Jump to content

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

Mr_Blandings

Members
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Mr_Blandings

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. > {quote:title=Lazyking wrote:}{quote}As for your 3D comment... I've seen a couple 3D movies and I really hope the technique doesn't take over every film like cgi seemed to do to every action movie. 3D only works for certian movies and they certianly should never appear on TCM cause it doesn't translate to TV well. Not to mention, the story still has to be there. What I meant by the 3D comment was only to point out that in the far future--when it is possible that all movies will be 3D interactive holograms or somesuch thing--the term "classic" may be broadened from the usual sense of studio films from the '20s to the '60s and eventually encompass everything up to movies today. On TCM in the 22nd century, I might tune in and see Avatar playing and being referred to as an "oldie." But, personally, I refuse to watch movies in 3D because they add nothing to the story, only the pocket books of producers ... who spend far too much on making glossy, hollow movies already.
  2. > {quote:title=Lazyking wrote:}{quote}I understand your pov Mr. Blandings and you know I somewhat I agree with you but for me, I do want the best movie shown if at all possible. Some studio era films just like modern era stink. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be shown and they are but if a great modern era movie that isn't shown elsewhere happens to show up on TCM once or twice a year I certianly would have no issue with it. Thanks for understanding, LK, and I actually agree with you as well. I like good movies, period. A lot of the classic stuff is not to my liking. However, the best chance of finding out which classic movies are good and which are bad lies in TCM showing as many classic films as possibly, without first grading them first (if they go by Leonard Maltin's reviews and weed out anything less than three stars I'm in trouble as I often like the films he doesn't and vice-versa!) Again, I have nothing against TCM showing occasional '80s films, but it's the quality of those films that I found questionable. I wish I could remember the name of that '80s new wave aerobics film that aired twice in the last year. It was, by no means, classic in any sense of the word! LOL
  3. > {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}If there was another channel that ran 70's and 80's films uncut and commercial free I'd watch it. But there isn't. So, TCM is the only game in town. I don't know if you get Encore Avenue or Showcase, but movies from the '70s, '80s, and '90s are shown on there all the time. If TCM is the "only game in town" for you, and you don't like classic films, you really need to look into alternatives. :| > {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}Wanting it to constrain its content to just 30's and 40's movies because that's what you like is your prerogative and that selfishness is the prerogative of several repetitive complainers here who just can't seem to accept getting only 80 percent of the content geared toward themselves - feeling constantly motivated to whine every time something halfway modern is shown. Actually, I never said I wanted to constrain content to '30s and '40s. I merely opined that a station called Turner Classic Films should show classic films and not hedge their bets with newer content. I certainly understand why they do occasionally show later films (to draw in non-classic fans) and so I handle it just fine. Because a suggestion or opinion differs from your own is no reason to call others "selfish," "complainers," and "whiners." You're certainly free to do so, but calling it what it is (i.e. another opinion) saves one the embarassment of throwing stones in their own glass houses. > {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}I dearly wish TCM could branch off another station that would show great movies made from 1965 onward, leaving the ancient stuff to this original TCM and keeping the dwindling audience for it pacified until that wearisome, intolerant bunch eventually dies off. Conversely, I wish TCM would show 100% pre-1970 content so that those few who are forced to suffer through 80% of the "ancient stuff" just to get that 20% of "great movies" will be set free and not have to undergo so much stress and inborn hostility. At any rate ... since a) more and more younger people are turning on to classic films all the time that audience is growing, not dwindling ... and therefore, logically, you will probably "die off," as you so intolerantly put it, long before classic film appreciation ever could.
  4. > {quote:title=yogiboo wrote: }{quote}Top Ten Male Character Actors Good one! ... and a toughie. As I'm not sure exactly what constitutes a "character actor," as opposed to a supporting actor, I'll make two top tens for the men--one for bigger stars (who were all probably leading men at one time or could hold a movie by themselves), and a second list for the actors that got the more minor roles: The biggies ... 1. Charles Coburn \2. Edward Arnold 3. Edmund Gwenn 4. Edward Everett Horton 5. Louis Calhern 6. Frank Morgan 7. Sydney Greenstreet\8. Thomas Mitchell \9. C. Aubrey Smith 10. Joseph Schildkraut And those guys that turn up when you least expect it (and it's always a treat!) ... 1. James Gleason 2. Richard Gaines 3. S. Z. Sakall 4. Ian Wolfe 5. Charles Lane 6. H. B. Warner 7. Ned Sparks 8. Willie Best 9. Donald Meek 10. Harry Davenport And so as not to leave the ladies in the lurch ... 1. Spring Byington 2. Mary Boland 3. Elizabeth Patterson 4. Beulah Bondi 5. Louis Beavers 6. Thelma Ritter 7. Edna May Oliver 8. Marjorie Main 9. Mildred Natwick 10. Elsa Lanchester
  5. > {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Mr. Blandings, it's always a pleasure to read such a thoughtful well-written post. Clearly you took some time to articulate exactly why you do like classic films. Thank you for the kind words, misswonderly (and Deb23 and dpommper, too!)---what I took from your thoughts about an "epiphany moment" is that it is akin to when I'm watching a film and all of a sudden it strikes a chord in me how good it is. Sometimes it hits without any kind of a build-up, too, and then you say to yourself (or aloud) "This is a GOOD movie!" And then you make a mental note for yourself that you want to own it someday.
  6. > {quote:title=dpompper wrote:}{quote}(Although cutting parts of that silly blonde woman screeching in "Temple of Doom" might not be a bad idea.) LOL! "That was no silly blonde woman screeching ... that was my (future) wife!" -- Steven Spielberg
  7. > {quote:title=TCMfan23 wrote:}{quote}there is no progress. Just a lot of junky technology we don't really need. In the words of '90s man Khan Noonian Singh (Ricardo Montalban) after he awoke 200 years into the future ... "... I am surprised how little improvement there has been in human evolution. Oh, there have been technical advancements ... but how very little man himself has changed." (Yes, I'm a Trekkie ... but only for the classic show! )
  8. Just for the record, I do like quite a number of post-1970s films, including the Back to the Future Trilogy. I just think there are other stations that can show those types of films (though I don't care if they ever do because I buy all the movies I really like on DVD anyway). I think that TC(lassic)M should only show the studio classics because there aren't that many other stations that do. They should stick with their strengths and not water it down. No question, though, Back to the Future is an awesome movie, but it's simply not classic. Will all pre-3D hologramatic movies in the future be relabelled "classics?" Maybe. But as of right now, that's not the case. But TCM can program however they like. Whether it succeeds or fails, it's their business. I'm just giving them my free input as a faithful (for now, anyway ) viewer. LOL, Lazyking at your mention of Waterworld. That reminds me ... Someone please correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm almost positive that five or six years ago TCM showed Ishtar!
  9. What sums it up for me is quality. Obviously this doesn't apply to all movies--just because they're classic doesn't mean they're automatically good. But I will say that the chances of me liking a classic film--because of all the reasons people have listed and more--are much better than me liking a newer or modern film. Acting. In comparison to the movies Hollywood is making today, there is no question in my mind that the quality of acting is much higher, on average, in classic films. Most often there is no comparing the two. Classic film detracters often claim that the acting and dialogue in classic films are "stilted" or "cheesy." Obviously they don't know any better because they haven't given them a chance yet, but I think they look on it that way because they are simply not used to hearing lines that are straight, earnest, and to the point. They are too used to celebrities whose prime preoccupation in movies is to a) look cool, and look cool while saying cool and jaded dialogue that is nothing more than a series of easy-to-digest soundbites. I can fully understand how it might take time for people who think this way to get used to meaningful dialogue in classic film that has a lot to say. Pacing. Classic films give you the time to appreciate things like acting, story, directing, cinematography, and everything else. Modern movies, for the most part, employ the use of shaking cams, fast cuts, super-close-ups (even in action scenes so you can't see what's going on), anything to make things more visually "interesting" to those people with extremely short attention spans. If ADD is a disease then I say it is a cultural one. Society has made things so fast-paced and getting faster, and multi-tasking has become the norm (only to increase productivity, at the expense of doing one thing right), that lifestyle and media have helped produce children who don't know how to sit back, relax, and take time to consider things before they act. All the distractions used in films, however, can't hide what they are ultimately lacking. Story. Classic filmmakers approached a story like it was the most important thing in the film, which it is. After all, a bunch of stars in a movie without a story is, well, a fashion show--nice to look at but ultimately boring. So scripts were important to them and crafted as well as they could. Conversely, modern movies are often made on an assembly line, passing through so many separate hands that they end up with no single focus or direction. The average number of scripters in the classic era is one or two. In modern movies it can be as high as a dozen. In some cases, movies actually go into production without a final script, and dialogue is made up on a day-to-day basis. Era. The way things looked in the '30s, '40s, and '50s are somehow more comfortable to me. Yes, I know that those eras were plagued with depression and war ... but what really has changed in that regard, then? (Well, for one thing, the enemy today is not so clear cut and it is the actions of one's own banks and governments that no one trusts more than anything). Despite the problems of the past, people generally seemed more straight-forward back then, and more optimistic in the face of hardship. Life was simpler, too. It is a pleasure to watch people getting along just fine without cellphones and iPods plugged into their bodies 24/7 (I'm in my forties and don't own a cell phone and never will. My 80-year-old parents, however, do). On the subject of the times ... people today often complain about classic films having poor roles for minority actors. I, too, cringe when I see less-than-flattering, stereotypical portrayals (I also cringe when I see white stereotyping, too--as in the macho gunslinger of the west). However, anyone who thinks modern Hollywood isn't racist isn't reading between the lines of the roles being offered. Black actors are usually given buffoonish or "gangsta" roles to play in films. Is that really better than playing an honest and hardworking porter or a housekeeper who's treated as a beloved member of the family? Why don't people complain as much about the white English butler or the Irish cop? And where are all the Native American and Asian movie stars? It's the 21st century--where's the progress? Also, there's nothing the smacks more of racism to me than forcing a black actor into a role that should, for either historical or traditional reasons, obviously be played by a white actor. Just to use the current trend in super-hero movies as an example: In Thor, the Norse God Heimdall is played by Idris Elba, and the producers defended their acultural casting by saying he was simply the best actor for the job. Really? Why, then, is a black actor never the best person for the job of a Thor or a Spider-Man? Why is it always the minor role that simply can't work without a black person filling it? Ben Affleck was supposedly the best choice for hero Daredevil (lol) but Michael Clarke Duncan was chosen to be the Kingpin, a criminal (and a character who, being inspired by Sydney Greenstreet's "Fat Man" character had naturally been Caucasian in the comics for over 35 years). Today's Hollywood seems to use "PC" as a cover for calculated demographic tokenism. That's still racism. If not, then where are the films for heroic role-models such as Black Panther, Falcon, and Power Man? But I digress. Suffice to say, I like classic movies because they are more intelligently made. The modern movies I tend to like are animated ones (like Toy Story or The Incredibles) or have some sci-fi/fantasy element to them (like Groundhog Day or Galaxy Quest). For classic movies, I love the genre of the romantic comedy, but I wouldn't go near a modern comedy/romance movie if you paid me! I also like classic thrillers and dramas, but those are modern film genres I also avoid. There are no romantic movies today because it's all cheap sex and high school-level humor--all about "relationships" and not love. There are no thrillers today because being scared has nothing to do with seeing buckets of gore. There are no dramas today because filmmakers are afraid to criticize the real issues that plague our world. (Why should they bother to try when even mainstream news no longer investigates issues and tries to dig up the truth. It only reports what they are told to, and feeds ignorance by dishing out unimportant scandal rag gossip). There I go digressing again ... Sorry to have rambled on so.
  10. I agree with you, TCMfan, but at least there are only a few and they're on in the middle of the night. It's when modern movies are on at primetime that it really bothers me as that's the perfect opportunity to get people hooked on classic films (if they already aren't).
  11. > {quote:title=Lazyking wrote:}{quote}I'm sure I'll watch more classics that I'll enjoy more but I doubt I'll see ten better performances. Along those lines of brilliant dramatic performances, I recommend you also try to catch Ray Milland's Oscar-winning role in "The Lost Weekend" (coincidentally enough, Cary Grant was approached for the role first but he turned it down because he didn't think he could pull it off. Milland didn't either but he sure proved himself wrong!) Milland is also brilliant in "Dial M For Murder," "The Big Clock," "Ministry of Fear," and "Arise, My Love." For Fredric March, check out "The Best Years of Our Lives," "The Desperate Hours," and the offbeat and unforgettable "Death Takes a Holiday." For Edward G. Robinson, check out ... anything! The guy's incredible. But topping my list of faves are "The Whole Town's Talking," "The Last Gangster," "The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse," "The Woman in the Window," "Key Largo," and "Brother Orchid." I could go on, but that's enough for a start, I think. For my favorite actress of all time, Claudette Colbert, I could almost list them all as well. She's brilliant in lighter comedy (which I prefer because they almost always have some drama in them) but here are some of her stand-out dramatic performances that really impressed me: "So Proudly We Hail!" "Torch Singer," "Three Came Home," "The Secret Fury," "Maid of Salem," and "Four Frightened People."
  12. > {quote:title=Lazyking wrote:}{quote}Btw, I haven't watched a Cary Grant movie in full! (I know he's your favorite) Oddly enough, I'm not sure that he is anymore! He's one of them, for sure, but I've come to appreciate Ray Milland, Ronald Colman, Fredric March, and Edward G. Robinson more. But whether he's at the top of my list of faves or somewhere lower, I'll always have a warm spot in my heart for Cary because he was the actor that first got me into classic films. Back when I was a teen, and thought any movie earlier than "Star Wars" was not worth watching (sighs and shakes head), one lazy Sunday afternoon "Father Goose" was aired. "Amazingly" I got into it ... and I loved it. Fast forward a few years to me renting as many Cary Grants as I could get my hands on. Eventually I branched out into other actors and actress to watch but he was the one that started my love of classic films. Which actor sparked your own love of classics, Lazyking? Was it James Cagney? I'm glad to hear you've been getting into Cary's filmography recently. For entertaining performances by Grant, I heartily second jamesjazz's recommendations of "Only Angels Have Wings" and "Holiday," and further suggest "Talk of the Town," "Once Upon A Honeymoon," and of course "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House," which is just such a great and memorably witty comedy.
  13. Thanks for sharing, Lazyking! Great list, although it shows me that just when I think I've seen a lot of movies, there's always more to see--there's only a few movies on your list that I've actually seen! "The Snake Pit" airs on TCM on Sept. 5th, so I'll try to remember to watch it. I liked Olivia deH in the comedy "Princess O'Rourke" and from the clips I've seen of Snake Pit, it looks like she turned in an amazing performance. Do you like "Strawberry Blonde?" It has both Cagney and Olivia in it. Can't wait to see your top ten actors and actresses lists!
  14. Oh, you're totally welcome, beatlesfan! It's always a pleasure to recommend a good movie to a fellow classic film fan. I hope you'll enjoy them!
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...