darkblue

Lucas shoulda handed the entire film-making and writing process over to someone else for the third movie. As it is, it sucks. Big time.

Nobody dictates our behavior but our selves.

A very great deal of the time. I come here everyday - usually several times a day. Mostly I read - and I often will feel a compulsion to say something about what I've read. Most of the time, though - I don't. The very last thing I'd want to do is bore anyone, and that's probably the main reason I don't give in to every compulsion. As well, I've found that those who have the most to say are always the least interesting people on the boards. To me. I favor brevity. The practice of it tends to make one's points sharper (in my opinion).

There are a couple of members here who have disparaged that one quite vehemently. But I liked the movie so much I was inspired to read Heller's novel - which I also liked a great deal. I'm not sure anyone could've done a better job translating it on film than Nichols did.

I welcome you. Very much. Most of us do.

Yes, the only ones I really like a lot are the original 'Frankenstein', the wonderfully-fun 'Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man' and the beautifully atmospheric 'Son of Dracula'.

I believe Angelina Jolie is massively over-rated as an actor. Sexy face, though.

Interestingly, 'Carnal Knowledge' was the very first movie in which critics actually had good things to say about Ann-Margret. I remember well one saying that he was amazed at how Nichols had gotten a superb performance from her - he'd never had any inkling that she could act before that. But mostly, it's a tour-de-force for Nicholson. Excellent movie about a period of time (late 40's to late 60's) in the life of an ultra-selfish, college-educated jerk.

One should bear in mind that movies made-for-tv are (or should be) a separate category from movies made-for-cable. Movies made-for-tv are what was produced for the networks beginning in 1964, seeing its heyday through the 70's and tailing off toward the middle through the end of the 80's. The content of these productions was constricted by the standards and practices required by television ota broadcasting regulations. Kind of the 'Breen era' of tv movies. With cable, and the accompanying ability to access premium channels that also began to conscript movies for their own programming needs, there was much greater freedom of content - violence, sex, nudity, swearing. Although these movies were still being called "made-for-tv", they were very much a different animal than what the networks were allowed to broadcast. It's really the reason that there are no more movies made for tv anymore - at least not created by ABC, CBS or NBC (as it was in the first 20 years). Standards and practice content simply cannot compete - for single stand-alone movies - with what cable is allowed to present.

Once a thread has waned and it's been moved to a sub forum, that thread would never be returned to GD. If someone dies, a whole new thread would open up. Even if someone doesn't die - they or one of their movies just hasn't been talked about for a while - a new thread may open up. Happens all the time - completely natural flow to our activity here.

No. The threads in the sub forums could be new - if placed there as new. General Discussion sees more traffic, and threads get more attention if they're put there. However, if a thread has run out of steam - AND it's suitable to a sub-forum like westerns or comedy or noir etc - rather than let it be buried in the long ago pages of GD, I'd move it to its appropriate sub forum, where it has a greater chance of being read and added to by visitors to that sub forum. Because a thread has a better chance of engendering discussion when new if it's put in GD, I'd allow that - moving it only when it has begun to demonstrate a waning of interest.

I would allow any thread to remain in General Discussions until it had arrived at a time where no new posts had been added to it for a full 3 days. At that point - and only at that point - would I move it to a sub forum.

There's one Castle I haven't seen since I was 15 years old (1965) - how I'd dearly love to see it again, but it never seems to be played anywhere where I can get it. It's 'The Night Walker' (1964)

Wish I could watch Svengoolie. Always liked horror hosts. Don't get it up here.

It would be most pleasant if that meant you were leaving for the day.

I think you were confessing - possibly unintentionally.

I don't believe that for a second. Nobody who's been here for any length of time does.

You're very self-aware, aren't you? One could conclude that stating your modus operandi so openly is an example of feeding one's delight in rubbing people's noses in such habitual and guilefully placed trollings.

Actually, it's a perfectly reasonable reality - not a "view" in any sense. I'm aware that some people would like to be able to say anything they please without ever receiving feedback that's not to their appreciation. That being the case, I believe such people would be far more suited to writing blogs than to participating in discussion forums. In such discussion forums, if you say something disagreeable you should not be surprised when you receive disagreement. Quoting keeps such activities clearly understood by the members who read these posts.

If you don't want to be quoted for the purpose of disagreement, try not to say anything disagreeable. Otherwise, suck it up. Anything you say in a public forum is subject to comment. That's the deal.

Thank you, Father.

But you do realize that you've left some of us to fight the good fight by bringing such nefarious activities to the attention of the powers that be without your engagement? Of course, many of us could simply use the ignore feature as well and join you in paradise, I suppose. But I won't. I'd feel like a deserter.

I think we're supposed to say sexually asianed now.

Maybe you could teach him. Heaven knows you have more friends in TCM's forums than anyone could possibly count.