fxreyman
-
Posts
3,497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by fxreyman
-
-
> I agree with you, Ham Radio... and the TCM messageboards is a perfect example of political correctness taken to its absurd extreme.
> One would hope that true film fans could use the boards to discuss classic film: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, The Hilarious and Everything In Between. Sadly, the place is a semi-conscious graveyard for blowhards and control freaks, intent on eliminating the human spirit from any and all discussions. It's death by PC... And it's not the fault of the Moderator... he's Alive, he Understands, but he is forced to kowtow to the prickly, humorless drones who want to drain the blood and color from every conversation. It's not fair to him either.
I do not think the Message Boards is all about Political Correctness. It is more about being courteous and respectful of other posters here. You and others on this particular thread may call that PC, I call it playing nice.
There are true film fans here. Maybe you are not looking in the right places. Without getting negative here, I would say that many of yours and other's comments here may feel this way only visit and comment on the Hot Topics and General Discussion Forums. Maybe I am wrong here, but I don't think I have ever seen you comment on the Films and Filmmakers Forum, the Favorites Forum or on many of the Genre Forums. Like I wrote, I may be wrong here, there are so many threads on each forum it would be nearly impossible to find out just how many threads you have written on or made comments on. If I am wrong about this let me apologize to you and others who have written here on this thread now.
As far as your comment........... *Sadly, the place is a semi-conscious graveyard for blowhards and control freaks, intent on eliminating the human spirit from any and all discussions. It's death by PC.*
I would disagree with your comment here. Sure, there are certain people who will go the extra mile to complain to the moderator or to write that people are being too negative or too non-PC, but that is the case with many message boards controlled by an organization like TCM. Obviously, TCM is owned by Time-Warner, and lets face it, they want to control and or at least at the minimum, maintain a certain decorum here on the boards. And I would have to say that part of this could be because there is no age limit to join the message boards.
People need to learn that you have to be civil here. Many posters have come and gone simply because they have been too rude, or too argumentative. There's nothing wrong with being argumentative, but you should be able to play nice. Not everyone has the same viewpoint you have. Tolerance needs to be followed and accepted. I do not think that this is PC.
I am not sure if you have written much on the Films and Filmmakers Forum, the Favorites Forum and or on many of the Genre Forums. It is on these specific forums where you will find "real" discussions going on about movies, actors, directors, music, writers, and almost anything that attracts serious discussions. This is not to say that "real" discussions of films do not take place on the Hot Topics or General Discussions forums, they do of course, but these other three forums are where the real "meat and potato" discussions take place. Everyday.
Each of these three Forums attracts a wide and varied collection of individuals who want to discuss films rather than engage in any form of non-positive behavior.
These forums do engage in discussions about the *"Good, The Bad, The Ugly, The Hilarious and Everything In Between"* as you wrote in your first paragraph, but without the histrionics that is usually associated with similar discussions in the Hot Topics and General Discussion forums.
> I've been on and off the board for years with my various e-mail addresses... each time I've re-joined I've witnessed the condescension and mistrust directed at the "new" people, myself included, who couldn't possibly know anything about movies, and whose contrasting opinions were by definition incorrect. TCM attracts an audience of the most intelligent, most culturally-enlightened, wealthiest people on the planet... but I can only describe the messageboards as a wasteland.
Well now, you have hit the nail on the head. You wrote that you have been on and off the board for years. Each time you came back, did you come back with the same user name?
Now, I must point out that because I have never had to leave the Message Board and then rejoin at a later date, I am not aware if there is a rule that states that you CAN NOT USE the same user name again. I don't know. But to me, if I was to leave for any other reason than for being banned, I would come back with the same user name I have now.
Because if you didn't use the same user name and that when you did return with a different user name and you continued to post like you had posted before you had left previously, then I would have to deduce that your coming back here represented someone who had an agenda, or just wanted to prevent anyone from knowing who you were before in a previous life here on the boards.
Many posters have done this. There is nothing wrong with wanting to come back after leaving, but it is somewhat silly (to me) to want to come back to the boards after an absence and NOT use your previous user name. That would definitely suggest to me that either you were banned, or you left because you received negative responses or that you were generally known as someone who liked to get into scrapes with other posters.
Unfortunately for this Message Board, there are many individuals here who have been victims of unnecessary attacks of a personal or even a political nature and have had to deal with trolling activity over the years. Whenever a new poster appears and that poster attempts to discuss non-relavent material or possibly engages in an activity that would be associated with certain forms of trolling, then most of the regular posters feel threatened.
You see, there are many of us here who have been here for years and yet have never had to change our user names or have left the Message Boards because we felt the need to do so because what we were writing generated negative activity, or that the comments we made were not universally accepted.
This is my fifth year of posting here and I have never, ever had to consider leaving the Message Boards. That is not to say that I don't have disagreements with other posters here, I do, but I have never felt that I needed to leave. There have been months where I have not posted anything. And that is probably because I had nothing to say or I was too busy at work. Now, I read mostly. I make comments when I think I can add something to the conversation, like I am doing here.
I have also engaged in posting that has gotten me warnings from the moderator. I have had to go and apologize several times to other posters here, usually through personal messaging. At times I have had to apologize right in the thread I was commenting on in the first place. Sometimes the exchanges we get into become heated and unfortunately even I am as guilty as the next person is about engaging in negative comments.
> Art, like life, like people, is a living breathing thing... people have their own reactions, their own interpretations, and when you prevent them from speaking their mind the passion dies. It's one thing to delete a thread or a post when it's SPAM... but when you delete an original, funny, offbeat opinion just for being different you are killing the conversation. The joy is in the conversation. That's why- in my opinion- TCM still hasn't broken through culturally- in spite of the fact that it's the greatest network in TV history. That's why the forum remains stuck in mid-90's technology and thought... that's why the messageboard users are afraid to express their own outrageous opinions and feel they're much safer nodding along and agreeing that everything is simply "good."
Sure, *art, like life, like people, is a living breathing thing*..... no question about it. People who post here do express themselves. They do speak their minds. Most just do it with common courtesy and decency, not with negative thoughts and unwanted comments. The problem is that many who do speak their minds do so because they want to stir up trouble or be the center of attention.
I have seen it countless times here on the boards. It happens most of the time on General Discussions and Hot Topics. You never see this sort of behavior on the other three forums I listed before. Why is that do you think?
My feeling is that the people who like to "push the envelope" do not want to visit the other forums because in reality they have nothing useful or informing to write. Or that they do not have substantive ideas to write about. They want to be read because of the general negativity of their posts. You visit those other three forums and there is genuine conversations going on between the posters there. Almost all of it is in the positive. It is night and day compared from what the General Discussions and Hot Topics forums present.
> Personally, I don't care how many movies someone has seen or if they have any expertise in the field... I don't care if they're 9 or 89... I just want to know what movies they LOVED or HATED, what actors they LIKE or DESPISE... their PERSONAL stories of movies are ten times more exciting than ancient industry gossip... It's a shame. Political correctness has taken the cocktails from the cocktail party, and what we're left with isn't a party I'd want to attend.
My own personal view is that what you wrote above is common throughout General Discussions and Hot Topics. Ever notice that many of the banned or deleted threads and comments come from these two forums? There are some deleted or locked up threads in Films and Filmmakers, Favorites and Genre forums, but that is mostly due to threads that are duplicated. The gossip that you speak of is everywhere on the boards. That is just part of the overall discussions going on here.
But if you dig deep enough in the other forums here you will see a lively debate and discussion about films, actors, and personal stories related to the posters discussing them. Just look around here. There is evidence of this activity going on. You are just not looking in the right places.
And I do not agree that the Message Boards is a wasteland. Maybe its a wasteland in General Discussions and Hot Topics by certain posters who need or want to be recognized all for the wrong reasons.
The Message Boards is a place for those of us who want to discuss films in a courteous way, a place to just be absorbed in other poster's thoughts and feelings. To engage in thoughtful discussions. If this is the meaning of PC, I don't buy it.
-
Well, first of all, welcome to the boards!
I am sorry if you have had your first misunderstanding with another member here. That is unfortunate, but it does happen around here from time to time. Please do not think everyone is like him based on his response to you.
Since you are new here, there are several ways you can find out information from the administrators here on the Message Boards. The first way would be to send a personal message to an administrator with a question and or concern. You may not always get a response quick enough, but most of the time they do respond back to you.
The Administrator that we contact here is:
TCMWebAdmin
His name is Michael and he is a very good chap. Often you will find him posting messages here on the board in various threads. He is also sort of like a constant "hall monitor". Sometimes the discussions here get a little heated and he usually steps in to calm things down a bit. But mostly he is here to monitor the boards.
The other way to send a message is to go to the "Under Technical Issues With the Message Boards" FORUM. There is a thread under General Issues where you can send questions to TCM directly. They may not always get back to you quickly, but most of the time they do.
I hope this helps.
As far as the article you refer to, it would seem that Comcast is raising the rates of the tier that TCM is on, but many cable channels goes through this every year. It is the cost of doing business. And I am sure many people are dropping the services based on their own financial troubles.
According to the article you posted, it would seem that Comcast is losing customers, not so much TCM. I say this because even though TCM may be on a higher tier now, there is no way of finding out just how many subscribers there are for TCM. The channel does not subscribe to any of the rating services, like the Nielsens, so we would never know what type of ratings the channel gets either.
In the article, it did state that even though Comcast lost 165,000 customers in the third quarter, they are more than making up for those losses by signing additional customers up via their three-pronged approach to combining their video, broadband and phone services into one package. As I wrote in another thread, that is the package I have here in Colorado Springs.
As far as Comcast being a bad vendor is concerned, I have never had any problems with them.
And as far as TCM being in partnership with Comcast, I am sure the same could be said of the other cable companies as well. But, TCM is part of the Time-Warner family and since TW is not affiliated with Comcast, I really don't see how one can be connected to the other through subterfuge. Just my humble opinion.
-
> Well, *I hate to interject politics into yet another thread*, but here in Michigan, it is our Republican dominated state legislature that has made it legally impossible to sue companies for defective, or dangerous products, even if they caused injury or death.
Well then, here's an idea......
Don't interject politics into yet another thread on this movie message board.
-
> Well, that is easily done. What is more popular in movie theaters, documentaries, or fiction films? Fiction, by far. When you make it up, you are free to make it entertaining. *Fox just makes it up.* The others try to present actual facts, even if some interpret those facts from a particular perspective.
That's what so great about message boards.......
Whatever the subject, somehow politics are always brought up.
-
> Not any more; Congress and state legislatures have placed sometimes extreme statutory limitations on the right to sue.
Yes, and you know how this was allowed to happen, don't you?
Voters elect state house members, state senators, and the individual state supreme courts. The voters also elect US House members, and US Senate members. At the federal level judges are not voted in. That right is given to each President and then that nominee goes before the US Senate for approval. Unfortunately depending on how you think our laws should be handled and or judged, it is quite possible that you should not assign blame to the Congress, rather maybe you should apply blame to each President who has been given the authority, based on the Constitution for selecting judges at the federal level.
> Were it up to me, there'd be a Constitutional amendment that reads, in full: "The People's right to seek redress in the cvil courts shall not be abridged by statute."
Well its probably a good thing that this issue is not up to you. Unless of course you have a law degree. Then you might be able to have something legit to say.
-
First of all, welcome to the boards!!!
Do you have your internet and phone service from different providers?
If so have you ever considered combining your internet/phone/cable services into one bundled package?
That is what I am doing with Comcast here in Colorado Springs.
Before I switched, I was paying well over $100 per month for regular phone line service. By connecting with Comcast I saved over $70 per month on my phone bills.
I also got high speed digital internet and HD cable with TCM. I pay $140 base price per month plus any additional fees for phone, internet and HD cable.
You might want to look into this bundled service from Comcast if you have not already done so.
I know based on what many people here on the boards have written in the past, that their experiences with Comcast have been really bad. I have had Comcast in Illinois for many years while living there and I never have had any problem with them. Same here in Colo. Springs.
Hope this helps!
-
> Anyway, back to Angela: the idea she be made "Star of the Month" same as "Queen for a Day" just might be right. And why not? Look at those "31 days of Oscar" TCM puts on. *Eventually, your gonna run dry.* So we get shown movies that only fit in the category because they were NOMINATED for "Best Kraft service" or something. At least with "SOTM", they can keep it new.
As far as running dry is concerned..... I don't think so.
If in twenty to thirty years TCM is still around I would venture to guess that the likes of Harrison Ford, Dustin Hoffman, Morgan Freeman, Al Pacino, John Travolta, Samuel Jackson, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Christian Bale, Leonardo DiCaprio, Keanu Reeves, Jodie Foster, Emma Thompson, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, Edward Norton, Matt Damon, Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Natalie Portman, Cate Blanchett, Rene Russo, Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock, and the list goes on and on...... would be joining the ranks of classic film stars that were from the golden age of movies. It is inevitable.
And why is this? Because as it is happening now, TCM IS showing additional newer films alongside the older classics. We have had this argument before and it bears repeating here as well. Any film from any time period can be considered a classic. And if you look at TCM's original mission statement which stated the following.....
*Turner Classic Movies presents the greatest movies of all time, from the 1920s through the '80s--featuring the silent screen, International pictures, as well as all of Hollywood's genres--commercial-free, uninterrupted, 24-hours a day.*
After its 10th Anniversary in 2004 it amended the statement to include "through the '90s". And I am sure that in 2014, the 20th anniversary of TCM, the statement will be amended again to include the 2000's.
The vast majority of films still showing on the channel are from the first half of the 20th century, but more and more recent films have started to sprout up alongside the golden nuggets. The films shown on TCM will always be from the older days of Hollywood, but eventually newer films will be showcased. That has always been the case and will continue to be so.
And part of that is the fact that TCM has to show digital versions of the films now, and many of the pre-1960 films have not been converted as of yet. It would be nice if say Gates or Buffet could lend the film preservationist additional money to help create digital transfers of these older films, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
So I think if one was to look through the crystal ball, twenty to thirty years from now, you would still see many of the films from the first half of the 20th Century, along with more current releases. As it is now on average TCM broadcasts about 70% pre-1960 films on the channel. I do not see that changing anytime soon.
-
> WiltedLily wrote: I was surprised to find Ben Mankiewicz spewing his political views on Al Gore's channel this morning. I don't think it's a good move for his career or for TCM. Alienating viewers on the opposite side of the political aisle is just a dumb idea. Is TCM getting ready to replace Ben or are they going to start getting more politically charged? Quite frankly, TCM has been my refuge from partisan politics. It would be such a shame to lose this refuge, but I'm not going to stay tuned if Ben is let loose to shill for the liberals and ridicule conservatives.
Some of us tend to forget that as Americans we have the right to be associated with whatever political party we want to be associated with. And to believe in certain things. Obviously, with his appearance on Current TV, you have now found out exactly what Ben stands for.
And that should be tolerated. Lets face it, Ben is not going to stand in front of a TCM camera and spout off his political views just because he has a different agenda than the movie he is supposed to be introducing. Now he has made certain references in the past, but sometimes sharing a thought or a belief on national cable television, again should be tolerated.
To sit here and decry someone for speaking out about their own point of view is ludicrous. To say that what Ben said on another cable network and because of what he said, has alienated the viewers of TCM, I don't think is the issue here. I think the issue is that you might have different opinions from Ben's and therefore you think he should not be on another cable outlet sharing his views.
Or that maybe because of his views he should not be hosting TCM during the day and on weekends?
It would be interesting to see exactly how many folks who do watch TCM or who write here on the boards, what political leanings they have. I think you'd be surprised.
Ben has every right to appear on whatever cable network show he wants to state his views. This is America, and everyone has the right to say what they want, within reason of course.
You were you watching his appearance on Current-TV, correct? And because of this now you believe he has tainted himself as a liberal?
Well, I don't know if you know this, but for years Ben has been a regular fill-in and co-host on the progressive talk radio show The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur. He is a known liberal who I think does an admirable job hosting daytime and weekend hosting gigs on TCM.
I am a moderate conservative and I enjoy his comments. He is very thoughtful and imparts a good deal of information while he is hosting. And I think he is very likeable as well.
Not a good move for Ben's career?
The one thing a lot of people do not remember is that many of yesterday's stars were not of the political party one would have thought they were.
You look at Bogart for instance. He was a liberal Democrat. Many other stars of that era were too. And theres nothing wrong with that. In the late 40's while he was still acting, he helped to organize a delegation to Washington, D.C. called the Committee for the First Amendment against the House Un-American Activities Committee's harassment of Hollywood screenwriters and actors. Totally the opposite point of view from John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Walt Disney, and Ronald Reagan.
As far as TCM becoming more politically bent? I don't think so. They will continue to showcase films that their programmers will choose. I am sure that the decisions related to which films are shown ARE NOT based on some political calculation.
-
I have a complaint!!!
This is the second thread to be started about the same subject since yesterday.
On Hot Topics forum yesterday at 1:15PM, LadyinPrague started a thread about this same subject. The thread was titled:
Happy New Year?!?!
Maybe in the future you could check to see if another thread exists on the same subject before starting up yet another thread on a different forum.
-
Thanks for pointing out the obvious to me.
I am quite aware that many posters here do just like what you wrote, but many do not. And I base that on how long certain posters have been around, and how good a post they have written in the past.
Yes, you are right. Many posters like to write bombastic statements just so they get a rise out of others here (like me). But I don't mind telling them what I think. In fact I find it very curious that even when I do respond to these jokers, many never respond back to me.
And that is probably because they have little to defend.
-
>willbefree25 wrote: Stinkeroos are stinkeroos.Thanks to TCM, I've seen some black and white stinkeroos, and you should know that for the most part, I won't watch TCM now, since they mostly show movies made since 1960.
I think that maybe you should be watching TCM again. You have been missing quite a few pre-1960 films.
IMHO what you wrote here is wrong. It has been proven month after month (except for 31 Days of Oscar) that the vast majority of films shown on TCM since the movie channel made it's debut in 1994 has been films made before 1960. The number is 70% or higher the amount of films shown that were made pre-1960.
Is 30% too high a number of post-1960 films to be shown on TCM?
I just wished that when people say they don't watch TCM anymore or that they say that TCM shows too many newer films, would just do a little research before making such statements. I think you would be pleasantly surprised.
This is a common thing that is written about here on the boards. As I wrote earlier, all it takes is a little research to find out exactly how many pre-1960 films are shown on the channel.
-
1977's The Gathering, an ABC television movie special.
YouTube has the entire movie on it's channel in several parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwNbkm3ZGQc
This sentimental television Christmas movie was broadcast on ABC in 1977. It was written by James Poe and starred Edward Asner and Maureen Stapleton as a separated husband and wife who decide to reunite for the sake of their children for one last Christmas together. Their children were portrayed by Gregory Harrison, Lawrence Pressman, Gail Strickland, and Rebecca Balding. Their spouses were portrayed by Stephanie Zimbalist, Veronica Hamel, Edward Winter, and Bruce Davison. Asner's doctor was portrayed by John Randolph and his lawyer by James Karen.
IMHO, this is the finest Christmas movie ever filmed either on television or at the movies. Even better than It's a Wonderful Life. This tele movie was nominated for and won the Emmy for Outstanding Special in 1978.
The tele film has been released by Warner Bros. on DVD in 2009.
-
Welcome to the boards!
Since you are new here you can search the message boards for what ever you are looking for. In your case, earlier in this thread the following info was given out. I hope this helps.
According to Gonzo, posted on December 27, the music to TCM Remembers is OK Sweetheart's "Before You Go" from their recent album, "Home." Vocals by Erin Austin.
And araner1973 posted the following link to an insider's account of the TCM Remembers Spot.
http://www.atlantamagazine.com/eldredgeatl/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10330456
-
> drednm wrote:
> Movies are no more dated than art or literature. The viewer must accept the film as a product of its time.
> Yes the clothes and hair and cars and houses look dated but they are merely time capsules, and I find it endlessly fascinating to see them. Old films often give us a look at what our cities and countryside looked like also.
I somewhat agree with this. But more often than not most films from the 30's and 40's were shot on sound stages or back lots. Not many were actually shot on a location, so we really got to see the same exteriors (slightly changed of course) over many films. This is not to say that some films were shot on location, but especially the MGM films, many of which were shot on the MGM lot. The dream factory.
>hamradio wrote: That post hit the nail right on the head, that is mostly how I feel. There is an old phrase that best suits this thread The Generation Gap.
Well that is just it, isn't it? How many young people of today are really into watching older films? Not many from my POV. Now I am sure I would get some disagreement from other posters here who think of themselves as the younger generation. But from what I have seen, younger people have no interest in history or anything older than themselves.
My niece is the perfect example. I love her like she was my own, but I am so disappointed with her at times. We will be sitting on the couch together watching TV and something comes on that might be older or might be of historical interest to me (could be a historical event or an older film) and she just looks a if what I am looking at was from another planet. She'll often ask me about it, and after a few moments usually says that she doesn't like anything made before 1995 or so.
And she does not do well with history either. A lot of that is because this country's education system has pretty much discarded teaching American History in high school. Or if they haven't they just do not know how to teach history. And that is a shame.
Her brother who is a senior in high school loves the fact that his school has a film class. They show many films from the classic era and he has actually like many of them. But if you were to ask him to watch an older film at home, he would say that he has better things to watch. I.E., newer films or videos.
> hamradio wrote: It would be interesting to know the taste of music posters has that don't like movies made before a certain time frame (i.e. before 1960's -80's, etc.). For myself, I hate rap (if I had a choice, I rather listen to the music of anceint Rome).
That sort of goes back to my niece. I have a friend in Chicago who considers himself a younger Roger Ebert. But he is much different that the real Roger Ebert in that he does not like films made before 1980. It was not until he started coming over to my house back in the 1990s when the Academy Awards were telecast, and he would sit there dumbfounded when ever they showed clips of certain actors in different, yet older films.
He would sit there and say something like 'I didn't know so and so was in that!' He was totally confused and to some degree did not know what he had been missing all of those years. Eventually he would start to rent certain older films, or I would loan him films to watch. Now even though he still loves newer films, he does have an appreciation of the classics.
>hamradio wrote: Regarding music and movies, I love when I find an oldie, I've never heard or seen before but don't have my ears shut or eyes closed to anything new.
I like older 60's to 70's music. Mostly soft rock or folk type music. Whenever I see those compilation CDs I by them. Right now, I have had in my car's CD player for months, Glen Campbell's greatest hits which include three of my favorites:
Galveston
Wichita Lineman
The Dreams of an Everyday Housewife
-
As lzcutter has indicated, Robert Osborne came back to the cable air waves on December 1st. It could be that he did not have time to write his normal commentary that you speak about before his actual return.
In any case, if this or any of your other concerns are still bothering you, you can always write to TCM and let them know what you think.
As I wrote earlier as others have written, 38 films is a lot of exposure for one individual. Any fan of Powell's should be happy and proud that TCM was able to showcase many of these films in the first place.
Not many other cable outlets would have been able to accomplish this feat. This is what you should be celebrating.
-
> Wasn't there a thread about this last year?
I do not know. I did not research this when I wrote what I wrote. But based on everything else that is brought up each year, this topic probably was written about.
> It's traditional at this time of the year to look back on the year that is waning and remember those who passed. TCM is not the only one that does this. Magazines, newspapers, news broadcasts, etc are all providing remembrances of those left us in 2011.
Yes, I am quite aware of these tributes. Magazines, newspapers, television news broadcasts, and some cable outlets like TCM do present these year end tributes. I am not disputing this.
> It is part of our culture that we use the month of December to look back. If TCM were to hold off and run the In Memoriam tribute throughout January, how many people would question the timing and complain that it is better suited to December? Probably more than we think.
> Another poster mentioned the Academy's In Memoriam being in February but that is because it is part of the Academy Awards and not a separate, stand-alone tribute. It airs only once during the Academy Awards broadcast.
Yes, I agree. The month of December is the month we look back. As far as people complaining about the timing of the Memoriam, I would guess that an equal amount would complain about either subject.
I have never heard of anyone ever complaining that the Academy Awards Memoriam should be earlier than when they traditionally show them on their telecast. Most of the awards shows start appearing in January, leading up to the Oscars. And almost all of them also show memoriams to deceased actors, et all.
My suggestion would be this:
Run the Memoriam during December as has always been done. Then in February when 31 Days of Oscar is programmed, re-edit the original December Memoriam and add in any additional deceased classic movie people that would have died after the original Memoriam had been broadcast. This way we solve any potential bickering when after TCM does air the Memoriam in early December, and several more people die afterwards, they would then be included during the 31 Days of Oscar.
So, if TCM were to show their Memoriam in February, it would at least be in keeping with the tradition of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. And lets face it, Robert Osborne is as much a part of Oscar history as TCM is.
Of course some people would still complain that certain people were left off the memoriam and that will always be the case.
-
As others have said, he had a great month.
TCM broadcast 38 of his films. Not too shabby.
January's Star of the Month, Angela Lansbury is getting a 26 film tribute, plus three television appearances including a Private Screening episode with Mr. Osborne.
Her 26 film tribute is quite a lot less than William Powell's, wouldn't you say?
And since last night was the last night of William Powell's Star of the Month, it is only logical that TCM would now be featuring Lansbury as the next star of the month.
There is nothing wrong with being too overly concerned about your favorite star, but he did get 38 films in for the month, so I wouldn't be too upset about that. I would have loved to see John Wayne get 38 films in one month! Maybe he did?
-
I have always felt that of the two big sci-fi releases of 1977, Star Wars and Close Encounters, that the latter was the better of two by a long shot.
And this past September I was finally able to see Devils Tower up close and personal. Although I did not see any UFO landing strip nor any UFOs.
The tower is an amazing sight, even more than ten miles away.
-
I think that there is one way to satisfy some of the later deaths in memoralizing them into the TCM Remembers montage and that would be to not begin showing the TCM Remembers montage until January.
As far as I am concerned, if TCM were to make the montage available in January instead of mid-December, then quite possibly some of the mid to late December deaths could be included.
Your not going to always be able to showcase everyone who passed away, you would never be able to do that, but a good selection of classic Hollywood greats and not so greats could be better than what happens now.
The problem with how the Academy Awards presents in Memorial is that because they think they have to entertain the theater audience AND the tv audience at the same time, they usually bring in some high-fluent entertainer to sing or play a musical instrument. And what happens then?
The focus usually is on the entertainer for about a minute or more instead of the deceased. I remember one year James Taylor came out to sing one of his classics. The camera focused on him as if he was presenting his own Oscar nominated song. So for a four minute segment of deceased celebrities, we only got about a two and a half minute celebration.
So, my suggestion would be for TCM to hold off on an In Memorial to early to mid January and then play the spot for a couple of months.
What do you all think?
-
> Uh oh, a three way (argument) rising...
I don't think so. A very good discussion can be had here.
> fxreyman: We have had these conversations before in other forums and threads. And this discussion is fine. But please do me a favor...... don't label every film made after 1960 as garbage.
> You're right. There's always a "good" film around. But "great" films are few & far between. Maybe it was always that way except for 1939.
> But when I look at your very thoughtful lists of what you consider good to excellent, I notice the closer we get to 2011, the fewer "excellent". Your 2003 choices, although likeable, not ONE of those is a well rounded great film. And I realize that is only my opinion.
I will concede that you have a point about recent films not being great. There really has not been many great films made since at least the 1990s. Although if one was too look back in film history, not only is the last, or more recent decade void of many great films there has been other years that really did not have so-called great films either. I can think of several years where maybe two or three films could be classified as great.
1930, 1932, 1937, 1943, 1947, 1954, 1958, 1961, 1965 to name a few years.
As far as more recent films being considered great..... I would have to include the following:
The Pianist 2002
Master and Commander 2003 ( I read what you wrote)
Hotel Rwanda 2004
The Constant Gardener 2005
Children of Men 2006
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 2008
Of course as you indicated these selections of mine are of my own opinion. In any case, anyone could make a case for any year having great films and some years where they believe no one film was great. It is all subjective.
For many years I felt that for 1956 there was only one great film that year: The Searchers. Now I think several others can qualify.
> For me, the best movies are those with the best STORY. The base. Although I didn't care for The DiVinci Code, it was a popular book made into a popular movie. Same with Harry Potter, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, etc. I'm only sorry the production values & bad acting sunk those.
Well then you stated the main reason why certain films are the best..... the best story. I would agree. In many cases some of the more recent films would satisfy that. One of my favorites from 2010 was The Ghost Writer. Now there was a great story, a very good cast, not many special effects, an original thriller, comparable to some of Hitchcock's best.
> It seems to me lacking "source" material is a huge factor in the decline of newer films. Woody Allen is an anomaly in that he writes his own stories to become the movie. I wish there were more like that. Billy Wilder & Frank Capra (to a lesser degree) come to mind in the classic era.
I would agree to a certain extent. However all film creatives have always had this problem. Even back in the Golden Age not every year had high numbers of above average films. I would venture to say that even during the heyday of the Golden Age, no more than ten to twenty films per year could be called above average. The producers and writers back then had much more to work with as far as source material was concerned. Plus, that was 70 plus years ago. Many of the stories Hollywood was thinking of producing had not been filmed yet. Many had been filmed during the silent era, thus many remakes were made after the beginning of the sound era.
The problems of today are many. Producers today have to deal with an ever changing demographic as you have indicated below. Thus, many of the films today are geared toward younger audiences. And the source materials are weaker now. Although I could name ten movies from each year form 2000 to 2009 that were finely written and produced and meant for older audiences. They weren't all great, but I think were above average films.
> But because the demographics are gearing towards younger set (esp boys) comics, cartoons, retro TV shows, gore all with special effects have become typical "source" material. Not exclusively, but typical. Oh, and then there's Jane Austen & Alcott classics (and classic films) for "the girls". How polarizing!
Again, I agree. But usually each year starting in the fall or later, most of the films deserving of Academy Award nominations are released. The silly season (for younger audiences) for films being released in any year now is all year round. But there is that one time during the middle to late fall into December that the really well-made, more adult fare is released. And I wouldn't say that the Jane Austin crowd is meant just for the "girls". I really enjoyed Sense and Sensibility.
But overall you are correct that films released today are geared toward younger, more male dominated audiences. Since I do not attend movie theaters anymore except for releases where I think I need to see the film on the big screen, like 2009's Star Trek and 2010's True Grit, I mostly stay away. And that doesn't have as much to do with the younger audience as it does have to do with all the stupid mobile devices that are allowed into the theaters. Plus one other annoying habit I see forming recently. More and more people are talking while sitting in the theater. In the past two times I have gone to see films in the theater I must have had to tell people directly behind me or just in front of me to shut the heck up. I always tell them that I did not plunk down 10 bucks just so that I could listen to their conversations.
-
I get you now!
Thanks for the brief explanation.
So based on your explanation could you say that you would also find the following post 1980 films reflective of a certain time, even though they were produced after 1980. I mean, I know that based on your answer, you like watching films from a certain time period to show you what life was like at the time the film was made. A perfect example for me would have been 1946's The Best Years of Our Lives.
So what about the following films? All of which were produced after 1980 but did very well at showing what life was like during those earlier times that events in the film took place.
And I know that some people out there would not like any of these simply because they were filmed after 1960 and might even have special effects not available before 1960.
Quest for Fire 1981
Mountains of the Moon 1990
Glory 1989
Gettysburg 1993
The Conspirator 2011
The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford 2007
Gallipoli 1981
The Lighthorseman 1987
Howards End 1992
The King's Speech 2010
The Pianist 2002
Stalingrad 1993
Saving Private Ryan 1998
Valkyrie 2008
Letters From Iwo Jima 2006
The Right Stuff 1983
Good Night and Good Luck 2005
Thirteen Days 2000
We Were Soldiers 2002
The Queen 2006
-
> I definitely have a lack of interest in post-1980 films. It is more because I am interested in film history and social history than any other reason, and you only bring to bear the historical aspect when you watch an older film.
I am not sure I follow you. Are you saying that because you are interested in film and social history, the only films to show those two aspects are pre-1980 films?
Or are you saying that a post 1980 film does not have an historical meaning to you simply due to the time the film was made?
> When I watch a recent film, nothing other than the film itself comes into play, and that it boring to me. It is not because I consider recent films to be "garbage".
So again, do you believe that many post 1980 films are not worth your time, either due to the lack of a story, or because you think most post-1980 films are boring.
So a film like The King's Speech for instance is boring because you can only see the film. You do not get engaged with the film because the film lacks heart? Or what exactly?
As far as me calling you out on the garbage comment, that was not aimed at you.
-
> Good point. No doubt that's why the films since 1960 have been garbage.
You obviously do not care for post 1960 films. Would that be a fair statement? So, based on your comment, you believe that most if not every film made before 1960 was good?
Because if that were the case then you would be saying that EVERY film made before 1960 was far better than anything made after 1960.
Now, taking into context the fact that The Hays Code was abolished in 1968, many films had already started to show nudity and include foul language in them even before the Hays Code officially went away in 1968. Having said this, many films from the early 1960's included nudity, violence and foul language.
My questions for you are these......
What do you think would have happened in 1934 had the Hays Code NOT gone into affect? Do you think that the morals of the time would have won out, or do you think eventually someone or some entity (such as the United States Government) would have stepped forward and made changes to the films? Or maybe the rights of the movie studios would have been allowed to flourish?
I think that the Pre-Code Hollywood era would have survived and continued to flourish. Of course, we will never know. That's what so fun about looking back and wondering "what if".
But getting back to your original statement *why the films since 1960 have been garbage.*
We have had these conversations before in other forums and threads. And this discussion is fine. But please do me a favor...... don't label every film made after 1960 as garbage.
As drednm wrote....
> Some of today's filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen still make films for adults. And there are still some good films made (released around award season), but the majority are fueled by comic books, fantasy, cartoons and special effects.
That last part where he writes about the decline of films because of comic books, fantasy, cartoon, and special effects is just just plain wrong. If you do the research, you will find that many of the greatest films and serials for that matter from before 1960 were films rooted in comics, fantasy, and had great special effects.
Drednm can't just generalize that the majority of today's films are of these categories. Sure, there are plenty of films made today that are garbage. I do not disagree. But the same can be said of films made from every time period. Current films are not much different.
I could list at least ten films from each year post 1960 that could be labeled as good to excellent. And most of these films do not have CGI effects or were rooted in comics, fantasy, and had great special effects.
We could probably add to his characteristics the following reasons not to like much of what came after 1960: extreme violence, sexual situations, nudity, foul language and extreme gore.
So I have compiled a list of ten films from one year of each decade following 1960. I selected certain years, and I know that other years may have had more interesting and or controversial films but the year I select is not as important as to show that there were fine films made each year after 1960. Did some have violence? Yes. Did some of sex/nudity in them? Yes. Are some of the films based on fantasy and or other ideas? Yes. Were their swearing in some of these films? You betcha!
1962
Cape Fear
How the West Was Won
Lawrence of Arabia
Lonely Are the Brave
The Longest Day
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The Manchurian Candidate
The Music Man
Ride the High Country
To Kill a Mockingbird
1975
Bite the Bullet
The Day of the Locust
Jaws
The Man Who Would Be King
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Nashville
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Sunshine Boys
Three Days of the Condor
The Wind and the Lion
1981
Chariots of Fire
Das Boot
Eye of the Needle
The French Lieutenant's Woman
Mephisto
Modern Romance
My Dinner with Andre
On Golden Pond
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Reds
1993
Dave
Farewell My Concubine
In the Line of Fire
In the Name of the Father
The Joy Luck Club
Much Ado About Nothing
Philadelphia
The Remains of the Day
Schindler's List
Shadowlands
2003
American Splendor
Big Fish
House of Sand and Fog
Lost in Translation
Love Actually
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
Open Range
Seabiscuit
Something's Gotta Give
The Station Agent
You can say that many films made after 1960 are garbage.
I concede that.
But saying that *the films since 1960 have been garbage*, is inaccurate. That would indicate to me that every film made since 1960 is garbage. That is your opinion but not a fact.
Now I can say based on what you seemed to be saying that you just do not like films made after 1960. And that is fine. I don't like silent or foreign films that much. So we can state what we do and don't like. Each of us have certain likes and dislikes. You seem to be agreeing with drednm that because many films of today include the characteristics he mentioned that that alone would be a good reason not to like or to say that films made after 1960 ARE garbage.
But by looking at the above 50 films I listed, one could easily say that most of these films are above average films. In many cases they are really great films. I would bet that 3/4 of all the films made after 1960 were below average or not very well made films. But not all films.
Do they have characteristics that would make them unwatchable for you based on what might be your criteria? Or what drednm wrote?
Maybe. But maybe not all. Maybe in all the films made after 1960 there could be half of the films that would fall into drednm's criteria. The same could be said of pre-1960 films. Not in the way that your post-1960 films criteria would indicate, but that pre-1960 films, possibly would contain an equal amount of below average films.
My final thought is this.....
JonasEB nailed it when he wrote that..........
*It's absolutely true that the majority of films in the 1920s, in any past era, were as much "junk" as what we have today. This is a simple fact of everything under the sun, a law of nature; movies, books, tv shows, music, painting, sculpting, etc. etc.*
*They may not have had a "House Bunny" - that particular type of film - back in the 1920s, but they did have terrible things like Beyond the Rocks (a lot of Valentino films, actually) or Where East is East or The Boob (and actually I'd much rather watch The House Bunny any day over any of those films again.) Trite romance and the stupidest kind of orientalism aren't any better than "toilet humor and sex jokes".*
*All I can say is you really need to watch more movies - these cheap generalizations about American cinema today already make little sense to me but to hear them while knowing about everything that is happening around the world? Makes no sense. There are an enormous amount of movies made in the last 30-40 years that can throw down with absolutely anything made in the first seventy years of the cinema. One could just as easily ask what in the silent era (any era) can match The Wind Will Carry Us or The Puppet Master or A Brighter Summer Day? But I don't have to - I already know that these are in communion with The Dying Swan, Coeur Fidele, Tabu, The Only Son, How Green Was My Valley, The River, Adelheid.*
*There is no "then" and "now", there's only cinema, and what makes good cinema has changed very, very little in the last 100 years.*
Edited by: fxreyman on Dec 27, 2011 2:23 PM
-
Totally agree.
But really, I am not too concerned about watching this film on tv, especially in it's present form. I have the dvd, so I can watch it at anytime.
But it probably deserves a new digital transfer and restoration as you indicated.
Ronald Reagan's Birthday
in General Discussions
Posted
> What a load of whoeee! Your post sounds like a Stephen Colbert parody. And Reagan NEVER served in the armed forces, he was in the reserves throughout WWII. The other drivel I won't even respond to. He spent his "US Army Air Force" years not in the US Army Air Force. He was in the reserves and never left the US during WWII. Nearsightedness was the reason. He made movies during WWII. Later he described what the scene was like when the concentration camps were liberated. Even though he was in Hollywood during the time it happened.
Well first of all, your statement that Reagan made movies during World War II is somewhat misleading. He did make movies, but not for profit. He was a Captain in the US Army Air Force during the war. He participated and acted in films made by Army Air Force.
Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942.
Now you may think that his service was not important to his country, but just because he was not serving on the front lines does not mean that he did not serve at all. Many men were not able to fight during the war. But at least he served when others did not.
My stepfather was also denied to serve on the front lines. He then began his military career by serving for four years at the Great Lakes Training Facility outside of Chicago. He served his country just as Reagan had served.
By just doing a little more research you would have been able to find the following information, instead of making the statements like you did above.
As far as what he said about the liberation of the concentration camps, I would suspect that since he was serving in the First Motion Picture Unit, he was probably one of the first men who actually saw the footage filmed by members of his unit during those encounters at the Concentration Camps. Maybe that is what he was referring to. Obviously, those films were not released to the general public for quite some time.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
About Ronald Reagan
From the University Archives:
After completing fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses, Reagan enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve on April 29, 1937, as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937.
Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas. His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office. Upon the approval of the Army Air Force (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the First Motion Picture Unit (officially, the "18th AAF Base Unit") in Culver City, California. On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California. He returned to the First Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943.
In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive.
He was re-assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II. He was recommended for promotion to Major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year. He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.
From The California State Military Museum:
Hollywood's Army
The First Motion Picture Unit, US Army Air Forces
Culver City, California
http://www.militarymuseum.org/1stmpu.html
Reagan's first assignment in the Unit was that of Personnel Officer, a very important job, since men were enlisting for the Unit every day. Their records had to be set up, and he was their personal contact for questions or any information in their behalf. He was also on the staff responsible for working out the Table of Organization which was most important, because the whole structure of the Unit depended on that. Later, he was appointed Adjutant and performed those military duties with a high degree of consistency and zeal.
Reagan was very well-liked by the men of the Unit who looked up to him, not only for what he represented to them and their present circumstances, but as a person.
Alongside his military service, he appeared in or narrated many of the films.