infinite1
-
Posts
855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by infinite1
-
-
> {quote:title=classiccinemafan wrote:}{quote}
> silent sundays : Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923 / Nosferatu 1922 / The Cat and the Canary 1927 with Harold Lloyd in 'Haunted Spooks' 1919 / Cabinet of Dr. Caligari 1919 / Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 1920 Barrymore version
>
>
> *I would include PHANTOM OF THE OPERA 1925 VERSION / THE MAN WHO LAUGHS 1928 ( which has never been shown and is long overdue )*
>
>
>
> others I wish to see :
>
>
> the thing from another world 1951
>
>
> the blob 1958
>
>
> *The former has been overplayed and the later overrated.*
>
>
>
> essentials : day the earth stood still 1951 / invasion of the body snatchers 1956 / the haunting 1963 / Horror Hotel, aka city of the dead.
>
>
> *DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL 1951 is a fox film that has been played to death on FOX MOVIE CHANNEL.*
>
> *INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS 1956 is sci-fi, not horror.*
>
> *THE HAUNTING 1963 is boring, nothing more then a sleep inducer.*
>
> *HORROR HOTEL - slightly creepy, but not horrific.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> TCM Underground : Indestructible Man 1956 / Brain that wouldn't Die 1962 / the last man on earth 1964 & The Omega Man / Blackula / the wasp woman.
>
> *INDESTRUCTIBLE MAN 1956 / BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE 1962 / THE LAST MAN ON EARTH 1964 & THE OMEGA MAN - BORING with a capital B.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> night of Val Lewton : Cat People 1942 , Curse of the cat people , the leopard man , the body snatcher , bedlam.
>
> *OHHH GOD, I CAN'T THINK OF NOTHING MORE BORING THEN A NIGHT OF VAL LEWTON. Too bad those video masters weren't kept with the CLASSIC UNIVERSAL VIDEO MASTERS then they too would have been destroyed in the last vault fire.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> night of universal monsters : frankenstein , dracula , the mummy , the wolfman , phantom of the opera (since they show the '29 cut all the time , they might as well show it with the re-release soundtrack).
>
> *Hmmmmm, now you're Whistling Dixie.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> night of hammer : curse of frankenstein , horror of dracula , the mummy 1959 .
>
> *UGH.... I spoke too soon. Please, spare us the hammer crapola.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> night of Mario Bava : Black Sunday (AIP cut) , Black Sabbath (AIP cut) , Kill , baby kill !.
>
> *THOSE FILMS ARE PLAYED TO DEATH ON THE EPIX DRIVE IN CHANNEL.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tell me what you wish to see on TCM in October.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
NOTHING HAMMER
NOTHING RAY HARRYHAUSEN
NOTHING JEAN ROLLIN
NOTHING FROM THE 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or beyond.
I'd love to see every 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s CLASSIC HORROR from UNIVERSAL, PARAMOUNT, COLUMBIA, REPUBLIC, FOX, and RKO (EXCEPT THE BLOODY LEWTONS).
-
This would have to have been made in either 1939, 1940, or 1941 but I would have chosen
George O'Brien or Richard Dix for SUPERMAN/CLARK KENT
Reginald Owen for PERRY WHITE
Katharine Hepburn or Rosalind Russell for LOIS LANE
Jackie Cooper or Jimmy Lydon for JIMMY OLSEN
Cedrick Hardwicke (bald) or Claude Rains (with hair dyed red if filmed in color) for LEX LUTHOR
Angelo Rossitto for MR. MXYZTPLK
Toss in Lionell Barrymore as a kindly Scientist who SUPERMAN confers with, BORIS KARLOFF as another villain, possibly LUTHOR'S main henchman, BEULAH BONDI and FRANK or RALPH MORGAN as the KENTS (superman's foster parents), and you would have had a grade A film.
-
> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote} I am sure there is an un-cut copy of this film in existence. Somewhere.
>
>
>
>
> That may well be, but, just because a better, more complete, print of something still exists, it doesn't mean the it's available to TCM.
>
If TCM is aware that the film is cut they should indicate, prior to the film starting, that they are showing an edited copy. They already have those TCM and general audiences blurbs before each film starts, why can't they add a blurb to indicate the condition of the film. I mean, if they really care about their "complete and uncut" mantra.
-
> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}You know, that is a funny question! And guess what? I can't answer that. I have already gotten myself into trouble this week, and that lead to one thread being locked down, so even though I might be able to name names, I am not going to do that.
>
Rey,
Not all your fault. I was at fault as well and deservedley put on post moderation too. I apologize to you and others for my part in getting that thread locked down.
-
> {quote:title=LonesomePolecat wrote:}{quote}Of all the great robots of movie and TV we enjoy, which one is the best?
Why no love for any of the great robots of serials. There were robots in
THE MYSTERIOUS DOCTOR SATAN
ZOMBIES OF THE STRATOSPHERE
FLASH GORDON CONQUERS THE UNIVERSE
THE PHANTOM CREEPS - This serial featured the most ugly robot to ever appear in any serial, movie, or TV show.
-
> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}Hey! Speakin' o' Robots here folks...
>
> Did you know that since 2003 there's actually been a "Robot Hall of Fame" inside the campus of the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh PA?
>
> Among the inductees are REAL robots and some of the better known "make believe" sort from movies and TV.
>
> Uh huh...look!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Hall_of_Fame
>
> (...btw, you might notice that "B-9" from the TV series "Lost In Space" is somewhat conspicuous by his absence among these hallowed mechanical inductees...and so if you're wondering why this might be, it appears he had been some kind of illegal gambling and steroid use allegations levied against him in the past which has unfortunately sullied his reputation, thereby making his induction a long shot at present...well, it was either THAT, or the Robot Hall of Fame has never forgiven announcer and B-9 voice artist Dick Tufeld for those nasty things he once said about the city of Pittsburgh)
>
>
Data was an ANDROID, not a robot. The article is bogus.
-
> {quote:title=twinkeee wrote:}{quote}
> SansFin
>
> The poster is interested in 1940s movies. The CHEAP DETECTIVE is Not a 40s movie.
>
> PORTRAIT OF JENNIE (1948).....would be a Great 1st date movie!
>
>
> Twink
>
Yes, if your date is a ghost. Jennie was dead, wasn't she? Kind of a downer.
Oh, 1940s movies. It's a good thing then that I didn't suggest MIN AND BILL from 1930. If the date went bad, she might have taken a page from Marie Dressler's book and then poor jamescagneyfan would be recuperating from his date in the local hospital.
-
> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}Okay, my mistake. Sorry.
>
> So let me ask you this:
>
> Why does this matter to you so much? Does it really bother you that Robert Osborne still states what does not exist after all of these years? And really, how often does he make this mistake that you feel is so erroneous? Lets step back a moment and ask this. Is the problem you are having with the so called erroneous information because you do not like Robert Osborne or is it because you feel that TCM is protecting Mr. Osborne by not taking him aside and correcting him when he makes this goof?
>
> *It's the later. I happen to like ROBERT OSBORNE.*
>
> I mean I have to tell you, I really do not know or understand why this matters to you all that much. I am assuming that because you might feel that TCM is the gold standard of classic films on television, then why aren't they concerned with being as honest and straight forward with the public as they can all the time, correct?
>
> *Yes.*
>
> As far as I am concerned the only people who seem to be upset with this problem Osborne has when he repeats this so called offense are people like yourself who to this writer wants everything to be a perfect as possible.
>
> *Only because TCM sells itself as the "gold standard of classic films on television." And they hold up ROBERT OSBORNE as their poster boy for everything TCM. Don't you think that as their spokeman they should be on the same page? Or, is that too much to expect?*
>
> Well guess what? The world ain't perfect and I don't see how you can hold a cable channel perfect either.
>
> *I don't expect TCM to be perfect. I know that's an impossibility. What with boring modern films, dull foreign films, cut films, repeats, and the sharing of erroneous information the mere mention of perfection and TCM in one breath is laughable. I'm glad you finally agree.*
>
> As far as this matter being addressed or put to rest, Mr. Tabesh has answered this when he was answering Silver Screen Oasis questions a few years ago. This topic has reared it's ugly head every now and again and yet because you and several others here won't leave it alone. It is almost as if you will not rest until Osborne gets it rght, and until he does you will continue to bring the topic up.
>
> *Not all the time. I have probably missed some of the times he got it wrong. There is life outside of TCM, after all.*
>
> Every time Robert Osborne makes the statement it is like he has committed some flagrant offense, and that he should be taken aside and told what he is saying is wrong or worse.
>
> *I don't blame ROBERT OSBORNE as much as I blame TCM. I still think that TCM prefers to be known to the general public as the custodians of a large film library rather then mere film renters. It is in keeping with the lie that TCM is the "gold standard of classic films on television". If you are ok with the lie, don't you and other more knowledgeable folks be so quick to call folks who repeat it, liars. They are just repeating common knowledge ala ROBERT OSBORNE and the TCM spin machin*e.
>
> I say give this topic a rest. And this is NOT a lecture.
>
> *ok, I'm content to give it a rest now.*
-
Rey,
The following is a direct copy from your post on June 9. If you don't believe my copy below, look back at your original. Notice the last sentence of your paragraph. I appreciate that you feel me so talented and computer savy that I have the ability to go into an existing post and alter it, but I can't take the credit. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS. Please be man enough to admit they are and don't accuse me or anyone else of doctoring anything that you typed. Since you are so big on research, I would suggest going forward that you research your own posts before you embarass yourself any further.
Thank you
*Infinite1: BINGO.*
*fxreyman: Oh, this is so simple for me to understand Infinite. I answered the question you have had for me by writing what I did, correct? Well guess what? No one who writes anything should be trusted, especially when they are supposed to be asking thoughtful, probing questions about topics only you care about. Correct? So I guess you have been correct all along? Is this the message you want me to hear and understand from you? Just because people who attend these types of panels do not ask the probing style of questions covering the exact topics you want them to cover does not mean that people are covering up topics or questions or they are not covering topics. You are really a troubled person, aren't you?*
-
> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}fxreyman: Transparent usually means see-through. I think what you meant to write was that tCM is not transparent and so therefore you don't really know what they are doifxreyman: R: You seem to want to not take anyone's word for anything. Your position here is clear. Because Mr. McKinley was in attendance and you or anyone else you may trust was not, it is your opinion that he probably "fixed" the whole thing. Made up quotes and reported stuff that he wanted to report so that he could "spin" it for the way he wanted it to appear. Is this a valid assumption?
>
> Infinite1: Not saying he made up anything. Except, he did have to "correct" ROBERT OSBORNES'', or was it BEN's, incorrect usage of "TCM LIBRARY". Funny, no one at the "informative" discussion felt the need to correct the mistake, if it was a mistake????? But no, it is not my opinion that he "fixed" the whole thing. Only that one "error". As for spin, that's another matter.
>
> fxreyman: Again it seems to me that you are somewhat perturbed that just because no one on the panel felt the need to start a conversation about the so-called film library, that this is a bone of contention for you. Maybe they did not feel the need to delve into that, considering Robert Osborne nor Ben M. were on the Meet TCM panel to begin with.
>
*The following is taken directly from Mr. McKinley's report.*
Viewers often ask why TCM airs the films they air, and why they don’t air others. Robert Osborne attempted to clarify this during press day:
“Basically, what *we* have is the (pre-1986) MGM library, the pre-1950 Warner Bros. library (actually pre-1948), the entire RKO library and some of the United Artists films that we got, along with the MGM films, because they merged for a while,” he said.
A few clarifying points, *to the extent that I understand them*: Ted Turner’s $1.6 billion acquisition of MGM in 1986 brought the above-mentioned programming assets to Turner Broadcasting, and those libraries were used to program TBS, TNT and to launch TCM in 1994. However, when Turner sold his company to Time Warner in 1996, TCM effectively lost “ownership” of those assets, and was required to license them, along with every other film they broadcast.
I never said that Robert Osborne was on THE MEET TCM PANEL only that Robert Osborne was still spreading erroneous information. Obviously, no one felt it was important enough to clear the air about this on the panel. Why??? Because it was not directly asked or because it would have embarassed RO? Wouldn't it have been nice to have a company representative/ Mr. Tabesh put this question to rest once and for all? It could have been included within the framework of his answer, yes?? That is what I mean by TCM's transparent agenda. TCM wants to give the impression to the uninitiated public through RO and others that they are sitting on this vast library of classic films, but the initiated, us, know that is just alot of BS. Now, tell me I'm wrong.
-
> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:
>
> You don't have to be all "kiss kiss, bouquets, and flattery", but a little tact and politeness should be involved, don't you think? If you wrote to them like the way you write back to some of us on the message boards, it is no wonder then why they have not corresponded back with you.
>
>
> }{quote}You are really a troubled person, aren't you?
>
Couldn't resist, could you? I can see how polite you are. Please don't lecture me on the niceties of correspondence when you don't practice what you preach. But, to answer your question, I'm not troubled, I get off on baiting troubled people with inflated egos of themselves. And that's no trouble at all.
-
*SOME LIKE IT HOT*
*The "Well, nobody's perfect" punch line as delivered by Joey Brown at the end of the film and the look on Jack Lemmons' face makes for the funniest and most perfect ending, of any film I've ever seen.*
-
> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}
> > FredCDobbs wrote:Maybe they can watch their first-date movie on a single iPhone. They would have to sit close together in order to see the screen. Oh, how romantic!
> > And cheap too. Not a bad idea, as long as it's her iPhone. No sense him using up any energy on anything less then a sure thing.Yep, the kid'll go far in life keepin' THIS in mind at all times, Iz!
>
> Yep, who knows? He COULD parlay these kinds of economic measures into a vast fortune enough to rival that of Charles Foster Kane!
>
> (...and of course END UP with just about the same level of success in the ROMANCE department as that guy did when they start sellin' off the kid's earthly possessions TOO!)
Hmmmmm now that would be a great film to watch on a first date - CITIZEN KANE - he could even take to calling her his little "Rosebud".
-
> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote}
> In the "TCM not doing right..." thread, there were several mentions of a personality on METV called "Svengoolie". I noticed this guy was promoting a showing of a "Dracula" movie that features JOHN CARRADINE as the Count.
>
> It got me to thinking: How many different actors played Count Dracula in the movies? I'll even allow the inclusion of that hinky looking bald guy in *Nosferatu* . Without relying on Wiki, and just off the top of my head, I can come up with...
>
>
> BELA LUGOSI
> LON CHANEY
> FRANK LANGELLA
> LOUIS JOURDAN
> CHRISTOPHER LEE
> GARY OLDMAN
> GEORGE HAMILTON
> and now, JOHN CARRADINE
>
>
> I'm sure there's a whole boatload I'm not aware of. Who can anyone add?
>
>
> Sepiatone
>
FRANCIS LEDERER in THE RETURN OF DRACULA 1958
LESLIE NIELSEN in DRACULA: DEAD AND LOVING IT 1995
CHARLES MACAULAY in BLACULA 1972
JOHN FORBES-ROBERTSON in THE LEGEND OF THE 7 GOLDEN VAMPIRES 1974
JACK PALANCE in DAN CURTIS' DRACULA 1974
UDO KIER in ANDY WARHOL'S DRACULA 1974
DAVID NIVEN in OLD DRACULA 1974
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}Maybe they can watch their first-date movie on a single iPhone. They would have to sit close together in order to see the screen. Oh, how romantic!
And cheap too. Not a bad idea, as long as it's her iPhone. No sense him using up any energy on anything less then a sure thing.
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
> > NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD
> Not on a first date.
>
> > Believe me, she'll spend so much time with her face buried in your chest to avoid the real scary parts of the filmModern young college women today don't do that type of thing. You must be thinking of high school girls of the 1940s and 50s.
Hmmmm, always worked for me in the 70s. How many colleges and college women have you tried it out on lately?
-
> {quote:title=jamescagneyfan wrote:}{quote}
>
> Basically though I plan on watching a movie (a classic movie) with her soon for our "first date" but I am debating what movie to choose, what would you recommend? Any help would be great!
Well son, it really depends on your goal for the evening. I would recomend a really scary classic horror film like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Believe me, she'll spend so much time with her face buried in your chest to avoid the real scary parts of the film that you could let nature take care of the rest. Heck, look at it this way, if she really likes you, she won't give a damn what you show her, if she dosen't, you will still have a night you will never forget.
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}There are many threads of this topic and I must wonder if there are reasons beyond:
>
> A) It has not been frequently requested.
>
There are rights issues preventing it being aired.> C) A print in a suitable format is not available.
> D) The owner will not license it to TCM.
> E) The owner demands a higher license fee than is acceptable to TCM.
> F) The content is not suitable for TCM.
> G) The secret cabal which controls TCM is suppressing the movie.
>
> Does any person know of any other reason?
What about this topic:
Why does TCM not air the best version available of certain movies?
Is this a topic for a separate thread, an overlap of your topic, or a sub-topic to yours?
The reasons I would give are:
a) TCM is too cheap to pay for a better version.
TCM dosen't know which version they are getting.c) TCM dosen't care which version they are getting.
-
> {quote:title=*
*Thanks for responding to some of my thoughts. Now, I'm going to respond to all of yours.*
>
>
> fxreyman wrote:}{quote}I am not going to answer every response from you, but I will respond to some of your thoughts...
>
> > Yes, I remember that thread and the article it was based on, written by our former President, but that was his summary, interpretation, translation, and spin on the discussion, not a word for word transcript. Besides, I think you will agree that a second hand report is different from listening to an actual discussion. Also, since I have no way of knowing if the whole thing wasn't "fixed"; specific safe questions chosen before hand, the answers rehersed, etc., why should I believe anything that was said. What is more informative is what wasn't covered. And that leads into your next paragraph. Of course it was his "take" on the conversation he heard. Which I might add was in person. I was not able to attend, and based on what you have told me in the past you probably did not attend either, did you?
>
> *Thought I made that clear.*
>
> My question to you would be this:
>
> If there was a word for word transcript available of this event, would you even trust that TCM would not have gone in and altered the transcript by editing the transcript?
>
> *No, I said that, in so many words, as well.*
>
> Because I have to say, this fellow, Mr. McKinley did us a nice favor by jotting down the conversation he heard. Now grant it, I understand that the particular program went on for about 90 minutes, so I am sure Mr. McKinley was not able to get every conversation that he could down on paper. But it would seem that he at least tried to get a good deal of information.
>
> *I give him an E for effort.*
>
> I have felt for a very longtime that you must be some kind of conspiracy theorist. Is this correct?
>
> *No, I'm just a TCM message board conspiracy theorist. TCM, the channel, has a very transparent agenda that anyone not a KNIGHT would recognize.*
>
>
> You seem to want to not take anyone's word for anything. Your position here is clear. Because Mr. McKinley was in attendance and you or anyone else you may trust was not, it is your opinion that he probably "fixed" the whole thing. Made up quotes and reported stuff that he wanted to report so that he could "spin" it for the way he wanted it to appear. Is this a valid assumption?
>
> *Not saying he made up anything. Except, he did have to "correct" ROBERT OSBORNES'', or was it BEN's, incorrect usage of "TCM LIBRARY". Funny, no one at the "informative" discussion felt the need to correct the mistake, if it was a mistake????? But no, it is not my opinion that he "fixed" the whole thing. Only that one "error". As for spin, that's another matter.*
>
> Well based on what I have learned about Mr. McKinley, he himself is an avid TCM'er. In fact he has his own blog where he comments on various TCM happenings and other classic films. So even though his reporting on the TCM Panel discussion may have seemed short or it may have lacked certain details that you may have been looking for, I felt that his reporting was pretty good. Of course you could care less what I think of his reporting. All you seem to care about is whether or not any questions that you wanted answers to was asked and answered. Of course then, with Mr. McKinley, how could you even be sure that what he was writing was not even the truth or even the answers you were looking for. Guess what? You can't.
>
> *BINGO.*
>
> So then, if you were to read a report about a subject you care deeply about your first thought after reading the report would be that the report was written by someone you did not know and so therefore you could not trust, correct? Because the reporter was at an event of some magnitude, that was close to your heart, your feeling would be that the reporter was "spinning" the story based on his own prejudiced viewpoint correct? Then no one can be trusted. That is the jist of what I think I am reading from your comments above. You don't trust anybody, so therefore any news report can not be justified or validated unless you were there firsthand or someone you trusted was there. Correct?
>
> *No, incorrect. I would trust an unbiased report. You seem to trust that someone who cares deeply about a subject can give a totally unbiased report about the subject without interjecting some of their own personal feelings into the reporting. That is being naive.*
>
> Unless you are at an event, or some kind of gathering nothing that is reported on by someone else can be trusted. Simply because it is second-hand. Man you must live in a cave or something, right? You remind me of those Japanese soldiers who never surrendered because they believed World War II was still being fought years after the conflict ended.
>
> *No, I don't live in a cave. I live in the real world. In the real world people lie all the time. It goes on in government, the business world, and in personal lives. Don't you read the newspapers or are you numb to the outside world? Or, better yet, what world do you think you live on? And those who blindly accept whatever they're told are gullible fools. Let me ask you a question, if you lived next to a toxic waste dump where toxins were oozing into water supplies would you accept the report of a fan of the offending company that attested to the safeness of your drinking water? I guess you would. RIP.*
>
> And based on what you have written, anything I might say or comment on can not be trusted either, correct? Because even if I were to write something based on something I have read that possibly could have been published by somebody else, that somebody could have misinterpreted what he was writing and so therefore he wrote down things he felt was accurate based on his own prejudiced beliefs. Is this what you think whenever you read comments form those of us here who to you seem to be apologists for TCM?
>
> *I don't think any of you have any ulterior motives other then a blind faith and loyalty to a channel that is only a business, for god's sake, and could care less about anyone except the bottom line.*
>
>
>
> > But, I am sure others that attended the festival had to have brought up UNIVERSAL specifically? Since this is such a sensitive subject, you mean to tell me that no one felt it important enough to address at this so-called informative discussion? Why would the Universal story have been brought up at the Meet TCM Panel? I mean the only possible way Universal would have been brought up in the discussion was if a discussion had taken place that centered on why certain films were not available to be shown on TCM. This was covered at some point in the discussion but only as a reference to how TCM does negotiate with film studios. I am sure you would agree that asking about a particular film not being shown would not have belonged in a discussion about other far more interesting topics. Of course you are going to disagree with me here and there is nothing I can say that would convince you otherwise, right?
>
> *Interesting is in the eye's of the beholder. What's interesting to some is boring to others. While I would not have brought up specific films except to comment on the over use of certain films, I would have brought up specific film STUDIOS, like UNIVERSAL, the main offender.*
>
> > Once again Rey, you are taking this too personally. In the first place, as you yourself just admitted, "he wasn't asking us for our opinion or to agree with him on his original posting". I will take it one step further. I don't think the OP has to be aswerable to you or anyone else regarding anything concerning what he posts as long as he is complying with the rules of conduct. You are not his teacher and you are not grading him on his research preparation. If you choose to answer him you are doing so because you want to, not because he personally solicited a response from you. Yes, we ARE all intelligent life forms here although some, it appears, feel that they are more intelligent then others. But, no one owes anyone anything here. If you don't like the subject matter, or the OP bugs you, don't respond. It's as simple as that. All I wrote was what I believe in. I am not taking this too personally. That is your SPIN on this. If he or anyone else wants to comment on things he is entitled to do just that. But to continue to post thoughts about how he perceives certain things to be even after others here respond to him, without I might add calling him names or disparaging him in anyway, he needs IMHO to educate himself. Whats wrong with that? I never wrote that he needs to be answerable to me or anyone else. You are right, I chose to answer him. But I also chose to write what I think was right in my own mind. If we can never write things down just because we feel the other person is not up to a little constructive criticism or advice, then maybe the person shouldn't be participating here at all.
>
> *That is just my point. Who appointed you, to offer "constructive criticism"? In the first place it is arrogant to think that one is so superior that they can "educate" anyone else. In the second place, the "constructive criticism" is your spin on what you personally feel x is doing wrong. Thirdly, the "advice" is not solicited, not wanted, and probably resented. So, if your goal is to embarass someone and make someone feel small you probably succeed. But you haven't made a friend.*
>
> > The way some names are thrown around and all the talk about "you know who I met at the festival or the cruise", some of you repeat attenders have greater access to these folks then some of us will ever have. I do not believe that is accurate either. Are there folks on the Message Boards who have met TCM staffers in person? Yes, I believe that there are. Not many, but they do belong to the Message Board. What you have just written goes to show that you might just be a little jealous that some folks who write here may in fact know staffers at TCM. In fact there are a few folks here who I know (on the boards) who have met Charlie Tabesh AND Robert Osborne. Some of these people are my friends and some of them were guest programmers during the 15th Anniversary year. They appeared on camera with Robert Osborne. I say whats wrong with that? I would love to meet Charlie Tabesh and ask him questions about TCM. The same with Robert Osborne. Who wouldn't?
>
> But to say that these people have greater access to the staffers than we do is just a little overboard. Just because some of these folks have met staffers or the on-air personalities does not mean that they have greater access to them than we do.
>
> *Really???? So how would you define greater access? If some folks around here are on a first name basis with some of these TCM staffers what the hell would be wrong with them bending their ear some? I'm not saying that RO invites them over to his home for dinner or that Ben M. takes them for a ride in his car, but a side conversation is possible at one of the TCM shindigs, isn't it?*
>
> > So why no general response thread from the programmers specifically on the UNIVERSAL question? I guess some things are too hard even for the programmers to think up a good excuse for. I don't think that is an issue at all with them. Have you ever written an email to any programmer before? I have. And guess what? I got a reply back from them. Took a week or so, but they finally got back to me. I often write to Micheal the administrator. He too gets back to me. I think one of the reasons that we don't hear from the programmers could be the fact that based on what they must read on the message boards, why would they take a chance responding to people who have basically disagree with everything they do on the channel? If I was in their shoes, the last thing I would do would be to respond to questions from angry message board users on why such and such film or actor is not being shown more often.
>
> *The programmers have responded to certain issues on the message boards, but their responses are few and far between. And like I have said I have written emails that have not received a response. If they respond to you, all power to you. But, they haven't responded to me. Of course I'm not all kiss kiss, bouquets, and flattery, when I write something I'm annoyed about. I'm polite, but to the point. If I have a complaint I make it. I guess they don't like those kind of emails. But, if there's anything they could tell me that would assuage my concerns why wouldn''t they want it to be common knowledge on a message board?*
>
> As far as an answer from them about a particular subject like the Universal topic, that might just be better with someone shooting them an email or PM and waiting to hear back from them. They do read the message boards and they do read the Suggest a movie page, and they also respond to emails.
>
> *Not always.*
>
> > But, not you. You'll just dissappear in the middle of a discussion when you get boxed in and resurface on another safer thread. Now thats a knock if I have ever heard of one. So based on your past experience with me because at one time I did not answer back to you within a certain amount of time, this is how you want to label me? I think you would agree that I have been for the most part very punctual in getting back to you. There have been instances where for whatever reason I did not get back to you in a timely matter. And for this I am sorry.
>
> *Apology accepted.*
>
> Edited by: fxreyman on Jun 5, 2013 9:04 PM
-
> {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}
> >
> > As far as should we have been agreeing with him? Well, for one thing he wasn't asking us for our opinion or to agree with him on his original posting. And for the OP to go on and claim that Forbidden Planet has been shown thousands of times and the film he wants shown on the channel one time, is just plainly over-the-top. Then the OP goes on about him being a "cable viewer reacting to what is repeated showings of one film but nary a sign of the original film's two follow ups."
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately for him and again, this is just MHO, he needs to educate himself about TCM. This is another one of my pet peeves. There are a lot of posters here who again do not look into matters before they make their comments on the boards. They where their feelings on the posts that they write and then claim to not know anything. This is sad. I would like to think that we are all intelligent life forms here and that we can all use good judgment, but really, how many more posts do I have to read to tell me that the OP never thought about looking this information up for himself? Is this too hard?
> >
> > *Once again Rey, you are taking this too personally. In the first place, as you yourself just admitted, "he wasn't asking us for our opinion or to agree with him on his original posting*". *I will take it one step further.* *I don't think the OP has to be aswerable to you or anyone else regarding anything concerning what he posts as long as he is complying with the rules of conduct. You are not his teacher and you are not grading him on his research preparation. If you choose to answer him you are doing so because you want to, not because he personally solicited a response from you. Yes, we ARE all intelligent life forms here although some, it appears, feel that they are more intelligent then others. But, no one owes anyone anything here. If you don't like the subject matter, or the OP bugs you, don't respond. It's as simple as that.*
> >
> >
> >
> > No one piled on him at all. Go back and read those comments that were posted as replies to him and you tell me that people were "piling on"? Those folks I mentioned earlier all gave thoughtful responses to the OP about the whys and why nots. Did they conclusively give him the answer he was looking for? Probably not. But I think they came pretty darn close as I did.
> >
> > *It's not that he dosen't understand all your responses, to him they probably just sound hokey, ergo he dosen't buy them. And for his money he's entitled not to.*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And you really think we have any pull with the programmers at TCM?
> >
> > *The way some names are thrown around and all the talk about "you know who I met at the festival or the cruise", some of you repeat attenders have greater access to these folks then some of us will ever have.*
> >
> > Well, they do all read the message boards and have responded to folks who have asked for certain films to be aired with the film actually being aired. It does happen.
> >
> > *So why no general response thread from the programmers specifically on the UNIVERSAL question? I guess some things are too hard even for the programmers to think up a good excuse for.*
> >
> >
> > TCM does have a Suggest a Movie tab at the top of the main page. Has the OP ever gone there and requested a film be shown? Or they should go to the Information, Please Forum where they can ask questions or request certain films there. But they don't.
> >
> >
> > *I have gone to these two areas and have never received a response, but then I'm not a Knight.*
> >
> >
> > They visit the Hot Topic and General Discussion forums and post their requests there which often leads to situations like what has happen with the OP.
> >
> > *Yes, I guess you're right, those forums should just be left to interesting topics like GEORGE BRENTS' REAR END or some other B.S. topic like that.*
> >
> > It just keeps going on and on until some people just drop out and stop writing.
> >
> > *But, not you. You'll just dissappear in the middle of a discussion when you get boxed in and resurface on another safer thread.*
> >
> >
> >
> > Edited by: fxreyman on Jun 5, 2013 4:00 PM
> >
> >
> > Edited by: fxreyman on Jun 5, 2013 4:03 PM
> >
-
> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}
> > The problem with all these "very thoughtful reasons" is that they are not TCM's, they are yours and others. The problem with these "very thoughtful reasons" is that they are nothing but apologies from the usual cast of TCM apologists who have appointed themselves the defenders of the TCM can do no wrong hit parade. Now, the OP is asking about a specific film - REVENGE OF THE CREATURE - that KYLE, of Hollywood, didn't even know was out on DVD since 2004. I thought you folks who were the defenders of the realm were big on research? But, that aside, the OP asked a good question. Instead of piling on him with reasons why it isn't shown and can't be shown, as if you all really knew the answers, how about for once agreeing with someone? Instead of being so quick to dismiss a request as impossible because of this, that, or the other thing, you all agree to put a little friendly pressure on your close friends at TCM, you know, the folks you all claim to be so chummy with at the film festivals and on the cruises.
> Infinite,
>
> You are correct. These are responses from the so-called TCM defenders of the realm, and I happen to be one of them, so there I said it! Ha-Ha-Ha.
>
> *Should I address you as Sir fxreyman?*
>
> The problem is not that those of us here who respond to such questions are responding with negative, so-called apologist type answers. The problem is that when we encounter a poster who brings up that oh, so basic of questions on why a certain film is not aired and why is it not shown, then we try to answer that poster's questions. And it is not always the fault of the OP that they do not look into these matters a little closer than the rest of us do. As you well know, I am a very big proponent of performing research on a given topic before I respond to someone. IMHO, more people around here should do the same. Of course some folks just like coming on here and asking questions but never seem satisfied with any of the answers they get. And we know a few of them. But then there are others who have been posting here for years and yet they still act as if their last post was their first post. Still "wet behind the ears" kind of stuff.
>
> On this thread that FlyBackTransfor started on June 3rd at 1:40PM he received several thoughtful responses from other posters who probably have read somewhere or have seen somewhere reasons why TCM can not get certain films. Lynn (lzcutter), markfp2, SansFin, Kyle (hlywdkjk), and me have given what I think are appropriate, non-apologetic answers to the OP.
>
> As far as Kyle not knowing that the film in question was not on DVD, well who cares if he did not know this? Heck, I had to look that up for myself on IMDB so that I could respond to the OP.
>
> *But, at least you looked it up before responding. Kyle did not.*
>
> While trying trying to compose a response to the OP, I remembered the thread that Lynn started a while back that included the link to the interview conducted by Will McKinley. Now here is a person who was able to attend the Film Festival and he was able to attend a press interview with Charlie Tabesh, Director of Programming at TCM and Ben Mankiewicz. The next day he attended another TCM panel that featured six senior staffers: Tabesh, general manager Jeff Gregor; Pola Chagnon, vice president and creative director for TCM On-Air; V.P. of original production Tom Brown; Richard Steiner, vice president of digital activation; and Sean Cameron, vice president of studio production. He was able to glean a lot of valuable and important information from these folks and when I respond to the OP, I included two passages from those interviews which I felt could provide some of the answers he/she was looking for.
>
> *Yes, I remember that thread and the article it was based on, written by our former President, but that was his summary, interpretation, translation, and spin on the discussion, not a word for word transcript. Besides, I think you will agree that a second hand report is different from listening to an actual discussion. Also, since I have no way of knowing if the whole thing wasn't "fixed"; specific safe questions chosen before hand, the answers rehersed, etc., why should I believe anything that was said. What is more informative is what wasn't covered. And that leads into your next paragraph.*
>
> Was I able to answer the OP's question directly about why the film he wanted to be shown on TCM was not being aired? No, I was not. And the reason for that is simple. I have never asked any of the staffers at TCM about this film the OP wanted to know about.
>
> *But, I am sure others that attended the festival had to have brought up UNIVERSAL specifically? Since this is such a sensitive subject, you mean to tell me that no one felt it important enough to address at this so-called informative discussion?*
>
> He should try and contact the staff directly. All he has to do is send them a PM or better yet, try and find their email addresses and send them an email directly. Its not hard to do. I have done it before and guess what? They responded back to me in a matter of days.
>
> *Maybe they just like you better Sir Knight.*
>
> As far as should we have been agreeing with him? Well, for one thing he wasn't asking us for our opinion or to agree with him on his original posting. And for the OP to go on and claim that Forbidden Planet has been shown thousands of times and the film he wants shown on the channel one time, is just plainly over-the-top. Then the OP goes on about him being a "cable viewer reacting to what is repeated showings of one film but nary a sign of the original film's two follow ups."
>
> Unfortunately for him and again, this is just MHO, he needs to educate himself about TCM. This is another one of my pet peeves. There are a lot of posters here who again do not look into matters before they make their comments on the boards. They where their feelings on the posts that they write and then claim to not know anything. This is sad. I would like to think that we are all intelligent life forms here and that we can all use good judgment, but really, how many more posts do I have to read to tell me that the OP never thought about looking this information up for himself? Is this too hard?
>
> No one piled on him at all. Go back and read those comments that were posted as replies to him and you tell me that people were "piling on"? Those folks I mentioned earlier all gave thoughtful responses to the OP about the whys and why nots. Did they conclusively give him the answer he was looking for? Probably not. But I think they came pretty darn close as I did.
>
> And you really think we have any pull with the programmers at TCM? Well, they do all read the message boards and have responded to folks who have asked for certain films to be aired with the film actually being aired. It does happen. TCM does have a Suggest a Movie tab at the top of the main page. Has the OP ever gone there and requested a film be shown? Or they should go to the Information, Please Forum where they can ask questions or request certain films there. But they don't. They visit the Hot Topic and General Discussion forums and post their requests there which often leads to situations like what has happen with the OP. It just keeps going on and on until some people just drop out and stop writing.
>
> Edited by: fxreyman on Jun 5, 2013 4:00 PM
>
> Edited by: fxreyman on Jun 5, 2013 4:03 PM
-
> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}I have always found that if TCM can not show a film that I want to see, and it is a film worthy enough to belong in my movie collection then guess what?
>
> I purchase the film. The film in question IS available on DVD and you can go to Amazon right now and purchase it for $9.99. That is a pretty good deal.
>
> Of course I have mentioned this as a solution to many folks here in the past. And usually I get a response back that indicates to me that either they can't afford to purchase a DVD online or that they have TCM and so therefore, why should they buy DVDs in the first place. That they are spending $XXX amount of money per month so that they can get TCM on their TV, so why spend additional funds on the purchase of a DVD.
>
> You have been given quite a bit of advice and reasoning here and yet you still seem (to this poster) that you do not understand or believe that TCM is being as truthful as they can be. Or in other words, even though you have been given very thoughtful reasons why TCM can not show the film, you still seem unsure why this film is not shown on TCM.
Rey,
The problem with all these "very thoughtful reasons" is that they are not TCM's, they are yours and others. The problem with these "very thoughtful reasons" is that they are nothing but apologies from the usual cast of TCM apologists who have appointed themselves the defenders of the *TCM can do no wrong* hit parade. Now, the OP is asking about a specific film - REVENGE OF THE CREATURE - that KYLE, of Hollywood, didn't even know was out on DVD since 2004. I thought you folks who were the defenders of the realm were big on research? But, that aside, the OP asked a good question. Instead of piling on him with reasons why it isn't shown and can't be shown, as if you all really knew the answers, how about for once agreeing with someone? Instead of being so quick to dismiss a request as impossible because of this, that, or the other thing, you all agree to put a little friendly pressure on your close friends at TCM, you know, the folks you all claim to be so chummy with at the film festivals and on the cruises.
Here's another idea. How about TCM holding an on air question and answer session between films or as a special once a month program, something like a *TCM AND YOU* where TCM answers on the spot questions and concerns from viewers. Not a love fest, but a serious give and take, back and forth, question and answer program with a live audience. A lot of these questions/concerns would be resolved and the answers wouldn't have to be translated by third parties or take up your grey matter's time which could be put to better use along more thoughtful pursuits like world peace, hunger, or a cure for cancer.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}TCM works hard to clear rights to films that haven't been available for years and they work hard to bring films from various studios to the channel. There are articles around the web about the fire at Universal and the scope of what was lost. There are articles around the web that talk about how short sighted Universal can be concerning their classic film library.
>
> You choose to believe that TCM considers *Dracula* an obscure film and that TCM has little interest in securing it for the channel.
>
> I doubt that anything I (or anyone else) say at this point is going to change your mind.
I find it hard to believe that based on what we all have learned over the decades about the volatility of silver nitrate film stock that Universal would be so stupid as to place all of their eggs in one basket. I believe that there are multiple Universal film storage facilities with multiple copies of films, contrary to what any web articles "report".
I'd say this is a two sided problem. The folks at UNIVERSAL are greedy bastards and TCM plays right into their hands, because, well.... money talks. Hows about this for a suggestion, TCM stops hyping and hawking UNIVERSAL DVDs until UNIVERSAL makes nice with their classic film library and lets TCM draw from the well on a regular basis. For a reasonable price of course.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> > If the above is true then the deal should have still gone thru with TCM, right?
>
> Not necessarily. TCM doesn't broadcast film prints, it broadcasts digital files. Those digital files are often made from video masters like the ones destroyed or damaged beyond repair in the Universal fire.
>
> As Film Festival organizations discovered when Universal said it would not be replacing many of the prints damaged beyond repair for rental purposes (film festivals, film schools, etc), Universal also said it would not be replacing all the video masters that were damaged in the fire.
>
> Universal Home Video's main focus has long been on their television series assets and their modern films (and the dollars that those assets bring in) and not necessarily on their classic film library.
>
> Until there is someone in UHV that advocates for those films, UHV does not always see the value in making new masters of the more obscure classic titles.
>
> Edited by: lzcutter because verbs matter
>
You know, I hate to say this, but based on their obvious "love" for their classic film library I wouldn't put it past UNIVERSAL for them to have torched their own vault in the hope that enough classics would have been destroyed to have put to rest any chance of ever seeing these films again. I don't know why anyone supports this company who has a proven track record of bad faith with it's classic film fan base and such an obvious hatred for their own film heritage. Their 100th Anniversary "celebration" stunk, they are unresponsive to questions about releasing classic films on home video, and they come accross as plain arrogant. I am sorry, but they should have said something about Deann Durbin and do something to honor her memory, like a pristine box set of all her films on PRESSED DVDs, like they did for ABBOTT and COSTELLO a few years ago. But, I guess that's too much to expect of a major movie company that celebrated it's 100th anniversary with home video repeats on BLU RAY of the same CLASSIC 8 horror films; TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, THE BIRDS, PSYCHO, JAWS, BUCK PRIVATES, ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, and a few PARAMOUNT PICTURE acquisitions. Oh, I almost forgot the STANDARD DVD reissues with the 100th anniversary banner. Some celebration. And TCM was right there cheering them on.
There are rights issues preventing it being aired.
1776 (the movie)
in General Discussions
Posted
> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}When watching the movie, it's amazing how much today's Congress resembles the Second Continental Congress. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and those for Independence were the Democrats of their day, while the conservatives ("always to the right, never to the left") match up with today's Republicans.
I know what I am about to mention is not exactly in line with the discussion, although it does involve 1776 (the movie) or to be more specific, TCM's airing of the film. Shouldn't the film have been scheduled for Thursday the 4th, in the afternoon, instead of in the early am hours of the 5th? I know everything is relative and how much of a difference could a few hours make, especially to fans who aren't as picky as I am, but a *family* oriented film like this that has much more meaning to the Independence Day holiday then the Gene Kelly/Frank Sinatra/Mickey Rooney films that were shown through the afternoon of the 4th, should have trumped any proposed schedule that did not include it on the day of the actual holiday. What do you think? Am I being too picky, and why?