: The Bette Davis Story and the Emmy-nominated Brando."* > fxreyman wrote: > > And has been mentioned by someone else recently on this thread, many more films were produced in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s than today. So just by that measure alone, one could say that many of those films are not worth the moniker of classic. > > > Well, it is theoretically possible that all of those films could be classics and as I proved in my last paragraph they, to a certain extent, all are. Again, this is your opinion. You did not prove anything to me. The only thing you believe in is that even DUDs from the so-called Golden Age can be considered classic. TCM in some folk's minds shows only classics. But, that clearly is not the case. They show way more average films from all time periods of time not just from the so-called Golden Age of Hollywood. Hence my inclusion of TCM's Mission Statement from 2009 above. > > But that being said, who should decide what is and what is not a classic for the purpose of a film being shown on TCM. > > Well obviously, TCM decides which films should be shown on it's channel. Some of the films are classic where most probably aren't classified as classics. As I included earlier, their mission statement does not include the word classic, as it only appears in the name of the channel. They have decided to indicate to anyone who is reading the mission statement that they show what they consider to be the "greatest" films from the 1920s through the 1990s. > > Now maybe they should change the name of the channel. But they are not going to do that. They could change the mission statement to say something like: > *TCM presents films from the 1920s through the 1990s.* Leaving the word "greatest" out. I don't think they will do that either. But then, who often goes looking for their mission statement. Just us geeks who write on this message board, thats all. > > > > > TCM does stand for turner CLASSIC movies after all and I'm sure you would be the first to agree that not every film TCM shows of any era is a classic by any stretch of the imagination. At least not in the terms of GONE WITH THE WIND or THE WIZARD OF OZ, if you believe they truly epitomize the classic in the term classic film. Well, that was the point I was trying to make to Fred in the first place. Why are you questioning me on this? > I also wrote the following to Fred: > > What I am advocating is that we should consider that films from all time periods can and should be considered classic. NOT ALL films, but that some films from all periods of time can and should be considered classic. > > So it would seem that even though the word classic appears in the name of the channel, TCM shows which ever film they want to show. Whether or not it is classified as classic or not. > > > Or can it be that TCM is itself guilty of painting every film they show with that too broad brush stroke label of classic. You never hear ROBERT OSBORNE start or end a film with the following comments "wasn't that a lousy film" or "the next film we're going to watch is just plain BAD". The lack of an honest appraisal does kind of cheapen the word classic when applied to truly classic films like the two above if one puts them on the same level as MONSTER A GO GO or THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. I have to think about this. I can't be sure that I have never heard the on-air hosts say that every film they introduce is a classic. I am sure Mr. Osborne and Mr. Mankiewicz have on occasion referred to some films as classic. But still what difference does it make? TCM is obviously going to show films that are available to show, and that are affordable to show. And a lot of these films are definitely not classic as far as the literal definition of the word is defined. Do I need to spell out the definitions of classic for you? > > I do not think that one would place the two lesser films you have cited on the same level as the first two films. Especially if we adhere to what TCM itself indicates in their current mission statement. Obviously TCM makes judgements about the types of films they show. And I am almost positive that even though they call themselves classic in their name, TCM for the most part do not always follow the classic or even "greatest" reference when showing films. > > > Of course there are different gradations of the term classic film. There are cult classics AND there are genre classics. Films like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD are cult classics and also horror classics, hence their inclusion on TCM. Again, TCM reserves the right to consider which film they are going to broadcast. Some films are considered classic where as other films are not. Yet TCM is the sole arbiter of the films they choose to broadcast. So they are in effect deciding which film to show not based on whether the film meets the definition of the word classic, but rather a film that they can obtain and show on their channel. In other words it all boils down to MONEY. > > > But again, are they classics in the classic sense as GONE WITH THE WIND or THE WIZARD OF OZ are classics? What about porn classics like DEEP THROAT, BEHIND THE GREEN DOOR, or TABOO? For the porn genre they are as classic as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is to the horror genre. Yet I have yet to read a post from you requesting any porn classics. Yet if you are true to your position as a lover of all film you would embrace these films as well or at the least acknowldege that they are classics that deserve a place on TCM. Especially in light of the fact that TCM already shows nudity that can be considered soft core porn as opposed to the hard core variety. Well, I think you have just ventured off the reservation. Or at the very least the wheels have come off the wagon. Do you not know of televisions' Standard and Practices rulings. TCM is not a premium cable channel. Although I understand that to get TCM in some cable companies and markets, one has to purchase a higher tier of channels. But still, TCM is consider a basic channel and must adhere to standards and practices set forth by the channel's legal department which adheres to certain codes and rulings. > > Based on this info, I don't think you will ever see any porn films EVER on TCM. > > As far as YOUR opinion that "TCM already shows nudity that can be considered soft-core porn". > > Any film that TCM does show that includes nudity is NOT soft-core porn. > > *Maybe not, but as you are well aware, smut is in the eye of the beholder.* > > You are getting nudity in main stream films and the soft-core porn industry mixed up. Main stream films started showing nudity in the mid sixties. Mostly as a response to European films being distributed here. Also the film industry lost it's standard bearer as far as rules were concerned when the Hays Code was abolished in 1968. In fact many films were being produced in the early to mid sixties that tested the effects of the Hays Code. Basically pushing the envelope as far as they could. > > Some of the following films are considered soft-core porn: "Last Tango in Paris", "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover", "Emmanuelle", "IIsa: She Wolf of the SS", "Supervixens", "Flesh Gordon", "The Story of O", "Felicity." > > *Actually, I think TCM may have shown LAST TANGO IN PARIS and FLESH GORDON.* > > > If TCM were to show these films and I am NOT saying they should or would, then the channel would be just another HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, and or The Movie Channel, plus the Playboy channel and so on. > > These are NOT films TCM would ever show on their channel. At least I don't think they would want to show these films. And to sit here and suggest that because you think showing nudity in films is the same as soft-core porn, AND then I should go on and consider those films as classics? You are way off base. > > *I didn't mean for you to consider all those films as classics, but to recognize that some of them ARE classics.* > > Another thing, just because you think that since I consider certain modern films classic, then I should also consider certain porn films to be classic. That is quite the leap you are making. And another thing. I would never suggest that TCM show a porn film. That is ludicrous. > > *You don't have to consider anything. But, just have an open mind to recognize that there may be classics in the genre.* > > I have seen my fair share of porn films during my lifetime, but I am not an expert on them, nor do I think many of the other folks who write on the message board are either. You are correct, I am a lover of film, but I decide which film should be considered a classic or a dud or a great film. And I have to say that I would NEVER consider a porn film a classic. > > *Then you are no different from the OP or anyone else who sets a standard for what is or is not a classic film.* > > All of these are my opinions only. TCM uses their best judgment on which films they are going to broadcast. They also have a limited budget in acquiring films, so that in and of itself usually means that TCM can only purchase or rent a finite number of films for each month. > > *Of course.* > > As far as requesting is concerned, I would also never request any silent or foreign film to be shown. And that is not because I do not consider either one of those types of films not to be considered classic, some of them are classic. It is because I am not a fan of either type. And I have never actually requested a certain film to be shown on TCM. If TCM shows a film or films that I like then I will watch them. I don't need to request titles. I'll let others do that if they wish. > > *Fine.* > > There have been instances over the years where mainstream American films have shown nudity as part of their story line. Would you say the following mainstream films should be classified as soft-core porn? > > Some of these have been shown on TCM at various times. > > The Pawnbroker, 1964 > The Bible... In the Beginning, 1966 > Blow-Up, 1966 > Belle de Jour, 1967 > The Graduate, 1967 > Barbarella, 1968 > If..., 1968 > Romeo and Juliet, 1968 > Rosemary's Baby, 1968 > Age of Consent, 1969 > Midnight Cowboy, 1969 > Catch-22, 1970 > M*A*S*H, 1970 > The Beguiled, 1971 > Carnal Knowledge, 1971 > A Clockwork Orange, 1971 > Get Carter, 1971 > Klute, 1971 > The Last Picture Show, 1971 > Frenzy, 1972 > Lenny, 1974 > Barry Lyndon, 1975 > Nashville, 1975 > Night Moves, 1975 > Network, 1976 > The Deep, 1977 > Coming Home, 1978 > Midnight Express, 1978 > An Unmarried Woman, 1978 > Altered States, 1980 > The Shining, 1980 > The Stunt Man, 1980 > > *Not all of them, but some of them came damn well close.* > > If, on the other hand, you say that porn classics have no place on TCM then you cannot, in all honesty, say anyone is wrong for complaining about modern classics being shown on TCM because now you are the one restricting a type of film for personal reasons not having to do with the films status as a classic. I have never said that porn films should have no place on TCM. In fact I have never said that soft-core porn films belong on TCM. This is a different argument about what types of films from a certain time period or a certain type of film should be shown on TCM. > > *You just said that a few paragraphs up. And it's the main point of the argument about what type of classics belong on TCM.* > > To lump soft-core and hard-core porn into a classic category is missing the point. I am sure that there are many fans of these two types of films. Maybe some of them are considered classic. Do they belong on TCM? I don't think so, neither do I think TCM thinks so either. > > *Now you are softening your position. OUCH, pardon the pun.* > > Your argument does not make sense. Because for some odd reason you think that just because some folks think that modern soft-core and hard-core films are classic, then by that definition those types of films belong on TCM. > > *No, that's not my argument.* > > But to assume that I think these films are classic and then presume to say that they belong on TCM is absurd. I don't believe these types of films belong on TCM. There are other places to show these films. > > *Funny, I have read that very same argument from folks that write that there are other channels that show modern films. Haven't you given those arguments a thumbs down in the past?* > > Again, I have written before that only TCM can determine which films they want to show on their channel. And because of this only TCM can determine what type of film they want to show, whether it be from before 1959 or after. I really do not think that TCM sits around pondering which films are classics and which ones are not. They purchase the rights to show these films and sometimes they show newer releases. And as has been proven by me, the vast majority of films being shown on TCM (at least for the month of May) are from before 1959. > > Are all of these films classics? As determined by the true definition of the word classic? No. But is it up to you or me or any one else to sway TCM one way or the other in trying to determine which films they show? No. TCM has done and will continue to do so in the future requesting certain films THEY want to show and show they will, if the films are available in the first place. > > *Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not advocating for porn to be shown on TCM in any form. I was just using it to make a point. You are the one who has consistently called others narrow minded for not considering the possibility that there are classics outside the scope of their own definition of the word. What you have shown is that you are not so different from the very folks you are criticizing by not even accepting that there are classics outside your definition of the word. And by NOT wanting them anywhere near your precious TCM you are no better or worse then anyone saying that modern films have no place on TCM.* > > > Edited by: fxreyman on Jun 2, 2012 4:04 PM > > Edited by: fxreyman on Jun 2, 2012 7:28 PM

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}I am not sure I understand the question. Do you mean who was the actor who played Tonto to the Lone Ranger (which in the case of the Happy Days episode, was played by John Hart, the actor who took over for one season inbetween when Clayton Moore was renogotiating his contract)? That Tonto was Jay Silverheels, who was Tonto for the whole TV series. Sorry, I should have been more clear. On HAPPY DAYS the FONZ considered himself to be a kind of LONE RANGER. Who did he consider his "TONTO"?

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > > Also, what 70s iconic TV character was a die-hard fan of the LONE RANGER? Easy. The Fonz. And his Tonto was?

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > > Also, what 70s iconic TV character was a die-hard fan of the LONE RANGER? Easy. The Fonz.And his Tonto was?

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > > After all, judging by the amount of posts it does appear that these type of threads are the most exciting. > They usually end up being the most decisive and before they run out of steam or get locked, usually degenerate into flaming and name calling. But, dosen't that make it deliciously exciting? Vincent Price would have thought so. But seriously, that's when one starts from the premise that it's their way or the highway. As I began my thread I postulated that there are no hard chisled in stone rules to define a classic film. That it is emotionally driven. Therefore, I am setting up the thread by predicating that everyone is equally right. What can be more fair then that?

> {quote:title=fredbaetz wrote:}{quote}Yes, "Hi-yo Silver, away" > > After the opening narration, the Lone Ranger says "Hi-yo Silver away" > > > Also, don't forget the Lone Rangers crime fighting pardner his faithful Indian companion "Tonto". Tonto was introduced because the shows creator wanted someone the Lone Ranger could talk to... > > > Plus the Lone Rangers great nephew Britt Reid aka "The Green Hornet" with his trusted sidekick "Kato" and driving their state of the art car "The Black Beauty"... > > Edited by: fredbaetz on Jun 2, 2012 2:51 PM > > Edited by: fredbaetz on Jun 2, 2012 2:57 PM > Also, what 70s iconic TV character was a die-hard fan of the LONE RANGER?

> {quote:title=fredbaetz wrote:}{quote}Yes, "Hi-yo Silver, away" > > After the opening narration, the Lone Ranger says "Hi-yo Silver away" > > > Also, don't forget the Lone Rangers crime fighting pardner his faithful Indian companion "Tonto". Tonto was introduced because the shows creator wanted someone the Lone Ranger could talk to... > > > Plus the Lone Rangers great nephew Britt Reid aka "The Green Hornet" with his trusted sidekick "Kato" and driving their state of the art car "The Black Beauty"... > > Edited by: fredbaetz on Jun 2, 2012 2:51 PM > > Edited by: fredbaetz on Jun 2, 2012 2:57 PM > Also, what 70s iconic TV character was a die-hard fan of the LONE RANGER?

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}The subject is as old as these message boards. A quick search would have brought that up. http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?threadID=105493&tstart=0&messageID=7945172#7945172 http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7884847� http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8560695� http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7772915� http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7858089� http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7879284� http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6099721� http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7783397� http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7771958� Wow, nine threads. Thank you. I stand corrected. Now, since you must be familiar with all of the above threads and for the benefit of your fellow posters, so we don't have to sift through pages of repetitious postings, can you tell us if all of my questions were previously addressed and point us to the thread that answers them? If that's too complicated, perhaps the simpler thing to do, is just to do it again. After all, judging by the amount of posts it does appear that these type of threads are the most exciting.

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}I was reading a book of film reviews recently, and the phrase 'generously buttered corn' was used. I love it! > > Sometimes Frank Capra's detractors refer to his movies as 'Capra-corn.' > > I don't know if I have ever seen a motion picture that I felt was so corny it wasn't worth watching. > > Have you? Two modern films that would meet that criteria, in my opinion, would be MOULIN ROUGE 2001 with NIcole Kidman and ZOMBIELAND 2009.

This subject has often come up as a side bar in other threads, but I don't think there has ever been a thread dedicated to the subject itself. If there has been I stand corrected. But, that being said, what is your definition of a classic film? I don't think there are any rules chisled in stone to define what a classic film is, as other threads have shown there are any number of opinions on the subject. I believe that it is emotionally driven and not supportive by any facts. So, to start the ball rolling I will say that in my opinnion a classic film is a film, from any era, that has withstood the test of time and that is universally recognized as a classic by film historians and film critics. Also, is there a difference between a true film classic like GONE WITH THE WIND and a film genre classic or cult classic like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and DEEP THROAT? Are they all three equally classic and should not all classics be represented on TCM? Finally, are there any films, generally speaking, that should not be labeled as classic, and should they be omitted from TCM?

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > What you are looking for is a commercial-free channel that shows modern movies without commercials. > Let me be perfectly clear with you Fred. > > I am NOT looking for a commercial free channel to show modern movies without commercials. If that were the case then I wouldn't have soooo many modern films in my DVD movie collection, okay? > > What I am advocating is that we should consider that films from all time periods can and should be considered classic. NOT ALL films, but that some films from all periods of time can and should be considered classic. > > *That's a fair comment. Read on.* > > The word classic is bandied around here to define ALL films made from the golden era of Hollywood. You know that this IS NOT the case. Not every film from before 1959 is a classic. There were a lot of duds made back then as well, just like today. > > *Yet you are also guilty because you refer to the "duds" as part of the GOLDEN ERA or GOLDEN AGE of Hollywood. The duds, as you call them, WERE part of that era so they are forever linked to the classics and have ridden on their coat tails into our psyche as classics of a stature perhaps lesser then the big guns, but classics nonetheless. Therefore the BOWERY BOYS films can be considered classic even though they were garbage made by a Poverty Row company like MONOGRAM.* > > And has been mentioned by someone else recently on this thread, many more films were produced in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s than today. So just by that measure alone, one could say that many of those films are not worth the moniker of classic. > > *Well, it is theoretically possible that all of those films could be classics and as I proved in my last paragraph they, to a certain extent, all are.* > > *But that being said, who should decide what is and what is not a classic for the purpose of a film being shown on TCM. TCM does stand for turner CLASSIC movies after all and I'm sure you would be the first to agree that not every film TCM shows of any era is a classic by any stretch of the imagination. At least not in the terms of GONE WITH THE WIND or THE WIZARD OF OZ, if you believe they truly epitomize the classic in the term classic film. Or can it be that TCM is itself guilty of painting every film they show with that too broad brush stroke label of classic. You never hear ROBERT OSBORNE start or end a film with the following comments "wasn't that a lousy film" or "the next film we're going to watch is just plain BAD". The lack of an honest appraisal does kind of cheapen the word classic when applied to truly classic films like the two above if one puts them on the same level as MONSTER A GO GO or THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN.* *Of course there are different gradations of the term classic film. There are cult classics AND there are genre classics. Films like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD are cult classics and also horror classics, hence their inclusion on TCM. But again, are they classics in the classic sense as GONE WITH THE WIND or THE WIZARD OF OZ are classics? What about porn classics like DEEP THROAT, BEHIND THE GREEN DOOR, or TABOO? For the porn genre they are as classic as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is to the horror genre. Yet I have yet to read a post from you requesting any porn classics. Yet if you are true to your position as a lover of all film you would embrace these films as well or at the least acknowldege that they are classics that deserve a place on TCM. Especially in light of the fact that TCM already shows nudity that can be considered soft core porn as opposed to the hard core variety. If, on the other hand, you say that porn classics have no place on TCM then you cannot, in all honesty, say anyone is wrong for complaining about modern classics being shown on TCM because now you are the one restricting a type of film for personal reasons not having to do with the films status as a classic.* > > One last thing: > > I am NOT advocating that TCM show more modern films. What I am advocating is that they continue to populate the schedule with better, more recent films than what they are showing now. 24% of the films in May were produced after 1960. As far as I am concerned that is a good number of modern films to show on this channel. A number of modern films from 15% to 25% should be tolerated on a channel that has in it's charter indicates that they show films from every era up to the 1990's. > > You may disagree with me, and that is fine. I have no problem with people indicating their desire that the channel show less modern films. My problem is when people continue to claim that TCM is going more modern each day, when in fact that is clearly not the case. > > Of course as has been written here on this thread, it would seem that many folks do not want to use facts in their arguments. Instead they continue to use their opinions. And until they recognize that TCM is NOT going the way of AMC, we will be much better off for it.

> {quote:title=casablancalover wrote:}{quote}You gotta be kidding, folks. Another nostagia thread? > > True, this is Turner CLASSIC Movies, but still, the Mr Peobody Wayback Machine is not yet in its final testing stages, and some of its technology is now considered obsolete and replacement parts aren't available. > > Don't get me wrong; I love history. And understanding that it includes my history now is comforting to me, not threatening. > > Some of you may be longing for the best parts of your history, but learn to accept the fact you have more history behind you. You have walked the earth for decades, and you are trapped in the current generation's creative growth now. My parents would feel the same way about my music, movies, and clothing. But they could embrace television, for it came of age about the same time they did. > > Stay connected and stay informed. Seek many sources of information (sorry, cannot rely on just one). > > Hang in there, for this too will pass. To what? It's only limited by imagination. You are comparing apples to oranges. My Grandparents were born in the early 1900s. They went to silent films and watched the birth of the talkies. They owned a camera, a phonograph, a few records, a radio, and a television. My Grandfather died in 1983 just as the home video craze was getting started. My grandmother had no desire to own a VCR and probably didn't even know such an animal existed when she died in 1993. They would not have embraced the home video craze or the digital era because they had something that is lost on todays generation of wide eyed techno zombie children, including, to an extent, myself. They understood the value of MONEY. They and their generation realized that you can't have every new damn toy that's being hyped every day to a gullible populace that needs to feed it's instant gratification psyche and who never heard of the word RESTRAINT. I said myself, and It's taken me a little time, but I draw the line with CDs, DVDs, and Blu-rays. I am vowing here and now NOT to support streaming or downloading of anything, movies or music or anything that would render CDs, DVDs, and Blu-rays obsolete. Who else is brave enough to take the vow? or do you prefer to be a slave to your impulses?

I find it interesting that COMIC BOOK adaptations of films and tv shows have been pretty faithful to the original source material while the new crop of movies based on comic books are less then faithful to the source material and seem to go out of their way to retell origins and stories on the pretense of wanting to appeal to a wider audience.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}I don't think you are serious because I think the tone was sarcastic and downright bullying. Any fairminded individual would see it that way. > > I was hardly trying to be "bullying"...and any "fairminded" individual would also uderstand there are different points-of-view, to which everyone is entitled. The great unfortunate thing about the internet and read text-only on a board such as this (a discussion board, may I point out) is each person is going to apply ot read whatever "tone" or "attitude" they want to, even of none was ever suggested by the original poster...who shouldn't have to always worry about explainging his/herself or apologizing if someone "reads into" what was written. > > *I never denied you a point of view, but obviously you have a definition of bullying that differs with Mr. Webster's. "who shouldn't have to always worry about explainging his/herself or apologizing if someone "reads into" what was written." That's the common excuse made by everyone that's banned from other message boards "I didn't mean what you think it sounds like." Most moderators don't buy it, but as fxreyman writes, this board is a little more tolerant of trolls.* > > And I thought you more fairminded then that. At least that was my impression from YOUR post. If that is the way the OP feels, it is his right to feel that way. He dosen't have to be spoken down to and mocked by kriegerg69 as a whiner, lazy, or not with it. > > Well, someone else agreed with me...so that hardly makes me the only one who has that opinion of the OP's comments. "I thought you more fairminded than that" comes across as though you expected the responder's comment to be more agreeing with YOU. > > *As I recall fxreyman's comment it was just "well written". Since he didn't reply directly to my post I have to assume that he was just impressed with how you presented your points, not your lack of civility.* > > Some people don't have the time, money, or patience to invest in all this new constantly changing technology. > > That's not the point...it's the criticism of the technology for which the person is unfamiliar with or doesn't even own, so why should they be critical of it? That's unjustifiable opinioning. > > *It's exactly the point. The technology is changing too fast to keep up with. It's not even generational anymore. It happens constantly within one's lifetime. The problem is not so much the new technology, it's that the older technology is abandoned too quickly by manufacturers in order to placate people who don't know what to do with their money.* > > And personally, I for one don't know of anything more stupid then Barnes and Noble hyping and selling the very technology, THE NOOK, that will one day close their stores and put thousands of people out of work. > > AGAIN...welcome to the 21st Century! Printed books will still be around for a very long time, but the format of Ebooks IS here and here to stay, like it or not, and eventually print will be gone. Everything will be electronic/digital. Hardly "stupid" at all...that just comes across as an opinionated comment by someone who doesn't understand the purpose of the technology. > > *Educate me, just what is the purpose other then to make money off of people that have money to burn?* > > Other companies sell dvices to store and listen to music in digital form, as well as also selling physical media like CD's...so what's the difference? > > *CDs are fine, so are DVDs. Why change to anything else? I know, because we can.* > > Kriegerg69 is entitled to his opinion of how great modern technology is BUT so is the OP. Kriegerg69 knows NOTHING about the OP and I don't appreciate bullying in a play ground or on a message board. > > AGAIN...I was not bullying by any means. That's just your opinion, of course. The OP (and you, I might add) also know NOTHING about me either. > > *I know it's your way or the highway. What more about you is there to know?* >

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}Well written. Really???? Well written?????? I don't think you are serious because I think the tone was sarcastic and downright bullying. Any fairminded individual would see it that way. And I thought you more fairminded then that. At least that was my impression from YOUR post. If that is the way the OP feels, it is his right to feel that way. He dosen't have to be spoken down to and mocked by kriegerg69 as a whiner, lazy, or not with it. Some people don't have the time, money, or patience to invest in all this new constantly changing technology. And personally, I for one don't know of anything more stupid then Barnes and Noble hyping and selling the very technology, THE NOOK, that will one day close their stores and put thousands of people out of work. Kriegerg69 is entitled to his opinion of how great modern technology is BUT so is the OP. Kriegerg69 knows NOTHING about the OP and I don't appreciate bullying in a play ground or on a message board.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > What is it that separates the studio era films from the modern film era, pre 1960 vs. post 1960 if that is the cut off point? And what killed off the studio era films? What was, officially, the first modern or post studio era film? Was it recognized as a different type of film immediately or was it a gradual recognition that took place over time? > Here are my questions to you...... > > What is your opinion about the first question in your paragraph above? > > What is your opinion about the second question in your paragraph above? > > What is your opinion about the third and fourth question in your paragraph above? > > Just curious. You are always asking what others' opinions are, so whats yours? In this thread I did not ask for anyones' opinions on anything. I asked a series of questions and assumed there was a definitive answer for each question. If I would have had or known the definitive answers I would not have had to ask the questions. However, according to you, there are no definitive answers, only opinions, unless I am reading you wrong. Opinions on these threads are a dangerous business. They only have merit if they can be proven as fact. Therefore, I prefer not to play and run the risk of angering someone and bringing down the wrath of Michael on myself or anyone else. If others chose to participate that is their business, not mine. I have only asked the questions because I thought it would be interesting to know the answers. However, if it proves to be the catalyst for an interesting discussion, better left to others to participate in.