voranis
-
Posts
590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by voranis
-
-
How about:
Easy Rider (1969)
Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1969)
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969)
On a Clear Day You Can See Forever (1970)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
The French Connection (1971)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)
The Poseidon Adventure (1972)
Travels with My Aunt (1972)
American Graffiti (1973)
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Young Frankenstein (1974)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Annie Hall (1977)
The Goodbye Girl (1977)
Halloween (1978)
Superman (1978)
Alien (1979)
Friday the 13th (1980)
The Shining (1980)
Chariots of Fire (1981)
Tootsie (1982)
The Outsiders (1983)
A Room with a View (1985)
The Breakfast Club (1985)
St. Elmo's Fire (1985)
The Little Mermaid (1989)
Avalon (1990)
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
City Slickers (1991)
The Prince of Tides (1991)
Thelma & Louise (1991)
Unforgiven (1992)
Shadowlands (1993)
This Boy's Life (1993)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Mr. Holland's Opus (1995)
Fargo (1996)
Independence Day (1996)
Jerry Maguire (1996)
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
Men in Black (1997)
My Best Friend's Wedding (1997)
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)
Wonder Boys (2000)
Billy Elliott (2000)
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's (or Sorcerer's) Stone (2001)
Shrek (2001)
The Pianist (2002)
Whale Rider (2002)
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
The Aviator (2004)
Australia (2008)
-
> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote}
> Well, I have a feeling it won't be Joel McCrea...but we do need to know what the premieres will be in January. Let's hope they have some great stuff lined up...!
This reminds me of something I've been wondering about...do any of the online schedules indicate which movies are TCM premieres? It would be nice if there were some indicator, or a list published somewhere. I remember one year the 31 Days of Oscar PDF had asterisks or some other kind of notation for the movies that were TCM premieres, and I've been wondering ever since if TCM indicates which movies are premieres in its regular schedule anywhere online. Maybe it's there and I've missed it. It sure would be nice to have the premieres clearly spelled out.
Thanks,
Robbie
-
Just finished watching The Family Way on TCM, which I had not seen in a long time. I loved this movie the first time I saw it and it sure was great to see it again. I loved the understated nature of the whole movie--it felt like I was watching a slice of real life instead of a movie. None of the characters seemed broadly drawn or larger than life.
For years I had been hoping it would be released on DVD, but by the time it finally was (2009), I had stopped searching for it. Seeing it tonight got me looking for it again and so now I know it's available. Great to see it with Robert Osborne's commentary and to know I can finally get it on DVD...
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}
> I live in Alabama and I promise you that it's unbearable hot here in the summer (actually it can start as early as March.) I remember one New Year's Eve that it was 75 degrees (although within a week we had a 10 inch snowstorm.) Every summer I wish I was in Canada or at least out west where it's less humid.
>
> I'm sorry I didn't DVR ...tick x3. Sounds good. Maybe TCM will replay it.
I believe this movie has aired on TCM before, hasn't it? I did not see or record it on October 5, but I seem to remember recording it a year or two ago and having to deal with the unusual title when creating a title for the recording, with all the ellipses and no capitalized words.
So if it has been on before, I'm sure TCM will air it again. It is a good movie.
I live in North Carolina and while I'm sure Alabama is a lot hotter and more humid than NC, it was routinely 90 degrees or higher this summer in NC and the humidity was very bad. I spent the last month of the summer in SC and immediately upon arrival in SC it seemed as hot and humid as it had been in NC, but no more so. It seems it is just generally hot and humid all over the South. I also remember one December in NC when the temperature reached 90 degrees one day. Then it was back in the 50s the next day. Hard to know what to wear from one day to the next in the winter in NC.
I too yearn for the less humid West sometimes in the summer--I spent the 4th of July in Santa Ana, CA one year and it was too cold to swim in the pool at night, even for me, the most heat-sensitive person I have ever known. A drier climate seems to allow for considerable temperature drops at night. When we got back to NC we were told the 4th of July in NC had been so humid you could have stayed in the pool all night long...
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > I had always thought TCM was subsidized by the other stations in the Time Warner family, the way Boomerang probably is, but Kyle's post said TCM was able to remain commercial-free solely due to cable subscription fees. So my question remains unanswered as to why cable subscription fees can keep TCM commercial-free but not other channels like AMC...
>
> I don't think Kyle's post said _solely_ due to cable subscription fees. I believe it said that the revenue stream was generated by such fees. But I don't know that anyone has ruled out categorically some sort of subsidy from Turner Broadcasting. At least not that I'm aware of.
>
> Not sure if that explains it completely, but it's the best I can do
No it didn't actually say "solely," but since it didn't mention anything else, his post seemed to suggest that the revenue stream was sufficient to keep TCM commercial free. He seemed to be providing a post designed to completely answer the question and nothing was said about subsidies. Yet it's unclear why cable and satellite subscription fees have been unable to keep other channels like AMC commercial-free.
I am not trying to nit-pick the wording of his post here just to be troublesome--this is actually a question I have been wondering about for a long time. I always thought TCM was subsidized by the other Turner/Warner properties. I am just trying to find out if Kyle's answer is a complete one, and if so, and subsidies are not needed, then how can TCM do it when other channels like AMC cannot?
We can all speculate, but is there someone "in the know" who knows the definitive answer? I'd appreciate hearing from someone who knows for certain whether TCM is subsidized by revenue from other TIme Warner/Turner properties.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> *But several years ago when the Star of the Month was Barbara Stanwyck, there was a night on which many of her short films were shown, and Mr. Osborne stopped doing commentary at 1am*
>
> A couple of years ago, Robert Osborne had some health issues that caused him to cut back on the number of films he hosted. As he flies to Atlanta to record all the intros and outros, his health became enough of issue that posters noted enough here to start threads about it.
>
> Perhaps, this happened during that time?
Oh, dear. I hope he is OK now. He doesn't live in Atlanta? Then he must have to travel a lot, which I didn't realize.
Still, I'd like to know if he likes Barbara Stanwyck or not. I always felt from his warm commentary that he did like her, but some of the TCM programming decisions have made me wonder otherwise. Of course, maybe he doesn't even make the programming decisions for TCM? I don't really know. But I thought those of you who have met him or who are able to participate in these forums more regularly than I (I am limited in how much I can participate due to health issues myself), might know how he feels about the actress. I have such admiration for Mr. Osborne, it would bother me a lot to learn he didn't like her.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> We seem to have posted at the same time... see my previous post.
And I just responded to your post. :-)
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > If that is the case, why did AMC have to go to having commercials? Somehow TCM had managed to remain commercial-free (for which I am grateful) even when similar channels which collect cable subscriber fees have said they could no longer afford to do so.
>
> I don't know who owns AMC, but TCM is owned by Time Warner (as part of Turner Broadcasting). I don't think this has ever been said officially, but I suppose that TCM can enjoy some leeway because Turner Broadcasting's other networks are more profitable.
>
> Plus, from a corporate point of view, TCM shows a lot of movies that are distributed on home video thru Time Warner's Warner Home Video, so there is some cross-promotion at work there, too. I'm sure that indirectly, TCM helps WHV sell more movies on DVD and blu-ray.
>
> I think that is why the current status quo may make business sense, after all.
I had always thought TCM was subsidized by the other stations in the Time Warner family, the way Boomerang probably is, but Kyle's post said TCM was able to remain commercial-free solely due to cable subscription fees:
>TCM's revenue stream is derived from cable and satellite subscrption fees
So my question remains unanswered as to why cable subscription fees can keep TCM commercial-free but not other channels like AMC...
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> *If that is the case, why did AMC have to go to having commercials?*
>
> According to Wikipedia:
>
> On September 30, 2002, AMC changed its format from a classic movie channel to a more general movie channel, airing movies from all eras, with the majority of pre-1970 movies airing in late nights, mornings, and early afternoons.[11] Kate McEnroe, then president of AMC Networks, cited lack of cable-operator subsidies as the reason for the addition of advertising, and cited ad agencies who insist on programming relevant to their products' consumers as the reason for the shift to recent movies instead of classics.[12]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_%28TV_channel%29
>
> Take from it what you will.
I still don't understand...this still doesn't answer my question of why TCM doesn't have to go to commercials while other channels have had to do so. According to Kyle's post, AMC gets slightly more in cable subscriber fees than TCM does.
-
> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}
> *"How can TCM Be Commercial Free? with no commercials? Thanks!"* - CoolFinalFan
>
> TCM's revenue stream is derived from cable and satellite subscrption fees - the amount cable companies pay to TCM for each subscriber that receives the channel from that particular company. TCM is available in 80 million households (TCM's number) - and each month they are paid a small amount from your cable/satellite bill for being available in each of those households.
>
> I recently saw a list containing all the subscription fees for the most popular cable channels. You'd think TCM - being commercial-free - would receive a higher fee than it's commercial-supported sister stations TNT and TBS. But you'd be wrong. Both TNT and TBS receive higher fees per subscriber than TCM. In fact, TCM receives only a few cents more than the monthly fee cable/satellite companies pay for AMC.
>
> Kyle In Hollywood
If that is the case, why did AMC have to go to having commercials? Somehow TCM had managed to remain commercial-free (for which I am grateful) even when similar channels which collect cable subscriber fees have said they could no longer afford to do so.
-
I have a question about how decisions are made about the movies that Robert Osborne does commentary on. Originally I thought he did commentary up until 2 or 4am.
But several years ago when the Star of the Month was Barbara Stanwyck, there was a night on which many of her short films were shown, and Mr. Osborne stopped doing commentary at 1am. I was told that he only comments on the "first four films," and because the films shown that night were short, four films had already been shown by 1am.
However, when Carole Lombard was Star of the Month, Mr. Osborne did commentary on five of her films one night when her shorter films were shown, going well past 2am.
And tonight, he has done commentary for the fifth Marx Brothers film which began at 2am, much later than the fifth Barbara Stanwyck film began airing.
So clearly the "4 movie rule" was NOT the reason Mr. Osborne did not do commentary on the fifth Stanwyck movie that night. He clearly chooses to do commentary on more than 4 movies when he wants to. And since Miss Stanwyck's movies that night were even shorter than the Marx Brothers movies on tonight, the fact that the Marx Brothers films are short does not explain why he is doing commentary on more than 4 of their movies tonight.
My question remains...does Mr. Osborne not like Barbara Stanwyck? She rarely gets a birthday tribute since it falls during Summer Under the Stars, and while other stars whose birthdays fall during that period often get a make-up tribute after Summer Under the Stars ends, it is rarely done for Miss Stanwyck. I often feel that she gets short shrift on TCM, which makes me wonder if Mr. Obsorne does not care for her for some reason, and since she is my favorite actress, it bothers me quite a bit.
-
> {quote:title=primosprimos wrote:}{quote}
> Having had a monopoly in most communities for decades, many cable companies have an arrogant "take it or leave it" approach with customers. That's one of the reasons that so many people have been leaving cable for alternate services like satellite or FIOS.
>
> Quite right, markfp2. But the people in America have no one to blame but themselves. We've quietly allowed ourselves to be ripped off by them for over 20 years, and the government has aided and abetted them, thanks to money exchanging hands under the table.
>
Yep, just like our local government was defending the cable companys' poor selection of channels 10 years ago which caused many of us to flee to satellite. I wrote a letter to the local newspaper (this was back when they were still relevant) complaining about the conflict of interest in which the cable company was owned by a cable network conglomerate and the cable company was refusing to carry channels owned by competitor networks. The spokesperson for the city didn't respond to my letter, but he did respond to a letter sent in by someone else complaining about the poor choice of channels by saying something like "the city negotiated the channels with the cable company and so it's not the cable company's fault." I wrote another letter saying, "Well then the city did a poor job, since I know people living in larger metropolitan areas as well as small rural areas who are getting more channels from their cable company than we are getting."
Many of us fleeing to satellite (in fact, we were cited in a national report as one of the fastest growing satellite markets in the country at the time) forced the cable company to get better. So even though I have some problems with DirecTV I am glad for the competition they provide.
> By the way, FIOS isn't much better.
>
> Then I'll get to see how good their customer service is.
>
> voranis, my guess is that you will hear: "drop dead", in customer service-ese.
It's amazing how polite they can be when they are essentially saying, "Drop dead." :-) Their response was actually worse than I had expected.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> And in addition to those things others have just mentioned - he's also an Oscar co-host.
>
> I'd say TCM is getting a pretty good deal by having him co-host a weekly series.
Steve Martin also co-hosted the Oscars--how about getting him to co-host The Essentials? All of the things that have been mentioned about Baldwin do not apply exclusively to Baldwin--surely there are other celebrities that have similar attributes, so they are not a reason not to have other celebrities get a turn to co-host...
-
> {quote:title=HarryLong wrote:}{quote}
> Look on the bright side... I understand Ben Lyons is looking for a gig...
> I think Alec is OK (though I personally preferred Carrie Fisher who wasn't afraid to co0ntradicts Osborne; her "Oh, please; just because a film is old doesn't make it a classic" was priceless).
> But I cannot fathom avoiding a two hour movie just because of a few minute intro segment.
I've seen all the movies they show on The Essentials, so I'm not really avoiding the movie just because of the intro. I mostly tune in to movies on TCM I have already seen just for the commentary, whether it's Robert Osborne or Ben M. or a guest programmer, but I'm not going to tune in when Alec Baldwin is doing it.
-
> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}
> *"...if TCM is going to show this kind of bias, I may stop watching."* - voranis
>
> While I won't dispute with your personal feelings about Alec Baldwin - what you feel is honest for you - but don't think there is some ulterior motive or something dishonest to having Alec Baldwin co-host for two years. The first years of The Essentials had hosts whose duties lasted two years - Rob Reiner and Sidney Pollack - so it isn't unprecedented.
I didn't mean to suggest an ulterior motive. I just think it's preferential treatment--apparently they didn't like Carrie Fisher or Rose McGowan much, so they only kept them on a year each, but they're drooling all over Alec Baldwin, so they're keeping him on longer. Or did Fisher and McGowan not want to stay on longer?
I was curious about some of the previous hosts of The Essentials. I would have loved to have seen Rob Reiner co-hosting but I only watched TCM occasionally back then and had not become a true fan. If the Wikipedia page is correct, Reiner and and Pollack were hosts before Robert Osborne began co-hosting in 2006. Since Osborne became co-host in 2006, the new format has consistently been a new co-host each year...until an exception was made for Baldwin. So yes, I do consider it bias. I don't think citing the length of service of the hosts during a period in which the show had a different format is a fair comparison or is a good establishment of "precedent."
>
> And in Alec Baldwin TCM has a co-host that truly loves the channel (see this month's "Now Playing: The Show" program) that not only stars in a network sitcom every week but also hosts New York Philharmonic Symphony radio broadcasts this year. I am sure TCM is happy to have one of their "personalities" out there in the public eye every week.
But I'm sure there are other celebrities who love the channel and who love classic film and who are in the public eye on a regular basis who would love to co-host, so the fact that Baldwin is a fan of the channel and of classic film should not be a reason to have to keep him on longer than whatever the traditional hosting length of time has been. I am worried they are going to make him permanent co-host. I enjoy his movie roles when he is playing some other character--as a matter of fact, I think he's a very good actor, but I just don't like listening to him when he's just himself. He seems too arrogant--I think the earlier post about him being "full of himself" at the Oscars is how I see him all the time. I'm sick of seeing him each week and was really hoping to see someone else take over. I'm even sick of seeing the commercials they run of The Essentials with him in it.
>
> I don't know if such exposure of Mr. Baldwin will bring new viewers to TCM - but it is possible. And it is all at no cost to the channel. So it sounds like a "win-win" to me. And probably to TCM too.
It's just not a win-win for me. I think there are other celebrities who could be given a chance as co-host who would bring new viewers at no cost to the channel. Or is Mr. Baldwin the only one who has co-hosted at no cost to the channel?
Or maybe they are having a hard time getting co-hosts and are lucky to be able to keep Alec Baldwin as co-host? I hadn't looked at it that way. I had assumed many celebrities would jump at the chance but maybe most celebrities are not fans of the channel? I hadn't thought of that.
But I would think that there are plenty of celebrities who are (1) fans of the channel, (2) fans of classic film, (3) able to bring out bits of obscure facts about the films (surely no one is claiming Baldwin is the only co-host who has done this or who can do this?), and (4) is in the public eye enough to be good for TCM. So all these reasons don't to me seem to be enough to make an exception for Baldwin--I think there must be some personal bias at the network for him. And that's fine, since they have the right to make their own choices...and I have the right to protest and not watch if they give preferential treatment to co-hosts I don't care for.
-
> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}
> Although the boxes may seem like a simple cheap box, over the years since your first one, there have been many technical changes that make the boxes cost more.That's one of the reasons they extended the commitment period, it takes them longer to make back the higher cost of the receiver.
>
> If you decide to cancel, after your commitment has ended, and they want the receivers back they'll send you prepaid boxes for the return. The return won't cost you anything.
>
> Rather than getting into long discussions on the forum, you'd be much better just to call them at 1-800-531-5000 and one of their customer service people will be happy to answer your questions and hopefully put your mind to rest that your not getting ripped off.
Well, actually, I had to call them today. One of the receivers has begun to malfunction--an audio problem in which there are periodic bursts of static. At first I thought it was just a temporary glitch, as after I restarted the box the problem disappeared. However, it has occurred again and my last two days of recording from that DirecTV box are ruined. This is in addition to the day of recordings that were ruined the first time the problem occurred. It is only happening with one receiver which is an older model than my other receivers.
So I called them to see about getting a replacement box and seeing if I could do so without getting stuck with another contract. I couldn't even get that far. They won't do anything until the problem occurs again. I don't know if it's because I have the total protection plan and they would have to replace the box for free and they're trying to do everything they can to avoid that. At any rate, the person said I have to call them when the problem occurs again so they can diagnose it, which means I have to risk more ruined recordings when the problem recurs. He said they will replace the box after I have called in at "at least 3 times" to report the problem.
I don't think their customer service is so great. I don't believe I could trust them to give me an honest answer about whether I got ripped off when I purchased the current receivers or not. If you ask a company, "Did you rip me off?" they are obviously going to say no. That's why I thought I might get a more objective answer in a forum where there is no financial interest in protecting a company, but I guess not. Originally you said the old boxes were cheap because they weren't DVRs, then when I pointed out mine aren't DVRs, now you say all the newer boxes aren't cheap. The story keeps changing to defend DirecTV at all costs.
The installer that DirecTV sent out to try to set me up with an HD dish said that he often finds that when he gets to a customer site, the customer has been told incorrect information by DirecTV customer service because customer service will say anything to make a sale.
-
> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=primosprimos wrote:}{quote} > Hopefully DirectTV is a better company than Cablevision.
>
> Cablevision doesn't serve this area so I don't have any first hand experience, but from everything I've read on satellite/cable forums it's one of the worst when it comes to customer service.
>
> Having had a monopoly in most communities for decades, many cable companies have an arrogant "take it or leave it" approach with customers. That's one of the reasons that so many people have been leaving cable for alternate services like satellite or FIOS.
>
> As for DirecTV, it's always rated very high when it comes to customer service and in 11 years I've always found it to be so.
I originally signed up with DirecTV in 1999 because of the arrogance of the cable company in our area. When viewers complained about them not carrying the other cable news networks, the local government's response was: "The cable company already has a 24-hour news channel owned by their parent company. Why should they be forced to carry their competitors' channels?" This apparent conflict of interest between the provider of access and the provider of content angered many customers and led to people flocking to satellite TV in droves, myself included.
But still, markfp2, you said the reason we could pay $99 and own the satellite box outright in the old days was because they were cheap boxes, not DVRs--DVRs are much more expensive to own outright. Yet the DirecTV brand boxes I had to get to replace my RCA boxes were simple boxes, not DVRs and not HD. In fact, their menus are clunkier and harder to use, and slower, than my old RCA boxes. Yet I had to pay $99 for each box and I do not own them and I have to pay a lease. Again I ask, did I get "taken" by DirecTV?
And although as you say, they often just tell you to toss the old boxes, if it turns out I have to return the boxes when I switch to cable--do I have to pay myself to ship them to DirecTV?
When I first signed up with DirecTV, I had to sign a 1-year contract. This seemed reasonable--they had invested a lot in setting me up with special rates for the first year and needed to be sure they would earn back on their investment. But when I had to replace a damaged box, I didn't like having to sign a new contract, even though I knew I was staying with DirecTV. And when they were going to set me up with HD service, the contracts are now 2 years!
Their customer service by phone is good. But if you need a person to come out to your property, it's hit-or-miss as to what you get. There was a period around 2005 when we didn't have any companies in our area that serviced DirecTV. The installer that DirecTV sent out recently to try to set up HD didn't seem to be very good. He said there was no line of sight for HD and that I might lose my existing SD reception soon and he actually recommended I switch to cable! I still don't know if he was being truthful or just didn't feel like doing the work. Admittedly, all the HD equipment was going to be free since I was a long-standing customer, so that part was good.
When I had cable back in the late 90s, the people they sent to my house to do the work were excellent. At least with cable I feel like I can get someone who works for the cable company and has an interest in keeping his job to come to my house and do a good job.
I'm not saying cable is perfect--as I mentioned, I originally went to DirecTV because of how poor the channel content of our cable provider was back then. DirecTV already had Boomerang and TV Land and lots of other channels I wanted and our cable provider had none of them. Also, I would hate having my recordings of TCM movies interrupted by the emergency test broadcast signals that the cable company runs late at night. There are good and bad points with each. DirecTV forced our cable company to get better--they added all the channels that DirecTV had and now they even have more movie channels than DirecTV. Competition is a good thing.
Since I may not be able to get good reception forever, I don't want to commit to any more contracts. If one of my DirecTV receivers fails, I may have to switch to cable sooner to avoid the contract that would be required to replace the receiver. Ironically, their contract policy may force me to cable sooner rather than later! As long as my reception is OK I intend to stay with DirecTV. I wonder if I could call them and explain my circumstances and tell them I will stay with them as long as I can as long as they are willing to replace any receivers that fail without requiring me to commit to a contract. Then I'll get to see how good their customer service is.
-
> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
> > I am a long-time DirecTV subscriber and it seems to me that it used to be that you owned the box outright in the old days.
> >
> > I guess you can look at it as the $99 being part of the lease but it sure feels like you are buying the box and then still having to pay a monthly lease fee. At least with cable you don't have to pay $99 up front for a box you don't own.
>
> I too signed up in 1999 and back then they didn't have any lease plans and you bought and kept the boxes, but remember, those where just simple cheap receivers not expensive DVRs. When they first introduced DVRs the prices were several hundred dollars and folks balked at that so they came up with the lease plan. They don't publicize it, but you can still buy them outright if you want, all you need to do is call DirecTV, but it's going to cost a lot more than $99.
The DirecTV receivers that replaced my RCA receivers several years ago are cheap receivers too. They are not HD and they are not DVRs. (I prefer to record to standalone HDD/DVD recorders.) They have no more capabilities than the RCA receivers--in fact, the RCA models had faster, easier-to use menus, while the "DirecTV brand" receivers have sluggish, clunky menus. But I still had to pay $99 up front for each receiver and yet I do not own them as I did the RCA receivers and I have to pay a lease which I did not have to pay with the RCA receivers. So the "expensive DVR" theory doesn't apply in my case. Did I get "taken" by DirecTV?
>
> As for paying $99 up front, it's no different than leasing a car. You usually have to make an up front payment and then pay a monthly lease fee too. It just keeps the monthly payment lower. A lot of cable systems are starting to charge up front fees now for equipment too (especially HD). The one here just started in January.
>
> They might as well have them back when we're done, after all, the DVRs are absolutely worthless if they aren't hooked up to DirecTV and won't work as a free-standing DVR or with cable or Dish. A lot of times, if it's an older model, they'll just tell you to throw it out instead of returning.
And if turns out not to be one of those "lot of times" and instead is one of those "rare" times when they make me return the receivers...do they pay the cost of returning them, or do I have to pay the shipping cost?
I don't think car leasing is a good comparison as it is a different industry. Our local cable company doesn't charge any up front fees for equipment, including HD. Just because some do doesn't mean all of them necessarily will, and DirecTV's behavior cannot be justified by citing "anticipated" behavior of cable companies that has not come to pass.
>
> As a long-time customer, you should call them with your concerns and they may give a few months of a premium channel free or something else to help offset the cost. I got a deal recently. I upgraded the old standard receiver we still had in one of the bedrooms to a DVR and for being a "good" customer who pays his bills on time they didn't charge me the $99 and shipped it by Fed-Ex for free. They also told me to trash the old receiver.
I also had to have a receiver replaced once that was damaged in a lightning storm and they required me to commit to a new contract just to replace a receiver, which I didn't mind too much at the time since I had no intention of leaving DirecTV at the time. But recently I tried to have DirecTV HD installed but the installer said there is not enough line of sight for an HD dish in my subdivision because of all the trees. He also said he was surprised I was still getting good SD reception and that it might not last forever. So I don't want to commit to any more contracts because I don't know how much longer I will be able to receive DirecTV. I would like to stay with DirecTV as long as possible but as soon as a receiver malfunctions, I may have to go to cable because I don't want to commit to another contract just to replace a receiver. Ironically, they could keep me longer as a customer if they didn't force contracts on me...
I have been with DirecTV since 1999 too. But I am obviously not as happy with them now as when I signed up with them back in 1999.
-
> {quote:title=talkietime wrote:}{quote}
> I use TY 8x Premium Line DVD-R discs because my Panasonic recorders are friendlier with the ?-? format and my Magnavox and Philips also work well with the ?-? format. My Magnavox and Philips HDD/DVD recorders have 10x (2160A), 8x (2160) or 4x (2080/3575/3576) DVD Drives so they do not need 16x discs for high-speed dubbing. (I do very little DVD burning with my computers that have 20x and 22x DVD burners.)
>
> As my primary concerns are DVD burn quality and extending laser assembly longevity, I?ve settled upon TY 8x discs as the best media for my use. This Wajo post confirmed my 2008 decision to transition from 16x Verbatim, Maxell and Sony media to 8x Taiyo Yuden DVD-R media:
>
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12298494&postcount=20#DVDcare3
As I said, I use DVD-R too. I use 16x because my newer Pioneer HDD/DVD recorders can only do high-speed dubbing to 16x. My primary concern is saving time and I have never had any burn problems with the 16x TY discs. I have had problems with other brands of 16x discs so I do not use them anymore.
My older Pioneer HDD/DVD recorders can do high-speed dubbing to 8x, and I still use Taiyo Yuden 8x with them.
>
> While I usually purchase my TY discs in the very sturdy original TY 600 disc shipping box I sometimes purchase TY discs in smaller quantities. Two cake boxes from SuperMediaStore arrived yesterday. One of those cake boxes had its upper portion compacted down over the base section making that spindle difficult to open. The small SMS shipping box hadn?t evidenced any kind of shipping trauma. The compacted cake box wasn?t actually damaged nor was there any damage to the discs themselves. I?ve also found a few cake box center shafts that have snapped after leaving the factory but that didn?t damage the discs. My practice has been to place TY discs on non-TY spindles as soon as a cake box is opened. TY puts the quality into the media, not the cake box.
As I said, my problem is with the peanut dust that can get into the cake boxes, which is why I do not order my Taiyo Yuden discs from supermediastore anymore. I could sometimes literally see the white bits of peanut dust in between the discs. I would not insert those discs in my recorders and risk damaging them, so I always insisted supermediastore replace them, but this was a big hassle. supermediastore is sometimes difficult to contact to obtain an authorization for a return or exchange, with long wait times on the phone. The TY boxes have plastic wrap around the sides but not the bottom--maybe there are tiny holes in the black bottom which is where the dust gets in--I don't know.
I have always ordered in quantities of 400 or 200, so they are not shipped in airtight TY shipping boxes. Maybe the 600 quantities are. But I have found another supplier that sells at the same price, also ships for free, ships faster to me, and uses bubble wrap, so I have no reason to use supermediastore anymore, regardless.
In fact, I first contacted this supplier and asked if they used peanuts or bubble wrap, citing the problems I had with peanut dust with supermediastore. They told me they never used peanuts, for the very reasons I described. Apparently I am not the only one who has had problems with peanut dust.
I was just talking with a Fedex employee the other day and he told me they never use peanuts for the same reason. I was telling him about the peanut dust in the discs from supermediastore and he said he has seen peanut dust literally inside DVD drives and other sensitive equipment shipped in peanuts.
-
> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}
> As a long-time DirecTV subscriber, I just wanted to point out something that sometimes confuses people. When you get a DVR from either DirecTV or Dish Network, you are not buying it, you are leasing it. Actually, that's true with cable DVRs too, but I don't know their specifics.
>
> It doesn't matter if you get it through them or from a store like Best Buy, the $99 ($199 HD) you pay is just part of the lease. After that you pay around $6.00 a month DVR fee in addition to the normal monthly programming charge. It's actually a pretty good deal because if you were buy one outright it would cost you around $500. ($800 HD).
>
> For most folks, it really doesn't matter if it leased or not, but it's something everyone should be clear about.
I am a long-time DirecTV subscriber and it seems to me that it used to be that you owned the box outright in the old days. This was back when the receivers were being made by a number of manufacturers like RCA. I believe I owned the receivers outright and could dispose of them as I pleased. When the receivers began to malfunction and I needed to get them replaced, I was told now all the receivers were made by DirecTV (or at least have the DirecTV brand on them), and that I would have to pay a lease fee each month. I don't believe I had to pay a monthly lease fee for the RCA receivers I bought back in 1999. Also, now the receivers have to be returned to DirecTV when taken out of use, which was not the case with the RCA receivers I originally owned.
I guess you can look at it as the $99 being part of the lease but it sure feels like you are buying the box and then still having to pay a monthly lease fee. At least with cable you don't have to pay $99 up front for a box you don't own.
-
> {quote:title=skeeter57 wrote:}{quote}
> I cannot be glad Alec is back for another year. It is probably personal but I do not like Alec as an actor or on TCM. I do not watch when he is on and I miss that because they have had so many really talented guests in the past. It was a long year of denial on my part w/another year ahead. I would much rather have Osborne alone than a guest like Baldwin. I am no doubt in the minority as he "is" back.
I think Alec Baldwin is a pretty good actor but I don't like him as a person. I don't understand why he gets to have two years instead of giving someone else a chance. I guess I am in the minority of TCM viewers in that I liked Carrie Fisher and Rose McGowan, but regardless, I don't see why TCM wouldn't give someone else a chance now. I don't watch when Baldwin's on either, and if TCM is going to show this kind of bias, I may stop watching.
-
> {quote:title=talkietime wrote:}{quote}
> I use Taiyo Yuden 8x Premium Line DVD-R media with all my Magnavox, Philips and Panasonic recorders:
>
> http://www.supermediastore.com/product/u/taiyo-yuden-silver-thermal-8x-dvd-r-media-100-pack
>
> I usually purchase TY media by the case of 600 discs.
I use Taiyo Yuden as well, however I use silver thermal 16x DVD-R. I used to get them at supermediastore, but I didn't like the fact that they shipped using styrofoam peanuts. Often the peanuts would get crushed and the peanut dust would work its way into the DVD cakeboxes because there are small openings in the bottom of the cakeboxes. I didn't like to risk putting blank DVDs with peanut dust on them into my Pioneer HDD/DVD recorders. I have since switched to a supplier that uses bubblewrap--same cost as supermediastore, same free shipping, but faster delivery time (because it's closer to me), and fewer damaged cakeboxes than I had from supermediastore.
-
> {quote:title=talkietime wrote:}{quote}
> I prefer to use my own HDD/DVD Recorders and DVD Recorders to archive TCM and some other programming to DVDs so that I may view whatever I please, whenever I please.
>
> Two of my HDD/DVD Recorders were tandem recording around the clock with 48 hour "sprints" during the recent Encore Westerns marathons of Have Gun, Will Travel; Gunsmoke and Gene Autry episodes. One of those HDD/DVD Recorders continues to record daily episodes of Have Gun, Will Travel and Gunsmoke as well as some obscure classic movies and classic westerns from America One and a few odds and ends from MGM's THIS network; while another HDD/DVD recorder takes care of the daily episodes of the Perry Mason series shown by our local Fox station and more odds and ends from THIS. HDD/DVD Recorders make it easy to edit out interstitials or commercials before high-speed dubbing such material to DVDs.
>
I have been using Pioneer HDD/DVD recorders for at least 8 years. I have 13 of them, plus more on standby. I prefer the Pioneer models because they let me place the titles in an editable copy list before dubbing at high speed to DVD. Some brands (like Toshiba) have no editable copy list and so you have to modify the original title before transferring to DVD, which I don't like.
I also recorded the Gunsmoke and The Virginian marathon on the Westerns Channel and have continued to record them daily. I also recorded all of Maverick, The Rifleman, and The Big Valley when the Westerns Channel first started showing those. Of course, I recorded Gunsmoke several years ago on my HDD/DVD recorders when the Westerns Channel first ran it, but I now have Pioneer models that record in higher resolution, so I am recording them again.
I also record a lot of movies from Fox Movie Channel since they are also uncut and commercial-free. Sometimes they use pan-and-scan so I wait until they show the movie in letterbox.
I have two recorders dedicated to TCM, and two dedicated to Boomerang. I haven't counted the DVDs I've recorded but it's well over 6000.
-
> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote}
> > Robert Osborne's comments after ROAD TO ZANZIBAR just about confirm that they will be showing ROAD TO HONG KONG later.
>
> I just heard that! Wonder if to save money they just recycled Bob's intros from the last time they showed these flicks?
Yeah, as I was reading this thread I was beginning to remember that there was an "On the Road" marathon not too long ago--last year sometime, I think. And I began to wonder if the lineup was similar.
I have often wondered if they ever recycle the commentaries. I wish they would put the commentaries online--since they are short, they shouldn't be much longer than the trailers they make available online and so should not consume too much bandwidth. I sometimes tune in just to watch Robert Osborne's commentary even though I've seen the movie enough and don't need to see it again.
Modern classics
in General Discussions
Posted
> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote}
> Thanks. When I made this list I looked at the top moneymakers for each year, the Oscar winners, the critics' faves and drew on my own memories of particular films I remember everyone discussing.
>
> There _is_ such a thing as an instant classic. I forgot to include Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN, and I think that was definitely an instant classic. It encapsulates all the right ingredients of its genre and it not only won major awards but it became an immediate fan favorite, and it's still held in high esteem today, a good 18 years after its release.
>
> I probably forgot to mention some others. But we will definitely be watching them all on TCM in the future. You can count on it.
Sorry I duplicated Midnight Cowboy and Unforgiven in my list; I started composing my list before the posts were made for these movies so I didn't know they had been added.