JamesJazGuitar

I assume you didn't mean "young people don't know that these films exist" literally, because of course 99% of people know that movies have been around, like the car, for around 100 years or so. So they know they exist. They just have no interest in seeking them out. As for being 'denied the exposure' well as you noted access to older movies is greater now than it ever was so I don't see where any exposure has been denied. Instead I would say access to so many various forms of entertainment causes some forms to be lost. I assume most younger people have cable that provides TCM. So the exposure is there. What I'm clueless about is how to peek their interest in these movies other than one-on-one mentoring.

What about the point that colorizing actually increases access to the B&W version? As a purist shouldn't you welcome that? For example, take those 20s -30s Universal movies that are just fading away. A third party might be interested in purchasing the rights to those movie IF they were allowed to colorized them (and thus increase their value in the marketplace). Before a movie is colorized it is restored. Yea, it would be 'nice' if a third party paid for the rights and restored them and did NOT colorize them, but often the economics work against this. I have yet to see anyone make a sound case that colorization reduces access to those, like me, that wish to view only the B&W version. Instead I say it increases access. Colorization only adds another option. Thus it is similar to a 'director's cut'. i.e. both the original and the revised version are available. Of course years from now a colorized version could 'replace' the B&W one; i.e. the only version available for purchase, or shown by networks, would be the colorized one. OK, that would be a major travesty. But I just don't see that happening. For example, take The Beatles recordings. Today, one can purchase the U.S. releases (with that super stereo), or the British monotone ones, or outtakes, etc... i.e. additional options didn't kill off the prior ones.

If the people that colorize a movie make a profit by doing so that means there is a demand for their product. So are the people who purchase colorized movies also morally wrong? Again, I personally don't see a need to colorize movies but I don't view colorizing movies OR preferring to view a colorized movie as a morality issue.

My choice would also be Secret Love. How do I know? Well when I like a song done by someone more than I like the Sinatra version, that has to be one very special version of that song.

It is funny you mention geting engaged to a Cartwright since I was thinking the same thing a few weeks back. I was watching the show and Little Joe meet a young women and they were going to get married but by the end she was killed by her father's right hand man. It got me thinking; How did such a good looking and charming guy like Little Joe remained unmarried all those years? Then the answer came to me; all the gals keep getting killed!

The reason my wife isn't a fan of LOA relates a lot to the picture Kid posted. We have a standard TV (yes, I need to upgrade!), and I remember when we were viewing that scene she asked something to the effect of 'ok, nice view of the desert, but how long do I have to look at this!'. I pointed out the people way in the background and how they come into view, etc.... But on our TV it doesn't have the same impact. I viewed LOA at a friend's house who has a > 50 inch screen and a much better TV sound system . Maybe I should take her there and see if that changes her mind. The other reason she isn't a big fan is that she doesn't like 'war pictures' but as we know LOA is so much more than a war picture. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Feb 22, 2013 2:35 PM

James Hong has aged very well. I saw him on one of those teen shows (I believe it was I-Carly), while channel flipping and later that day saw him on one of the first Seinfeld episodes (the one that takes places in a Chinese restaurant). These two shows were filmed at least 15 years apart and he looked the same.

With regards to 'a version that shouldn't exist': The owners of the rights to a movie are the ones that determines if a movie is colorized or not or even if the B&W version is available to the public or not. Thus the POV of 'shouldn't exist' has no legal standing. Are you saying the goverment should outlaw the colorization process? i.e. that the goverment should mandate what the owner of a movie (or work of art or music), does or does NOT do with it? Of course this is done with historical buildings so the general idea isn't that 'far out'. Thus the same type of approach could be used to, for example, force Universal to turn over all the movies in their vault to the general public so they could be restored and preserved, but not colorized. But maybe by 'shouldn't exist' you just meant it from an artistic perspective and not from a legal one (and from an artistic perspective I agree with, but hey, I don't believe covers of Beatles tunes should exist). As for altered 'versions' misleading consumers; Well this same topic was discussed related to the Mark Twain books and the removal of certain words by school districts. Some feel these versions 'shouldn't exist'. I say it is the job of the consumer to know what they are getting, but I would be OK with mandating that any altered version be labeled as such to ensure consumers are notified.

Unless a movie is in the public domain one has to obtain rights before they alter the work. So there is no stealing going on here and thus the Louvre comparison is way off base. I don't care for colorization (i.e. I would rather watch the movie as a B&W film), but in many cases those that colorize movies restore the B&W version before proceeding with the colorization process. Often this restored B&W version is included with the colorized version. Thus in most cases the colorization process allows future generations access to the B&W version. Thus I see no harm here.

TCM should just rename the movie; For the Rest of Eternity!

I don't agree that The Dark Minor is really, really bad. i.e. I would give it 2 12 stars out of 5. For fans of Olivia (and I'm a major one), the film is interesting, just to see her play two different roles in the same scene. Also the movie has Thomas Mitchell and he is always a treat. Ok, one of her least successfull post Warner movies but for fans of Olivia worth seeing nevertheless. But I do agree with the comment that it is interesting that many of Olivia's best performances were playing a 'plan Jane'. e.g. Hold Back The Dawn and The Heiress.

Well I wonder how many that find LOA dull and boring have only seen it on a TV set (and NOT one of those 60 inch ones!)? My wife doesn't like the picture much but she has never seen it as it should be shown. Now I haven't either but it is still one of my favorite films, BUT, a lot of it's impact is lost depending on the venue.

What would be an interesting type of study would be to look at actresses and the movies they made when they were in their late 20s early 30s (what I'm calling their peak period) and the time period this occured iin. For example, Olivia DeHaviland; She was born in 1916 and thus she turned 30 in 1946. That was the start of her best run of pictures. Once the 50s hit she did less pictures but that was generally by choice. Susan Hayward, who was mentioned was born in 1917 and thus she turned 30 in 1947. She also had a great 'run' prior to the downsizing and even after that in the 50s. Linda Darnell was born in 1923 and thus she turned 30 in 1953. While only a 7 year difference or so between Darnell and the two above, was it because of studio downsizing that this was just a poor time for actress to reach her peak period? Ava Gardner was born in 1922 so she was only one year older than Darnell. But studio downsizing didn't impact her 50s career as far as I can tell. So it would be interesting to find out what other actresses were born around the same time as Darnell and if they experienced a similar career impact due to the timing of the studio downsizing.

Clearly one of DeHavilland's best performances. Too bad Jack Warner was so pig headed he didn't see that he had the star that could of played some of the roles that didn't fit Bette Davis. i.e. Jack should of obtained the rights to scripts just for Olivia. Come on, after GWTH and Hold Back The Dawn what over proof did Jack need that Olivia was a first rate actress and a special one at that. But Paramount understood this. Thanks to them after Olivia won her lawsuit she got roles worthy of her talent. (as well as the Oscar for To Each His Own and The Heiress). I also agree with the comments about Boyer. I don't know many other actors that could of played his part and been as believable. His change of heart didn't looked forced and given the plot this was an easy thing to make believable.

With regards to any protest; It is a lot easier to make a movie today than it was back in the Studio Era. Thus while there might be mroe protest today (and the only reason this appears to be the case is because there is so much more artistic freedom today), protest rarely prevent work from being created or shown. In the 'good old days' protest had to be done to ensure work was created and or shown.

Travers was born in Endland and was an English stage actor before coming to the USA in the early 30s. So the Travers' role that should surprise you is his one in High Sierra! i.e. He had that midwest USA thing down pat.

I have to assume the director of Grand Hotel, Goulding and Garbo agreed to the type of over the top performance we saw otherwise Goulding is a wimp of an director. i.e. one of the most basic jobs of a good director is to prevent this type of acting even when the star is someone like Garbo, Davis etc.... Of course maybe Garbo had the power to get him replaced. Either way I don't understand why she didn't demand retakes after seeing previews of her acting 101 type of performance.

My point was only that lists can tell us something about the person that makes them. Note that I somewhat disagree with the example you gave of a top 50 list. Even if that list ONLY had current movies it would tell us something about that persion; i.e. that they love current movies and either have watched few 'old' movies or have watched them and just don't like them. I do agree that such list tells us next to nothing about the quality or lack thereof of what is listed UNLESS we have prior knowledge of the person creating the list. e.g. we respect their subject matter opinion and or tend to have similar tastes. Note that an individual's top 10 movie list should have NOTHING to do with if the movies listed are popular or not. i.e. one's favorites shouldn't be influenced by what is popular. But I do agree that lists created by groups tend to reflect what is popular.

I think list (when limited to something specific with a limited number of choices e.g. 10 or so), are useful in helping people get to know each other. For example, talke that Best guitar solos (where 'best' or 'greatest' really mean favorite). My list would all be jazz players, mostly from the 50s. But I can see list from others that would have NO jazz players and instead all rock and blues players. Each list tells us something about each other. But yea a list of 'greatest movies' that list many, many choices, tell us little to nothing. i.e. a top 10 (or so) list would tell us more about a person in my opinion.

Have you tried sending an e-mail directly to TCM's programming department or at least the Admin of this site? I wouldn't expect an answer from TCM's programmers to questions listed in a thread under 'general discussion'. But I hope you get an answer since it would be great if TCM was to shown some of those movies.

For brown rice in a rice steamer I recommend soaking the rice for at least 30 minutes. This helps ensure the rice isn't too 'dry' (hard). Of course that assume one likes sticky rice. (being that my mom was from Japan, where culturally we tend to like the sticky rice I lean in that direction)

I have a minor issue with this sentence: We should be able to discuss *Wilson* here without dragging in antagonistic personal or contemporary political views. Anytime a politician is discussed, regardless of long they have been dead, contemporary political views are going to be involved. For example, Wilson was responsible for the League of Nations which morphed into the U.N and it is very common for any discussion of the U.N. to involve strong political views. Of course those views don't need to be antagonistic but than when the issue is politics, that will likely be the case. What do to about it? I'm OK with how things are. i.e. a thread starts down a path, sometimes, it will 'right itself' other times it goes way off course and the admin has to shut it down. Just another day in Internet chat land as far as I'm concerned.

I have to assume you took the bait. i.e. that the poster complaining about being made fun of was joking. I really hope that was the case because if not, well, yea, someone needs to head to the Northeast!

Garson has been SOTM twice before; July 1994 and May 2004.

Well Celluloid Heros is NOT about going to Hollywood and NOT making it, but instead the price of fame for 'making it'. All the stars listed 'made it' but for most there was a cost (expect for Mickey Rooney). Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Feb 9, 2013 5:52 PM