SansFin

A home which was saved because it had become a museum:

Deleted as some deem it is inappropriate. Edited by: SansFin on May 25, 2012 12:28 AM

Deleted as some deem it is inappropriate. Edited by: SansFin on May 25, 2012 12:27 AM

Deleted as some deem it is inappropriate. Edited by: SansFin on May 25, 2012 12:26 AM

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > Why do you suppose it hasn't been shown since 1998? That was its earliest appearance in the schedules we have. It was also shown on January 28, 2008. It can be extrapolated that it will be shown again during December, 2017.

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}*"I know Klute has been shown in the last 10 years during Oscar month overnight."* - Hibi > OK. > And maybe SansFin can consult the family TCM database and report back on the other titles. I believe I will now have to leave this forum as people are coming to know me to a degree with which I am not comfortable. Absolute proof of that is that I was checking the database and searching the individual schedules when you posted. There are no listings for your movies from August, 2005 to May, 2012 for which we have contiguous schedules as they were posted on-line. There are no listings also in the few other schedules which we have scattering back to 1995. The only one which comes close is: 6:30 AM HANDLE WITH CARE ( 1958 ) During a mock trial, a small-town law student uncovers new evidence about a real crime. Dean Jones, Joan O'Brien, Thomas Mitchell. D: David Friedkin. BW 83m. The earliest listing we have for this is February 11, 1998. We do not have the February schedules for 2002 through 2005 so I can not speak to when/if *Klute* was shown during those years. The greatest presence of Jane Fonda was in 2007 with: *Comes a Horseman* (1978) *They Shoot Horses, Don't They* (1969) *Barefoot In The Park* (1967) *The China Syndrome* (1979)

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > Also I had a devil of a time trying to find duplicates. The hard thing was that I could only find one film that was repeated the entire month. And that was Bridge on the River Kwai. Somehow, the layout program I used to compile my research did not allow me to "find" repeats easily. We are bedeviled by that also. We have a database from online schedules to use for the TCM Challenges. The total of movies from 1998 to 2012 was more than 33,000. We used a word processor, a database program and a spreadsheet program to find and remove duplicates and then we each went through the list manually to remove more duplicates. The remainder is more than 7,300 movies and we are still finding an occasional duplicate when we are looking through it.

I hope you do not dismiss Wal-Mart quickly. I haunt their $5 DVD bin because they are constantly changing the selection. I have purchased *Breakfast at Tiffany's* , *The Scarlet Pimpernel* and several other classic movies from it and I have seen many John Wayne movies. I have found in it also several collections of Alfred Hitchcock movies. My most recent purchase is a four disc set of Sherlock Holmes which has four movies on one double-sided disc and thirty nine episodes of an early television series starring Ronald Howard as Sherlock Holmes on the other three discs. I have also purchased *Laura* and *The Day of the Triffids* using their site-to-store service. I find it impossible to properly search for movies on their site as it does not allow a search by date of movie and they have thousands of movies which range from silents to very new. It is best to type in the name of a movie or an actor in the search box. It is not as convenient as a video store. The cost to own one is only little more than many stores charged to rent one for a week.

fxreyman, Your calculation and analysis were thorough and complete. I admire you for performing such tedious and thankless work so very well. It is sad to say that I believe you are missing a point which has been evidenced several times within this thread: The facts do not matter! There is no proof, there never has been any proof and there can be no proof to support the original allegation that TCM has become less classic because it simply is not true. That does not matter to the person or persons who are stating their unfounded opinion as if it is the one true reality. I have also seen nothing to support their allegation that many TCM viewers feel that way. I have avoided performing a rigorous analysis of the number of posters and their views in this thread because I do not believe there can be any accuracy in it because of the obvious sock puppets and yet I am sure that the vast majority of viewers on this site do not share the feeling posited by the OP. It is probable that some do because it is a truism that any large group will have members who are a few scenes short of a trailer.

I hope there are some here who are yet awake to note that *Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes* (1955) is airing later tonight. I believe it is very nearly the ultimate film noir. This has always been one of my favorite movies. I could not imagine any woman more worldly than Viviane/Magali Noel. I wished very much to be like her when I was young.

> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote} I thank you for posting that! It is one I have not seen. My esso has B.C. books of the 1960s and 1970s. I have read them all and I have been reading them online. The sense of humor is truly off-centaur: I believe that Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes might have been a villain-in-the-making: I truly prefer cartoon strips that have a tiny bit of an 'edge':

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote} > One important trait would be, I guess, likeability. How many times were you surprised to see some old movie you never saw and felt at ease because some particular actor or actress was in it? Just because on sight alone, you LIKE them? I believe that defines why I love classic movies. Most of the actors make me feel comfortable and I like them.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > This movie firmly had its tongue in its cheek the entire movie. Did you women find the movie to be objectionable? (HOW TO MURDER YOUR WIFE) I was laughing so hard through most of it that I could not have voiced an objection. > BOYS' NIGHT OUT may be considered a "men's" movie. I feel that any movie with James Garner is a movie for women.

A CRT may have a better picture than a flat-screen television for people with certain vision conditions. The curvature of the screen tends to correct spherical aberrations which is a common problem. The quantity of the lines is not a factor because even slight spherical aberration limits the number of lines which can be discerned.

> {quote:title=CineMaven wrote:}{quote} > You always have an interesting slant on things. I have never sought to be normal. My father told me often that life is more interesting if you are close to people who are crazy. It was painful advice for him to give because he would glance at my mother each time he said it and she would throw things at him. My esso embraces Oscar Wilde's philosophy: "?How can a woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she were a perfectly normal human being??

> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote} > Is it wrong to be so gleefully happy when he meets his end at the hands of Adolphe... maybe I've used the wrong term.... do snakes have hands? I believe the phrase: "he met his end at the fangs of Adolphe" rolls off the tongue well. I am reminded of the cartoon strip B.C. where he discovers that clams have legs. They say he must not tell any person about it or they will kick him to death.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} > Since I first took notice of him, I've felt through the years that Gary Oldman is one of film's most versatile actors. He seems, chameleon like, to be able to be anything - convincingly. I think his range is very wide. One of my favorite movies is *Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead* (1990). He shows great range as Rosencrantz. Or is he Guildenstern? Non-comical befuddlement and pathos are very difficult for any actor and he handles them perfectly.

My favorite villains portrayed by Vincent Price are: Matthew Hopkins in *Witchfinder General* (1968) Nicholas Medina in *The Pit and the Pendulum* (1961) Prince Prospero in *The Masque of the Red Death* (1964) He conveys in each of them that he is not truly evil for the sake of being evil. It is his position and knowledge which force him to do things which are beyond other people. It is as if he is a doctor who enjoys his work because he knows he is doing a greater good even when his treatments cause extreme pain. I have found a site which claims that the greatest movie villain is Glinda in *The Wizard of Oz* (1939): She states: "Only bad witches are ugly." This equates a person's physical appearance to their morals which is racism. She steals from a dead body when she transports the dead witch's shoes onto Dorothy's feet. She is in this also denying the deceased's property from the only known living relative. Her actions clearly focus all of the Wicked Witch's hatred onto Dorothy who had been an innocent bystander. She knowingly exposes Dorothy to danger by telling her to leave the one place where the Wicked Witch has no power. She lies to Dorothy by telling her that the Wizard is the only one who can help her when it is obvious that she knows that the Wizard has no real power and that Dorothy truly needs no help as in that all she must do is the routine with the slippers and she will go home instantly. She demonstrated that she could keep Dorothy and her friends safe at all times and yet she did not do so except when she rescued them from the flowers so they could continue on their mission to kill the Wicked Witch. The article concludes: "So why did Glinda send Dorothy to the Wizard in the first place? Maybe we'll never know. But we think it's pretty convenient that by the end of the movie not only are both chief rivals of the so-called 'Good Witch' dead, but the ruler of Emerald City was out of the picture as well, leaving just one beloved and fully powerful Witch in his place."

I will only add two amendments to your list. I believe that an actor should be able to perform soliloquies as well as playing off other actors. I believe an actor's range should include the ability to play roles in which the characters are polar opposites with equal conviction. Ally Sheedy comes to my mind. In *Short Circuit* (1986) she is a warm, innocent and not-particularly bright vegan virgin. In *High Art* (1998) she is a cold, calculating and duplicitous drug-addicted bisexual.

The only one which comes to my mind is: *Harvey* (1950). We believe he is delusional. Then the pooka changes the text in the dictionary as Mr. Wilson is reading it and then another character sees it. That makes it plain that the main character is not delusional and he is actually seeing what others usually do not see.

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > I like Boston ****, so don't get me wrong, but every time he disguises himself, he becomes an old goat in a goatee. He seems to have little imagination in disguises. It can be said also of Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes movies. The most funny part is in *The Spider Woman8 (1944) when an old man comes to visit Holmes and Dr. Watson believes it is one of Holmes' bad disguises. Has any person ever explained which superpower allows Superman to be in perfect disguise by only putting on glasses?

*Jolly Fellows* *Merry Fellows* *The Happy Guys* *Jazz Comedy* *Moscow Laughs* *The World Is Laughing* *Vesyolye rebyata* *Веселые ребята* They are all the same movie. It can be watched at: http://youtu.be/chDRXQ77IgA

Was there an uproar and dissent when TCM aired its Cartoon Alley series? Was there an uproar and dissent when TCM aired its tribute to Chuck Jones? http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/218721%7C0/Chuck-Jones.html I have searched for threads dealing with these and I can find nothing specific. Will there be an uproar and dissent if or when TCM schedules UPA animations to highlight its Vault Collection release? http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/315383/turner-classic-movies-and-sony-pictures-home-entertainment-team-up-on-tcm-vault-collection-dvds

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > ....and from the same people who brought you Dargo 1,...........It's Dargo 2! Is it new and improved? Is it a: "Wait ... there's more!" moment? I will be disappointed if it is only a rebranding to hide that it is now costlier.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} > He'd like to see TCM go back to when it showed almost all golden age Hollywood movies and no Japanese anime. I find it odd how nostalgia blinds people to facts. It is obvious by studying old schedules that TCM has always aired a wide variety of eras. They also have a proud heritage of airing animation.