hlywdkjk
-
Posts
8,678 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hlywdkjk
-
-
"{Y}ou are worried about who I am based on my # of posts." - Big Bopper
I don't look at post numbers. I will look at registration dates because some folks post erratically - often going months between posts And some members hang out in Forums I don't frequent so I may not recognise them as a popular contributor. But the number doesn't tell me anything.
But what has been written does tell me a lot. And, honestly, some of what you have written in the past week has left me scratching my head. But that is probably just my problem.
Kyle In Hollywood
-
"I have been here one day on a friends recommendation from myspace becasue I wanted to talk about movies. So make a notice THAT NEWCOMERS ARE NOT WELCOME. Some say so. But that is not the case of the majority of you. " - 8noms
If you have left, I'm wasting my breath. But on the offchance you haven't I'll write this anyway.
I don't know what goes on at "MySpace"/"Facebook" or other sites such as that. But I would guess these Forums are much different than social networking sites such as those. This site exists for the discussion of TCM and films. Understanding that, most of us have little interest in a person's background. One's age, gender, etc. is not how most of us have ever introduced ourselves to the existing membership. We introduce ourselves through our knowledge and affection of movies - and primarily the movies shown on TCM. Details such as "S/M/W/21" mean nothing. Being able to quote Billy Wilder or Preston Stuges can mean a bit more. But even that isn't a prerequisite to enjoying one's time here. Knowing what one is much less interesting to this membership than who one is - meaning is one a fan of Westerns or Noir? Cooper or Wayne? Astaire Or Kelly? Comedies or Combat films? Or even if one is a Peter O'Toole fan?
While there are people here that have been members for just a few months, there are also people who have been here for years. The TCM Message Boards have been around longer than just about anyone who is now a member.. (I have personally lived through two radical makeovers of these Forums.) Over that period of time, certain norms and standards have developed - but they are not meant to be exlusionary. Nor do they function in that manner. And they are far from strict. I would describe them as being the somewhere between those of one attending church and a football game.
There is a shared history of these Forums between many "veterans" of which a new member will not be aware. That history has left some members wary of new arrivals who display certain characteristics. Their skepticism is understandable - though I think it is often displayed much too quickly. Without the knowledge of that history, condemning the entire membership for the behavior of certain members is unfair. And just so you know, certain posters who were involved in the thread(s) you read today are no longer members here. The person most affected along with the membership at large - with the aid of persons from TCM - weeded them out last week. (i.e. pulled their accounts.) But it is no fault of a newcomer to not be aware of the extended history of these Forums.
If one comes here to discuss movies and the best channel on television that presents them, you should feel welcome. But if one comes here looking for a surrogate for more "social" websites, a new member may be disappointed. This site's membership can be called many things but unwelcoming is not the first thing that comes to my mind. There is a lot to see and do here. There are a lot of people to meet here. I know you've come in contact with some of the best people on this Board. But it is up to you to find that out for yourself - if you so choose.
Kyle In Hollywood
-
"But thank God in heaven you warned me. I consider myself warned now as my life was in danger. Thanks." - 8noms
I think you are reading a helluva lot more into my post than is there or was ever intended. Everything I wrote was tongue in cheek and I thought you were able to see that as much as I could see you weren't serious about "betting" on a member's age.
There is nothing to fear here. There are no "unwritten" rules. And I am not sure why you feel so "unwelcome". I can't find anything in your interactions on your first day that should give you that feeling.
Kyle In Hollywood
-
8noms -
About Ms. Redgrave (wonderful woman, BTW. I made her a virgin mary once.), don't forget that the acting branch makes the acting nominations and it is probably the most diverse part of the Academy. It's likely that those members would not be offended by her opinions on the Middle East. (Tried to word that so not to derail the thread onto a different volatile topic.) I doubt that the actors were the one's booing her that night - or since.
And you might want to stop with your Carnival Game of guessing people's ages. There have been threads in here where members fessed up to their ages. As a newcomer I know you haven't seen those threads yet. So be warned, there are people here that will take advantage of you just like a one of those carnival barkers. (Same goes for trying to choose gender from a member's name. You're in the House Of Mirrors on that topic.)
Kyle In Hollywood
-
8noms & lzcutter -
Well, I'm not whipping out my ID so neither of you is going to win any bet... unless one of you is cutting me in on the winnings.
I will say that I assumed that 8noms was younger when he mentioned he had a "MySpace" profile in a different thread. I thought his "fish out of water" feeling at that site was because of his love of older movies - not that he was older (40-ish) than most other members. And, as 'lzcutter' and I have met "face to face", she had an unfair advantage when she proposed the bet in the first place.
As to Mr. O'Toole and Venus, I understand your point about repetition among honorary and competitive Oscar winners. What make Peter O'Toole different is that he did himself alot of harm by first refusing the Award the Academy had voted him in the preious year. They don't give those out "willy-nilly" and for someone to refuse to accept such a unique honor was rather ungracious - if not worse. Whatever his motivation, the original refusal was interpreted as being very boorish and I bet alot of people did take that in to consideration also when filling out their ballot last year.
Kyle In Hollywood
-
"I'll keep pushing for them to show more 30's and 40's films and LESS of the stuff from post-1970, but I'll take what I can get..." - markbeckhuaf
And when 'markbeckhuaf talks, TCM listens. At least his polite inquiry about the dearth of 1930s films last fall seemed to result in TCM making amends in the December and January schedules. That's how I see it anyway.
Kyle In Hollywood
-
8noms -
The "conventional wisdom" (and I agree) is that the Academy passed on giving Peter O'Toole the Oscar for Venus because he had been awarded an Honorary / Lifetime Oscar just the year before.
O'Toole was hesitant to accept the honorary award because he felt it would be acknowledging the end of his career. He even refused it at first. (Or at least, stated he was inclined to turn it down.) But that was unprecedented in Academy Award history. So not wanting to appear ungrateful - or for whatever reason - he did accept.
But my feelings also lead me to believe that he wished to turn down the honorary award because he already knew that his role in Venus was ahead of him and that he stood a very good chance of winning for that performance. (C-Word or no.)
Kyle In Hollywood
-
8nowins -
Everyone is welcome here - especially young members who write in complete sentences. (There are some here who don't like "text speak" that a lot of young people use.)
This is a varied community - varied in ages, identities and interests. But all are here because they want to discuss movies (or "films", if you prefer.) and they are avid viewers of TCM. There are other members from your age group here who all seem to be happy to have found a place to share their interest in classic films. Like you, their friends just don't get it.
'bio47' hasn't left - to the best of my knowledge - and you shouldn't be frightened off by the experience of another poster. What bad apples show up around here get tossed out sooner or later.
Have a look around. Hopefully you will find an interesting discussion or two. When you do, I hope you add your two-cents.
Glad you have joined!
Kyle In Hollywood
-
"31 Days of Oscar Movie Posters" - with 2-for-1 Weekends
Sunday February 17th
-
"31 Days of Oscar Movie Posters" - with 2-for-1 Weekends
Sunday February 17th
-
I guess I have three "stop what I'm doing and sit down and watch" musical numbers that are favorites.
"Pick Yourself Up" from Swing Time
and two "rooftop" numbers -
"America" from West Side Story and
"Something Better Than This" from Sweet Charity
Kyle In Hollywood
-
"I didn't sign up for the "second tier" on Direct TV and pay extra for it to see "all eighty years of the Academy Awards".
Then take your fight to Direct-TV and request they put the channel on the lower tier. (TCM has no input or control where cable and satellite systems place the channel.)
When your check is written "Pay to the order of "Tuner Classic Movies", then you might have an argument to make. Right now all you have is a tiresome whine.
kjk
-
"TCM doesn't need an excuse to air modern movies. They can damn well do as they please..." - markbeckhuaf
Oh, the breeze blowing in from "reality" tonight is soo refreshing.
kjk
-
"Who wants to see movies from the 1990s to the present? "
If TCM is going to present a month saluting all eighty years of the Academy Awards, then, in that context, these films belong here as much as silent films from the 20s. I think it is audacious, enlightening and astounding that any television channel has undertaken such an event.
You and others may have been happy to see the same "31 Days..." that TCM presented two years ago, five years ago or even ten years ago. But alot of us - including, obviously, TCM - would have found that repetitive, uninspired and, well...boring. And the last thing TCM would want is people thinking "Move along. There's nothing new to see here."
"We come here to see old and classic movies, from the "Golden Age of Hollywood".
You watch TCM for those reasons. Not everyone watches TCM for those reasons. And, thankfully, TCM is not being programmed only for those reasons either. (You make it sound like one can no longer see those films on TCM. Have you written anything appreciative about Mondays and Tuesdays this month?)
You might as well get used to the idea that Charles Burnett and Abel Gance, "Bienvenue A Cannes" and "Thou Shalt Not: Sex, Sin and Censorship in Pre-Code Hollywood" and Eighty Years Of The Academy Awards are going to co-exist on the TCM schedule side by side - today, tomorrow and just like always.
It may be a bitter pill for you but you've got swallow it.
Kyle In Hollywood
-
Atlantic City and Kundun and I thoroughly enjoyed them both.
Kyle In Hollywood
-
"This is not a thread designed for you to give us your latest political lecture. Most “white people” didn’t do what you say."
Says the man who likes to "remind" everyone here that more Christians died in WWII than Jews as if the deaths in battle are equivilent to the willful extermination of a race of people (and others).
Kyle In Hollywood
-
"Why is TCM playing 1970s films all of the sudden? Is this just for the 30 days of oscar or is it going to be like this forever?" - Chaplin1925
Ignore the rabble below.
To answer your question seriously, here's TCM's official press release on the February schedule.
http://www.turnerinfo.com/pressroom.aspx?P=TCM
"Taking its annual 31 DAYS OF OSCAR? film festival to an entirely new level, Turner Classic Movies (TCM) will showcase the depth of its movie library by devoting each night in February to a decade of Oscar?-winning and nominated films—all uncut and commercial free. Mondays in primetime will be devoted to films of the 1920s and 1930s, Tuesdays to the 1940s, Wednesdays to the 1950s and so forth throughout each week, with Sundays showcasing movies from the 1990s to the present."
“In this, the 14th year we’ve presented TCM’s 31 DAYS OF OSCAR, we are really showing off our movie library, which is without a doubt the biggest and best in the industry,” said Charlie Tabesh, senior vice president of programming for TCM. “By dedicating each night to a particular decade and each day to a specific theme, we prove that no other network can celebrate the Academy Awards with the breadth of TCM.”
If you are curious about upcoming programming for TCM see here -
March 2008
http://www.tcm.com/schedule/month/?cid=&timezone=PST&oid=3/1/2008
which includes a world premiere documentary on Pre-code Hollywood and a Star Of The Month salute to Acting Families.
April 2008
http://www.tcm.com/schedule/month/?cid=&timezone=PST&oid=4/1/2008
which includes Star Of The Month Hedy Lamarr, a documentary on Abel Gance and the premiere of Easy Living.
Kyle In Hollywood
-
"31 Days of Oscar Movie Posters" - with 2-for-1 Weekends
Saturday February 16th
-
"31 Days of Oscar Movie Posters" - with 2-for1 Weekends
Saturday February 16th
-
"I hope this is a one time deal."
Well, that's a nice compliment. Thanks 'movieman1957'.
(Now I'll feel too guilty to use my Simon Cowell persona when voting.)
Kyle In Hollywood
-
Along with the newly announced schedule, WebAmin also gave us a whole set of Forums for the new Essentials titles! (Scroll down the main page past the Genre Forums.)
Thanks WebAdmin!
Kyle In Hollywood
-
I have been encouraged to let all you Challengers know that I've taken a seat on the sidelines for this Challenge and won't be submitting a schedule. But I look froward to voting this time out. If you all keep up the good work I've seen so far, that will be a more difficult task than putting together a week of programming.
Kyle In Hollywood
-
"I'll supply the M & Ms."
And I'll bring the "cool, refreshing spring water".
"La la lah, LAH la lah, la la la-la. Pum. Pum."
Kyle In Hollywood
-
Sorry about the expense you incurred on your search for the "Now Playing" guide.
I have watched TCM regularly for many years but I have no recollection of hearing that the monthly magazine is available in a retail shop since the days it was being offered in Barnes & Noble's - and that was three or more years ago. Of course, I could have not been paying that close of attention to recent promos for the Guide either. But the most common promos for the Guide that I have seen are telling one how to subscribe to the Guide.
It would seem odd that TCM would want to place the Guide in F.Y.E. stores as it seems the company is undergoing a major retrenchment and closing many - if not most - stores in the United States. And I have never seen F.Y.E. stores mentioned or promoted on this website. In fact, the online company "Movies Unlimited" seems to have cornered the market for Video Promotion on TCM. But that is not to say it couldn't happen.
(I just looked at the F.Y.E. website. It seems they have a cross-promotional event with AMC which makes me doubt that TCM also has a business relationship with the company at this time. See here -
http://www.fye.com/AMC-Classics_stcVVcatId501186VVviewcat.htm)
As to your email issue, it sounds like your email got "bounced" as undeliverable. (Your original email is probably the "attatchment".) If you still have the email without a subject line, right click on the blank line. Select "Properties" Click on the "Details" tab. You should be able to read the name of the sender and the intended recipient of that particular message. And by clicking on "Message Source", you may be able to also read the "invisible" contents of that email and of the attatchment.
Kyle In Hollywood
Kyle In Hollywood's CENSORED Poster Gallery
in Remembering Kyle in Hollywood
Posted
"31 Days Of Oscar Movie Posters"
Monday February 18th