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

Recommended Posts

And since leasing arrangements seem to allow repeated showings for a certain  amount of time, they can be shown again, not just for a SOTM. I feel too much money is going for salaries and not movies....

 

Is someone like Tiffany really needed?

  I don't know about Tiffany, but I totally agree with your first two sentences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  I don't know about Tiffany, but I totally agree with your first two sentences.

 

Unless one has seen TCM's annual budget I don't know why anyone would make such wild assumptions.

 

e.g. There are many other logical reasons why TCM can't lease films from studios like Fox and Universal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just peeked into this thread for the first time.

 

I'm not a fan about worrying about TCM's budget, but if realities of programming are affected by budget, I would say dump the presenters. That includes the guests and the regulars. Their salaries and travel expenses can go to broadening the programming to some rarities. If I want to learn something about the films, instead of having some host person telling me some factoid, i can look it up.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless one has seen TCM's annual budget I don't know why anyone would make such wild assumptions.

 

e.g. There are many other logical reasons why TCM can't lease films from studios like Fox and Universal.

OK,so you're happy with the way things are. That's your right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,so you're happy with the way things are. That's your right.

 

You know that isn't the case since you read and replied to my prior post where I stated I wished TCM would show more Paramount films (as well as Fox, and Universal ones,  and get away from the so called Turner library of films). 

 

But wild speculation with regards to WHY TCM continues to focus mainly on the Turner library of films doesn't get one anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between leasing a film to be shown at a festival and leasing the rights to show a film on television. The television rights are usually more difficult. There may be an archival 35mm print which can be shown at a festival, but not on TV. These days films usually have to be digitized to be shown on television. If the films are not already digitized, that is an additional expense for someone to pay.

 

Most films which are shown at the TCM Festival are shown on TCM within a year or so, but not all. Whistle Down the Wind was shown at the festival in 2011, but never on TCM.

 

James is absolutely right about the Paramount films, many of which are now owned by Universal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And since leasing arrangements seem to allow repeated showings for a certain  amount of time, they can be shown again, not just for a SOTM. I feel too much money is going for salaries and not movies....

 

 

It is my understanding that salaries for on-air personalities are a tiny part of their budget. A Programmer once stated on these boards that the cost of leasing a movie is significant. I remember the implication in the thread was that the cost is five-figures.

 

I believe also that there is arrangement that several divisions share studio facilities. It is likely that there is fixture in budget for TCM to share that cost. I feel that it is likely that other divisions would not wish to assume TCM's contribution. I believe TCM would do well to maximize return on what they must pay by using those facilities as much as they can.

 

On-air personalities are important also to: TCM as: brand. There is much advertising of on-air personalities attending festival, cruise and other: TCM-sponsored events. Money which: TCM makes on such things must ease demand on overall budget and free money for leasing more movies. I have been told that placing a face on any product increases sales. That is basis of having celebrity endorsements. On-air personalities are the face of: TCM and help to sell all of: TCM's subsidiary activities.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And since leasing arrangements seem to allow repeated showings for a certain  amount of time, they can be shown again, not just for a SOTM. I feel too much money is going for salaries and not movies....

 

Is someone like Tiffany really needed?

 

Having occasionally had to lease movies for commercial use, I know that the cost varies wildly, according to venue, number of times of showing, etc. It can actually be quite cheap. And it is always negotiable. The BFI once granted me the use of a director's cut of one of their films, merely for the cost of shipping!

 

The on-air personalities do cost money. Robert Osborne does pretty well. I understand the branding needs, but of what use are they if the same product is shown over and over? Still, there's always something to see on TCM; it would just be nice to broaden the scope of the older movies, which are cheaper to rent. And with TCM, there is very little ad revenue to share.

 

And, although I don't mind RO, I have no interest at all in the opinions/selections and intros of actors. And they don't come cheap!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just peeked into this thread for the first time.

 

I'm not a fan about worrying about TCM's budget, but if realities of programming are affected by budget, I would say dump the presenters. That includes the guests and the regulars. Their salaries and travel expenses can go to broadening the programming to some rarities. If I want to learn something about the films, instead of having some host person telling me some factoid, i can look it up.

I totally agree. I think a lot of the hosting is expendable too. Back in 2008, when I first started watching TCM-- I looked up Ben Mankiewicz on myspace. Remember when people were still using it as a social media site before Facebook took over? And one of the things people put into their profiles on myspace was their yearly income. I am sure a lot of folks exaggerated what they made, but others like Mankiewicz probably did not. He listed his income as $200,000 annually. That was in 2008. Wouldn't it be substantially more than that now because he has taken on so many other duties, plus he probably has made a lot promoting all that wine.. I am not saying TCM should dump him, because he's fun and people like him...but should we over-value someone reading information off a TelePrompTer (trivia and tidbits of information that can be found online by anyone)..?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd still vote for Marion Davies as SOTM in December to celebrate two new DVD releases later this year: When Knighthood Was in Flower and The Bride's Play ... both 1922. Both films would be television premieres. Davies has never been SOTM, was a major star from 1917 until her retirement in 1937, and TCM likely has in place licensing agreements for more than 20 of her films.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between leasing a film to be shown at a festival and leasing the rights to show a film on television. The television rights are usually more difficult. There may be an archival 35mm print which can be shown at a festival, but not on TV. These days films usually have to be digitized to be shown on television. If the films are not already digitized, that is an additional expense for someone to pay.

 

Most films which are shown at the TCM Festival are shown on TCM within a year or so, but not all. Whistle Down the Wind was shown at the festival in 2011, but never on TCM.

 

James is absolutely right about the Paramount films, many of which are now owned by Universal.

Don't forget about leasing the rights to show a film on mobile devices. I'm still trying to understand why certain films cannot be shown on these devices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that salaries for on-air personalities are a tiny part of their budget. A Programmer once stated on these boards that the cost of leasing a movie is significant. I remember the implication in the thread was that the cost is five-figures.

 

I believe also that there is arrangement that several divisions share studio facilities. It is likely that there is fixture in budget for TCM to share that cost. I feel that it is likely that other divisions would not wish to assume TCM's contribution. I believe TCM would do well to maximize return on what they must pay by using those facilities as much as they can.

 

On-air personalities are important also to: TCM as: brand. There is much advertising of on-air personalities attending festival, cruise and other: TCM-sponsored events. Money which: TCM makes on such things must ease demand on overall budget and free money for leasing more movies. I have been told that placing a face on any product increases sales. That is basis of having celebrity endorsements. On-air personalities are the face of: TCM and help to sell all of: TCM's subsidiary activities.

 

 

Well on air personalities mean nothing to me. I'd be fine if they did away with them altogether once RO leaves.....90% of what they say about the film I know already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well on air personalities mean nothing to me. I'd be fine if they did away with them altogether once RO leaves.....90% of what they say about the film I know already.

I have no preference of RO over Ben. After that there's a pretty big dropoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no preference of RO over Ben. After that there's a pretty big dropoff.

 

I dont really dislike Ben, but I could live w/out him. I would miss RO though, but he cant live forever. RO actually met and dealt with many of these stars, after him it's all fact checking write ups. I could live without it...........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget about leasing the rights to show a film on mobile devices. I'm still trying to understand why certain films cannot be shown on these devices.

 

 

I have been told it is often due to differences in contracts. The owner of a movie might have sold the right to market the movie to television to one distributor and the right to market the movie on VHS/DVD to different distributor.

 

It could be argued that the owner did not sell rights to stream the movie to any other party and so they own that right still.

 

It could be argued that streaming rights are subset of television rights and so distributor who owns those rights owns also streaming rights.

 

It could be argued that streaming rights are direct-to-consumer arrangements and so distributor who markets VHS/DVD owns streaming rights.

 

The exact wording in any particular contract may vary slightly from wording in similar contract by different parties and so this gives footing for arguments.

 

A truism of American life is that if any point can be argued then there are attorneys anxious to argue it. It may be with many movies that cost of settling legal dispute re: rights may be higher than amount of revenue which could be expected from licensing the movie.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been told it is often due to differences in contracts. The owner of a movie might have sold the right to market the movie to television to one distributor and the right to market the movie on VHS/DVD to different distributor.

 

It could be argued that the owner did not sell rights to stream the movie to any other party and so they own that right still.

 

It could be argued that streaming rights are subset of television rights and so distributor who owns those rights owns also streaming rights.

 

It could be argued that streaming rights are direct-to-consumer arrangements and so distributor who markets VHS/DVD owns streaming rights.

 

The exact wording in any particular contract may vary slightly from wording in similar contract by different parties and so this gives footing for arguments.

 

A truism of American life is that if any point can be argued then there are attorneys anxious to argue it. It may be with many movies that cost of settling legal dispute re: rights may be higher than amount of revenue which could be expected from licensing the movie.

That's understandable. However, there is another thing that is confusing to me. When a film has been shown on the WatchTCM app and placed on-demand, that same particular film is suddenly blocked the next time. For example, Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942) has been available on the WatchTCM app before, but suddenly, on the night of this year's Fourth of July broadcast, it was blocked from the app. How does that happen when one time a film is shown on-demand and the next time it's blocked?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does that happen when one time a film is shown on-demand and the next time it's blocked?

 

 

It may be that license expired or it may be that they rotate movies to have bandwidth for new offerings or it may be that gremlin got into server or ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be that license expired or it may be that they rotate movies to have bandwidth for new offerings or it may be that gremlin got into server or ...

 

Licensing agreements can be for broadcast on TCM, video streaming, showing at festivals..... each license can specifically includes or exclude are of these.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Licensing agreements can be for broadcast on TCM, video streaming, showing at festivals..... each license can specifically includes or exclude are of these.....

 

The peculiarities of film licensing hit me early on in my career. I wanted to show an excerpt from a major Hollywood (WB) film, in conjunction with a live appearance by someone who worked on the film.  I just wanted to show a specific clip, but at first I asked the distributor the cost of renting/showing the movie. That cost was not much -- a few hundred dollars.  When I made it clear that I just wanted to show a brief -- maybe just a few minutes -- clip from the film, I was told that the cost would be much more expensive, about $2,000. And I wasn't requesting a prepared clip -- just the whole film, which our projectionist would have cued up to the necessary scene.

 

That seemed odd to me, but it's an odd business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well on air personalities mean nothing to me. I'd be fine if they did away with them altogether once RO leaves.....90% of what they say about the film I know already.

 

And a fair percentage of what they say isn't true. Both RO and BM have been caught saying things about the films

or stars which were false. Not enough research done before scripting the dialogue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And a fair percentage of what they say isn't true. Both RO and BM have been caught saying things about the films

or stars which were false. Not enough research done before scripting the dialogue.

I agree with this comment. Just because Robert Osborne met or knew some of these golden age stars doesn't mean he's infallible in his reporting about them. Hopefully he is more accurate than other people, but there's no guarantee that he is. 

 

I worked with June Lockhart on a TV show in the mid-90s. And Martin Landau and Salome Jens taught me at the Actors Studio. But would I say I am qualified to discuss all their performances? No.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...