fxreyman
-
Posts
3,497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by fxreyman
-
-
The ultimate problem is that celebrities are often given a megaphone to speak to the public. As if what they have to say is anything more important than what the average citizen making $10 bucks an hour has to say.
As far as the Fonda children are concerned, they should have learned a lesson from their famous father...... keeping their mouths closed to the public. Most of the classic film stars were of this category. They acted and then they never gave their personal opinions to the public. Some did not like John Wayne, but many kept their silence.
I used to watch Entertainment Tonight and many other celebrity-driven shows on tv. I don't anymore, haven't in over twenty years. That silly part of the entertainment life has no interest with me anymore. It is sort of like comparing the silly season of political campaigning that has been going on for well over a year now. Nothing is important until the first votes are cast.
As far as Jane Fonda is concerned, I could care less if she sat on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun platform during the Vietnam War. For propaganda purposes. That was so long ago, it would seem that most Vietnam vets don't give a hoot about her anyway.
Since I was a young lad (12) when she did all of this it really had no impact on me. My future brother-in-law probably did not like it. He was a Marine serving in Vietnam in the sixties. He was wounded during the war. In fact, his injuries led him to be confined to a wheelchair for the remainder of his life. In past conversations with him, he indicated to me that everyone deserves the right to protest. And that what she did according to him, although misguided, she had every right to do so at the time.
As for her films, I like her. I like many of the films she has made. Not her most recent fare. I like most of her films made before she retired.
She was very good in light-romantic films and the more serious films as well. Although I doubt that she would ever be confused with her father's career. It is very hard to have as successful a career as your father had, especially given the fact that her father was Henry Fonda.
-
Welcome to the message boards!
And Happy Holidays!!
As JonasEB has indicated......The reason you will not find It's a Wonderful Life on the TCM schedule is that the NBC television network has exclusive rights to show the movie for the next few years. For many years the movie was in the public domain, and was shown on many television stations. But a few years ago the movie attained its copyright again, with TV rights sold to NBC.
This is why you will not see the film on TCM probably for years to come.
And it is a shame, since NBC loves to showcase the film twice during the holiday season with both showings airing during a special three-hour block of time with many pointless celebrities talking about watching the film and having many commercial breaks.
Edited by: fxreyman on Dec 23, 2011 7:13 AM
-
Agreed. Personally I like televisions' Erin Gray of Buck Rogers fame, slim, yet beautiful!!
I also agree about Marilyn Monroe. I am one of those who just can not believe that someone of her "so-called" talent can be so high on all of those polls.
-
The interesting thing about what you have written this morning is the fact that your opinion is very valid and the points you bring up are exactly what we should be talking about. Your post is one of the more comprehensive and thought-provoking posts on this thread, if not any thread.
My own personal view is that Katharine Hepburn WAS one of the great actresses of the 20th century, period. She had equals who may have had better parts or appeared in more successful films, but overall I'd have to say that over the time that she was involved in acting, she had quite a career. As some one else has mentioned previously, any younger female actress if asked today if they would want the career Hepburn had, they would want a career like she had.
Bottom line is this: Any actor or actress working today in any of the entertainment venues, whether it be television, movies, plays, or even web-based productions will tell you that they are fortunate to be working and that the one thing they crave the most is to be able to fine tune their craft and to have a normal weekly paycheck.
Not every actor or actress commands $20 million per role. 99% of all actors and actresses make far less than that. Of course, even back during the golden age of movies we had our super-stars who would be paid tremendous amounts of money not because they were former television comedians who could bank on making their picture get box office returns of $200 million, but because these former super-stars were great actors and actresses and they were looked upon with praise in Hollywood. And many of them had good starts to their careers, and the studios were able to capitalize on their success and give them better parts. Many of the golden age actors were associated with one studio and then some actors were often affiliated with one or two directors.
The thing about polls and lists is very telling. Usually, polls are conducted "in the moment" much like how political polls are conducted. I have never been able to figure out just how pollsters can claim someone is more popular than the next person just by sampling less than 1,000 adults in a particular market. Especially, if that market has several million people in it.
The same is true with polls about movies. Hence when I see lists like the ones that appear on the IMDB showing the rankings of films I always cringe. The top movie on their list is 1994's Shawshank Redemption. One of my favorites, but clearly does not belong on top of a list like this. But, again this is my view. The view that matters most to the IMDB is that of younger voters who seem to thrive on recently filmed movies.
If you take a look at the current IMDB Top 100 movies you will see that there less than 25% classic films on that list. The first classic film to show up on the list is at #6, 1957's 12 Angry Men. The next classic film is at #14, Seven Samurai. Casablanca is next at #19. All of the other films are mostly from the 1990's and 2000's. Which represent the vast majority of younger people's favorites.
Even though earlier this year on my Lists thread on the Favorites Forum I did attempt to list what I considered to be the greatest films of all time. Purely subjective of course, every list is that, but I actually have been persuaded by one person there that a listing of one's favorites is actually more telling of a person than what the person feels should have won an award or which films should be ranked higher or lower based on what some critic has had to say.
In actuality all of us here on the boards are critics. We criticize every movie, director, actor, actress, and so on here to the nth degree. But that is what we do here on the boards. Some of us are better equipped to judge films or actors than others. That is not meant to be a swipe at someone, it is just that when one critiques a performance or lets say in the case of this thread, emotions should not get too involved in determining if an actor is ?over-rated? or not.
Some who have posted here have decided that Hepburn is vastly over-rated. I?d really like to know how you all came to this conclusion. Because, as it has been written by some that Hepburn was an outstanding actress if you were to ask her co-stars, or others within the film industry. She was well liked by the critics (in most cases) and she does have the distinction of having won more Oscars than any other actor, male or female.
But I think that what is happening with the vast majority on this thread is that many of you just believe she was not a good actress, based simply on how she looked, or how she may have treated others outside the industry, or some other reasons which I will not go into here. Some of you have also indicated that she more or less played the same character over and over again. Much the same way many others have said about another giant of the industry, John Wayne.
If you are really going to criticize her then the only real way is to look at each one of her performances and base your judgment on each role she played. That is really how judgments should be considered. You can't look at an actor's entire career and then make a statement that you consider her to not be good or bad. You should look at every performance. Or in our cases today, those performances that are available to us to view.
And all of the outside the industry stuff that some of you have decided to consider should not be considered at all. Like her supposed treatment of other media types, or the way she looked, or the way she supposedly broke up a marriage or not, or the way she spoke. Whatever. These are outside the purview of her movie performances.
Lets face it, many of you on this thread simply do not like her. That's fine, I am not here to persuade you to change your minds. I am just asking that you consider the things I have suggested when you do want to criticize an actor. Look at the work. That is the only thing that should matter.
-
Thanks everyone. This story was meant to show that we all have memories, and sometimes those memories are hard to revisit.
These memories will be with me the rest of my life, and I would very much like to think that I will be able to look back and realize just how fortunate I was to have met not only Nancy, but also Annie.
You have to be willing to revisit memories that are hard, or sad in this case. But memories are a hard thing to get rid of. Oh sure, we can tuck them into the far reaches of our insides, but always, something causes these memories to be resurrected. And in this case it was not a bad memory to revisit.
I am glad all of you enjoyed the story. I could only share it with you all because I know that all of you are my friends here.
Merry Christmas and have a wonderful New Year........
-
Good evening Maven, and everyone else who has been visiting here this evening......
I wanted to share with you all a very personal story about me and two very important women in my life. One was a very dear and close friend to me while I was growing up and the other is the most important woman in my life now and will be forever, Annie.
This is a story that is somewhat connected to the question you posed Maven, well, I guess it is close to that question, or at least as close to an answer as I can give, with all honesty.
It is a long story, and I think you all know that I am as capable of spinning a long story as the best of you can. So sit back and enjoy a little emotional story from your ole' Uncle Reymus.......
This is a tough question. And I am not sure that I can answer it the way you have posted it.
I have a story to tell, and I hope you all don't mind. The person I am going to tell you about came up in a conversation during dinner with friends last evening. The story I told last night was not as long as this story, but at the end it still packed a wallop.
It sort of has something to do with the question you have posed. At least I think it does. Well anyway some of you might think this story will get too personal, but I'd like to share it anyway.
I am among friends here.
Here goes...........
I had one true love in my teens. I was living at the time in the Blue Ridge Mountains of northwestern North Carolina, one of the most beautiful areas on the east coast. She was a beautiful red-headed Irish lass who stole my heart. Her name was Nancy. We attended 7th and 8th grades together. I asked her out to the 8th grade prom and she accepted! She was the most beautiful creature there.
We talked a lot, we laughed a lot, and we often would share our inner most thoughts with one another. I think we were in love, but who really knows at that age? All I know is that every morning I looked forward to seeing her in class.
She was sweet and innocent, but her mind worked much faster than mine did. She thought of me as someone who she could go to to get a straight answer from. I was always honest with her. During the summer months I would ride my bike over to her house which was over five miles from my house and we would spend the afternoons walking around and talking and doing other things most teenagers did back then. I got along great with her parents and Nancy got along great with mine.
We attended 9th grade together, but we did not share many classes. The following summer after 9th grade my step-father got a new job in Chicago and we had to move away. I remember before we left riding my bike out to her house to tell her the news. She was sad but yet she was not too sad. As it turned out, she had met someone else the previous year and she had "moved on".
After arriving in Chicago I received a letter from her. She had told me that the boy she had met had broken it off with her and she wanted to know if I would be willing to write to her every now and again. She wanted to keep up with me, and know what I was doing and thinking. So I did. That became a monthly ritual for us. We became long distant friends and pen pals.
During my high school years I never once went out with any one at my school. I had met a couple of girls from other schools and we dated on and off. But the memory of Nancy stayed with me all through out my high school years.
After enrolling in my local junior college, I decided that first winter that I would drive to her home to see her again on spring break. I wrote to her of my plans and she accepted and said she was looking forward to my visit. One thing was different however. She had met yet another young man who interested her a lot. They started dating and within six months she was engaged. She had never told me this.
I found out the day after I arrived. I thought something was amiss, but I just chalked it up to us being apart for so long. Eventually, she started to open up and we had really nice long walks and talks about what was going on with her and how she was going to plan for the future.
This was not at all uncommon where she lived. Getting engaged right after high school was normal in her part of the country. Yet to me, it was unusual. While there we had time to talk and try to understand each other's feelings. One thing that was not going to happen was for me to move back to her town. There wasn't much in her area job-wise for an up and coming commercial artist. And I think she knew that.
She also knew how much I cared for her, and I did not want to see her get hurt. During our talks I had tried to convey to her the importance of getting a college education. We talked for hours about the things she could do and wanted to do with her life. She would not have been able to attain any of her goals by marrying this guy she had met. Well, the time came for me to leave and we had one last walk together. I was surprised when we embraced and she kissed me. Not the sort of thing you'd expect from an engaged girl.
Several weeks after I returned home and was back attending classes, I received a letter from her. In it she told me how much she had enjoyed my visit (her parents were equally happy to have me visit as well) and how much she valued the things we had talked about.
Then came the bombshell......
She had broken off her engagement to the guy and had decided to enroll in the local junior college for summer and then later fall classes. I was shocked and yet relieved to hear that she was not going to marry this guy. At this point she told me in the letter that a lot of what I had told her made her think about her future, and that getting married so young would have been a colossal mistake. I was thrilled.
Later that summer she invited me back down for another visit where we could spend additional time together. And I did. I followed that visit up with yet another trip the next year. But by this time the novelty of having a close friend come and visit her had started to wane. She had started dating again my last trip there, and though her "new" boyfriend was out of town during my visit, I could tell something was up. But that did not stop us from having a good time. I left that time with the knowledge that I would probably never see her again. Our letters became less frequent, and within a year we had pretty much stopped writing one another.
A year or so after she received her degree, she got engaged to a really nice guy and they got married the following year. They started to have a family and by the time Annie and I were married, they had been married for over ten years and had two growing boys.
I knew about all of this because of her mother who kept writing to me at least twice per year. She would write and tell me everything that was going on with Nancy and her family. And she would relay info about me to Nancy as well. In fact it was her mother who, during one of my visits there had told me that it was unfortunate that parents couldn't pick their children's mates for them. Because as far as she was concerned, she had always felt that I would have made a very good husband for Nancy.
Was I sad? Yes, in a way. Because when Annie and I were married I knew she couldn't have any children. We could adopt, but that was another story all together. In the end, I was happy I found Annie, and even though our marriage has had strains, I can think of no one else I could have been married to but Annie.
Flash forward a few years and Annie becomes disabled. While staying home with her one day I received a letter out of the blue from Nancy's mother. I thought that this was rather strange. Normally I received letters from her at Christmas or other special occasions. But not in the middle of the winter.
I opened the envelope and began to read the letter. Within minutes I was devastated. Nancy had been diagnosed with Ovarian cancer. And the cancer was in a middle stage, with some hope for a cure. Unfortunately for Nancy, she had been experiencing some sort of pain for some time, and not really understanding what it could be had taken her time to get to a doctor. But once there they had pretty much told her that to remove the cancer they would have to gut her like a fish. And they did.
She was given a few months at best, but eventually she went into remission. Everyone saw that as a time for her to get her affairs in order and to make plans for the unfortunate possibility of losing her life. Luckily for Nancy she was a strong Baptist who attended church every Sunday and during the week. So God was heavily involved with her. At least that is the way I hoped he would be.
During the remission, I had called her mother to ask if she thought a call from me would be accepted at Nancy's home. I did not in anyway want to cause any problems with Nancy's husband. Her mother told me that early on in their relationship, Nancy had told her future husband about me, and about what I had meant to her. I guess he was very understanding because when I did call, he had answered the phone and he was generous enough to thank me for calling Nancy. I think he was a super guy as well.
Nancy and I spoke for a few minutes and after a while it had become clear to me that her feelings for me all those years ago had never waned. She still did have feelings for me as I did for her. After a half an hour or so we ended the call, but before she hung up she asked me to pray for her and to call her again soon. And I did, for the next few months. I also sent her letters with pictures of Annie and me and she did the same with pictures of her two boys.
Eventually, Annie was speaking with her and because Annie had pre-cancerous cells removed before we were married had something sort of in common with Nancy. The two of them started exchanging emails with one another with me calling every now and again.
But it was not to last, Nancy started to get sicker again and her remission was over and any phone calls I did make were in between radiation treatments at her clinic. One of the last phone calls I made I could tell she was laboring to breathe and because of this we did not speak for long. But before she hung up she wanted to tell me how much she enjoyed having me in her life and knowing me. She repeated the thought that she had had those many years ago, about what would have happened if we had gotten involved earlier on.
That was very sweet of her to say, considering her husband and two boys were nearby. Unfortunately for everyone, Nancy lost her battle a few weeks later on February 4th, 2004. Her spirit will forever shine within me, and I will never forget her.
I was privileged to know Nancy. I was happy that our paths had crossed. I am sad in that for many years we had lost touch with one another, but in retrospect our coming together again over the miles after her illness, made me feel better that we had reconnected.
And it made me feel much better to know that my wife Annie understood all of this and even made the situation better by communicating with Nancy those last few months of her life. I will always be thankful to Annie for allowing me to revisit my childhood and to continue my long-distance relationship with Nancy.
Two very, important women in my life, forever.
-
Today I started working on the remainder of the 1940's. 1945 to 1949.
Should take me a few days to complete. Writing the commentary for each film is what takes so long. But it does give me time to go back and review certain films. Many of my favorites I own in my library, so re-watching them is as easy as popping a dvd into my mac.
-
I just sent you a PM.
Please read it.
-
*Guess what? I can be as sarcastic as I want to be.*
> Yes you can, but that doesn't mean that someone else can't call you on it when the person that you are targeting did not treat you in the same manner. One can be as courteous as one wants to be also. Given his lack of daily posting, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
What are you doing? Checking up on his daily writings? So I am to assume that you know how often Infinite1 posts here? I am just as courteous as the next poster.
But I have to say this.......
You and I have had run ins before. And usually the run in has something to do with how I have written something about a fellow poster. If you seriously have issues with me then I suggest you do the following:
1. Contact the administrator.
2. Report what I have written as an abuse.
3. Place me on Ignore. Go ahead others have.
Otherwise, I am entitled to my opinions just as you are. If I think someone is a troll or is protecting a troll, or in the case of Infinite1, who seems to be suggesting to the administrator in his post from December 14th at 7:02PM
"that in the eyes of the beholder, the labeling of someone as a TROLL is subjective and just as inflammatory."
Then I have every right to point this out. And that has been part of the discussion here on this thread.
> Then again, stop and consider that your post may just be enough to drive him off the boards in a manner similar to what you claim has happened in the past to other posters. If trolling is in the eye of the beholder, what was there in your post to him that should encourage him to respond rather than not dealing with it?
As I wrote before, he did respond to the administrator with a response about what he considers to be the labeling of a troll. To me and many others here, when someone goes out of their way to help distinguish a troll form a non-troll, then that seems to me that they are trying to protect the very people who patrol these message boards as trolls creating trouble at every turn. I have witnessed first hand what a troll can do, and the harm they cause.
Now, maybe you and others here have a different way of looking at trolls, but to me and others like me, we have no use for trolls on this message board, or for that purpose anywhere else.
As far as me wanting him to respond to me? I could care less if he responds to me. I just wanted to make a statement and I did. If he feels compelled to respond, then that is up to him. If he or anyone else also feels compelled to respond to me, well, that is fine too.
Also, I might point out that if you or anyone else here feels I have been unfair in my correspondence with him or others like him, please report me to the administrator. Or as I have written before there are three options for you and others to pursue.
* I am not someone who goes around posting idiotic, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages on this message board.*
> Are you making that claim about infinite1? If not, how is that a defense in regard to your sarcasm toward him? How is claiming that he must be at a troll convention on topic?
That was a general response to someone who I think might be a troll or could possibly think that trolls have as much rights on this message board as traditional message board users. In any case I just can not understand why anyone who writes anything about the labeling of trolls on a message board can be seriously considered as someone who thinks that trolls have any rights at all on any message board.
And I would make that response again if need be. My suggesting that he was at a troll convention was purely in jest.
> One doesn't need multiple names to cause havoc. It is possible that infinite1 just felt that he said what he had to say and that there was no need to say anymore on the subject despite your response of a few days ago. Are you going to tell me that you've never done the same? I'll bet you money that I can prove otherwise, yet no one came back to provoke you into furthering the conversation by insulting you. What you did to infinite1 today is known as flame-baiting. Web etiquette frowns on such things and there's even a term used for people who engage in such tactics.
I always love it when someone like yourself comes along to defend the rights of others instead of letting those who you think have been wronged to instead say something to me. To me what I wrote had to be written. There are some posters here who like to go out of their way to disagree with most other posters. These posters who like to disagree are usually the ones that have been described as trolls or other troublemakers. You are right that one needn't be a troll to cause trouble.
Again, if you or others like you think I have done something wrong here, please I suggest you go ahead and report me to the administrator. I wish you would. I do not think I was flame-baiting him at all. Just like he was trying to express himself, so was I.
Edited by: fxreyman on Dec 16, 2011 6:34 PM
-
> Maybe he's just being consistent in his pattern of skipping a few days between board activity. That doesn't give you license to be sarcastic.
Guess what? I can be as sarcastic as I want to be.
I am not someone who goes around posting idiotic, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages on this message board.
And on top of that I have never felt the need to post as several user names on this message board like so many others have felt the need to do. I have maintained one user name for the past four years here.
I have no need to hide behind creating multiple user names just so that I can create havoc here abouts.
-
What I really find interesting about writing about Trolls is this:
Whenever I do write something about them, and it is usually a response to one or more posters here on the board, is that I usually get responses back from the posters I am responding to. Especially if those posters are not Trolls themselves.
But in this case I would have thought that by now I would have received some sort of response back from Infinite1. But who knows, maybe he is off at some troll convention himself and can not tear himself away from those important meetings and other happenings that go on at a troll convention.
-
I understand that it might be a romantic and a great excuse to travel off to some far away land, but most fans probably could not afford a trip to Ireland these days......
Especially those of us who are unemployed, like me.
But having said that, I really do hope that this event can raise awareness to those filmmakers who are just now getting started and to those who may have known about John Ford, but who nonetheless really do not know that much about his films. Hopefully such a high-profile event will raise awareness not only of the annual winner, but also to Mr. Ford himself.
This all makes me wonder why no other American film company and or film society like AFI never came up with this kind of idea before. I know that AFI has it's annual tribute to some actor or director/producer that they present each year; Ford himself won the first AFI award in 1971. But I could see where an American company could partner with the John Ford Ireland Project and present an awards ceremony where many of Ford's greatest films were filmed.....
Monument Valley. And they could even tout the presentation as an awareness campaign for the plight of the American Indian. Who knows, maybe someone has already come up with this idea.
-
Thanks for your comments!!
As far as Johnny Eager is concerned, I just have never been able to sit through that movie all at once. It is a good movie, but one which I did not even include on my 1942 selection list.
-
Hey!!!
I was wondering when you would make a return engagement......
Thanks for the delicious input.
-
Oh sorry, I thought everyone knew who she was.....
Judith Donath is a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center and was the founder of the Sociable Media Group at the MIT Media Lab. She has written papers on various aspects of the Internet and its social impact, such as Internet society and community, interfaces, virtual identity issues (see Internet troll), and other forms of collaboration that have become manifest with the advent of connected computing.
Donath spoke on identity, anonymity, and the wiki at the August 2006 Wikimania conference.
-
> Very humorous Michael. Of course, as we all know, the labeling of someone as a "TROLL" is purely subjective, in the eye of the beholder, and just as inflamatory. I wonder if there are pictures just as funny to illustrate people who make false accusations of trolling against anyone who has a different or unpopular opinion or perhaps that should be the 19th type of Internet "TROLL". Of course, the ultimate decision regarding who is or is not a "TROLL" falls to you, but I would think that you would want to suggest that people refrain from name calling on either side and defer to your wisdom in such matters.
Well, let me ask you something then.....
What the heck do you think you are doing here? It would seem to this reader that you have decided that any mention of the word troll is in itself inflammatory, correct?
Which I have to point out makes no sense at all. For one thing it would appear that you and possibly one other poster seem to agree with one another. Which leads me to think of you as a........
Because really, why would anyone stick up for the defense of someone who purposely goes around message boards with the intent of posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages.
Judith Donath writes the following:
"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they ? and the troll ? understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community."
-
The video is now posted on the Media Room page.
This is by far one of TCM's best Remembers videos of all time.
A lot of people were included this year.
-
> Thanks for posting that. It gives definitive answers to lots of common questions. I'd say that it also indicates why we don't have true HD on TCMHD yet.
Well thank you.
My decision to find those questions and answers was meant to show some members here the idea that doing research about something is as important as it is in posting something in the first place.
Luckily for me I am a member of the Silver Screen Oasis and though I do not post there often (hardly at all actually) I did remember that Mr. Tabesh did have a Q & A session with the members there several years ago. With a little patience and a lot of copying and pasting I was able to find thread appropriate issues to place here.
Eventually it would help everyone if they just performed a little research before writing things here. In some cases what they write isn't exactly correct.
I should know. I have written things before when I did not check out the facts and sometimes I still do. But I am trying to not do that first but instead I am trying to make sure through proper research that what I am writing is at least factually correct.
-
> I just wanted to clarify this a bit. While the SSO is a moderated board, our approval process is pretty straight forward and not unlike a variety of forums around the web. All are welcome to join and we do not ask for any more personal information than what is required to join here. Nor do we ask for any sort of fee to become a member.
Well, I stand corrected. Since I am a member of the SSO I could not remember if questions were asked or not. As far as me saying that the SSO charged a fee, I did not say that. I did say however in one of my previous posts that a fee could be charged here at TCM. I also mention the fact that one or two previous posters here went on and created their own message boards/blogs and I think if I am not mistaken, they did charge a small fee, or maybe not a small fee, but at least one of their sites had you fill out a lot of personal info.
> I remember those dark days as well and they led to more board moderation, first Mary and Renee and now Michael.
I don't seem to recall Mary. Renee did an okay job, but I think she was overwhelmed a bit with all that was happening. Not her fault, just too much was happening. Michael so far has done a very fine job, keeping everyone alerted to changes, making sure any troublemakers now are dealt with promptly.
> But, as the arguments in the message board archives remind us, we as a community are just as capable of bringing this place to the brink as any of the chronic troublemakers who have tried to wreck havoc here in the past.
I don't agree with you here. Where as I do believe that those of us who are not considered trolls or other troublemakers, otherwise known as the old guard, or regular older members any trouble we may have caused I think has never gotten any of us banned. And that is the difference. We may have been warned a few times over the years (I certainly have) but that really has not been an issue.
Yes, we have been caught up in some maelstroms over the years, but most of us have been able to stay above the fray, in other words not get banned.
> We've lost a number of good posters over the years and it wasn't all due to chronic troublemakers.
Well sure, over the years some posters will leave and never come back. I think many have left over the years due to the fact that past moderators did not do enough for them as members. Others have left because of any number of issues. But a lot of the posters did leave due to any number of issues with trolls and other trouble making posters.
> I do not mean this as a way of absolving the wreckage that chronic troublemakers have caused here but just a reminder that they were not alone in causing some of the wars and wreckage that have roiled this community off and on for the last half a dozen years.
Well, I can only speak to the four years I have been here. I have seen quite a few skirmishes and I have been a part of some of those as many others have. Overall I'd have to say that many of those skirmishes were started when trolls invaded the threads and started causing trouble. I gave the Heinz57 thread as one example.
-
deleted
Edited by: fxreyman on Dec 11, 2011 5:36 PM
-
For all the questioning on this thread about why TCM makes decisions the way they do and many of your questions and or replies seem to suggest that some of you don't dig deep enough to find the answers.
Because I like to go back and research certain threads and or topics that have been covered before, I recalled that over on the Silver Screen Oasis website there was a Q & A session in August of 2009 with TCM's Director of programming Charlie Tabesh.
Below are some of the questions and answers that were listed by members of the SSO and provided for by Mr. Tabesh. Maybe some of these will help some of you understand why TCM shows some of the films they show and what processes they go through to get the films and why in some cases certain films are not available.
Some of these Q & A's will answer some of the questions that have been posed on this thread.
Why certain films are selected over others?
Why repeat titles are shown once again during 31 Days, even if they have already been seen several times during the past few months and or past year?
Why aren't more silents shown during 31 Days?
I know that certain films are available to be shown, why then does not TCM get those rare films during 31 Days instead of often played repeats?
Most every film is now available. Why can't you show more of the rare titles never before seen during 31 Days?
The digital issue.
*And now the Q & A with Charlie Tabesh:*
Q: With the increased reputation of TCM, is working with studios easier or about the same as it was in the past? Once you have a kind of working agreement with a studio is there a package you lease or can you pick a certain number of titles in the deal?
A: I'd say it's easier now than it used to be. We actually have pretty substantial agreements in place with every major studio. Traditionally networks license films for a set period of time (1 to 2 years, sometimes more, sometimes less) and a set number of runs during that time.
There are real budget issues, so a model like that provides the incentive to play a film as many times as possible during that license period (because that means you could license fewer films). We've tried to work with each studio to provide greater access to their so we could play some films only once or twice - that allows us to dig deeper and play titles that are rarely seen.
As you know, when we do any sort of festival (star-of-the-month or anything else) we like to showcase films that might not be as well-known but that are important to the theme we're highlighting. We still have plenty of limits and by no means do we have access to every film from every studio but on any particular month I think you'll see films from all of them.
Q: Besides rights issues, what are some of the other problems you encounter when trying to book older, lesser known titles?
A: Other than rights the biggest issue, by far, is quality of materials. A lot of films are in very bad condition, some aren't playable at all. And even if a studio does have film elements, they still need to be transferred to video which can be very expensive (and cost-prohibitive).
Q: I don't have to tell you that TCM has a very loyal core audience and we all have varied tastes when it comes to films and what we expect from TCM. It has to be very challenging to try and program something for everybody. Are there times when you're working on a schedule and just pounding your head on your desk trying to decide whether to add a lesser known, seldom seen, classic for all of us serious film buffs or another run of some well know film (like "Singing in the Rain") in an effort to get viewers who may tune in because they've seen it before or at least have heard of it? How do you do it?
A: That is really the balance that we try to achieve. As you suggest, our hardcore fans, and I assume most people here at Silver Screen Oasis, are excited about the rare or obscure titles. But we're also a place that many people discover classic movies for the first time. In addition - because there are so few options out there for classic movie fans - some people are watching TCM almost all the time and, to them, any repeat is annoying because they might have seen that film on the channel a month or two ago.
One more point: if we play a title 5 or 6 times a year, that's a whole lot for us; that might happen with less than a dozen titles each year and the average title plays between 1 to 2 times in a year. And even when we play a film 5 or 6 times, it's almost always at different times of the day. But if you've seen those films a few times you want something new and different. So we're trying to please a lot of people and different levels of classic movies fans. I'm sure we get it wrong sometimes but we do take pride in our role and try to do our best.
Q: Hey Charlie, A poster on another board asked that we post this question for her: I should very much like to know what are the chances TCM might be showing these movies any time soon:
Becky Sharp (the UCLA-restored version, anyway)
Alice in Wonderland (1933),
The Great Gatsby (1949)
The Blue Lagoon (1949).
State Fair (1933 Will Rogers version).
A: As to the specific requests ("Becky Sharp," "Alice in Wonderland," etc.) all are possible. As you can tell, we get a lot of movie requests. And while we've greatly increased our access to just about every major library out there, we're still limited in the number of films from each that we can play in a given year. So the best I can do is tell you that we will honestly note these as requests and if the right situation comes up, and the film is available from the distributor, we will prioritize those over others that might also fit. (Does that make sense?)
As for "Becky Sharp" specifically, I think we need to figure out how to get the UCLA restoration because we did have a version at one point that we thought was from UCLA but we were mistaken. We will try to figure that one out.
Q: A couple of questions:
Any chance of showing some Lubitsch silents?
Particularly Forbidden Paradise with Pola Negri.
I'd also love to see Paul Fejos' Lonesome, I think it's one of the great forgotten films of all time. It seems odd to me that licensing would be such a headache, particularly on silents, as they have limited commercial prospects. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the studios to try and make whatever they can off these films?
A: As for silents, in addition to preserving or restoring the film itself and making a transfer, it's necessary to add a score, which means there's a significant expense involved. And while there are passionate fans of silent films it's a relatively small market.
TCM as a network can afford to fully fund a couple of additional silents each year, which we do, and we can contribute a license fee (that doesn't cover the costs) to a few more. But there are still plenty more that need to work to be ready for television or dvd. As you suggest, the underlying rights are almost always available (not always). But there are a lot of great silents out there that need to be seen (as Jeffrey can tell you better than anyone), including several Lubitsch films. Of course, we have played "The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg," "The Patriot" and one or two more.
Q: I recently read on the TCM message boards that TCM will be able to show more Universal and Paramount movies in a year or two. Are you able to provide any more details at this point? I am hoping there are many Ray Milland and Claudette Colbert movies in our future -- ARISE, MY LOVE and JUNGLE PRINCESS are high on my viewing wish list! Will TCM continue to have access to Columbia titles for the foreseeable future?
Occasionally I notice that a print shown on TCM doesn't appear to be of the same quality as a DVD I own of the same title; I've noticed this a couple times with MGM musicals. If my perception is correct, is there any particular logistical reason that TCM isn't able to show the best print available? Just curious.
A: We are playing more of both Universal and Paramount, maybe not as much as a lot of people would like, but definitely a lot more than we have in the last few years. As I said in an earlier reply, we are limited in the number that we can play but at least we do have some access, more than we've ever had before.
As for the quality of the films that we play compared to dvds, in almost every circumstance we should be able to get the same version that's been released on dvd. There have been times that we've made a mistake by not ordering the upgraded version. And there are very rare circumstances when one company has the television rights and another has the dvd rights and the television company can only send us the version that they have. But this is very rare because we can usually still access the version from the company that has a better version on dvd. I do remember a film recently for Underground that the rightsholder felt that what was out on dvd was illegally being distributed and so we couldn't access it.
And there was the time that Paramount wouldn't supply us with the Photoplay version of "Wings" and Photoplay couldn't provide it to us without Paramount's permission. But those situations are very rare, the truth is a lot of times it's our fault that we missed the fact that something better was created - we do try and stay on top of that, though.
Q: I have several questions for you:
1. Are all or most of the films shown by TCM presented in digita-beta format transferred from a 35mm print?
2. What about the films in the voluminous Warner library that haven't seen the light of day for eons particularly many Allied Artists and Monogram titles including the Bowery Boys series, Loophole (1954) and The Cruel Tower (1956)?
3. Does Warners strike new prints or make new transfers of films for viewing on TCM or do you have to simply have to program what you are told is available?
4. When will TCM screen some of the 1940's Universal Sherlock Holmes titles such as THE SCARLET CLAW and THE PEARL OF DEATH that have been remastered by UCLA instead of the PD Holmes films such as THE WOMAN IN GREEN and SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEAPON that are regularly shown using transfers of extremely poor quality?
5. I thought the best thing TCM ever did was the SUMMER OF DARKNESS film noir series. Any chance of repeating this in a similar format? I would love to co-program it with you!
A: 1. Yes, over 99% of what we play are 35mm films transferred onto digibeta. As several people know, there were a couple of times this year that 16mm transfers were the only option for us, but that's very rare.
2. We're in discussions with WB for broader access to their library, but that deal hasn't been completed yet. We have to negotiate with them just as we do any other studio, which surprises a lot of people, but it's true.
3. No studio strikes new prints for us, including WB. And if a film hasn't yet been transferred to video, they usually will only do the transfer themselves if there's a dvd market for the film, our license fee is high enough to cover that cost (plus a little more), or if we pay for it ourselves. There are some exceptions, but economics certainly drives a lot of the decision-making, as you might expect.
With regard to WB specifically, many of the films were transferred years ago by Ted Turner. In the '90s WB acquired the TEC library but for a lot of films we still use transfers that were made many years ago. We're in conversations now with WB on the best way to update the library, and I should say there are some people there (one in particular) who are very passionate about that and they're taking a leading role in the process.
4. With the Holmes films it a matter of the rights and the cost to acquire them. But we are interested in obtaining them if we can afford it.
5. I agree, the Summer of Darkness was great and it might be time to do that again at some point in the near future.
*Also, the following was posted as to why TCM shows many of the same films over and over again and yet can not seem to rent newer classic films:*
A: Unfortunately not every film can be had. Some films are tied up with rights issues. Some films are leased to other channels. Some films are lost, which means they likely don't exist anymore (especially true with silents and early talkies). A number of films prior to 1950 are considered lost because back then studios didn't have a incentive for keeping the elements and storage costs money. The original negative for Stagecoach and others were melted down for their silver content during WW2. Many of the studios have suffered vault fires over the years and films have been lost forever because of that.
Just because a film exists is no guarantee that the elements are in excellent shape and can be mastered for digital. Almost always, negatives have to be repaired, soundtracks have to be cleaned, negative has to be cleaned. Elements, sometimes, are in such bad shape that other sources for the material have to be found.
With pre-codes, many were cut shortly (including their negatives and soundtracks) after the Production Code was implemented and studios like Warner Bros. and others spend a great deal of time and $$$ looking for the cut footage in hopes of restoring the film to its Pre-Code length. Sometimes these elements are found in overseas archives or end of the line cities, someone's attic or in mislabeled cans in archives here in the States.
Warner Bros. recently restored "City of Conquest" only after it had located and restored the missing prequel. They continue to look for the cut scenes for "Sea Wolf" in hopes of returning the film to its original length.
Finally, TCM has a digital server. When TCM first started broadcasting, it was using a tape based server which had been the industry standard for years. However, with the digital age, TCM and most other networks have all converted to digital servers.
What this means is that in order to run a film, it has to be on a digital format. As the digital age is still fairly young, many films have yet to be converted to a digital format.
Until they are, TCM can not run them. Warners, Sony and Fox all understand the digital age and are going through their respective vaults, preserving and restoring and mastering on a digital format. Universal and Paramount are, as usual, bringing up the rear in this regard. Though with the long-term leases that TCM has with Paramount, someone was thinking of the future.
Converting a library to digital is a costly and time consuming effort that is not done quickly. Each year, the budgets are handed out that likely dictate how many films can be restored, preserved and remastered each year.
So, these are some of the reasons that not every film can be shown on TCM.
*And what about TCM's own film Library?*
When TCM debuted 15 years ago, the Turner Film Library was the basis for the films that aired. That library consisted of the RKO Film Library, the pre-1986 MGM Film Library and the pre-1949 Warners Film Library.
However, in the late 1990s, Ted Turner merged his media empire with Time-Warner. The former Turner Film Library is now owned by Time-Warner and is part of the Warners Film Library (along with the post-1949 Warners films.).
TCM rents/leases all the films it airs including the ones from the former Turner Film Library. Though TCM is part of the Time-Warner group, they are all different divisions of the company and like other companies, each division has its own structure and budget. TCM, like other companies, has a yearly programming budget.
*From previous posts by TCMProgrammer* we know that TCM has rental/lease deals with Paramount for films from it's post-1949 Film Library as well as with Sony for films from the Columbia Film Library. A deal was recently done with Universal for films from their Film Library which also includes the pre-1948 Paramount films.
So hopefully this will help some of you to think about some of the questions and or responses you have given on this thread and hopefully you will see that TCM is doing as much as they can to get the quality type of films they want to show, but often can't and the reasons why.
-
> Well, Rey, I'm glad you could at least try to convince ol' Frankie that Random Harvest is a purely brilliant film with the kind of deep emotion that everyone needs every once in a while.
Well Butter, I try my best to convert the man, and what do I get?
More trouble along the way.
I can probably understand his total and utter rejection of the film. But to lay the blame all on Miss Garson is truly unbelievable. I mean who cannot like her character in this film?
> You seem to like the year 1942. That's actually my favorite in film! Have you made a list of films just from that year that have made a difference in your life? I would very much like to see that!
I don't know if the films made a difference in my life or not except to say that I find some of them to be very emotional for me, to the point where I absolutely cry in certain scenes.
I can give you a list of 28 films that I have seen from 1942:
Bambi
The Battle of Midway
Captains of the Clouds
Casablanca
Cat People
Flying Tigers
For Me and My Gal
Gentlemen Jim
George Washington Slept Here
The Glass Key
The Great Man's Lady
Holiday Inn
In Which We Serve
Kings Row
The Magnificent Ambersons
The Man Who Came to Dinner
Mrs. Miniver
Now, Voyager
One of Our Aircraft is Missing
The palm Beach Story
Pride of the Yankees
Random Harvest
Reap the Wild Wind
Road to Morocco
The Talk of the Town
To Be or Not To Be
Wake Island
Woman of the Year
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Of these, the ones that really have gotten to me over the years are:
Mrs. Miniver
Pride of the Yankees
Random Harvest
The Talk of the Town
Wake Island
Yankee Doodle Dandy
And the reasons are quite simple really. There is an emotional connect I have made in films like Talk of the Town and Random Harvest that goes along with how the story unfolds and the characters that are involved.
In Wake Island and Mrs. Miniver the story centers on two fronts: the war at home and the real war. I remember my uncle telling me stories about Wake Island. He had friends in the Marines he knew at Pearl Harbor who had been stationed there and was quite fond of who never made it back. And Miniver is the quintessential On the Home Front movie with its own set of tormented scenes.
The Pride of the Yankees and Yankee Doodle Dandy are crowd pleasers that also offer sad moments to reflect on family and lost ones.
Other than these, the others are all fine films including the excellent documentary by John Ford on Midway.
-
> Does the Latino version of TCM show the same movies as TCM (American studio era films mostly), or Latino movies (e.g. Mexican films from the 30 - 60)? I assume the later.
Well I clicked on the link at the very bottom of the main page for TCM and it took me to their programming page. It would seem that they do show American classic films, but they also show American television shows like Bonanza, MacGuyver, The Three Stooges, and Little House on the Prairie among others. I saw listings for The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, The Comedy of Errors, The Fly, Journey Into Fear, The Great Escape, The Protagonists, Castle on the Hudson, The Informer and some modern films from the seventies and later.
So they do show classic American films from the thirties and forties as far as I could see. They probably show a good mix of films from every decade. I think I just saw the current week of programming only.
> The initial question here related to why TCM now has more post 1968 movies. So while TCM may indeed remain a station, I assume its programming will change to reflect chances in demand. Look at the movies TCM showed late last night. I assume these movies were shown to help bring in a certain segment of the population. This type of programming (showing NON studio era movies), will continue more and more so TCM can maintain its market share (very small to begin witho when compared to other stations). Note that the change in demographics isn't just the increase in latinos but the fact those of us from the baby boomer generation and older will not be around in, say, 20 or so years. Oh, and since you keep bringing up border security; that is the worst way to prevent illegal immigration. Instead fine employers big time for hiring illegal immigrations. That method could be cost netural. Border security isn't.
If we just look at the January 2012 schedule, not including shorts or documentaries, I counted 394 films. Of this total 288 films were from before 1960 and 106 films were from 1960 forward. That comes out to a 73% pre 1960 films total and a 27% post 1960 films total. So it would seem that the pre 1960 films are much greater in numbers than the post 1950 films by a wide margin. And this is usually the case. As long as the studios keep making new digital masters, I don't see why TCM won't be able to negotiate many more films for their future schedules.
You seem to be making the case that TCM is getting away from what you and some others around here claim to be more post 1960 films than pre-1960 films. I say again, go through the schedules and I would venture to say that TCM shows no more than 30% post-1960 films per year.
As far as my mentioning border security, I never said anything about securing the border. This is what I wrote:
*If they ever figure out a way preventing illegals from crossing the border then it might become a moot point.*
That statement I made does not even mention border security. I am totally aware of all of the possible avenues that the federal and state governments can and should be doing. I live in Colorado. We are not that far removed from the border with Mexico. I have no problem with what you wrote. As far as *"I keep bringing up border security"* where do you get that from?
As far as market share is concerned..... TCM does not subscribe to the Nielsens or Arbitron rating services. And the reason for this is that TCM does not show standard television commercials, except for their own productions and or future showings of films. So there is no need for TCM to be concerned with the demographics of the channel.
> Yes, we see young people interested in studio era movies here at CFU. But 'many' is a meaningless term from a statistical perspective. The vast majority of young people are not interested in these movies. e.g. for everyone that is, there are at least a 1,000 that would rather watch a current release.
Well, again there really is no way of figuring out just what is the ages of everyone who has visited the CFU or the Message Boards. Now I am a member of the CFU, but I really do not post there that often. I am not even sure if they have a profile area where one can write about themselves, including their ages. Most people don't like to give that kind of info out. However if you pay close enough attention to posters you can notice that sometimes they speak of seeing a movie at the theater in their teens or earlier based on what the title of the film was. Otherwise, I don't see where the usage of the word "many" can cause any harm. For all you and I know there could be hundreds of young fans of classic films here about.
-
> He has a pretty extensive history of on air and off air meltdowns and I only printed the mild version in this latest chapter. Not exactly good business for TCM.
I do not think that the vast majority of people in this country is even aware of the fact that he co-hosts the Essentials with Mr. Osborne each week. So his behavior even though it might have been overblown and also showed that he continues to have issues with anger management should not in the long run affect TCM
And don't forget he will be off the air in March when Drew Barrymore starts her run as the co-host of The Essentials.
VICTOR/VICTORIA
in Hot Topics
Posted
I thought that the film was well made. As many have written, the film was good and quite entertaining, especially with it's great casting.
Some have compared this film to Tootsie. I don't know why, they are not really related. V/V was a musical-comedy where as Tootsie was pretty much a straight comedy.
Having said that, V/V was not however, up to the quality of Tootsie as far as production value was concerned. Don't get me wrong, V/V was really well done, but it lacked a certain realism about it compare to the more modern (at the time) Tootsie. And it could just be that Tootsie had a better story and a more funny one at that.
In fact I'd have to say that I really enjoyed V/V and Tootsie. They both had memorable casting and great story lines.
In the mid nineties I remember going with my girlfriend (now my wife) to see the play based on the film. Andrews was still playing the main part, but Tony Roberts played Toddy, and Michael Nouri played King Marchand. Nouri was quite good as King. And of course, Andrews was superb as V/V.
This was before she had her surgery that left her without a singing voice. I am so lucky that I was able to see her perform "live" and to witness her great singing voice. It is a shame that she lost her singing voice after her surgery, but eventually she settled out of court with what I think was a $20 million settlement. No wonder many doctors don't practice medicine anymore.