markfp2

I was reading her bio someplace and it said that she starred as Anna in a 1964 Lincoln Center production of THE KING AND I with Darren McGavin as the King. I would have like to have seen that show. I knew McGavin had stage experience, but never thought of him as a singer who could play that role.

> {quote:title=FlyBackTransformer wrote:}{quote}Does freezing occur due to repeated use of the *same worn-out prints?* There are no worn out prints. TCM, like all other networks, doesn't run anything on film anymore, everything is shown digitally from a server. While there have been an occasional technical problem at TCM, the vast majority of the time the trouble turns out to be at the cable company's end. If it were at TCM then it would affect every single viewer and that usually isn't the case. If it were, these boards would be swamped with complaints, especially if it were an ongoing thing that affected numerous movies.

I'm not sure if TCM has shown it before, but FMC has many times. Sometimes I lose track of who ran what. In any case, since TCM is showing a lot more films from Fox perhaps it will turn up on the schedule one of these days.

> {quote:title=Darkamor wrote:}{quote}I woke up this morning (Monday 3/18/13) to find that TCM (usually on Channel 40) is g-o-n-e with Cox Communications stating I need to upgrade to "all digital" now if I want to watch Turner Classic Movies (which means I would have to pay an additional $25 a month) and I am not happy .... > Sorry to hear that. The trouble is that the cable companies would love to eliminate their analog channels completely and just go digital, but can't because their franchise agreements with the local communities they serve require them to keep at least a basic analog package so people will have a low cost option. Most of the time the agreement will say that it has to carry local channels, maybe a news channel or two and X number of general programming channels, but rarely do they say what those channels have to be.The cable companies are actively removing the better channels from their analog package in order to get folks to switch to their higher priced digital. Then next time their agreement is being renegotiated they can say to the local officials "see, nobody wants analog anymore and customers are switching to digital" to try to convince them to let them drop it. I gave up cable thirteen years ago in favor of DirecTV and would never go back. Might be worth a look. Just a word about DISH though, they offer a really low price package, but it doesn't include TCM. If switching to another provider for TCM, make sure it's in the package you order.

Ban? I think that's a pretty strong word. Just because we might not like a certain film technique doesn't mean that filmmakers shouldn't have a right to use it. Since the beginning of film people have been trying to censor them for many reasons. Let's hope that a director's technical choices isn't added to that list.

> {quote:title=PositiveX wrote:}{quote} > > What do you think of ads on TCM? As others have pointed, out this is nothing new to TCM. I've it said before and I'll say it again, as long as those "commercials" are movie-related and are kept in the realm of "filler" between the films, I have no problem with them. In fact, I find those for DVDs quite useful. If that's what it takes to keep "real" commercials out of the films so be it. And for that matter, TCM only claims that the films will be shown commercial free, not what's between them. It's very costly to run a cable network and since only about 25 or 30 cents of our monthly cable and satellite bills go to TCM it has to generate additional revenue somehow. Otherwise, TCM would most certainly go down the same road as AMC, Fox Movie Channel, Sundance and IFC which is something that none of us wants to see happen.

Occasionally, I get something about TCM DVD releases, but they really come from Movies Unlimited, the company that actually sells the stuff and has a marketing agreement with TCM to use their logo and name. Did you order something from either TCM or MU? If so that probably put you on the list. I deleted all the old ones I had so I couldn't see for sure, but if you read the usual teeny-tiny fine print at the bottom there's probably a place to click that will let you opt out of future e-mailings.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Was this a TCM premiere? Yes, it was a TCM premiere. Robert O. mentioned that. It's one of the films TCM has started getting from 20th Century-Fox that up until now had only been shown on the Fox Movie Channel. Keep a sharp eye on the schedules.

> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}It is now March. What month is currently being scheduled? July? August? September? Although they haven't released the schedules beyond May, It's a reasonable assumption that the entire year is pretty well along. I imagine that Summer Under The stars is just about locked up and I wouldn't be at all suprised if they've already picked the theme for the next "31 Days of Oscars" and are already working on trying to get Oscar related films that have escaped them in past years. Doing a schedule is more than just filling in holes. It involves many things not the least of which is programming costs. Like every network, TCM has a yearly programming budget and they have to balance the cost of various films against others. If the blow the budget this month on a bunch of costly premiers, you can bet a couple of months down the road they'll be a few more (cheaper) repeats to make up for it. I'm sure the TCM programmers would love to have an unlimited checkbook, but we know that doesn't happen.

I did see you posted the title, but thought I'd flesh it out a little with some of the back story of the U.S. release.

> {quote:title=hdeast wrote:}{quote}Ice Cold In Alex. > > Couldn't find any info on the old British war movie on TCMDb starring John Mills and Anthony Quayle,did it have a different name in North America by chance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ICE COLD IN ALEX is a fine British war film, one of my favorites, but was mishandled by it's U.S. distributor. It was released here by Universal-International as DESERT ATTACK, but was cut from it's original 125 minute running time down to 79 minutes. Although it was a big hit in the UK, the powers that be at U-I didn't think it would do well and decided to shorten it so it could be used as a second feature. As a result, it was released as the lower half of a double-bill with an Audie Murphy western. DESERT ATTACK pretty well vanished after that. It's never had a home video release in this country in either version, but the uncut ICE COLD IN ALEX is available on a region 2 DVD in the UK. Unfortunately, most DVD players sold in North America can't play region 2. If you want info on the film, here's a link to a most useful British film website: http://www.britmovie.co.uk/films/Ice-Cold-in-Alex_1958/listType/alpha Just a caution, it does contain spoilers

I assume you're talking about the charming 1961 British film about two children of different faiths. It wasn't around for a long time, but was finally released a couple of years ago on DVD. It should be available from most online retailers including TCM's shopping site. Here's the link: http://shop.tcm.com/detail.php?p=315846&SESSID=0e5d98b3dcdc914306a0f41b452aeb0a

Well sure, if Warner doesn't want to release it, it would make sense for them to farm it out to some other company like Criterion or Kino (if either were interested) and make some money from it without tainting the corporate brand. Warner Home Video did release a VHS of the edited R-rated version back in the early 1990's. Amazon has a few copies starting at around seventy-five bucks for a new one and thirty for used. As I recall, church groups around here picketed video stores that carried it claiming it was "blasphemous" and "pornographic". Except for a couple of stores in the university part of town, most gave in and pulled it.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote} But running it at 4am, what bluenose would be up that late? It's not a question of who'd actually watch it. It's what the company wants its image to be. As was pointed out about FRITZ THE CAT there would have been cable companies blacking out the film because of it's X-rating and there would be newspapers refusing to even list it. THE DEVILS would probably be even worse considering it involves of sex and religion. From a corporate point of view the bad publicity just isn't worth it. The fact that Warner Bros. owns it, but won't release it on DVD proves my point. It's not something they want to be associated with.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}LOL. They pulled Fritz the Cat? I dont remember The Devils being that bad. Was it X rated? It wouldnt get that rating today..... FRITZ THE CAT was originally on the late night schedule last December, just a few days before Christmas. TCM never gave a reason for pulling it, but the general speculation was that somebody higher up in their parent company didn't want an X-rated film on the channel.. THE DEVILS was rated X when first released. Eventually, it was heavily edited and got re-rated R. Of course, "not being that bad" is in the eyes of the viewer, but I think it would be fair to assume that most people would probably still find the uncut film offensive.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote} > I would love to see The Devils again. (havent seen it since it came out) Due to content, it would have to be run on the graveyard shift........... If they pulled FRITZ THE CAT from the overnight schedule, you can bet THE DEVILS doesn't stand a chance. There are some films that carry such a stigma that even just announcing plans to show it will bring a firestorm of complaints and bad publicity that no company wants or needs.

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote} > But not, Not, NOT The Little Prince Oh, I don't know about that. I think to really understand a person and their work you need to see the bad along with the good. Otherwise it's like putting together a puzzle that has pieces missing, you'll never get the full picture.

I never thought about it before, but now that you mentioned it, I've seen actual photos and combat footage that showed pianos in the street. Two things come to mind, but I'm just guessing. Perhaps, being heavy and solid, they were used to help block the streets to slow down enemy troops and vehicles or perhaps they were considered good "cover" to hide behind.

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}..... His film *The Devils* was restored a few years back, but is only in digital form, and WB refuses to release it on DVD. If TCM would show that, it would make my year! Don't hold your breath on that one. While some here would like to see it, I think the average TCM viewer would probably find it very offensive. If WB hasn't released it yet because of its content, I doubt that Time-Warner would let TCM show it. There is a region 2 DVD from Spain (not the restoration) available from amazon, but it's a little pricey and has gotten pretty bad reviews for quality and some have suggested that it's a cut version..

> {quote:title=kevshrop wrote:}{quote}Yes, the same thing was done when Gone With The Wind was listed the other day, with Part 2 being shown first. It wasn't shown in that order, of course. Oh well. I'm thinking it's because both films have intermissions in them and for technical reasons each part has to be programmed into the computer as a seperate program element along with instructions to start the second part right after the intermission music at the end of part one as opposed to actually having an intermission with promos or whatever in between. Showing it as two parts on the schedule was just a mistake.

A lot of cable companies carry TCM in both HD and SD, check with yours.

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote} > > How could something like this happen? Did somebody think "I messed up" and switched it manually? Or was the copy they ran spliced this badly? > > > > All channels are automated now and movies are run from servers and not film or tape so if I had to guess I'd say that whoever typed the info into the computer must have typed it in wrong which caused the wrong movie to start. And honestly, just because somebody works for a movie channel doesn't mean they're film buffs or even watch the movies so I guess it could have taken 50 minutes before anyone noticed the wrong movie was running and decided to go to the scheduled film. All it would have taken was a few keystrokes to join it at the exact point needed to end on time. At that point though, I think it would have been better just to keep the first one running and at least show an entire movie regardless of what it was. I'm not making excuses for them just trying to explain how it might have happened.

That film was considered pretty "hot" in those days. In a lot a places the censors banned it. You saw it when you were ten?. What'd ya do, Fred, sneak in the back door to see the "dirty" Italian film. :^0

You can give a big thanks to Warner Bros. for that. They did a major restoration of it a few years ago. A word of caution, the film has been in public domain for years and there are a lot of really bad copies out there (amazon must have at least 20 different versions) so make sure you get the "official" Warner Bros. restored version which is what TCM showed.

Many good suggestions, but being this one of TCM's two major programming events each year it's highly likely that the stars were selected months ago and except for a little tweaking here and there all the films are picked out too. I'd suspect that TCM's programmers are, at the very least, already thinking about next year and that's where some of these ideas may show up. Keep 'em coming.