lzcutter
-
Posts
12,344 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by lzcutter
-
-
>Are you saying your mother pays for TCM as an a la carte service?
It could also mean that TCM is part of her mother's basic cable package where as most of us pay extra because it is no longer part of our basic package because our cable/satellite providers moved to it to a higher programming tier.
-
> Lot (most?) TCM viewers do not go on the TCM website very often, if at all.
Not sure where you got that info from. The main TCM site is quite popular with viewers and fans.
In addition, TCM has quite a social media presence as well where they also announce upcoming events, changes to the schedule, upcoming movies and more.
Unless you are thinking that the majority of TCM viewership is senior citizens.
And that is a myth. TCM has people of all ages watching the channel and those between 18-54 lead the pack in number of viewers. And that age group is known for loving their computers, smart phones and tablets to surf the web.
-
>I didn't realize The Happiest Millionaire was the last movie Disney released before he died.
LP,
It wasn't the last movie released before Walt died. As skimpole correctly noted in his notes, it was the last (live action) film that Walt was involved in prior to his death.
Disney died in December, 1966 and *The Happiest Millionaire* was released a little less than a year later in 1967.
-
As I mentioned in another thread, one of the big obstacles to more silents and films from the early 1930s that the OP wants to see is that they aren't available in a digital format for TCM to rent.
It's a problem that TCM has been dealing with for at least ten years ever since they, along with the rest of the industry, went to digital servers.
The studios are usually in no hurry to transfer their early film titles to digital unless they are well-known titles that will sell. Unlike the majority of the studios back in the mid-2000s, Warners was very interested in transferring more of their film library, including the lesser known titles, to digital as well as doing preservation and restoration on the titles.
As they own the largest studio film library, film fans welcomed that news. Unfortunately, that didn't last long because as the Great Recession became a problem and studios tightened their belts, Warners abandoned their big plans for their film library and began choosing titles to transfer that would sell. Warners Archive, the MOD discs, was a compromise that has made lesser known titles available but wiithout many of the bells and whistles of extra bonus features or restoration.
But Warners Archive has a moratorium on their films being available to TCM of at least a year or longer from their release.
Until the film studios see the value in their film libraries and provide the budgets to transfer the titles, this is going to continue to be a problem going forward for not only TCM but film fans who want access to those films as well.
-
>Better yet, TCM could just stop scheduling preempted movies, and the problem would be avoided altogether
Or Death could take an extended holiday and classic stars would stop inconveniencing us by being so selfish as to die.
-
>other that just showing any old films by the chosen artist, and I know it's unrealistic to expect too scholarly an approach from the channel. But, personally, I feel we were gyped on this one.
Staffers have said that when it comes to SOTM, they approach the studios with a comprehensive list of films they would like to rent.
Unfortunately for TCM, what the studios have available for rental is not always the harder to see films but the more well known titles.
This has long been a problem for TCM as well as the studios for the last ten years and will continue to be a problem going forward until the film studios get more of their film libraries transferred to digital. And there is no guarantee, and it is very likely, that many not so well known films or those in less demand may not be transferred to digital any time soon.
The other constraint that TCM has is budgetary and it may be that the studios would make a lesser known title or two available if TCM would help cover the cost of making the digital master. And those costs may be beyond TCM's budget.
-
Thanks Sans for finding Kyle's thread.
Here's the recent ones with Drew:
*The Essentials 2014-2015*
*Co-Hosted by Robert Osborne and Drew Barrymore*
*(Repeats Omitted)*
Marty (1955)
The Sugarland Express (1974)
The Pink Panther (1963)
His Girl Friday (1940)
Field of Dreams (1989)
How to Marry a Millionaire (1953)
Laura (1944)
Beauty and the Beast (1946)
In the Heat of the Night (1967)
Stella Dallas (1937)
The Haunting (1963)
The Dirty Dozen (1967)
My Fair Lady (1964)
On the Waterfront (1954)
To Be or Not to Be (1942)
I Love You, Alice B. Toklas (1968)
Blow-Up (1966)
The Champ (1931)
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
Bus Stop (1956)
Metropolis (1927)
The Thin Man (1934)
Foreign Correspondent (1940)
Coal Miner's Daughter (1980)
Belle de Jour (1967)
His Girl Friday (1940)
Network (1976)
Laura (1944)
Twentieth Century (1934)
The Black Stallion (1979)
Blow-Up
Network
__________________________________________________________
*The Essentials 2013-2014*
*Co-Hosted by Robert Osborne and Drew Barrymore*
*(Repeats Omitted)*
Grand Hotel
The Big Chill
Tootsie
Gun Crazy
Lawrence of Arabia
Anna and the King of Siam
Freaks
Giant
Gold Diggers of 1933
8pm How Green was My Valley
Stand By Me
Bride of Frankenstein
Friendly Persuasion
Libeled Lady
Breathless
The Palm Beach Story
The Searchers
Auntie Mame
Key Largo
The Women
Gaslight
Diner
The Bad and the Beautiful
The Lady Eve
Lifeboat
It Happened Once Night
Silkwood
___________________________________________________________
*The Essentials 2012-2013*
*Co-Hosted by Robert Osborne and Drew Barrymore*
*(Repeats Omitted)*
Some Like It Hot
This is Spinal Tap
The Razor's Edge
Alice Adams
The Goodbye Girl
Sunrise
Gilda
The Fallen Idol
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
The Third Man
Camille
Diabolique
Wuthering Heights
Dinner at Eight
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Jezebel
The Way We Were
Kramer vs. Kramer
Rebel Without a Cause
Sullivan's Travels
Summertime
The Band Wagon
To Have and Have Not
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
Lolita
Captains Courageous
Alice Adams
The Fallen Idol
The Wild Bunch
The Third Man
_______________________
-
From the Academy's site:
To qualify for membership, you must be a film artist or craftsperson working in one or more of the art form?s key creative areas. And your work must represent an unusually high level of quality and distinction.
If you are a writer, producer, or director, you should have at least two screen credits on films that reflect the Academy?s highest standards. If you are an actor, you should have performed scripted roles in at least three such films.
Some branches (including Art Directors, Executives, Public Relations, Visual Effects and others) also expect new members to have worked in their fields for a certain number of years.
Of course, your contributions to the motion picture industry might fall outside the 16 branch areas. If so, you may be considered to join as a Member-At-Large or as an Associate Member. As either one, you will enjoy many of the privileges of membership
http://www.oscars.org/academy/members/invitations.html
The three ways to become candidates for membership: land an Oscar nomination; apply and receive a recommendation by two members of a branch; or earn an endorsement from the branch's membership committee and staff. Membership committees must approve all new members.
The Academy is well aware of its reputation for having an aging membership that is mostly white. It has been trying to diversify their membership the last few years. They are bringing in a larger range of age groups as well as more people of color.
From 2003-2011, they only allowed 30 people a year to become members. Since 2012 they relaxed that rule and invited 179 people to become members.
According to the LA Times as of last year there were 5,800 voting members of the Academy.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/26/entertainment/la-et-mn-academy-members-expand-ranks-20130427
The voting process:
Nomination ballots are mailed to the Academy?s active members in late December and are due back to PricewaterhouseCoopers, an international accounting firm, in January.
Regular awards are presented for outstanding individual or collective film achievements in up to 25 categories. Members from each of the branches vote to determine the nominees in their respective categories ? actors nominate actors, film editors nominated film editors, etc. However within the Animated Feature Film and Foreign Language Film categories, nominations are selected by vote of multi-branch screening committees.
All voting members are eligible to select the Best Picture nominees.
Final ballots are mailed to voting members in late-January and are due back to PricewaterhouseCoopers the Tuesday prior to Oscar Sunday for final tabulation.
The Academy?s entire active membership is eligible to select Oscar winners in all categories, although in five ? Animated Short Film, Live Action Short Film, Documentary Feature, Documentary Short Subject, and Foreign Language Film ? members can vote only after attesting they have seen all of the nominated films in those categories.
http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/about/voting.html
Scott Feinberg of the Hollywood Reporter is a good one to follow throughout the year. He covers the Academy throughout the year and
this year talked to several different members about who they voted for and why.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/race
Hope that helps.
-
>Dodsworth's chubby older wife winds up with no younger man, while Dodsworth winds up with a younger thin woman.
Younger by five years at the most and Fran was hardly what one would call chubby or unattractive.
The story is much deeper than you are giving it credit for.
Dodsworth was attracted to Edith, not because of her figure or her age, but because she found him interesting, wasn't interested in keeping up with the Joneses (so to speak) and didn't care to dine each evening with the social classes.
Chances are, all the things Fran once had been interested in before they got wealthy and Fran felt the need to secure their place in social circles.
-
>Mary Astor was 30 years old when she made the film, while Ruth Chatterton was 44, and they both looked their true ages. Walter Huston was 53.
FredC,
But Mary Astor's character, Edith, was closer to Fran's age than Mary actually was at the time she played the role.
As others have pointed out, in her scene with Fran, Edith makes it clear that Fran is not much older than Edith, the character- not Mary Astor the actress.
-
Wonderful article!
So glad to see your writing is getting noticed outside the classic film community!
-
A number of Academy voters choose to abstain from voting in categories where they have not seen the film(s).
-
> I was shocked when it came to me, epiphany style,
Jacks,
The same with me. My embarrassment comes from the fact that I've seen *LoA* numerous times prior to 2006, most of those on the big screen.
But it didn't click with me until MrCutter and I were watching it on TCM back in 2006. They had a number of Ford westerns on that winter and we had been watching them so that probably helped!
-
Jacks,
Your post stirred something in my memory and it took awhile to find it.
But I wrote this in a thread back in 2006:
Lest anyone think I'm crazy about David Lean, watch "LoA" again. Those wonderful wide shots of the deserts and the treks across them and even the battle scenes all have that Ford influence.
http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?threadID=78833&start=50&tstart=0
Am glad that others see it, too and I'm not crazy!
-
James,
Yes, I read the editorial and I read John Horn's front page column about the film.
The bulk of the editorial was about the merits of the film being the basis for its win. The editorial went on to point out the critical and laudatory response the film has received since its debut. The Times editors also pointed out that it was a difficult film to get produced.
After recapping Ellen's joke, the editorial then went on to talk about how Hollywood shouldn't shy away from producing films with difficult subject matters.
To me, the Times editors came squarely down on the side of the film winning on its merits (along with a shout-out for Hollywood to continue to produce films that aren't necessarily feel good stories for the entire film) and that gave less credence to Ellen's joke.
-
Coffee
Milk -
>Congratulations on a superior site.
with "jive":
Coffee
Milkwithout jive:
Coffee
Milk
-
>They imply 12 Years won because of merit AND white guilt
I read the editorial in yesterday's paper along with the front page column by John Horn about *12 Years* and read the editorial as endorsing the idea that *12 Years* won on its merits and that Hollywood shouldn't shy away from making films on difficult subject matters.
Meanwhile, Horn wrote in his column that the film may have won because of both merit and white guilt.
Either way, I would hate to see this thread take a turn into modern politics and become an argument over the merits of white guilt, Obama, the Oscars or political parties in Hollywood.
Because that usually leads to a locked thread and Michael telling us all to cool it.
-
Glenn,
Be sure that if you pop-ups, they aren't getting in the way.
The link works fine for me on Chrome and Firefox.
The tours appear to be all sold out but word on the street is that TCM will have an announcement either just prior to the Festival or at the FF regarding passes for the Tour.
So, don't give up hope yet!
But, do see if those pesky pop-ups are getting in your way. A couple of people had that problem and once they figured that out, were able to get to the page.
See you in a little more than a month!
-
>How many times has he been SOTM?
June is his first time being a SOTM. He was honored with a SUTS day back in August, 2006.
-
Via Chris Willman,
Novak got a dose of celebrity in the age of the Internet when she appeared at the TCM Film Festival in April in Los Angeles.
"A headline screeched, "What Has Happened to Kim Novak's Face?," accompanied by photos of her looking - not "unrecognizable" as the Internet said - but different from the way we remember her.
The question mark was superfluous because Novak, who is disarmingly candid, would have explained what happened had anyone asked.
She wanted a fresh look, but "I didn't want to do anything major." A doctor suggested fat injections to add fullness to her face."
"That was absolutely crazy when I think about it now. You spend all your time trying to get rid of fat. I love the hollow kind of cheekbone look," Novak says.
"So why did I do it? I trusted somebody doing what I thought they knew how to do best. I should have known better, but what do you do? We do some stupid things in our lives."
She wasn't the first person and she won't be the last one to take a doctor's advice and end up with a different outcome than you anticipated.
-
-
>And so, I still say IF a person is confident in their own skin, they'll not only likely continue doing the things they do best regardless of age, but will also continue to project a more appealing "face" to the world.
Dargo,
Whether we agree with Kim's choice or not, did she really deserve all the vitriol she received via social media in the last 48 hours?
She has never been very confident in her own skin. Look back at her history at Columbia where Harry Cohn frequently referred to her as fat, had her put on a special diet, her teeth capped, her hair died blonde and her name changed.
One of the reasons she left the biz was because she was ill-prepared to handle the cost of stardom.
She is a cancer survivor and also survived a bad fall from horse back riding a few years ago.
Who are we (even Donald Trump took to Twitter to take her to task) to sit in judgement of her looks or the reasons why she made the choices she made.
She starred in some of the most beloved movies of the l950s and 1960s and rather than salute her for her role in that, we (the societal we) felt the need to remind her that all these years later, we are capable of acting as badly as Harry Cohn once did.
Why should an appearance by Kim Novak or Liza Minnelli be any different than an appearance by Olivia deHavilland or Maureen O'Hara?
The only difference is we deem them more beautiful and so we (again, the societal we) don't feel the need to judge them as harshly via social media.
-
1
-
-
>But I was still surprised Ellen made that joke right at the start. If a voter honestly felt a movie other than 12 Years was the best picture, implying they are racist isn't really funny
Nor was her "joke" about Liza Minnelli.
Guess Ellen wanted to show she could be as edgy as Seth MacFarlane.
Unfortunately, with social media being what it is today, Liza and Kim Novak took a beating on Twitter, et al, because of their looks.
And we wonder why so many older classic film stars prefer to stay out of the limelight and turn down requests for on-camera interviews.
Not really all that surprising especially in light of what happened to Liza and Kim.
when exactly did the studio era come to an end?
in General Discussions
Posted
The studios were still producing movies well into the 1960s- think of *Sound of Music* (1965), *Oliver!* (1968) as well as *In the Heat of the Night* (1967), *To Sir with Love*, *Two for the Road*, and *2001* (1968),
*Planet of the Apes* and *Charly* (1968).
*Easy Rider* in 1969 is often cited as the big turning point and by 1971, the studios were no longer run by any of the studio era moguls -Jack Warner still produced films for WBros and had his final producing credit in 1972 with *1776* but no longer ran the studio and Darryl Zanuck, who returned to run Fox in 1962, got into a power struggle with the Fox Board of Directors and his son, Richard who was Head of Production- and Zanuck stepped down for good in 1971.