clore
-
Posts
5,535 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by clore
-
-
I can hear it but not see it.
It almost sounds as if I'm listening to WHAT'S UP TIGER LILY.
-
It's his RODAN voice.
When we went to The Hall of Presidents at Disneyland, the voices for all of the characters were doen by Paul Frees. When we came out, my six year old son said "all the Presidents sounded the same."
-
Apparently, Tohoscope means "wide screen credits only".
When I saw that, I went into the living room and plopped down on the couch. As soon as I saw that we were getting a full screen print, I got up off the couch. It's still on, but the PC is in another room.
I was really looking forward to it, I haven't seen this in some time.
-
Oh well, looks like another case of the heebie jeebies coming on. Really a shame as this one looked pretty good in 2.35:1 form.
If you're watching, see how many characters are voiced by Paul Frees.
-
Am I to interpret that the OP of this thread was deleted?
-
I think a little common sense can cut RO a little slack.
I think people are cutting him some slack when they mention that they put the blame on his staff. I doubt there's anyone who expects him to know every detail on every film.
Next think you know there will be complains about his occasional slurring...yeesh.
Someone already brought that up in another forum. It was linked or mentioned about a week ago.
-
Just enjoy the films. And don't worry about silly little errors or things that are mis-spoken.
I do enjoy the films. I just don't enjoy being given erroneous info. Some people are less demanding, that's their choice. As I said before, if a job is worth doing, it's worth doing right. Perfection may not ever be achieved, but that's no reason to have low standards.
Relying on TCM" for information one poster said. Is that serious? Anyone with access to a computer could have found out -- as some did -- that Mr. Osborne mis-spoke. So what?
If they have one department promoting him as the expert, it doesn't do Robert Osborne any good to be let down by his research staff. At least if it's mentioned here, there's a chance that someone might see it and correct the copy for the next time a film is introduced. But that's the optimist in me.
Sounds like there are some people who can't see the forest for the trees.
Why's that? Because they have a different perspective than you have? Does that give you cause to insult them?
Or they have far too much time on their hands.
You're posting on the same message board as they are. I guess we all have too much time on our hands.
-
Not really. Haven't you noticed the ads after a given film airs that tell you that you can order it from the TCM web site?
-
It was just a mention in a thread a while back that had some other full-screen listings. You know, the kind of thread where eventually we're told that we should be happy to have seen the film at all and that TCM always makes every effort to get a letterboxed print and that such things rarely ever happen...
Yeah, right.
-
I was going to watch it but when I saw it was full-screen, I got the heebie-jeebies and went to bed. I made mention of it the last time that it aired, I guess it fell upon deaf ears.
-
I coulda swore I saw 'A Big Hand For the Little Lady' coming up somewhere.
It was on one of my HBO channels the other day.
-
I think we should save our fact-checking at this level for something really important like Presidential Elections. Oh wait! No one cares about that, either.
I think it should be obvious reading this thread that some people DO care about fact-checking. The thing is that when errors are noticed, you'll get some people who claim that this is trivial information anyway. It's only when it's in error that it suddenly becomes trivial, otherwise they marvel at everything that is uttered. They want it both ways.
Were it so unimportant, then why bother to have a host comment at all? For two-thirds of the day there is no host, it's not as if one is really necessary. But if a job is worth doing, it's worth doing right. The fault doesn't rest on Mr. Osborne, it's his handlers who are to blame.
-
My suggestion to one and all is that if and when they do come back, save the file to your hard drive.
I don't bother to print them, I just keep a browser tab open to the current month's schedule. I've got them up through September, so it won't affect me until the first of October. Even then if it's not fixed, I'll find a work-around but it won't be buying the magazine.
-
Kuklapolitan's point is simple enough. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week TCM is running movies under the umbrella of 'turner classic movies'
Well, I'm annoyed too. I originally started watching because I thought it was a channel devoted strictly to the films of Lana Turner. Imagine my surprise many years ago when I saw that this was not so.
Not only are they wrong on the "classic" part, they're wrong on the "Turner" part. Not only does Lana have no say in things, but Ted Turner doesn't either.
I suggest to management that they just call the station "movies" but caution them that if they do, then they better not run anymore of those underwater documentaries that were made for television.
-
OK, so what does this tell us? That two years ago someone took the time to come here and point out a mistake. For whatever reason that mistake was made, they've had two years to address the issue. If they don't actually have the film licensed, they should have removed it from their data base of titles in the library.
I'm using the word "library" in industry terms. don't anyone come back and tell me that TCM doesn't have its own library. We've been through that enough.
OK, say that the title wasn't removed, then why isn't there a procedure that has someone check before airing that the title and cast of the particular film matches that of the film listed in the schedule? At what point does someone have to answer to someone else?
-
Three months?
July is the day after tomorrow and you can't even get that schedule.
-
Someone said that all of this started around 9/11 with that awful scrawl on the bottom of the cable TV new networks and has exploded since then.
I'd say that was just a coincidence in procedure. What prompted all of this was the constant departmental battles between TV promotion and programming departments. A lot of on-air promos used to come out of the time set aside for non-program material which is in most cases commercial time.
They were already extending the amount of commercial time to the point that a 30-minute sitcom is really only 22 minutes long. Fifty years ago, an episode of THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW was cut for 26 1/2 minutes. Commercial time has doubled.
The trouble was that remotes are now in just about every household, so when commercial breaks do come on, many people turn the channel. The solution to both problems was to keep as much of the commercial content within the program and minimize the break time between shows. But how then do they promote? Simple, put all that junk on the bottom of the screen.
Look at what TCM's sister channel does with sitcom reruns. They run the opening credits of one show while also running the previous program's closing credits. Volia! Now they save some time for even more ads.
This is why I no longer watch broadcast or commercial TV and this is coming from someone who spent 30 years in the industry.
And by the way, ever notice that you never see "bugs" during a commercial? They wouldn't dare do anything to keep you from getting the sponsor's message.
-
Could someone explain what it is that Mr. Baldwin said or did (besides his generally dismal comments on the Essentials each week) that is causing this poster to want to boycott TCM?
He did call Mitchum "voluptous" and that's about the only thing that I found unusual. I'm not trying to put words into the OP's mouth, but the rest of the patter was just praise for the film. Certainly that's not unusual given the format of the program.
-
Douglas was more physically impressive and intimidating than Widmark.
Perhaps the one criticism that I have of OUT OF THE PAST is when Mitchum tells Douglas "I wouldn't try it Whit, you're out of shape."
Hardly
But I chuckle every time that I hear it.Funny thing is that yesterday I noticed that Van Heflin said practically the same thing to Douglas in THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS.
Mitchum, Douglas and Widmark would all get together for THE WAY WEST in 1967 and apparently it wasn't a pleasant shoot. Douglas and Widmark almost came to blows and Mitchum brushed away Douglas' attempts to tell him what to do. While Douglas produced the film, he failed to mention anything about it in his autobiography.
-
The intended line drawing didn't work out, so I'll have to use this:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNRQozV5nzSkjgZxra1aLgF01vh7ns5PJfJa5SYgJdILxVuzPs7Q&t=1
Edited by: clore on Jun 29, 2011 4:28 PM
-
Someone asleep at the wheel too, who wrote the copy..........
So, someone is as sloppy with math as they are with research. That's what happens when you hire people who can't count to 20 without the use of their fingers and toes.
-
Thanks, I've searched and while I fiond references to it, it may have been subject to some legal action taken as it doesn't appear to be for sale.
But there is a torrent available...
-
Well, they couldn't glam her up too much as she's not supposed to be one of those wicked, painted women from the big city. Probably wearing minimal make-up which is the way it should be.
-
Can you imagine anyone else but Burt Lancaster in this role?
Yes, Robert Preston. It's not that far removed from THE MUSIC MAN, just that there's no singing.
But I chuckle every time that I hear it.
H Man in Pan and Scan
in General Discussions
Posted
"Wha happanig?"
Oh my God, this is funny to listen to.