Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
jcd

Will anything stop the destruction of Turner Classic Movies?

Recommended Posts

> Thank you, that's interesting. So is it any films

> from India, or certain genres?

 

Wikipedia is your friend:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollywood

 

Apparently Bollywood movies don't have to be musicals in the sense that we Americans would think of them, although they usually include at least one elaborate musical number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but every decade has it's good and it's bad.>>

 

Peter,

 

That's one thing that we tend to forget around here, not every film ever made is a good film.

Not every black and white film ever made is a work of art. Not every color film is gorgeous.

The stars of the studio era made some great films and they made some bombs.

 

Hollywood has made some truly bad films in every decade since film making began. But some of those truly bad films are a great deal of fun to watch. And some of them are just too hard to watch.

 

The past will always seem better to us as we get older and we will long for that simpler time when life seemed better. But seemed is the operative word there. It was never as rosy as we remember it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

njteacher:

 

I don't know why you feel obligated to find fault with an apology. I refuse to apologize for using good grammar, as well as correct punctuation. I did not say it was wrong to be knowledgeable, only that it was strange. There was no derision in mentioning TCMU, merely a statement that it is, and has been, a sore point with many viewers. Finally, I have only been on these boards since August of 2006, so I'm not that much of an oldtimer . . . except chronologically.

lzcutter:

 

Thank you for realizing I had no idea what was meant by 'media platforms', I had planned to ask but got off the subject and later felt the post was quite long already.

 

PeterIbbetson:

 

I think, unknowingly, you hit upon a perfect word to describe TCM. The word 'vintage' is much more apropos than 'classic' in many cases.

 

Anne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though this post is designated as a reply to 'jcd', it is a reply to everyone with special mentions sprinkled throughout.

 

I am going to methodically go through this thread and respond to the messages which I think need a reply from yours truly.

 

SPTO -

The Bollywood Spotlight occurred in June 2003. Here's the web article from TCM that accompanied the "festival" and the list of films shown -

http://www.tcm.com/thismonth/article/?cid=27940

 

movieman1957 (and the seconding mongo) -

I appreciate the kind words in regard to my character and your defense of what I wrote. Twas a noble gesture and I am grateful.

 

sweetbabykmd wrote -

"I would cut a newcomer some slack for not seeing it.

I am happy you noticed that aspect of the original post and reiterated it today. That is what prompted my weighing in on the thread in the first place. My first post in this thread was not directed to 'jcd's original post but to his/her post of "All right, I can see that posting here was a mistake." It seems you and I had an all too rare instance of like-mindedness. I hope it happens more often. Truly!

 

bradtexasranger (and others) wrote or implied -

"[The Poster] hasn't been heard from again. Which kind of indicates to me they were more interested in stirring up discord.'

I am not so sure that 'jcd' posted intending to 'stir the pot' for it own sake. He/She had a list of observations that supported their idea and put it in front of us to judge. Unfortunately, few judged the supporting facts and judged the poster. That really isn't fair for a first-timer. He/She put too much thought and research into the topic simply to start an argument. That could have been accomplished without the 'footnotes'. Now about that agent provocateur 'HillaryNo'....

 

Megg -

Glad you are here and confident enough to post in this thread. I think you will be a valuable person to these Boards. By the politeness in your post I know you that you are definitely not a 'know-nothing'. And that is something. I like it.

 

And a hello to 'LeopoldPlumtree' and 'njteacher' too.

 

mrsl / Anne -

I think you were very insightful in your analysis of 'jcd's' original post. Thank you for excerpting a bit from the Variety article. (Maybe it is due to my outdated browser but I couldn't get the text of the article to display.) Funny how the poster fears the arrival of commercials on TCM yet the article he cites specifically denies such a development. Hmmm. It makes it somewhat easier to discount his/her thoughts now, doesn't it?

 

'otterhere' -

If you felt singled out by my use of the term "paranoia", perhaps it was the correct term to use.

 

When I wrote "Many of us know this paranoia is unfounded but first time posters haven't read TCM press releases and posts from 'tcmprogrammr' to reassure them.", "Many of us" referred to other long-standing Board Members - not to any group of people here - and was meant to be the balance to "first-time posters" later in the sentence. "Us" wasn't even meant as a pronoun referring to Anne and I though I was writing in reply to her. If anyone should have interpreted the statement as a reference to themselves, it is 'mrsl'/Anne. I didn't think you would think it was directed to you. Heck, even when I respond to you, you don't reply (See Here - http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/click.jspa?searchID=77730&messageID=7871054 ).

 

Do I sound patronizing in that thread? If so, then I have to work on my writing style and I owe you an apology. But I won't accept your intellectually dishonest view of TCM. For all your keening and wailing, hyperbole and hyperventilating, you are really a contradiction that I don't understand. You post a thread lamenting Tuesday's schedule of "recent" films but also rhapsodized one of the most unconventional films TCM has ever shown here -

http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/message.jspa?messageID=7843388#7843388

and here -

http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/message.jspa?messageID=7847288#7847288 .

 

You wrote -

"It worries me that we are sooooooooooo afraid of dissent/conflict these days that we have a meltdown if someone disagrees with the party line or, heaven help them, tries to debate a point."

But you don't want to debate any point that doesn't conform to your preconcieved notion about the "State Of TCM". (Or as Stan Laurel said, "That's our story and we're stuck with it.") That's not a debate or the basis for a discussion. That is obstinance and is best exemplified by this statement of your's -

I'll be "reassured" not when someone -- even someone in authority -- tells me to be, but when my own experience tells me there's no such trend or it's reversing.

 

As for me -

"I know the sunrise is just an optical illusion because my teacher told me so."

- E.K. Hornbeck Inherit The Wind

 

Believe what you will. Rationalize it however you need to. Ignore the contradictions. As long as you're happy... That's the most I can wish for anyone.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

 

Message was edited by:

hlywdkjk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as I've pointed out here

> before, I am NOT a fan of everything from the past

> just because it's "vintage". People need to realize

> that just because something is old does NOT mean it

> is perfect.

 

That's all true, but I would still rather watch a not so great film from the past than almost anything put out these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> bradtexasranger (and others) wrote or implied -

> "[The Poster] hasn't been heard from again. Which

> kind of indicates to me they were more interested in

> stirring up discord.'

> I am not so sure that 'jcd' posted intending to 'stir

> the pot' for it own sake. He/She had a list of

> observations that supported their idea and put it in

> front of us to judge. Unfortunately, few judged the

> supporting facts and judged the poster. That really

> isn't fair for a first-timer. He/She put too much

> thought and research into the topic simply to start

> an argument. That could have been accomplished

> without the 'footnotes'. Now about that agent

> provocateur 'HillaryNo'....

 

You may have somewhat of a point there. But it still seems to me that he/she took off when too many opinions counter to his/hers started coming in. I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b-t-r wrote -

"But it still seems to me that he/she took off when too many opinions counter to his/hers started coming in.

 

That is very true. They high-tailed it out of here pronto when they didn't find a sympathetic audience. And it didn't help any that there wasn't much "meat" to their supporting points. Why 'jcd' thought it telling that TCM scheduled films leased to other Turner Stations is lost on me. That is not a new phenomena, to the best of my recollection. But I also know that the films on TNT or TBS aren't in the same format as those being shown on TCM. I wonder if a licensing agreement includes multiple formats to be used on multiple channels? Anyone know?

 

kjk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Hey, Brad...I think I may have sent you this clip

> before, but...

> Bollywood via "Ghost World-"from the movie

> "Gumnaam-"

>

 

Ben, you beat me to it. I love Ghost World and I love that clip (which is included as a special feature on the DVD). Some things have the ability to make me happy no matter how bad a mood I'm in, and that clip from Gumnaam is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> SPTO -

> The Bollywood Spotlight occurred in June 2003.

> Here's the web article from TCM that accompanied the

> "festival" and the list of films shown -

> ttp://www.tcm.com/thismonth/article/?cid=27940

 

Thanks for the info Kyle. I was interested about that. Bollywood isn't exactly my thing. I have a relative in the States that loves watching that stuff and I can't stand it. At least TCM back then wasn't afraid to expand the horizons and introduce people to new and different forms of cinema.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Hey, Brad...I think I may have sent you this clip

> before, but...

> Bollywood via "Ghost World-"from the movie

> "Gumnaam-"

>

 

Thanks, Ben. You have sent that before............... but it's still groovy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TCM should stick to movies from the 1960s and older. There are other stations which cater to newer fare.

 

I'm 22, have loved the classics since I was old enough to enjoy movies, and loathe most music from the post-rock era thru the 1980s, possibly because on 95% of radio stations that is all you will hear. Give me Margaret Whiting, Doris Day, Peggy Lee, Julie London, Glen Gray, Benny Goodman, and call me crazy as a loon, "schmaltzy," or whatever you like.

 

Movies from the 30s--yes, there are many very bad movies, but the way I see it is about 3% of these movies are actually on video. The rest of them we can only see on TCM. I think rarity is enough. I would rather watch a rare old movie than a newer movie I can go rent any day of the week!

 

Besides, who decides what is good? Does a Marion Davies or Constance Bennett movie, regardless of how much I love them, qualify as good or "hopelessly dated"? I don't think anyone should decide. Movies are subjective.

 

The main point is the old movies can for the most part only be seen on TCM, and that is why the channel should not devote so much time to newer, more easily obtainable films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to like all that stuff too, but when I discovered punk and new wave two and a half years ago it became irrelevant to my tastes And initially I embraced the lame attitude that nothing worthwhile at all was made before the 60's, but soon I outgrew that. And though I did come around to liking old movies again, pre-rock popular music still sounds bland and lifeless to me (although I don't mind the jazz music of that era).

 

Oh, and I really dislike most music made in the last 15 years, especially what they put out now. I can't stand those whiny, angst-ridden singers who dress like slobs and sing about how miserable life is. Why can't singers just sing and not whine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

> The main point is the old movies can for the most

> part only be seen on TCM, and that is why the channel

> should not devote so much time to newer, more easily

> obtainable films.

 

 

That's what I've always said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to thank everyone who took the time to respond especially HlywdKJK who addressed each of our concerns or comments. Although not as knowledgeable about films as others on this message board it was nice to know that we can say how we feel and have someone actually listen. Thanks again and may your day include at least one great movie.

 

ps ... New or not I'm not giving up my fight to keep TCM "classic" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the opposite..I think it's better than ever..there is certainly room on this channel for letterboxed prints of modern favorites and "lost pictures"..I was thrilled to see "Still of the Night" on the other night..and the next month's schedule finds others of that ilk..

 

You just keep on with what you're doing TCM!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind TCM showing a few newer movies (perhaps 70s or 80s) if they are indeed "lost." By that I mean, not available on video or shown often on television. A movie like The Legend of Lylah Clare fits the bill. But seriously, are there many "lost" films from the '70s and '80s? I really don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, maybe the original poster "took off" and "high-tailed it out of here" when they decided we were all NUTS to jump all over his/her case for making an observation.

 

Now people are putting the poster's name in QUOTES as if the poster were not a real poster, but an imposter or a plant??? The term "paranoia" comes to mind...

 

As for Kyle's looooooooong response to me, I haven't the time or energy to argue with you; sorry. Take my disinclination to go back and forth with you as you like.

 

I've stated my opinion on this topic and so have you; never the 'twain shall meet... But I'll defend to the death your right to be wrong... Er, um, to disagree with me!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'otterhere' -

I often put a person's handle in quotes because it is not their real name but a chosen alias - as when one would write Kyle aka 'hlywdkjk' - especially if the chosen alias has no resemblence to a real name like lowercase initials ('jcd'). And if the avatar is all lowercase and is to be used at the beginning of a sentence where it should be capitalized, using quotes is, I think, the proper method of writing it -

 

'hlywdkjk' is a resident of Hollywood.

 

Also, I often use it with posters I have had little, if any, contact with on a personal level around here. That's all.

 

And to make it completly clear, "paranoia" referred only to the original poster's (and any other people's) belief that TCM is on a slippery slope that will ultimately result in the channel becoming another AMC - commercials and all. Maybe "delusional" or "fatalistic" would have been a better term.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, maybe the original poster "took off" and "high-tailed it out of here" when they decided we were all NUTS to jump all over his/her case for making an observation.

 

 

Or it could be that jcd really was a troll, trying to induce another firefight on the boards...I mean, come on, look at the title of the thread, which I still think is an unusually spark-setting first post from anyone. If such is the case, jcd is probably quite pleased with himself right now. After all, look at it, almost 100 posts, 1642 views, in just 5 days. And all he had to do was post 3 or 4 messages. And about a subject we have fought about (sorry...discussed) so much recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

filmlover:

 

I truly hope this is the last post on this thread because I said:

 

"I'm so tired of them coming on, trying to start trouble, then disappearing forever into cyber space."

 

It certainly looks like this is what happened. You and I were the first to request 'no replies' but people continued to post. jcd returned twice to add further insult to injury, and then disappeared. If he did so from hurt feelings, my apology to him should have at least made him realize we made a mistake in dissing him, instead, he chose to stay away, rather than coming back and defending himself. I don't mind apologizing when I feel I've said the wrong thing, or if I feel I got too personal in rebuttal, but it is a normal thing for the person I've wronged to at least acknowledge my attempt at retribution.

 

So, I believe we were correct in assuming jcd only wanted to start a word-war. He has not returned in 4 days, and I think that is plenty self explanatory. Let's drop this thread.

 

Anne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Anne,

 

I certainly did not feel obligated to write anything. I wanted to respond because sometimes, the messages posted here have a condescending, know-it-all, pompous tone that disturb my Libran sensibilities. The disagreements were such that, if they occurred in my classroom, detentions would be promptly issued!! There were times, Anne, that as I read through various threads on this message board, I thought: give me my urban, inner city, gang member students ANY DAY. I think even they could learn a lesson about intolerance and rudeness around here.

 

I do not think that all opinions are respected here as they should be. People have an absolute right to voice their opinions without being criticized; others will disagree from time to time, but as long as issues are debated in a courteous manner, that is GREAT! That's how we learn from one another.

 

As far as the grammar goes, yes, I made a little dig about a misplaced apostrophe. I'm not sure how to explain that except to say that I was deliberately snobby so that others would perhaps know how it feels to be on the other end of snobby. It is simply not nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey JCD

 

I have a solution for you, BUY your own Movie Channel then you can show any movie you want, whether it is 100 Years Old or 1 Minute Old.

 

Till Then, In the words of John Rambo

 

"Let It Go"!

 

TCM is with out a doubt

 

The Greatest Non Pay Movie Channel there is and i really doubt they will go in the same direction as

 

AMC--American Mutilated Classics

 

I got Digital Cable Specifically for this 1 Channel, well that and The ON Demand.

 

Robert Osbourne came from AMC when they decided to go Commercial and Butcher their Movies and stop showing them in Widescreen.

He said, This was a Station that Prided itself on Movie Preservation and then SUNK itself, for The AlMighty Dollar.

 

Way To Go Mr. Osbourne

 

Message was edited by:

Victor

 

Message was edited by:

Victor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Osbourne was on The Movie Channel, not AMC . TCM is the best non - news currents events Channel on Cable. I wish my system still carried Newsworld International, and not that horrible Al Gore station. I would like Newsworld to be on because Lynne Russell, formerly of CNN - Headine News, is now an anchor there. She's sixty, looks forty, and a great 40 at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to switch over to Fox News. All their girls are blondes and have graduated from exclusive private schools in the Northeast.

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...