infinite1
-
Posts
855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by infinite1
-
-
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=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> *Let's tackle this from a different direction. How soon do you think TCM would keep their identity and their popularity if they omitted all pre 1960 films, cartoons, serials, etc. from their line up and switched to movies from the 1960s and up only, foreign films, new cartoons, documentary, and old tv shows*
>
> I prefer to concentrate on the debate at hand not the one in your imagination. The fact of the matter is that TCM has not gone to the dark side like AMC nor is it in the transition to that. You want to debate something that is only hypothetical at best and numerous posters have written that they don't agree with your hypothesis.
It is not in "my imagination". And it is pertinent to the discussion. I have maintained that TCM has a specific recognized identity, irrespective of any "mission", which as you know can always be reshaped to fit present circumstances, and that any deviation from that recognized identity will eventually weaken it to the point where it will cease to be a unique channel. Ask anyone on the street and they will identify TCM as "that old movie channel". Perhaps to you and other elitists/ sorry, smarter folks, it is much more, but us common folk regard it as what AMC used to be and should still be. It is how everyday folks regard TCM. Right now, TCM is not well known for it's modern movies or it's documentaries it's known as the only channel folks can escape to, to find Clark Gable and Jean Harlow, or the MARX BROTHERS. And for all your talk of foreign films, documentaries, and films post 1960, it is the uncut, uninterupted, classic old American movies that have drawn you and others to this channel as well. That is why I am asking you and your allies. As the newer films increase in prominence and the older films are pushed more and more to the background will you still defend TCM's so called mission? Or is the younger generation biding their time and waiting for all the lovers of classic pre 60s films to die out so they can reshape TCM into just another all movie but with no direction channel.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> *And when a channel gets too big and tries to please everyone it loses it's identity and winds up not pleasing anyone*
>
> TCM has been programming in a way that pleases millions of people. They have not lost their identity. They have been honored for being the one cable channel that has stayed true to its original mission statement after all these years.
Let's tackle this from a different direction. How soon do you think TCM would keep their identity and their popularity if they omitted all pre 1960 films, cartoons, serials, etc. from their line up and switched to movies from the 1960s and up only, foreign films, new cartoons, documentary, and old tv shows. I suppose you would be one of the millions that would stick, but how many others would there be? Personally I would drop it, to quote Mr. Deeds, like a HOT POTATO. TCM for all of it's programming is regarded as an OLD MOVIE channel, not a foreign movie channel, etc. I am just saying that their primary concentration should be Classic OLD films pre 1960.
>
> You seem to want TCM to follow AMC down the rabbit hole to mediocrity.
*TCM is already aping AMC in certain aspects, but I see that you consider a channel that concentrates primarily on films from the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s to be mediocre. Too bad.*
>
> But, after 16 (almost 17) years, TCM is still showing the best of films from the 1920s to the 1990. They just happen to think that classic films include foreign films, silent films, cult films, grade b noirs, grade z science fictions films and everything in between.
>
> They have never been about just the American classic films.
>
> And we are all the better for their wide view of what constitutes a classic film.
-
> {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?
-
> As much you want them to, TCM does not program for any one person, you included.
>
> TCM programs for all of us.
>
> Edited by: lzcutter on Jan 4, 2011 5:30 PM
And when a channel gets too big and tries to please everyone it loses it's identity and winds up not pleasing anyone. It happened to amc, TCM is not immune to failure. I would hate to see it, but obviously there are some that don't care as long as there is a TNT, TBS, amc, or PBS to fall back on.
-
> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}
> > why stick them on TCM and help to kill something that all of us LOVE, TCM, which is the only outlet for classic OLD movies?
>
> If TCM stopped showing old, unavailable documentaries, foreign films, and classics from the 50s, 60s, and even the 70s, it would kill the TCM *I* love.
Ahh, but how happy would you be if they were moved to their own sister channels? And I would never think of removing 1950s movies from TCM.
-
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.
-
> Showing TV shows from the sixties is a noble experiment. Especially given the chance to show movies that were made in essence to showcase the tv shows as Kyle wrote about. Unfortunately not everything always works the way you think it should work.
>
Showing TV shows from the sixties or fifties may be a "noble experiment", just not on TCM. There are many "classic" TV shows from those decades that deserve to be shown on their own channel WITH classic commercials. I believe there was already a noble experiment called TV LAND, that has also veered from it's original intent/mission. I am all for a TCS (TURNER CLASSIC SHOWS) channel. But, when I come to TCM, I want what I paid for, classic UNCUT OLD movies from the 20s, 30s,40s, and 50s. And 100% American. Sorry, but I don't know what's more boring then a whole night of British films, French films, or Asian films. Now, if TCM IS having problems programming the kinds of films that we want, due to limited access, and have to settle for this kind of stuff at least let them TELL US. But they act and hype every programming move they make like it's a feat of rare genius. I know that there are a lot of you folks who love this kind of programming so I don't understand why you aren't petitioning TCM to start a whole line of sister channels to cater to YOUR whims? Leonard Maltin started a new book to cater to Classic Films when his Annual book became too huge. Why can't the owners of TCM do likewise. Just think, TCS, TCI (TURNER CLASSIC INTERNATIONAL), TNC (TURNERS' NEW CLASSICS). Or could it be that Time Warner dosen't believe that there are enough viewers to support TCM sister channels like the ones above? If that is the case, why stick them on TCM and help to kill something that all of us LOVE, TCM, which is the only outlet for classic OLD movies?
-
> But I am confused as to what AMC was doing that foreshadowed its change to a commercial-supported channel and which of those "dog whistles" apply to TCM today.
>
> "TCM has changed over the years by offering more Original Productions, documentaries on Hollywood directors, stars, etc."
> *"Which was the begining of the end for AMC. TCM is aping AMC's spiral to the letter."*
>
> I'm not following that thought of yours. For over ten years TCM has presented original productions like the "Private Screenings" episodes, "Guest Programmer" evenings and original documentaries. (Ever see "Added Attractions: The Hollywood Shorts Story"?) This programming definitely isn't anything "new" on the part of TCM that should be considered evidence of as a slippery slope into AMC-land.
The last few years of old AMC featured many similar themed TCM programming moves. There were original productions on AMC, repeated ad nauseum, original documentaries, marathons, specials on NEWS REELS, and the gradual shift towards newer films from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. While this type of programming may not be anything "new" on the part of TCM, it is definitely becomming more common place on the channel. Seriously, what the hell are old TELEVISION under water DOCUMENTARIES of Jacques Cousteau doing on a "classic" movie channel? I half expect to see old National Geographic specials on TCM next. Film Lover asked me to predict when TCM would turn into amc. As far as I'm concerned, they've already started the march towards TCM light. I can't give you the exact date for the full transformation, but when TCM creates an original program similar in vein to I REMEMBER WENN with ROBERT OSBORNE playing a BOB DORIAN recurring part, or hires an over rated HAM ACTOR to host a daily dose of Laurel and Hardy or Little Rascal shorts, I'll know THAT day is not far behind.
-
> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}
> Kyle, that was a brilliant post. Thank you.
It was. And he even did it without your added sarcasm - "Infinite1, since you like to track AMC and TCM so closely, how about you share with us the exact date that TCM will become AMC?"
YOU can learn a lot from Kyle.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> *I'm sure there are folks high up at TCM that are churning at the bit to have another AMC like channel.*
>
> Really, because the facts don't support your argument.
The only important fact that does is what happened to AMC. That is the one indisputable fact that you can not deny.
>
> Even after 16 and a half years of being on the air, TCM shows no real signs of moving in that direction.
*I have to say that you and hlydkjk make a lot of valid points. However, you overlook the unknown factor - who will own TCM five or ten years from now? As more and more Baby boomers, who grew up with these classic films on Network or Independent Television stations become senior citizens and eventually bite the dust where will the support for a station like TCM come from? AMC, once the Premiere Classic Movie Channel, who touted themselves as the Champions of FILM PRESERVATION, royally screwed their loyal fan base. Who saw that comming? As I experienced it, it was like a bolt out of the blue. But, in retrospect it was exactly like what TCM is doing now.*
>
> TCM doesn't have commercials, and they are not showing a predominance of post-1970s films at the expense of classic studio era films and they are not abandoning their original mission which is to showcase films from all decades.
*True, not in the sense of detergents and such, but commercials for WARNERS HOME VIDEO, THE MOVIES UNLIMITED CATALOGUE, and the NOW PLAYING GUIDE live on TCM. While they are not showing a PREDOMINANCE of post-1970s films to be sure, they are certainly showing more post-1970s films then they did the first few years of their existence, even delving into recent movies post 2000, when there are other TURNER owned channels better suited for recent films. Besides, I don't know what TURNERS' ORIGINAL MISSION STATEMENT is for TCM, I have never read it. I can only go by their station name which is Turner CLASSIC Movies. The day MONSTER A GO GO rates as CLASSIC with the likes of THE AFRICAN QUEEN is the day I hand in my "don't insult my intelligence" membership card. The fact of the matter is that TCM does showcase JUNK, not everything on TCM is a CLASSIC. So, whatever Mission TCM had, no longer exists, or it exists in a very different form from it's original intent.*
>
> TCM includes the classics, the b-films, the serials, the cult films and the z-grade films, etc.
>
> To TCM, all films are important, no matter who the star, the director or the lack thereof.
>
> They program for all of us.
>
> The classic lovers, the cult lovers, the sci-fi lovers, the serial lovers, the 1970s lovers, etc, because they understand that all films, no matter what genre, no matter what type, are important to us because film has the ability to entertain us as well as show us about who we were as a society, as a culture, as a nation as well as how far we've come and how far we still have to go.
*But, was that TCM's original intent? Or was that what TCM has morphed into? Surely you don't consider everything that TCM shows to be a classic film? Does TCM still stand for CLASSIC or is it just a name much like amc, who still, laughingly, claim the same territory, even though they no longer considerl themselves AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS.*
>
> Film has the power to transcend generations and TCM more than any other network understands, appreciates and applauds that power.
*And the powers that are in charge of the purse strings eventually will sacrifice those CLASSIC FILMS on the alters of the almighty BUCK when they rationalize that the new generations don't give a damn anyway.*
>
> One thing that anyone who has watched the channel for many years has to understand is that there was a time when much of what TCM showed was new to many of its viewers because they were debuting films that hadn't seen been featured in an uncut, commercial free environment since they were last seen in a movie theater.
>
> TCM brought those films to us and they still do. But like any long-term relationship, the newness is off the vine. If a relationship is to survive long-term, change has to occur. It cannot stay the same or that relationship will die.
>
> Adding to the dilemma, after years of video-tape masters being the standard-bearer of airing films, technology changed not only TCM but all of us as we embraced the digital age. It is going to take the studios a while to catch up with that just due to the cost and the size of their film libraries.
>
> Added to that, Ted Turner merged his media empire with Time-Warner just as the digital revolution was breaking. Which, in a way, made it possible for us to enjoy more films from other studio libraries because they no longer had just the former Turner Film Library to rely on.
>
> TCM has changed over the years by offering more Original Productions, documentaries on Hollywood directors, stars, etc.
*Which was the begining of the end for AMC. TCM is aping AMC's spiral to the letter.*
>
> It's graphic look has evolved from the 1930s to the 1950s.
>
> It now has a yearly series, *Race and Hollywood* that looks at how minorities have been portrayed over the decades by the studios.
*AMC also ran an annual film preservation FILM FESTIVAL.*
>
> But in all this change, it has remained consistent in bringing us the best in film entertainment no matter what the genre or the grade of film. If I want to see cult films or z-grade bad sci-fi films, TCM offers them up each month. If I want the best in studio era glossiness and star machine actors, TCM has that, too. If I want gritty film noirs, great musicals, wonderful westerns and grade-b film of various genres. Guess What? TCM has that, too!
*So did AMC.*
>
> And always has.
>
> 24/7 , TCM programs something to catch the imagination of not all of us, at least some of us. And that is what makes TCM successful.
>
> It is the Big Tent of Film. It's not programmed for any one group or any hard time-line. It is programmed for all of us who love film.
*Also AMC's mantra.*
>
> We are in tough economic times right now and even Time-Warner has suffered major losses. TCM is tightening its belt and its budget but doing all it can to bring us great programming though for now it may include more repeats than some of us of like. I don't think I'm the only one who would rather have the repeats than not have the TCM I love.
*I am not arguing for less TCM I, and others are asking for more Turner CLASSIC Movies.*
>
> Earlier this year, they started the TCM Film Festival which is dedicated to bringing classic film fans from around the world together to watch classic films on the big screen introduced by film historians, writers, those in the film and/or the siblings of those involved. It's first Festival last Spring was such a success that on the closing night Robert O announced that it would become an annual event. To bring some of those films to the Festival and ultimately to our tv screens, TCM began clearing legal rights to films like *The Story of Temple Drake* and *Night Flight*. They continue to try and clear the rights issues surrounding other films like *Letty Lynton*.
>
> When was the last time AMC tried to do that?
>
> As for the programming of rare films late at night or overnight, there are archived threads from the early days of this message board that talk about this and complain about it. In addition, there are Usenet groups such as alt.silent.movies where this has been a topic of discussion dating back to the mid and late 1990s. so it is not a new phenom to TCM programming.
>
> The problem lies more with us and our memories of how we remember it being versus how it really was.
>
> And that is a phenom that is not just regulated to TCM programming but to the way we live our lives.
>
> AMC didn't last 15 years before going to the dark side. Why would TCM abandon the market where they are the king to battle again with a cable network that they bested in the first place?
-
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.
-
> {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=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}
> What I am about to say might get some of the posters on this thread upset with me.....
>
> But you know what? I could care less.
>
> What gets me the most about people bellyaching about what is or is not on a cable channel is this:
>
> People who have been complaining forget one very important thing and that is that they do not have to watch this channel when the channel is showing movies that they do not like or can not understand why TCM would show any films that they are not in agreement with.
>
> All of you who have been complaining should be thankful that TCM exists at all.
>
> We could be stuck with just AMC, FMC and a few other movie channels. At least TCM shows films we love, they show films that other channels would never show, and they have some really great hosts who even though might get their facts wrong from time to time really do love doing what they are doing.
>
> So please do me and others here a favor and quit complaining. It could be a lot worse.
So what is it exactly that you are complaining about? Is it complaining in general or people complaining about TCM? A lot of people complain about something because they LOVE the thing they are complaining about and are concerned/afraid that it is heading in the wrong direction. In other words they wish to make it BETTER. Or do you think that TCM is perfect the way it is? Obviously, you have no qualms about complaining about AMC, FMC, or other movie channels even though I'm sure they have their own fan base. Are you complaining about AMC because you remember it as I do and wish it was back? I'm sure the folks that complain about TCM do so out of love because they don't want to see it follow the AMC path. The time to worry is when people stop complaining because that way lies apathy and I'm sure there are folks high up at TCM that are churning at the bit to have another AMC like channel. So you are right, it could be a lot worse, but I think it would be due to a lack of complaining. Maybe if folks flooded AMC with complaints we would see a change over there. But, we'll never know because TCM fans (former AMC fans) have already written AMC off and could care less. I hope your form of support for tcm, "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil", won't be it's epithet if and when it becomes AMC light.
-
> {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=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote}
> The Good:
> I've purchased only a couple of sets from them---Torchy Blane and then the horror/mystery collection. Both are good to excellent print quality and I've had no problems playing them in my cheapie 20 buck DVD player. Haven't tried them on anything else, but they are fine and I dig watching them!
I'm assuming you are referring to the Universal Cult Horror Collection, which was not part of the Warners Archive Collection. Besides, it was released on pressed DVDs, not DVDRs.
>
> The other good is that more and more films from their library are showing up as available and that can only be a good thing!
>
> The Bad:
> Price, price, price. I'm on a tight budget and cannot afford paying 19.99 or even 15 bucks for a single film. The packs are decent though and when I can afford them I will purchase them, as I have. They need to do more of that. Even 3 for like 25 isn't bad (they have a couple like that), so they need to do more of that, and less of 19.99 per. That isn't in my budget, can't do it, unless I win the lottery (then I'd buy the entire collection, because it's that good)!
>
> The sort of bad:
> Pressed DVD's are better, and also the full sets with the better cover art, the extras (including commentaries which I totally love!!!), and I'm sorry for their seeming demise, though it seems the future is on demand, whether a DVD or streaming.
>
> All in all, a good concept, but the prices are waaaaaaaay too high.
-
> {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.
12/26 schedule: seriously TCM, you just quit trying, didn't you?
in Hot Topics
Posted
> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}
> { snip. Irrelevant.}
> (Unfounded cause and effect relationship not supported by any factual evidence.)
> (Sampling Error in selection of respondents.)
> (Loaded terminology meant to taint the discussion and cast aspersions.)
> (Psychological Projection)
> (False assertion easily disproved .)
> (Unsubstantiated Allegation. Not based in reality.)
> Kyle In Hollywood
See Kyle, I was right. Some people that watch TCM, like you, are smarter then others. They not only have degrees in Psychology they're also comfortable with legal jargon, statistical analysis, and sarcasm. Or am I making a False assertion easily disproved or an Unsubstantiated Allegation, not based in reality?