infinite1

I often wonder what would cause a Director of a motion picture to yell the word "CUT". Certainly the image of frustrated Directors yelling "CUT" has been used on film, most notably, I think, in SINGIN IN THE RAIN by frustrated Director DOUGLAS FOWLEY to the inability of JEAN HAGEN to adapt to sound, but that was for Comedic effect. In real life, what would cause a Director to cut the action of a given scene. Just recently I watched TCM's airing of AN AMERICAN IN PARIS. There is a moment in the initial musical number where Kelly is dancing with an elderly woman where the woman inadvertantly knocks off Kelly's hat and he momentarily breaks concentration to attempt to retrieve it. He appears to catch himself and return to the number, but the error exists on film. Shouldn't this have been a moment for the Director to yell "CUT", was it deemed unimportant, or was it just plain missed? I do find it odd that Kelly, the Choreographer of the film, and an obvious perfectionist, would have allowed such an obvious slip to be kept in the final print and mar an otherwise perfect film. What are your thoughts? Do you know of other films that allowed errors or "cutting" moments to remain in the final print and why?

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > You do realize that it has been over 12 years since Ted Turner merged his media empire (including the film library). > > TCM has been doing just fine for all those years without going the route of AMC. TCM makes its money from cable subscription fees and they are doing just fine. Time-Warner appreciates TCM. TCM has the market mainly to its self -its biggest competitors at this point are probably the Encore channels which while they don't have commercials they also show their wide screen films in pan and scan and are hemmed in by the name of the various channels (Romance, westerns, mystery, etc). > > They show no signs of going to the dark side like AMC. > > But, you, as always, believe they will in some dark distant day in the future that can't be predicted. > > In the meantime, I'll send out for more strawberries for you. Maybe that will help. It must be wonderful to take things for granted, like the "fact" that TCM will always be around in the same format it is now. But, since you are so sure of the near future of TCM let me ask you a few things. Just what were the warning signs that AMC was heading to the dark side? I assumed that AMC's decision to switch to commercials and edited films was driven by MONEY, specifically, the lack of it. At least, that was what was written at the time, after the fact. You say that Time-Warner "appreciates" TCM. Define "appreciates". Just how much money is Time-Warner investing in TCM? How is Time-Warner helping TCM? Is Time-Warner creating all these Digital Broadcast Masters of the films that Turner sold them, for TCM? And what is TCM giving Time-Warner back in order to maintain that "appreciation"? I'm asking you all this, mind you, because you're so comfortable with the near future of TCM you must know something that no one else does. In any event, keep the Srawberries, I'm allergic to them. Send Blueberries instead.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > tcm can define the word any way they can in order to justify their lineup of films, but that does not alter the fact that they are wrong. > > This seems to be a common thread going on around here these days. Either TCM is wrong, or Robert Osborne doesn't know what he is doing, or we should replace Ben M. or that TCM shows way too many movies made after 1960 or We should be able to celebrate Black History Month in February or........ and the list goes on and on. > > What is it with you people anyway? > > Everytime I turn around there is another post from someone who thinks everything TCM does is wrong or misguided. Grow up and get a life people! > > TCM is not going to change. Especially by berating them every chance you get. 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. Maybe it's you that needs to do the growing up.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *Are you saying that every movie that TCM shows, even the obscure old stuff, must have a digital broadcast master? I find that medicine a bit hard to swallow* > > Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'll get you some strawberries to help taking that medicine easier . TCMProgrammr has posted about the problem of not having digital masters in the past on these very boards. > > Edited by: lzcutter for clarification So, all the silents, the early talkie clunkers, the cult films shown on Friday nights, they all have digital broadcast masters?

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > You should check this out. > > It is from a new thread created by longtime poster filmlover today, February 11th on this very topic: > > TCM's official definition of "classic" > Posted: Feb 11, 2011 8:14 AM > > With all this bellowing from the hilltops from a few here once again about what is classic and what does not belong on TCM, it got me searching for TCM's official definition. It was something I knew I posted here back in 2006. When someone argued here in the last day or so that TCM should remove the word "Classic" from their name, I knew it was time to reprint it. > > This comes directly from a TCM brand notebook of that time: > > WHAT'S CLASSIC? > Is it old? > Can it be new? > Often, a classic is the best of its kind. > Sometimes, it's the worst. > Either way, it stands out. > A classic always stands out. > Classic can mean different things to different people. > Your parents idea of classic is probably different than yours. > Your kids idea of classic is probably different, too. > Everybody has a classic. > Sometimes classic means the original, > Or the best-known, > Or the first of its kind. > Sometimes it means one of a kind. > You could argue that classic is extreme: > The saddest of the sad, > The bravest of the brave, > The gosh-darn charmingest of the charming. > Of all the things classic is, the one thing it's not is one thing. > Classic is too big to be pinned down, too universal to be selfish. > Classic belongs to everybody. > Everybody has a classic. > Is it old? Yes. > Can it be new? Yes. > So, what's classic? > Turner Classic Movies. > THAT'S CLASSIC. I prefer the traditional definition of the word CLASSIC. The following is from the MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY Definition of CLASSIC 1 a : serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value b : traditional, enduring c : characterized by simple tailored lines in fashion year after year 2 : of or relating to the ancient Greeks and Romans or their culture : classical 3 a : historically memorable b : noted because of special literary or historical associations 4 a : authentic, authoritative b : typical 5 capitalized : of or relating to the period of highest development of Mesoamerican and especially Mayan culture about a.d. 300?900 See classic defined for English-language learners ? CLASSIC may mean different things to different people, but CLASSIC in terms of ART - films, books, plays, etc. means ONE thing - A STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE, TRADITIONAL, ENDURING. tcm can define the word any way they can in order to justify their lineup of films, but that does not alter the fact that they are wrong.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *In 2009. the Turner Library (the familiar suspects - MGM/WB/RKO) were already turned over to Time-Warner (I think) and were not a source of revenue for Turner Entertainemnt.* > > Chief, > > You're right. > > In the mid-1990s, Time-Warner took over ownership of the former Turner Film Library. It happened right after Ted Turner merged his media empire with Time-Warner/AOL. > > Time-Warner handed control of the Film Library over to Warner Brothers where the WB portion of the former Turner library was reunited with its 1949 other half. > > Since then, TCM has had to lease all the films it broadcasts with the exception of the *Lost and Found* RKO films you mentioned in your post. Hmmm.... I also thought that TCM had this vast library of films at their disposal which was their safeguard against becomming another AMC. But, based on what you are saying, technically, TCM is now in the same boat that AMC WAS before IT went commercial, right? If so, what safeguard, if any, is in place now to prevent TCM from following AMC. I would have to imagine that as a business concern, revenue is just as important to TCM as it was to AMC and as I doubt that TCM has a bottomless pocketbook overflowing with money, the revenue has to come from somewhere. Is there a "Daddy" Warbucks taking care of TCM?

If TCM has to have a month honoring Oscar winners, why not 28 OR 29 days (during a leap year) long? Where is it written that TCM has to make February, 31 days long in order to properly celebrate Oscar? March 1st is the start of a new month, not a continuation of February. I don't understand the logic of taking away two or three days from March. 28 or 29 days should be more then enough time to celebrate Oscar, an out of date, boring, and flawed award ceremony that dosen't mean anything anyway.

Since the word "classic" is such a dirty word that gives rise to so many varied opinions why dosen't TCM just remove it? TURNER'S MOVIES is more descriptive of what the channel airs. It encompasses everything and anything, from great to toilet bowl, of any era, which is what TCM currently airs anyway. But, without that annoying word "classic", there is no longer any argument.

> {quote:title=ChorusGirl wrote:}{quote} > I know *whoopee* and *roman scandals* had blackface numbers in them. > > The one in *roman scandals* is called "Keep Young and Beautiful", and features black chorus girls helping the white chorus girls to bathe and get dressed (its no match for the other big number in questionable taste...with its slave auction, chained-up nudes, and girl falling to her death). I now can't recall if *kid millions* or *the kid from spain* have blackface. (anyone?) > > I should never have sold my laserdisc of the *the kid from spain* (got a hundred bucks for it!). It has never been released in any other format, and it is now one of the very few Busby Berkeley films I dont have a copy of. Actually, Cantors first six films were also released on VHS as part of a box set. They are probably still available on EBAY for much less then the laserdiscs. Incidentlally, all of Jolsons early films were released in a laserdisc box set that sometimes pops up on EBAY. Unfortunately it is quite expensive, but better then MOD (movies on demand). > > Im not sure TCM cares about blackface. They showed James Whale's *remember last night*, and they have shown *wonder bar*.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *What is preventing them from being shown on TCM ?* > > Over five years ago, like many other networks, TCM switched over to a digital server from a tape based server. That means all the films it leases have to have a digital broadcast master. > > Many of the early studio era films have yet to have digital broadcast masters made because there are not many network/cable outlets for showing them. TCM is sometimes the only outlet and the costs of making a digital master sometimes make doing it for only one network cost prohibitive, especially in these tough economic times. Are you saying that every movie that TCM shows, even the obscure old stuff, must have a digital broadcast master? I find that medicine a bit hard to swallow. So I guess that means that films that TCM aired over 5 years ago, that don't have digital broadcast masters, may never be seen again? Maybe that's why we're seeing so may repeats, documentaries, and old tv shows. > > Warner Brothers had plans for a big Al Jolson box set but that was put on the back burner when the recession hit. DVD sales of classic studio era films are not known for being very profitable. The only ones that are profitable are the big, tent-pole titles like *Wizard of Oz*, *Gone with the Wind*, *All About Eve* that appeal to a larger audience than just die-hard film buffs. > > Because of that, studios are reluctant right now to delve too deeply into their vaults and digitize more of their older film libraries. However, the success of TCM is starting to finally show up on various studios' Home Videos departments and the manufactured-on-demand movement is starting to have an impact. > > So, stay tuned. The Cantor films may yet see the light as well as the lesser known Jolson films.

> {quote:title=ChorusGirl wrote:}{quote} > I know *whoopee* and *roman scandals* had blackface numbers in them. > > The one in *roman scandals* is called "Keep Young and Beautiful", and features black chorus girls helping the white chorus girls to bathe and get dressed (its no match for the other big number in questionable taste...with its slave auction, chained-up nudes, and girl falling to her death). I now can't recall if *kid millions* or *the kid from spain* have blackface. (anyone?) > > I should never have sold my laserdisc of the *the kid from spain* (got a hundred bucks for it!). It has never been released in any other format, and it is now one of the very few Busby Berkeley films I dont have a copy of. > > Im not sure TCM cares about blackface. They showed James Whale's *remember last night*, and they have shown *wonder bar*. WHOOPEE PALMY DAYS THE KID FROM SPAIN ROMAN SCANDALS KID MILLIONS and IF YOU KNEW SUSIE all had BLACK FACE NUMBERS. FORTY LITTLE MOTHERS did not. I am not sure about STRIKE ME PINK ALI BABA GOES TO TOWN SHOW BUSINESS

> {quote:title=cody1949 wrote:}{quote} > TCM has shown almost everything in the Goldwyn library with the exception of 4 Eddie Cantor sound films.TCM has shown THE KID FROM SPAIN a number of times but has never shown ROMAN SCANDALS , KID MILLIONS , WHOOPEE , and PALMY DAYS. These movies do exist. They were shown years ago on the old AMC. What is preventing them from being shown on TCM ? Even a DVD release would be welcomed. To my knowledge, TCM has also held back most of Al Joson's films. I don't know why. At first I thought it had something to do with sensitivity to the BLACK FACE numbers which were so prevalent in Cantor and Joslon's films, but then again they show the Garland/Rooney films on a regular basis which are full of BLACK FACE minstrel routines, so my next thought was that TCM is Anti Jewish singers/commedians that made their ethnicity part of their acts, both Cantor and Jolson were of the Jewish faith. I don't want to believe that this is so, but when you couple this with the absense of MAX DAVIDSON comedies from the recent HAL ROACH celebration, one has to wonder.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > > I find it particularly strange and inconsistent that you would support this idea. As I recall, you said 'silent films are silent for a reason,' and said that you wouldn't even listen to the original score/soundtrack, that was made to go with the film, but watched them in silence. So, now you want them dubbed? That's just too weird. > > I really shouldn't dignify this with a response. Why not? Your fellow posters dignified your post with a response, although I wonder to hell why they bothered. >LOL I don't like the scores and definitely mute them, because many of them don't seem to fit well with the visuals. If it's silent, let it be silent all the way. But if there's a chance to modernize the film with sound effects and dialogue, I think that's viable, provided it's done carefully. And even if I didn't feel that way, there are manufacturers who do...and the purists can rant and rave all they want, but colorized films are not going away and neither will enhanced silents. There will always be greedy ^%$&^$& that will look to make a buck off of someone else's art. It's a shame that there are gullible slobs that will fall for it. Happily, there are NO new colorized films being released. As for enhanced silents, it depends on what you mean. Silents are always being enhanced to get as close as possible to their CREATOR'S ORIGINAL VISION, not to placate YOUR vision. > > The fact that Fox issues several discs of Shirley Temple classics in both original and colorized formats means that they see the reformatting as a viable way to sell the film to today's consumers (translation: modern kids who want everything in color). No, it means they still have the color negs from VHS days and stuck them on the disks as an extra feature, not because they are marketing towards kids. > > I think the OUR GANG shorts that are silent could attract today's young audiences, too, with some over-dubbing of dialogue. Wouldn't we rather have people watching these films, instead of them sitting on some remote shelf of history...? In the first place, based on the amount of exposure the OUR GANG talkies have received as of late, I doubt adding over-dubbing of dialogue to the silents will make them anymore attractive to today's young brain dead audiences. In the second place, I would rather these films sit and collect dust then have them tampered on by "well meaning" boobs, who have no thought of monetary gain (SURE), only the thought of passing these classics (which would no longer be so classic) to people who don't know or care about what they're watching to begin with. Maybe that would appeal to audiences at amc who love 5 MINUTE Three Stooges shorts, but not PEOPLE who love classic film.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > That's the thing. Stan and Ollie were primarily for kids. If you watch them for the first time as an adult, the stuff seems kind of juvenile. Their humor is not in the realm of, say, Noel Coward. It's called Slapstick Humor. And that dosen't make it any less funny then your Noel Coward who I consider a bore. Besides, for your information, everything in older film was created with adults in mind, not children, and that includes Slapstick Humor, Cartoons, Serials, ETC., ETC., ETC. Slapstick Commedians like Laurel and Hardy, the Three Stooges, Abbott AND Costello, and the Cartoons did not become ASSOCIATED with Children until the advent of Television in the 50s when these films were sold to TV in package deals and aired in the afternoons when kids would get home from school.

Aside from the name similarity, which UNIVERSAL was known for, was EAST OF JAVA a sequel of sorts to 1931's EAST OF BORNEO? And are either of the two available on DVD?

Movies can never hope to recapture the magic of a Classic TV show. The only ones that came close were the first few STAR TREK films because they were lucky enough to have the original cast. But, once the original cast gets too old or dies off, the magic is lost. I had high hopes for LOST IN SPACE, but the movie BOMBED. When the BIG BUDGET movie tries to outdo the CLASSIC, but simplistic tv show, the result is a flop. It's true, "you can't go home again" and you can't recapture the magic of a classic TV show on the MOVIE screen.

> {quote:title=LonesomePolecat wrote:}{quote} > Assuming you're not a troll, Mickey Rooney is an amazing performer, and most of his colleagues thought he was the most talented person in Hollywood. And whether you're a fan or not, his humongous film output makes him deserving of a spotlight. If Mickey Rooney was an amazing performer, as you say, he would not have gotten stuck in character parts in A films and featured in B films in his later years post ANDY HARDY. Yes, he was talented, to an extent. If you consider talent to be just basically doing the same kinds of things from movie to movie, and he was entertaining. But, his big claim to fame was that he was lucky enough to be JUDY GARLANDS' partner in a number of very successful films and co-star in films with talented actors like SPENCER TRACY, ROBERT MONTGOMERY, and WILLIAM HOLDEN. Alone, his screen persona was obnoxious, selfish, goofy, hammy, and grating, hardly "the most talented person in hollywood." I can watch BABES IN ARMS, STRIKE UP THE BAND, BABES ON BROADWAY, and one or two Andy Hardy movies and know all I need to know or want to know about the talent and character of Mickey Rooney's on screen character. Yes, he did have a humongous film output and his films are assured an airing whenever he is star of the month, or Judy Garland is sotm, or Spencer Tracy is sotm, or there is a Birthday tribute to Judy or Mickey, OR some other theme that allows his films to be rolled out. But, should that fact make him DESERVING of a spotlight. If that was the criteria, THE THREE STOOGES would have been SOTM a long time ago on TCM, and I have yet to see that happen. I hope you don't think I am belittling Mickey's ability. I'm sure MGM thought very highly of him or they would not have made him a star. But, please understand that not everyone HAS TO think of him that way irrespective of his humongous film output and that dosen't make anyone a "TROLL".

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > All times Eastern: > > 8:00pm City Streets (1931) > A racketeer must choose between his criminal life and love. > Cast: Gary Cooper, Sylvia Sidney, Paul Lukas, Wynne Gibson Dir: Rouben Mamoulian BW-82 mins > > 9:30pm Scarface (1932) > A murderous thug shoots his way to the top of the mobs while trying to protect his sister from the criminal life. > Cast: Paul Muni, Ann Dvorak, Karen Morley, Osgood Perkins Dir: Howard Hawks BW-94 mins, TV-PG > > 11:15pm Little Caesar (1930) > A small-time hood shoots his way to the top, but how long can he stay there? > Cast: Edward G. Robinson, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Glenda Farrell, William Collier Jr. Dir: Mervyn LeRoy BW-79 mins, TV-PG > > 12:45pm Mayor Of Hell, The (1933) > A racketeer goes straight to run a reform school. > Cast: James Cagney, Madge Evans, Arthur Byron, Allen Jenkins Dir: Archie Mayo BW-90 mins, TV-PG Not bad, except for Mayor Of Hell. I would have preferred either QUICK MILLIONS (1931) OR another repeat of PUBLIC ENEMY (1931).

Is there a reason why TCM aired the shorts chronologically backwards? Dosen't it make more sense to run them in the opposite direction? And then, mysteriously after UNACCUSTOMED AS WE ARE, their first talkie, TCM added two other shorts out of sequence as an afterthought. Does it make sense to you? I missed the first three shorts on TCM, but luckily I still have my complete tapes of AMC Laurel and Hardy Marathons, from AMC's glory days, which featured all their shorts and the few SPANISH LANGUAGE versions as well. They were interesting in and of themselves as they were more racy, and had alternate takes with, in some cases, a different supporting cast.

I've seen DRACULA referred to as both a 1930 and a 1931 film. Wasn't DRACULA actually completed in 1930, but shelved until Valentine's Day 1931? It does seem a bit cruder then 1931s FRANKENSTEIN, more in line with films released in 1930..

> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote} > I haven't seen it in years. My recollection is that she was dead but didn't know it. But, she did interact with living people and wasn't a ghost or a ghoul, in the traditional sense.

> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote} > This film is unlike any other. DEFINITELY. But, I didn't understand it. Was she dead, alive, or both? Was she dreaming the whole thing before she actually drowned?

I think there were six or possibly seven new LON CHANEY silents added to the Warners ARCHIVE collection: HE WHO GETS SLAPPED THE MONSTER MOCKERY MR. WU THE UNHOLY THREE (1925) THE UNHOLY THREE (1930) I am tempted to buy all of them, but I am still nervous about DVDRs as opposed to pressed DVDs. Do you know if Warners Archives exchanges defective DVDRs for an extended period of time or are they treated the same as pressed DVDs? I would hate to invest the money only to watch it go down the drain after the second or third viewing of the discs.

> {quote:title=HarryLong wrote:}{quote} > I don't think SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM is so much "lost" as "ignored." And why that's the case, I don't know. It was part of the Shock Theater package back in the 1960s (& I managed to acquire a bootleg VHS (obviously derived from a 16mm print) of it some years ago), so I'm not certain why this didn't make it to VHS back in the 1990s when Universal seemed to get damned near everything in their library released to VHS (even the Paula Dupre trilogy!). I wonder if there might be some sort of rights issue? (It is a remake of a German film & even incorporates some footage from the original.) I suspect the buying public for it would be pretty limited, but it'd be cool to see it & the two remakes all put out on a single disc. The answer is simple, DVD. SECRET and probably the other "lost"/"ignored" UNIVERSALS would have eventually been released on VHS if DVD would have been delayed for a few years. With the advent of DVD, Universal probably just thought it was more profitable to start the new line with their CLASSICS rather then their third and fourth tier horror/mystery thrillers.

Strange that THE SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM, one of the "lost" Universal Horrors, has not been released on DVD since it has so many UNIVERSAL HORROR things going for it - Lionel Atwill, Gloria Stuart, that familiar SWAN LAKE motif used in DRACULA, THE MUMMY, and MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE. Too bad it wasn't included in the last UNIVERSAL CULT HORRORS COLLECTION. But, I would like to see it released in a follow up set with THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD, THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD, THE MISSING GUEST, and MURDER IN THE BLUE ROOM.