Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

hlywdkjk

TCM_allow
  • Posts

    8,678
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by hlywdkjk

  1. Well, at least one household has sat down and watched the films together. (Thanks for sharing that 'rohanaka'.) I hope more families are making the time to watch these films together. Lord knows, there is a "vast wasteland" of family-friendly programming on television these days. I think it is great that TCM makes an effort to fill that void.

     

    And it is kinda of heartening to learn that young boys and girls haven't changed all that much - if, as 'tobitz' writes, youngsters are still fascinated with some of the same things that intrigued me as a child.

     

    Whether or not the hosts are all that familiar with the films isn't that relevant to this series. It is all about finding a hook to get the young audience to tune in. Being "blank slates", the younger viewers are only going to look upon the hosts as a familiar face who can tell them about the plot of the movie they are going to see. The wee ones don't care who the director was, what year it came out or what Oscars the film might have won. They only want to be reassured the film is going to entertain them. And to the younger set, hearing Abigail Breslin say "This Is A Good Movie." probably is all that it takes.

     

    Kyle In Hollywood

  2. *"This is only a shameless plug for Abigail Breslin's new film "Kit Kittredge: An American Girl"!!"*

     

    I wouldn't rule that aspect out but I also believe that this is a way for TCM to promote the series with the star of a new movie franchise. Did ya ever think that TCM might have been "using" her (and Chris O'Donnell) to suit _their_ purposes?

     

    In all liklihood, it was a "win-win" for both sides - though I think TCM got the better end of the deal.

     

    Kyle In Hollywood

  3. Well, it is two weeks into the summer series and I am wondering if anyone around here has watched the offerings with the intended audience - youngsters - and how they reacted to the films they saw?

     

    I am just wondering if young girls can still get excited about owning a horse or young boys can be excited about doing battle with Ray Harryhausen movie monsters. (I know we adults can be so excited.)

     

    Kyle In Hollywood

  4. Hello 'ccmiller1492' -

     

    A lot of regular members have posted on this topic in threads here -

    "TCM's New Logo "Bug" "

    http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/thread.jspa?threadID=114901&start=15&tstart=0&messageID=8000773#8000773

     

    and here -

    "Oh No, A New Station Bug"

    http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/thread.jspa?threadID=114295&start=45&tstart=0&messageID=7996693#7996693

     

    In the above threads, you'll learn you are not alone in your feelings about the "TCM.com" ID. Your sentiments have been expressed by others in these Forums. But there have been explanations and justifications expressed also - including posts from the head of programming for TCM.

     

    Though I don't believe it is found in either of the above threads, "tcmprogrammr' has written in these Forums that some film distributors - in an effort to combat piracy - would prefer that the logo stay up during the _entire_ presentation of certain feature films. TCM has fought that request.

     

    Is the "bug" an attempt to drive viewers to the website? Definitely. For TCM to remain commercial -free, it is looking to increase revenues through commercial activity on this website. The long-term health of TCM as a channel without advertising may be dependent on the shopping and banner ads found here. (I gotta start clicking on those banner ads.)

     

    In the minds of many viewers (and some members here) if that is the purpose of the new "bug" it is a reasonable price to pay to keep TCM programming "uncut and commercial-free".

     

    Kyle In Hollywood

  5. *"I hope TCM plays this almost forgotten little gem again."* - kaleman

     

    I do too - even though I did watch it Saturday Night. Months back when a few of us were suggesting films for this year's "31 Days Of Oscar", this film was on my list. It was a title with which I wasn't familiar and was intrigued by seeing Leslie Caron in an Oscar-nomnated dramatic role.

     

    Now, British urban dramas of the 60s aren't usually "my thing" ( *Saturday Night, Sunday Morning* ? No Thank You.) but this one exceeded my expectations. I particularly liked Brock Peters.

     

    Saturday's showing was a TCM premiere (Thanks, TCM!) and I hope a second or third showing is possible. I'd like to spend another evening with these characters.

     

    Kyle In Hollywood

  6. *Pygmalion* ? Fine.

    I think doing a new, literate version of that is inspired.

     

    *My Fair Lady* ? Terrible.

    Sounds like they want to reshoot it in the manner of *Oliver!* - and I don't particularly care for that film's use of real locations. I think they are some of the weakest sections of that film.

     

    See also - *Enchanted* .

     

    Kyle In Hollywood

  7. I think of only one film for Washington D.C. - *Born Yesterday*.

    The city and its landmarks even play a role in the film.

    "This place is prettier than the Music Hall. And it smells so nice!" - Billie Dawn

    (or something to that effect)

     

    Kyle In Hollywood

  8. *"Since when is it the government's responsibility to bail out anyone who made bad financial decisions?"*

     

    When the Government of The United States decided it needed to "bail out" an _investment_ bank.

     

    Kyle In Hollywood

  9. *"If the Left had its way, there would be censorship--such as The Fairness Doctrine."* - JakeHolman

     

    I don't know why I am stepping foot in here because I swore i wasn't going to take the troll-bait the OP posted but that statement above is so luducrously off-base I can't let that stand.

     

    Just how is "The Fairness Doctrine" censorship? The Fairness Doctrine required media outlets that use the public airwaves - free of charge, no less - to present both (or more) sides of any controversial or topical issue. As corporations operating "in the public trust" it was paramount that license holder not be allowed to use their licesne to advocate on an issue of public importance at the exclusion of contrary opinions.

     

    From wikipedia -

    "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." - U.S. Supreme Court (1969)

     

    The Fairness Doctrine was written and applied to ensure discussions contained differing points of view and not just those of the license holder. The policy _required_ a freedom of ideas from over-the-air televsion and raidio broadcasters. That's _not_ censorship. And I find it intellectually dishonest to paint it that way.

     

    Kyle In Hollywood

     

    Message was edited by: hlywdkjk just to correct typos

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...