ElCid

Thanks. Not sure about the "fetishistic way in which we adulate the military in the U.S." That actually is fairly recent in modern history. Since the Gulf War primarily. Prior to that it sort of varied, but was hardly adulation. After WW II, most males were opposed to joining the military and only did so because of the draft. Men who joined the National Guard and Reserves did so to avoid active duty, especially during Vietnam. Civilians did not really support those in military except for members of their immediate families. While many now may claim to "adulate" the military, in action they don't. This is one reason why the military has a serious problem in recruiting and retention. The Army is 30,000 recruits short compared to what it needs. Not sure where you are, but even in very conservative, red state South Carolina, I don't see any of "rah rah go American Troops like we do the other 360+ days of the year." Thanks for the comment re: distinction between Memorial Day and Veterans Day. It is one I have tried to make for many years here and elsewhere. Armed Forces day is for those who are currently in uniform, although they are also considered veterans.

I agree that five days or even two is too many. However, if the Memorial Day Marathon is supposed to be for Memorial Day and what it means, not sure that "time-honored films that memorialize the sacrifices that were made on the road to peace," whatever they are, would be appropriate. Not sure what "home front stories where there is no bloodshed" is appropriate on Memorial Day. You would have to connect it to a loss of life in the conflicts. I am taking the strict viewpoint that Memorial Day is to honor those who died in conflicts. Show other types of movies on day before, day after or other days. Here again, I think Veterans Day would be appropriate as veterans experience all aspects of military service. This really confuses me. Especially the reference to "sports fans." What concept is asinine? If the concept of movies to "memoralize war" is asinine, why are Coming Home and Best Years of Our Lives appropriate, especially BYOOL? If I remember correctly, BYOOL is pretty positive about the war compared to Coming Home.

Interesting aspect. Memorial Day is to honor those in the military who died in conflicts. That certainly narrows the movie choices. Not saying the movie Kent State would not be interesting and worth showing, but it would not fit the narrow purpose of "Memorial Day." Perhaps TCM needs to expand its Veterans Day offerings. There are also other "days" for military. A few are National Vietnam War Veterans Day (March 29); Gold Star Spouses Day (Apr 4); Armed Forces Day (3rd Sat in May); Veterans Day and several more to include the birthdays of each branch of the military. Perhaps Kent State and other "peace movies" would fit into some of the other days. I could see them as part of Veterans Day as veterans were involved to varying extent.

But isn't part of TCM's "mission" to introduce people to different movies? If not, why do they show so many silent and foreign language movies? Not to mention many other movies that were never "hits," such as "B" movies? Many of the movies mentioned on this thread which are seldom shown on TCM, much less on Memorial Day are hits. Seems to me the consensus requesting change want more variety in the 82 hours of Memorial Day Marathon.

I looked at it and does not appear all that different from previous showings. Maybe a couple of new ones you mentioned, but over 82 hours still mostly same stuff. Still little, if any, on wars other than WW II. Maybe, it should be re-titled the WW II Movie Marathon. Or maybe, on Veterans Day no WW II movies?

Seen them all, but bolded not among my favorites. In fact have not watched any of the above in many, many years. Not saying they are not good entertainment. One Vietnam War movie I would like to see TCM show is Go Tell The Spartans. It is about the early stages of the war.

Actually it is supposedly based on the Nolan family. The truth is that the Army decided to bring the fourth brother home, but there was no mission to save him. He was looking for his brother from a different Army unit and a Chaplain found him with news he was being sent home. Those are not holidays in the USA, at least not anymore. Decoration Day may trace its roots to a day to honor Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. Expanded to honor all soldiers from both sides who died in the war and later became Memorial Day to honor all fallen soldiers from all conflicts. Armistice Day is now Veterans Day. see first comment.

Saving Private Ryan does glamorize war in that a patrol was sent out and members were killed in order to save one person simply because his brothers had died (supposedly). The fact that the mission was fiction makes it even worse.

The whole premise behind Saving Private Ryan is fiction. The fourth Nolan brother was ordered home, but he was found by an Army Chaplain as he was looking for his brother in another Army unit. The whole sending out a patrol to get killed to save one man is pure Hollywood. In this context, SPR does glamorize war. On the other hand, it does allow newer technology and newer standards to show the horrors of warfare.

Maybe No Time For Sergeants mixed in? Would need some time for the "peace time" military movies. As for Veterans Day, this thread is somewhat appropriate as well. Reminder: Memorial Day is for those who gave their lives in service during wartime; Veterans Day is for those still living who served in the military; Armed Forces Day is for those currently serving. Each branch also has its "day."

Maybe it is just because there are now far more movies which are more relevant to Dr. King and African-Americans?

Not really sure that TCM has "political" reasons for the choice of films. Are you saying the TCM programmers subscribe to the War Party thinking or other military adventurism? They may be "political" in the context that the programmers believe a majority of Americans and Canadians want to see them. Veterans have always been used as pawns in culture (and political) wars and always will be. Except for very brief periods when they were looked down upon by some groups or people. Your statement also implies that TCM should become involved in these culture wars in an anti-war, anti-military service form. Re-reading this, it appears you believe movies that honor military service is "questionable in this day and age." While war is never a good thing, it is the thing for which the military was created.

To my knowledge TCM has no methodology for acquiring information as to what viewers want. They do not do polls or solicit suggestions, even on this website. While there are links to suggest a movie or contact TCM, they apparently are directed to a dead letter box equivalent somewhere in cyberspace. What do you mean by risk adverse in this context?

Someone could say that every "theme" TCM shows movies about could be "questionable in this day and age." Heck, could say it about every movie TCM shows. I do not understand your "need to advertise for war" statements. Some of the movies may be overly patriotic or jingoistic, but not sure they are "advertising for war" (whatever that means). They recount certain extremely consequential events in American and world history. As movies (fiction) they present "heroic" or other worthy attributes of people. They also present the opposites of those attributes. As they say "That's Entertainment," which is the business of the movie industry and the people in it. As I see it, showing the movies is one way to recognize those who did serve in some capacity, those who sacrificed and those who lost loved ones. Some movies also show the foolishness of some wars and military actions and this is educational and may help prevent future ill-conceived wars.

TCM programmers, within limitations, can select whichever movies they wish to show. Over a 72 hour period, there are about 2.5 hours on average for each movie segment. That means about 28 movies. So, why do 24 or so of them have to be about WW II or related to WW II? Every year and showing the same movies every year?

I think Eddie Muller did a great job on the intro and outro of Caged. Really explained a lot and that added to my enjoyment and appreciation of the movie. Ironically I think the cast was far better than all the "stars" that were originally considered for it. Sometimes "star power" gets in the way of telling a great story.

Hollywood tends to "glamorize" everything to some extent and this was very prevalent in the period of the WW II movies that TCM favors. For the last few years I have started threads on no Vietnam War movies on Memorial Day. That has persisted even though many of the movies have moved well into the "classic" era. TCM's infrequent contribution is The Green Berets with John Wayne. That one does glamorize war. For some unexplained reason TCM persists in showing the same WW II movies over and over and over. There is occasionally a token WW I or Korean War movie. Considering what is happening on the Korean Peninsula now, this would be a great time for more movies on the Korean War. I am one of those people who really dislikes marathons or theme days. I like variety, but also there are some genres/people that I just do not like. This is why I really hate Summer Under the Stars. So, I vote for WW II movies to be less than 40% of all movies shown. Start by eliminating the ones that are over two hours long. Mix in Vietnam, Korea, Civil War and others. Show movies that were critical of war. Don't show the ones that were propaganda for the "war effort," such as The Green Berets. Incidentally, I served in Airborne units at Ft. Bragg and Ft. Benning and in Vietnam about the time of the TGB. Read the book, saw the movie, have the song.

Possible but not likely as the CB&Q would have gone sort of due west toward Omaha or Minneapolis and then to West Coast. Their premier train was the California Zephyr, which was a combined CB&Q, DRG&W, WP train. Santa Fe was one of few western railroads that operated all the way to Chicago. NYC and PA pretty much ended in Chicago, except for a few trains going to St. Louis. Ironically, US only had one actual transcontinental train - The Sunset Limited (this is one depicted in the Thin Man movie). It ran from Jacksonville FL to Los Angeles via New Orleans. You could board in Jacksonville and then not get off until you got to LA. All other trains had to change in Chicago, NO, St. Louis or Kansas City. Even under Amtrak you still have to change trains.

I'm beginning to regret that I missed the young, new narrator with the whatever accent.

Not at all. They are explaining why certain things are the way they are at certain points in time. That is what is "educational" about TCM using presenters. Maureen O'Sullivan supposedly swam nude for about four minutes in Tarzan and His Mate (1934), but it was actually a stand-in, Josephine McKim. After that the censors cracked down hard on clothing. The presenter explains why viewers may notice a very abrupt change in "Jane's" clothing as the series progresses. Absolutely, positively no attempt by TCM to promote a liberal position vs. "traditional social attitudes about sex."

I've got lots of railroad books and in the past checked out the trains and routes in The Narrow Margin. Not sure why they wanted the station scene at La Junta, but it is on the Santa Fe. As for the PRR locomotive, that shows up a lot in movies from that era. Stock footage. There is a Falcon movie where they are on a train in Florida and it is being pulled by a PRR steam engine. While railroads did have "run through" agreements whereby engines would travel all the way, this was generally done with diesel engines. The steamers required way too much maintenance which was better done on the "home" roads. I've got a reprint of Rand McNally's 1948 Handy Railroad Atlas of the United States. Very handy for seeing what railroads actually operated where during this era. I think the ending or beginning of one of the Thin Man movies shows them on a named Southern Pacific passenger train. Not impossible, but would have required a few extra days travel as opposed to taking a more direct train between NYC, Chicago and LA.

Actually, anyone who hasn't seen both should see them and make up their own minds. They are actually different movies, although Narrow Margin (1990) is based on The Narrow Margin (1952), but has some very significant changes. Narrow Margin is not an action movie at all-it's a suspense movie. Terminator is an action movie. One helicopter crashing sequence does not make an action movie. But then aren't most mystery and noir movies suspense movies as well? NM does have more action than The Narrow Margin, but that is the difference between a "B" movie from 1952 and an "A" movie made in 1990. They had more money and time. As I said before, I like The Narrow Margin much more, but because it is a different type movie. Guess you could say TNM is classic Film Noir, whereas NM is a suspense movie based on a noir movie.

The interior shots, porters, dining car, etc. are what makes it appear to everybody that it is taking place on an actual train enroute to somewhere. They had the same type scenes in The Narrow Margin and you don't criticize them as "filler." We are talking about an "action movie" where lots of reality is stretched. Emperor of the North has people walking around on top of the trains when they should not have been. As I noted above, The Narrow Margin had a train completely re-routed onto another companies tracks just so they could film a scene at La Junta! You were making negative comments about "unrealistic" or something and I was just pointing out the car chasing the train was just as unrealistic. While a Caddy could go that fast, the likliehood it could have chased the train without crashing on the roads pictured is pretty slim. True that trains are limited to 3% grades, but most railroad tracks are at 1% grades. Also, passenger trains are routed over the tracks with lowest grades to provide a faster and more comfortable ride. Incidentally, referring to today's trains is also irrelevant. We're talking 1950. So, The Narrow Margin (1950) is reduced to a "ridiculous and predictable movie?" I think you got your titles mixed up. Incidentally, while TNM is a noir, it is also an action movie of its period, considering its limited budget and time frame for filming. Narrow Margin (1990) just took advantage of more money and more modern capabilities to make a mystery (neo-noir?) movie with more action sequences. Helicopter crash in Narrow Margin (1990). The helicopter is shot down by James Siking from another helicopter well before the train becomes involved.

Helicopter crash in Narrow Margin (1990). The helicopter is shot down by James Siking from another helicopter well before the train becomes involved. The Central Pacific Railroad (train in The Narrow Margin) was a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Fully merged into SP in 1959. Not sure if they would actually have had a Central Pacific train (as in the movie) in the 1950's vs. all being referred to as Southern Pacific. Regardless, there was no actual Golden West Limited operated by CP or SP at the time. SP did not have trains serving La Junta CO. Santa Fe did operate the California Limited via La Junta CA at that time. The Forty-Niner (on which McGraw arrived at beginning of movie) was an actual SP/UP/C&NW joint passenger train. They left their bags on the train for the return trip, but that is not likely as per the movie they returned on the Golden West Limited. Possible the RR would have used same train, but not likely. In the short time span between trains, the GWL would have already been assembled and sitting on a track ready to be moved to the station. Most passenger car exterior shots in TNM are of SP cars.