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

A film we don't talk about, a film TCM will never be able to air?


Recommended Posts

It's funny, but other films whose rights were tied up forever, like The Story of Temple Drake were cleared up (I assume money fixed that rights issue) but Letty Lyton and Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back (which you can find, and sadly it's a terrible movie, IMHO) still are in limbo....

 

It was a big deal when TEMPLE DRAKE finally aired on TCM. Another one that finally reached the light at the end of the legal tunnel was THE CONSTANT NYMPH (1943). 

 

But LETTY LYNTON seems to be denied a better fate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are you saying "we" have or don't have freedom of speech?

 

What she is saying is that it is stupid for someone that isn't black to say something like 'blacks shouldn't be offended by XYZ'.   

 

But one does have the freedom to be stupid. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

....But one does have the freedom to be stupid. 

 

YEAH?! Well then HERE'S a "stupid" question for ya, James...Where in the Constitution does it say that, HUH?!

 

Now, I KNOW it says somethin' about speech and religion and The Press AND that whole thing about assembly and stuff, but I sure don't remember learnin' nothin' about bein' "stupid" TOO! So where'd YOU go to school, HUH?!

 

;)

 

(...sorry, couldn't resist)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Princess of Tap, on 26 Aug 2016 - 9:57 PM, said:snapback.png

.....I thought I Stated myself clearly. But I will try and be even more clear.

What I'm saying is that anybody in any particular race or ethnic group can speak for that race or ethnic group from their Viewpoint.

However, people who are NOT in that race or that ethnic group have NO right to speak for that race or ethnic group. As if they know more about that race or ethnic group, than the people who are actually in that race or ethnic group know about themselves.

In America everyone has freedom of speech.

jamesjazzguitar

 

ziggyelman, on 27 Aug 2016 - 3:07 PM, said:snapback.png

So, are you saying "we" have or don't have freedom of speech?

 

What she is saying is that it is stupid for someone that isn't black to say something like 'blacks shouldn't be offended by XYZ'.   

 

But one does have the freedom to be stupid. 

 

Princess of Tap, jamesjazzguitar, not speaking for others, but my point  isn’t hey, blacks, get over it, my point was/is (along with if...”In America everyone has freedom of speech.” I guess we all have freedom to speak, to opine) is IF  group X,, if a  fraction of said group really is upset by a film, then no one has the right to see or hear something group X doesn’t like?What we feel on the subject is moot, simply because we are not part of Group X?

 

Remember several years ago when there was a Gays images in Film month, if some devout Christians had complained that this bothered them to their very cores(Don’t remember hearing much of this, just an example) would everyone be quick to say, hey, let’s just not show Gays in Films in case it offends any Christians or Muslims?

 

I have seen pre-code films that portray Jewish serotypes that aren’t very flattering, should these films never be shown on TV again or available on DVD?

 

I recall a nice woman who posted here several years ago (I forget her nickname, she may still be here) I remember her saying how she hated the Marx Bros films, never watched them. Myself and others said basically, oh come on, give them a chance, they are so funny, making fun of pomp and circumstance, war, just chuck full of wholesome anarchy.....nope, she had no interest. She was married at one time to a man that sounded like an unfunny Groucho, constantly putting her down, belittling her...well...Now I and others understood where she was coming from...never thought of that before....so, she was free not watch Marx bros films. But, if she and other woman who had been in abusive relationships got together to try to BAN the Marx Bros films (or other films with brutish behaviour by  men them) would everyone say, well, yeah...that is a disturbing scene...let's never show that film again. (Clockwork Orange as an example)

 

Heck, even as a kid, when I saw the very beginning of  The Philadelphia story , while it certainly seemed that Tracy Lords had "it" coming to her, it still was and is shocking to see, and probably couldn't be in a comedy today...

 

There are many films from the 30's and 40's that have African-American's shown in a poor light, should these films one-day be pulled from TCM because no doubt some people will be rightly offended by the portrayals of Black people ?

 

My Point is, where does this all end? People raised holly hell with films being colorized (even though all involved in making the films were long dead...well, most of them...they are all dead now) but , to cut up, edit, censor MGM and WB cartoons, permanently is a-ok,?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Princess of Tap, on 26 Aug 2016 - 9:57 PM, said:snapback.png

jamesjazzguitar

.....I thought I Stated myself clearly. But I will try and be even more clear.

What I'm saying is that anybody in any particular race or ethnic group can speak for that race or ethnic group from their Viewpoint.

However, people who are NOT in that race or that ethnic group have NO right to speak for that race or ethnic group. As if they know more about that race or ethnic group, than the people who are actually in that race or ethnic group know about themselves.

In America everyone has freedom of speech.

 

ziggyelman, on 27 Aug 2016 - 3:07 PM, said:snapback.png

 

So, are you saying "we" have or don't have freedom of speech?

What she is saying is that it is stupid for someone that isn't black to say something like 'blacks shouldn't be offended by XYZ'.   

 

But one does have the freedom to be stupid. 

 

Princess of Tap, jamesjazzguitar, not speaking for others, but my point  isn’t hey, blacks, get over it, my point was/is (along with if...”In America everyone has freedom of speech.” I guess we all have freedom to speak, to opine) is IF  group X,, if a  fraction of said group really is upset by a film, then no one has the right to see or hear something group X doesn’t like?What we feel on the subject is moot, simply because we are not part of Group X?

 

Remember several years ago when there was a Gays images in Film month, if some devout Christians had complained that this bothered them to their very cores(Don’t remember hearing much of this, just an example) would everyone be quick to say, hey, let’s just not show Gays in Films in case it offends any Christians or Muslims?

 

I have seen pre-code films that portray Jewish serotypes that aren’t very flattering, should these films never be shown on TV again or available on DVD?

 

I recall a nice woman who posted here several years ago (I forget her nickname, she may still be here) I remember her saying how she hated the Marx Bros films, never watched them. Myself and others said basically, oh come on, give them a chance, they are so funny, making fun of pomp and circumstance, war, just chuck full of wholesome anarchy.....nope, she had no interest. She was married at one time to a man that sounded like an unfunny Groucho, constantly putting her down, belittling her...well...Now I and others understood where she was coming from...never thought of that before....so, she was free not watch Marx bros films. But, if she and other woman who had been in abusive relationships got together to try to BAN the Marx Bros films (or other films with brutish behaviour by  men them) would everyone say, well, yeah...that is a disturbing scene...let's never show that film again. (Clockwork Orange as an example)

 

Heck, even as a kid, when I saw the very beginning of  The Philadelphia story , while it certainly seemed that Tracy Lords had "it" coming to her, it still was and is shocking to see, and probably couldn't be in a comedy today...

 

There are many films from the 30's and 40's that have African-American's shown in a poor light, should these films one-day be pulled from TCM because no doubt some people will be rightly offended by the portrayals of Black people ?

 

My Point is, where does this all end? People raised holly hell with films being colorized (even though all involved in making the films were long dead...well, most of them...they are all dead now) but , to cut up, edit, censor MGM and WB cartoons, permanently is a-ok,?

 

Your complaint here,  which I agree with BTW,  is with the companies that OWN the products.   It is NOT with those that complain that some content is insensitive or racist etc....

 

This is why I stated;   Of course people have a right to complain,  I just wish the media companies (e.g. Disney), didn't listen to them.

 

As for where does it end:  It doesn't end - ever;   Each media company decides what is in their best interest and sometimes that means NOT making a product like Song of the South available.      

 

That is a capitalist value and America is a capitalist nation.    

 

There are groups that lobby the media companies to ensure all content is made available.  You may wish to join one of these groups.

 

PS:  When you state ",,should these films one-day be pulled from TCM,,,';   To me that is the basis of your misunderstanding here.    TCM is the only one that decides what they show or not (well other then X rated films or other violations of Fed law).    So they are not 'pulled from TCM',   instead TCM decides NOT to show them.  That is THEIR choice in a free market place.   So again, lobby TCM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much.  One or two other people's heads would explode and a bunch of us would record it (Song Of The South, not their heads exploding).

 

I don't know if that is true.   The L.A. Times covers TCM fairly well (e.g. they have a 'classic movie' article that appears weekly and often sites TCM).    Their coverage of the Oscars and it's lack of diversity and the fact black films and actors weren't nominated was a front page story for weeks (not just the entertainment section but front page).    The Times being the largest paper in Hollywoodland milked this to death. 

 

If some black activist groups were to write to the Times about TCM showing SOTS the Times might give it a lot of press.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if that is true.   The L.A. Times covers TCM fairly well (e.g. they have a 'classic movie' article that appears weekly and often sites TCM).    Their coverage of the Oscars and it's lack of diversity and the fact black films and actors weren't nominated was a front page story for weeks (not just the entertainment section but front page).    The Times being the largest paper in Hollywoodland milked this to death. 

 

If some black activist groups were to write to the Times about TCM showing SOTS the Times might give it a lot of press.  

 

Yep, those are the types whose heads would explode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what would happen if tcm aired song of the south?

 

they won't...but what if they did? :huh:

 

The question is moot because they won't. Now is not the time to offend and send away viewers. 

 

It seems very few understand the precarious position many media companies are in these days. Cable/Satellite viewership is dropping by millions each year. Pair that with new free channels show classic films, Streaming channels, and so many other ways to distribute content, its getting more and more difficult to hang on to existing customers. Let along attract new ones. 

 

There are some on this very board who no longer have TCM for a variety of reasons.

 

Attitudes haven't really changed. Its that those who were offended only now have a mechanism to make their feelings known. And there was not much choice in the old days. Movie theater or tv, that's it ! Now, people can vote with there dollars. Media companies are forced to give in to the demands of their customers or have a real chance to lose them. 

 

This is why I stated;   Of course people have a right to complain,  I just wish the media companies (e.g. Disney), didn't listen to them.

 

How would a company know what to show if they didn't do market research ? Every successful company takes time to find out what their customers want and don't want.

 

 

What she is saying is that it is stupid for someone that isn't black to say something like 'blacks shouldn't be offended by XYZ'.   

 

But one does have the freedom to be stupid. 

 

You can't legislate stupidity. If you don't believe me, take a look at Washington D.C. the past few decades.

 

It sounds like people are interested in discussing SONG OF THE SOUTH. In my original post, I was focusing on IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. But I guess this discussion includes a variety of films TCM cannot air.

 

You tell a child there is something they cannot have and that's the only thing on their mind. They get fixated on that cookie in the cookie jar. It doesn't taste any better or worse than any other cookie. But, the fact it can't be had drives some bonkers. 

 

Its the same with adults...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if that is true.   The L.A. Times covers TCM fairly well (e.g. they have a 'classic movie' article that appears weekly and often sites TCM).    Their coverage of the Oscars and it's lack of diversity and the fact black films and actors weren't nominated was a front page story for weeks (not just the entertainment section but front page).    The Times being the largest paper in Hollywoodland milked this to death. 

 

If some black activist groups were to write to the Times about TCM showing SOTS the Times might give it a lot of press.  

 

Are you suggesting programmers might not schedule certain films, out of fear that the L.A. Times and its staff would shake its collective finger at TCM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting programmers might not schedule certain films, out of fear that the L.A. Times and its staff would shake its collective finger at TCM?

 

The question was what would happen IF TCM was to show SOTS;   The reply was 'not much' and I said I wouldn't assume that would be the case since the L.A. Times might 'take up the cause' since that is right in their wheelhouse.   

 

I was NOT suggesting anything else but that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much.  One or two other people's heads would explode and a bunch of us would record it (Song Of The South, not their heads exploding).

 

Just a few years ago, in an effort to compete with the emmy winning Mad Men, Networks produced some t.v. shows ( The Playboy Club, Pan Am etc...) to portray life in the early 60's. And of course they showed the objectification and sexism women went through in those days. They didn't last long at all.

 

As "MovieCollectorOH" so eloquently put: Heads exploded ! :lol:  Women's groups began to protest, City councils voted to denounce one the series before it even aired. The network in the end felt it wasn't worth the trouble to continue and canceled them both. What media company wants to go through that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few years ago, in an effort to compete with the emmy winning Mad Men, Networks produced some t.v. shows ( The Playboy Club, Pan Am etc...) to portray life in the early 60's. And of course they showed the objectification and sexism women went through in those days. They didn't last long at all.

 

As "MovieCollectorOH" so eloquently put: Heads exploded ! :lol:  Women's groups began to protest, City councils voted to denounce one the series before it even aired. The network in the end felt it wasn't worth the trouble to continue and canceled them both. What media company wants to go through that ?

 

To me those examples are vastly different than what is being discussed here;  content created years, if not decades ago, that a media company decides to bury in order to avoid a backlash.

 

Anyhow,  as I already posted,  I understand why Disney made the decision they made from a risk assessment POV with regards to SOTS.    If I was working for Disney and I had a say I might make the same decision.

 

But as someone that wishes no content was suppressed,  I wish all media companies would release what they have or sell it to a 3rd party so they can release it (but in the case of SOTS it would be difficult to 'erase' the Disney brand from the product). 

 

I do realize my POV is unrealistic and just wishful thinking.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me those examples are vastly different than what is being discussed here;  content created years, if not decades ago, that a media company decides to bury in order to avoid a backlash.

But as someone that wishes no content was suppressed,  I wish all media companies would release what they have or sell it to a 3rd party so they can release it (but in the case of SOTS it would be difficult to 'erase' the Disney brand from the product). 

 

 

 

I regard them as similar because many of the same groups will do the complaining. There are those who look for things to complain about to justify their own existence. They make things worse for those who fight for real issues that matter.  

 

I don't like any censorship at all involving adults. I feel people should know how to turn the channel or turn it off. I think the 3rd party solution is a real possibility. There will be (or already is) some streaming channel who would show these films just for the attention and publicity. Because there is no such thing as bad publicity. There already are some who show "exploitation" filcks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I regard them as similar because many of the same groups will do the complaining. There are those who look for things to complain about to justify their own existence. They make things worse for those who fight for real issues that matter.  

 

I don't like any censorship at all involving adults. I feel people should know how to turn the channel or turn it off. I think the 3rd party solution is a real possibility. There will be (or already is) some streaming channel who would show these films just for the attention and publicity. Because there is no such thing as bad publicity. There already are some who show "exploitation" filcks.

 

I remember the women from Michigan that wrote to Fox about Married with Children.    The show was doing poorly and Fox was thinking of canceling the show.   Well after all the press this women's complain received the ratings soared and the rest is history.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the women from Michigan that wrote to Fox about Married with Children.    The show was doing poorly and Fox was thinking of canceling the show.   Well after all the press this women's complain received the ratings soared and the rest is history.

 

I'm not familiar with that.  Was that in Married With Children's first season or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with that.  Was that in Married With Children's first season or something?

 

Yes, this was the first season.     The complaint, as well as additional negative feedback from groups that support 'family viewing',  became a major media event (and this was before Facebook and Twitter of course). 

 

Fox was a fairly 'new' network and they loved the attention.   It helped make them a true forth network.

 

I hadn't seen the show but remember reading about the fuss and of course I than had to take a look.    Like many others I found the show very funny and became a fan.     In this case if those that complained had just shut up they would have received what they wanted;  no more show.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox was a fairly 'new' network and they loved the attention.   It helped make them a true forth network.

 

Married...with Children and The Tracey Ullman Show were the first 2 primetime shows on the Fox network, joining the short-lived late night talk show hosted by Joan Rivers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Married...with Children and The Tracey Ullman Show were the first 2 primetime shows on the Fox network, joining the short-lived late night talk show hosted by Joan Rivers.

 

And The Simpsons was a spinoff of Ullman's program. Most of the lead voices of the animated series were regulars on the parent show. Poor Tracey Ullman was left out in the cold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GAW!  The SIMPSONS....

 

I still recall seeing a crudely drawn cartoon short of them in a movie theater shown between the trailers and the main feature.

 

Can't recall the MOVIE that I went to see, and it was BEFORE the animated TV show began.

 

Still going too.  Wow......

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

GAW!  The SIMPSONS....

 

I still recall seeing a crudely drawn cartoon short of them in a movie theater shown between the trailers and the main feature.

 

Surprised there haven't been more feature films. They have yet to follow-up THE SIMPSONS MOVIE. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised there haven't been more feature films. They have yet to follow-up THE SIMPSONS MOVIE. 

 

Well, it took them twenty years to film that one, so it may be a long time until 2029.

 

The last thing I recall seeing her in was the Woody Allen film SMALL TIME CROOKS, but that was quite awhile ago already.

 

After years of HBO specials and series, she's funny and old now, and doing a lot of cartoon voices and throwaway (especially musical) character parts you probably wouldn't remember seeing her in:

 

  • Like 1
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...