Movie Collector OH
-
Posts
4,573 -
Joined
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Movie Collector OH
-
-
I have an aftermarket HD DVR that I program manually based on the best schedule information that I have, which evidently is not always good enough.
Does it store a downloaded schedule from a service like Schedules Direct, or do you program it like you would a VCR?
-
I didn't mean the lurkers, those who haven't logged in, etc. I meant named posters who are actually logged in. That number rarely got above 8-14; recently it's closer to 20. That modest increase seems to be holding, at least during certain hours.
Gotcha. I didn't bother to look at that for myself.
-
I've noticed that. When you look down at the online list, you see the number of posters that are engaged. It's higher than usual. You can also see where people are. What amazes me, is how many of you are on Personal Messenger. I never use that, except in the (very) rare case that someone sends me a PM. What am I missing?
That doesn't TORanslate into active posters though. Just drive-bys or bots digging around. I still see the same 20-30 posters as I ever have.
-
I'm not sure if I'm following your post but it sounds as if either your DVR might not have "phoned home" in time to pick up the lastest changes, or possibly it did and the changes didn't get sorted out properly on your machine. Things happen, I have both of those things happen.
I update my DVR's schedule manually (too much to explain here), and happened to be scheduling my DVR during the day yesterday and came across this change, so it was at least out there.
Edit: never mind, I see you are still thinking about the rights issues.
-
I'll probably revisit this thread later with a real answer, but for now I'll say the opening credits for Victor/Victoria. I couldn't care less for the actual movie, but if it comes on I'll sometimes stick around just long enough for the lush Henry Mancini opening theme combined with the fat guy inhaling a creme puff. Just too much...
-
No Victor Buono or Tor Johnson pics yet I see (potential Women's perspective).
-
Time-Warner cabl
Relax. Time-Warner Cable is a different entity than the Time-Warner owned networks and doesn't have control of them. Besides, no sale is going to happen in the next couple of weeks. Any deal has to be approved by federal regulators and the FCC and that could take a year or more. And as we just saw with the proposed Comcast/T-W merger it never happened.
Folks were shouting doom and gloom back when Ted Turner merged his company with Time-Warner. Again, when he left the company, and even more so when AMC went commercial. Meanwhile, TCM is still plugging right along after 20 years doing pretty much what it's always been doing. So even if if the sale does go through, there's nothing to indicate anything bad will happen to TCM. Who knows, maybe it will get even better.
Good to hear. I don't really have much of a presence if any on here, but I'm rooting for TCM too.
-
LOVE 'Top Gear", MCOH !!!
The original British version and not the lackluster Yank version, anyway.
NOBODY does "droll" better than those Limeys, ya know!
(...'specially that fat one who keeps puttin' his size-12's into his mouth all the time)
Yes! Seems like they have a good thing going.
The Short Short Trailer
-
Yeah, but adherents of Blue Oval products would probably appreciate it.
(...and maybe more than a few Mopar aficionados too)
A few brave souls on the other side of the pond found levity with their highly customized Ford Transit van...
-
You probably won't find this too surprising, even for me, but I didn't even know there was a memorials sub-section on this forum.
And (for those who haven't chatted with me via PM) no I am not new to computers or anything like that.
Ok, I went out and looked, and all I could find is something under TCM Programs. That is not the same thing as having a seperate user section for Deaths. I have not actually looked at it, but presumably it only contains threads related to TCM programming, right?.
-
I agree about too many rules and this is why I offered a solution. When the moderator moved some threads out of General Discussion to specific threads (e.g. a thread about a film noir movie moved to the noir sub-forum found under the genre forums), this upset people especially those that only wish to go to GD. With my solution it wouldn't matter if the moderator moved a thread. The GD only folks would still be able to view it.
All time-sensitive issue threads would be seen under GD and in most cases they would be at the top of the listings since the order of the treads under GD would be by most recently unread thread (per user). 'New' and 'hot' threads of course have more recently unread postings. Once a time-sensitive thread had run it's course it would drop off the first 'page'.
Like I said before, so far so good. That would work for future posts. Now there is just the issue of what to do with old posts where the data set has never been classified into subsections. Archive it and add that to the GD feed as well?
-
Of course. But we do have a TCM Memorials sub-forum-- and actually, I believe that is an excellent place to put all the announcements about the passings of various stars. It doesn't need to clutter up the General Discussions area unnecessarily.
For more: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/forum/144-tcm-memorials/
You probably won't find this too surprising, even for me, but I didn't even know there was a memorials sub-section on this forum.
And (for those who haven't chatted with me via PM) no I am not new to computers or anything like that.
-
Oh for pity sake, who cares.
The actors we hate stink, and that's that.
Pat O'Brien and Tom Cruise stink because I hate them, and that's that.
The actors we like are great.
Cary Grant and Philip Seymour Hoffman are great because I like them, and that's that.
Judas Priest, the semantics.
The beat of that kind of reminded me of a Xavier Cugat song from Holiday In Mexico.
-
There is an open question of if the purpose of the GD forum was for general discussion around movie topics NOT already better suited under one of the other forums OR any and all topics, movie related or NOT. e.g. death of a rock star that has never been in a movie is clearly a NON movie related topic.
I pointed out that I believe GD is only for movie related general discussions. Why? Well because the Chit-Chat forum is the only forum at this website with a sub-title of 'for NON movie related topics'. To me this implies that all other threads are FOR movie related topics, including GD, and one should post NON movie related topics under chit-chat. BUT the code of conduct doesn't provide guidance here one way or the other.
Anyhow, since there are various opinions on what belongs in GD or not, I proposed a solution that would work for everyone.
Aside from your solution working (mainly due to its simplicity and all-encompassing nature) is the issue of Deaths being a time-sensitive issue (ie people will probably want to read about it in a timely manner). So that is where I was going with that.
Too many rules will drive people away from posting though. I have seen it before. There are probably only 20 or 30 active posters here.
-
I would say TCM's tributes are usually for people who played key roles in classic filmmaking. We would never see a tribute for a pop singer on TCM, unless they were also a movie star or else had contributed substantially to music featured in many classic films.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't think this is Turner Classic Pop Culture.
Yes, you are. TCM "is" people.
-
1
-
-
The first part of what I quoted is definitely a concern of mine-- and I am glad you mentioned it. The General Discussions area could be seen as a 'dumping ground.' What I don't understand is why every time people hear about a death on the news they come here to post it. I mean, we all have access to the news. Finding out that the person who lived next door to the stand-in for John Wayne died because he fell asleep in a bowl of soup hardly seems conducive to a discussion about classic film. Plus, if it is being reported on countless other platforms why does it have to be here, too?
I am sure that when Linda Ronstadt dies or a member of Fleetwood Mac dies, we will immediately see threads about it here. But those people were not classic film performers. Why does this have to be a pop culture dumping ground...?
Next-- as for some sub-forums being used more than others, that is true. But how do we know that when the Summer of Darkness series kicks off in June that the film noir sub-forum won't become a lot more popular among users? Plus, we have new users joining all the time, and some of them may enjoy the content in those sub-forums. And there are people on the 'outside' who are not registered members lurking and reading. For all we know, those sub-forums could have a lot of traffic.
Deaths will always be one of those things which get posted. I have participated in probably over 20 discussion forums (but not at the same time!), and the only ones that don't mention deaths are those that are created by companies or fans for the sake of specific product or brand support (ie dodgeforum.com, forums.nextpvr.com, or videoredo.net). Since this forum (and TCM) are directly connected to pop culture icons, I don't see why anyone shouldn't post on deaths here. TCM has tributes.
For the rest of my reply, see the second half of my reply to James.
-
The overall issues is that there are many like you that don't wish to 'go fishing' at various sub-forums and spend most of their time at the General Discussion forum. Therefore they want most threads to be created only at GD, regardless of content, otherwise they will miss them.
Now by 'timely' I assume you mean threads with new content (content NOT read yet by the actual user as 'tagged' by the system). This is why I always use the 'view new content' feature. I only wish to see threads with content I haven't read yet. BUT since few use this feature, and instead only like to click on GD, to me there is a simple solution that would serve all;
1) do NOT allow any treads to be created under GD. (note, 'created under' is the key here).
2) All threads created in other forums \ sub-forums are ALSO displayed under GD. Therefore GD is just a redundant location for ALL threads regardless of where they were created.
3) Users can reply to a thread either from GD or from it's actual created sub-forum location. Either way the comments would display under BOTH locations. (again, GD is just a redundant dumping ground for ALL threads).
Those users that only wish to use GD would see all threads, in order, from most current (most current being the most currently UNREAD reply at a thread), to least current.
Those that use 'view new content' would see what they see today (most current unread threads from all forums), but could go to either GD or to the sub-forum to read \ comment on threads.
Note: If for whatever reasons the moderator MOVES a thread from one forum to another, the above solution would insure NO impact to those GD only users (unlike today where a thread they were reading under GD is 'gone'). It believe it was the moving of threads that upset some users at this forum. So this problem would be solved with the change I recommend.
Sounds good so far. Essentially the GD forum would just be a "portal" to view and post to all other forums. Add some user customization options and topic options, and I am probably most of the way there.
The only issues I could see would be with having a user-defined dataset and the uncertainties that go along with it, which is why I suspect many shy away from posting under subforums. At least that is true for me. In the absence of certain quality control, things tend to become foggy and muddied up, then eventually lost. But I suppose that is the way it will tend to be, since it is being organized by multiple people - each with a different viewpoint. Sort of like IMDB's Keywords section for instance. It is useful in many cases, but it also has more holes than swiss cheese (not IMDB's problem, it is just still maturing with user contributions). But I suppose I am drifting off topic again.
-
I am one of the posters who almost never goes looking through any of the subforums either, let alone that one. (not sure why you mentioned it here though, but that caused me to go there just to see what you were talking about). If it were up to me though (and it's not - you know what they say about opinions), here is what I would say.
I would try to keep time-sensitive material on the GD forum. No problems there, it seems to be the defacto dumping grounds already.
As it would seem, topical materials that aren't time sensitive could go into subforums more than anything else. Their posts don't roll off into oblivion as soon. So it is easier to have an ongoing topical conversation over an extended period of time.
I am the type who likes to see as much as I can in a single glance. So I am less inclined to click around and look into most of the subforums.
I realize that the subforums serve a purpose though, such as the Information Now! subforums, or the Keywords or Games ones. That much makes sense to me.
Some subforums barely get used at all though, and just seem to clutter up the forums home page, for the sake of having a "completeist" matrix of sorts, presumably in case of an outside audit or something. Those could probably get deleted, and the contents migrated elsewhere.
Oh yeah, if there isn't one already, the GD forum could probably have its own subforum called the B*tch-n-Moan-till-ya-Drop-Dead-or-just-Fall-Asleep Forum. But one of the nice things about the GD forum is that its threads do roll off into oblivion, which is exactly where most of them belong.
So it would seem everything is fine and dandy as-is.
-
Joan Leslie I believe is one of the few actors who doesn't portray themselves in Thank Your Lucky Stars.
Looking over her filmography in Wikipedia, she's appeared in a lot more films (fairly big films at that) than I realized:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Leslie#Filmography
It looks like she left movies in the late 50s and did a few television roles here and there.
She's still with us too. She just celebrated her 90th birthday in January.
Joan Leslie is one of the central characters who plays herself in Hollywood Canteen though, amidst the entire WB stable of actors.
-
Yes, because it's more generational. Each generation likes to see performers their own age, from their own age. Black-and-white photography is being made the scapegoat when it's not the real culprit.
It looks as if my reply to this has scrolled off the page, but read it for a slightly different take than the generational thought.
-
No, no he wasn't, spencer.
You know, that may not be a bad idea. Dredge up some really old threads, just to find something to talk about. Gee, people were much more positive back then.
I can't believe this is even the same board.
-
And I'm not talking about minor character actors, either. These were big stars, with long careers, some of whom even had the temerity to be temperamental. Each time I see a movie they're in, if I do watch one of them, I am astonished at how they enjoyed the success they did. I can name a number of them, but I'll only list two, one from each column:
Anita Page. Sometimes I think she was included in movies just to make the other actors look better by contrast.
George Raft. I avoid watching his movies, because I have trouble telling him apart form the furniture.
It is interesting to see George Raft and "furniture" in the same sentence. Because that is where I think Raft excels. That reminds me of one of his harder-to-find movies, You And Me (1938).
That movie, directed by Fritz Lang, is a memorable one for me because of the imagery that Lang uses. In particular the use of light and shadows, architecture, structural patterns, and actors that really look the part (including Raft, Sylvia Sidney, Barton MacLane, Roscoe Karns, Warren Hymer, and Guinn 'Big Boy' Williams) - all as part of the "deco". There is one scene in particular where Raft is walking along a wall and up a staircase in the dark, and past what looked to be a large backlit victorian clock (white background with lots of fancy opaque black patterns in front of it). The silhouette of Raft walking past it, wearing a hat and top coat, is even more memorable to me than the Spielberg "Amblin" image of E.T. riding a bike past the moon.
But Lang did quite a bit of that in some way or another.-
2
-
-
My niece, who is now 40 claims that she has never seen a b&w movie. Nor does she want to. In fact she says that with Netflix she is glad that she can now just watch current films, meaning those made within the last 5 years.
Another friend's kids call anything made in the last century "daddy duds." Kinda catchy.
Meh... Some people just get it and others don't. One of my relatives, a 77 year old grandma, talks exactly the same way. She somehow finds the time though to tune in to crap like American Idol or whatever other fly-by-night shows are on. But then she watches TV more as background noise. For me, that would be shows more like Pawn Stars, Top Gear (BBC-America version), etc.
I was not only watching, but was setting time aside and planning to see some of these old movies in my teens, well before TCM came out. I saw fewer of them, but still made a point to videotape some of them off the local channels after VCRs became common. Looking back to then, and seeing what I have turned into now, I have become quite a movie megalomaniac.
Dargo: For me, silent movies were not really something I had a chance to see all the time. I never really saw anything other than Charlie Chaplin and maybe a couple other silent film names before TCM or TMC came out. I attribute that to the TV industry's abandonment of silent films though, until the cable movie channels opened that up. So for me, my taste in older films was/is largely based around what was available in our house at the time. That and I didn't have anyone else in the family who went out of their way to find them.
-
Turner was right all along. Now we've lost hundreds of great old B&W films that TCM used to air, and they have been replaced by bad, cheap, sleazy, non-classic 60s-80s films. (This is all my opinion, of course.)
I have looked for myself in order to find this plunge that you speak of. It had to have occurred sometime prior to 2003, as it turns out very little has changed since then in terms of the way they balance the amount of content per production decade that they air.
Anyone catch the TCM programing "Glitch" last night?
in General Discussions
Posted
Yeah, I can see how that would be a problem then.
At the very least TCM ought to color the changes in their online weekly schedule with a unique new color or shading, and depict it on a legend, so that people can see at a glace what has been changed since the original posting.