Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

bbunny1940

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bbunny1940

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. There have been quite a number of great questions regarding why TCM did not do an individual montage devoted to Gloria Stuart. A number of questions go into the decision-making whenever a star or director or whomever passes away: 1. Is the deceased important enough to warrant one? In Arthur Penn's case, TCM decided that he was since he was huge influence to the New Hollywood of the 1970s with such classics as The Miracle Worker and Bonnie & Clyde. 2. Do we have the necessary edit time and budget to make a montage? Often times, these players and directors pass away at a time when there are a plethora of other projects going on, like promos and other pieces supporting "Moguls & Movie Stars". So if the deceased is on the fence, so to speak, between yes or no in importance, then this question really comes into play. These montages are made with careful consideration and due diligence. 3. Are there enough films available for us to make a stirring montage? In Ms. Stuart's case, many of her films are not available to us, not necessarily because we don't have the rights (we do use a films we don't own or have license to, thanks to the fair use doctrine) but because we literally do not have in-house masters or even DVDs from which to use good quality images. And if we do, we need to have enough good shots--close-ups, memorable quotes, or any scene that features the actor/actress prominently--in order to make a quality montage. 4. Finally, the final decision rests on the decision-makers at TCM. The people in charge may very well have wanted to make an obit for Ms. Stuart, but the factors above may have swayed their decision. All of us take the job very seriously of remembering our Hollywood greats. It's part of what makes TCM special for you and for us. We wish we could have given Ms. Stuart and a number of other notables that have passed that special treatment, but we are happy to have the opportunity to place her prominently in the year end memorial.
  2. The voice is the same voice that used to announce Delta Airlines on-board safety video. I swear, it sounds just like her, if it's not actually her.
  3. mmmm....boogers.....ururrhhghghggghh.... Homer J. Simpson
  4. I didn't say TC was a character actor. I meant that this anachronistic quality I'm referring to can be good for some, especially character actors.
  5. I read an article some time ago about Tom Cruise's inability to effectively blend into period stories, like "Far and Away" and "The Last Samurai." He tends to stick out, like he doesn't belong there. I can totally see this in "The Last Samurai." His way of talking, walking, and just being doesn't jibe for a 19th century personage. Now that criticism is largely negative, but it can be positive, especially for character actors--they are that much more noticeable. One of my favorite anachronisms is Paul Valentine in "Out of the Past." He plays Kirk Douglas' henchman, Joe. Every time I see this movie, I think that there is something about this guy that is so unusual, almost like he's from a different decade. Anybody else notice this?
  6. Richard Widmark--without a doubt underrated. So is Joseph Cotten. Love those guys.
  7. Good question. Endlessly debatable. No right or wrong answer. It seems to me that TCM isn't in the business of showing "classic" movies, as defined by millions of viewers, each of whom would have wildly different definitions, restrictions, criteria and tastes about what 'classic movie' means. Rather TCM is in the business of showing movies AS classics. TCM defines them as classics, instead of the movies defining themselves as classics, based on each individual movies' fans. Afterall, an older film, like say, "The Bank Dick," might not be seen as a classic by some people, because they can't stand W.C. Fields or they've never even heard of it. Others would fistfight them for even thinking that. But TCM comes to the table with the authority to present the films as classics, even though not every viewer would agree that such-and-such film should be considered a classic. TCM does so by presenting each film respectfully, artistically, and properly. Without commercials. Uncut. With context from Robert Osborne, Ben Mankewicz, Essentials hosts and Guest Programmers. Without commercials. Uncut. With background history from other sources through the things that run between the movies (like the Word of Mouth stuff, or the Saul Bass piece from two years ago). With advertisements that don't present them as old, but as something new that hasn't been seen yet. With letterboxing (when appropriate). Without commercials. For example, the silent movie "Metropolis" is given just as much weight--in TCM's mind--as "Back to the Future" because they are both treated the same--without commercials, uncut, with context, and on the same themed night called "Mad Scientists." TCM is the authority here on what gets treated as a classic, instead of a million faces out there in the dark, clamoring the narrowly define what a classic is. (And Stoneyburke--really nothing after 1955? Vertigo? Psycho? Ben-Hur? Some Like it Hot? Really and truly?)
  8. Permission granted Araner. Yeah, those issues run the gamut, of old versus new, nostalgic artifacts versus timeless art, cynicism versus faith, and the endlessly debatable question over the ownership of cinema. I mean, the larger question, really, is who owns the movies? TCM has the right to present these movies any way they want, but at the same time, the audience has a right to remember the movies and appreciate and revere them the way they want to. Afterall, cinema is an artform created for, of and in a way, by the masses. So one group will assail a promo that runs on the TCM as besmirching the movies themselves, based on their own self-centered memories and cultural tastes (***and I don't mean that in a bad way, so chill-ax), while another group will champion it for presenting the films in a way that will appeal to an audience heretofore unfamiliar with them. So what we've got here is not so much a failure to communicate (thank you Strother Martin), but a failure to explicate towards the same conclusion. An all-too-obvious point perhaps, but worth repeating.
  9. Duly noted. Kathie Moffat: "Is there a way to win?" Jeff Bailey: "There's a way to lose more slowly."
  10. > Have you seen both versions of 'The Thing'? > They're both good in their way, but I prefer the > suspense generated in the original. One thing about > the original movies is they didn't have the > technology we have today, so they had to figure out > a way to stop these 'monsters' using > ingenuity and daring. The blood tests in #2 spoiled > the tenseness of the guys trapped in the building > with a monster lurking outside. I prefer the original overall. The Hawksian dialogue and camraderie is more enjoyable, as is seeing the Cold War conflict of science vs. duty. But, the remake, is terrifying too. It has much to say about identity and paranoia in the post-Watergate era. A great film too, highly underrated. > As for Classic remakes of Classics. I can go again > to my favorite 'The Women'. You know, there has been an effort for over 10 years now to remake this again. At one time, Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan, Whitney Houston, and many, many others were mentioned to be in the cast. That being said, it would die at the start. You just can't compete with Shearer, Crawford, and especially Ros Russell. No way.
  11. TCM also has played "Ryan's Daughter", "The Conqueror," and "What! No Beer?" Terrible movies. But since they have age on them, does that mean they are "classics"? In the interest of full disclosure, I can't imagine a Rick Moranis movie either that could be considered a classic in the future. Except "Ghostbusters" and "Little Shop of Horrors."
  12. > You've hit the nail on the head. It is, after all, > all about money. tcmprogrammer, you better stop reading and typing. Since all you should earn is bread and water, you might wanna save your strength. OCC: Ben-Hur ("Ramming speed!")
  13. > We all will just have to get used to the fact that > everything is going global and there is no more room > for an aw shucks little Atlanta station that played > the classics. I think it's a good thing that the lil' station in the ATL has actually grown its viewership. The little guys who work there might actually get paid more money with more viewers tuning in. Then again, I don't really know how TV works. I too dumb. I just plug in and turn on da "Magic Picture Box." > It's not that I don't believe you, > tcmprogrammer, I don't trust your bosses in > suits. They lie through their bonded teeth. Who? Who is lying? And with all due respect, but the good ole' days, the way I remember them, didn't have quite so much cynicism, not to mention fear, ya know? Couldn't there be a little more faith in tcmprogrammer and his/her colleagues? OCC: Tonight is "Old Lady Night." Harold and Maude, Arsenic and Old Lace, The Ladykillers. (Damn that Ruth Gordon for being in a New Hollywood movie.) Followed by an Italian film called "Ossessione." You should see this. It's based on James M. Cain's book "The Postman Always Rings Twice." It was made three years before the sparkly John Garfield/Lana Turner version. This one, directed by Luchino Visconti, is a little bit more grungy. (Hope that won't be a problem.) Interestingly, Visconti did not get rights to Cain's novel.
  14. > > Are you the > **** from the video? That wasn't very sweet, sweetbabykmd. "****" is an interesting word, I think, subject to interpretation. Grace Kelly slept with pretty much all of her leading men. Was she a ****? Probably not. She didn't have any tattoos. That we know of.
  15. There's a fantastic one in "The Seven-Ups." And "Ronin." And "To Live and Die in L.A." Then there are the plethora of great stuff in Harold Lloyd's films, particularly "Girl Shy." And there is a Monty Banks film called "Play Safe" (1927) that has a really spectacular car chase. It was re-edited into a shorter film called "Chasing Choo-Choos." It can be found on a dvd called "Slapstick Masters."
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...