Stephan55

Earlier you posted: Then you posted: I understand and am sadly familiar with Pixelation (when an image breaks up into pixels, sometimes overwhelming the image), and judder (rapid or spasmodic shaking, or vibration), and freezing (as when a video stops dead in its tracks)... But for the life of me I was unable to find an appropriate definition for either peixation or plexation. Regardless, I neither live in FL, nor am I a subscriber of direct-TV. My cable TV provider does offer some HD channels, but TCM is not one of them and most of their broadcast content is native SD and not HD anyway. My TV is a 1080p HD monitor, but most of what I watch (aside from 720p or 1080p DVDs) is Standard definition or 480i. Some TV is broadcast in 720p and a few channels upscale that broadcast in 1080i, but because broadcasters standardized before progressive scan technology became the norm, very few (that I am aware of) broadcast in anything native to the viewers 1080 (or higher) progressive "p" technology, yet. My TV can upscale and downscale a bit from whatever native format the broadcast is, and has a fast enough GPU to accommodate the monitor's native screen resolution, without any ill or noticeably negative effect (at least not to my eyes perception). But I have absolutely no idea what your equipment is nor it's capabilities. I do know that broadcast video will occasionally pixilate, judder, and freeze, and when it does I am generally able to deduce (in my case) that it most often is a provider issue and NOT my equipment, but I cannot say the same regarding your situation. Since TCM (and most of my TV viewing) is from SD channels, I fortunately rarely experience issues that can be common when an native SD transmission is up-scaled to adapt to a providers HD TV channel, then either down-scaled or further up-scaled by the users receiver hard and software, and again, to fit the native resolution of users TV monitor. High-end TVs, with fast GPUs can do that work with minimal added distortion, however there is cumulative degradation to the user/viewers image when there is much up and down-scaling from one point to another. So many variables from the TCM origination signal (which can be corrupted to begin with) to the TV users Dish, or (in my case) my TV provider's main dish, where it is then transmitted by relay or cable to the users receiver through lines and hubs and nodes to the pole to house line... anyone of which could be corrupt or inconsistent at times (via component weakness or failure), etc. through variables of the users end equipment, be that the receiver, modem, router, etc. and finally the individuals TV. It is amazing to me that we can watch anything at all with all of this very friable technology. However, all that said, and taking MCOH's valid advice and suggestions, what you need is a response from someone using direct TV, who is also watching (or attempting to watch) TCM on an HD channel (preferably channel 256). If they live close to you, so much the better. And they need to be watching the same thing you are at the same time you are. It appears that only then will you be able to trouble shoot your problem to the point to rule-out whether it is an issue closer to your home or more general. I.e. if they are experiencing the same problems as yourself then the likelihood that the problem is your equipment becomes less likely. However, if they are not experiencing a similar problem with HD channel 256, then you have pretty well ruled out that it is a problem originating with TCM, and/or your TV providers equipment (unless they are using a different model of receiver, etc. than yourself). So many variables that require ruling-out, by trial and error. If it were me (knowing what I know about TCM), if you can view TCM movies with no problem from a non-HD channel, that is the way to go. So long as you have no issues with watching your other native HD programs on HD channels, and your other native SD programs on non-HD channels, I wouldn't sweat this issue any further than that. Watching TCM on an HD channel isn't going to turn their native SD broadcasts into HD. No amount of adaptive up-scaling can do that. At best the equipment can merely make those broadcasts view-able in a non-native format HD, but not without some degradation. Progressive HD up-scaling can only enlarge the existing pixels (on larger screen TVs) and smooth out some of the rough edges by filling in the gaps left by missing pixels, but it cannot actually add more more pixels than what was originally there to begin with (i.e. a 1 million pixel 720 can never become a 2 million pixel 1080). But depending on the size and quality of your monitor, and the distance between yourself and the screen (and of course the acuity of your eyesight), you can watch a native 720 on a 1080 (and vice versa) and likely not notice any negligible difference. The i and p stands for interlaced (i) and progressive (p) scans. The interlaced scan does every other line on one frame then goes back and does the opposite set of lines on the next, progressive starts at pixel lines 1 and goes through to the last pixel line before going back to the beginning. The difference is the amount of information being generated by the TV each frame, a progressive frame rate is a much larger amount of data. Which is why, when the broadcasters went from analog to digital, they used the i technology of the day. P technology gobbles up more bandwidth than i, and 1080 uses more bandwidth than 720, and 720 uses more than 480, and analog was already a bandwidth hog, so they went i, relying on the user's home TV's ability to progressively up-scale. However, eventually the more commercialized use of fiber optics and native HD and digitally converted video to blu-ray media, and native 2K and eventual 4k (and even 8k and beyond) big-screen Ultra HD TV's is changing the world. But the profit motivated U.S. broadcasters, and TV and ISP's, are lagging far behind as the cost of fully upgrading to P and HD (and beyond) would cost them more than the mandated effort to switch from analog to digital technology. And ISP and TV providers charge way too much as is. 720p is still considered the low-end of HD, and can be displayed as a 1080i. And 720p uses much less bandwidth and is cheaper than 1080p. And when the "standards" were set, 720p was the most common of the progressive TVs because it was 25-35% cheaper than the 1080p counterparts at that time. Even with today's de-interlacing hardware, interlaced modes can cause motion blur at times (very noticeable during fast action or sporting events), esp. in the cases of dropped frames and when the viewer is sitting very close to the TV. However when sitting at an appropriate distance and esp. with 30" and smaller TV's there is there is generally no noticeable difference in appearance for 1080p and 720p other than covered resolution. It really only pays to go 1080p and 2k and 4k and beyond with the larger and larger TV screens, and only then if the broadcast or video itself is native to those much higher resolutions. But as of today, with most stations still broadcasting SD 480i, and some HD at 720p, the only way to appreciate all that pixel power is by watching a native 1080p (or higher) HD DVD or Blu-ray. Some streaming services (i.e. PBS, Netflix, and YouTube, etc.) have offerings of 1080p HD, but your ISP account and home equipment must also be capable of handling the greater data. And all that data gobbles up GB quickly and costs more money... So many variables. And TCM is still being broadcast in native 480i (at present). I apologize for all this (perhaps unnecessary) rambling, but the main point I think that I am trying to make is that if you have a true HD channel and the equipment to appreciate it fine. But if you can watch TCM on a SD channel, with no pixilation, judder, or freezing, then I suggest that is the way to go. Forget the TCM HD channel 256, and save your HD viewing for something that is native HD to begin with (which TCM is not, and not likely to ever completely be. At least not yet, anyway, as that would require the digital HD conversion of all of those old native SD classics that we have grown to love and appreciate.)

Good luck with that.... Please be sure to post back if you ever receive anything more than a generic, non-specific, robo response from TCM... We all would like to be informed if anyone has such a success!

This may or may not be the source of your problem, but if one is signed in, and yet has not made sure that their browser "PRIVACY" settings are set to "ACCEPT ALL THIRD PARTY COOKIES" when attempting to watch any ON-DEMAND or LIVE STREAM from TCM (exception is the short intro's and clips) a BLACK SCREEN appears instead of the movie. If you are new to TCM ON-DEMAND and its STREAMING "services" you may want to check your browser's settings and see if adjustment works. NOTE: Don't forget to "RESET" your browser security features after you are finished watching anything streaming from TCM.... Addendum... Also a COX subscriber, but use a PC exclusively for streaming TCM movies. Mozilla Firefox is my preferred browser with Win 7 Pro (64 bit) OS.

Many here have used every available means ("Contact Us" via email, phone, and snail-mail, etc.) to "contact" someone at TCM regarding numerous questions, concerns, issues, assorted problems, etc. over a number of years here. Not one of which (that I am aware), myself included, has received any specific reply to any query (beyond a generic robo generated response) from anyone at TCM. On occasion a Moderator has posted in a thread that "they" have forwarded a concern (generally a function issue) to "someone" somewhere within the TCM chain. Sometimes there is an apparent positive result from that, generally though not.... Some even joined the now defunct "Inner Circle" hoping that might be of help.... not... However, I am unaware if the "Back Lot" crowd has had any success at communication with TCM over such concerns as are in the the threads and posts that make up this forum? Some things just defy any rationale explanation....

TOO MANY "WINDOW BOX" FORMAT MOVIES ON-DEMAND! Not "widescreen" or "Letterbox" but tiny "Window-Box" format with broad vertical and horizontal black spaces above, below and to each side of a very tiny distorted picture that is too often squashed, flattened and widened, miss-shaping the picture that remains. Ordinarily I wouldn't comment about such an occurrence on TCM as in the past they generally (to my observation) rarely occurred (i.e. maybe once every three or four months), and have often been corrected in succeeding airings of the same movie. However this month there have been several such "Window-Boxed" movies ON-DEMAND, which is quite an alarming trend. NOTE that when I viewed parts of these movies during their live broadcast they were NOT in "Window-Box" format, this ONLY appeared during ON-DEMAND repeat viewing. Because this has been a past rare occurrence, and because these recent movies have been shown ON-DEMAND before in their "normal" widescreen, "Letter-Box" or even 4x3 ratio format (All without distortion) I do believe that such "Window-Box" occurrences are due to an uncorrected error by TCM staff. My point of this thread is to both confirm to fellow viewers that this is happening with others as themselves, AND bring this "problem" to the attention of one of our "helpful" Moderators, so that he (or she) can forward this evidently "overlooked" concern to whomever might care at TCM Central, so that someone there will hopefully take measures to either correct the current problem/s, or at least insure that it stops repeating itself. (At least in such an unusually frequent manner.) A short list of titles that I have noticed that are currently in the unacceptably distorted "Window-Box" format, are: THE HORSE SOLDIERS (1959), THE YOUNG PHILADELPHIANS (1959), HELL DRIVERS (1957), and THE PRISONER OF SECOND AVENUE (1974) which very recently prior to this (in the last month or two) was available ON-DEMAND in "normal" (un "Window-Box") format. NOTE: these are only the afflicted titles that I have discovered just this last week or so... there are likely others that I have not personally "caught". If anyone reading this has witnessed "Window-Boxing" in additional titles, please comment in this thread! *Addendum: Add *THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN (1960) to the above list of now FIVE movies presented in WINDOW-BOX format by WATCH TCM ON-DEMAND during this one month! Again, TCM ON-DEMAND would benefit its viewers if someone were charged with the duty of following up their ON-DEMAND product in the role of Quality Assurance. Another unrelated concern that I have recently observed (mostly since last Sunday) is that several movies that I have tried to watch ON-DEMAND have displayed a great deal of repetitive "buffering" (picture intermittently freezes with the little spinning circle). When this occurs I have checked my download speeds (with speedtest.net) and they have always been more than adequate and yes, everything (i.e. browser, flash-player, etc.) is up-to-date, and unchanged (both before and after these problems) happened. A short list of ON-DEMAND titles that suffered this were: ARIZONA (1940), TAMPOPO (1986), BIG JACK (1949), and HIT-AND-RUN DRIVER (1935). NOTE: this problem only occurred with TCM ON-DEMAND, and NOT with any other streaming service. After several attempts I have finally been able to watch most of these movies all-the-way through without buffering, but only after up to 4 repeat attempts (either subsequently, or on different days, at different times). And again, these are only the movies that I have noticed doing this. I suspect that there have been (or are) others... If anyone reading this has had similar experience, please post about it in this thread. Again, another good reason for TCM to invest in a dedicated QA person or rotational staff. And while I'm griping, I might as well get this off my chest as well... TCM has shown the loose and fanciful George M. Cohen musical bio classic YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (1942) "live" at least once each year for a number of years. But the last time that this Michael Curtiz, James Cagney hit was broadcast ON-DEMAND was in late 2015... NOT since then. Same with some other movies that I have noticed... Why TCM is not allowing us to watch this oft aired movie ON-DEMAND is beyond me... (surely it can't be a "rights" issue, can it?) Anyone care to offer a solid explanation for this mystery? Thank you!

Well Christine, if you still occasionally think about them, then there is a fair chance that they (if they are still alive with memories intact) still occasionally think about you. I think what keeps some of my memories alive is because I would make an association with some actress that I was fond of at the time. So naturally, since I am an old movie nut, whenever I see a movie (or a movie still) with that actress in it, some of those memories come flooding back. In this case, when I see a later Claudette Colbert film, I still think about the girl, and wonder if she aged as gracefully as her screen twin did? Of course, in my imagination they are all alive and still beautiful to me. I used to conduct an informal survey of active older couples, whenever the opportunity presented. If they were a couple that met and married when they were both young and beautiful to each other... even after many decades have passed, I ask, "When you look into each others eyes do you still see the passionate wife or husband of your youth. The one you first fell in-love with?" Sometimes I get a wise crack answer back, "Yeah, but he (or she) married my best friend, or my sister (or brother)", etc. But their sense of humor can't belie that they still retain a romantic interest in each other, perhaps even more so because of the laughs. Still, nine times out of ten, I'll see them pause, look deeply into each other's eyes and say, "Yes. She (or he) is still the beautiful girl (or boy) that I first fell in-love with." Whenever I hear that from couples whose skin has long lost it's youthful glow, whose spines are curved with age, whose hair has thinned, and grayed, or vanished, it re-validates the adage that beauty truly is within the eyes of the beholder.

So very true. That is why I refrained from watching biopics of actors that I had seen many times on screen. I was too hyper critical to appreciate their efforts. I must be mellowing with age as with the Errol Flynn biopics I have recently allowed myself to watch I found myself both appreciating and enjoying the work presented. Still critical when it comes to errors of known fact, but no longer so hyper critical of the actor's performance. That said, I have enjoyed the portrayals of recent historical persons that I have known of, seen, but not been over saturated by. Like in Apollo 13, and others.

In the summer before my senior year of H.S. I met this hot little Latina at the beach who looked amazingly like a young Claudette Colbert. I was instantly smitten and we had a brief but torrid romance. Ever since, whenever I've seen a movie with Colbert I think about that girl... whatever happened to her, how she's doing, what she looks like today? Does she ever think back to me, since she said that I reminded her of the actor who played the Rodney Harrington character in the Peyton Place TV series? I think that I've seen most all of Claudette's movies, from her beginning to end, but the ones which still turn me on with old memories are those from her earlier film career.

Okay, I know that somebody is thinking it, so I'll suggest it. How about a truthful biopic about Marion Mitchell Morrison aka John Wayne. A movie about the man behind (or inside) the actor. A truthful biopic that would make me reconsider this "chicken-hawk" patriot that I used to idolize as a child. But again, who could "play" him. Perhaps, like Gandhi they could find a very talented "unknown" Ben Kingsley "type" that looked and could "act" enough like him to fit the bill. It could either be a career "defining" or "breaking" role of a lifetime.

Maybe somewhat like him (behavior wise), but way too short to make a "believable" Mitchum in a biopic.

Ah yes, the great George Arliss (1868-1946). From throughout the British Empire to the U.S., a well traveled actor, author, playwright, and filmmaker. Married once at the age of 31, and remained so from 1899-1946. Now that would be a very interesting biopic I'd like to see. George was master at playing many famous others (both on stage and screen) i.e. Benjamin Disraeli (twice, in 1921 & again in 1929), Alexander Hamilton, Voltaire, Arthur Wellesley (aka the 1st Duke of Wellington), Mayer & Nathan Rothschild, Cardinal Richelieu, ... I've recorded several of his films from TCM over the years but am still looking for others. Of his biopics I've recorded Disraeli (1929), Alexander Hamilton (1931), Voltaire (1933), and The House of Rothschild (1934). Still hoping TCM will broadcast The Iron Duke (1934) and Cardinal Richelieu (1935) (both of which TCM has never shown, but are currently available from Amazon, if it comes down to that). But can't find Voltaire (1933) anywhere? Fortunately I do have a DVR from a TCM broadcast back in 7/14/2012 (TCM's last broadcast). According to MCOH's TCM Schedules Summary, it was shown in July 2010 before that, for a total of seven broadcasts since 1994. TCM does occasionally air an Arliss classic every now and then, so Voltaire (and the others) may yet see the light of day one more time? However, if you have exhausted every other avenue and would rather not wait for a "maybe," then shoot me a PM... I'll dig my copy out from storage for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Arliss http://moviecollector.us/reports/TCM_SCHEDULES_SUMMARY_alpha.htm MovieCollectorOH statistical reports on TCM broadcasts http://moviecollector.us/reports.htm

I really enjoy a good documentary (on practically anyone), I think PBS excels at showing such. And a well made docudrama comes in second after that. However when it comes to a movie biopic, that is an entirely different animal. Most biopics (especially those from the "Golden Era" of Hollywood) take great license with known facts, for the sake of entertainment (and remunerative) value. Aside from bearing the same name, there often is scarce resemblance to an actual personage. Also very difficult to capture the depth and breadth of an individual in a scant hour and a half or two. That said, I have long enjoyed watching many of those great old biopics that both entertained and sometimes inspired me. Especially those featuring Paul Muni, Fredric March, Laughton, Eddie G., or Tracy and Rooney, ... even Beery and Brando, etc. (Louis Pasteur, Juarez, Emile Zola, Mark Twain, Henry VIII, Rembrandt, Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Julius Reuter, Tom Edison (young and old), Pancho Villa, Emiliano Zapata),... Greer Garson (Madame Curie, Edna Gladney, Eleanor Roosevelt), Rosalind Russell (Elizabeth Kenny, Rose Hovick). Massey & Fonda (Abraham Lincoln), and Claudette Colbert & Liz Taylor (Cleopatra VII of Egypt)... Even enjoyed some of those deliberately made for laughs, i.e. with Don Ameche (Alexander Graham Bell, Hiram Stephen Maxim)... The list goes on and on, from then to now. But when it comes to biopics about well known and oft seen actors, I have long resisted anyone portraying my favorites on screen because I never believed any could do them justice. Not that I haven't occasionally watched screen portrayals of such as Harlow, Keaton, Gable, Lombard, Raft, and so on, but I often do so with such a critical eye that I often find myself unable to enjoy the presentations... that is until fairly recently. The OP mentioned one of my all time favorites, Errol Flynn. I have read a couple of his books and seen and appreciated a few documentaries about this enigmatic individual: Errol Flynn: Portrait of a Swashbuckler (1983) Secret Lives- Errol Flynn (1996) The Adventures of Errol Flynn (2005) Tasmanian Devil: The Fast and Furious Life of Errol Flynn (2007) But it wasn't that long ago that I sat down and watched (and found myself actually enjoying) the a fore mentioned made for TV movie My Wicked, Wicked Ways: The Legend Of Errol Flynn (1985). Which featured a rather unknown actor (to me) Duncan Regehr portraying a young Flynn in his early years at Warner Bros. (from 1935 at age 26, to his infamous 1942 court case) within a span of about 2 plus hours. Loosely based on Errol's life and (as pointed out) a 1985 TV movie, watered down most of the actors truly "salacious" behavior leaving it to the viewers imagination. Still I found it enjoyable. I later watched a quite passable movie version of the last couple of years of Errol's life involving his controversial relationship with Beverly Aadland. The Last of Robin Hood (2014) featured Kevin Kline (as an older Errol) and Dakota Fanning (as Beverly). Enjoyed that one too! There is another movie that I've yet to see about Errol Flynn's youth and early manhood, ending before the start of his Hollywood career. It is a 1993 Australian production featuring Guy Pearce as Errol simply titled Flynn. Three films about Errol Flynn and yet they barely scratch the surface. There is so much left to be told and seen about this ageless adolescent adventurer with the "devil may care" attitude who just happened to be one of the most charismatic swashbuckling actors the screen has ever seen. With all that I know (and wish that I knew) about him, it would take a well made biopic mini-series to maybe do him justice.

It always makes me smile with disbelief when I hear a bunch of Bachelor and Bachelorette fanatics go on and on about that "reality" show. Trying to inject any rationale into such a "conversation" is akin to when I used to waste my time talking to some of my old acquaintances who avidly believed that everything they saw in "perfessnal rasslin" ("professional" wrestling) was real too! Or those that believed anything (and everything) in tabloid "news" print (i.e. the National Enquirer) was the gospel truth.

Come on Nip, this isn't a deep thread to plow through. film lover 293, already mentioned Johnny Guitar in the 4th post, AND MilesArcher added Calamity Jane in the 7th post.... Why not add something original like Debbie Reynolds in Goodbye Charlie (1964), released the same year as The Unsinkable Molly Brown. A hilarious (for its day) gender switching karma comedy co-starring Tony Curtis. (just in case CG should be lurking and maybe decide one day to resume posting here... ever hopeful )

Not so sure about that Eric. Though TCM did air several cartoons on Saturday's, back when Ben first began hosting, they have been rather stingy with them ever since... that is until they just recently began tossing in a cartoon or two again on Saturdays. I remember seeing Peace On Earth long ago on TCM (but NOT during Oscar month!). I just "fact" checked with MCOH's marvelous schedule summary and, according to it, TCM has only aired Peace On Earth a total of five times since its inception, and the last two times were were both in December of 2007 & 2005. For such a classic I consider that to be far below from being "up to my eyeballs" in over airing! And I personally can't remember seeing any of the Pepe Le Pew cartoons on TCM. If I did, it may have been back around 2003, or so? http://moviecollector.us/reports/TCM_SCHEDULES_SUMMARY_alpha.htm

Hah, I do vaguely remember seeing it, but it was very long ago! TCM shows a few Academy Award nominated shorts during 31 Days, but they always appear to be the same handful from the old studio era. However I don't recall them airing any animated shorts during that time? I wonder why TCM hasn't shown any later Oscar nominated (or at least winning) foreign (or at least domestic) animated shorts (and documentaries, etc.) during that annual marathon? They do generally toss in a later (more recent era) movie or two. I think that if they can do that, that for a little added variation they could (should) toss us an occasional "Crunch Bird" type classic or two (or three, or four, or more)!

Thanks Gloria, I never was one to avoid taking a few artsy-fartsy chances. Especially when a giant like Welles (or Hitch) was directing. BTW, I thought you were pretty incredible too, back in the day! You remember, when you were "big" before the pictures became too "small." But I think that extramarital relationship with Joe K. senior may have way-layed your stardom! That is until Billy dusted off the cobwebs and brought you back into the limelight with Bill. "Often all that's retained is the emotional impression" that sometimes happens when one is high as well... Whenever I see that "smoking" avatar of yours, makes me want to ask you for a hit... Seriously, though, I have known a few persons with "memory loss" and their care givers. There was this one "young" lady, with such a marvelous sense of humor. She always uplifted my day sharing little anecdotes about taking care of her husband at home who was experiencing early Alzheimer's and dementia. She would share that he always laughed at her jokes as if he were hearing them for the very first time. And he always had something funny (intentional or not) to say, that made her laugh in turn, with him... Going places or seeing anything with him was always like sharing a new experience. And making love was always like the first time... only better! He was a great guy, and despite his memory deficit, still possessed the wonderful good nature that she fell in-love with. Their kids (all adults or late teens) still got a kick out of their dad, and he was a joy to be around. I know that is far from the case with most... But her positive, always more than half-full attitude was quite refreshing!

Wow, I didn't know that... I thought that you were just "joshing" in that previous post... Much impressed Tiki (even more than I was before). Thanks for this insight into what I had long suspected all along. The only reality show that I thought was "legit" (at the time) was SURVIVOR. I became a regular watcher of that series at its inception, but have pretty well weaned myself from it the last couple of years. Though I confess that I do occassionally watch Discovery Channels NAKED AND AFRAID every now and then. I still think that those two "shows" remain "unscripted" aside from the scenarios that the "players" are tossed into. Sort of like lets set this up and see how they react to that. However, if you have some behind scenes insight to either of those please feel free to burst my bubble with enlightenment.

I used to watch AMC regularly and recorded many of their films on my VCR, back when they were the only station that I knew that showed those vintage studio era films that I grew up with in a commercial free format. When they began commercializing I eventually stopped watching AMC, except on a very rare occasion, and gravitated ever more toward TCM. I wasn't aware that I was a "classic" film fan in those days, I was just a nostalgia freak. Eventually though I became seriously interested in film history and preservation, and owe much of that stimulation to TCM. I think that many of us here that can still remember the old AMC, and are somewhat fanatical about TCM, probably have much in common. The generation that began watching the latter AMC are a different breed. "We" fondly remember the "old" AMC because it was a precursor to TCM for us. The current crop of AMC fans will remember AMC for different reasons. While I too devote about 80% of my present TV time to TCM, I do watch a few other things... Primarily PBS (also "uncut" and "commercial free"). Occasionally I check out some of my old haunts over at the History, NG, & Discovery channels, but I have long since stopped recording them as I found editing out the multitude of commercials way too time consuming and laborious. I did get sucked into Vikings, but opt for watching a season at a pop from DVD's checked out from my local library. Similar some of the older and more current seasonal mini-marathons from HBO that I am fond of. I too became caught up in AMC's MAD MEN, back when it was something fresh and, yes, nostalgically sixty-ish. I suffered through the commercials because I was entranced by the program. I later made the mistake of catching a rerun of an early episode of BREAKING BAD, and got caught up in sympathizing with the plight of Walter White, who at that time was an underpaid, underappreciated, educator with terminal cancer, who desired only to make enough money so that his family would be taken care of once he was gone. I never dreamed that I could become mesmerized by a program about "meth" dealers. But somehow this program drew me in. So after viewing a few episodes on TV I eventually watched the whole series on DVD's checked out from my local library. So I guess it was natural for me to give the prequel BETTER CALL SAUL a try out when it appeared. Again, sucked in by the great writing talent at work developing these characters. The thought of watching an on-going series about a zombies apocalypse was also something that I thought I could never get into. Perhaps it was due to a misdirected sense of "loyalty" to George Romero, Richard Matheson, and all those old zombie "classics" that I saw as a kid. But one evening I again erred and flipped on AMC during an episode of THE WALKING DEAD. I discovered that it was really a post-apocalypse survival adventure, with zombies thrown in as an added, ever present danger. But the real monsters in the show are us! Or what would (will) remain of us following a societal collapse, pandemic or not. Again, sucked in, and again back to the library so that I could view the entire series in chronological order (without the plethora of commercials). Then came the parallel FEAR THE WALKING DEAD series, ad infinitum... So for me, the "new" AMC has become an original series "testing" ground. I may watch an episode or two of something "new" and if I find it interesting I will request the commercial free DVD's from my local library. The only thing that I dislike about some of these thus far incomplete series' is that they have no "conclusion" in sight. I thought that I had out-grown my penchant for fantasies, but then someone turned me on to HBO's GAME OF THRONES. The series was already four seasons old at the time, and the library had all of them, so I checked them out one weekend and.... hooked again. And I have suffered through the intolerable annual wait ever since. Thankfully (though I know that I will also be saddened by withdrawals when it finally happens) this series (which has long outgrown George R.R. Martin's book series) is due to conclude next year (2019). By that time I will have to re-watch the entire series again just to bring myself back up to date. I remember when HBO was something "brand new" and later competed for my attention with ON subscription TV back in the early 80's. That was when those that could had those giant Satellite Dishes mounted in their back yards. ON died on the vine, but HBO survived and at that time became the "king" of "original" and very interesting programing. For a number of years I used to subscribe to HBO and was privy to a host of their wonderful shows from documentaries to movies to their award winning mini-series', from BAND OF BROTHERS to ROME to JOHN ADAMS (and everything in-between), HBO rarely disappointed me. But when cable kept hiking their prices I trimmed myself way down and today only keep my current TV provider for the sake of TCM, otherwise I'd likely just be paying for use of an ISP. Used to be a frequent customer of video rental stores, and eventually subscribed to NetFlix for their mail-order DVD's (and later "free" on-line programing). I suppose that I could always go back to that, and maybe a couple of on-line ala carte subscriptions, if TCM ever decides to go the way of AMC (commercial wise). If that should eventually happen then, in 10 or 20 years, a few "old-timers" will be fondly recalling the "old" TCM as some of us remember the "old" AMC today. My "problem" at present is how to eventually "dispose" of my collection (library) of literally thousands of DVDs that I've recorded, transferred from VHS, and purchased over the years. I suppose I could donate my original "purchased" DVDs to the public library. But I still have hundreds of recordings that I've never gotten around to finalizing (though I still possess two or three of the original and still functioning DVR's for that chore). I've transferred hundreds of videos to HDs and recorded hundreds more directly to several compact hard drives. But they are all reliant upon the current technologies (hard and software) for continued view-ability. Over the years I've devoted thousands of dollars and hours to this obsessive (compulsive) "hobby", and it saddens me that when I am eventually gone, that none of my grandchildren will likely appreciate these "old" things of mine (even if they still are technically able to watch them). I even still have a few of my old toys buried in storage that my mom kept. Over the years (along with the loss of family, "friends", people I grew up with, associates, and old "battle buddies") I have endured the loss of my hard copy library and most of my other "acquired" earthly "treasures" (through theft, vandalism, and environmental disaster). When I contemplate my own mortality I feel like I should attempt to find some respectful "home" for what I have left, if possible. Wow, this post certainly took a morbid turn all of a sudden... Time to close.

MPO is that ALL of Our threads and Our posts should be retained in perpetuity! I find it interesting when some of our "ancient" threads are bumped... Glad to know that they are all still there... And some read like little time capsules providing some insight into our past history and opinions. When the "New Host" thread was bumped, I thought it was about current news, then discovered that some of the same whining we have recently heard was posted when Ben was "the new host" on TCM. Pretty insightful, I think. Every now and then I like to stroll down memory lane and reread some of my own and others posts from way back when. Sometimes like to locate and refer back to them when the same topics repeat themselves. Also like rereading some of those amusing dialogues with those that used to make me smile with their rants and who sadly are no longer around to enjoy anymore. Our old posts and threads are like a journal or diary, whose pages I thought were all lost to us after the last "upgrade." I was very pleased to see that they are all (or mostly all) still there and recoverable. It would sadden me to see them disappear, even some of the "trashy" ones. So long as they aren't hogging server memory space (which is one of the few things that becomes cheaper each year) then they do no harm, and can still provide some relevance and enjoyment for us. But that is just MPO.

Early this morning (Friday, 4/6/2018) I noticed that NOAH'S ARK (1928), which TCM broadcast the evening of Wed. 4/4/2018, finally showed up in the ALL MOVIES ON-DEMAND title list and is now available for viewing until Thursday evening, April 12, 2018. I would like to think that the previous post stimulated this happy occurrence, but since the Moderator has made no comment here in such regards, I will attribute the action to coincidental timing, and the result of TCM's again lagging ON-DEMAND service. I noticed that presently only one of last nights movies is currently listed for ON-DEMAND viewing: The Lodger (1944). Since I didn't watch any of the others I cannot attest as to whether the screen logo ALSO AVAILABLE ON WATCH TCM showed up at the end of any of those, or not. But since TCM appears to again be lagging far beyond the previous "norm" of "2-3 hrs after broadcast" to list their movies as available for ON-DEMAND viewing, I suggest to any avid TCM ON-DEMAND viewer reading this, continue rechecking the ALL MOVIES ON-DEMAND title list to see if something that wasn't previously listed as available suddenly pops up, which could possibly occur anytime within the previously "normal" 7 day viewing window. Just in case the Moderator anonymously forwarded my posted concern yesterday, which may have resulted in the recent "happy" action, I offer my sincere thanks. But I do suggest that if that is the case, please do not be shy and take the time to make a little post stating that you have in-fact done so, that way appreciation and credit may be duly given to you. Thanks

Last night (Wed. 4/4/2018) I caught the tail-end of the broadcast of NOAH'S ARK (1928). I wanted to re-watch this for a number of reasons, mainly because it was Michael Curtiz' silent-sound hybrid "transitional" epic featuring parallel story lines of "modern" age WW1 contrasted with the biblical flood story. And because I wanted to get another look at the stunningly beautiful Dolores Costello (Drew Barrymore's grandmother) playing dual roles opposite George O'Brien (fresh off of his remarkable portrayal in F.W. Murnau's 1927 silent hit Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans). I thought I'd missed out but was pleasantly surprised, when At the end of the movie the screen logo ALSO AVAILABLE ON WATCH TCM popped up! I watched a few of the evenings remaining films and enjoyed the intro-outro Curtiz "Spotlight" commentary by Ben and the guest host (biographical author Alan K. Rode). Early the next morning (Thur. 4/5/2018) I noticed that several of the evenings movies, NOAH'S ARK, 20,000 YEARS IN SING SING (1932), & KID GALAHAD (1937), were listed as AVAILABLE ON-DEMAND on the April 4, SCHEDULE, but NOT Yet LISTED in the ALL MOVIES ON-DEMAND title list.... I clicked on these at that time (from the SCHEDULE) and they refused to load or play. Later in the day (4/5/2018) the latter two movies (SING SING & GALAHAD) also appeared in the ALL MOVIES ON-DEMAND title list, but NOT NOAH'S ARK, which remains listed as AVAILABLE ON-DEMAND on the April 4, SCHEDULE, but Still is NOT LISTED IN the ALL MOVIES ON-DEMAND title list?!?! And yet All Three of these movies had the screen logo ALSO AVAILABLE ON WATCH TCM at their ending!?!? Perhaps this is a repeat of the TCM "snafu" that occurred in early March with BRAVEHEART (and other movies at the end of 31 Days of Oscar month)??? If that is the case I am hoping that the Moderator will read this post and quickly double-check and verify this (BEFORE yesterdays (4/4/2018) AVAILABLE ON-DEMAND Schedule disappears!) and then FORWARD this concern to whomever at TCM so that they can (and hopefully will) make NOAH'S ARK AVAILABLE ON-DEMAND before the 7 day viewing window expires!!! Come on TCM please try harder to "consistently" keep-it-together for your subscriber viewers sake! Thank you

I feel as if we are in some sort of alternate Richard Matheson plane of existence on these boards. Where the "living" occupy the day, and the Vampires and Zombies control the night.... Right now I feel like I am the only "live" poster here.... a kindred spirit to Robert Neville, awaiting the returning sunlight!

So much space "junk" out there.... Since it was never designed for reentry, let's hope that the majority of it (and its toxic payload) desintegrates in the atmosphere.

I'll have to accept your word (and your "sniffer") on that one, I couldn't even spell "L'Interdit" (let alone pronounce it)... Glad I never went for the really classy dames that had a yen for perfumes by name. I had a friend that received a bad knock on his noggin, nothing smelled or tasted the same for him after that. We used to take advantage of his inability to smell anything nasty at times (I know, we were very naughty). You are so correct about food... I have become a compulsive label reader and it is ever more difficult to find food on U.S. shelves that has not been unhealthily adulterated in one form or another. That is the pitfall of big agro, chemical and pharmaceutical corporations ganging up on the consumer market. That fused with the advent of genetic patents and modifications... It is certainly a "brave new world" we live in. Just try asking any grocer, produce or meat manager (heck, anyone in any dept.) about where their "fresh" product comes from. Most don't have the faintest. Same in any restaurant I've eaten at (and actually inquired). However, I'm sure that there are a few exceptions to that, even today... perhaps in some specialty stores, farmers and whole food markets. Or if you are fortunate enough to either grow your own food, or actually know the person(s) (and the land) which produce it for you. I'll bet that a few of you classy ladies have been to some of those really fine, high end places where they could tell you the life history and family lineage of your steak, if you asked. I read an interesting book by Jeremy Rifkin in the early 90's: Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture. It was quite an eye opener. In it (among other interesting things) he talked about the roots of the "modern" grain fed cattle industry in Victorian England. He discussed how prize steers with prime lineage were paraded about and later served to upper class who could afford to eat a piece of meat with a name, while the majority of working poor were "privileged" to watch and salivate, lucky to afford a treat of "umbles" every now and then. I've read several other exposes by Rifkin, and others, and was stimulated to reread Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. I was traveling in Europe one summer on the cheap, and shared a hostel for a few days with a young bio engineer (also from the states) who worked for "Monsatanto". He shared that he loved the pay and benefits, but otherwise had some rather frightening things (to me) to say about his company. I've also periodically dealt with pharmaceutical reps, and found that the profit motivated "business end" of that "industry" can be quite ruthless. I fondly remember the non-GMO days when I could feel good about eating an ear of corn (and practically anything else). I grew up in a time when the worst thing we had to concern ourselves with (when grocery shopping) was DDT laced food. And I can sadly remember when MacDonald's and Taco Bell actually served real cheese on their burgers and tacos... And when "milk shakes" were actually made with... milk! Sorry for leading this thread further astray... from the passing of a clothing designer (whose name I would never have recognized) to name brand clothing, to the degeneration of name brand perfumes.... I really have no business posting on such a thread in the first place. My apologies to the OP.