voranis

> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=cody1949 wrote:}{quote} > > Are the movies shown without commercial breaks? > > No, and in that respect, they will never compete with TCM, but it's cool that they are showing some flix that TCM doesn't or doesn't often air. And the price of admission is frankly HIGHWAY PATROL, that show rocks!!! And they don't show a ton of ads, and the shows seem to be uncut. Along with that, they also show MISTER ED, SEA HUNT and THE PATTY DUKE SHOW, among others. I've really been enjoying Highway Patrol and The Patty Duke Show on THIS for a long time now. Highway Patrol is my favorite--the no-nonsense Broderick Crawford is great in this show. I had never even heard of the show Highway Patrol until THIS started up several years ago. I record it every weekday--or rather, late at night every weekday. Our THIS channel affiliate even shows it on weekends sometimes as a filler. I also enjoy seeing the "original" MST3K, Elvira's Movie Macabre, late Saturday and Sunday nights, just for nostalgia reasons. Both THIS and RTV show old horror movies late at night on the weekends. And RTV shows episodes of the old anthology show Kraft Suspense Theatre at midnight on Saturday and Suday nights, although it's retitled Crisis for syndication. It's great to see a lot of old classic TV and movie stars in these shows. I also like that THIS and RTV show the full closing credits, without shrinking them or overlaying the music with ads for upcoming shows. You see the closing credits full-screen, and hear all the closing music. That's something you can't find on almost any other channel showing TV shows. I like Darren McGavin's Mike Hammer and Peter Gunn on RTV, as well as some of the afternoon medical and police dramas, and Leave It to Beaver. RTV even shows the teasers for the early Leave It to Beaver episodes that had teasers. It's nice seeing a more complete Leave It to Beaver on RTV than the hacked-up job TV Land was making of it. The movies are not shown uncut or in the original aspect ratio, but it's great that THIS providers an opportunity for people without cable or TCM to see them at all. These channels are showing the kind of stuff the regular broadcast networks used to show before talk shows and court shows took over the daytime and late night slots. THIS is a joint venture between MGM and the Weigel Broadcasting, the company that owns the Chicago station MeTV which shows TV classics all day long. MeTV is going nationwide, with the distribution to be handled by MGM, so as the cable companies come on board, fans of classic TV will once again be able to see the classic TV shows that TV Land used to show. Robbie

> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote} > Does the database mention her marriage to Henry VIII? I didn't see that, but it did list two films from the year 1000: 56. Love, Wedding, Marriage (1000) Actor 57. Jennifer and the Swan Boat (1000) Cast

I really like the song "Let Yourself Go" by Ginger Rogers in Follow the Fleet. I also think Fred Astaire was able to pull off fairly well the songs that he performed in film. I especially liked his performances of "Cheek to Cheek" and "Puttin' on the Ritz." And I liked his performances in the Rankin-Bass TV specials Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town and The Easter Bunny Is Coming to Town. He had a smooth voice that was great for narrating and singing in those TV specials for children. Robbie

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > The one in the 1941 movie is a different one from the one in the Medicine Woman show: > > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0786829/ That's what I figured, which is why I said: >or the TCM database has mixed up her biography with another actress with the same name. in the original post, but the TCM page for Jane Seymour from Dr. Quinn lists the 1941 movie, as well as several other pre-1951 movies, in her filmography. The TCM database seems to have an error in it. The TCM page for the movie Tom, Dick, and Harry has the Jane Seymour from Dr. Quinn listed on it, because when you go to that page: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/1510/Tom-Dick-and-Harry/ and click on the "Jane Seymour" link, it takes you to the page for the actress from Dr. Quinn, and if you expand her complete filmography, it has Tom, Dick and Harry and several other pre-1951 movies listed in it. Robbie

Is there a problem in the TCM movie database? I noticed when I expanded the online schedule listing for Tom, Dick and Harry on Sunday, March 20, 2011, the Leonard Maltin review showed Jane Seymour in the cast. Wondering with some incredulity if this could be the same Jane Seymour I was thinking of, I clicked on the movie title and it took me to TCM's database page for the movie: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/1510/Tom-Dick-and-Harry/ Jane Seymour is listed in the cast as "Ma." I clicked on Jane Seymour's name and it took me to the TCM biography page for her, which is the biography for the actress who starred in Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. I cannot include the URL to her biography page in this post because it has funky characters in it that cause it not to be displayed properly. The page says she was born in 1951 and yet has Tom, Dick and Harry listed in her complete filmography, which can be seen by clicking on the "View Complete Filmography" link on her biography page, even though the movie was made in 1941! There are actually several movies listed in her filmography that were made before she was born, and two items from the year 1000. I didn't even know they were making movies back then! :-) > 53. Remember the Day (1942) Mrs. Roberts > 54. Tom, Dick and Harry (1941) Ma > 55. Back Door to Heaven (1939) Frankie's mother > 56. Love, Wedding, Marriage (1000) Actor > 57. Jennifer and the Swan Boat (1000) Cast Either Seymour is better at traveling Somewhere in Time than I originally thought, or the TCM database has mixed up her biography with another actress with the same name. Something is amiss here... Robbie

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote} > > I do like your contrast of "harder edge" vs. "plucky." One definition of "plucky" is "brave" and Neill's Lois had to be brave to do anything at all, since she usually looked scared out of her wits. (From the book A Game of Thrones: "Can a man be brave, if he is afraid?" "That is the only time he can be brave.") Coates' Lois seemed so confident she was almost oblivious to fear, or reckless in her zeal to get the story. > > > > This is exactly what I was getting at. Given the same script, Coates would come across as tough, almost fearless. Neill would come across doing her darnedest to be brave, and making it. Different characterizations, but I don't see one as being inherently better than the other, just different. Back in the real world, when writing for Neill, they made her rather timid at times. Nothing she could do about that. One is not necessarily "inherently better," objectively speaking, but one interpretation may be more appealing to a given viewer than another, which is what this discussion was about. After all, viewers are allowed to have preferences--there is no Vulcan-esque law regarding movies that says viewers must set aside their preferences, else we would like all movies equally. I doubt that you like all movies and actors equally, any more so than anybody else. I prefer the tougher Lois Lane as portrayed by Phyllis Coates, I do believe this is due in part to differences in ability between the actresses, and in general I like Coates' performances better than Neill's. Robbie

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > > So put me down as most of the difference due to writing. Sure, acting styles and characterizations are different, but the actor has to follow the script. Lois can't go charging off, if the script calls for her to be reticent, and do as she was told. Given the same lines, I think Phylis would have had a bit harder edge, and Noel seemed more 'plucky.' And put me down as some of the difference being due to writing and direction. Not all actors can pull off playing a tough guy with equal credibility, due not only to differences in acting ability but factors such as demeanor as well. Even if her acting ability were as great as that of Bette Davis (and that's a big hypothetical, though I should point out I do like both Doris Day and Noel Neill), I doubt Doris Day could ever have pulled off playing some of the villains Bette Davis played. Even if acting ability is equal, countenance and speech patterns and other factors can affect how convincingly an actor can play a hero or a villain. Phyllis Coates has frequently demonstrated the ability to play the "harder edge" throughout her career. Even when Neill was playing a tougher version of Lois in the movie serials than she played on the TV series, it still wasn't as tough as the way Coates played her in the TV series. I do like your contrast of "harder edge" vs. "plucky." One definition of "plucky" is "brave" and Neill's Lois had to be brave to do anything at all, since she usually looked scared out of her wits. (From the book A Game of Thrones: "Can a man be brave, if he is afraid?" "That is the only time he can be brave.") Coates' Lois seemed so confident she was almost oblivious to fear, or reckless in her zeal to get the story. Robbie

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > I preferred Phylis too. But, in deference to Noel, I would point out that the scripts they were given were responsible for the great difference in the way they played the character. ValentineXavier, As I pointed out in my previous post: >And you have to wonder how much of the "softer" Lois was due to direction and writing, rather than just to Neill's personal style. As I understand it, the sponsors were concerned that the noir criminals were too frightening for young children who watched the show, so the producers began moving the show to a softer tone. > >However, everything I have ever seen Coates in, including several episodes of Gunsmoke, had her showing that same toughness and determination, so certainly the strength of the original Lois Lane in the TV show was at least in part due to what Coates brought from within herself to the role, regardless of the directing and writing style. It's not solely the writing and direction--part of it is what the actress brings from within herself to the role. Robbie

> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote} > I'd dig pre-codes 24/7 without question. Though I'd want to toss a few noir's in there. Mysteries. B-series. Horror. Musicals. Comedies. Ummm. I love pre-codes, but it was great for me to have a break from them during Oscar month--I got a chance to rest. :-) TCM is pouring the pre-codes on so hard right now I can't keep up with all of them, which is a disappointment to me. I don't have the energy to watch them all or to keep enough DVR space free to record them all, or enough energy to even record them all to DVD. :-( Robbie

I noticed that Now Playing is airing at 5am EDT on the morning of Thursday, March 17, 2011, but it didn't appear in the schedule. Now Playing used to appear in the schedule. Is this a bug, or is Now Playing intentionally no longer being shown in the schedule? Robbie

> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote} > Robbie, GREAT comments about the first season of THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN!! I totally groove to that! My favorite season by far, for all of the reasons you mentioned, including my favorite Lois Lane of all-time, Phyllis Coates! Noel...Bless her, but she just doesn't do it for me, though I enjoy her performance well enough and as you say, she was the original cinematic Lois, in the first 2 movie serials--I dig both of those too, btw! I also enjoy the second season, but you can see how it is evolving even during that season, however it does contain some excellent episodes. The remainder of the series is uneven at best, and nothing like the first 2 seasons, certainly nothing like the first one. That remains a gem, and I'm happy to have the set that is out of those first two seasons. Along with Phyllis, I felt that Jack Carson as Jimmy, John Hamilton as Perry, and certainly George Reeves as Superman/Clark, gave their finest performances that season. Yeah, I certainly don't want to disparage Noel Neill--she is a fine actress (and still with us, as is Coates!). She played Lois a little tougher in the movie serials (which I originally watched on TCM and then bought the DVDs--you're right, they're great). And you have to wonder how much of the "softer" Lois was due to direction and writing, rather than just to Neill's personal style. As I understand it, the sponsors were concerned that the noir criminals were too frightening for young children who watched the show, so the producers began moving the show to a softer tone. However, everything I have ever seen Coates in, including several episodes of Gunsmoke, had her showing that same toughness and determination, so certainly the strength of the original Lois Lane in the TV show was at least in part due to what Coates brought from within herself to the role, regardless of the directing and writing style. As I understand it, season 2 was sort of a hybrid of noir and the new softer tone as they began the transition. You're right, all the actors were great. I also liked Robert Shayne as Inspector Henderson. John Hamilton was great as Perry White, even going so far as to bark orders to Inspector Henderson every once in a while! One of the original tough bosses, he makes Mary Tyler Moore's Lou Grant look like a teddy bear in comparison. I remember one episode in which Coates' Lois Lane was being held hostage in an apartment building. One of the bad guys told her to keep quiet. She said, "I will not!", stomped on his foot and screamed at the top of her voice. That's the grit and determination of Phyllis Coates' Lois Lane for you. One of my favorite lines from the show, though, was the Haiti episode. The guide didn't want to take Clark Kent and party into the jungle to look for Perry White's sister (played by Mabel Albertson, another great character actress), and Clark Kent said something like, "Surely you don't believe in voodoo." The guide responded, "I believe in sharp knives and poison." I bought the first Adventures of Superman DVD set (S1S2) when it was first released. I was really excited because the videotapes of the show I bought from Columbia House in the mid or late '90s were beginning to wear out. I think I bought the next DVD set when it came out and eventually plan to buy all of them, for completeness, but I have not been as highly motivated to get the later seasons as I was for S12. I ordered the TV Detectives DVD set from Amazon yesterday based on your recommendation. I'm looking forward to watching it! Robbie

Another good movie airing today (March 16) is Follow the Fleet. "Let Yourself Go" is a great song by Ginger Rogers.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > Great films today! > > I just happened to see the Donald Meek murder mystery, and I see that Ray Collins was in several of the mystery shorts with Donald Meek in the early 1930s. He looked so young in the films. > > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0172615/ > > Collins apparent left Hollywood for Broadway and Orson Welles' radio show in 1932, then he turned up in films again as J. W. Gettys in "Citizen Kane" in 1941. > > Maybe we need a Meek Murder Mystery Month. MMMM. TCM used to air the S.S. Van Dine shorts more frequently in the past. I didn't see the one that aired today, but hearing about it got me to get out my recordings of the ones that have aired in the past and watch a few of them... Love seeing John Hamilton (Perry White in The Adventure of Superman TV series) in these shorts...

> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote} > This set was available for a song on Amazon, and since I have a little credit there, I had to get it. It arrived this week, and it's great stuff! Since I'm not feeling well today I'm watching a bit of the DVD's, starting with the George Raft series, I'M THE LAW!! It's very gritty and noir-ish, just the way I like it! I also recognize some of the backing music from the first season of THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN! Cool! > > This set is filled with series from the late 40's through the mid-60's, great stuff! I got it for under 15 bucks, and it has tons of stuff packed onto 12 double sided discs! Groovy! I love the first season of The Adventures of Superman. Completely different in style and tone from the rest of the series. The first season had a film noir aspect to it, not just because it was in B&W, but because of the dialogue, the criminals they dealt with--everything. I still remember all the backing music from the first season, all that tension-building music that they used so effectively, and it started running through my head as I read your statement that it is also in the series I'm the Law. Phyllis Coates was the best Lois Lane, although it is ironic that Noel Neill played her first in the movie serials before playing her again in the subsequent seasons of The Adventures of Superman. Coates' Lois Lane was tough-as-nails, taking any risk to get the story. Neill played the character as being almost dowdy--in her first TV episode, Jack Larson suggests following someone to find out what's going on, and Neill says something like, "But Jimmy! The Chief [or maybe it was Inspector Henderson] said we should stay here." What a switch! In the first season, it was Jimmy who was trying to get Lois not to follow the bad guys. Neill's Lois Lane seemed more interested in making sure her hat stayed on her head than in getting a story. I was glad to see Coates make an appearance in Lois and Clark. Phyllis Coates was a much underrated actress, in my opinion. Robbie

I like all genres. I don't focus exclusively on pre-code or film noir, even though I like those genres, as I think to consider only those exclusively leaves out a lot of good movies. I don't want to watch movies with blinders on--only considering a narrow spectrum of movies as good. I like comedies, dramas, mysteries, musicals, adventure, science fiction, fantasy, horror, etc. There are some practical considerations, however. Sometimes it's easier for me to watch a shorter movie than an epic because I don't have enough time to watch a longer movie. Robbie

> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote} > Can't wait!!!! It wasn't all bad, but overall not my cup of tea. Tomorrow's lineup is great stuff!!! A full daytime lineup of Garfield! Take us home, John!! > I had a feeling you were gritting your teeth during Oscar month! Not enough pre-code, eh? I bet you think TCM should air pre-code movies 24/7! :-) I like a lot of pre-code movies, but I was actually happy for Oscar month to get a break from all the pre-code chatter. Such bliss! I don't believe any genre is so great that is should be focused on obsessively to the exclusion of all else, or that any genre is "perfect." I am a Barbara Stanwyck fan but I found So Big to be positively dreary. I agree with Leonard Maltin on this one--the pacing was terrible. If I hadn't known it was TCM, I would've thought I was watching an old TV show on TV Land all hacked up for commercials. Robbie

Renee, I have a couple of suggestions: (1) When you start composing a message to post, the input focus should probably go to the text box in which you are going to enter the message. I believe it used to do this in the former interface, but in the new interface the input focus is not in the text box. I'm not sure exactly where it is, but I have to click in the text box to get the input focus there before I start typing. (2) I read that an "Expand All" button is being considered that would cause all the movie synopses to be expanded at once. This is a big improvement over the current situation, which requires the user to expand each movie synopsis individually, but it still requires an extra action for the user each time they view a schedule page. Is there a possibility of implementing a preference, possibly named "Display Format", with selection choices of "Collapsed" and "Expanded", that users could select that would be remembered in a cookie, so they don't have to explicitly perform an "Expand All" each time they view a schedule page? Robbie

> {quote:title=lovetogarden wrote:}{quote} > What happened to the option of looking up a movie in the database and finding out when it's playing next? That's no longer there. Now when you look up a movie in the database you're given a synopses and the price of the movie. That really stinks! I've been afraid to click on a movie title because I was afraid I would find the "future air dates" feature taken away. Which means the reminder feature is gone too. I really liked those features. This is not the first time I have seen developers go crazy in "improving" a web site that actually seem to make it worse. I remember the Encore premium channels used to have a nice text-based schedule that was easy to scroll and browse. They replaced it with some sort of Flash-based interactive schedule with a built-in mini-scroller that was very hard to use, and very slow. Flash is very slow; I hope TCM has not implemented the new schedule in the sluggish Flash! I say why put in interior scroll bars? Let the browser's scroll bars do the work--they work much more smoothly than Flash. Fortunately TCM has not made this mistake--yet. I am a former user interface developer and I find that adding lots of interactive features, sliding doo-dads, and whoosh! graphics can sometimes make an interface harder to use. Before Google emerged as the leading web search engine, a fellow developer asked me which search engine I used, and I said Google, and he asked me why. I said, because each time I go to the Google page, there is a clean (as in non-cluttered) web page with the input focus in a simple text box I can type in. Most of the other search engines were loaded up with menus and all kinds of clutter. My friend said he used Google for the same reason, and I am convinced the simple interface is one of the factors that led to Google becoming the leading search engine. Even as Google has added more features, they have kept the menu items for them in inobtrusive locations at the top edge of the page. Sometimes fancier is not better. Even when I go the the monthly schedule now (Schedule->Month Schedule), it just lists the movie titles, not the synopses. I really miss being able to scan all the movie synopses at a glance! Maybe some of this is just bugs that will be shaken out over the next month. Is there a place where we can go to vote on features we'd like to see removed or added? It would be nice if there were some way for users to do so in order that the web developers for TCM might determine the weight to give each suggestion in determining whether to implement that suggestion or not... Robbie

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > I agree 100%. I logged in today and thought I'd somehow ended up on the wrong website. I had no idea this was coming. I try not to be a complainer, but , I hate this ! What was wrong with the old message board the way it was? Now it looks cluttery and confusing. I was trying to figure out what I didn't like about the new look and feel, and your description hits it exactly! Too "cluttered." I almost had a panic attack when I saw the new web page. My first thought was, "how am I going to be able to use this new page?" I don't have time to be expanding movies individually. I liked being able to see all the descriptions at once for a day on one page. I'm not complaining myself about not knowing about the change--I am not able to read the message boards often enough to stay fully informed. But even if we didn't know about the change, we should still be able to make comments and suggestions. There are those of us who use the online schedule regularly but cannot keep up with the message boards. I don't believe there is a TCM law, as some seem to be implying, that says "if you use the online schedule, you have to read all the message boards or else you forfeit your right to make comments or criticisms." Robbie

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"I just want to know where these people have been. Where have they been hiding?"* - fxreyman > > Rey, they're the "guests" who come to lurk and linger and read but choose not to engage. The low post count should not be used to determine if a member has some sort of legitimacy to complain or ask for revisions. It is really an unfair inference. I am not able to read or post as often as others because of health reasons. I usually come to the boards when I need some information. So thanks Kyle, for pointing out that we should not all be judged by a post count. > > There has been a drastic overhaul of the online schedule(s). Many visitors to the site use those on a regular basis and have come to expect a certain level of information from those pages. As it stands today, the schedule requires new actions and steps to access the information that was clearly visibe before. It was a surprise to everyone this morning when what one has been accustomed to seeing is no longer in front of you in this new format. > I discovered the new format just a few minutes ago when my web page of today's schedule (which had already been loaded yesterday in the old format) refreshed at midnight. I miss having all the movie descriptions expanded at once. I liked being able to scan through the web page quickly to see what movies I was interested in. Having to expand each move description one-by-one is going to be cumbersome. There are some interesting new features, however. Does the new web page format include an icon if the movie is a TCM Premiere? I have been wanting that for some time. I just subscribed to Now Playing this year and got my first issue in February. I guess because it was 31 Days of Oscar, it had TCM Premiere icons throughout the listings. I notice the March issue only has the icon in the primetime grid in the middle, which I guess is the norm. Why not put the icon throughout all the listings as they did in February? It's just one more icon to add to the 4-5 icons they already are using throughout the entire listings in the issue. It's very useful information. Robbie

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"I am trying to determine if the content of 31 Days of Oscar is a departure from what TCM allows to be shown during the rest of the year."* - voranis > > I don't know 'voranis.' If TCM had a legitimate reason to show *The Lord Of The Rings* this September, I am sure they could do it. But, typically, they don't show such popular, contemporary films save for Oscar Month. > > Your interest goes beyond what I am capable of answering for you or comfortable with discussing. I've given you my educated guesses on how TCM approaches its programming gleaned from observing the traditions apparent to this long-time viewer and as one with past access to persons at TCM. All I could say beyond what I have said already would only be unfounded hypotheses. > > Kyle In Hollywood > {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"I am trying to determine if the content of 31 Days of Oscar is a departure from what TCM allows to be shown during the rest of the year."* - voranis > > I don't know 'voranis.' If TCM had a legitimate reason to show *The Lord Of The Rings* this September, I am sure they could do it. But, typically, they don't show such popular, contemporary films save for Oscar Month. > > Your interest goes beyond what I am capable of answering for you or comfortable with discussing. I've given you my educated guesses on how TCM approaches its programming gleaned from observing the traditions apparent to this long-time viewer and as one with past access to persons at TCM. All I could say beyond what I have said already would only be unfounded hypotheses. > > Kyle In Hollywood Kyle, Thanks for the response!

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *In other words, does TCM consider itself to be showing some non-classics during 31 Days of Oscar, or does it consider Lord of the Rings: Return of the King a classic?* > > Voranis, > > Couple of things to consider > > 1) TCM celebrates all eras of film. Many of the classic era films that are the bread and butter backbone of the network are not considered classic films. In fact, most of them aren't in the traditional sense that defines the best films of that era. But TCM considers all films important whether it's *Casablanca* or a B-western or sci-fi cult film or one of Rich's beloved odes to juvenile delinquents. > TCM considers them all worthy broadcast whether they fit FredC's definition of what should be on the channel or Kinkoma's definition. We, the posters here at TCM City, too often seem to want to define what the channel should be based on our own wants and needs while TCM understands the necessity of programming for all of us - an that includes all its viewers not just the 30 people who post regularly here. > > 2) *31 Days of Oscar* is about the entire history of the Academy Awards and always has been. TCM includes modern films from a few years ago as well because they are part of Oscar's history. > > 3) We the posters spend more time passing judgment on what films should constitute classic than any other subject here at TCM City. For over 16 years, TCM has been bringing us an incredible smorgasbord of films from all eras because to TCM all films are important and worthy of broadcast. > They do have a yearly budget that they have to work with for renting films. They do not have every film ever made at their disposal to air and not every studio and/or distributor has been easy to work with over the years. > > 4) Do modern films show up on the schedule outside of the *31 Days* salute? Yes, sometimes they do but they are part of a bigger theme. The *Race and Hollywood* series includes recent films because the series is about how minority images on film have evolved over the years and modern films are part of that evolution. In the months ahead, there is a salute to *self-financed* films that includes some modern films. Should TCM scuttle that idea because it includes modern films or will there be people who will enjoy watching the films because they are part of the line-up? > > At the end of the day, we have to remember, we may be a small but very vocal group of viewers but we are not the only ones who watch TCM. TCM tries to program not for any one person but for all its viewers and they must be doing something right because after 16 years they are still doing what they set out to do when they debuted in April, 1994, bringing us the best in films from the silents to today. In a sea of changing stations that start out as one thing (history, a and e, bravo, tv land) and then morph into something completely dfferent under new ownership, TCM has been awarded the prestigious Peabody Award for staying true to their original mission statement. > > We may not always agree with their programming choices but they must be doing something right because they are still doing what they set out to do and we are all still watching. Liz, Thanks for the explanation! All good points, especially the one about the fact that just because a movie is from the 1930s may not necessarily make it a classic--unless "old" is what one's definition of "classic" is, which seems to be the case for some members of these forums. I think I've seen some contemporary movies myself during times other than 31 Days of Oscar, especially when there are guest programmers, such as when Peter Travers selected Almost Famous during Critic's Choice Month in October of 2010. (I wish they would re-run those, especially the Leonard Maltin night, since I missed most of them due to illness. But they never seem to re-run special events like those.) I had forgotten about that airing until this discussion of classics vs. contemporaries came up again. Keep in mind that, just as people say TCM repeats movies because new viewers are always coming in that may have missed previous airings, new viewers and forum members are going to raise questions about TCM's policies that may have been discussed previously. I'm not sure if the original poster in this thread was new or not; there were some claims that the poster was new and some that the poster was a long-time viewer with a new identity. Not sure which is the case here. And even long-time viewers like myself may not be aware of all the policies if they do not watch the channel 24/7 or are not as heavily involved in information about the network as folks like you are. In my case, though, it is my poor memory that caused me to be surprised at the airing of LOTR, as I just mentioned that I am now recalling having seen some contemporary movies on TCM in the past. My memory is declining much faster than it should for my age and is just one of the health problems my doctors are trying to deal with. How many times have you had to explain--which you did for me once--the history of the library acquisitions, when they were sold, who owns them now, and why TCM has to pay for the movies it airs? Do you have a FAQ for some of these items that you are so knowledgeable about, and if not, is it possible to create FAQs in these message boards as I have seen in other message boards? Maybe then new members which questions that have been answered before could be directed to the FAQ. (Probably this question has also been raised many times too.) Thanks again!

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote} > BTW I wish they had shown the extended version of LOTR instead of the clipped one, it is a much better version. Wow, hamradio already considers the theatrical version too long--wonder what he would make of the extended version on the DVDs? :-)

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > *"In other words, does TCM consider itself to be showing some non-classics during 31 Days of Oscar, or does it consider Lord of the Rings: Return of the King a classic?"* > *"Liz, I am particularly interested in your answer, as well as Kyle's, since you seem to have a lot of inside info about the network."* - voranis > > I don't think TCM gives much thought to the definition of term "classic" in determining the films that the network shows. > > But as it relates to *The Lord Of The Rings*, the only reason it is on the network this month is because it is "31 Days Of Oscar." I don't think it will be shown again during the year. (The same situation applied to *Gladiator*, *Titanic*, *Kundun* and *Seven* --during-- from past "31 Days..." events.) But I believe that TCM considers any film nominated for an Oscar worthy of the term "classic." > > > Kyle In Hollywood > (And I wish TCM would show *Kundun* once again.) > Thanks, Kyle! If TCM does consider movies like Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, Titanic, etc. that are nominated or win Oscars to be classics, does that mean the reason it doesn't show such movies during the rest of the year is because its policy is to only show older classic movies the rest of the year, but that it makes an exception to this policy during 31 Days of Oscar? I am trying to determine if the content of 31 Days of Oscar is a departure from what TCM allows to be shown during the rest of the year. I am also wondering if TCM does consider these movies classics but does not show them during the regular course of the year, should the network be renamed TOCM (Turner Older Classic Movies)? ;-) Robbie

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > And it still amazes me that posters who claim to be long-time viewers who only watch TCM are suddenly up in arms every February because a recent modern film is on the schedule during the *31 Days of Oscar* salute. > > For over 15 years the TCM and the *31 Days* has celebrated *ALL* Oscar history. They are not doing anything different this year. > > And next year, they will celebrate *31 Days* again including *ALL* Oscar history and people will again be up in arms. > > Some things here at TCM City never change. Though we haven't had too many posters contact their politicians to get TCM shut down because of their film schedule. Liz, You didn't answer my question to you in my previous post, so I will reiterate it here in the following paragraphs. But first, let me say that I am not "up in arms," just surprised. I guess I have missed the modern movies that have been shown in previous years during 31 Days of Oscar. I watch TCM a lot but I do not watch it 24/7 and even though I have been watching TCM for 10 years or longer, I guess I missed the modern movies. I am sorry that some of us are not as knowledgeable about TCM as we should be, or as you are. Please continue to be amazed at us. I will be reading hamradio's response to my question with a link to another discussion, but I would still like to hear your direct thoughts on my question. Here was my post with a question for you: It's a surprise to me. I have been watching 31 Days of Oscar on TCM for many years but I thought since TCM is for classic movies, the celebration would be for classic Oscar-winning movies. I know there are debates here in the message boards on what "classic" means and for me it doesn't necessarily mean "old," but from the posts I've seen, and I don't get to read here very often, but when I do, the posts mostly seem to represent the view that TCM should only be airing movies from older decades, so I thought since that's what most of the viewers seem to think, that was what the network thought, too. A bad assumption on my part, I guess, assuming the network's view corresponded to that of its viewers. A similar debate goes on with networks devoted to TV shows. TV Land no longer markets itself as devoted to "classic" programming as it once did--that was once in its ads, but no longer--because much of what it shows now is no longer considered "classic" by its viewers. The Retro Television Network (RTV/RTN) has taken up the mantle of showing "classic" TV. What is TCM's official position on what "classic" means? Does it consider showing more modern movies during 31 Days of Oscar an exception to what it normally shows--as it defines itself by Turner Classic Movies--or does TCM define "classic" using criteria other than how old a movie is? In other words, does TCM consider itself to be showing some non-classics during 31 Days of Oscar, or does it consider Lord of the Rings: Return of the King a classic? Liz, I am particularly interested in your answer, as well as Kyle's, since you seem to have a lot of inside info about the network.