markfp2

>misswonderly said: I'm wondering if '65 was a turning point for film, in terms of the end of the "crime must never be shown to pay" edict in both Britain and the U.S. I don't know about Britain or Canada, but in the United States during that time period, things where changing fast. The major studios were becoming little more than distributors for independent producers. Courts had found various state and community censor boards unconstitutional and once powerful religious organizations like the Catholic Church's Legion of Decency had lost their clout. As Hollywood produced less films, more theaters switched to an "art film" policy, introducing the American public to the mature, racy and sometimes more violent international films that had been denied them before. Younger and more sophisticated audiences flocked to these films and the American filmmakers quickly took notice and copied them. So I don't think it was THE COLLECTOR, or just any one film for that matter, but more of a "perfect storm" of things happening about the same time that became the turning point.

I saw it listed and thinking it was th original, started to watch it, but once I discovered it wasn't, I didn't bother. If it's like most of the other films shown on any of the Encore channels, it will be repeated many times over so you can judge for yourself.

Welcome to the board, Rob. Those John Wayne films that come in "package deals" are in the public domain which means they are no longer under copyright and anybody with a copy of the film can make DVDs and sell them. Over the years, there have been dozens of companies selling them (most now out of business) usually in sets, I suppose some of them have been released as single titles. The problem with PD titles is that they're often mastered from abysmal, 16mm prints. So going to all that effort finding singles may not bring you any better quality than you'd find with the sets. Perhaps some of the western fans (we have a few here) can help you with specific titles. Good luck.

No surprise for me considering there have been many Paramount films available on DVD for years in Europe, yet are not released in the United States. I guess Universal prefers Euros to Dollars.

Over 99% of the time, reception problems are at the cable company's end. If it was TCM's fault, these boards would probably implode because of all the complaints. At lot of folks think that the signal leaves TCM and goes right to your TV, like over-the-air channels,but that's not true. Cable companies have to pick up those signals, often from third-party satellite dish "farms" and retransmit them, by fiber-optics or other means to different cities.so there's more chance of a problem. Even the satellite services like DirecTV retransmit. They pick the signal up, from the satellite that TCM leases, at their main receiving location in Colorado then sends it up to other satellites where the dish on your roof picks it up.

It use to turn up now and then on the Fox Movie Channel so it appears to be one of those films that Fox has been keeping for itself. Still, TCM has been getting more films from Fox of late so perhaps at some point in time it will end up on TCM.

> AndyM108 said: NBC owns the exclusive TV rights to It's A Wonderful Life for the next gazillion years. About the only way to see that uncut and commercial free until about the fifth or sixth coming of Jesus is to buy it or to rent it. Yeah, we should live long enough to see TCM have a shot at getting the rights to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. It's true that the best most people can do to see it uncut and commercial-free is to watch, the DVD, but if one is lucky enough to live in an area where it's shown on the big screen at a theater, that's the way to go. Last year, I saw a stunningly beautiful 35mm print at the historical Capitol Theater in Rome, New York and it was a joy. I know some people don't want to pay to see something can see for free on TV, but in the case of IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, it's a treat.

No doubt, when some people realize that the films on December 2nd and 9th are from the years 1996 through 2006 these boards will be swamped with predictions that TCM has gone the route of AMC and all is lost. Of course, the real reason is, as with the previous weeks, the films shown are from the years covered in that week's episode of "The Story of Film".

> FredCDobbs said: But after 10 or more viewings on TV, then the entire plot tends to unravel. You need to remember that films weren't made with multiple viewings in mind. Most folks saw a film once at a first-run theater, then perhaps if they really liked it might see it again when it came to their neighborhood second-run house. or maybe years later see a re-release. People didn't have the ability to see a film many, many times. Nobody would even dream of the technology we have today that allows us to watch these films over and over, sometimes even frame-by-frame. Directors let a lot of things slip past, be it a hole in the plot or a shadow of a boom mike on the back wall, because it was very likely that few in the audience would catch it.

It's still locked in that big safe in the programming office under armed guard. I hear TCM has a crackerjack security team headed by a couple of retired international "agents" named Boris and Natasha.

>Many people are surprised when they discover that Hitch also directed Lifeboat because the subject matter is not one that they associate with Hitch. A lot of people also don't think of it as a Hitchcock film because they didn't catch his usual appearance in the film. We all know where to look, but many people still don't.

I remember when TNT first started and it showed movies, classics included uncut but with "limited commercial interruptions" which was maybe only three times in a movie. A lot of people, including me, thought that was great when compared to what other channels were doing, but that was before we had TCM and got spoiled. As TNT became popular with viewers, it also become popular with sponsors and the number of commercial breaks did increased. Of course that may also have been because Turner gave viewers another outlet for uncut and and commercial-free movies. What people don't think about is that TCM is a business and part of a large media conglomerate and, as such, has to perform and meet the financial expectations of its corporate bosses. As long as what TCM is doing allows it to meet those expectations it should be just fine.

Yeah, you'd think they'd want to make money from their film library.Nobody can figure out what's going on at Universal. Without even counting Universal's own films, the several hundred pre-'48 Paramount films they own is a goldmine just waiting to be tapped. You'd think if nothing else they'd want to do a "DVD on demand" kind of release like Warner Bros. has been so successful doing.

It doesn't matter how many times TCM says it, some people just won't believe them. TCM is not going to go the route of AMC ,if they were, it would have been done long before now. TCM is a success and stands alone in what it's been doing so well for almost 20 years. Doing anything else would just make them another one of the pack. Sure, they've expanded the range of films they show, but thank goodness they have. To keep vibrant and growing (which keeps the commercials away) TCM has to constantly grow its audience and that does mean adding some more titles that newer viewers can relate to. You snare them with what they're familiar with and maybe they'll also discover the old classics and stick around. I think TCM has been very judicious in scheduling newer films, usually as part of a theme or a special event. So don't worry, it's a pretty safe bet that we aren't going see Adam Sandler as Star of the Month anytime soon.

>FlyBackTransformer said: "Should always be a primetime feature except maybe sunday afternoons." I disagree. One of the great things about TCM is the fine job it does at scheduling great films at all hours so people can enjoy them whenever they want. To somebody (and there are a lot of them) who works evenings or overnight early morning or mid-afternoon IS prime time for them and they deserve the best films just like anybody else.

I do too. Perhaps, they were able to squeeze a showing or two out of Universal when Peck was star of the month or something like that. Even when TCM is able to get films from Universal, it doesn't seem like they have them for as long or shown as often as films from other studios. I've heard that studio was pretty hard to deal with.

Welcome to the boards cavegirl. Especially since the latest "upgrade", this site does sometimes seem to have a mind of its own so no apology is needed. However, if you don't mind though, I'll make a suggestion. Please, when you write, use paragraphs. A lot of folks here will simply pass over a post that's just one large block of words, either because it's hard for them to read it or they think it's just somebody rambling on. You sound like you're a person with interesting ideas and it would be a shame if your message doesn't get read.

> Dargo2 said ..... "however you'll have to forgive our new young friend here ....." Oh, I didn't mean to come off as being critical, I was just trying to help our young friend appreciate the importance of smaller roles.

Ted Turner hasn't had anything to do with TCM since the mid-1990's when he merged his company, Turner Entertainment,with media conglomerate Time-Warner. He served on the board of directors for a bit, but then had a parting of the ways and took his money and ran (in a manner of speaking).

>classyteen16 said: "he plays trivial parts in many movies around that time." I don't think that I would call smaller, supporting roles "trivial". Not only were these parts often important to the plot, but just as important for the whole atmosphere of the films. When actors are cast, it's not just their acting skill that matters, but also their "look" as the character. You mention Henry Travers as "Clarence" in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. The next time you watch that movie pay close attention to the supporting roles and you'll see what I mean.. Whether it was Ward Bond as "Burt, the cop" or H.B. Warner as "Mr. Gower, or Sheldon Leonard as "Nick, the bartender", all of them were fine, experienced actors who were perfect for those parts and brought a great deal to the film. . Edited by: markfp2 on Sep 3, 2013 11:41 AM

>mkahn22 said: I always assumed TCM just had a big library of these movies (an assumption based on nothing). When Ted Turner bought MGM, the sale included the film library which not only had MGM films but also older Warner Bros.and RKO films. Those films were the basis for the TCM film library. However in the mid-1990's Turner merged his company with Time-Warner which gave control of the library to Warner Bros. From that point on TCM had to lease every film it shows including what use to be in the TCM library. To complicate things even more, WB often leases those former TCM films to other networks which means TCM can't run them. So to make a long story short, Ted Turner no longer runs TCM and TCM doesn't have a film library anymore.

You bring up a good point. While TCM has run some poor quality copies of films that are in the public domain, they always get lots of grief for it on these boards. People today have gotten spoiled by DVDs of old films that have been restored and and have come to expect every film to be that way and that's just not possible because often the original film elements no longer exist. TCM has been willing to take the heat and show pretty bad copies of certain films because those are the only copies available and there's a compelling reason for those titles to be included in a program theme. Still, I'm sure that there are some that are so bad that TCM just won't do it.

Well,know that you mention it, the store does seem have a lot more "damaged" fruit on sale the next day...........JUST KIDDING!

Even if TCM is the only channel with a problem, it still has to be at your cable company's end. Otherwise we'd all have it regardless who our program providers are, and we don't.Probably trouble with the receiver they use to get TCM's satellite signal.

I may have said this before. His mom doesn't live too far from where I do and when he comes to see her it's not unusual to see him in the super market nearby. He always seems like just a another nice guy to me. Very friendly to everyone. Of course, around here he isn't troubled with paparazzi sticking cameras in his face when he's squeezing the cantaloupes in the produce department.