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

movieman1957

Members
  • Posts

    6,641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by movieman1957

  1. The first three are still part of the "31 Days." However, if going back to 1961 is a problem then the population here will never agree where it ends. Many have been shown on TCM before.

     

    My personal opinion is a film that is 47 years old is old enough to qualify for TCM. But, that's just me.

     

    "Night of The Lepus" must be for TCM Underground.

  2. I was actually agreeing with you. I didn't mean it to come off sarcastic about your comment. You hit on it with an economy of words.

     

    I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer. I made a comment in the "Newer Movies" thread where I pointed out what you said and that it has to be partly about getting new people. Without new viewers there is no growth and without growth there in no TCM.

     

    Again, I apologize for my comment coming across the way it did.

  3. Gregory:

     

    Your last comment is along the same lines as what I think. There are some films I don't care to see but I know people are anxious for them. Some I know I won't have time to see but the important thing is they are on.

     

    ********

     

    In the end we aren't going to have much say on what TCM does one way or the other. We are a small group compared to what the total viewers are of TCM. That's not to say they don't read what is going on. The TCM Programmer visits here. In the end it boils down to how many people watch and how long Time/Warner is going to allow this "philanthropic" endeavor to go on.

     

    "Fedya" said it best when he said this month is about attracting new viewers. I saw the "31 Days" promo on TNT. They figure if they can get new people to watch with "Lord Of The Rings" maybe they'll watch what comes on after or before and, voila, new classic movie fan. Even if they don't TCM can go back to Time/Warner and say our viewership is up and they get to hang on another year.

     

    First and last it is a business. AMC figured that out. Whatever hurt we feel about what they did, from a business standpoint, they look to the bottom line and know they are more profitable and have a bigger audience than they were when they were the "classic" channel.

     

    Ultimately, I understand people being frustrated. I underdstand people venting. I don't always get why it happens over 5 or 6 threads and overtakes other conversations. For the time being TCM is the only place we can get this type of programming. Their mission is still to showcase classic movies and they have always shown recent movies but as we get older and as time goes by the time frame is likely to become broader and at some point the library has to expand or we'll be seeing the same old stuff a lot more.

     

    Let's not forget though that there were the "lost" film series and the films from Teddington studios and othe things you wouldn't see anywhere else. It may be "Unforgiven" will help fund some of the work to prepare Hal Roach films for broadcast.

     

    Within the scope of the studios and rights issues and prints that are available I can't imagine the challenge to walk that line between "feeding" your loyal viewers and getting new ones to come and stay. TCM is not perfect but it is all we have.

  4. >Because that won't bring in new viewers.

     

     

    Right you are, oh Great One. And we know what happens when channels can't bring in new viewers, don't we? We'll have another "Food" channel in all likelyhood. (Turner Classic Meals.)

     

    If there's any doubt we can all check the thread to see what other channels have become.

  5. I'm curious. I do not mean this in any way to come across as mean or contrary but I do want to collect some information. I'm not looking for an argument though we can discuss if anyone wishes -

     

    For you newer posters -

     

    How long have you been watching TCM?

    When did this arc in the scheduling become noticeable?

     

    I ask because there are probably 5 or 6 threads where some similar discsussion/argument is taking place.

     

    I'm puzzled that this takes so much space and it primarily happens in February.

  6. I remember you so this is a very nice surprise. Glad you were able to get here.

     

    It's been typical. Some good conversation, some arguments, some silly threads and some of the old ones still going strong.

     

    Post away. You have some catching up to do.

  7. Leo:

     

    I brought up John Gary and Gleason but I didn't mean to suggest that Gary sang with Gleason.

     

    Gary had such a wonderful voice. He was fairly successful for a time but he never reached the level of success like Andy Williams, Mathis, Como and singers like those.

     

    Chris

  8. I saw it on DVD recently. It does suffer from its time. If you don't know anything about the Cold War it would be tough to follow.

     

    I don't find the acting as rough as you. In a way I think it fits with his general exasperation. I heard the same thing about his memorization but I also heard his frustration at trying to get the speed of the dialogue was as bad.

  9. In a 78 minute there's not a lot of time to develop anything. Your question about him coming back after he rides off may, I think, have something to do with people who just can't stand to lose. He may have had the money but he didn't leave on his terms.

     

    I'll have to go watch it again but for pulling the blanket up over Maureen it may have just been a measure of kindness. THey are two people stuck in a situation by accident and so far don't seem to have had time to have those feelings. Of course by the end it's more involved, more dangerous and through the end they may have been drawn together as they finished it together.

     

    As I've been watching Boone in this and "Have Gun-Will Travel" he has never struck me as anything but of average height. In that series he certainly knows how to wear a suit.

  10. Buffalo Chuck:

     

    Do you think Victor would really be embarassed about the marriage being off? I think he feels he has won. He's not interested in giving up her dowry. Maybe I' m missing something but I'm not sure he would feel embarassed. He might feel that way after the fight and he gives up the money and they throw it in the fire. It shows it was not about the money it was the principle of the thing.

     

    MissG, what is your impression?

  11. I'm glad you got to see it. I think it's a pretty good film that would have been better had O'Sullivan's part had been a stronger woman. Her husband is no better. She doesn't seem to miss him as I recall. Boone is first rate as always. Henry Silva has always been creepy to me.

     

    I've no idea why it's "The Tall T." It's been a little while since I've seen it but I don't remember any ranch. Unless it is the mine they are stuck in but I don't think that is right.

     

    I do like the way Scott says at the end "Come on now, it's gonna be a nice day."

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