ElCid
-
Posts
19,340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by ElCid
-
-
5 hours ago, TopBilled said:
The real point is that they don't need to air war films over five days for a one day observance. It would not hurt for TCM to broadcast films about peace during the weekend and save Monday for time-honored films that memorialize the sacrifices that were made on the road to peace. And this includes home front stories where there is no bloodshed.
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.
5 hours ago, spence said:This entire concept is ASININE SPORTS FANS-(NOTE:comments not directed to our pal TopBilled though, only this concept is to others reading this
& not to drawn on about this, what about "COMING HOME?" & of course "BEST YRS OF LIVES"
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.
-
16 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:
As the day IS centered around recognition and salutatory displays for those who died in the protection of this country and it's principles, they would have to abandon their own principles and dig up a copy of the 1981 TV movie KENT STATE. I mean if you wanna throw PEACE into the mix.
Sepiatone
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.
-
12 hours ago, GGGGerald said:
But, what if my favorite is North by Northwest ?
The films they play over and over tend to be hit movies that have stood the test of time. They get played over and over because they are many people's favorite films.
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.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:
During this whole discussion, I never actually looked to see what the schedule was this year. They actually have some unusual stuff this year, not just the standard war movies. There are a lot of those, too, but also comedies like Onionhead and No Time for Sergeants, musicals like Hollywood Canteen, Thousands Cheer and Stage Door Canteen, suspense/spy movies like Across the Pacific, Cornered, and The Clay Pigeon which is being shown twice as part of Noir Alley, and Monday has stuff like Friendly Persuasion, The Best Years of Our Lives, The Naked & the Dead, The Great Escape, and The Red Badge of Courage. So they varied the genres, the sentiments and the conflicts this year.
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?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, spence said:
I'm pretty much split on this topic, maybe if the work peddled down a wee bit of the graphic violence, shown mostly in recent cinema
But, who doesn't want the likes of "L. Day" *"Patton" *"Battleground"-(that now legendary played on the hit parade & for weeks too!), "Hell Is for Herous" "Story of G.I. Joe" *"Sands of Iwo Jima"-(NOTE: Sooo many Vietnam vets this was gonna' be the way it really was upon landing in the nam, it obviously wasn't) *"From Here to Eternity" *"Bridge on River Kwai" NOW, check out on your cable & FREE(FMOD) 2 tremendous tv mini-series that *Hanks does again It';s a toss-up for me which I rate better "Band of Brothers" & "The Pacific" & another ironically despite massive battles 1993's mini-series {Gettysburg") many wanted this to be an *Oscar contender, but you know the stringent *(ACADEMY) (FOOD FOR THOUGHT & WROTE THESE DOWN) & OF COURSE "THE KING OF MOVIE COOL: STEVEN (Terence) McQUEEN in "The Great Escape"-(culd be fun family stuff)
VS. my own topo 5-10 candidates for Hollywoods Greatest War-MOTION PICTURES: (*-always denotes an *Oscar winner) 1st place "Apocalypse Now" 2nd "Pvt. Ryan" 3rd *"Platoon" 4th *"From Here to Eternity" 5th "Great Escape"
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.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, hamradio said:
The opening scene where Ryan's mother has received the bad news of losing all but one of her sons, the army thought that was enough and decide to save one. Think it's called doing the right thing.
(plus her receiving those folded American flags aren't glamorous either
)
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.
13 hours ago, Fedya said:Decoration Day should be for Civil War movies and Armistice Day should be for World War I movies.
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.
11 hours ago, TopBilled said:Yeah, it's a rather silly retelling of THE FIGHTING SULLIVANS. Probably if a European director had been in charge, it would not have had a "feel good" ending. It wouldn't have been trying so hard to find favor with commercial audiences. These kinds of films now have too much of an eye on the box office for them to be effective or have any sort of integrity. A better work of art would offer insights about the misguided need some militaristic humans still have to take live instead of protect lives.
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.
-
39 minutes ago, hamradio said:
2 movies, "Saving Private Ryan" and "Fury" sure don't glamorize war - shows the ugly side of it.
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.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:
Just Stripes on a 24 hour loop.
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."
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, TopBilled said:
The programmers are known to read the message boards for feedback.
About five years ago I got sick of them turning MLK's birthday into a showcase for Sidney Poitier. I created a very sharply worded thread that said "MLK Day = Sidney Poitier Day." I kept that thread alive for three solid years. I would bring it back to page one in September and October when I knew they were working on the January schedule. I was very strategic and it helped immensely that many other posters agreed.
By the time we reached the fourth year the TCM programmers significantly curtailed inclusion of Poitier movies on that day, scaling it down to just one title. And one year there were not any Poitier titles. I felt like that was a long, hard-won victory where we made the programmers take notice. It had been a slap in the face to MLK's legacy and a form of ignorance to blur Poitier's legacy with Dr. King's legacy. Thankfully they stopped doing that because we were very sharp in our responses. Now they include a more balanced slate of films representing a wider spectrum of the African American Civil Rights experience that Dr. King's work symbolizes.
I think the same thing can happen with this sort of thread if it is continually resurrected each May. To get the message across that they need to start rethinking this excessive glorifying of combat each Memorial Day weekend.
Maybe it is just because there are now far more movies which are more relevant to Dr. King and African-Americans?
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, TopBilled said:
It's not about TCM showing the same movies over and over each year. It's about how they are loading the schedule with movies for a theme that is questionable in this day and age, when we're well past the need to advertise for war.
14 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:You don't think there are political reasons for the choice of films? I do, and I believe there would be political ramifications if they made too many changes (especially if they showed films that are anti-war war movies).
Vets are being used as pawns in the culture wars and I don't see why TCM would be left out of those IF they went in a much different direction.
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.
20 minutes ago, TopBilled said:It's not about TCM showing the same movies over and over each year. It's about how they are loading the schedule with movies for a theme that is questionable in this day and age, when we're well past the need to advertise for war.
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.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
Sorry my reply confused you. I have the same POV as you as it relates to the topic (that TCM should change the programming on this weekend), so neither of us needs a majority of TCM viewers to agree with us. My point was that TCM needs to care what a majority of TCM viewers feel, as well as what a small handful could do with using communication platforms like Facebook and Twitter. So yea, I'm saying TCM should be risk adverse.
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?
-
1
-
-
Just now, TopBilled said:
It's not about TCM showing the same movies over and over each year. It's about how they are loading the schedule with movies for a theme that is questionable in this day and age, when we're well past the need to advertise for war.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, slaytonf said:
TCM has shown The Deer Hunter. Also Platoon, yes? And Born on the Fourth of July? And the Killing Fields, but I don't think during Memorial Day weekend. Again, I think the preponderance of WWII movies shown is due to the overwhelmingly disproportionate number of them.
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?
-
2
-
-
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.
-
4
-
1
-
-
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.
-
3
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, revrnd said:
I was thinking of this too when I posted. Looking at the atlas I have, it would've been plausible to start the journey with CB&Q power. I didn't check the atlas closely but I'm pretty sure Illinois would've been at the western edge of NYC territory. Even thru all the mergers and break up of Conrail, the former CCC&StL yard in Indianapolis is still known as Big Four Yard.
I'm aware of a Lehigh Valley passenger train that ran between Toronto, Ontario and New York City, via Buffalo. I'm pretty sure their equipment ran thru all the way to Toronto, not sure on which railway's trackage though, Canadian National or Canadian Pacific.
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.
-
1
-
-
I'm beginning to regret that I missed the young, new narrator with the whatever accent.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Philip1749 said:
The young, new narrator with the English accent featured on TCM hosted a showing of Tarzan films on Tuesday, May 9th. She referred to the censorship imposed on those films of the 1930's by the movie industry's certification board as a lack of "sexual freedom." Apparently the lead female character was required to wear clothing that was less skimpy than a bikini would be. Is this another example of TCM promoting a liberal position when it comes to traditional social attitudes about sex? It sometimes seems that TCM feels frequently compelled to promote what might be called younger-oriented attitudes about sexuality, perhaps in an attempt to gain a larger television audience of viewers under thirty...thus the need for using terms like "sexual freedom" on the air.
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."
-
2
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, revrnd said:
Yes, the 'continuity' of the train footage was lacking. I'm pretty sure they departed Chicago and showed a PRR locomotive. Not sure of the intermediate trains, but the last couple of shots showed SP locomotives in the 'Daylight train' paint scheme. I checked the Rand McNally Railroad Atlas of 1927 and if the route the train took was exclusively on AT&SF trackage. I guess the railroad wouldn't co-operate or RKO didn't want to spring for actual footage along the route.
One nice touch was the station agent getting the 'flimsy' via bamboo hoop.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CaveGirl said:
I couldn't say it better, CJ. Go with the original to anyone who's seen neither.
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.
-
29 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:
My point is that THAT stuff is the interesting filler for a film that takes place in a cross country train, not additional implausible ACTION BS for a target audience (apparantely you), understand?
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."
29 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:It's not irrelevant, every time I take Metro North I sure dont see railway personel walking around on top of moving trains, it was a common occurance once upon a time not nowadays. The Silver Streak, another ridiculous train film thanks for reminding me of it.
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!
29 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:A caddy in 1950 could go 97 MPH (from the specs) a good wheel man could drive it, push it pretty good, sclose to that on the falsts and straightaways. Trains are limited to 3% grades. That means they got to a longer distance to maintain that grade to get from point A to point B. Highways are steeper usually topping at most 10% grades A car can go over the mountain range the train would have to wind up a river keeping at 3%. It's plausible that a car could keep up with the train. BTW, that car didn't follow them from Chicago
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.
29 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:Hollywood staple? We don't need no stinkin' Hollywood staples, the repetition of stuff like this is predictable and ridiculous. We've seen it over and over. So, all the Hollywood staples in The Narrow Margin reduce it to a ridiculous and predictable movie?
YES, YES, YES, and it everything that's wrong with Hollywood post the 1970s
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.
-
1 minute ago, cigarjoe said:
The club car, the dining car, the porters, visual cues in the background scenes, etc., etc. What's your point?
And pretty much a staple of B.S., especially on a streamliner passanger train designed to areodynamic. In the old days (before air brakes) the brakemen had to walk from car to car to apply the hand brakes to each car, but the steam engines usually weren't going that fast, and the cars had a platform to walk on. The safety revolution created by the Westinghouse airbrake is irrelevant to the topic. They also walked on top of the train in Silver Streak with Gene Wilder.
If its going up a grade it won't be going that fast, even on a flat a steam engine isnt going to go usually more than 60 MPH, the world record for a steam engine is just over a 100 MPH. That was a highway they were driving on, they were crooks in probably a souped up rod, it could keep pace with a train plausibly enough. This movie is set in 1950 and at that time, passenger trains would likely be travelling at 75 MPH or more outside urban areas, where the scene was shown, even with steam power. Also, at that time a passenger train of the caliber of the one featured in The Narrow Margin would have actually been pulled by faster diesels. The exterior scenes showing the train being pulled by steam locomotives in 1950 is one of the discrepancies of the movie. Regardless, the cars at the time would have likely been in an accident travelling on that road at night at that speed.
Whatever, just more (then) Hollywood BS to take a great story and try and remake it into an ACTION MOVIE. So Hackman shoots it down from the top of an unstabe moving train. You need to watch the movie again. There was no train involved when the helicopter was shot down. Actually I'm not sure what brought the copter down.
Hollywood staple? We don't need no stinkin' Hollywood staples, the repetition of stuff like this is predictable and ridiculous. We've seen it over and over. So, all the Hollywood staples in The Narrow Margin reduce it to a ridiculous and predictable movie? Noir and mystery movies of the period are filled with Hollywood staples; that is what makes them good.
The only part of the remake that was nice was the scenery, I'll admit that.
)
Should TCM stop doing Memorial Day weekend marathons and "glamorizing" war?
in General Discussions
Posted
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.