infinite1

"I've been paying close attention, I'm a news junkie. Besides that, I've been to Lebanon, which once WAS such a society, before the Israelis bribed some factions to turn it into violent chaos." I'm sorry, but I have to answer this. ValentineXavier, based on your statement it's clear how little attention you've been paying to events in the Middle East. It would be a wise "news junkie" that reads up on all the facts and not just the ones spewed by "news organizations" with a definite anti israeli bias.

"... Some days are better than others but overall I must say that TCM depends upon filler rather than true classics." And overall I must say that this has to be the most un-original comment ever on this website. Kuklapolitan, do you have any idea how many times this complaint has been made here? I've only been participating on these forums a year, and already I've lost count. I don't so much mind that you want to make a complaint, it's the lack of originality that annoys me. Do you imagine you're the first person to make this ill-conceived criticism? More like the thousand and first. misswonderly, I understand your love of TCM and classic films in general, but can you please cut Kuklapolitan some slack. He has only been a member since June 11th and is not yet used to the way things work here. Besides, I am sure that a great percentage of new topics are similar in content to previous topics. If it was the policy that we had to read every topic or post since the boards creation, before we posted something new, nothing would ever get posted. I am not defending or rejecting the OP's original comment. Just his right to post something that is bothering him. I'll leave it to others to defend or rip into the content of his post. But, don't you all think the Piranah routine has kind of played itself out?

"Oh, in a way I agree with you" You typed a very large response basically welcoming Terry, making light of his issue, and telling him to walk if he dosen't like what he's watching. But, I have yet to read your follow up to your eight word statement above. Just what is the way that you agree with him? I wonder if you left that out because it's always easier to make light of someone's thoughts if you don't acknowledge any of them as valid. Your error was in making that eight word statement. Now from what I have read, Terry's position is quite clear. Terry, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your position is that a station that prides itself in films, film preservation, and the showing of complete uncut films in their original format should not mar the films they are showing by the inclusion of a bug stamp, for whatever reason. I don't think Terry wants or needs any armchair psychology to decipher what his real "argument" is when he has made it perfectly clear. You have the right, to accept or reject his position, but not to chastise him, second guess his motives for expressing his opinion, and then telling him to like it or lump it. That's not good form and that is comming from someone who in the past has not shown good form, but is learning.

I have read that a silent version of Lugosi's DRACULA was filmed using alternate takes for different scenes with title cards for theatres that had not yet converted over to sound. Does anyone know if this version of DRACULA still exists in any shape or has it joined the talking version of Chaney's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA in oblivion?

What about 1924's THE HAND'S OF ORLAC, has it ever played on TCM? I'd like to see it run with MAD LOVE 1935, THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS 1945, THE HANDS OF ORLAC 1960, and just for fun, 1981's THE HAND.

ok, but MOVIES UNLIMITED and CRITICS CHOICE are retailers, via catalogue it's true, but retailers nonetheless. Why should they have access to WARNERS ARCHIVES when BARNES and NOBLE does not? If it's more convienient for some, as well as instilling a "safer" feeling regarding credit card accounts to speak to a live sales rep, why not open it up to BARNES and NOBLE? Unless it's something that B&N dosen't want to get involved in and that's a whole other issue.

Has THE MAN WHO LAUGHS ever been shown on TCM? I have had TCM since 2002and have never seen it. In any event it is long over due and it's absense is puzzling, especially in light of KINO'S digital restoration. It would be an excellent addition for any CONRAD VEIDT retrospective or macabre festival that includes the likes of CHANEY'S HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.

Still waiting for a follow up to UNIVERALS' first CULT HORROR COLLECTION. Considering the business that MOVIES UNLIMITED and UNIVERSAL did the first time around it's surprising that there has not yet been a follow up set. I would like to see the following films in a second set: SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD THE MYSTERY OF MARIE ROGET JUNGLE WOMAN JUNGLE CAPTIVE If UNIVERSAL ever gets around to releasing a set of the PARAMOUNT Horrors that they own I would like to see: ISLAND OF LOST SOULS MURDER BY THE CLOCK AMONG THE LIVING THE MAD DOCTOR THE MONSTER AND THE GIRL THE MAN IN HALF MOON STREET

I was wondering, is there any chance of DVDs from the Warners Archive Collection also being offered to EXCLUSIVE retail outlets like BARNES AND NOBLE? I do not like ordering over the phone or though the computer as it does not generate the same kind of rush that I got from browsing through my local Barnes and Noble's DVD shelves. Also, call me foolish, but I do not like sharing personal information like Credit Card Accounts over the phone or the computer. Besides, alot of my DVD purchases in stores were not planned out by looking through catalogues or WEB sites, they were based on something that I saw, while browsing, that happened to catch my eye because it looked interesting. That means the front and the back of the DVD, as well as any extras that might have been listed on the DVDs. I know these Warner Archive DVDs are DVDRs, not pressed DVDs and as such they, for whatever reason, do not have extras, have not been restored, digitally remastered, or anything else that was done to enhance the attraction of films that were put onto pressed DVDs, but all the same, it would be nice to be able to browse through them at stores and increase my collection.

I know that October and Halloween are months away and no one is really thinking about them yet, now that Summer is here. But, it's never too early to plan and I have a suggestion for guest programmers during the month of October on the days slated for fright films. Why not invite TV's Horror hosts of the past, that are still with us. They could be made up in their full regalia, doing their shtick, and providing commentary with ROBERT OSBORNE. Imagine ZACHERLY, SVENGOOLIE, MORGUS THE MAGNIFICENT, and ELVIRA as guest programmers. Or, if that would be too wild, TCM could invite some Horror Film Historians as guest programmers like Tom Weaver, Donald Glut, and Ted Newsome to share their insight with TCM fans.

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > helen,baby > > > > I am no more incredibull then you are lzcutter, LoveFilmNoir, hlywdkjk, or fxreyman. It's funny how whenever, I or someone else points out an error or problem with TCM the FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE come charging to the rescue of TCM, like the KLAN in BIRTH OF THE NATION. I can almost hear that stiring music playing in the background. Suffice it to say that they are the ones that start the nastiness and namecalling because it takes the attention away from the topic and transfers it to the one making the complaint. Oh, by the way, I hate to point this out to an "old folk" trying to watch some TV, but if you are trying to watch TV, what are you doing on the computer? Something to think about. > > What's it to you if someone replies that they don't see the particular "faults" you are emphasizing in your on-going crusade against one of 2 things 1) TCM or 2) the people who frequent the message boards. Hel, baby I don't care if someone doesn't see the faults I am emphasizing, after all everyone is entitled to their own opinions, except me, RIGHT? And I have no "on-going crusade" against TCM or the people who frequent this message board. But, I see nothing wrong with demanding perfection from a station that I love. And I have nothing against the people who frequent this message board. Some of them are actually very nice. It's the nasty tone of a few that have set themselves up as the leaders of the pack that I resent. > > We all know what you are up to and it's not the improvement of TCM. For some reason, you think it's fun to mess with people. That fine and dandy, but don't think that we don't see through you because we do. You've been around enough to know that we can spot someone so "concerned" from a mile away. You sound like the stereotypical conservative that can spot a Communist "from a mile away". You tell me what I'm up to, I'd like to know, but I don't think you can because you're just spitting in the wind to see where it lands. "we can spot someone so "concerned" from a mile away." Are you for real, or are you a cartoon character? > > Now--you think about it. I'm through with you. Good, you make absolutley no sense. More like nonsense.

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > helen,baby > > > > I am no more incredibull then you are lzcutter, LoveFilmNoir, hlywdkjk, or fxreyman. It's funny how whenever, I or someone else points out an error or problem with TCM the FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE come charging to the rescue of TCM, like the KLAN in BIRTH OF THE NATION. I can almost hear that stiring music playing in the background. Suffice it to say that they are the ones that start the nastiness and namecalling because it takes the attention away from the topic and transfers it to the one making the complaint. Oh, by the way, I hate to point this out to an "old folk" trying to watch some TV, but if you are trying to watch TV, what are you doing on the computer? Something to think about. > > What's it to you if someone replies that they don't see the particular "faults" you are emphasizing in your on-going crusade against one of 2 things 1) TCM or 2) the people who frequent the message boards. > > We all know what you are up to and it's not the improvement of TCM. For some reason, you think it's fun to mess with people. That fine and dandy, but don't think that we don't see through you because we do. You've been around enough to know that we can spot someone so "concerned" from a mile away. > > Now--you think about it. I'm through with you.

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} > I concur with your entire post and I want to add just a couple of things. > > Whenever someone (usually infinite or his new ID, incredibull) brings this up, it usually devolves into nastiness & name calling. Okay, we get it, you are unhappy. However, there no need in getting hostile with people that actually like the channel instead of a Henny Penny who is constantly insisting that the sky is falling. > > My go-to suggestion is to save the money on cable and buy DVD's. That way you can program your own nights of classics and you'll never hear the name of TCM again. > > And why must these battles go on for days after the "offending" programming. We are always going to have this battle because there will always be two sides. Some people must be awfully bored to try to start crap with us old folks who are just trying to watch some TV. helen,baby I am no more incredibull then you are lzcutter, LoveFilmNoir, hlywdkjk, or fxreyman. It's funny how whenever, I or someone else points out an error or problem with TCM the FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE come charging to the rescue of TCM, like the KLAN in BIRTH OF THE NATION. I can almost hear that stiring music playing in the background. Suffice it to say that they are the ones that start the nastiness and namecalling because it takes the attention away from the topic and transfers it to the one making the complaint. Oh, by the way, I hate to point this out to an "old folk" trying to watch some TV, but if you are trying to watch TV, what are you doing on the computer? Something to think about.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"We see some things in TCM's current schedules that have raised our red flags."* > > And the Boogeyman in under your bed. > And there is a Monster in the closet. > And this is as infantile as being afraid of your own shadow - because your "concerns" are in response to phantoms of your own creation. You've been raising a ruckus about this for months and it is getting rather tiresome. > > If you believe it is going to happen because of corporate greed, you should be intelligent enough to know that you and no one else won't be able to stop it. > > In the meantime, you're just displaying the traits of a classic internet nuisance. > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) > > Kyle In Hollywood WOW, looks like Kyle is throwing one of his patented hissy fits. You do know, Kyle, that if you and others, don't like what I write, or find it "tiresome", you all don't have to respond to it. So grow up and show me what kind of adults you all can be. that can either ignore a post or answer it without insults and name calling, if you're more intelligent then I am, which I doubt, or you wouldn't be stooping to the level of such a distasteful poster as I appear to be in your eyes. And all because I dare to state what I believe, go figure. I guess this is not a DEMOCRATIC board, where one is entitled to their own opinions.

> {quote:title=LoveFilmNoir wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > > What's interesting and kind of sad about all the posters worried about the direction that Turner Classic Movies might take at some unknown point in the future, is that they're so busy getting all het up about this remote possibility that they can't seem to just relax and enjoy TCM today. If one conducts one's entire life like that, one is likely to develop high blood pressure problems. > > > > I have a suggestion which I have stolen from Buddha: try living in the present. Enjoy the moment you are in. Om... > > > > Edited by: misswonderly on May 6, 2011 7:19 PM > > Ha! These naggers aren't Jim Hutton or Paula Prentiss spring chickens. Many of them are developing a health issue or two behind their worry wort symptoms and definitely not enjoying TCM of today. These boards seem to be plagued by constant complaining, doubting, if you are worried about 2014 programming, when do you enjoy the current 2011 programming? > > I personally predict TCM get bumped up to the tier of HBO and Cinemax via our cable providers before going the way of AMC, Sundance, and IFC and chopping movies while showing catheter supplies and Hoveround commercials in the middle of a classic! What you and other TCM complacent couch potatoes refuse to accept is that we "naggers" love TCM as much as you do. However, we choose to NOT just sit back on our behinds and display the same over syrupy "oh, TCM can do no wrong" attitude that you do. We have seen the, at one time, premiere classic old movie channel, AMC, be ruined by Corporate Greed even though management swore that it never would happen. We see some things in TCM's current schedules that have raised our red flags. As to TCM's current programming, there is much that I love and much that I dislike. Yes, I know we can switch the channel or turn off the set, which we do, but that is not the answer. What is the answer? To us the answer is to complain and hope that someone in the front office is reading our complaints. Since one of the things that has ruined AMC is the addition of newer films to their schedules I see the addition of newer films to TCM's schedule a step in the wrong direction. I can't make it any plainer then that. I have no problem if you and others want to blindly skip through TCM's "varied" schedule handing out daisies and preaching the sermon of unconditioned love for TCM like the FLOWER CHILDREN of the 60s and 70s, but don't rain on our parade when all we're doing is expressing concern for the well being and health of the channel, which we want to continue showing the kinds of films you cannot find anywhere else, not the kinds of films you can find on commercial channels, like amc, tbs, and tnt.

*"I've said it often and will continue to do so - TCM is commited to their mission to showing films uncut and commercial-free from the world's film libraries."* - Kyle, in Hollywood. Yes, you certainly do say it often enough. TCM should hire you to be their official spokesman since you do such a darn good job at it. But, answer me this, where is THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE? Surely, it's in one of the "world's film libraries". One would logically think that TCM would add it to their schedule, one of these days, since they made such a big deal out of showing it at last years' film festival. Or would that that run the risk of knocking another telecast of NORTH BY NORTHWEST, SINGIN IN THE RAIN, or AN AMERICAN IN PARIS off some months' schedule? Sheldon, not (Thank God) in Hollyweird.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"... But, just what would it take to raise YOUR red flag(?)"* > > After having a pleasant and reassuring conversation this past weekend with the new General Manager of TCM (Hi Jeff! Pleasure to meet you!), everybody should toss their red flags into the nearest rubbish bin. Nothing's going to change. > > All the Upper Management of Turner Networks know what a wonderful and unique channel they have with TCM. In terms of viewer loyalty, it is (nearly?) unprecedented for a television channel. I doubt that they want to be the one to destroy that while TCM is under their custodianship. > > If you are a fan of TCM for the past ten years, the objective is to continue that "tradition" with the same persons in place that have been responsible for instilling such devotion among its viewers. > > There is no need for any angst, worry or cynicism - unless one chooses to be. The future of TCM will be much like its past. > > Kyle In Hollywood Kyle, You really are a trusting soul. And that brings to mind a story about a conversation I had with The General Manager of AMC back in 2001, (Hi Sid! Pleased to meet you!), he also reassured me that AMC was in no danger of going commercial. Now, why should you believe me when I said I spoke to a General Manager of AMC in 2001 named Sid? Especially since I didn't and his name probably wasn't even Sid, it was Irving. Now, i'm not doubting that you spoke to Jeff and he told you what he did, but come on, do you really think that he is going to give you the scoop on company business? Even if what he said was true from his perspective, General Managers come and go, and whenever there is an internal shakeup there are bound to be changes in policy as well. It happens every 4 or eight years in our National Politics. Do you think a company like TCM is immune? Because as you well know business decisions made by any company are all driven by monetary gain and by company politics. When you are invited on a regular basis to TCM's board meetings and can report with certainty on anything having to do with programming, I'll bury my RED FLAGS, until then I'll keep them at arms length when I see something that warrants waving them.

> The paranoia and anger seems almost like a security blanket. No amount of evidence will ever dissuade them from their end-of-days appraoch to this cable channel's programming. I sometimes wonder if they ever relax and enjoy movies...or if they just memorize the schedule each month for evidence in their "case." > Hmmm, I wonder if you wrote the same thing on AMC's old message board when they started adding commercials before and after films. But, just what would it take to raise YOUR red flag, that TCM IS GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, Infomercials about ShamWow????? By that time it would be too late to do anything about it.

Too bad they never had Walter B guest star on ALL IN THE FAMILY as ARCHIE BUNKER'S father.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote} > > Just because some movies have acquired cult status among viewers of > > the old AMC and TCM doesn't mean critics have to suddenly change their > > minds about these films. A two star is still a two star, even if some people > > think it has acquired a certain status. > > That's silly. A Maltin 2-star is most likely a TCM fan's 4 star. > > Why do you think we are here? Why do you think we pay for this channel? To get a bunch of old 2-star movies? Of course not. WHOA Fred, Are you honestly saying that TCM ONLY SHOWS 4 STAR FILMS?????? That would certainly be a great compliment to the makers and performers of the BOWERY BOYS series that was recently shown on TCM. Those films ar generally regarded as bottom of the barrel crap from a poverty row film company, even to their fans ( which I am one ). They've earned their one or two stars, but don't PUT them on an equal par with an actual 4 star film like GONE WITH THE WIND, that's just plain crazy.

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote} > The demographics was 16 to about 40. The Astaire/Rogers films were popular across the board, with both men and women. Gene Kelly always said that "dance on film, _real_ _dance_ started with Astaire." The popularity of their films set a new direction for pop culture as well as for show business in general. Dancing had become something of a need among the public during The Great Depression of the 1930's, due in large part to phonograph records, radio and finally motion pictures (with sound and music) that fully allowed a visual experience to understanding the dance and how it could be done. While Fred and Ginger were a bit more elaborate in their technique and style on screen, they introduced a series of dances that the public did catch on to liking and some are still to this day classics. > > Anybody have a favorite Astaire/Rogers dance? I don't know about favorite, but for me the least favorite are the gimmicky or unrealistic dances that involve dancing on furniture and the sort.

What were the demographics of folks who went to see Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers films during the 30s and 40s? When I say demographics I mean specifically women vs. men. Did more women then men like Astaire/Rogers films or for that matter, any films with Fred Astaire. I guess you could also lump Jeanette Macdonald/Nelson Eddy films into the mix as well. Were these type of films considered "women's" films, family entertainment, or did movie audiences in the 30s and 40s not care about pigeonholing films into types as we do today and just go for the entertainment value?

Question, I know that Fred's specialty was his dancing, but he also did a great deal of singing in his films. Was Fred also recognized as a Crooner? Maybe not the caliber of a Bing Crosby, but were there any Fred Astaire records made during the 30s and 40s?

> {quote:title=ERROL23 wrote:}{quote} > High Sierra was the BEST version.The other wasnt too bad.Which do you think was best? Here's another one to add to the mix...COLORADO TERRITORY a 1949 western remake of HIGH SIERRA starring Joel McCrea in Bogarts' role. This film was also directed by Raoul Walsh. It's not a Gangster film, but not bad as remakes go.

Anyone know if any blooper reels exist showing FRED and GINGER falling on their butts or on their faces? Now that would be something I would love to see.