markfp2

Thanks for mentioning this film. Although I really like "Curse of the Demon", I've never seen "Night of the Demon" and have been meaning to order the DVD and keep forgetting about it (too many films on my want list). Anyway, I guess the American version was the only one Columbia had the rights to and sadly that one ended up as the lower half of the double-bill in many theatres (that's how it was in my home town anyhow). It's only in more recent years that the original version has built a cult following both here and in Britain. I don't know who puts out the DVD so I don't have a clue as to who owns the rights now. If TCM could ever get their hands on both versions that would be great.

TCM doesn't show made for TV movies, only theatricals. The only exception that I know of was Steven Spielberg's "Duel" and that was because, while made for television, it was also released as theatrical film. By the way, welcome to the boards

I have to agree with you. I saw the Broadway version of "The Wiz" and it was just spectacular. I can't recall her name, but the girl who played Dorothy was just great. The special effects were state of the art for Broadway at that time. From what I hear, however, there is quite a following for the movie version.

You can also buy a device called "DVD Doctor"( or something close to that) which does the same thing. I believe it's about $30. If you have kids playing your DVDs, it might prove a good investment. You could also check with your local library, if they have a DVD collection they should have a disc cleaner and for a small donation might be willing to help you out. Just one thing, don't expect miracles. All these devices only work on minor surface scratches and not really deep ones which destroy the information on the disc.. Good luck.

I would certainly like to see both John Ford Irish films. I don't think either are "lost", just neglected. I've heard terrible stories about the condition of the RKO library when Turner bought it so perhaps "Plough" is one of those overlooked titles that hasn't been restored yet. As for "Moon", it was syndicated to local tv stations in a Warner Bros. package in the early 1970s. and as I recall the prints were quite nice. Let's keep our fingers crossed that TCM could dig it up sometime.

Well, things can very complicated programming in different countries. I'm sure TCM has the same problems in all the other countries they're in too. As with the example you gave, "Sparrows", it's very possible that the company they got it from didn't have the Canadian rights to give to TCM. I think it's safe to say that if TCM had the rights, they would have shown it in Canada. I can't imagine they'd go to the trouble of substituting another film just to annoy their new Canadian viewers.

Moira, Thanks for asking TCM for it. I certainly hope they can come up with a better quality copy than that DVD.

I know how frustrating it can be, but the answer is really very simple. These are not films that TCM owns outright. They lease these from other studios and may only be able to get the U.S. rights and not the Canadian rights. For example."Fear Strikes Out" is from Paramount, which may have already leased the rights to the CBC or some independent stations in Canada so TCM can't get them. There may even be some films in the TCM library that can't be shown too. Before they decided to start a Canadian operation, TCM, may have leased some of their films to others and those contracts haven't expired yet. I imagine, once they become available again TCM will hold on to them.

Glad I could help. I have that DVD, but the quality of "The North Star" is awful. It's very washed out. However, if it's the only version you can find, I guess it's better than nothing.

"Margie" is a 20th Century-Fox film and does get shown now and then on "The Fox Movie Channel". As to why it doesn't get released on DVD, I guess you'd have to ask the folks at Fox. While they do a great job with their classics series, they are not as aggressive in releasing older films as say Warners is. Of course, TCM seems be showing more Fox films lately, so maybe they'll show it sometime.

There's little doubt that the film you are thinking of is "The North Star" (1943) which was produced by Samuel Goldwyn as a "salute" to our Russian allies during WWII. It had a big American cast including Anne Baxter, Dana Andrews, Walter Houston, Erich von Stroeheim and Farley Granger in his first movie role. There was a lot of controversy about this film, especially after the war, as it was thought to be too "pro-communist". It was very heavily edited in the 1950s and retitled "Armoured Attack". If you want to read more about it, click on "movie database" at the top of this page and search the title. When get it, be sure to click on "notes", on the left side of the page, and you'll get the whole backstory regarding the film.

LuckyDan, I think you're right. It does simply boils down to the fact that nobody cared. If films were on the shelf for twenty or thirty years without anyone ever booking them the studios felt they were worthless and weren't worth the cost of keeping them. It wasn't until the growth of television that they started to realize there was a demand for "old" movies and a great deal of money to be made. By then, in many cases it was too late. Today, thanks to DVDs and in a big way TCM, many more people have become interested in silents and early talkies, so I'm sure the studios are regretting their poor stewardship of Hollywood's past history. Interestingly too, there are indeed many great films still alive in archives, but there just isn't the money to restore them. The best example is the largest collection of film in the country is at The Library of Congress. I don't know if it still works this way, but it use to be that when a film was copyrighted the producer had to deposit a print of it in the LoC. Sounds exciting, doesn't it? Sadly, even though it has a very dedicated and concerned staff, the government barely provides enough money to maintain films in the collection let alone restore them. No doubt many of those have turned to dust too.

Hey JudyGarlandFan, there are no dumb questions here. The only way we learn is by asking. When it comes to movie questions, this is the place to ask them.

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that there was still a print of "London After Midnight" that late. MGM saved a lot more films than many of the studios. They donated quite a few to the film archive at the George Eastman House in Rochester NY. Of course, they are rarely seen outside of their own screenings at the museum. At any rate, I was talking about silents in general, not a specific film.

Well, I haven't yet seen a digital projection of a feature so I can't comment on the quality, but I understand the push by filmmakers. It would be much cheaper for them than having to have three or four thousand 35mm film prints made. The thing that worries me is digital could spell the death of small independant theatres. The big chains might be able absorb the costs of conversion, but the little guys won't. For example, we have a wonderful second-run theatre near here that still only charges $1.50 and does great business. If however, movies were no longer were available on film, the owner would never be able to afford the tens of thousands it would cost to switch over. He'd just lock the doors and call it quits. Same thing happened in the late 1920s when sound came in and on a smaller scale in the fifties with CinemaScope.. A lot of smaller theatres just coudn't afford the new equipment and went dark. It would be a shame if that happened again

Liz is right. The studios felt that silents had no commercial value anymore and thought it was better to make a few bucks recycling the silver in the film stock than paying a lot more to keep storing them. Of course, back then television was only in its experimental stages and nobody ever dreamed of home video or DVD. It's a sad fact that 80% of all silents and 50% of all films made prior to 1950 are gone. Of course, you never know, someday a print of a lost film like "London After Midnight" could turn up in a private collection or in a hidden corner of some archive, but I wouldn't hold may breath.

Gigi, you're so right. The Hollywood of old is dead.It started to die when the old studio system folded .What we know as studios today are just rental facilities for independent producers to use and aren't run by filmakers, but accountants and lawyers who only care about money. They open a movie on 4000 screens on the same day and if a film can't gross $100 million the first week, it's considered a failure and it's gone. The studios use to nurture a film, opening it in key cities then spreading it's release nationwide over the course of a few weeks and that gave it time to find its legs and for word of mouth to build. In the old days, studios made films for all audiences. Today the "key" audience they seek out are teenage and young adult males who love films them loud, fast and sexy. If that's not your taste, good luck. Sad, but true.

Well, I last saw it in 1962 when it first came out and I actually saw it about 20 times. I was working as an usher at the first-run theatre that ran it in my home town. I can't remember the last time I even saw it listed on tv. It was actually produced by Essex-Claude productions which I think Sinatra was involved with so I guess United Artists may have lost the rights to it. Of course, UA became part of MGM and MGM was gobbled up by Sony so who really knows what happened to it. Just another example of good films that just vanish.

Colorized movies are pretty well a dying breed. While Fox has recently released some colorized Shirley Temple films, in order get kids interested in her and Columbia has a few Three Stooges colorized, the big companies have pretty well given up on them. They simply aren't profitable enough to continue. There seems to be far more people willing to buy the original black & white versions than the colorized version which are costly to make. Even Ted Turner who spent many millions packaging and marketing colorized films to tv stations gave up because the stations just weren't interested in paying higher prices for movies that were considered a "turn off" to a large segment of their audiences. As for your question, while Netflix might have a few of the recent ones, as I mentioned, since the older ones are no longer in release, I doubt that they would carry enough colorized films to make membership worthwhiled, if that's all you're interested in.

While I don't want this board to go the way of some others, I don't have a problem with an occasional post about recent films. If you want to get picky, every older film that TCM shows is not a "classic" so maybe we shouldn't talk about them either. Besides, I doubt that posts about more recent films make up even 1% of the total posts here so I don't see any harm. Of course, if you believe the "doom and gloom" crowd on this forum you already know that TCM is going to drop classics, show nothing but edited new films ,in pan & scan versions, and load them with commercials. So it won't really matter after that anyway. Message was edited by: markfp2

This is a practice that's been going in for decades. The studios want to make a film that will attract the much sought after "younger" audience so regardless of it's type they force a "name" on the producer. How about Pat Boone in "Journey to the Center of The Earth"? While I think he was ok in the part his songs always seemed out of place in the film. It still happens today. In Mel Brooks lastest film version of the "The Producers" Ulma Thurman and Will Ferrell were put in just for that very reason even though the original broadway performers were much better.

TCM has run "The Bells of St, Mary's" several times a year including around the holidays. I'm pretty sure they've shown "No Time For Sergeants" also. Best to keep an eye open on the schedule for repeats.

"Keys to the Kingdom" will get my money. Like most studios, I guess, Fox has their own reasons for what gets released and when. I'm usually not in much of a hurry, but since "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" was announced last year for a fall release and then pulled, "it's on the top of my want list. I do have a pretty good VHS copy that I transfered to DVD so that will hold me 'til it finally gets release. I know AMC has been showing it, but I will NEVER watch anything they show.

As I mentioned before, there isn't any need to miss any movies. Just click on "schedule" on the top of this page and then where you see "view and print" you can click on the schedules for this month and the next two. It's easy and you don't have to print them you can just look at them if you want.

I'd be very surprised if Disney would ever lease any of the classic animated films to TCM. Remember, TCM is non-commercial and Disney can get a far higher price from a commercial channel than from a non-commercial.