Jump to content

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About VictorECoffee

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. While running a search here at TCM, I came upon a four year old thread wherein the poster was giving the same complaint: non-classics being shown. I took that as further evidence that what we consider non-classics have been shown for years. It's not new; it's not change; it's how it's always been. I agree. The complaints themselves from years ago could be copy/pasted into a new thread today without looking too out of place. One example -- ?TCM is showing fewer and fewer black and white films these days. I guess their aim is to compete with AMC (crap). Hence black and white films will be dropped by November of next year; foreign films will be gone by the end of next summer, and commercial breaks will be slowly introduced . . . ..? (Argobimble, Nov. 24, 2002) This really is an old argument by now.
  2. Are we really so bad off that we cannot make wry comments about TCM anymore as if it were a living, breathing, give-all, end-all God? I enjoy reading opinions of all kinds, yours among them. What I was responding to here was the kind of hyperbole that often crops up in threads about this issue. In this case it came from sweetbabykmd ("There are a few old movies here and there at primetime, but ALL of the new movies are on at primetime.") I wouldn't characterize that degree of exaggeration as "opinion." It's demonstrably untrue. On the other hand, I appreciate both your consistenly civil tone and the time you took to cite examples in support of your point of view.
  3. There are a few old movies here and there at primetime, but ALL of the new movies are on at primetime. With all respect, that simply isn't the case. Let's use Anne's definition of "prime time" (7pm-midnight) and let's use Eastern time to figure this. In November, TCM scheduled 77 movies to start during prime time. A total of 57 of them were "older," pre-1960 films; another 20 were from 1960 or later. That's almost a three-to-one ratio of older films to newer films. If by "new movies" you mean 1980s and 1990s films, nine of these are on the November schedule. Only four are being shown this month in prime time. If by "new movies" you mean 1970s-80s-90s films, 25 of these are on the November schedule. Only 10 are being shown this month in prime time. One more statistic -- This month TCM is showing a total of 80 films from the post-1959 period. In June 1998, TCM showed a total of 83 films from the post-1959 period. That's right -- TCM is showing *fewer* so-called modern films this month than it did in a given month eight years ago.
  4. I actually don't remember her screen name, lzcutter. But she tried to also control how people posted here. If I'm not mistaken, she also decided when another person's opinion wasn't valid and their style of posting wasn't to her personal approval. Much like Mr. Cawfee [sic] does. Perhaps Mr. Cawfee [sic] is this poster. I have no idea who you're talking about, and I'm not any such person. I'm not in the least trying to "control" what you or anyone else says here. What I did was to *disagree* with your point of view, and to explain *why* I did so. That's a perfectly appropriate use of a discussion board. It's reasonable to expect such a thing when people post controversial opinions, which you routinely do. Regarding the overall tone of your comments, I respectfully suggest the following -- If you (1) put up post after post on TCM's forums bashing TCM and caustically denigrating its content and the people responsible for it; (2) spend little or no time backing up your arguments with facts or reasoning; and (3) liberally hurl insults ("dictator," "Nazi," "pathetic," etc.) at other posters, you shouldn't be so surprised to get negative responses.
  5. ...a continued close minded autocratic Nazi search for board control... Are you posting in code?
  6. In this case, it's of no comfort to be right. Another installment in your private war with physical reality... I don't think you're "right" at all. TCM has "changed" in the narrow sense that it's not precisely the same as it was a year ago. But I don't know of any network, or any other entity for that matter, that stays static year after year. What matters is that TCM is showing musicals, noirs, and westerns -- just as it always has. It's not important whether they show them under a title such as "Syncopation Station". Once again, the kind of "change" you've always accused TCM of is a different thing altogether. You claim that TCM is secretly plotting to move away from its classic-movie format and become something like AMC, full of commercials and bottom-denominator youth-oriented programming. But there's no evidence that such a format change is happening, or going to happen. What's more, you've consistenly shown yourself either unwilling or unable to back up your arguments with facts. Personal insults and non sequiters don't help to make your point.
  7. It sounds like you might be talking about a 1964 William Castle film, "The Night Walker," starring Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Taylor. Here's an excerpt of a comment on it at Amazon.ca - "'The Night Walker' has an involved plot that finds Barbara Stanwyck playing Irene Trent who finds herself a widow after her insanely jealous husband (Hayden Rorke in a very non traditional role)is killed in an explosion in his lab. She finds herself tormented by frightening dreams where her husband is actually still alive and where she is also pursued by a mysterious handsome stranger who in a bizzare wedding ceremony in a mysterious chapel marries her and then disappears. Is Irene only dreaming or is she being driven crazy?" More about this film at: http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:35266~T0
  8. I heard there's a monthly meeting where the big wigs have a list of us posters and specifically target each one of us by showing movies that we'll hate. They're planning to get me with a Gene Kelly marathon. Aha. That explains why I've been running across all these Robin Williams films the past few months.
  9. Yes, that's the one. When did you see it? I've been waiting for it but as stated, I only saw it that one time. I've just run across it on occasion over the last few months. I think it's probably been around for quite some time. It is a clever and amusing spot. A few people might find what they did with James Dean's name to be in questionable taste, though.
  10. Did anybody else see the promo described in the second post after this one? I saw it on a weekday around 11:00 a.m. I might have, but I may be thinking of the wrong one. Did the stars' names scroll up the screen, while the words of certain names did things identified with the star in question? (i.e., Hitchcock's name was carried off by birds, Clark Gable's name wrapped itself in a passionate embrace with Vivian Leigh's name, etc.) If so, that's the one I've seen.
  11. Rufus T. Firefly, Otis B. Driftwood, Hugo Z. Hackenbush and now introducing, Mr. Victor E. Coffee! LOL, good one.
  12. "1998"? "Professor"? "Dogma"? Do you have even the *slightest* idea what you're trying to say here?
  13. Turner Classic Movies, IMO, is an oasis in the wasteland that television has become today. It's my escape, my tranquilizer, my link to a time in life when respect and love for one's fellow man meant something. I'm happy and grateful for it. Beautifully put. Thank you for a thoughtful post.
  14. Oooooh, another dictator heard from. No, I merely disagreed with you, and contrasted two facts -- (1) The fact that you've repeatedly expressed alarm on this forum that TCM is "changing," and that you're opposed to this. (2) The fact that, on the other hand, you've said elsewhere on this forum you'd like to change TCM drastically from what it is now. I think it's fair to say from your own comments that you'd take a meat cleaver to the network, if you could. Instead of responding to that, you accused those who criticized you today of confusing "facts" and "opinions". But again, you're the one who seems to be having this problem, not us. An example from one of your posts: "The FACT remains that TCM the 'classic' channel should NOT be showing SHAFT." (9/29) That's not a "fact," no matter how strongly you believe it. And it isn't arrogant and dictatorial for other posters to simply express disagreement with your point of view. And my preference for TCM's inclusive and broad-minded definition of "classic" over your negative and restrictive one doesn't make me a dictator, or anything like it. I think your comments today could be aptly described as "projection."
  15. As I asked before, anyone STILL want to opine that TCM isn't changing? First, it's ridiculous for you to imply that TCM has changed its format, or is changing its format, because the *style* of its promos has changed. What matters are the films themselves. Second, it's amusing how you continually pretend to oppose TCM "changing" its ways. For many years now, TCM has broadly defined "classic" to include a mix of old and modern films of different types. *You're* the one who wants TCM to change radically. Here's what you posted in July about what TCM's format should be -- "Cut their programming list off at 1959 (If I had my way, they'd cut it off at 1949). Period." What a simplistic and negative approach. Your concept of TCM isn't anything like what TCM has ever been in reality. Message was edited by: VictorECoffee
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
  • Create New...