SansFin

I love these movies. They are wonderful entertainment. The characters are well drawn and vivid. The stories are is told in simple and straight manners. Walter Pidgeon is gorgeous and Donald Meek precious!

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > Playing tiddly winks with manhole covers. Do you use chocolate-covered ones? I realize that is an obscure reference. Larry Niven wrote a story in which people at parties were asked: "What can you say about chocolate-covered manhole covers?" It was part of a covert search for people with a certain level of intelligence, audacity and wit. It is a parable about the dangers of being absurd because those who responded best were chosen to be the seed stock for populating a barren planet.

I remember I was anticipating the Import tonight but I do not remember what it is. I do not dare even look at the schedule because it will only raise my hopes and the cable is out again and it often takes Time-Warner several days to fix it. I look ahead to Wednesday day and I see several that are very good. *Fog Over Frisco* (1934) *Double Wedding* (1937) *A Stolen Life* (1946) I like all on the Thursday day schedule but for the 2:00 PM movie. I believe I missed: *The Admirable Crichton* (1957) the last time it aired. It stars Cecil Parker whom I like very much and the description makes it sound interesting. I must wonder what is the source for the descriptions for: *Saint In London* (1939) as both TCM and Review are seriously wrong. There is no counterfeiting and TCM has it backwards. It is that his investigation of a spy reveals a plot to steal a large amount of newly-printed foreign currency. The Review is wrong also in that he is in England prior to being asked to investigate the spy so he did not travel there in pursuit of anyone. It is wonderful that they are airing the proper version of: *The Prisoner Of Zenda* (1937) as Ronald Colman is perfect in the role. I like very much: *I Love You Again* (1940).

> {quote:title=mrroberts wrote:}{quote} > I could also see Cary being very funny as Felix in *The Odd Couple* , who would have been a good Oscar to play against him? I believe Zero Mostel would have been wonderful or terrible in the part. I can think of no movie in which I think he is merely good. It is always at one end of the spectrum or the other.

This is my favorite piece for piano and violin:

> {quote:title=sfpcc1 wrote:}{quote} > what if Cary Grant played the Barnard Hughes role in Midnight Cowboy? I believe it would have been very interesting to see him in the Dustin Hoffman/Ratso role.

I prefer Ricardo Cortez in the 1931 version to all others because he is handsome, charming and perfectly amoral. The others who played the role carried a sense of "good guy" that I feel is inappropriate.

I would very much liked to have seen him in the Burt Reynolds/Jack Rhodes role in: *Rough Cut* (1980). I think this could have been a wonderful little movie if it had the tone which Cary Grant brought by his presence. It would have been very nice also to see him opposite David Niven again. I believe he and Lesley-Anne Down could have had great chemistry. I believe he would have been very good in the Alan Alda/George Peters role in: *Same Time, Next Year* (1978). I could then understand why a woman would want to see him after the first time. I believe he would have been excellent in the Paul Newman/Henry Gondorff role in: *The Sting* (1973). It reminded me very much of his role in: *His Girl Friday* (1940) and age would have reduced his frantic nature and made him wiser and slier. I am not sure if I would have liked him in the Michael Caine/Sidney Bruhl role in *Deathtrap* (1982). I believe he could have carried it very well but I do not know how I would have felt to see him kissing Superman.

> {quote:title=aimalac wrote:}{quote} > Maybe if I knew or had some general idea, I might do some of the little things to prepare in advance for upcoming challenges. He has it firmly penciled in to start on February 1, 2013 but I believe he is quavering on the end as he decides whether to make it thirty days or thirty-one days. I am greatly anticipating seeing many wonderful schedules!

> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote} > I"m sorry I missed your comment in this thread about Hayard, Does this mean you missed: *The Divorce of Lady X* (1938) again also?

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote} > ST from Simon Templar? Color me stupid, I never knew that before. The novels place him in a group known as The Saints because of the good work they did. It is so long since I read them that I do not remember them saying the moniker was from his initials. I do remember that two of the movies state that he has a Cross-shaped scar on his wrist. > I asked but was never answered on why Hayward left. I do not know whether he left or whether he was not chosen to be the lead when the decision was made to make a series based on the character. He did return to the role for at least one movie after the Sanders series.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}Mike00 - > That "power down" in December may mean that March or April line-ups show up a little later than usual too. I believe the greatest delay is in the April schedules. The preliminary schedule for March 2012 was posted on December 3, 2011. The preliminary schedule for April 2012 was posted on January 27, 2012 which is fully two weeks later than normal. I suspect this is because they must release schedules to the press two months before air date. It has been stated that a Now Playing guide must go to printers two months before date on issue as the reason why a subscription takes so very long to begin. This would mean releasing the March schedule on January 1 and so it must be completed before the holidays.

There are many wonderful holiday movies scheduled for December. You may see which at the Daily Schedule page and using the "Day/Month" in the toolbar to select the dates in December you wish to view. It is sad to say that: *Miracle on 34th Street* (1947) is not on the schedule this year. I am very happy to see: *We're No Angels* (1955) is scheduled for December 9th. It is less heart-warming than many Christmas movies but it is precious in its own way.

> {quote:title=Lori3 wrote:}{quote} > I also heard that TCM has to have that film in their library in order to air it. It is my understanding that the TCM Library consists now of only a few films which were recently restored. The original library amassed by Mr. Turner was divorced from TCM when Time-Warner purchased it. TCM now has to rent all of the movies it airs. Some owners will allow airing of all of their movies which have been converted to digital format. Some will allow only part of their library. I believe the list of available movies is changing constantly as owners convert movies to digital and owners are releasing movies previously restricted or restricting movies it previously rented.

I believe it is truly an unfortunate situation. I have read that channels within the Disney-ABC Television Group have long-term exclusive rights to air the animated works. These licenses were granted in order to gain financing at the lowest possible interest rate because of the assumption that being the only source for Disney animation would assure success of the channels. The lower risk of default translating into lower interest rates meant savings of tens of millions of dollars for the corporation. It is sad when dollars mean more than artistic and cultural values but that is the state of the world.

> {quote:title=Stephan55 wrote:}{quote} > Whew, SansFin, I didn't realized that it was such an ordeal. I am truly very sorry that I did not stop to think that this was putting you in the middle. I apologize with all my heart. > I don't think any of us expect to get paid for what we share. I do not know how long it took me to cross-reference Martin Scorsese's filmography with entries in our database. I was happy to do it without prompting as a way to welcome a new poster and to give them hope that those movies might air again. The reference to payment for further research was an outburst against what I view as extremely boorish behaviour by a poster who would rather continuously complain in many threads about the lack of modern movies on TCM rather than buy inexpensive DVDs. I did not intend to suggest I was actually offering services requiring compensation. > I don't think that those of us who record TCM movies do it because we are cheapskates, and unwilling to purchase a movie that we enjoy. I greatly prefer to record movies as it allows the movie to begin immediately after loading with no time wasted on studio logos. Many commercial DVDs have also advertising which must be navigated past or watched before the movie can begin. The ratio between recorded movies vs purchased movies in our collection is well over twenty-to-one. We clearly prefer to record a movie but we acknowledge that some movies we like are so modern that they are usually broadcast only on premium channels or it is a foreign movie which is unlikely to ever air here. > Anyway, sorry if I offended you by suggesting that you might be able & willing to offer additional info. I must say again how very sorry I am to have put you into the middle of this. Your instincts were correct and I am very happy to do what I can for most posters. It is unfortunate circumstance that this instance involved a poster I have come to detest.

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote} > I wish I was as young as you! The oldsters here had to sit (or get up to change the television ON the televion!!) the Chia commercials AND the Chia song! I was in United States only occasionally before 2008 and watched little television when I was here. I have been immersed in many forms of American Pop culture in the time since I have moved here but the Chia Pets escaped me. I have found the original commercial on YouTube. I find the song catchy but I find it easy to understand how repeated play of it could be irritating and it could become an earwig.

I know I saw the movie when it was first released. I could surely find the date, time and place if I searched my journals of the year. The movie made so little impression on me that I do not remember a single thing about it and formed no lasting opinion. It is possible that it would all come back to me if I began to watch it again. I am not interested in watching it as few movies have left no impression on me either good or bad and so it is a hole in my life and I have no desire to waste more time on such a non-entity.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > Those who don't learn from the past are condemned to relive it. I have always wondered about that sentiment. Does that mean that if I do not study history I can recreate the Roaring Twenties or resurrect the elegance of Nineteenth Century Tsarist St. Petersburg? I would search far and wide for a way to unlearn things if that were true.

I believe you are referring to: *Cash on Demand* (1961). The stars listed for: *The Snorkel* (1958) are: Peter Van Eyck, Betta St. John, Mandy Miller and Gregoire Aslan. I recognize the names as being actors but I do not know their work.

I have been telling him to allow a day of adult movies so we can see esoteric and eclectic tastes of entrants.

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote} > There's GOT to be a better way. The Soviet thought they had the best way. The newspapers could set their headlines declaring the winner several months in advance.

I have watched only the first few minutes and I have high hopes for it because I like complex caper movies. I do not know any of the actors well but the description in the guide made it sound as if it were worth recording for when I have time to watch it.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote} > I sometimes skip primaries or off year elections if nothing important is on the ballot, but the only time I didnt vote for president was the year of Carter/Ford as I didnt like either candidate and wouldnt vote for either...... We had a choice of: "none of the candidates". When the majority voted that way there had to be a new election with new candidates.

> {quote:title=RMeingast wrote:}{quote} > What other "services" do you provide for a fee, SansFin? That is a terrible thing to ask me because it makes me ache to tell a dozen wonderful jokes which come to me mind but I can not post them in a public forum! > (You don't sell Chia Pets, do you SansFin?) I had to Google what that is. I do not sell them but I want one now. > I'm planning on offering for sale a line of specially made Voodoo Doll caricatures of all your favourite TCM Message Board characters such as: SansFin, Lzcutter, Hibi, TopBilled, and many others... My likeness is trademarked and you must pay a licensing fee of twenty million dollars in advance and royalties of 49% of the sale price for each doll. Hating me comes at a heavy price and I prefer cash in small bills. > Pins cost extra. If the likeness is true then you will need nails to go through my thick hide!