infinite1

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > I know that I wrote earlier that one poster asked me to perform research when in fact he did not. I acknowledged my error there. However, I wish once and for all that some of these naysayers would actually do some fact finding for themselves instead of just sitting on the sidelines and complaining about these stubborn facts that their opinions run contrary to. That their opinions can not be backed up simply because they are too lazy to perform basic research in the first place. > > Other than that everything is fine. fxreyman, I appreciate the extra effort it took for you to do the additional research. As far as I am concerned you have proven your case and I am satisifed that you are correct. I won't raise this issue again or add my two cents to any threads raising this spectre again. I believe you and your numbers are genuine. I am sorry if I gave a different impression in older threads, but feelings are a strong thing to overcome. I wish I was not so lazy, but I do not own a computer and no longer subscribe to NOW PLAYING. It is hard to do research when one is utilizing a computer at a library and is bound by a set time period. Again, thanks for the hard work.

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?

> {quote:title=JonasEB wrote:}{quote} > > As a member of the 18-49 demographic, I don't "prefer" anything - I'm a cinephile and I like cinema, the totality of it, Doesn't matter where it came from, doesn't matter when it was made, doesn't matter whether it's black or white or color, doesn't matter whether it's sound or silent, narrative or experimental, plotty or plotless, doesn't matter how long it is, doesn't matter what it's about. > > I wish more people were that way, alas... Is, in your opinion, anyone less a cinephile if they prefer a certain era or genre of film? And, do you feel that TCM programs more for the cinephile that, like you, enjoys the totality of cinema rather then for any particular age demographic? If your answer to the second question is yes, and I think it is, then why should age factor into any decision that TCM makes regarding the look of the channel? Obviously, the cinephile would be drawn to the channel based on it's film content, not because of how it is presented. Therefore, the original reasoning for changing the look of the channel in 2003 would seem to have been the result of wrong thinking on the part of upper management. No one, at least I don't think no one, makes a decision to watch any other channel because said channel has cool graphics or because people and reviewers rave about it's "look". It's based on content. Now, on the other hand, TCM's original graphics were more in keeping in line with the image that TCM was selling, a specialty channel that offered the kind of programming that other channels abandoned. That kind of feeling is lost with the more modernistic art deco look of TCM, which was wholly based on age demographics. So, what are we left with? TCM programs for the cinephile that enjoys the totality of cinema, but hopes to attract a specific age demographic by it's more modernistic look, the majority of which, "alas", does not appreciate the totality of cinema. Illogical, yes? But, that is where we're at. The subject of this thread is "why is TCM *becoming* less classic", not TCM *is* less classic. That the graphic design of the channel has changed to a more modernistic look is evidence that the channel is *becoming* less classic, that the main target group of the channel, age 18-49, that are less total cinephiles and more modern in taste, is evidence that the channel is *becoming* less classic, but that the channel still programs for cinephiles like JonasEB proves that TCM is still a classic movie channel. Therefore it is one of those arguments where both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > > Today's generation is narrow minded and lazy. And the programming on tv is terrible compared to ten years ago when we had ,TCM , AMC , and TV Land. TNT showed old films once in a while back then. Now , all we got is TCM and Encore suspense/western that show 'studio era' films. > From what we heard during the *Meet the TCM Staff* at the latest Film Festival, over 66% of TCM's audience is in the 18-49 demographic so a good slice of today's younger audience loves TCM as much as the over-55 crowd. > > *I don't know if this was asked, or if it could even be answered by the TCM Staff, but an interesting follow up question could be Of the 66% of TCM's audience, the 18-49 year olds, what era of films do they prefer and do they prefer b+w or color? Or to put it another way, does TCM program based on the preference of the majority of their audience? For example, if TCM ever runs a survey, I don't suppose they ever have, have they?, and the majority expresses a dislike of silent films, would TCM discontinue Silent Sunday Nights?* > > In addition to TCM, you can see studio era films on the Encore channels, Retroplex, Multiplex (both seem to have some tie to Fox), Fox Movie Channel (well, at least 12 hours a day), the lesser HBO channels, lesser Showtime channels, Flix, MGMHD, SonyHD and MeTV. > > Luckily, for us, no one does it as well as TCM. > > *Why is that luckily? Shouldn't the word be unluckily? I, for one, would be thrilled to have the old AMC back as well as other similar channels to give TCM a good run for their money and keep them on their toes. Competition is what creates champions, right now TCM dosen't compete with anyone to provide the kinds of films we love. It's not hard to be #1 when you're the only horse in the race.*

> {quote:title=princessananka wrote:}{quote} > If there are other threads on this subject, then my apologies for adding yet another one. > > But I want to say how much fun I've been having watching the Saturday morning lineup of olden days Saturday marquees that featured a B-movie--usually of a popular series--then the cliffhanger serials. > > > "Perils of Pauline" was dlightful and the fact that a wonderful print was shown, instead of the grainy, splotched public domain prints we've had to suffer through enhanced our enjoyment.. I loved heroine Evely Knapp's snazzy wardrobe of furs, gowns, cute hats and although she wasn't much of a fighter--like the original Pearl White in her l914 blockbuster serial--feisty Ripley like heroines would come into their own with Republic's fabulous series of chapter plays starting in the late thirties and through the early forties. > > > Here would be the ultimate Saturday Matinee at the Bijou: > > > Movie: Night Monster (1943) > > > The Mummy's Ghost > > > Captive Wild Woman > > > The Mad Ghoul > > > King Kong > > > The Most Dangerous Game (just recently shown with a beautiful print) > > > The Wolf Man > > > The Terror of Tiny Town (starring an all-little person cast along with little horses) > > > The Spider Woman Strikes Back! > > > Serial: The Adventures of Captain Marvel > > > Daredevils of the Red Circle > > > Spy Smasher > > > G-Men Vs. the Black Scorpion > > > King of the Forest Rangers > > > Drums of Fu Manchu > > > Jungle Girl > > > Nyoka of the Jungle > > > It'd be fun, too, to have some of those movie commercials where the customer would be exhorted to "Come to Our Conessions for a delicious iced drink and hot dog! We serve Coca-cola!" I remember one where a row of dancing weenies kicked up their feet to the music before jumping into the skillet. > > > Do you have a dream Saturday lineup? > Sounds similar to what they used to have every Saturday on the old AMC. They called it Movie Palace Memories and it was hosted by Bob Dorian from some actual old Movie Palace somewhere in the country. They would start off with a short subject, then a cartoon, a newsreel, a serial chapter, then the main feature which was usually a B picture. They also had those movie commercials for the snacks that you mention. Not everything that the old AMC did was great, but their Saturday Matinee programming was right on the money. I'd like to see TCM attempt something similar.

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}*Ahem. Let's take the tone of this conversation down a notch, all of you, please. If you can't do that, don't post or you will lose the right to post. Adults know how to disagree with civility and grace. Others need to learn their manners.* > > *Understood?* > > > *Michael/TCMWebAdmin* > > Understood. Sorry Michael, I guess I got carried away. Sorry all.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > > i worry every time tcm shows films made later than 1970. I hope TCM doesn't lose it's indentity like other channels did. > > > Many people who come here cite the same fear. The problem is that the fear is just that, a fear that has no basis in fact. Even after *18 years* of being on the air, TCM shows no real signs of moving in that direction. > > TCM doesn't have commercials, and, as has been shown in previous posts, they are not showing a predominance of post-1970s films at the expense of classic studio era films and they are not abandoning their original mission which is to showcase films from all decades. > > > TCM includes the classics, the b-films, the serials, the cult films and the z-grade films, etc. > > To TCM, all films are important, no matter who the star, the director or the lack thereof. > > They program for all of us. > > The classic lovers, the cult lovers, the sci-fi lovers, the serial lovers, the 1970s lovers, etc, because they understand that all films, no matter what genre, no matter what type, are important to us because film has the ability to entertain us as well as show us about who we were as a society, as a culture, as a nation as well as how far we've come and how far we still have to go. > > > *I'm glad you love all of TCM's programming, but I have to wonder, what programming changes would it take to rile up izcutter and the other "TCM can do no wrong" cheerleaders? Would you be silent if TCM started showing SOFT CORE PORN FILMS ala CINEMAX? That would fall under the "they program for all of us" category. What IF they started actual commercials? Would that rile you folks up? Commercials show us about who we ARE as a society, as a culture, as a nation, as well as how far we have sank to sell something. I guess you'd all have to bite your lips, put on a happy face, and accept it or else you could be accused of being hypocrites. Come on, TCM does not program for all of us. They program for themselves, what they want, when they want, and how they want to. There is no noble goal behind TCM, the only goal is to sell DVDs through TCM.COM and to that end the movies ARE IMPORTANT because they are the commercials. So don't wax poetic about TCM. They're a business just like any other business whether it's selling DVDS, tickets to a festival, or a cruise, it's a business. The films are just a tool. And like any other commercials on any other channel, sometimes their commercials are gems and sometimes they just plain stink. Lately, it seems that there are more stinkers then gems, but obviously that appeals to the majority of viewers. So let "they program for all of us" be damned because TCM obviously does not.*

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > > i worry every time tcm shows films made later than 1970. I hope TCM doesn't lose it's indentity like other channels did. > > > Many people who come here cite the same fear. The problem is that the fear is just that, a fear that has no basis in fact. Even after *18 years* of being on the air, TCM shows no real signs of moving in that direction. > > TCM doesn't have commercials, and, as has been shown in previous posts, they are not showing a predominance of post-1970s films at the expense of classic studio era films and they are not abandoning their original mission which is to showcase films from all decades. > > > TCM includes the classics, the b-films, the serials, the cult films and the z-grade films, etc. > > To TCM, all films are important, no matter who the star, the director or the lack thereof. > > They program for all of us. > > The classic lovers, the cult lovers, the sci-fi lovers, the serial lovers, the 1970s lovers, etc, because they understand that all films, no matter what genre, no matter what type, are important to us because film has the ability to entertain us as well as show us about who we were as a society, as a culture, as a nation as well as how far we've come and how far we still have to go. > > > I'm glad you love all of TCM's programming, but I have to wonder, what programming changes would it take to rile up izcutter and the other "TCM can do no wrong" cheerleaders? Would you be silent if TCM started showing SOFT CORE PORN FILMS ala CINEMAX? That would fall under the "they program for all of us" category. What IF they started actual commercials? Would that rile you folks up? Commercials show us about who we ARE as a society, as a culture, as a nation, as well as how far we have sank to sell something. I guess you'd all have to bite your lips, put on a happy face, and accept it or else you could be accused of being hypocrites. Come on, TCM does not program for all of us. They program for themselves, what they want, when they want, and how they want to. There is no noble goal behind TCM, the only goal is to sell DVDs through TCM.COM and to that end the movies ARE IMPORTANT because they are the commercials. So don't wax poetic about TCM. They're a business just like any other business whether it's selling DVDS, tickets to a festival, or a cruise, it's a business. The films are just a tool. And like any other commercials on any other channel, sometimes their commercials are gems and sometimes they just plain stink. Lately, it seems that there are more stinkers then gems, but obviously that appeals to the majority of viewers. So let "they program for all of us" be damned because TCM obviously does not.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}You know what I can't understand about those folks? > > It's how they always seem to reply to themselves even though they are replying to other people here on the boards. > > What is it? Are they afraid to reply to the person they want to reply to or are they trying to protect themselves in some way. You mean like the way you failed to respond to my last post? What are you afraid of?

She looks every bit her age. Why dosen't she start acting it. What is she hoping for, a sequel to Barbarella?

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > Yes you are correct. You did not type that I had to do it. > > *That is the bottom line. I never said that you HAD to do the extra research.* > > > I have no problem performing the research. But what I was attempting to show was how many films from which decades were getting which time slots on the channel. Specifically I wanted to show based on what I had been reading from those earlier posts. > > *Specifically Fred's post since your initial research was posted in answer to Fred's post, not mine.* *Not that it matters, but I just wanted to show that I never asked you to perform your initial research.* > > Yes, you assumed incorrectly. Once you posted the additional questions which would have required me to sift through all of the records again and spend additional time trying to figure out which film was B&W and which film was colored, and then try and figure out which of those films were shown at whatever time, then yes that would have caused me to waste valuable time. That is why I wrote that maybe you could do the research. > > *Is there anything wrong with adding additional factors and redoing research? If you are that confident in your FACTS they should withstand any test. Scientists do it every day, they just don't accept one success as the final word, not until they put it through every test they can think of.* > > Part of my problem, and lets face it, it is my problem is that I don't like it much when someone starts talking about an issue with little facts to back them up, and instead uses their opinions as facts as though that is okay. It causes me to think that those people are lazy and would rather draw the people they are opposing into performing more research that they themselves could have done on their own. > > *I don't know anything about your personal life and the amount of time you have or don't have to do any research along these lines and I don't believe you have any access into our private lives. When someone forms judgements about others based on such limited knowledge it causes me to think that the person is rather arrogant, judgemental, and would rather assume the worst in order to inflame an already heated argument.* > > But no, we get pulled into these debates and to prove our points we go back to the horses mouth to get the info and when we get the info, the information we gather is somehow discounted by you and others who have differing opinions. > > *I never discounted your research or your facts I just suggested other factors that could be added. After all, you do want to convince us how wrong we are and how right you all are.* > > For me that is just being argumentative. I have read with dismay every post from the "other" side of the discussion and yet I have seen little or no evidence that research has been done on your side of this issue. > > *Well, I can't speak for the others on "my side", but I am not a research kind of guy. I just don't have the time or the patience. Then again, I don't see everyone on "your side" doing any research. But, why does it have to be the "other" side or "my side" why can't it be our side? We are all fans of TCM, we just see things differently.* > > > Here is a FACT for you and all the other FACT lovers. FACTS can be used and twisted by people on both sides of an argument to prove or disprove anything. That is why polls and lie detector tests are never the final word even though they also "stare you in the face". I would agree with the first sentence you wrote above. However, when one researches a topic and gets his "facts" from a respectable source, then one should be given the benefit of the doubt. All of the information I posted was accurate and came from TCM's own schedule. Should I have looked elsewhere? > > *No, I never questioned your facts or their source.* > > You did however, indicate to me that you felt my numbers "looked interesting", but then you decided that you needed further proof about repeated airings during the month. And then you decided that the info that I included in my post was apparently not enough. So what did you do then? You asked *if* I could find out..... > > *Emphasis on the word IF.* > > > "how many of those 1940 and 1950 films were either B&W or color, especially in prime time as opposed to daytime or overnight and on weekends as opposed to weekdays? Why? That would show whether TCM is still commited to highlighting our classic pre 1960 b+w film heritage." > > Again you indicated that my last post made a lot of sense to you, but then included the following: > > "but there might be a school of thought that labels studio era films that were made in color as more marketable or palatable to folks who prefer post 1960 films that, for the most part, are all in color." > > And then you wrote the following: > > "If that is true then your numbers would have to change to reflect the number of color films of the 1940s and 1950s as opposed to bw films of the same decades. The two new categories could then, in effect, be lumped together with newer films post 1960. Then it would not simply be an old film vs. new film question, but pre 1960 bw films vs. post and pre 1960 color films. Maybe that would require more then one month of research, but the month of May would be a good place to start. What do you think?" > > > > > > > *Emphasis on the last question. WHAT DO YOU THINK?* > > > > So in essence you decided not to either trust what I had written or you felt it necessary for me to go back and do additional research just so that you could possibly prove your point. The way I see what you were asking me to do was to perform the research myself and then if the information proved to be favorable to your POV, then you look like the hero, especially to the few people on this thread who agree with you. Is this cynical of me? Maybe. But I don't recall seeing anyone else doing the research about these facts except for me and a couple of other folks. > > > *No, by me asking what you thought of my idea I tossed the ball back in your court to answer whether it was a good idea or not. Not that I felt your initial research lacked merit. Where did I write that it did? Or is the mere suggestion of additional research an affront to your sensibilities? Were you insulted by the suggestion of additional research? Frankly, all I thought you would say is whether it was a valid idea or not. I didn't expect you to volunteer your services. But, then again, no one asked you to do your initial research so why did YOU do it? Perhaps you wanted to be the hero to your side? And you are their hero, more then one of them congratulated you on your excellent work, even me. Dosen't that make you feel PROUD?* *You are your side's HERO.* *Accept the honor, you've earned it.* > > > The FACT is that, more then just a few, TCM FANS feel that the channel is becoming less classic and our opinion is just as valid as yours. And we don't have to take being labeled as unintelligent, obstinate, or blathering by you and the rest of the TCM UBER ALLES chorus boys and gals just because you have such a high opinion of yourselves. Well maybe you are right. However since you claim to know just how many TCM fans support your opinion, what do you have a club or something where you all meet to discuss these issues. I'd really like to know how you know how many other fans feel this way. Have you conducted a poll or something? > > *No, but there have been a number of threads started by different people in the past. Since a few = two and the number of threads is much more then two. I feel comfortable in my statement about more then just a few. And I didn't need a poll or something.* > > As far as us thinking we are superior to you, well then I must say you sire are way off base. We don't have a high opinion of ourselves, well maybe some of us do, but mostly I just like to find out what the facts or truths are. Especially nowadays. We have enough misinformation going on in this country right now to fill thousands of pages. Why keep doing that here of all places? > > *Thanks for referring to me as KING. wink wink* > > > You are not grading us and we don't have to be answerable to you. Is that clear enough for you or do you need some Windex to wipe away the "FACTS" from your eyes? Clearly your so called "FACTS" are blinding you to reality. Wake up and look reality in the face instead of your so called "FACTS". TCM IS BECOMING LESS CLASSIC. That is quite the statement, especially coming from you who I have always thought wrote so well. Must be your association with the other TCM fans who believe in what you believe in. As far as grading you or offering my opinion as to how you formulate FACTS, the simple fact of the matter is that you CAN'T argue with bonafide FACTS. Especially when those FACTS come directly from TCM. You can sit here all you want and blur the lines of reality. I looked specifically at the online schedule to help me compose my post. I did not just pull facts and figures out of nothing. > > *I never claimed you did, just that you have taken possession of them and have made them YOUR undying facts that are right up there with the TEN COMMANDMENTS.* > > My so-called FACTS are just that FACTS. I don't have to sit here and make them up like others do on a regular basis. I am not blinded by any FACTS. But apparently you and the others are, considering you won't even accept as FACTS information that is directly from TCM itself. > > *Your facts are factual I won't argue that, on the surface, based on your limited, excuse me, initial research, it would appear that you are correct, but you either have omitted or ignored certain factors from your argument because they might skew the numbers less in your favor. That is also a FACT. However, in all liklihood the addition of those other factors into the research might still prove you right and that is fine. But at least all bases would have been covered. And now, sniff, we'll never know who is right and who is wrong.*

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > Clearly as I pointed out earlier today with my post to infinite1 and the well-written post from darkblue, it is clear that some of you folks clearly don't want to acknowledge the facts which clearly are staring you in the face. Here is a FACT for you and all the other FACT lovers. FACTS can be used and twisted by people on both sides of an argument to prove or disprove anything. That is why polls and lie detector tests are never the final word even though they also "stare you in the face". The FACT is that, more then just a few, TCM FANS feel that the channel is becoming less classic and our opinion is just as valid as yours. And we don't have to take being labeled as unintelligent, obstinate, or blathering by you and the rest of the TCM UBER ALLES chorus boys and gals just because you have such a high opinion of yourselves. You are not grading us and we don't have to be answerable to you. Is that clear enough for you or do you need some Windex to wipe away the "FACTS" from your eyes? Clearly your so called "FACTS" are blinding you to reality. Wake up and look reality in the face instead of your so called "FACTS". TCM IS BECOMING LESS CLASSIC. Isn't this a well-written post? It's just chock full of "petty words and phrases". The kind I know you love.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > Sorry I didn't quote your whole post, but I don't want to anger anyone who is opposed to that practice. Your numbers looked interesting, but I was just wondering if you included or omitted repeat airings for the month of May? > No. I did not look to see if any of the films were repeated. It took enough time just do a rough count of films for each day in May. > > Maybe you would like to perform a search? > > I didn't bother quoting your entire post because it was just impolite ravings. I'd like to know why you have such a chip on your shoulder? I asked the question the way I did, in a respectful manner, because it would have changed your conclusions, perhaps not by much, but the numbers would have been different; it would have been interesting; and I assumed, obviously incorrectly, that you enjoyed doing the research since you appear to be more knowledgeable and have the all the answers at your fingertips. If you don't like doing it or don't want to that's fine, then don't do it at all and save your "valuable" time for more important things. I NEVER TYPED THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IT. As to your other "points" I would never recommend replacing GONE WITH THE WIND with an old bw film. That's ridiculous to even suggest. However, I would recommend replacing NORTH BY NORTHWEST with an old bw film, even a lousy old b+w film. There are other pre 1960 color films of the same caliber that you know tcm loves to roll out on a regular or semi regular basis. So, answer if you want, but keep the poor attitude to yourself.

Just a thought, but I wonder why UNIVERSAL never used Deanna as an ingenue in one of their classic horror films? There were a few of those that required singing, the few that come to mind are 1943's THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, 1943's THE MAD GHOUL, and 1944's THE CLIMAX. Instead we had to suffer through the singing of bland SUSANAH FOSTER and no talent EVELYN ANKERS. It would have been nice to see Deanna sing with Nelson Eddy and work with talents like Claude Rains and Boris Karloff.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > They are just newer films, in color, with NO COMMERCIALS, *while more and more of the older classic 4:3 B&W traditional classic films from the Golden Age of Hollywood are being pushed over to after-midnight.* > You want proof as to how many films from before 1960 are shown overnight on TCM? How about during the day and prime time hours? > > Well here are the figures from May, 2012. I hope I did not miss any. I should also point out that I looked at all three time periods TCM uses on their Full TCM Schedule. Those three time periods are Day Time, Prime Time, and Over Night (at least that is what I am calling it). I did not count shorts, documentaries, or specials. Just counted movies. > > Sorry I didn't quote your whole post, but I don't want to anger anyone who is opposed to that practice. Your numbers looked interesting, but I was just wondering if you included or omitted repeat airings for the month of May? Also, I would be interested to know how many of those 1940 and 1950 films were either bw OR color, especially in prime time as opposed to daytime or overnight and on weekends as opposed to weekdays? Why? That would show whether TCM is still commited to highlighting our classic pre 1960 bw film heritage. Your last post to me made a lot of sense, but there might be a school of thought that labels studio era films that were made in color as more marketable or palatable to folks who prefer post 1960 films that, for the most part, are all in color. If that is true then your numbers would have to change to reflect the number of color films of the 1940s and 1950s as opposed to bw films of the same decades. The two new categories could then, in effect, be lumped together with newer films post 1960. Then it would not simply be an old film vs. new film question, but pre 1960 bw films vs. post and pre 1960 color films. Maybe that would require more then one month of research, but the month of May would be a good place to start. What do you think?

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > And that is because over the last ten years TCM has pretty much kept the same amount of newer films at about the same % over that time span. In fact I would venture a guess that the only time during the year when there is a spike of newer films being shown is during the annual 31 Days of Oscar scheduling. But that happens each year. > > > *Depends on your definition of newer films vs. older films. I consider older films to be pre 1960 AND newer films to be post 1960 to present. In my mind that is a fixed demarcation. Once you start adding films from the 60s, 70s, and 80s to the older category, sure, you can still make the claim about 75% more older films, but it's not a true % of older films, at least the films that WE consider older, especially if the truly older films are kicked out of prime time.* > > Don't you want the channel to attract new, younger viewers? The overall population of the country is getting older, but you still need younger viewers to come and see what TCM is all about. And according to everything Kyle has mentioned, the overall programming decisions have not really changed at all. TCM still shows on average more than 75% older films. No other channel does this. And TCM has been showing more older films ever since it's launch in 1994. They have kept their end of their promise very well. > > *Again, it helps to maintain that 75% percentage when the bar keeps being raised on what is considered "older". That's not keeping a promise, that's fudging facts to maintain the illusion of 75%.* > > As far as the "look" of the channel, I would agree that in some aspects, the graphics and intro scenes were starting to look rather dated. To keep up with other channels that looked newer, TCM felt the need to change their graphics. Again, just trying to keep up with the times and hoping to snag newer viewers to the channel. > > *Well, you can call it keeping up with the times, I prefer to call it dumbing down the channel. We can agree to disagree regarding this.* > > Well thank you for the kind compliment "lengthy, overused argument". > > *I apologize for that snide comment.* > > > What do you think I meant? Don't you know? > > I am sure you are aware of the fact that more than 90% of all the silent films ever produced are gone forever. And that 50% of all the films produced between the beginning of the sound era and 1950 have been lost. What I was getting at is the finite number of films that can now be shown on TCM. And this is because the studios who own these older films, in many cases have yet to convert the films into digital versions which TCM requires for playback on it's channel. And until they do, that is when they find an economic reason to do this, we will be stuck with whatever films from the past that have been converted. > > *And yet there have been plenty of silent films or talkies from the 30s, 40s, and 50s converted to digital that have yet to see the light of day or night on TCM. For example, I have been asking for THE 1928 silent THE MAN WHO LAUGHS to be given it's TCM premiere. A digital version of this film exists and has been available for the last few years, ever since KINO made it available on DVD. Yet it remains absent, even though it stars CONRAD VEIDT, one of TCM's favorites, or so they claim. Every year there are new films added to the Warner Archive Collection, or the UNIVERSAL vault series, yet they keep on being held back from TCM. But, TCM has no problem rolling out films from the 90s or some shlocky film from the 60s or 70s, or 80s for their friday night cult fest.* > > The real cost of converting the older films is the fact that many of those older films require a complete and thorough restoration, a cost that many studios would rather not make. > > *The kinds of films I refer to have already been restored and are being sold by TCM. Also, some of the films that TCM has been showing from the 60s, 70s, and 80s look as if the money spent on their '"restoration" was wasted, they look and sound so poor that it offends the senses. But we are continually being told "would you prefer a crappy copy or no copy at all? If that kind of logic applies to a film from the 60s, 70s or 80s, why not a film from the 20s, 30s, 40s, or 50s?*

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}People, will you please STOP the excessive quoting of the ENTIRE comment you are replying to! > It's not only a repetitive and pointless waste of time and space (you ONLY need to quote the relevant portion you're referring to...NOT the entire post!), but there is something in this thread (most probably the overquoting and excessive resulting text) which is causing my browser to bog down when I come to this thread (and NO it is not the fault of my new computer nor of my Firefox browser...it only happens when I open up THIS thread). > > Is ANYONE else experiencing this same problem? It's not only really frustrating, but it's a pointless and useless waste to keep quoting an ENTIRE comment you're replying to. Duh....we can see the entire post when you click the name next to "in response to:"...which takes you to the post that has been replied to. > > When this happens, I also end up getting a popup referring to a problem with a script here "A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete.", and the choices of Continue or Stop Script. > The reason some of us quote the entire comment is because when we quote a sentence or paragraph we're accused of not reading the whole thing or taking what we are quoting out of context. I quote the complete comment to prove that I at least have read the whole thing, not just picked and choose what I feel will support my response. Also, it's hard to not quote the entire comment if one wants to respond to specific points, not just make a general response.

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > That is to say that 1960 was the unofficial, defacto start of a new era in film making.I understand your sentiment. I do not fully agree with it on both practical or ideological grounds. > > Practical: > I believe a channel could not survive in the long-term if it aired only pre-1960 movies. A search on IMDB shows 25,219 feature movies made in United States between 1900 and 1959. That can be calculated to be 37828.5 hours if they have an average length of ninety minutes. That calculates to 4.3 years. > > If TCM had access to every movie made in United States before 1960 and it aired them in sequence it would now be in its fourth cycle. Other cable channels such as TVLand and GSN have shown they can not maintain viewership if they air only repeats year after year. > > The true number of available movies is surely much less. I have read that fully half of all movies made before 1950 have been lost. Many other movies exist only in prints that would require restoration costs far exceeding their value. Other movies are locked in rights disputes. There are many other such reasons that TCM does not have access to all the movies ever made. The addition of foreign movies would be insignificant compared to these losses because those libraries were much smaller and they have the same problems as libraries in the United States. > > It is possible that in practical terms only two years' worth of movies are potentially available and TCM would be in its eighth cycle of repeats. > > I believe that few viewers would be tuning in to watch a movie for the eighth time. > > *Don't know too many people who love pre 1960 films now, do you? I can't see any other reason why you would make such baseless assumptions or illogical statements. And what do you base them on TVLAND and GSN? For your information TVLAND started to lose viewers when they switched from reruns of classic tv shows to reruns of more recent shows, so that shoots your "practical" argument to pieces.* > > > Ideological: > I do not believe that "post-1959" is a criteria sufficient to preclude those movies from being aired on TCM. It does signify a new era. The change from silent to talkies meant a new era. The implementation of the Hays Code meant a new era. There are several other changes which can be argued also as heralding a new era. > > It can be argued that post-1959 movies are more socially conscious because it signified the end of the studios being overlords who made actors and technicians virtual slaves. Any person who idolizes pre-1959 movies is tacitly lauding the oppression of workers and the sexual exploitation of women. > > *Your opinion or fact? If it's fact, then prove it is.* > > > It can be argued also that the majority of post-1959 are of a higher average quality. The greatest quantity of movies pre-1960 were B movies and Programmers. The movies produced post-1959 have been mainly A studio movies and movies made by passionate independent producers. 1960 marked the end of the era when movies were manufactured on schedule to fill a necessary function in the same way that companies manufacture mattresses and toilets. > > *What the hell are you rambling about? Who said that there wasn't any junk made pre 1960? The fact remains that there are more pre 1960 CLASSICS then post 1960.* > > I applaud TCM's approach of basing choices on +x+ years old rather than by absolute dates. My breakdown in an earlier post shows they are maintaining strict percentages in regards to the average age of movies they air. > > This approach suits both the practical aspects and gives us the greatest possible range of eras in film-making. >

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > Well, it appears that Kyle dosen't want to play anymore. So I will put the following forth for anyone to respond to. In everything that Kyle put forth as a reason for the change to TCM's look the one thing he did not contradict is that TCM IS BECOMING LESS CLASSIC. Therefore, the OP was correct in his original post. Kyle accepts the changes as NECESSARY in order for TCM to continue with new viewers. I believe that it is the first step in dumbing down the channel to attract an audience that could care less about classic films from the studio era. We all know what the next steps are, we already saw it happen once on AMC, we don't need a repeat performance. Keep beating TCM up on this one, keep up the pressure in the face of all the naysayers, less modern films and a move back to the kinds of films that made TCM the great channel that we all love. Kyle said it best "I NEVER SAID THE CHANNEL WAS BROKEN OR THAT IT NEEDED TO BE FIXED. NEITHER DID THE GENERAL MANAGER OF TCM." So, if the channel was not broken the changes were unnecessary. Unfortunately, even though it may not have been broken in 2003, it's showing some hairline cracks now. It's up to us to make sure those cracks are erased. > Wow. What a statement. But I forgot. You folks will continue to deny the facts as represented by others here on the message Board. > > I know that this is a losing cause, but I am willing to try once again to set some facts in order for all to see. > > It is a fact that if you look at the schedules of the past and compare them to the schedules of today, TCM is showing more "classic" films than from any other time period. But, I guess that is something you'd rather not focus on, correct? You see maybe I think the ultimate problem you folks have is your inability to back up your claims with facts. > > There has been several posts on this thread that supports the idea that TCM has and will continue to showcase pre-1960 films for as long as they can. > > *SansFin wrote:* > *The earliest TCM schedule I can find online is for January, 1998 at: http://web.archive.org/web/19980131213949/tcm.turner.com/CAL_TXT/9801/02/9801CT.htm* > *There were 379 movies and 34 scheduled specials ranging from MGM Parade Show #6 (1955) to Festival of Shorts (1998).
The oldest movie was Male and Female (1919) which was 79 years old.
The newest movie was Marie: A True Story (1998) with Sissy Spacek which was 10 years old.* > > *Per a fast-and-dirty sorting:
* > *1 movie of pre-1920s.
* > *11 movies of the 1920s.
* > *121 movies of the 1930s.
* > *101 movies of the 1940s.
* > *72 movies of the 1950s.
* > *51 movies of the 1960s.
* > *18 movies of the 1970s.
* > *4 movies of the 1980s.* > > Now if you look at the above breakdown of films shown per decade, you obviously can see that more films were shown from before 1960 than after 1960 for the month of January, 1998. > > Can you not acknowledge this fact? > > Furthermore we can apply percentages to the above numbers. > A total of 379 films were shown during the month. Of this total, 19.25% of the films that were shown were post-1960 releases. > > That means that 80.75% of the films that were shown were made pre-1960. To me and many others here that would make me believe that TCM shows a far greater amount of pre-1960 films than post-1960 films. > > From all of the reading I have done, and based on several good articles, I believe that the end of the Studio era was 1959. That is to say that 1960 was the unofficial, defacto start of a new era in film making. Even though many Hollywood films were still being made in the old Hollywood-like studio system sense, the studios control over support personnel like technicians, writers, producers, directors, photographers, art directors and actors was coming to an end. > > So 1960 is the year that I look at when comparing the old Hollywood era to the modern era of film making. Plus it is almost always easier to separate decades than it is to separate individual years. So stopping the classic era at the end of 1959 and having the modern era begin in January 1960 is a lot easier to define than it would be if we chose the year that the Hays Code was abolished. Many films were being made seven years or so before the abolishment of the Hays Code, so that would indicate to me that 1960 was the start of the modern era. > > I can not access the April 2012 schedule, so I have looked at the June 2012 schedule to make a count of the films from that month. So below is the count I made of the films being shown on TCM during the month of June. I did not include shorts, documentaries, or specials. Just films. > > *1910's: 0* > *1920's: 4* > *1930's: 90* > *1940's: 95* > *1950's: 99* > *1960's: 72* > *1970's: 21* > *1980's: 8* > *1990's: 1* > *2000's: 0* > *2010's: 0* > > Based on the above count there are 390 films being shown for the month of June, 2012. Of these 288 were films made before 1960, or 73.85% of the total. > > 102 films were made after 1960. That number comes out to be 26.15% of the total. > > So if I am not mistaken we have two clear examples of months where pre-1960 films far outweighed the number of post-1960 films being shown on TCM. Of course others can not always accept these facts. That is their right. But still facts can be an awkward thing. Especially when you go on and on like the following two comments: > > willbefree25 commented recently: > > they have not bowed to pressure to show newer movies. > > *Yessiree, it's a good thing they don't show a glut of movies made since 1960.* > > *HAHAHHHAHAAHAA.* > > *That's a good one!* > > Another willbefree25 comment recently: > > no matter how good it is > > *TCM is not that good. It is only okay.* > > *COMparatively, since the other 99.9% of television is garbage, it just SEEMS better than it is.* > > *Sheesh, pretty stories don't make TCM a great station. It hasn't been great for years and years and years.* > > *So sad.* > > Yet another willbefree25 comment recently: > > TCM WAS better in the past. > > *Of course it was. Never mind the numbers, TCM was better in the past, period.* > > *Don't be swayed by the posts from those with TCM rose colored glasses, TCMfan23. It's your observation, it's correct, and that's it.* > > *This thread could on for another month for all i care. I will never shut up no matter how many ugly posts you post. I will keep at you guys. Even past 500 pages. I've been through this hell before.* > > These comments made by willbefree25 that TCM was better in the past does not really lend any support to the general belief that TCM is showing more newer films than older films. The facts just do not support this. If however she is referring to the quality of the films, I can not offer any evidence to back that up. Of course deciding on what film is worthy of viewing is really up to the individual viewer. Only they can judge whether a particular film has the quality they are looking for. > > The other point I'd like to make is that YOU, willbefree25, and others may be signaling their displeasure of TCM, because the cable channel has decided to broadcast more films made after 1960. And based on what I have seen that yes, in recent years more films are being shown on the channel made after 1960 than was before. But not that many more. > > Now this is just my humble opinion but I would think that if the percentage of films made after 1960 is kept to below the 30% threshold of all films shown on any given month, then I would say that is a good thing. But again others might disagree. They will NEVER be satisfied until TCM shows pre-1960 films only. > > All I can do as others have done is point out the obvious. And that is based on the available information we have from TCM, there does seem to be more than enough evidence to suggest that TCM does broadcast more films made before 1960 than afterwards. > > Of course since willbefree25 has told me in the past that she has me on IGNORE, I will never know what she thinks. Since she won't respond to any of my posts, yet I am know that if she is not signed on she can still see any of my posts. So in essence she can see my posts but has chosen to IGNORE me. That is too bad. > > The free-flowing of ideas and thoughts written down as posts here on this message board is clearly meant for everyone to discuss. And yet there are those who feel that having an ignore feature is well worth it, they themselves who have decided to put someone on IGNORE is basically saying that if they don't like someone else's ideas or thoughts, well then they can just ignore them. > > There is something not quite right about this. But that is for another argument. > > edited by Fxreyman What YOU fail to acknowledge is that in MY post I specifically gave credit to your friend KYLE who appears to disagree with YOU as well. And it is not only the FACT that more modern films, or if you prefer, post 1960 films are being shown, it is the whole feel and look of the channel which is moving further away from it's original pre 2003 look which glorified the films of the studio era. And all this is being done, according to Kyle, to attract new viewers because some folks behind the scene, pulling the strings, felt that the channel had a too antique look to it that would not attract the right kind of viewer. Even you, in your lengthy, overused argument, let slip that "TCM has and will continue to showcase pre-1960 films for as long as they can". What does "for as long as they can mean"? UNTIL SOMEONE HIGHER UP DECIDES TO GO THE WAY OF AMC? As I see it there are two camps here, we both love TCM, but one camp loves unconditionally and dosen't question a blessed thing while the other believes in hard love and does not want to see the channel lose it's identity or it's uniqueness. Now, that isn't too hard to understand, IS IT?

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} > > I send TCM a message every couple of months. I tell them how pleased I am with the direction they've taken, are taking, and encourage them to continue expanding the library of movies they make available to us.I am also very grateful for TCM. It pleases me greatly that they have not bowed to pressure to show newer movies. You don't have to be sarcastic.

This silent classic is CONSPICUOUS by it's absence from TCM's roster of oft repeated silent films which is doubly strange since it stars CONRAD VEIDT who is a favorite of TCM, if you believe the channel's hype, and there is a digital version of the film available and has been so for years ever since KINO put it out on DVD. Yet TCM is content to show the same silent films over and over including some boring foreign made silents that were made well into the talkie era and don't qualify in my mind as true silents. Also, I'd like to see the two rare Eddie Cantor silents KID BOOTS and SPECIAL DELIVERY on Silent Sunday Nights.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}*"With all due respect, how did TOM KARSCH and MARKETWATCH (2003) know who TCM's average viewers were?"* > > You'd have to ask them. > > *"As far as I know, and you can feel free to correct me if you know differently, there are no NIELSEN RATINGS for TCM or any other cable or sattelite channel."* > > And you are mistaken. Neilsen research on the viewers of televsion programming covers any channel that a viewer can access. > > I do know that TCM is not a "subscriber" to the Neilsen Rating Service. All that means is that it does not get a daily/weekly report of the station's viewership broken down into 15 minute segments and further dissected by race, gender, income, etc. That kind of information is valuable mostly to advertisers. > > TCM can request from Neilsen some types of information about its programming and its viewers. I am betting that is how they learned the ages of the "average viewer" in the early 2000s. But like I said, you'd have to ask them. > > While I have no reason to doubt what Mr. Karsch said or what was written by the author of magazine article, you obviously do. That you wish discard their statements tells me you are just trying to draw out an argument for argument's sake. > > I guess you are just living up to the name 'infinite1' by wanting to argue this "ad infinitum." But, for me this has become "ad nauseum". You're on your own. > > Kyle In Hollywood Well, it appears that Kyle dosen't want to play anymore. So I will put the following forth for anyone to respond to. In everything that Kyle put forth as a reason for the change to TCM's look the one thing he did not contradict is that TCM IS BECOMING LESS CLASSIC. Therefore, the OP was correct in his original post. Kyle accepts the changes as NECESSARY in order for TCM to continue with new viewers. I believe that it is the first step in dumbing down the channel to attract an audience that could care less about classic films from the studio era. We all know what the next steps are, we already saw it happen once on AMC, we don't need a repeat performance. Keep beating TCM up on this one, keep up the pressure in the face of all the naysayers, less modern films and a move back to the kinds of films that made TCM the great channel that we all love. Kyle said it best "I NEVER SAID THE CHANNEL WAS BROKEN OR THAT IT NEEDED TO BE FIXED. NEITHER DID THE GENERAL MANAGER OF TCM." So, if the channel was not broken the changes were unnecessary. Unfortunately, even though it may not have been broken in 2003, it's showing some hairline cracks now. It's up to us to make sure those cracks are erased. ValentineXavier, isn't infinite beer a wonderful thing?

> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}FREE LOVE (1931) Genevieve Tobin, Conrad Nagel, ZaSu Pitts > > NICE WOMEN (1931) Sidney Fox, Russell Gleason, Frances Dee > > RECKLESS LIVING (1931) Ricardo Cortez, Mae Clarke, Slim Summerville > > UP FOR MURDER (1931) Lew Ayres, Genevieve Tobin, Frank McHugh > > THE VIRTUOUS HUSBAND (1931) Betty Compson, Elliott Nugent, Jean Arthur > > AFRAID TO TALK (1932) Sidney Fox, Eric Linden, Edward Arnold > > THE IMPATIENT MAIDEN (1932) Lew Ayres, Mae Clarke, Una Merkel > > OKAY AMERICA (1932) Lew Ayres, Maureen O'Sullivan, Edward Arnold > > SCANDAL FOR SALE (1932) Charles Bickford, Rose Hobart, Pat O'Brien > > BY CANDLELIGHT (1933) Elissa Landi, Paul Lukas, Nils Asther > > DESTINATION UNKNOWN (1933) Pat O'Brien, Ralph Bellamy, Betty Compson > > HORSEPLAY (1933) Slim Summerville, Andy Devine, Leila Hyams > > KING FOR A NIGHT (1933) Chester Morris, Helen Twelvetrees, Alice White > > LAUGHTER IN HELL (1933) Pat O'Brien, Merna Kennedy, Gloria Stuart > > LOVE, HONOR AND OH, BABY! (1933) Slim Summerville, ZaSu Pitts, Veree Teasdale > > PRIVATE JONES (1933) Lee Tracy, Gloria Stuart, Donald Cook > > SATURDAY'S MILLIONS (1933) Robert Young, Andy Devine, Leila Hyams > > AFFAIRS OF A GENTLEMAN (1934) Paul Lukas, Leila Hyams, Patricia Ellis > > BOMBAY MAIL (1934) Edmund Lowe, Ralph Forbes, Shirley Grey > > CHEATING CHEATERS (1934) Fay Wray, Cesar Romero, Henry Armetta > We need to make this happen...soon. You left off your list THE CAT CREEPS (1930) Helen Twelvetrees, Raymond Hackett, Neil Hamilton SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM (1933) LIonel Atwill, Gloria Stuart, Paul Lukas, Edward Arnold THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD (1934) Claude Rains, Joan Bennett, Lionel Atwill

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}Hi infinite, > > I think it was important that you replied to kyle on his earlier post. First, I think it is always risky when trying to speak for TCM's management and its advertising and programming departments. Until one of those employees actually posts a direct reply to why 'TCM is becoming less classic' or why it may be perceived that 'TCM is becoming less classic,' then it is all just speculation. > > I definitely disagree about the idea that TCM had to bring young viewers in or risk being wiped off the face of cable. This is not a commercial-driven channel like others that depend on younger demographics to charge advertising rates. I am not saying TCM should not court young viewers or viewers of all ages, but that even if a channel like TCM catered to the senior citizen crowd, that would not necessarily make it unacceptable for broadcast on cable or any other platform. > > Instead, I think the mission of gaining younger viewers is to help preserve our Hollywood history and film legacy and ensure that it continues and that in this regard, the channel remains viable. In other words, that the brand of film history and cultural history TCM brings into our homes each day can be valued and appreciated by multiple generations for years to come. > > That does mean that films being produced this year, in 2012, would have to become labeled as classic at some point and be broadcast on TCM in 2072, right along with the titles from 1927 and 1972. > > Therefore, TCM would never become less classic, but instead it would become more classic. But, if all films would be labeled as classic then what's the point of the label, it becomes meaningless. I think that there will always be a distinction made between classic films of the studio era that lift one's imaginations and inspire, you know, feel good films that entertain, and the films of today, which appeal to the lowest common denominator and are more interested in recouping and surpassing their overblown budgets, eye candy, rather then simply telling a good story with actors that make folks dream of hollywood not hate it.

Kyle, I'm sorry my last post got a litte screwed up and tagged onto the end of yours. I previewed it before I sent it through and it looked fine. This appears to be a hit or miss problem with my posts. I think you can make it out, but if you want me to try and fix it up I will. I really don't know what happened. Infinite1