[Why the PROFANITY????]

Hi brackenhe,

 

 

You're absolutely right. However, I'm not trying to work within or enforce FCC regulations. That's not my point.

 

I'm calling for responsible conduct on the part of AMC management that includes ALL of their viewers, all of the time. They shouldn't have to be "forced" to do that by the FCC or anyone else; including me. They should be doing it on their own.

 

As a viewer of many years, I do not believe recent changes in programming live up to those responsibilities.

 

As do others on this forum, I am voicing my opinions and beliefs in the hope that someone in responsibility will give my views a bit of thought and perhaps modify their recent decisions to make ALL of their programming more acceptable to ALL of us.

 

I may not succeed, but that's one of the chances you take when you exercise your first amendment right to free speech. "Ya says yer piece and ya takes yer chance."

 

As you read in my post, I said "My definition of PUBLIC TV..." I'm working for change within the current system, not just rubber stamping antiquated FCC regulations.

 

When is the last time you drove through a neighborhood where the rooftops were covered with old TV antennas? Whether a dollar bill is exchanged or not, the basic "Cable TV package" represents for most of us what used to be "broadcast" PUBLIC TV. As so many have reminded me here, "times have changed."

 

Thanks for your input.

 

[Why the PROFANITY????]

path40a,

 

Sorry I got your name wrong. Too many numbers in my head today I guess. The below post was for you.

 

Thanks

[Why the PROFANITY????]

Hi Path30a,

 

Well, tcmprogrammer has signed himself out of the debate so it looks like this one is done.

 

I thank your for your suggestions. Much of what you brought up is already addressed in my other posts but I thought there were a couple of loose ends that needed to be addressed.

 

Interestingly enough you and I may be more eye to eye on governmental controls than you seem to think. I have no interest in placing responsibility for my actions in the hands of others.

 

Indeed, attempting to register my point of view with people who may be able to do something about it (tcmprogrammer in this case) is my small attempt to not allow others to control those areas of my life.

 

The V chip is indeed well known. While it certainly has a place in many homes today, especially those with young children, I consider it to be far short of a good and workable solution.

 

The only thing it really does is tell me when I've got to "get off the sidewalk" because someone else is taking it over. I can come back later when they finish playing. IMHO that does not provide due respect for all parties involved.

 

As a true classic movie fan I'm sure you remember the film Gandhi. Early in the movie Gandhi and the Pastor are walking down the street when they run into a gang of local tough guys who want to run Gandhi out into the gutter. They "own the sidewalk" and don't want to permit him (an unworthy Indian) to walk on it. After he is saved from real trouble by the timely intervention of the head "tough guys" mother, Gandhi looks at the man and says "I think you'll find there is room for all." I believe that. There is room for all. But only if we're willing to work together to provide that room.

 

Those that choose to watch films that I choose not to watch, because of the P & E or whatever, have a perfect right to do so. I am not responsible for their choices, only for mine. But, they don't have the right to tell me that I have to "get off the sidewalk." In other words, if I don't like it "change channels, the TV sidewalk belongs to us." Sorry, The "TV sidewalks" belong to all of us. If you need a sidewalk exclusively for yourself, I'm willing to help you build one. Let's get a pay channel (a private sidewalk) for your particular tastes and you can watch what you please when you please. But, don't do your neighbor the disservice of trying to take over the PUBLIC sidewalk. That belongs to all.

 

My definition of PUBLIC TV has been updated to the state of television as it comes to us today. Let me clarify what I mean.

 

In my area, TCM comes along with a slew of other channels (I don't know, 70 or 80) that I get as a package from my cable company. I did not have to make a separate choice to have it, and I could not delete it from the package and get a discounted price. It's just THERE; along with Bravo, The Shopping Channel etc etc. I did not have to make a separate decision or pay extra money to get it.

 

Pay channels, like HBO, Showtime, Playboy etc. require a separate decision and an additional payment. They DO NOT come with the basic package of channels. This gives all of us the opportunity to exercise our freedom of choice. If some particular channel is your cup of tea, go for it. If it's not, leave it alone.

 

As such, I believe TCM and all other channels in the basic package are today's version of PUBLIC TV. In years past you picked up your three local stations on your antenna. Now you get your "local" stations, the whole bunch of them along with your cable package. Times indeed have changed, but it's the same idea.

 

By the way, I went to your website and read your story about your day at TCM. Hey, that must have been fun indeed. Good memories. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Why the PROFANITY????]

tcmprogrammer,

 

Thank you for your time.

 

It's been informative.

 

Harvey

[Why the PROFANITY????]

tcmprogrammer,

 

Good first step. Now, let's go a little further.

 

If we are to have an open and worthwhile debate, which is what I'm asking for, then we must of necessity limit the subject matter being debated.

 

The subjects I submitted for debate are profanity and nudity. While I may feel for those who find moral problems with the subjects you mentioned, those are not the topics at hand.

 

If someone wants to debate blackface in movies, an interesting subject by the way, then make a new post, start a new debate limited to blackface in movies and go for it. I might join in that one myself. This debate, however, is about P & N. Period.

 

Let me again make the point that I am calling TMC to be respectful of the (P & N) moral standards of their entire viewing audience, I repeat from my opening comments, "as near as is humanly possible."

 

The suggestion that because you can't satisfy ALL moral standards, then it follows that you should establish little or NO moral standards is simply not acceptable.

 

That's not responsible respect for your audience, that's simply misuse of privileged power on the part of TCM.

 

One poster (sorry, for the sake of simplicity from this point forward I won't deal with individual screen names; we all know who we are) said the answer is to play the films with "objectionable" content late at night and then watch out for what you can't accept. TCM and you also seem to feel that is an answer. I disagree.

 

My business is on the internet so of necessity I spend many hours seated at my computer; often into the wee hours of the morning. I used to be able to play TCM in a little window while I was working (the old films are good company) without any concern about content. Now, that is not the case. Things are starting to jump out at me from that little window that I never had to concern myself about before. For me, your late night idea is no answer at all; it is just another problem that I don't believe I should have to deal with.

 

I will expand my earlier comments about the responsibilities of TCM as a PUBLIC TV network to include the idea that the same standard should be held to 24 hours a day. There should be no need to tell some of your viewers that "you can't enjoy yourself here anymore" because you're running so called "mature" material.

 

Another poster asks "who decides" what is morally acceptable. While I addressed much of his statement in the first part of this message (we must limit the subjects under debate) taken directly, his question is a very good one.

 

I offer the following suggestion. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I suggest that TCM had the right formula for many years. All you need to do is return to that level of already proven to be generally acceptable moral standards and you've got it right. What you were doing was rolling along just great. You don't have to reinvent the wheel.

 

Yes, I'm well aware, as another poster submitted that this is not 1957. Great. I for one am not interested in returing to that particular year. The different types of films that are being produced today indeed have their place, and many of them will have their place in the history books. But I submit that some of them, again because of P & E have no place on AMC. Changing times does not require us to change our moral values. Indeed it's when times change, that those values are put to the test.

 

Suggestion. The changing times and different films of today may have opened an opportunity for TCM that did not exist before. Why not consider a TCM-2 (for lack of a better name) where you can start up and play ALL of the contemporary films that you want to? You would not have to hold to the same standards as TMC-1 and it would give you much more programming freedom to offer variety.

 

Offer it as a paid channel and stand back. I think it's possible that you would have a stamped of people signing up for a such a channel. No, I would probably not be one of them, but I can certainly imagine the interest and appeal of such a network to many others.

 

 

Your move. Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Why the PROFANITY????]

To tcmprogrammer, Hi, I'm Harvey.

 

I would like to address your comment about pushing for more "contemporary films" to be played because "...they're a legitimate part of the mix."

 

That's where we see things differently.

 

My stand is that there should not be a "mix" if that means including films that contain (what is for some of us) morally objectionable material; profanity and nudity being first and foremost.

 

TCM is a PUBLIC network. You are not a paid network like HBO, The Playboy Channel and the like.

 

As such, a public network has an obligation to offer only such programming as is morally acceptable to it's entire audience. Not just some of its viewers, or even most of it's viewers, but as near as is humanly possible ALL of it's viewers.

 

The key word here is limiting content to what is MORALLY acceptable. I'm not talking about personal taste. We have to be careful about semantics here.

 

Limiting programming to what is morally acceptable will not solve the problems of people that don't like silent movies, can't stand westerns, or are bored by musicals. What we're talking about there is a difference in personal taste, like chocolate or vanilla ice-cream; not moral content.

 

Lest we open the door for an endless and fruitless debate about "what is moral or immoral content" let me just limit the definition to the aforementioned issues of profanity and nudity; those two will suffice.

 

I can already hear the drums rolling and the troops gathering to wave the flag of "no CENSORSHIP." It's a moot point. Those that find profanity and nudity to be acceptable have access to all they can possible want 24 hours a day on an ever increasing number of paid PRIVATE channels that satisfy their tastes. They're not being censored at all. They're simply being given what they want in a PRIVATE environment that does not interfere with the choices of their neighbors who find that content to be morally objectionable.

 

Having public channels that are morally acceptable to all and paid channels that satisfy private interests is simple freedom of choice; not censorship.

 

However, this only works when we agree to operate within common guidelines that respect the other persons moral beliefs.

 

As AMC has now added films that contain profanity and nudity they are telling many Christians, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc. and even atheists who simply don't like P & N, that their moral standards are no longer being considered. That's bad news indeed.

 

Again, I remind you that AMC is a PUBLIC channel. The moral standards of your viewers should ALWAYS be considered. It's seems that you have lost sight of that fact.

 

Thank you. I await your reply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Why the PROFANITY????]

Hey happyowl55. You're proof that you can learn something new every day. I followed your tip and did a search on Google for "tv guardian." The thing really exists.

 

I don't know how I missed this one. The information I read said it filters out somewhere around 95 percent of the profanity. That's a major improvement, but still, I'll have to think about it a bit. Great idea though.

 

The main difference between that gadget and the DVD player from clearview.com is that Clearview's player works only with DVD's, not TV programming. It does, however, remove 100% of objectionable content.

 

It doesn't work automatically like the TV Guardian. You have to subscribe to a monthly service where you can download programs to your DVD player that will "filter" some of the current movies on DVD as you play them.

 

They don't seem to cover ALL movies, so I guess they find some of them too hard to work with or something. Anyway, for now I think I'm going to get one of their players and see how it goes.

 

I will keep my eye on the progress of the TV Guardian though. Thanks again for the tip.

 

Indianbear10 take note of this. happy was right. The thing just might be what you're looking for.

[Why the PROFANITY????]

Hey Indianbear10, you're a better man than all of us. Thanks for your call to sanity. I hope you find enough good movies to keep you going for a long and happy lifetime.

 

Hey Chili Man, thanks for the reminder about my email. I never do pay any attention to those things. Here it is. harveysrabbit@usa.com.

 

It's been fun. See you at the next chili cook-off. No hard feelings. Have a large bowl on me.

 

Hey happyow155, is there really such a thing as a box that shuts down the profanity on TV? If so, please post information on where to locate it.

 

When President Bush signed a bill protecting companies like Clearplay from being sued by the chili servers in Hollywood, I looked them up on the internet. They have a very interesting service.

 

Together with RCA they have produced a DVD player that eliminates profanity AND nudity in many of the chili filled movies that are being produced today. The end result is that you can watch at least some of today's films just as safely as you can watch the real classics on TCM.

 

Is this by any chance what you were referring to, or is there really a gadget that does the same thing for TV programming?

 

It's been a long day so it's off to bed for me. Tomorrow is another day. What will the dawn bring? "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows. Nya ha ha." Oops. I forgot. That's OTR and we're discussing TCM. Senior moment there. Say goodnight Gracie.

 

 

[What is your favorite musical?]

"Singing in the Rain," "Westside Story" and anything where Jimmy Cagney dances.

 

In addition, my favorite dancing "scene" in a musical is with young Shirley Temple and Bo Jangles dancing together in "The Littlest Colonel." That little gem brightens my day everytime I see it.

[What is your favorite musical?]

"Singing in the Rain," "Westside Story" and anything where Jimmy Cagney dances.

 

In addition, my favorite dancing "scene" in a musical is with young Shirley Temple and Bo Jangles dancing together in "The Littlest Colonel." That little gem brightens my day everytime I see it.

[Why the PROFANITY????]

Hi K,

 

Isn't it interesting that you so called "liberal - dump anything in my chili" guys are always the ones that start making personal attacks dripping with hatred and ridicule?

 

If you were really as sure of your position as you would like others to believe, you would never have even bothered to reply to my original post. I was simply standing up with Indianbear10; agreeing with him and stating my point of view in response to many others who seem to disagree with him.

 

I don't agree with you. So there. Grow up and learn to live with it. Nannner, nanner, nanner.

 

Like it or not, Indianbear10 is not alone. There are people who do not like being surprised by having a once well mannered network start pumping sewage into their homes. I call it sewage, you call it acceptable.

 

You seem to have a real emotional problem with my being "right." Of course I'm right. Indianbear10 is right. Everyone that agrees with us is right. You, and the liberal sewage eaters that disagree with us are wrong. So there.

 

Now if you had any real guts, instead of lurking about in the dark taking snipes on the internet from the shadowy safety of your basement, you would fess up and be man enough to say that you feel exactly the same way about your position.

 

You and everyone who agrees with you is right; myself and everyone who agrees with me is wrong. Be a man for crying out loud. That's what standing up for your beliefs is all about. You act like you'd start whining if someone disagreed with you about who served the best pizza in town.

 

Expressing your beliefs has nothing to do with making personal attacks. Get a grip.

 

And yes, your comments do smell of anti-Christian bigotry. On that point I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Perhaps the next time you're infuriated by someone who disagrees with you, you might take ten minutes to cool off and choose your words more carefully before you poison pen a reply.

 

Did I really come here to be flamed? No, but I freely admit that after your first stink bomb I deliberately baited you on. Predictably, you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Yes, I will enjoy spending the five bucks I won on you.

 

Respect? K, respect has nothing to do with how you conduct yourself with people who agree with you. It has EVERYTHING to do with how you conduct yourself with people who disagree with you. You've displayed your brand of respect very clearly. Enjoy your chili. I'll take mine without the "extras."

[Alan Ladd-The Black Knight-Got it?]

Hi, I'm looking for "The Black Knight" made in 1954 starring Alan Ladd. I checked IMDB and see that it is not available on DVD or Tape. Has anyone recorded a TV showing of the movie that I might be able to get a copy of?

 

Thanks

[Alan Ladd-The Black Knight-Got it?]

Hi, I'm looking for "The Black Knight" made in 1954 starring Alan Ladd. I checked IMDB and see that it is not available on DVD or Tape. Has anyone recorded a TV showing of the movie that I might be able to get a copy of?

 

Thanks

[Why the PROFANITY????]

Thanks keithfromke, you just helped me win a five spot from one of my co-workers. I told him I'd be flamed before we went home today. Don't fret; we own the company so our time and internet usage is our own.

 

You guys are SO predictable. It's a free country and we're all entitled to hold any opinion as long as it's yours.

 

"...hypocritical religious groups who want to push their agendas on everyone else." "..the proper christian thing.."

 

Interesting leap in assumptions. How do you know I'm not a Hindu or a Jew? Everyone who chooses not to eat chili with you is automatically a dirty no good Christian? My, my. Your "college education" has obviously served you well. By the way, Christian is spelled with a capital C.

 

I'm glad you're a happily married guy with swell kids a faithful dog, a two car garage, a membership in the local Rotary Club etc. Along with all that, I hope you have enough love for your children to let them make up their own minds about whether or not the want to be anti-Christian bigots.

 

"I was exposed to these things at an early age and it hasn't hurt me in any way I can see." I rest my case.

 

Love ya Buddy. Now, you can forgive me.

 

 

[Why the PROFANITY????]

Well Indianbear10; lest you think you're alone in this weary world let me say I'm on your side all the way.

 

The preceding replies are obviously stacked against you, but take heart: if you want to be sure of your position in today's world all you have to do is determine what the "politically correct" position is and then take the opposite. Numbers don't count when you're right, and you're right my friend. TMC is leaving it's core group behind; they just don't know it yet.

 

A year or two from today, if TCM holds true to their present slow but sure inclusion of "modern" films, the channel will be unrecognizable.

 

They're following the plan successfully used by Bravo, A&E and many others. That is, they use the "Boil the Frog" method. It's the idea that if you drop a frog in a pan of hot water, it will jump out. But, if you set the frog in a pan of cool water and then slowly heat it, you can raise the water to the boiling point and cook the frog. It takes place so slowly that the little green critter doesn't take notice of his own demise. It's a very successful trick.

 

In large part we have been taught what is "realistic" in films not by any standard of genuine moral values, but by Hollywood film makers. They were among the first early (and very successful) users of the Boil the Frog trick. They've been turning up the heat for years and most of the public, like sleepy frogs, have been boiled. Cursing, sexual trash, out right blasphemy, you name it - all are now acceptable as being "realistic." Perhaps as little as fifty years ago many of these so called "realistic" films would have caused theaters to be closed in protest. If it wasn't so sad, it would be downright laughable.

 

In reply to the stand that this kind of thing is only a "small part" of what TCM airs, I offer the story of "The Chili and the Rats."

 

A man sits down in a diner and orders a bowl of chili. The waiter informs the man that in keeping with his personal standard of honesty, he must inform the customer that rats have been discovered in the kitchen. On average, he estimates that each small bowl of chili contains two to three rat t--ds. They're very small and as they're mixed in with the chili, they're not really noticeable at all. He just thought he ought to tell him. So, "do you want the small bowl or the large bowl?"

 

The eaters of the TCM chili are right in one respect. The advice to change the channel is always good. However, that does not take into account what you call the "ambush." If you, like me, don't pay much attention to "modern" movies, then you often don't know which films may or may not be offensive to you. The "Wanda" thing being one of them. I turned off a running of that film also. And no, there was no indication during the introduction that the contents may have been offensive to some portion of it's audience. If you're warned, then changing the channel is a viable option. If you're not, and you're not familiar with the film, then you become the victim of the "ambush."

 

For the moment Indianbear10 I'm afraid the "chili eaters" hold the fort. But take heart; as I said at the beginning you're not alone. Truth and one man (or woman) are always the real majority.

 

I'm not saying all this to start a "flame war" with the chili eaters or any such silliness. But, as they are entitled to their opinions you and I are also entitled to ours. That's "realistic."

 

I will continue to watch TCM and enjoy the classic films. But, as my trust has already been violated more than once, I will view any new films with a greater degree of suspicion than before.

 

I've found that checking an unknown films contents on IMDB.com is very helpful. Perhaps this would be of value to you. All the best to you Indianbear10.