infinite1

*"Older films make up the *bulk of our library* and are the *strength of our library*, but we bring in new films to keep the schedule fresh."* *"the extensive library that we have"* Kyle and Rey, I don't know if you both read the whole interview I copied, but in case you didn't here are the few quotes from ROBERT OSBORNE that make the case for those who believe that a tcm library exists. Sorry to disagree with you two, but there is a definite contradiction between what the tcmprogrammer and Robert Osborne are saying. When ROBERT OSBORNE, TCM's public relations expert, who I know you both love and respect, makes comments about an EXTENSIVE library, emphasis on OUR LIBRARY and WE HAVE. It tends to create a belief that such a library exists, hence all the folks that keep making comments on these boards about TCM's vast library. I don't know about you two, but the word extensive does sound to me like something pretty HUGE, not just a few RKO lost and found titles, OR "an ever-evolving one" which means exactly what? Now, I don't know who the TCMPROGRAMMER is, but his quote is from 2006, Robert Osborne's is from 2008, unless they are both living on two different planets working for two different entity's called TCM, someone is FOS, you can take your pick.

IZ, you constantly claim that TCM no longer has any kind of film library. I just found this interview with ROBERT OSBORNE from January 31, 2008. He makes reference throughout to TCM's library. What library is that if none exists? Posted by Cinema Retro in Interviews on Thursday, January 31. 2008 EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH TURNER MOVIE CLASSICS ... Celebrating Films of the 1960s & 1970s For movie fans, there is no more frantic time of year than when Turner Classic Movies presents its annual 31 Days of Oscar festival. For the entire month of February, movie lovers will be watching and recording an amazing array of films that have either won or have been nominated for Oscars. To get readers into the proper spirit, Cinema Retro Editor-in-Chief Lee Pfeiffer chatted with Robert Osborne, the popular host of TCM's movie broadcasts. Osborne, who is also the official Oscar historian, is well known for his informative introductions and epilogues for the films that TCM broadcasts. Director Sidney Lumet once said that even if he doesn't desire to see certain films, he always tries to tune in for Osborne's introductions. Osborne is as affable offscreen as he is on the air. Witty, knowledgable and conversant in all things Hollywood-related, he has many of the attributes he ascribes to the stars he grew up idolizing. In addition to being a columnist for the Hollywood Reporter, Osborne is by all accounts America's premiere film historian. CR: You seem to have every movie lover's dream job: to get paid to watch and analyze classic movies. How did this come about and what led to your association with the Academy? RO: When I was first starting out as an actor, I was under contract to Lucille Ball at Desilu Studios, which was owned by Lucy and Desi Arnaz. Lucy knew I had this passion for movie history which at that time was not a normal thing. Most people weren't interested in movie history. She said, "You know, you would have a happier life as a writer than as an actor. You should be writing about movies, because nobody is." She told me that she thought being an actor would never make me happy, but writing would. She knew I was a journalism major at the University of Washington. She told me that if I took up writing as a profession, the first thing I had to do was write a book because people would look at you differently if I did. She told me it didn't even have to be a good book, but that everyone is impressed with anyone who writes a book because most people lack the discipline to do it. I knew she was telling me this for my own good, not some other agenda, so I quit being an actor and became a writer. The thing I decided to write about was the Academy Awards because you could always find a list of who won Oscars, but you could never find a list of who was nominated. It was even hard to get one from the Academy because that was a very small organization at the time. So I wrote this book and it hit a chord with people because you couldn't get a book about the Oscars anywhere else. The cult success of that book has followed me around ever since. Years later, when they decided they wanted a history done of the Academy, they asked me to write it. (The latest edition of the book is titled 75 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards-Ed.) CR: So you owe a lot to Lucille Ball... RO: I do, and for many reasons. She was right on because when I was trying to get a start at the Hollywood Reporter, it was having written a book that put me ahead of my competition. She knew my personality and told me that because I came from a small town in the northwest, I wouldn't be able to easily compete with tough people from New York that had come up through the ranks. She told me she didn't think acting would make me happy. She was a great psychiatrist and pyschoanalyst. She had plenty of street smarts. CR: How long have you been associated with Turner Classic Movies? RO: Since we went on the air in 1994, actually. CR: How long does it take you to prepare your introductions for the seemingly countless number of movies you discuss in a given month? RO: I take about two weeks a month writing and rewriting them. Sometimes people construct an intro and I take it and put it in my own words or add material. Say it's about a Bette Davis movie and I happen to know how Bette Davis felt about the movie, I will add that to the script. After working on the scripts for about two weeks, I go to Atlanta and spend about five days taping 150 of them. So its a process that takes about three weeks. Then I'm also doing the Private Screenings series or filming with a guest programmer. It's never a burden because I would be doing all this as a hobby if not a profession, so it all goes back to Lucy. It alllows me to be doing what I'm really interested in. I'm very lucky in that sense. There are many people who are very knowledgable about film and should be doing this and I feel fortunate that I got to be the one to do the job. CR: I'm not trying to pander here, but... RO: Oh, you can pander a little bit! CR: Alright, what separates you from many other so-called "movie experts" is that you really do display a genuine knowledge and enthusiasm for classic films. You're not just reading a teleprompter. I think the fact that you also knew so many of these movie legends also adds immeasurably to your work. RO: I went to California at a time when it was relatively easy to meet these people. If you had a good suit and fairly good manners, you would be invited to places. If you went to a party, there would be Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood and Cary Grant and Henry Fonda with their wives. Many of the people were of an age where they weren't working that much any more. They loved somebody like me because I knew their history. It's hard to believe, but back then you could see Cary Grant at a party but most people didn't care that much because his day was largely over. There wasn't nostalgia around or a passion for these people. So they loved someone like me to talk to because I knew about their careers - and they were willing to chit-chat about it. If I had been out there fifteen years earlier, they would have been busy with their careers and they wouldn't have had time for me. If I had gone out there fifteen years later, many would have been retired or dead. I got out there at a perfect time in terms of being able to meet some of these people. CR: Most of what passed for film journalism in the 1960s was still of the Hedda Hopper/Louella Parsons gossip news. RO: Yes, and there was also a great rapport in those days between journalists and publicists. There was a guy named John Flynn, who was Jimmy Stewart's publicist. He would call up and he and Jimmy would take you out to lunch at least once a year. I could ask Jimmy about his career, past or present, and they would get some good newspaper space and I would get a good interview. Today, there's a very hostile feeling between the press and celebrities for good reason. A lot of press that is hostile to the celebrities is looking for negative things to write about.It wasn't just Hedda Hopper, Louella Parsons and Sheila Graham- there was a lot of journalism that wasn't gossip. It wasn't necessarily pandering journalism and interesting stories were being written. Those early interviews that Rex Reed used to do were dynamite. He had great insights into some of these people. CR: Yes, and Peter Bogdanovich had the foresight to interview legendary actors and filmmakers who were being all but ignored by the mainstream press. RO: Exactly. CR: Let's talk about TCM's 31 Days of Oscar. This is the fourteenth annual one of these that the network has done and I believe there are some films making their debuts on the network during this festival. RO: Yes, and one I'm particularly excited about is Wings which is the first movie to ever win the Oscar for Best Picture. We're also showing the first Lord of the Rings movie. So we're covering the Oscars from the first year right up into the 2000s. Older films make up the bulk of our library and are the strength of our library, but we bring in new films to keep the schedule fresh. We have a deal with Columbia Pictures for a few years so we're showing the whole Columbia library. That will allow us to show films like Cover Girl with Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly, Irene Dunne films we've never shown before and a lot of interesting stuff. We want to appeal to all ages and there's no one era that appeals to everybody. Some people love the Val Lewton horror films of the 1940s and some people love those B space films from the 1950s. We hope that someone who never saw our channel will watch Lord of the Rings and come back and discover John Garfield. I was at an event the other night and Lauren Bacall was talking and she said, "If you've never seen Topaze starrring John Barrymore from 1933, then to you that's not an old film - it's a new film." She's right. If you've never seen Casablanca, made in 1943, then that's a new film. She was talking about Turner and what an adventure it is to have these new experiences if you've never seen these movies before. CR: We occasionally introduce classic movies at the famous Film Forum theater in New York as well as the Loews Jersey City theater, a restored movie palace... RO: Yes, I'm familiar with it... CR: ...and I always say I envy people who haven't seen these films before because they get to experience it for the first time. RO: I said the same thing to someone the other day who had not seen Sunset Boulevard. I said, "My God, I envy you! To see Sunset Boulevard for the first time? You are so lucky!" CR: With the demise of AMC as a viable network for classic movie lovers - at least since they started chopping up films and inserting commercials- it looks like Turner stands alone in fighting the good fight in showing movies in their original versions. RO: Certainly, no one is doing it with the interstitials that we have and the presentations that we have and the extensive library that we have. It's so essential to see films without commercial breaks and interruptions. If you see Hitchcock's Rebecca, which we're showing during the 31 Days of Oscar,that whole movie is predicated on mood and slow suspense. You can't break that mood for a commercial. You lose the the rythym and the impact of it. CR: Turner was also instrumental in waging a campaign over the years to educate viewers about the necessity of showing films in their widescreen formats. Do you think the public is now more accepting of the practice? RO: I think so, and it's helping that people are buying bigger screens. I think one of the problems was that when people had small screens, letterboxing was really difficult to watch. Also, we've never shown a colorized movie. That's kind of gone away but it was very prominent when we started. A lot of younger people are now beginning to appreciate black and white films. CR: I've always been against colorization, but Sony recently sent Cinema Retro these new DVDs of Ray Harryhausen's films. They present the movie in black and white and in a new colorization process that I have to admit looks fantastic. What do you think of colorization when a director like Harryhausen approves it and says its the way he wants the films to be seen? RO: Well, I think DVD is the perfect place for it- especially if it gives you the choice. I saw a Shirley Temple movie that's in the new Ford at Fox boxed set and it presents it in black and white and in sepia tone. I think it's fine to do that, but I think for TCM we should continue to only show films in their original format. You know they shot Seven Brides for Seven Brothers a second time in a flat screen dimension and we don't even show that. CR: Can you assure classic movie lovers that there are no plans to destroy the format of the network as AMC did by inserting commercials and editing films? RO: There are no plans. The people who run the channel are very adamant about it and everybody knows what a great boutique channel this is. But one never, ever knows what changes may happen in the future. One can never write anything in cement about anything in the world. We don't even know there will be a New York City here at the end of the month- we can only hope. But right now, everything is fine and we're making deals for movies until 2014. So nothing is going to happen in the immediate future. CR: Does TCM really listen to viewer requests to show specific movies? RO: They absolutely do. Just write in from our web site at www.tcm.com. They really read those requests and they are very influenced by that. CR: One last question: what is your favorite movie that will be shown during 31 Days of Oscar? RO: Notorious - it's a knock-out and we're showing it on February 23. It's one of my favorite movies of all time - but of course, so is Casablanca, Nashville, The Big Chill - we're showing them all. But Notorious, I have to say, is just dynamite. Posted by Cinema Retro in Interviews on Thursday, January 31. 2008 This is long after TED T. "sold' his library. So what library is RO talking about?

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > A gaffer is a stage electrician. Do you know what a foley artist is? Let me guess, it has nothing to do with Mick Foley (Cactus Jack for any Wrestling fans out there), right.

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > A gaffer is a stage electrician. Do you know what a foley artist is? Let me guess, it has nothing to do with Mick Foley (Cactus Jack for any Wrestling fans out there), right.

> {quote:title=tcmsnumberonefan wrote:}{quote} > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire > > For those perplexed by C.S.A. and BAMBOOZLED So what is your point? That there are no offensive films, only satires? You can whitewash away drek any way you choose, but you can't whitewash away the stink. These two films stink.

What I'd like to know is what was the first film to usher in the modern practice of listing every damn credit at the end of a film and why was that started? And WHAT THE HELL IS A GAFFER? I used to think that GAFFER was another movie word for either GEEZER = oh great, now films are hiring old guys to act as proffesional Kibbitzers on movie sets or GOFER = the guy or gal that would run and get coffee and sandwiches for everyone on the set.

> {quote:title=soniquemd21921 wrote:}{quote} > I'm aware that the Turner catalog is now owned by Warner Bros., but my point was that I almost never see the Turner-owned Warner Bros. titles on any network other than TCM, TNT or TBS, which is why I was surprised to see The Dirty Dozen on AMC. Yes, you're right. Infact, in the pre TCM/TNT days AMC used to be the place to go if you wanted to watch CLASSIC MGM musicals, like SINGIN IN THE RAIN or AN AMERICAN IN PARIS. Now the MGM MUSICALS, if not property, are exclusively shown on TCM, with some films like WIZARD OF OZ still popping up on TNT, with commercials. For the most part, it appears at least to me, that the older CLASSIC films from Warner Bros., MGM, and RKO pre 1960 are still exclusively shown on TCM, irrespective of who owns what, not because AMC or other channels may or may not want them, but because that may have been part of whatever deal was made when TCM sold their library, that they retain exlusive rights to air those pre 1960 classic films.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > Rey - > > What he is getting at is not alternative versions of TCM but a separate East Coast and West Coast satellite feed of TCM from Atlanta. > > About five years ago, TCM began the process to provide a West Coast feed so that "Prime TIme" programming was shown at the same hour as the East Coast feeds. (i.e. - all Robert Osborne introduced films would also start at 8pm on the West Coast.) But the plan was shelved shortly before it was to be implemented. No explanation for was given for abandoning the change. > > But "mirrored" satellite feeds (same programming at 8pm) are really only important for commercial channels that are selling ads on their programming. With no advertisers able to buy time on specific TCM programs, the need for two feeds of TCM is negligible. And the additional cost of providing a second feed (a second server with the programming, a second satellite dish to beam the signal and space on a satelite circling the globe) brings no financial benefit to the channel. The money could be better spent in other areas - especially when TCM had to begin leasing _all_ the films for the channel. > > Kyle In Hollywood So, why do the pay channels have "mirrored" Satellite feeds if they are not commercial channels? They are not selling ads on THEIR programming.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > Thank you Kyle! > > I knew someone like yourself would be able to make hides or tails out of what Infinite1 was asking about. Maybe you and Lynn should start up a business about the movie business...... ala a movie question and answer consulting agency......... Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. Thanks Kyle for acting as Translator.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > I wish there was a similar channel to the old AMC to offer competition to TCM. Competition is good for the soul. Without it, a channel, like anything else, gets too comfortable because they know they're the only show in town that appeals to a certain audience, and they begin to get sloppy. What's worse, they don't have to care because without competition where is their audience going to go? > > Questions: > > Are you saying this because you believe TCM does not show enough "older" films each month, or is this just a wishful thought because you are disappointed that more recent films are being shown on TCM during it's 31 Days of Oscar? Yes. > > Because it would seem to me that if you are looking for a channel that shows as many older films as this channel does, uninterrupted and commercial free, I can not seem to figure out why you'd want another channel for TCM to compete with. Competition is good for the soul. It keeps people and channels honest. > > If it is a matter of number of films, or the possibility that TCM seems to follow that they show multiple viewings of certain films over the course of a year, or is the reason you'd like to see another competing channel a way of saying that you do not approve of the programming choices being offered by TCM? If you've read some of my other posts on other threads you would know this to be the case. I love TCM, but do not always agree with their programming choices. I would love another uncut and uninterrupted OLD movie channel, by old I mean 1960 back, as an alternative. > > Just curious. Are you afraid that TCM could not stand up to competition from another AMC???? Just curious.

> {quote:title=chaney7 wrote:}{quote} > I caught a showing of "confederate states of america" (notice no caps) recently on a station that advertises itself as "slightly off". People are asking, on other threads why Song of the South isn't shown on TV and yet total garbage like this is allowed. The premise is the south wins the civil war. You can guess the rest of the plot. Billed as a comedy this blantly racist film had me cringeing throughout. In checking it out on the net I found that Spike Lee ( of all people ) was associated with it! I could not believe the content yet couldn't turn it off. I was that amazed at what I was seeing. Something like rubber necking a car accident I suppose. I consider it the worst movie I've ever seen simply on the content. Should play on a double bill with BAMBOOZLED (2000), another thoroughly offensive film written and directed by SPIKE LEE. I still can't figure out what the purpose of that travesty was. Following, from IMDb, is the premise: "A frustrated African American TV writer proposes a blackface minstrel show in protest, but to his chagrin it becomes a hit." Even more puzzling are the cameos by REAL LIFE BLACK activists like Rev. AL Sharpton and Johnnie Cochran who appeared in the film playing themselves, thus giving their support to the project. I guess it's similar to what CALVERA (Eli Wallach) said in the MAGNIFICENT SEVEN: "[as the seven are about to leave the village] Calvera: Youll do much better on the other side of the border. There you can steal cattle, hold up trains... all you have to face is sheriff, marshall. Once I rob a bank in Texas; your government get after me with a whole army... whole army! One little bank. Is clear the meaning: in Texas, only Texans can rob banks." In America, only African Americans can make racist films and be accepted by the African American community. Then again, I guess the same applies to Mel Gibson's PASSION OF THE CHRIST and CHRISTIAN America that accepted it with open arms. "What a country!"

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > OMG, I forgot about Bob Dorian, must be all those commercials making AMC look like a network station or me simply getting old. :| > > AMC does need to go back to the old days of programming with guest host and NO commercials. That dream will never come true by the way. > > If they did do that, I wonder how that will affect TCM's programming? Having competition should be interesting! This is a quote from wiki: > > 1980s - AMC was originally a premium cable channel that aired classic movies during the afternoons and early evenings, largely pre-1950s, in a commercial-free, generally unedited, uncut, and uncolorized format. It was not uncommon for the channel to host a Marx Brothers marathon, or show such classics such as the original Phantom of the Opera. In 1987, the channel first became available on basic cable television systems > > Bob is in letterbox > > > Instead of stuff like this, we get "Sleep Number Beds" and "Food Lovers Fat Loss" > > > Edited by: hamradio on Feb 23, 2011 8:55 PM I wish there was a similar channel to the old AMC to offer competition to TCM. Competition is good for the soul. Without it, a channel, like anything else, gets too comfortable because they know they're the only show in town that appeals to a certain audience, and they begin to get sloppy. What's worse, they don't have to care because without competition where is their audience going to go?

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > fxreyman wrote: > 2. When a repeat is aired, the original listing for the film may have been too late in the evening for anyone who does not have the ability to record a chance to see it at a better time. > > *infinite1 replied:* > *So, TCM is all of a sudden concerned about viewers that don't have any recordable media. If that was the case they wouldn't be a 24/7 channel. I don't know of anyone without a recorder of some kind that stays up the whole night to watch TCM. So why have any programming on after hours at all?* > > See previous response. Also..... > Because as Kyle has pointed out TCM has one network feed for the entire country. What is on at 8PM on the east coast is playing on the west coast at 5PM. So what I am trying to say is that if Jane in Chicago does not have a recordable device, and the film she really wants to see on TCM does not play again until the following Saturday, she at least has the chance to see it again. There is a reason for late night hour movies to be shown. Those who do have recordable devices can and should record if they can or want to. Why dosen't TCM simply create TCME and TCMW. Or is that not as simple as it sounds? The other movie channels, HBO, MAX, SHO, and TMC have west coast feeds that play the same films three hours behind the east coast. Why can't TCM follow suit?

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"YOU MEAN YOU ACTUALLY HAD A BEEF WITH TCM?????? I'M SHOCKED."* - infinite1 > > See. There's a _lot_ you don't know. > > *"Thought you had better taste then that."* > > And I thought you could discuss a subject without being rude or --demeaning-- condescending. > > Kyle In Hollywood > > Edited by: hlywdkjk on Feb 23, 2011 7:36 AM Sorry, didn't think you would take it that way, I thought I was being funny. I guess not everyone has my warped sense of humor.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > > According to reports, TCM is currently seen in 85 million homes. > > > > Wow, that leaves only 29,825,428 households in the US without TCM. > > http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_households_are_in_the_US > > I suggest that President Obama should sign an Executive Order that will put TCM in every household in America, and provide free cable services to poor people and old men living in the Southwest US. Stop it Fred. You've even got John Boener crying.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"I appreciate your response, but in today's day and age of DVR's, recordable DVDs, VHS, whatever else is out there, there is no reason for anyone to miss anything that is shown on TCM, ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR at the most. If anyone does miss something, TOUGH $$%@#$, it is their own fault. This is not a valid excuse for TCM to air so many repeats during the course of a year."* - infinite1 > > TIme-Shifting should not be a pre-requisite to enjoying all that TCM offers. That was my big beef with the scheduling of Hal Roach month. YOU MEAN YOU ACTUALLY HAD A BEEF WITH TCM?????? I'M SHOCKED. >Recording the materials was necessary to see them all. It was not convenient - even for those with recording devices - to watch at the time they were shown or to record for viewing later. If TCM approached every day of the year that way, I would interpret that as a disregard for the audience and a refusal to acknowledge that most viewers do have interests beyond TCM, let alone other demands on their time. Technically TCM does approach every day of the year that way by programming 24/7. > > And, as Rey pointed out, multiple showings are standard business procedures in rental agreements. It drives the price of film rental down and gives TCM much more flexiblity with scheduling. Only for certain movies. Some films are shown only once then vanish for months or years. Funny that it's the usual films like AMERICAN IN PARIS, that most people know backwards and forwards, that get the repeat treatment. > > If I was TCM, the last thing I would ever do is say "TOUGH" to my viewers because they don't don't know how to time-shift, do not have the appropriate equipment to record one channel while watching a second channel or experience any one of a number malfunctions that can foul-up a recording. Well, I'm not TCM, so I can say it. I would never expect TCM to say it, why would they? They are doing what they want anyway. Your HAL ROACH "beef" is an excellent example. > > *"As a film lover, you should want to see a different lineup for each of the ten remaining months of the year. Is that too much to ask?."* > > That's completely unreasonable. It is a pipe dream to expect TCM to provide 3500 - 4000 different titles over a ten month period. It is cost prohibitive. Besides, name me any movie channel that doesn't repeat films. I think it is quite the achievement that TCM rarely repeats titles in the same month. Most are repeating them in the same week and even on the same day. And viewers are paying a premium for those channels. Completely unreasonable? Yes and no. If I accept your 3500-4000 numbers as accurate. Yes, if TCM was completely autonomous, but as was stated in another post, TCM has TIME-WARNER's money backing them up. Also, wouldn't it make more sense to leave a few months between repeats, not to shoot them out in three or four month blocks? At least then it would give the illusion of a more varied line-up. But, yes, unfortunately your are right about pay movie channels. I guess it's wrong of me to hold TCM to a higher level of performance, after all they're just another run of the mill movie channel. > > And I don't want my television viewing habits determined solely by what TCM is showing on every single day of the week - let alone for ten months of the year - because the films shown won't be offered again. As a West-Coaster, I consider it a great service that TCM repeats films at various hours and on different days of the week. Every day on TCM should not have to be "must-see TV." Nor should it be the only channel that fulfills any one person's entertainment needs every hour of every day. That's what an unlimited Netflix subscrition is for. I do not limit my TV viewing to TCM only. However, If there is something I want to watch on TCM at the same time that I am surfing between MSNBC or FOX NEWS, I will either record or miss it. If I have to miss it and it is not one of the usual suspects that will garner an automatic repeat, so be it. I don't cry over it. I'll turn on ENCORE WESTERN and watch a repeat of McLintock or is that AMC, oh, I forgot it's both, sometimes at the same time. > > Kyle (Watching The Amazing Race Premiere Tonight) In Hollywood Thought you had better taste then that.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > You sure do make a broad assumption on what everyone does when watching TCM. > > You are assuming that everyone tapes, or records movies on DVDRs or other technology. I would bet that less than half of those watching TCM never tapes any of the programs. That is your assumption, based on what? I base mine on the amount of recordable options that are available. > > I used to tape all the time. Never do any more. Why? Just do not want to. Plus if I really want a film on tape or a DVD, and it is available I will buy the DVD of the film. > > If it is not on DVD, then I will wait until it is available on DVD. You are assuming that every film you want will eventually be available on DVD? Considering the state of the economy, that's wishful thinking on your part. > > As far as repeats are concerned, I think there are several reasons for this: > > 1. TCM rents films to be shown. They probably have to show the film more than once to satisfy the rental agreement. I am not sure about this but it would make sense. Kyle and or Lynn would know more about this. So why is this not the policy with every film that TCM shows, yet some fims are shown only once, then disapear for a number of months or years? > > 2. When a repeat is aired, the original listing for the film may have been too late in the evening for anyone who does not have the ability to record a chance to see it at a better time. So, TCM is all of a sudden concerned about viewers that don't have any recordable media. If that was the case they wouldn't be a 24/7 channel. I don't know of anyone without a recorder of some kind that stays up the whole night to watch TCM. So why have any programming on after hours at all? > > 3. If most people are like me, they are going to have a repeat viewing of the film anyway, especially if it is a favorites of theirs. How many repeat viewings of a "favorite" film in a close proximity of time, lets say, once or twice a month, would it take to make you turn off the film? Two months, three months?

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"But, all I'm really asking for is less repeats during the year and less modern films that ARE shown on other channels."* > > OK. I thought the reason behind this "repeat" business was pretty well understood by know but I guess not. > > TCM has a single satellite feed for the whole country. What is seen at 8pm on the East Coast is being shown at 5pm on the West Coast. This difference in the time of day when a film is seen on TCM (convenient for some, inconvenient for just as many) is an issue that TCM addresses by showing some films more than once and at different hours of the day or even on different days of the week. It is a long-standing practice for TCM to repeat many popular or important films in order that the audience has access to them at an hour convenient to most persons regardless of where they happen to reside. > > Contrary to what others have written, TCM seldom repeats films at 8pmEST/5pmPST with great regularity. But, occassionally, it does happen. For the past few years, *Gone With The Wind* has consistently been shown beginning at 8pm EST. (With a four-hour running time, there really aren't many "slots" for it on the daily schedule.) Now that 8pm time is fine for persons on the East Coast and even in the Midwest. But few working people out West are really able to be home in time to catch it from the start. And I have voiced frustration about that scheduling decision in these Forums more than once. Finally, this month TCM scheduled the film to start at 7pm out West and all of us just finishing our dinners could actually see the film from the beginning. "Thanks TCM. I knew you could it!" > > Whether it happened because I kept carping about the hour or if we Left-Coasters just got lucky this time because TCM made the decision to schedule "Best Picture" winners to be seen at 10pm/7pm every night for the duration of the "31 Days..." event is unknown to me. But it makes no difference. All that matters is that *Gone With The Wind* started a little later in the evening for once. > > *"I have yet to read comments from anyone who loves modern films agreeing that those films from the 80s, 90s, and beyond are available on channels other then TCM. I, and others, don't understand why you must have them on TCM. Are they somehow less CLASSIC to you if they are not associated with the TCM BRAND? Do you only get TCM?"* > > Of course they are available on other channels. No one denys that they aren't. But on other non-subscription channels, they aren't "uncut or commercial-free". I hope you won't deny that seeing a film on TNT, TBS, AMC or FX is not the same as seeing it on TCM. With TCM you get all the benefits of seeing a film on a premium channel like HBO or Starz without the additional cost associated with adding those channels to one's cable/satellite bill. So in that sense, "Yes." For many of the viewers, TCM is the only movie channel they get. > > (I would find it interesting to learn how many more people watch *The Lord Of The Rings* on TNT this month rather than watch it on TCM and if those folks knew they could also see it on TCM - letterboxed, uncut and commercial-free - during "31 Days Of Oscar.") > > *"Frankly it's fascinating to me how you (a general "you" to encompass all that feel this way) can stomach so many repeats on TCM..."* > > TCM presents over 300 different movies every month. Do any other movie channels even come close to that number? There's 30 premieres during "31 Days Of Oscar" in 2011. A "new" film for (nearly) every day of this event is a pretty good deal - even if one watches TCM 24/7. > > But I don't watch TCM 24/7 nor does TCM expect their viewers to watch it 24/7. There _are_ other options on the television dial. (Be it "American Experience" or "American Idol".) And there _are_ things happening in the world besides what TCM is showing on any given day or night. I spent many evenings this month catching up with the events in Egypt and other places in the Middle East. Now THAT was must-see TV. There was a big sporting event the first weekend of the month and a big awards show upcoming on the last weekend of this month. TCM understands that most viewers do have other interests in entertainment and programs accordingly. I bet that is why *Joan Of Arc* is premiering _early_ on the 27th so as not to compete with the Academy Awards ceremony that evening - while familiar favorites *Mildred Pierce* and *Annie Hall* are being shown opposite the Oscars telecast. And that is likely why *The House On 92nd St.* premiered late in the evening of Super Bowl Sunday. (Fun movie. It was like an episode of "This Is Your FBI" come to life.) > > Now, if only I could get TCM to run *The Exorcist* again. Maybe next "31 Days Of Oscar." > > Kyle In Hollywood Kyle, I appreciate your response, but in today's day and age of DVR's, recordable DVDs, VHS, whatever else is out there, there is no reason for anyone to miss anything that is shown on TCM, ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR at the most. If anyone does miss something, TOUGH $$%@#$, it is their own fault. This is not a valid excuse for TCM to air so many repeats during the course of a year. As I said, you want your 31 days of OSCAR every year, fine. You want your SUMMER UNDER THE STARS, fine. But dedicate those films for those two months and leave the rest of the year free from repeats. As a film lover, you should want to see a different lineup for each of the ten remaining months of the year. Is that too much to ask? And I'm not asking for more documentaries, tv playhouse dramas, or other filler stuff, which is all it is. Sheldon In New Jersey

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote to filmlover:}{quote} > > > > But, all I'm really asking for is less repeats during the year and less modern films that ARE shown on other channels. I have yet to read comments from anyone who loves modern films agreeing that those films from the 80s, 90s, and beyond are available on channels other then TCM. I, and others, don't understand why you must have them on TCM. Are they somehow less CLASSIC to you if they are not associated with the TCM BRAND? Do you only get TCM? > > Its very simple. They dont want to watch the modern films on the commercial channels because they are interrupted by commercials. They want them moved over to TCM so they can see them without commercials. > > However, the big problem is there are many different modern movie types, from anime to awful sci-fi to stupid comedies to vulgar dramas, and ALL these people want THEIR modern films on TCM so they can see them without commercials. > > These arent classic films, these are their favorite films, and they want to see them without commercials, so thats why they want them on TCM. The big problem also is, as was explained to me by another poster, TCM's definition of "CLASSIC" is so broad that even modern films that fall under the definition of anime, awful, sci-fi, stupid, vulgar, or just plain crappy fall under the all encompassing umbrella of "CLASSIC". "Something for everybody". Heck, if that's the case I wouldn't mind if TCM even recycled some old CINEMAX soft core porn films. They're classic and they fall under the category of "Something for everybody".

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > Allright, from that standpoint I agree with you. You sound, at least to me, like you realize that TCM is not perfect, but you choose to accept and enjoy it as it is, on their terms. I also enjoy it, but feel that it should be on our terms. I hope it can be better then it is. Is that so terrible? > > Sigh, but what is "on our terms"? Your "our terms" may be to show only films prior to 1950. Gagman's "our terms" may be to show only silent movies. Johnbabe's "our terms" may be to show only Garbo films. My terms may be to show films from all eras. So how can it be "on our terms"? > > Some "our terms" people here may feel, "No, TCM shouldn't show anything that is on DVD". > > Others may say (and DO say), "TCM must only play this kind of movie and you should pack up and go somewhere else if you want films from the last 40 years, too". > > Why can't we all just enjoy what we have? I mean, do you (a general "you" to encompass all) sit in front of the TV screen 24 hours a day? Are you so slavish to a way of thinking of what only YOU want that even if you don't have the TV on, it must be playing only your films just in case always you switch it on for 20 seconds and then off again? l Actually, for me it was only films prior to 1960. But, I'm willing to compromise by allowing films from the 1960s and 1970s. But, all I'm really asking for is less repeats during the year and less modern films that ARE shown on other channels. I have yet to read comments from anyone who loves modern films agreeing that those films from the 80s, 90s, and beyond are available on channels other then TCM. I, and others, don't understand why you must have them on TCM. Are they somehow less CLASSIC to you if they are not associated with the TCM BRAND? Do you only get TCM? As for the repeats, why is it necessary to show Whatever Happened to Baby Jane three months in a row? Why must films shown during 31 DAYS OF OSCAR be included in THE ESSENTIALS or SUMMER UNDER THE STARS? Why repeat films featuring Thelma Todd in the Hal Roach tribute that were recently shown during SUMMER UNDER THE STARS, most on her own day. Maybe the "inventive" ways that TCM comes up with to recycle the same films month after month fascinates you, but I am not Mr. Spock. Everything doesn't fascinate me. It takes a lot more then a bogus idea to show TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD for the upteenth time to do the trick. Yes, I get that we are getting TCM on their terms. And I suppose we have to accept it until something better comes along. But, that dosen't mean that we, who don't like it, can't complain about it. You folks that don't care one way or another can either read our complaints or ignore them, but we ain't going away. Frankly it's fascinating to me how you (a general "you" to encompass all that feel this way) can stomach so many repeats on TCM, but whine about repeat complaints on this message board. Funny how we all find something to whine about. I guess that's the one thing we all have in common.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"Is that currently seen or currently available? There is a difference - for example, the Game Show Channel is available in my household, but it is never seen."* - clore > > That would be available - but TCM does use the verb "seen" to describe all cable and satellite subscibers that receive a package that includes TCM. So, it's fair to say that there might be a large percentage of cable and satellite subscribers that either never watch TCM OR occassionally watch TCM. > > Because TCM does not receive Neilsen numbers, it has only a slight idea how many of those subscribers "watch" TCM. So it's guesswork or wishful thinking for TCM to assume that the majority of those subscribers are die hard TCM viewers. If that is the case, who does TCM assume they are programming for, the invisible throngs of viewers that they think they have, the countless thousands that are attending their film festivals, or themselves? If they don't know specifically who they are reaching, or how many they are reaching, how do they know that their programming is appealing to the majority of viewers that they do have? Are they basing their programming choices on these message boards, fan letters, viewer complaints, all of the above, or none of the above. > > Kyle In Hollywood

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"Unfortunately for you and others we are not living in a Utopian society where everyone blindly agrees with the majority. There are always going to be differences of opinion and people who are not afraid to express them."* - infinite1 > > Few here, if any, are Pollyannas. But we do choose not to be cynical or hold a dystopian view about the state of TCM. The channel is what it is and we enjoy it on those terms. (Or _their_ terms and how they choose to define them.) > > Kyle In Hollywood Allright, from that standpoint I agree with you. You sound, at least to me, like you realize that TCM is not perfect, but you choose to accept and enjoy it as it is, on their terms. I also enjoy it, but feel that it should be on our terms. I hope it can be better then it is. Is that so terrible?

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *Just what were the warning signs that AMC was heading to the dark side?* > > They were bought by a company that liked the demographic that AMC originally had (a similar demographic to TCM at the time). But, as too often happens when a niche channel is bought, it becomes less about the niche market it appeals to and more about how much more money it can bring in. This has happened to many channels over the last ten years, A&E, History Channel, Bravo, etc. > > The new owners saw that AMC's viewership had plateaued while TCM's was still growing, especially now that TCM was part of the Time-Warner family. > > They opted, as many have since, to take AMC in a new direction away from classic films, more towards modern films and they added commercials to boost the ad revenue while they tried to grow the viewership. > > Before AMC was sold, they made their money from the money they got from cable and satellite subscriptions (as does TCM). When AMC's viewership plateaued, they weren't growing the viewership/subscriptions so something had to be done to bring in more revenue. The new owners opted to go to a new format. I don't understand what you mean by "When AMC's viewership plateaued". How could anyone gage AMC's or for that matter TCM's, OR ANY CHANNEL IN A BASIC TIER'S viewership? I have had at one time, or another, COMCAST Cable, the DISH NETWORK, and DIRECTV. As far as I know the DISH and DIRECTV are the only Sattelite providers, COMCAST is one of the major CABLE providers, and in each system AMC was part of their BASIC package. As you know, you cannot subscribe to individual channels in a basic package. So what the heck are you talking about? I would love to eliminate a host of channels from my basic package that I don't watch and save some money, but we are stuck with them, that's why they're part of a package deal. You get stuff you like and you get stuff you don't like. The AMC situation was closer to GREED on the part of the new owners, not because they were losing revenue.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > Ridiculous argument....ever hear the old rhyme "30 days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have 31"....so since most months have 31 days, that should be an obvious reason. Wasn't an argument, it was a question. And a valid question since February has 28 days not 30 like September, April, June, and November or 31 like all the rest. It just didn't make sense to me, until it was explained. Now it does.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > Thanks for those videos. TCM needs to show that movie. I saw it years ago on some channel. It's a lot of fun. Probably AMC, when AMC was KING.