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

Robert Osborne and the new TCM


Guest dredagain

Recommended Posts

Sorry, didn't know that only old posters or people who posted a lot were allowed to have an opinion and I didn't know that being 52 is considered so young on these message boards. For the record, I have been watching TCM since we started getting it in Chicago, and just because I have never posted previous to this year doesn't make me any less knowledgable or passionate about the channel. Nice to see that you are so welcoming to the outside world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because I chose not to previously post does not mean that I wasn't reading these boards for years and as someone who has read them I felt that using the work "constantly" was acceptable. it is really unfortunate that you can be so close-minded without knowing a thing about me except the number of times I post, shall I assume that the others have deemed you judge and jury of whose opinions matter ? Do you think maybe it is the same old posters in these forums all the time because once someone new joins they get this treatment. I saw it happen to Ava last week when she innocently posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I welcome sincere fans of classic (vintage) film, not petulant children." - otterhere

 

I didn't know there was a "velvet rope" policy here - let alone you were the one in charge of it. Nor did I know it entitled you to harangue new members. (And you do it with such enthusiasm!)

 

As the Windy City Poster noted, if there has been one trait constant on these boards during the past three months, it is the near-weekly appearance of conspiratorial and paranoid threads lamenting supposed changes to TCM and predicting its demise - even in the face of being presented with facts refuting those "interpretations". In fact it is probably the one constant of these Message Boards during the past five years.

 

Talk about a set of posters being "petulant"....

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this reminds me of a quote from the film "The Snake Pit"

 

Celia Sommerville: And we're so crowded already. I just don't know where it's all gonna end!

 

Virginia Stuart Cunningham: I'll tell you where it's gonna end, Miss Somerville... When there are more sick ones than well ones, the sick ones will lock the well ones up.

 

Sound Familiar?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that I'm really glad I am building my private film collection.

 

I'll watch TCM for as long as it stays a true classic film channel that is commercial free.

 

But if the 'creep' that has been in evidence for the past couple of years continues on path for a couple of more years...or if they start showing commercials...well, that will be it for me.

 

Already there have been days here and there where only one or two movies from before 1960 have been shown. And all those films like LOTR? Anyone who wants to see those films already has them on DVD....and will shortly have them on Blu-Ray. Why watch them on TCM?

 

But whatever...I guess they will find that out soon enough. People who want modern films either buy DVDs, download them (oftentimes illegally) from the internet, Netflix them, or subscribe to HBO, Showtime or the other paid channels. Why pay to subscribe to TCM when you can subscribe to HBO and get even more modern films? Or subscribe to Netflix and have access to all the modern films you like from their vast library, without having to subscribe to paid channels with set schedules at all? It doesn't make sense, if that is what you are into. I personally like modern films - but I've not watched a single one of them on TCM. I have all of the LOTR films on DVD - actually bought each TWICE (the second time for the director's cut)...and I have all the other modern Oscar winners and other films I like as well. Why not when they are only $15 at Best Buy ($10 if you wait until they are a bit older)? And those who can't afford $15 each pay $15 per month and go crazy on Neflix. And have access to high def versions of all of these films?

 

TCM will never be able to compete with HBO and Showtime....let alone Netflix.

 

If TCM were a free station, it would be one thing - but its a subscription station.

 

And with everyone below the age of 40 knowing how to download films...and HBO and Netflix available for the older people who don't? And have the added valule of high def?

 

Well, why watch stuff like LOTR on TCM?

 

But whatever. It seems like every specialty channel eventually turns to crap in an effort to 'expand' their audience and 'expand' their revenues into places that do not interest their core audience. It happened to AMC...it happened to Spike TV...it is happening to the Scifi Channel...and it's happening to TCM. And plenty of others that I don't feel like thinking about.

 

It's no wonder that I watch most things (TV shows AND movies) on DVD these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point being: "Constantly" doesn't jibe with being on here for only a month. If you've been on here only a month, that is. I welcome sincere fans of classic (vintage) film; not petulant children.>>

 

Well, considering the number of threads that we have had since mid-January talking about TCM and modern movies vs "classic" movies, it's easy to see why someone who joined in January is constantly amazed.

 

There has not been a week gone by that we haven't been talking about it.

 

If Chi has been lurking (the predominant way to visit the website as the guests always outnumber the handful of registered posters) for any length of time prior to that than he/she is familiar with the topic as well because it is always part of our conversation.

 

Not everyone that is a new poster is someone to be wary of or to treat disrespectfully just because you assume that they are 15 years old and have no business here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recording private collection? I keep using my tapes over and over, but you may be right...

 

And I should probably bury my cash in the backyard before the banks fail, while I'm at it!!!

 

I must say, TCM doesn't do newer films any favor by unflatteringly run them back to back with old classics; a perfect example was Hitchcock's "The Birds' followed by "Poltergiest." Oh my goodness; if ever there was an a dismaying contrast and persuasive argument AGAINST showing newer films, that was it. Gosh, hm, how could AH have made his film soooo much more terrifying, suspenseful, unnerving, unforgettable, and rivetting than that of SS with all its gimmicks, profanity, violence, computerized special effects, noise, flash, pop, and gore? Try intelligence, imagination, and (here's that word again) CLASS. Did anyone else think it was weird that the mom was all smiles while her baby daughter was lost somehwere inside a TV set??? I'd heard people rave about PG; it won awards, etc, so I gave it a try. Despite all the action: bo-ring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just taking a break from looking for a job.

 

First, before I get started on my response to this thread.....

 

This will be my 61st post since joining the boards last July. Just wanted to be sure everyone knew that. Now on to my soapbox.....

 

I read the entire article about the changes at Turner Classic Movies, and I agree with Kyle. TCM is not planning on making any wholesale changes to their cable channel. What they are talking about is making changes to their online platform and to have cross promotional advertising with their other cable channels. Also they seem to realize that their strength in gaining new members to their channel may very well be promoting their channel through the sales of DVDs and other promotional tie-ins with their other brands. And what about all of those books that they sell?Nothing new here that has not already happened to other more mainstream businesses throughout the world. First and foremost, it is my belief that TCM is doing everything that they CAN do to remain commercial free and keep showing the more "classic" type films that they have always been able to show. And they want to grow their "brand".

 

Another thing, TCM will never stop showing older films. Look at all of the specials that they have aired over the past few years. Personally, I like what they did with 31 Days of Oscar. They showed genre films during the day, and at night they showed films by decade. The one thing I missed was the extra info that they used to show before airing the movie explaining what nominations/wins the film had received. But sometimes introductions have to change. I understand that.

 

To entice newer viewers, they HAVE to show newer movies. And showcasing newer movies is what the 31 Days of Oscar is also about. Recognizing the Academy Awards. Something that is dear to the heart of Robert Osborne.

 

Part of TCM's title is classic. Who says it must be a movie from before 1990, 1980, 1970, or 1960? This will be a continuing debate on the boards for years to come. I have no problem with TCM showing newer movies. I wished that they could show even more recent movies. Of course under the banner of Oscar-winning. Debate is good.

 

What is not so good is the continued thrashing of ideas from members with much longer histories to members like me with shorter histories on the board. Everyone has ideas. Some people like to present their ideas to other people. This message board is for every member to use. I started reading this board years ago, and I just joined last year. I really enjoy reading what other film buffs have to say.

 

This board gives a member a chance to say something. About a subject that most of us have something to say something about. Its about sharing ideas, thoughts, subjects. It's not about bashing another persons viewpoints, however.

 

This should NOT be tolerated.

 

This incessant need to overwhelm someone because their viewpoint is more relevant than the one that they are replying to. This has got to stop. Otherwise, newer people who might like to join as a member of the boards will be more likely not to join. Already I can hear the chants of SOME of the members who have been here longer.....Thanks, but no thanks, and good riddance.

 

Can't we all just get along? Can't we all just respect the other poster, irregardless of how long that member has been on the boards? Surely we can, and we MUST.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like I said before about removing post counts. A guy with 1000 posts telling people without alot of posts their opinion is invalid. Fella you just proved me right. We need to remove all post counts off the board. 1000 posts is like a gunslinger with a six gun. they walk around shootin people down for being new.

 

westworld.jpg

 

"Oooohhhhh ya got me.....purty good shot fer a dude......putta nutha quarter in n try again, sucka..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if he meant to reply to you?

 

This has been a problem with newer folks who may not understand the mechanics of the board. I've come across several in the past few days where somone responded to the wrong post-er. They either don't clearly point out who they are talking to or just hit the reply button to the most recent post and you get confusion.

 

************

Also a reason we may have had so many new threads is a failure to do any searching. This is not knocking anyone looking for information but a short search can find threads where one may be able to find an answer without multiple threads on the same topic. I guess some people might have done that just to make sure they weren't covering old ground again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I don't (traditionally) have a problem with new posters; we've had new posters over the years, and I've been pretty darned welcoming to them all. But we aren't just having one or two here or there; we're having an onslaught. Sort of like along the southern border. I guess I'm just wanting to see some documentation, not that I have any legal right to ask that. Where did you come from and why are you here (esp. those of you who seem to revel in modern movies and current actors and actresses). Questions that should be asked in the interest of board security.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TCM shows bastardized versions of movies. I assume its ok with robert osborne to show a version of a movie that the author does/did not approve. Its unethical & gives legitimacy to the practice of creating bastardized versions. I'll name a few,

She Played With Fire is a bastardized version of Fortune is a Woman. The title is absurd because the "she" Arlene Dahl has nothing to do with the fire. I mean while this may be a trivial thing to TCM it is not trivial to the authors. There are prints in existence with the correct title & editing.

The Black Book is a bastardized version of Reign of Terror.

The original title of Pickup Alley is Interpol.

The original title of Gypsy Girl is Sky West & Crooked.

The original title of Blood on Satan's Claw is Satan's Skin.

When artists create a movie the title is important. Many times the title is the same as the novel on which it is based. People who change the title are not included in the creative process.

October Man is 110min. TCM bastardized version is 95 min. The film editor of October Man did not edit the 95 min. version.

Curse of the Demon is a bastardized version of Night of the Demon & the 81min. cut is not edited by the film editor.

As long as nobody says anything then the abuse of artists rights is going to continue......I only named a few but there are many many more titles.......... perhaps you guys'd care to name some.....

 

TCM isn't responsible for the calumnies you enumerate, the films' copyright-holders are. Studios re-cut their films all the time; just because prints survive of some of the bowdlerized titles doesn't mean that those materials are available, in good shape, and the the copyrights on the earlier versions are still in effect (this is something particularly common in the case of British films re-worked and re-titled by their American distributors).

 

I'd certainly like to see the full-length 2001, THINGS TO COME, TRANSATLANTIC TUNNEL, THE FOUR FEATHERS, CAESAR AND CLEOPATRA, FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, THE IMMORTAL BATTALION and countless others, but that simply may no longer be possible. TCM does the best it can with finite resources (yes, in some cases they may need to be told that there's a better version to be found out there...somewhere, but I suspect that that's the case in a small minority of films).

 

 

 

+All this reminds me of a quote from the film "The Snake Pit"

 

Celia Sommerville: And we're so crowded already. I just don't know where it's all gonna end!

 

Virginia Stuart Cunningham: I'll tell you where it's gonna end, Miss Somerville... When there are more sick ones than well ones, the sick ones will lock the well ones up.

 

Sound Familiar?+

 

And now you know why there is no medical definition of insanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Movieman1957, post #2237:

 

"I wonder if he meant to reply to you?

 

This has been a problem with newer folks who may not understand the mechanics of the board. I've come across several in the past few days where somone responded to the wrong post-er. They either don't clearly point out who they are talking to or just hit the reply button to the most recent post and you get confusion."

 

 

And from Otterhere, post #1204:

 

"I always erase over robert osborne when I record a movie. nothing personal."

 

This from yet another new poster who joined just last month and has posted fewer than 50 times. Boy, if THIS doesn't say it all, I don't know what does!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think you should start a newcomers' club and print t-shirts with this saying on the front: "I Always Erase Over Robert Osborne," and "Nothing Personal" on the back. Hold a convention.

 

Somewhere else.

 

 

And from: hlywdkjk post # 2344:

 

""I welcome sincere fans of classic (vintage) film, not petulant children." - otterhere

 

I didn't know there was a "velvet rope" policy here - let alone you were the one in charge of it. Nor did I know it entitled you to harangue new members. (And you do it with such enthusiasm!)

 

As the Windy City Poster noted, if there has been one trait constant on these boards during the past three months, it is the near-weekly appearance of conspiratorial and paranoid threads lamenting supposed changes to TCM and predicting its demise - even in the face of being presented with facts refuting those "interpretations". In fact it is probably the one constant of these Message Boards during the past five years.

 

Talk about a set of posters being "petulant"....

 

Kyle In Hollywood""

 

 

? Now from fxreyman, post #62:

 

To everyone here on this thread, I am sorry for posting a reply to the wrong poster. My original post was to have gone to "otterhere", but I hit the wrong reply button.

 

What I should have said was that EVERYONE is ENTITLED to THEIR OWN OPINIONS. Always. But I still stand by what I wrote about thrashing of other "newer" posters ideas and thoughts. And that was meant for you otter.

 

I have read many of your posts in the past, and I agree with many of them, but this one was a little over board. And I know that for the most part, you are fair.

 

But, I don't care if you have been here a long time or not, if someone has other ideas or thoughts that you don't agree with, FINE. Just don't get so bent out of shape if the poster you are replying to happens to be someone with 1,100 posts less than you. That should not matter. You should show them some respect and decency. We're all humans here. Some of us have feelings.

 

By the way, this board could stand a little shaking up as well. All of you take yourselves too seriously. Lets face it, we are talking about movies here, not world politics. If you want that kind of discussion there are plenty of other discussion sites available for you.

 

Now I am done with my soapbox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardly think what I wrote was ill tempered. It is simply a possibility based on the drednm reaction. I wasn't condemning anyone as I was throwing out an idea. I think it's a problem when people aren't always careful to make sure they are talking to who they intend to talk to. It comes with practice but can be confusing. No condemnation. It was a suggestion as to why it wound up with his name on it.

But because that person didn't take a minute to make sure they were directing their comment to the correct person there is all this.

 

It seems odd that some new folks get on and we have trouble right off the bat. Maybe it's me. Maybe since I did a little research and found out about people and what they were like and how to post a message to the right person so that they would understand it and learn the personality of the board I didn't think it would be a problem for others to do.

 

If someone wants to argue with someone, fine. Get your facts straight and be an adult about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Movieman..... Once again you talk about me and this "conspiracy" thing which I never mentioned or implied.... talk about getting your facts straight!

 

I never uttered the word "conspiracy."

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I read the entire article about the changes at Turner Classic Movies, and I agree with Kyle. TCM is not planning on making any wholesale changes to their cable channel." - fxreyman

 

Thanks. I appreciate learning that someone understood what I wrote.

 

But now I have to ask, What was the point of pasting my other post into your most recent message? I am not sure how what I wrote was relevant to your post. I hope you know it wasn't directed at you or anything you wrote.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

 

Message was edited by: hlywdkjk

Link to post
Share on other sites

"TCM isn't responsible for the calumnies you enumerate, the films' copyright-holders are. Studios re-cut their films all the time; just because prints survive of some of the bowdlerized titles doesn't mean that those materials are available, in good shape, and the the copyrights on the earlier versions are still in effect (this is something particularly common in the case of British films re-worked and re-titled by their American distributors)."

 

I never said TCM was responsible but by showing the bastardized version they become accomplices after the fact. Why do we have a writers guild? Don't our studios have any respect for writers rights? I have a tape of "Fortune is a Woman" & it has a Columbia logo. You tryin to tell me Columbia don't have the movie? btw the version shown on TCM had 1. fake letterbox with the visual information cropped (I call that censorship) & abuse of the director altering the aspect ratio. 2. the voices were out of synch. changing the title is bad enough but to continue the charade for 50 years is a bit much. yeah yeah yeah I heard your spiel about copyrights... ever heard of writers rights?

 

How do you know they don't have the movies? Maybe the movie has to be bought. & Sony is too cheap!? Retitling is an abuse. After 50 years you'd think they would have had enough time to sort themselves out & correct the continuing abuse. Its an insult to the viewers as well. A movie is cut by the film editor. That is all the editing the film needs. it passes a board of censors. after 50 years enough is enough. Why don't you ask Robert Osborne for his opinion? thats why we have a board. To talk about this stuff & reach a conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Movieman, I was simply referring to your earlier post about the mechanics of posting. That was all. My post was originally meant for otter and I stated that in this newest post of mine earlier this evening.

 

I am sorry if you took this the wrong way, it was not meant to be judgemental toward you at all.

 

I was just trying to use your quote as a framing device in trying to explain the mistake I made.

 

Again, my apologies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kyle,

 

Like I just told Movieman1957, I was trying to use your earlier post about the "velvet rope" policy to make a point with Otter.

 

Please forgive me if I did not write a more accurate response to Otter with reference to your quote.

 

You did nothing wrong here. I did not feel slighted at all, so please no need fo you to apologize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Movieman..... Once again you talk about me and this "conspiracy" thing which I never mentioned or implied.... talk about getting your facts straight!

 

I don't know where that came from.

 

I don't believe I said you said anything about a conspiracy. Nor did I for that matter. The only thing I said to you or about you was I thought the post was mistakenly directed to you.

 

Everything under the line of asterisks was meant generally. That's why they were separated. I'm sorry. I won't make that mistake again.

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...