infinite1

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote} > While I agree with no repeats for a year I question the comment about ",,,this has wonderful marketing potential". > > While most of us studio-era movie fans would like to see pictures they haven't seen before, those that do NOT watch TCM are way more likely to be drawn in by those studio-era movies that are at the top of their class and many, if not most, of the movies TCM repeats often fall into that category. > > > jamesjazzguitar, Here's a newsflash for ya, if those that do NOT watch TCM aren't here by now, they ain't coming. And no amount of repeats of NORTH BY NORTHWEST or FROM HERE TO ETERNITY is going to birth an instant TCM fan. So, what makes the most sense, trying to attract those who don't give a damn about old films with repeats of the same old films or keeping your base from wandering due to boredom with films that have NOT been played to death. I think the later makes more sense.

> {quote:title=BingFan wrote:}{quote}Although I haven't seen anything close to all of the episodes from the 14 seasons of *BONANZA*, it seems like I see classic movie actors on the show almost every time I catch a rerun on TVLand. Here's a list compiled from various sources (I haven't seen all of these folks on the show myself): > > Franchot Tone > Ida Lupino > Teresa Wright > Jack Carson > Joan Blondell > Aldo Ray > Ramon Navarro > Peggy Ann Garner > Virginia Grey > Kim Hunter > Vera Miles > Mildred Natwick > William Demarest > Burgess Meredith > John Carradine > Mary Wickes > Ed Wynn > Keenan Wynn > Glenda Farrell > Andy Devine > Patsy Kelly > Cesar Romero > Gilbert Roland > Marie Windsor > Tom Drake > Sam Jaffe > Audrey Totter > Dina Merrill > Jack Oakie > Nina Foch > Richard Haydn > Sara Haden > Elisha Cook, Jr. > Harry Carey, Jr. > Lyle Talbot > Dean Stockwell > Tom Tully > John Litel > Everett Sloane > Dan Duryea > John Qualen > James Dunn > Buddy Ebsen > Jay C. Flippen > Mercedes McCambridge > Edgar Buchanan > Ed Begley, Sr. > Dub Taylor > Dan Tobin > Royal Dano > Addison Richards > Will Wright > Ellen Corby > Arthur Shields > > Of course, some of these folks -- e.g., Ebsen, Corby, Buchanan, Demarest -- are remembered more today for their TV work than their earlier movie work. One could probably put together a much shorter list of TV stars in the 50s, 60s, and 70s who didn't appear in classic movies.

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote} > Unless a movie is in the public domain one has to obtain rights before they alter the work. > > So there is no stealing going on here and thus the Louvre comparison is way off base. > > I don't care for colorization (i.e. I would rather watch the movie as a B&W film), but in many cases those that colorize movies restore the B&W version before proceeding with the colorization process. Often this restored B&W version is included with the colorized version. Thus in most cases the colorization process allows future generations access to the B&W version. Thus I see no harm here. > > > When I refer to stealing I am not speaking in legal terms. I am speaking of the morality of taking someone else's work and changing it for whatever reason, whether it be greed, some artistic vision, etc., it dosen't matter. In any case, and for any reason, it is wrong. Those who, in this case, purport to love classic films and demonstrate their love by colorizing said films, may be protected by their "rights" in a court of law, but they should be damned in the court of public opinion, especially by people who truly claim to love classic films. Of course there are those that purport to love classic films as well. They are no better then the offenders because by remaining silent they are giving their tacit approval to the morally wrong practice of "stealing" someone else's work.

> {quote:title=classiccinemafan wrote:}{quote}I'm talking about the colorization of public domain material such as classic films and old cartoons like Betty Boop and Popeye. > > Recently , Legend Films has colorized and restored classics such as BABES IN TOYLAND (LAUREL AND HARDY) , ABBOTT AND COSTELLO , RED SKELTON , THREE STOOGES , OUR GANG , AND IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (in HD and color). > > They also restored and colorized Ed Wood films Reefer Madness , John Wayne films , Drive-In horror classics like Night of the Living Dead , The Killer Shrews , The Giant Gila Monster , Carnival of souls , etc > > They also colorized The Devil Bat , Little shop of horrors and the most dangerous grave. > > I thought they did a beautiful job on IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Some not so good. I hate the bonus material (the Mike Nelson ones aren't funny). I'm not a fan of Mystery science theatre. So that doesn't appeal to me. > > For some classics , I'm against colorization. Some films just need to be left alone like Maltese Falcon , Casablanca and King Kong. > > Colorization has improved since the days of Ted Turner and TNT/TBS. > > I'm not against it and i'm not for it. Ray Harryhousen and Legend Films recently worked together colroizing and restoring SHE and THINGS TO COME. I haven't seen them yet , but I did see the preview of SHE (looked awesome). If any advocate of colorization can get the blessing from the original creators in writing then by all means, knock yourselves out. But if you can't, and 9 chances out of ten you can't because they're all dead, all you're doing is stealing someone else's work and changing their vision to make a fast buck. DISGUSTING. To anyone who's interested, stop by the LOUVRE on your next trip to FRANCE, bring your little amateur paint brush sets with you and commence defacing the world's greatest masterpieces because your egos tell you that your vision is BETTER. Then try explaining your vision of art to the Gendarmes as they cart you away to the Bastille OR whatever else constitutes a prison in FRANCE, heck, they might even guillotine you. Now that would be a real work of art.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}Warner Brothers, Fox and Sony (the Columbia film library) all have advocates inside their Home Entertainment divisions or their film libraries departments that want to work with TCM to bring more of their classic films to the network. These advocates also help convince the higher ups at their studios to spend the money on restorations and/or digital masters so that the more obscure films in their catalogs have a chance at being broadcast. > There are plenty of UNIVERSAL/PARAMOUNT films that have been converted to digital that are not being broadcast on TCM. Look at all the DVDs of UNIVERSAL films, obviously they have been converted to digital SO where are they? HBO every once in a while shows COBRA WOMAN. What is the excuse for TCM not to add that DIGITAL film to their roster, money? I doubt it would cost any more for TCM to rent THAT film then they had to pay out for such BLOCKBUSTERS as MONSTER A GO GO or some of the other drivel that TCM labels as "classics". Izcutter also wrote: "Universal and Paramount do not seem to have such advocates within their ranks and that makes it harder for TCM to gain access to those libraries." ADVOCATES do not always have to come from within. One would think that TCM would be proud to be their biggest advocate, with ROBERT OSBORNE as their spokesman, working with UNIVERSAL on behalf of lovers of classic films. But, I suppose it's always easier to pass the buck.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Is that a great deal of repeating? I don't know. You're saying the glass is half-empty. Others, viewing the same data, may feel that the glass is half-full. It is a great deal of repeating when you also consider that a lot of these films are repeated with multiple showings year after year after year.

> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}I agree with Infinite1. What is going on with these Universal titles? Is the TCM Programming Department not being aggressive enough? Is the problem with Universal? Answers please...and from the programmers not the apologists. > BAD SISTER > THE COHENS AND KELLYS IN AFRICA > DRACULA > EAST OF BORNEO > EX-BAD BOY > FRANKENSTEIN > FREE LOVE > GRAFT > HEAVEN ON EARTH > THE HOMICIDE SQUAD > IRON MAN > LASCA OF THE RIO GRANDE > THE LAST RIDE > MANY A SLIP > MOTHER'S MILLIONS > MYSTERY OF LIFE > NICE WOMEN > RECKLESS LIVING > RESURRECTION > SEED > THE SPIRIT OF NOTRE DAME > STRICTLY DISHONORABLE > UP FOR MURDER > THE VIRTUOUS HUSBAND > WATERLOO BRIDGE > > Waterloo Bridge '31 and Frankenstein air on TCM from time to time.Strictly Dishonorable was on just a few weeks back and actually it's one of the Universals owned by TCM's parent company. As for the others, perhaps that fire at Universal awhile back? Also, Universal changed hands after the Laemmles lost the studio in 1936. The new people running Universal perhaps didn't care much for Universal's product prior to them taking over. I'd think someone at Universal would see the virtue (and profit) in Bad Sister (early Humphrey Bogart AND Bette Davis), Graft (Boris Karloff as a gangster), and Iron Man (Jean Harlow). In the end TCM can only make offers to Universal. If they don't care about their early stuff then TCM can't make them care. > Yes, a vault fire is a wonderful excuse, but I doubt that in light of past vault fires due to the volatile nature of the *silver* *nitrate* *film* *stock* used by the *film* industry prior to 1950 that studios, UNIVERSAL included, are stupid enough to store films in one location without back-up copies in other locations. But, that aside, I still have to point back to that story a few years ago in FILMS OF THE GOLDEN AGE where ROBERT OSBORNE spoke of a contract with UNIVERSAL to start showing their films on TCM along with the early PARAMOUNTS once their contract with COLUMBIA ran it's course. Was OSBORNE just pulling stuff out of the air to fill up magazine space and make TCM look good? I think he was talking about more then just the handful of UNIVERSAL FILMS we have been getting up to this point.

Sorry, any other month but October. October is reserved for stars of the macabre, unless that is your reason for choosing her for October. Personally, I'd like to see BELA LUGOSI as SOTM for October 2013.

> > > > VERONICA, THE FACE ONLY A CYCLOPS COULD LOVE. MMMM, VERONICA, I HOPE SHE GIVES ME THE EYE.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}FHTE was heavy on Oscar noms. But some of the other suspects for deing aired too frequently, e.g. SLIH and NBNW, were not. So, your point?

> {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote}Prince, (and everyone!) > > You need to come to the annual Capitolfest film festival held each August in Rome, New York at the historic restored Capitol Theater, built in 1928. > > Each year they manage to get rare early-talkie Universals, many of which you just ain't gonna see anywhere else - and in beautiful restored 35mm prints! > > > From your 1931 list we've seen: > GRAFT at the 2009 show. > THE VIRTUOUS HUSBAND in 2010. > > > EX-BAD BOY in 2012. > And scheduled for Capitolfest #11 in August 2013 we'll be treated to the super-rare THE COHENS AND KELLYS IN AFRICA. > > > And those are just the Universal rarities from 1931 that we've seen! > > > Here's the Capitolfest 2013 schedule: > > http://www.romecapitol.com/capitolfest.html > Appreciate the invitation, but what we need to do is find out WHY WE CAN'T SEE THESE KIND OF FILMS ON TCM IN THE COMFORT OF OUR HOMES. If these films are available then I would like TCM to explain why they can't be shown on their channel. And I don't mean the usual excuses by the programmer(s)' surrogates that live on these boards, I mean the programmer(s) themselves. If UNIVERSAL is to blame, let us know and we'll go to their board, if there is one, and bother the hell out of them. This is ridiculous, they are sitting on their library and we're not getting any younger. What do we have to do, wait for their 2OOth Anniversary?

It's not so much that I mind "31 Days of Oscar", heck, I even like most of the films that are being shown during the 31 days. My big gripe is that the blockbuster OSCAR WINNERS, and you know which ones they are, that invariably will always rate a slot in FEBRUARY, are always repeated during the course of the year as ESSENTIALS, SUTS, or as is the case with FROM HERE TO ETERNITY which may get extra innings on MEMORIAL DAY, VETERANS DAY, DECEMBER 7th, anniversaries of some star's birthday, a guest programmer's choice (ha ha), and/or whatever other day can be dreamt up by the programmer(s) as an excuse to take a holiday from more creative programming decisions. If these films are so special as OSCAR WINNERS, then keep them for this month and this month only, and fill the slots that they might occupy during the rest of the year with different films. Is that too much to ask?

> {quote:title=heuriger wrote:}{quote}I wonder if Honoré Lachaille would say, Je suis fatigué aussi. > > > I think he would be more likely to say, Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? Always thought he had more pep then his nephew anyway. In any event Honore' wouldn't be bored.

> {quote:title=hoytereden wrote:}{quote}AKA *The Little Kidnappers* (1953). A delightful film. I don't think they've even shown KIDNAPPED (1938).

Yes, I know what you mean. I was just talking to Gaston Lachaille this afternoon, I asked him what he thought about participating on the TCM mesage boards and to quote him he said " oh, it's a bore." I then pressed him, as to what he thought about the TCM cruise and the TCM Film Festival? He responded, "they're a bore". I asked him what he thought about 31 days of OSCAR, THE ESSENTIALS hosted by RO and DREW? He gave me an incredulous look and said "they're a bore". Getting frustrated I remarked how TCM shows the finest in continuous repeats of NORTH BY NORTHWEST, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, SINGIN IN THE RAIN, CASABLANCA, ETC., ETC., ETC. And can you believe that Lachaille, the nerve of him, he said "they're a bore". You know what, I finally had to agree with him, so buck up misswonderly you're in good company.

> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote} > > > {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote}I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but if you should, once they show it you'll have plenty of time to catch up. Considering that it's got a cast of Crawford, Gable, Fred Astaire and Robert Benchley, it's hard to imagine how they could've made such a snoozer, but somehow they managed to do it. It's amazing what the fear of censorship could do to some studios and producers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SNOOZER????? How could any film with TED HEALY and THE THREE STOOGES be a snoozer? > > Actually I find Ted Healy to be insufferable. And oddly enough I think he fired the stooges! It was probably the best thing that ever happened to them! The movie really isn't very interesting. The best part is seeing Fred Astaire before anybody knew who he was actually going by the name "Freddie" in the film.I think he dances a number with Joan Crawford towards the end. It's been awhile since I've seen it. He was insufferable. That and his drinking are what caused the Stooges to walk out on him. Moe had enough and it WAS the best thing that ever happened to them. Incidently, I think DANCING LADY was also the debut of NELSON EDDY on film.

This would HAVE to be official pressed DVDs, NOT MODs on DVD-Rs. 1. SECRET OF THE BLUE ROOM 2. THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD 3. THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE 4. DANCERS IN THE DARK 5. NIGHT WORLD 6. MURDER IN THE BLUE ROOM 7. THE CAT CREEPS 1930 AND 1946 8. BLACK TUESDAY 9. HELL ON FRISCO BAY 10. THE MAD GENIUS / MOBY DICK

> {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote}I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but if you should, once they show it you'll have plenty of time to catch up. Considering that it's got a cast of Crawford, Gable, Fred Astaire and Robert Benchley, it's hard to imagine how they could've made such a snoozer, but somehow they managed to do it. It's amazing what the fear of censorship could do to some studios and producers. SNOOZER????? How could any film with TED HEALY and THE THREE STOOGES be a snoozer?

Thank you, Rey. I feel much better, now.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}Hows about the following: (some of these may have already been mentioned) > > Backstairs at the White House > Band of Brothers > Benjamin Franklin > Bleak House > Blind Ambition > The Blue and the Gray > Brideshead Revisited > Captains and the Kings > Centennial > Danger: UXB > Fortunes of War > From the Earth to the Moon > George Washington > Holocaust > I, Claudius > Into the West > Jesus of Nazareth > The Jewel in the Crown > John Adams > Lonesome Dove > Marco Polo > Masada > Mildred Pierce > North and South > Once and Eagle > On Wings of Eagles > The Pacific > Pearl > Prime Suspect > QB VII > Return to Lonesome Dove > Rich Man, Poor Man > Rich Man, Poor Man, Book II > Robert Kennedy and His Times > Roots > Roots: The Next Generations > Shogun > Space > Tanner > The Thorn Birds > Upstairs, Downstairs > War and Rememberence > The Winds of War Your position has certainly evolved from the day that anything developed specifically for TV was verbotten on TCM. I have yet to hear you rail against THE DANNY KAYE SHOW episode that recently was shown on TCM. What happened to your position on the TCM BRAND? You certainly beat me up on that one in that other thread on the HOT TOPICS board. I am all for people changing their minds on certain issues, but I wonder if an apology isn't due me for your change of heart? Nah, forget it, no apology needed, it's enough for me to see that you have embraced my original position.

> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}Well then, I suppose this might all be for the better. > > (...and alas, any of my future labo(u)rs to further address this issue will be met with a less than colo(u)rful ending) Kind of taking a chance, weren't you Dargo2? What if missw said yes and then turned out to be a mrw? Now that would have been a real less than colorful ending.

> {quote:title=gagman66 wrote:}{quote}What the Devil? Lon Chaney's THE PENALTY (1920) was definitely the wrong version last night. TCM Programer Chuck Tabesh told me a few months back that they would be running the new restoration with the Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra score. This was released on Blu-ray back in October. Unfortunately, what we got was the same old version with a dismal modern music score that TCM last ran in 2005 or 2006. I don't know if they had intended to run one the new one and goofed, or what the story is? > > *The story is Chuck played a gag on you, man. Don't know what his count is but wouldn't be surprised if it was 66 6. The Devil, you say.* > > Will hope for better with WINGS on February 3rd. Again, I was told that it would be the new restoration with restored tints, and the recreation of the original 1927 Orchestral score, if not in February, certainly in April. The same as was released on DVD and Blu-ray a year ago by Paramount . Replacing the older transfer from Laser-disc that TCM has aired a few times in the past. If it tunrs out of be the same old same old, and in Prime-time, that will be another huge disappointment. Hope they can get this straight. > Fool me once shame on you, fool me again shame on you, er me, fool me once shame on ugh, better ask George W., I forgot how it goes. Bottom line, count on TCM to disappoint you again. At least they're consistent with their dissapointments.

> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}Why are people talking about cars here? I'ts either their cowardly way of saying that the threads' topic is FOS or they are mentally challenged. I would personally go with the later.

> {quote:title=RayFaiola wrote:}{quote}If you look at how most modern actors wear Fedoras and Stetsons, they invariably wear them straight on. No style. As Frank, Dean and Bing sang it - "a hat's not a hat til it's tilted" > I think they sang that song with GEORGE RAFT in mind. No one wore a FEDORA or a TRILBY better then RAFT.

> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote}Could it be that the stuff shown on the old AMC - Fox, Universal, Paramount - is just in no fit condition to broadcast knowing that so many people have HDTV's? AMC's "classic" period was from 1984-2002, and I have some recordings of some of the old films of which you speak that aired on AMC back in the day. Believe me, "The Devil is Driving", "Girls About Town", "Murder By the Clock" etc. would need major restoration work for TCM to consider them seaworthy. The old AMC has not been on the air for over 10 years, years before Blu-Ray and HDTV raised people's standards as to what they would consider acceptable quality. > > *Even if what you are saying is true, which I doubt, there are plenty of films that were shown on AMC that have been updated to digital. Check the latest MOVIES UNLIMITED catalogue if you don't believe me. There is no reason, other then a lack of desire on TCM or TIME WARNER to spend the money to rent these films. No, they would rather spend money on those miserable film festivals and cruises that the majority of viewers couldn't care less about. And let me SUGGEST to you that Blu-Ray and HDTV did not raise peoples' standards as to what they would consider acceptable quality, these new formats suckered people into believing that they have missed something all the years that they never even gave a thought about while they were happily watching old movies on their 13 inch portable b+w analog sets, complete with rabbit ears, poor reception, and commercials. You are just repeating the same tired old TCM APOLOGIST mantra for the endless string of repeats from month to month, or the cheaper new post 1970 garbage that is added to TCM's roster of "classics".* > > If Universal or Paramount or Fox is not willing to foot the bill and partnership with TCM in the restoration of these old films, they'll likely never be shown on TCM. However, TCM is selling a restored copy of "Female on the Beach", a real trashy treasure from Joan Crawford's late career. I do wish they would at least show that one. The hell with UNIVERSAL, PARAMOUNT, and FOX. TCM isn't even showing all the golden age digital films from MGM, WARNERS, or RKO. I have never seen THE BRIGHTON STRANGLER on TCM. Again, I direct you to the MOVIES UNLIMITED CATALOGUE which TCM hawks under their own banner. There are enough GOLDEN AGE films in there to rotate on TCM, for the eleven months that are non OSCAR months, that are not UNIVERSALS, PARAMOUNTS, or FOX films. And, they wouldn't have to do repeats. But, they have to be willing to invest the money and it appears that TCM dosen't give a damn.