fxreyman

Ahhhhh.... You'll never catch up with me my old young and foolish friend. I surely hope today has been a very special day for you. I hope you are celebrating with your friends and family and I hope you get a chance to sit back and reflect on what today really means..... Another fracking (BSG reference) year older. Happy day!!!

"what chance does any non-celeb regular person have in making a dent in such an institutionalized arbitrary mindset? The world is full of aging space cadets like me and our decades of viewing time in front of the family TV Set as well as our film preferences don't mean jack crap to tcm's programmers. Call me cynical but that's what I think." Not much as long as you have decided to give up before even trying. I am sending you a PM with additional information. Please read it and see what you think.

You call him for me. Oh, I would not want to deprive you of an outstanding opportunity to do some work for yourself for a CHANGE.

Pointless????? You give up too easily. Writing or calling Mr. Tabesh like I did is probably too much work for you to do anyway. You want only to complain and yet never really do you ever offer any positive feedback or show that you've done any work around here like some of us have. Its very easy to contact Mr. Tabesh and it does not require you or anyone else to be a celebrity.

In many ways I think that this thread you have started is an offshoot or at least a continuation of the conversations or I should say demands you made in the ME-TV Cutting in on TCM’s Audience thread that was started several months ago. What happened with that thread? I understand where you are coming from. You and many others would like to see TCM air additional sci-fi films, at least many more that TCM is now showing. I get that. But it is not up to Robert Osborne to select the films that TCM airs. That is up to Chief of Programming Charlie Tabesh and his staff. And a lot of what happens on TCM’s schedule is in large part due to what is available to TCM form the various film companies, and rental agencies. I am not saying that they could not do a lot better with the films they choose, but rather maybe invest some time in figuring out as you have indicated the fact that TCM could devote additional time to this genre or at least rent some additional sic-fi “B” films. As far as you suggesting that TCM is not “very intuitive” when discussing film preservation, let me tell you that this is NOT TCM’s main business. Their business is showcasing films on their channel. They have created many documentaries and have obviously been a driving force to make people aware of restoration efforts, but the channel itself does not have the budget or expertise to restore films. But as is the case with everything else at TCM, there are many genre’s that have to fight for cable time, and unfortunately for sci-fi, they lose out probably more often than any other genre. And I think that there is a reason for this. The number one reason IMHO is the idea that sci-fi encompasses a very large area of storytelling. Within the main genre itself you have many sub categories that to many people would be daunting to appreciate and or program for. I am not saying that TCM could not program additional sci-fi films, but what I am saying is that TCM can only show a certain amount of films of each major genre each month. In other words, it is a numbers game. And generalized dramas, westerns, mysteries, war, bios and musicals usually swallow up the monthly schedule leaving out prized genres like sci-fi. It’s not right nor wrong but there are just so many time slots available each month. Personally I would agree with others that a certain amount of time each month could be devoted to sci-fi in all of it’s forms, maybe as part of a regular Saturday afternoon or evening schedule. TCM could block out four to six hours each weekend for this very important genre. But to sit here and constantly complain or even theorize about the reasons why TCM does not show more sci-fi is akin to what you were doing on the ME-TV thread. Enough is enough already. My suggestion: Write to Charlie Tabesh at TCM and explain to him what you’d like to see.

Probably the single most important date in World War II history.... August 6th 1945, The dropping of the world's first atomic bomb against an adversary not willing to surrender. Followed on the 9th of August by the dropping of a second atomic weapon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Emma Thompson

Actually, Humphrey was not Vice-President at the time of the release of this film just over one week before President Kennedy was killed on November 22nd. Humphrey did not become VP until January, 1965, the start of Lyndon Johnson's only full-term of presidency.

We are in agreement then. Oh, and I was not attempting to suggest that you were not aware of that panel show's rules.

fx: "If you look carefully at the polls of favorite movie stars from 1994 to 2013, there is one name that exists and that person died in 1979. How do you explain this?" Andy: It's not very complicated. fx: This was meant as a rhetorical question.

Well, I would agree to a certain extent about what you write in the first several paragraphs, and we have TCM largely to thank for this. But I also think the bigger problem with today's films is that there just is not a group of actors who represent the values of most adults. Or more appropriately have anything to do with today's audience members who are in their 40's and 50's. When the 1940's and 1950's era of filmmaking was happening the country was teaming with returning vets from WWII and hence the nation's film theaters were basking in their glory as they had during the depths of the depression. Then the fifties arrived with television. And theater receipts started to tumble. The actors of the Golden Age of the Movies were starting to disappear. Then came the revival of the movies in the mid to late sixties. Those actors of that generation are now still with us but are in their 60's and 70's now, and they just like their counterparts from the Golden Age are starting to fade away. But there is one important person from the old days of Hollywood that is still around and figures quite prominently in the popularity polls of today... http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/1362/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx If you look carefully at the polls of favorite movie stars from 1994 to 2013, there is one name that exists and that person died in 1979. How do you explain this?

The reason that the panel on What's My Line could not guess him easily was more because of the way March disguised his voice during his appearance. Watch carefully and you can see that the panel which usually was able to guess who the mystery guest was fairly early on was simply stumped. And that is what you call superb acting/voice experience.

The Talk of the Town, 1942. D: George Stevens, C: Cary Grant, Jean Arthur, Ronald Coleman They Were Expendable, 1945. D: John Ford, C: Robert Montgomery, John Wayne, Donna Reed Winchester ’73, 1950. D: Anthony Mann, C: James Stewart, Millard Mitchell, Stephen McNally The Thing From Another World, 1951. D: Christian Nyby, C: Kenneth Tobey, Margaret Sheridan, Robert Cornthwaite

Was not trying to pick on you TOP, just sort of figured that you can't possibly point out everything that happens on any particular date. Though I do find these reports by you fun to read. So keep it up! By the way, I was nine years old at the time of the moon landings, living in Louisa, Virginia, about 100 miles south of Washington, D.C. and about 25 miles east of Charlottesville, Virginia. My Mom let me stay up late that evening. The walk occurred around 11:00 PM on the east coast, if I remembered correctly. It may have been later.

I guess you were not born yet, or had better things to do on this date 45 years ago..... IMHO, man's greatest achievement... Apollo 11 lands on the moon with the lunar module Eagle. Neil Armstrong becomes the first human to set foot on another celestial body with the second man to walk on the moon, Buzz Aldrin with Michael Collins orbiting in the command module Columbia. Truly the greatest feat of engineering ever. And all done within the same decade that President John F. Kennedy had promised would be done.

Well yeah, there you go....

"Yes it is...'cause it's an interesting subject" So interesting that there have been ONLY 673 replies. Still less than 4%. Not very interesting enough to cause maybe a 10% reply rate. Now that would be something to cheer about.....

IMHO..... I know that my selections are going to appear possibly too much like an AFI list, but I really do believe he made a lot of rally good films, some great ones I think. Five stand out for me: Three gangster type films: The Public Enemy 1931 Angels With Dirty Faces 1938 White Heat 1949 And two bios: Yankee Doodle Dandy 1942 The Gallant Hours 1960

Yes, almost 17,000 views is a lot of views. Which is making the original poster very proud. Unfortunately the replies to this stupendous amount of views is PALTRY. The total amount of replies as a percentage of the views is less than 4%. What does this all indicate? That a lot of people are coming here to look at the thread, but very, very few people are actually coming here to comment. Which leads this poster to postulate that the thread is not all that interesting to the vast amount of people coming here to view, but not touch. I mean comment.

THE FOLLOWING IS JUST MHO.... Unfortunately, many recent movie sequels have not been nearly as well received as older sequels. Case in point: The film you brought up. Jaws II No where near as good as the original. Once we had the original film we all knew that any other film based on the original film would be jet another rehash of the same story, or at least an off-shoot of the same story. I mean, come on. Who in their right mind would think that another great white shark would invade the same community that had fought another shark just a few years before? The second film and the other sequels made little sense except to try and recapture lost expenditures from the first film. The same is true with the Rocky series. Oh, I’ll admit that the first two sequels were fun. But that series should have ended after #2. Now some have indicated that the original Star Trek film from 1979 had little to do with the other films in the franchise, and they would be correct. Except for the redesign of the starship Enterprise, not much was carried over to the other films in that series. In fact Star Trek II, III, and IV were really part of a trilogy, with V and VI meant as separate entries with their own story lines. When they filmed II, I am sure they were not really sure that a story could be developed showcasing the cast in a further adventure within the same story arch. But they succeeded. II was successful as was IV. Up until the reboot of Star Trek in 2009, IV was the most finically successful of the first six films with the original cast. The other series that was butchered was the original Batman films with Michael Keaton as Batman/Bruce Wayne. Unfortunately for the producers, Warner Brothers felt that Batman turns, the second film starring Keaton was not as financially good as the first one so they decided to take the series in a different direction. Tim Burton was replaced as director with the flamboyant Joel Schumacher (Burton was retain in a producer status), but Keaton did not like the new direction so he bowed out and was replaced by Val Kilmer. A shame really, because of all the actors who have portrayed Batman on screen he and Christian Bale have been the best IMHO. Another film series that needed to end after the sequel was the Planet of the Apes film starting off with the original blockbuster from 1968 starring Charlton Heston this series should have been killed off after the second film starring James Fransciscus.

So again it would seem that Top Billed places a higher meaning on the number of views rather than number of replies. I have gone back and tabulated the replies for each of the threads he has mentioned below and have found that only four out of the 24 threads he has listed is above a 5% response rate. Before anyone decides to challenge me on this, let me say that I think that if you are going to spend this amount of time starting threads in any shape of form, then I would think that the amount of views would not be as important as the amount of replies. The more replies a thread receives the more conversation and debate is going to occur. Hence the longer the thread is going to have a chance to stay alive on the forum. Of course TopBilled may think otherwise. Why else is it that important for him to post the amount of views? And why is the amount of views that important to him? Again, I think if you are coming here to post a thread you WANT conversation to happen. That is why we are all here. Just to list the amount of views and make such a big deal out of that alone, to me negates the overall value of communicating with one another. Here are the threads he posted earlier today with the amount of views. He provided no info on the replies each thread had received. The first number is the amount of views. This is followed by the number of replies and then the % of replies to the thread. The %’s are rounded up. Enjoy! Ruth Roman……..1253/132/10.6% On Broadway, but not in the movie....1045/85/8.1% Kay Francis appreciation thread…1797/114/6.3% It happened on this day.....1961/104/5.3% News: Dame May Whitty more popular than Rock Hudson!... 1095/51/4.6% Hollywood's depictions of death on screen... 2847/117/4.1% News: ME-TV Cutting in on TCM's Audience............ 16363/653/4.0% What do thread views mean?...2030/73/3.6% Classic film pairings........ 4878/166/3.4% News: Some viewers feel hosts do not watch all the movies they introduce…1134/39/3.4% Guest Programmer Dolores Hart tonight on TCM..... 3351/110/3.3% Classic yes but is it essential?.... 2648/86/3.3% Any ideas who will be October’s SOTM?...1292/42/3.3% So how many films have y-o-u recorded…?.... 2567/81/3.2% Why do movie stars commit suicide?... 3025/93/3.1% Top 10 most-searched titles on the TCM database…1931/59/3.1% Movie Swan Song............... 1100/31/2.9% News: Director blasts Leonard Maltin for inaccurate review.... 2509/66/2.6% News: Kim Novak blasts bullies…. 2172/55/2.5% Any ideas who will be September's SOTM?..... 1501/31/2.1% John Wayne as SOTM April 2014………. 7479/124/1.7% Summer Under the Stars Lineup August 2014....... 4982/80/1.6% Why are some threads locked, words prohibited?....3543 3570/50/1.4% September 2014 Schedule............. 2742/34/1.3%

Well, I am NOT using it for that purpose at all. I am just clearly stating that having more replies to a thread is vastly more important than just having a lot of views. The more views to me means very little. But the more replies a thread receives IMHO, indicates that the thread is active and has a lot of interest. The whole reason for posting threads on a message board is to get conversations started about the subject matter that the originator started with. If the originator of a thread was only interested in the number of views, to me that runs counter productive to the whole issue of having a message board in the first place. Agree or disagree?

Okay, I accept that. Thank you for pointing this out so that this partially antiquated poster can understand. But still, you have to admit over 12,000 replies to a single thread is quite a number, isn't it?

You don't see the pistol she is holding. It is further down in the photo which has been cropped.

Okay, so I just went back to the Favorites Forum this morning, and I clicked on the FrankGrimes Torture Thread and I wrote a post there. I then signed off of the boards, and a few minutes later came back, signed in and here is what the counts showed. As you can see on the top listing, the FrankGrimes Torture Thread still shows 12,467 replies as opposed to just 3,811 views. Can you explain this? I believe you were saying or someone was saying that you can not have more replies than views.