infinite1

> {quote:title=bOb39 wrote:}{quote} > What you read into my comments is not what I wrote, nor what I meant. You know that. > > But it looks like I hit a nerve. So, Infi, pick up your remote, hold it tightly, take a deep breath and exhale slowly into a paper bag. You poor thing. If you're going to hyperventilate, I'm gonna feel responsible. I am not a mind reader Bobby, so I have no way of knowing what you MEANT. I can only go by what you wrote. Based on what you wrote, your meaning is clear. You obviously have a low tolerance level for anyone who criticizes TCM, irrespective of the reasons or circumstances behind the criticism. No, Bobby boy, I've pegged you right. It's time to man up, put away your hanky, and realize that people are going to complain about things you like for reasons that don't concern you. After all, as much as you think it is, this isn't BOBBY'S WORLD.

> {quote:title=bOb39 wrote:}{quote} > There have been some great comments in this thread on both sides of the issue, but... > > Threads like this (and there have been a few), make me wonder: What kind of life are the complainers leading? To complain about a few films shown about a dozen times a year, when most films shown are repeated only a few times and many are shown only once or twice, it just makes me wonder, is this is all you guys have in your lives? Just TCM? If repeats upset you, turn off the TV and get a hobby. Get out of the house. Answers like yours "get out of the house"/"get a life" make me wonder. Can't folks like you come up with anything original. In the first place, While some folks that complain are couch potatoes to be sure, for some, TCM IS ALL THEY HAVE IN THEIR LIVES. Sick people confined to their homes, elderly people who are not up to "getting out of the house." It is arrogant of you to mock their lives and deny them the right to complain about TCM, THEIR FAVORITE CHANNEL, showing the same films over and over. I respectfully suggest that it would be advantageous for you to follow your own advice and switch to another thread that dosen't offend you or pull out YOUR stamp collection until this thread blows over and refrain from making any further "educated" comments about people you know nothing about. > > Most other channels repeat their films a half dozen times a week. Maybe more frequent than that some weeks. I don't know about HBO, but the STARZ/ENCORE channels, the SHOWTIME channels, the Sony Movie channel, the MGM channel, HDNET channel, FMC, they all repeat their movies over and over again and again for a year or more before they mix in a few new titles. They're relentless with their repeats. Most of their offering are lousy, anyway. And they are "Premium" channels. Those channels deserve to get a heap of complaints. I ended my subscription to premium channels a long time ago. They're not worth it. TCM and NESN are the only reasons I keep the satellite service. In the second place people who love CLASSIC OLD FILMS on tcm will only turn to these other channels as alternatives to constant repeats on TCM. So there is nothing wrong with ENCORE WESTERN, FMC, or the other Premium channels that occassionaly show a CLASSIC GEM that TCM either does not have the rights to or cannot show because they are showing a monthly broadcast of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, SINGING IN THE RAIN, or DOUBLE INDEMNITY. Oh, how I wish AMC was still the CLASSIC MOVIE CHANNEL THAT CARED ABOUT FILM PRESERVATION that they once were. However, I'll take a UNIVERSAL HORROR WITH COMMERCIALS any day over an uncut and uninterupted dose of MONSTER A GO GO on TCM.

> {quote:title=FloydDBarber wrote:}{quote} > I would like to see more 1950's science fiction movies. Although they may not be considered classics, some are very good and most are entertaining. Maybe a sci fi theater on weekends or a 1950's day. I like TCM but the channel seems to get stuck in the 1930's more than any other decade. > I also think a "bad cinema night" might be fun. Show some Ed Wood films and other movies that are so bad they are good. > > Edited by: FloydDBarber on Dec 28, 2010 12:28 PM Isn't that the purpose of TCM UNDERGROUND? To show films that are cult classics, camp classics, or just plain rotten tomato winners? For ex. MONSTER A GO GO.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > Honestly, I don't know if RO, BM or AB would have enough spare time to record two hours of special commentary while watching a movie. But there are some other very quallified and more-than-competent TCM folks that I'd like to hear. > Kyle In Hollywood To be fair, I honestly don't know what their schedules look like, but two hours once a week, or to be more fair, once a month, dosen't really seem like that big a deal. And while there might be some other very qualified TCM folks, they don't have the name value or recognition factor required to pull in average TCM viewers that are either not Computer savy (there are still such people), or don't hang out on the TCM site. However, I would not be opposed to inviting guests to join the big three, like Leonard Maltin, or your podcast folks, on a rotating basis.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > infinte1, I am cut to the quick. How can you diss your neighbours to the north like that? Jack Warner was born in Canada, you know. Sorry. Just a lame attempt on my part to be funny. I did not mean any offense to folks up north.

> {quote:title=The_Destroyer wrote:}{quote} > You know what is really funny. For about the last 20 years now democrats always make sure they speak respectfully of the military. Even when they're knocking republican policies they're are always careful not to be rhetorically non-supportive of the armed forces. Reagan sure called them on that, didn't he? Everyone from Clinton to Obama has to be careful. I always find that political reality amusing. What's equally amusing is how Republicans are so quick to shove our healthy young men and women onto the front lines and then turn their backs on them when they come home sick or maimed. Thank God for Democrats.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > I love it ! Now this could be something entirely different from your original suggestion, I don't see it as fitting in with the "commentary" idea. But it too sounds like it has great potential, and could be a lot of fun. > By the way, did you know that the game "Trivial Pursuits" was developed by ... a Canadian? ! I didn't know that. Just goes to show you that everyone is good for something.

Why does SOTM have to be a SUPER STAR? Why not a B MOVIE STAR, CHARACTER ACTOR or a COMEDY TEAM? Why not have FRANK MORGAN as SOTM or HATTIE MCDANIEL? Why not JOHN CARADINE, JACKIE COOPER, or LAUREL and HARDY? I would like to see other stars get their just due on TCM, not just the usual suspects.

This idea of a game of some kind would be a good idea in and of itself, but separate from my original idea. Game shows are always interesting. It could be along the lines of TRIVIAL PURSUIT, although the name would have to be changed for copyright reasons, with MOVIES as the main theme. ROBERT OSBORNE, BEN MANKEWICZ, and ALEC BALDWIN can be CO Judges/MCs or even handle it on a rotating basis. We can even get guest programmers involved and maybe some everyday movie lovers as contestents. As far as a prize, that's simple. Tickets for two to an all expense paid vacation to Hollywood as special VIPs to the TCM FILM FESTIVAL. What do you think?

> {quote:title=Jayo wrote:}{quote} > To tape 96 hours, you would only need 16 6-hour tapes, not 24. > {quote:title=Jayo wrote:}{quote} > To tape 96 hours, you would only need 16 6-hour tapes, not 24. Yes, my mistake. Thanks.

Thank you for your kind words misswonderly. I don't mind your enthusiastic comments to my thread at all. In fact, they are greatly appreciated as you qualified 100% what I meant in my initital post. By the way, in light of your response, do you think I should submit my initial post to the "HOT" board as well, to try and generate additional feedback or would that qualify as repetitious and egotistical on my part?

> {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote} > I noticed Saturday night that Robert Osborne did not do any commentary for Along Came Jones. I used to think maybe he doesn't do commentary for movies shown after 2am, but I have seem him doing commentary for movies ending as late as 4am or so on Saturday night. Then I was told he does commentary only for the first four movies of the night. Well, Along Came Jones was the fourth movie of the night, and it aired well before 4am, yet he didn't do any commentary for it. Does anyone know what the guidelines are for how many movies he does commentary for? > > I mean, if it's an evening of Leslie Caron or Gene Kelly, who seem to be two of his favorites, he is often doing commentary for movies airing until 4am or later, even on a weeknight, much less a Saturday. Does he not like westerns very much so he just didn't do commentary for Along Came Jones ? > > I know I've asked about this before, but I keep hoping someone has talked to the TCM programmers and gotten a definitive answer. TCM seems to operate under a pattern, and I'm just trying to identify what the pattern is, if there is one... > > Robbie I don't think the time of day makes one iota of a difference. Since the commentaries are all recorded way in advance of the films' airing, there should really be around the clock commentaries. I think TCM is trying to promote the illusion the the commentaries are delivered in real time, but we know better, don't we?

> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote} > I don't think it's a case that they've never seen most of the films, just that they aren't watching them as they are being shown. From a practical standpoint, TCM wouldn't have them do a 3 minute intro, then have the production crew sit around, on the clock, for the next two or three hours waiting to do another 3 minute closing segment. It wouldn't be cost affective. Right, that would be foolish. What I am talking about is similar to the second audio track on some DVDs where film historians discuss the whole film, frame by frame, while it is being played. Only instead of just hearing their voices, we would ACTUALLY see them watching and discussing the films they love.

How about Christmas Carols that never were. I could envision BORIS KARLOFF, BASIL RATHBONE, GEORGE ZUCCO, or ERNEST THESIGER as Scrooge. Well, maybe not THESIGER, he might be too similar in delivery to SEYMOUR HICKS. Also, with FREDDIE BARTHOLOMEW, MICKEY ROONEY, JACKIE COOPER, or BOBS WATSON as Tiny Tim.

We all know that ROBERT OSBORNE, ALEC BALDWIN, and BEN MANKIEWICZ don't really watch the movies they are hosting, they are relaying information to us from prepared scripts, at least that is what I have read on these boards. Yet we all know that they are very film savy, with RO and BM being actual FILM HISTORIANS. Therefore, I propose the following once a week or once a month program where RO, AB, and BM are locked in a theatre together and forced to watch a classic film and discuss it while the film is rolling. This would be similar to the old MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000, but instead of a comedy program that makes fun of films we would get some interesting discussions while they are watching the films. They would even have the ability to freeze the film from their seats and turn on the lights if they need to discuss a point without the distraction of the film. But, any debate would need to be timed like a Presidential debate in order to keep within the boundaries of the time slot. Then they can return to the film. This would be a unique program on TCM. The experts would get a chance to show off their ability to analyze a film or a particular actors' performance and we would get the chance to see them actually watch a film and utilize their talents accapella, so to speak, without the ADDED benefit of a PREPARED script.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > > The one thing we should agree on is what we DON'T like: commercials, interruptions, editing, condensing credits, etc. > > > > Now, this....this I happen to agree with. We should all be in agreement on these items. I agree with you regarding interruptions, editing, condensing credits, and modern commercials. But, I have to say that as a child of the late 50s and 60s, I actually enjoyed some of the early commercials. Commercial breaks during movies then was no big deal. One, because classic films were never edited for time and Two, it was the only game in town. We didn't have the alternative of commercial free Home Video or Channels like TCM. After a commercial break the film would take up exactly where it left off with nothing lost in between. I regarded the commercials as intermission features and some of them were very entertaining. Remember Lays Potato CHIPS with Bert Lahr, or the FRITO BANDIDO ( before politically correct kicked in ), or the Cigarette commercials. I can go on and on. And there were never as many breaks then as there are today. It wasn't until the late 60s OR early 70s that more time was allotted for Commercials necessitating the need for editing for time. The first example of this, that I remember, was the annual Thanksgiving Day airing of March of The Wooden Soldiers on New York's WPIX channel 11. I had memorized that film by heart and was annoyed to find several scenes missing. When I called wpix to complain I was told "the time was needed for more Commercials"......ARGHHHH. I was so happy when in the 80s, I finally bought my first VHS TAPE of March of The Wooden Soldiers only to find that it was the same edited version shown by WPIX----ARGHHHH.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > > Without regularly focusing on certain themes or actors, TCM's programming would lack any sense of order or perspective. It would seem very scattershot. > > Not true. I think programming can (and should) be organized by studio/era/genre/artist. We don't have to go by a particular theme (for instance, movies where characters have their heads chopped off) to see an evening of MGM's top moneymakers from 1958. Hmm, now that's a cool theme. I wonder if the Movies Unlimited Catalogue has a section under Decapitations? Only fooling. > > The themes come across as gimmicky...and a somewhat silly way to repackage old films. *Let the films speak for themselves, their makers and their times.*

I don't mind the Marathons, but I have a question and a technical problem that I hope someone can help me with. First, why are marathons not always shown chronologically? For example, the Andy Hardy films, I think were shown in reverse order, which is confusing. Sometimes a marathon will jump around to different years in no particular order. Now for the technical issue. I am looking forward to DVRing the Hal Roach comedy shorts in January. However, in the past when I attempted to DVR Short Subjects, for example, Thelma Todd day this past summer and another summer day, a few years ago, of Harold Lloyd comedies, the DVR would stop before the current short completed, and the tail end would be added on to the begining of another recording. Suffice it to say, a few seconds were lost inbetween. The DVR belongs to THE DISH NETWORK and this problem happened on more then one DVR. Is this a problem with the DVRs, THE DISH NETWORK, TCM or something that I am doing wrong? Keep in mind that sometimes during marathons, where short subjects are involved, there is not that much down time in between the features. Is there a way around this problem, short of recording everything with my old trusty VCR? That would be the alternative, but it would run into alot of tapes. That would require 24 six hour tapes or 12 eight hour tapes, and four days of little to no sleep.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > I don't have the MAX channels and I have been considering it because they seem to show a lot of the Fox musicals that do not air on FMC. > > I also use Netflix and the public library (including the inter-library loan system). > > I agree that TCM does do a fairly good job in selecting a variety of films, across genres. But my one beef with them is that, as I have illustrated in my 'Seldom Seen' threads, they have a lot of MGM, WB and RKO titles they are not getting to...I really want them to create TCM sister channels. This should include a desperately needed TCM silent film channel. While I don't think a TCM silent film channel would sell, I do think a TCM International film channel would be perfect. This channel could also include foreign made SILENT films as well.

Still more: Basil Rathbone Nigel Bruce Lionel Atwill George Zucco John Caradine Turhan Bey Martin Koslek John Hall Maria Montez Joe Sawyer George Raft Rondo Hatton Claude Rains Nelson Eddy Evelyn Ankers Hillary Brooke Sir Cedric Webster Hardwicke Ann Nagel Samuel S. Hinds David Manners Edward Van Sloan Dwight Frye Buster Crabbe

> He bought MGM studios back in the early 1980s. And while he sold the studio, he did keep the classic MGM film library (pre-1986 MGM films, pre-1948 WB films and the RKO film library), Turner saved those films and began a preservation work on them. And let us not forget Ted's biggest contribution to the cause of film preservation, Colorization. Nuff said.

Well, we already have a Thanksgiving gratitude thread, why not a Christmas Wish list thread? I'll start the ball rolling. 1. More Classic films from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and not the usual suspects. 2. Less MODERN films from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. 3. Less Foreign films. 4. Less Documentaries, I want to watch the films, not watch other people give their opinions OR DISCUSS boring background info. After all this is not a class room. 5. Some lesser Stars for Summer Under the Stars. 6. For Academy Award Month try something different like NOT showing films that won Academy Awards. 7. Something equally special to replace the Bowery Boys when the series runs out. 8. Bring back Cartoon Alley. 9. Add shorts and extra features to the Now Playing Guide. 10. Give films like DOUBLE INDEMNITY and SOME LIKE IT HOT a looooong rest. 11. A TCM offshoot channel to showcase Foreign Films for the people that must have them. 12. Hire Bob Dorian AND Nick Clooney, if they are still around and want to work. 13. Give Ben M. a nice long vacation. 14. Some Guest Programmers that REALLY know what they are talking about. 15. Someone to level with the folks and explain that DVDs from WARNER'S ARCHIVE and other made on demand Archives are DVD Rs, not pressed DVDs, and as such they are doomed to go bad after one or two viewings. COASTERS ANYONE?

> {quote:title=midnight08 wrote:}{quote} > I'm aware of the fires that destroyed most of the Fox films which is why they are so rare today. From what I read in the past most of the Fox films still existing were gathered from private collections over the years. > I would think however that 20th Century Fox would restore "Up The River". Not only is it a John Ford film but it is the only pairing of Humprey Bogart and Spencer Tracy. It is also important as it is the first film with Tracy and Bogie in a major role. > We are lucky though to still have this film in existance. Isn't it kind of strange that an important movie like UP THE RIVER is in such shabby shape while other FOX films from around the same period like CHANDU THE MAGICIAN have been cleaned up and restored? By the way does anyone know the status of FOX's QUICK MILLIONS, a 1931 Spencer Tracy/George Raft Gangster film?

I am so sick and tired of hearing SILENT MOVIES referred to as SILENT MOVIES. There is no such thing as a truly SILENT MOVIE. These films, with no spoken dialogue, come complete with musical scores. If really decent restoration is done to these films, truly appropriate music will be chosen to enhance the film dramatically. A poor choice of music might result in an unpleasant viewing experience. Granted, that it's a matter of taste, but perhaps the author of this thread has had some experience with inappropriate music causing the negative feeling towards non talking films in general. I remember buying, a number of years ago, a few VHS tapes of some Lon Chaney films that were completely SILENT, no musical accompanyment of any kind. I hated them. Later when I was able to find copies with decent musical accompanyment I had a very different reaction, I loved them.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > I hope you're not suggesting...heaven forbid... > > ...I need a moment to take a deep breath... > > I honestly hope you are not saying that anti-semitic (Christian) films are okay, because Jews are in the minority and most Christians will bolster these films at the box office. Or that you are saying it's okay to have a pro-Aryan film cuz those n-words have ROOTS. > > Please do not let that be what you are saying. LOL No, I'm not saying that they are ok. I was just responding to your post. You said that these type of films would never be made in todays' day and age, from a business perspective, if they offended a large segment of the viewing public. I am saying that they will always be made, irrespective of any real or perceived offense as long as long as there is a large enough audience for them that outweighs the amount of offended VOICES.