SansFin
-
Posts
10,146 -
Joined
-
Days Won
29
Posts posted by SansFin
-
-
*Larceny, Inc.* (1942)
*Lady in the Lake* (1947)
-
> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}
> I say, we should express ourselves, both positively and negatively, on those rare occasions when the latter is warranted.
I feel very deeply that the important thing is to present criticism in an appropriate manner. I believe it is does no good to rant about frequent showing of some movies and to bemoan the lack of others.
It saddens me each time I see a thread accusing TCM and its staff of being unimaginative or lazy because they schedule some movies frequently. The rotation of movies receiving such treatment shows me that it is a carefully constructed strategy and one which we must accept as they are doing what is in the best interest of the channel.
The TCM Programmers have demonstrated many times that they are open to ideas and suggestions. It behooves us to present those in a calm, respectful and reasonable manner.
-
Simple piano music:
-
I am very jealous as I have received neither an e-mail nor a PM of a survey. I must believe it is for the best as it is a problem for me to receive e-mails but it would have been nice if some person in some place and for some reason would want my opinion.
-
> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}
> I'm sorry, did you say WP was 'gorgeous'?
It is much more than the look of his face. It is his build and the way in which he carries himself and that he advances towards danger. There are moments of position and light in which his face is very strong and has great compassion.
> Pray tell, whom else do you consider gorgeous? Please, oh please oh please, don't say John Wayne?
John Wayne is not one of my favorites in looks or style.
Steve McQueen makes my knees weak. I feel as if Sean Connery is looking into my soul.
-
I will miss your posting, markbeckuaf.
I have looked at the schedule and I see nothing superlative or which rouses my curiosity. I hope you do please hurry back.
-
Simple piano music:
-
I believe it is unfortunate that this ilk of forum can not do threading as is done in Usenet where you can see in tree-form who is responding to which posts. That allows people to follow the main thread while the bickering and name-calling is a sub-thread which is easy to identify and ignore.
-
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.
-
> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}
> never on which party is in office at the time.
I believe it is meant as absurdity because any current administration is always blamed for all the bad things that happen whether it can be fault of the government or not.
-
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.
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}
> "esso"? As in, the former name of Exxon stations?
It is for S. O. which is for Significant Other.
-
> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
> > I do not know how it associates when my esso said this morning that there was never weather like this when there was a Republican President.
> I guess he forgot about Katrina and Rita.
I believe there was not the heavy snowfall associated with them.
-
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.
The vast majority of the 31 Days of Oscar - February and March 1-3
in General Discussions
Posted
> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}
> your comments above would deprive anyone of any criticism of any corporate entity, because you think "we must accept..." etc.
There is an old thing that you should tell a person a thing three times. They might ignore you the first time because they believe it is your passing whim and it is not worthy of serious consideration. They might ignore you the second time because it is not convenient for them to do what you wish. When they ignore you for the third time it is because they do not see a need to do what you wish.
> And so, while I agree with part of your remarks, I strongly disagree with your "carefully constructed strategy... they know best" remarks. Good institutions suffer because such attitudes lead to lack of criticism which leads to complacency on the part of corporations/institutions.
I see no need to repeat the same complaints ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
They are plainly aware of the dissatisfaction. I believe there must be reasons that we can not see that prompts them to continue such behaviour.
I have seen complaints by posters that there are posters in "Suggest a Movie" who request movies again as soon as they air and that they request the movies that many here believe are played more often than wanted. Does any person here know the ratio of how many times those movies are requested vs how many complaints there are of airing them so often?
Does any person here know how many first-time viewers are attracted to the channel because by happenstance they see an old war horse of a movie is scheduled and will watch it because they feel it is a safe movie which does not require them to be into the entire "classic movie" mentality?
Does any person here know the cost factor of airing some movies many times vs airing several movies a few times?
Does any person here know how many viewers watch nearly only movies that they have watched before and how many of those viewers are needed to maintain viewer-usage rates to ensure that cable companies will keep TCM in their line-ups?
It is clear to me that we see only one aspect of the situation and that there may be many considerations of which we are not aware.
I am reminded of the people who feel very deeply that for significant issues of health, social and moral concerns that McDonald's should stop selling hamburgers.
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can,
and Wisdom to hide the bodies of those who I had to kill because they made me mad.