The sad, slow death of TCM.

[unwatchable]

Haiku?

 

TCM, no more

Mankiwiecz, vanished, like smoke

What's on HBO?

____________

Movies? Disappeared

Like the snows of yesteryear

Get a real job, Ben

_____________

Move the camera

Why? No real reason at all

That's the final straw

______________

You guys are so mean

With logical arguments

Making ootsy yawn

______________

Here comes the new guy

Just who does he think he is?

Low post-count acorn

[overeasy]

On 9/21/2021 at 4:08 PM, TopBilled said:

I find this type of thread VERY disrespectful. 

I've said it before. We are all guests on this site. TCM pays to maintain and moderate this website.

I believe we should provide constructive criticism (helpful criticism).

But to make a thread that talks about the death of the channel on the channel's own site, that's tacky. And not what a good guest does.

Oh, please. Spare me the saccharine.   TCM knows EXACTLY what they're going to get here; the good, the bad and the ugly.  It just goes with the territory.

TCM IS changing.  The amount of politically correct content continues to filter in every month.  We are preached to CONSTANTLY.  Great old pre-codes are being supplanted by trash the 70s-90s.  All the warmth and character has been drained out by the new boring, mundane corporate rebrand.  TCM is now not much different than TNT or TBS.  The website is boring.  The channel is boring.  The hosts, while mostly good performance-wise, bring almost nothing to the party....

To me, the CLASSIC (oh, is that one of the "four C's?) in TCM has always meant the classic era, as in, the studio system years -- not just "classic movies," because they show a huge number are are clearly not classics by anyone's definition.

No, we are indeed watching, and have been watching, the dissolution of this network.  It began when Robert died and it's been like the Bataan Death March ever since.  Think about this;  OTHER THAN THE MOVIES, is the anything left on this network which evokes classic cinema?  The answer is a resounding, no.

[unwatchable]

😄

There's nothing like opening up a can of... uhh... reality check, yeah, that's it. Reality check.  😁

"the Bataan Death March"?   Vivid imagery, man. Have you ever considered a career in, say, film writing and selected journalism? 😛

By the way, I could not agree more with every word you posted, Overeasy. TCM preaches to us incessantly and the self-righteousness grows by the day. And yes, it began with the passing of Robert Osborne. You nailed it. 

If TCM wants this forum to be a PC echo chamber, they can have it by getting rid of those of us who see what's going on and who speak their mind about it. However, ignoring reality doesn't change reality.

The author of this thread did himself a disservice by overstating the current conditions at TCM. The channel may not be dying, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the channel's content is now infused with politically correct virtue signalling, and outright loathing for some of the films they air. The hypocrisy is so thick, you could cut it with a knife:  "These films have horrible, outdated cultural themes,  but we'll continue to air them anyway."

[Movie Collector OH]

"These are exciting times."   

[Mr. Gorman]

I think the idea is that TCM will show certain films -BUT- it's only for the reason of "Historical Context".   → Viewers are definitely not supposed to enjoy any of them -- viewers are supposed to watch them with a critical 👁️ eye 👁️ toward history and nothing else.  Certainly not for reasons of enjoyment.  ENJOYMENT OF *ANY* OF THESE FILMS IS FORBIDDEN, U WHITE DEVILS!   😜 👹

→ That's the 'vibe' I get from TCM these days.   

A bit of honesty:  I never had any intention of buying myself a copy of WONDER BAR (1934) until TCM incessantly ran their 'Blackface' segment.  I saw it so many times because I keep TCM on frequently it actually motivated me to buy a copy.  So I'd like to thank Donald Bogle, Jacquie Stewart and 'Unkempt White Guy Ragamuffin Dude' for helping me decide to buy "Wonder Bar".     👍

Anyway, have a croissant or two:  🥐🥐

[unwatchable]

57 minutes ago, Mr. Gorman said:

I think the idea is that TCM will show certain films -BUT- it's only for the reason of "Historical Context".  

Yes, I've heard this excuse from them. Y'know, if you spread some of that "Historical Context" on your vegetable garden, you could grow tomatoes the size of basketballs.

TCM is on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Let's see- Gone With the Wind- with filler and with the pearl-clutching intros/outros, what is that, a four time slot? The Searchers- a  two and a half hour time slot. Multiply that by the number of times they air these films each year, and it adds up, and that's just two of the "outdated" films they're airing. Would refraining from airing such films make TCM more interesting, or less interesting?

No, there's coin to be made and there's virtue to be signalled, and let's not forget their efforts to shame those of us who enjoy these films- you know, the way these preachers themselves did, before they saw the light.

Last time TCM aired the 1916 Douglas Fairbanks film,  The Half-Breed,  Ben Mankiewicz went far out of his way to demonstrate his purity to us. At the beginning of the film, Fairbanks, as the title character, (just this side of butt-naked) dives into a lake. Mankiewicz mentioned that at the time of the film's premier, Fairbanks wife made a comment about how she was glad Fairbanks' character dove into the lake, so that he came out "clean". Mankiewicz then smirked, rolled his eyes, did everything but fall to the floor and convulse at this remark. We're talking about people who were born in the 19th Century.  But, let's do apply to them the concepts of our time, to people who lived in what was indisputably a different world. That's fair, isn't it? Let's see what people in 2121 have to say about the attitudes of people in our society today.   Come on. This is juvenile behavior. But, don't you worry, Ben.  Everyone knows how pure you are. How could they not know, what with you taking every opportunity (including opportunities you yourself create from nothing) to demonstrate your moral superiority?

So, TCM may not be dying, but it's certainly infected these days.

[brianNH]

Some time ago I made a comment that I'm sure most people thought was silly and toss-asideable.  However, I'm perfectly serious about it to repeat it here.  I thought the new C in TCM could stand for "coprolitic."  Now, for those unfamiliar with that adjective, please look it up as it is a pure delight of a word -- the English language is a motherlode of fun.  

I really do think that the TCM platoon of hosts views the cultural artifacts of the past in a very uncharitable fashion.  But, sadly, it is all too in tune to the Zeitgeist that others on these boards are lamenting.  It is a very seriously flawed approach to human existence -- especially the thoughts and activities of all those who have gone before us.  For us at the present moment to think that we alone are the eternally enlightened ones and possess some kind of authority to scorn and belittle the way in which people foreign to us lived their lives, this is sinful.  It belies a very shallow understanding of the world and its history.   Human beings are extraordinarily complex creatures -- as individuals and in communities.  To think that everything that has happened before our time must be measured according to the fashionable yardstick of today is unhistorical and anti-intellectual.

I say all this to get me to this point.  As far as TCM is concerned, I think the message boards are revealing an animosity directed toward a specific corporate point of view that will not allow any divergence from that line of exploration.  I am perfectly fine with looking into serious topics that are dealt with in movies.  Movies are part of our cultural history and certainly fair game for critique.  The problem is that when we have our "conversation" about these things, a conversation solely based on your terms is called a lecture.  Now, try as they might to tell us that they are not instructing us how to watch "problematic" movies, that is indeed what they are unabashedly doing.  

Again, these are very complex aspects of human behavior and society; they require serious study and consideration to be discussed intelligently.  And when some people look at the facts and record of the past, they can reach legitimate conclusions that are different from the corporate line.  This is what's missing from the new push to set up some kind of blind date for "then" and "now" to meet.  I simply don't trust the on-air talent to be able to carry out the rigorous husbandry of allowing the art of the past to yield true and fruitful bounty.  

Oh, boy.  I've gone on a bit here.  Sorry about that, but I sometimes suffer from an ingrown essay and need it excised once in a while.

[unwatchable]

59 minutes ago, brianNH said:

I really do think that the TCM platoon of hosts views the cultural artifacts of the past in a very uncharitable fashion.  But, sadly, it is all too in tune to the Zeitgeist that others on these boards are lamenting.  It is a very seriously flawed approach to human existence -- especially the thoughts and activities of all those who have gone before us.  For us at the present moment to think that we alone are the eternally enlightened ones and possess some kind of authority to scorn and belittle the way in which people foreign to us lived their lives, this is sinful.  It belies a very shallow understanding of the world and its history.   Human beings are extraordinarily complex creatures -- as individuals and in communities.  To think that everything that has happened before our time must be measured according to the fashionable yardstick of today is unhistorical and anti-intellectual.

In his book Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis coined the term "chronological snobbery," which he defined as "the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age
and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited." Our modern society is rife with this blind foolishness. Hypocrisy abounds. We haven't arrived at some point where everything about the world has become crystal clear. No, we are moving through history, ladies and gentlemen. What's called for is the long view, and it is all but absent in our society.

Let's hop into a time machine and  see what the world is like in 2121, and by all means, let's not balk when we find they have condemned us in the same way we have condemned those generations who have gone before us. That's only fair, isn't it?

[Mr. Gorman]

Type out what you wanna type, Brian.  👍  Cheers.

[unwatchable]

hear, hear

[lydecker]

9 hours ago, overeasy said:

TCM IS changing.  The amount of politically correct content continues to filter in every month.  We are preached to CONSTANTLY.  Great old pre-codes are being supplanted by trash the 70s-90s.  All the warmth and character has been drained out by the new boring, mundane corporate rebrand.  TCM is now not much different than TNT or TBS.  The website is boring.  The channel is boring.  The hosts, while mostly good performance-wise, bring almost nothing to the party....

To me, the CLASSIC (oh, is that one of the "four C's?) in TCM has always meant the classic era, as in, the studio system years -- not just "classic movies," because they show a huge number are are clearly not classics by anyone's definition.

Yes, yes.  Like you, I always thought the classic reference in TCM was pertaining to the classic era  --  i.e, the studio system era  --  Not that every single film on TCM was a "classic" (whatever that means.) Through the years I have discovered a ton of some silly, sometimes politically incorrect, always entertaining gems produced in the 1930's.  Did each one of these films deserve to be preserved in the national archives?  Definitely not, but these films do deserve to be seen so that they can continue to do what their original intent was:  to entertain.  Nothing wrong with that, so stop ignoring and/or apologizing for these films, TCM!

8 hours ago, Mr. Gorman said:

I think the idea is that TCM will show certain films -BUT- it's only for the reason of "Historical Context".   → Viewers are definitely not supposed to enjoy any of them -- viewers are supposed to watch them with a critical 👁️ eye 👁️ toward history and nothing else.  Certainly not for reasons of enjoyment.  ENJOYMENT OF *ANY* OF THESE FILMS IS 🥐

I think that it will be a long time (if ever again) before we see a series of films in prime time saluting an esoteric 1930's-1940's player (as we saw for Florence Rice not too long ago.) Take today, for instance.  It took me a while, since neither the website nor the "Now Playing" guide, denotes daytime themes anymore, to figure out that today was Claire Dodd Day.  I love Claire Dodd, an actress I had absolutely no cognizance of before I started watching TCM.  She's delightful!  Would it kill someone at TCM to write a short "shout-out" about today's programming and its star?  To even simply put something on the screen or website (I'd settle for one small super or line of type)  saying "Today TCM salutes Claire Dodd."  Apparently it would.  I can't say definitively, but I suspect that pre-codes and many of the more esoteric 1930's - 1940's B movies will be buried (if they even air)  in time slots the programmers feel are not very important. I seem to do all my recording now between 6 AM and Noon.   But, by all means, let's do a TCM Spotlight in prime time on rollerskating . . . Now, that's "Classic" and "Contextural!" 

[Fedya]

On 9/25/2021 at 5:46 PM, Katie_G said:

I have 15 gigs on Google but they don't allow embedding to another website. 

They don't?  Here's a photo of Jane Powell and Fred Astaire from Royal Wedding that I've got up on my Google-hosted blog:

And here's another photo:

 

[mr6666]

5 hours ago, lydecker said:

Yes, yes.  Like you, I always thought the classic reference in TCM was pertaining to the classic era  --  i.e, the studio system era  --  Not that every single film on TCM was a "classic" (whatever that means.) Through the years I have discovered a ton of some silly, sometimes politically incorrect, always entertaining gems produced in the 1930's.  Did each one of these films deserve to be preserved in the national archives?  Definitely not, but these films do deserve to be seen so that they can continue to do what their original intent was:  to entertain.  Nothing wrong with that, so stop ignoring and/or apologizing for these films, TCM!

I think that it will be a long time (if ever again) before we see a series of films in prime time saluting an esoteric 1930's-1940's player (as we saw for Florence Rice not too long ago.) Take today, for instance.  It took me a while, since neither the website nor the "Now Playing" guide, denotes daytime themes anymore, to figure out that today was Claire Dodd Day.  I love Claire Dodd, an actress I had absolutely no cognizance of before I started watching TCM.  She's delightful!  Would it kill someone at TCM to write a short "shout-out" about today's programming and its star?  To even simply put something on the screen or website (I'd settle for one small super or line of type)  saying "Today TCM salutes Claire Dodd."  Apparently it would.  I can't say definitively, but I suspect that pre-codes and many of the more esoteric 1930's - 1940's B movies will be buried (if they even air)  in time slots the programmers feel are not very important. I seem to do all my recording now between 6 AM and Noon.   But, by all means, let's do a TCM Spotlight in prime time on rollerskating . . . Now, that's "Classic" and "Contextural!" 

there is this, for any Twitter folks..........

 

[lydecker]

8 hours ago, mr6666 said:

there is this, for any Twitter folks..........

 

Thanks.  Is this an "official" TCM Twitter account or some fans'??  I'm assuming it's a fan's because TCM could care less about Daytime programming these days.

[ootsy]

My haiku so wry

What a clever guy think I

Alas! A dumb*ss!

[unwatchable]

 

[Mr. Gorman]

Looks like 'ootsy' has stumbled out of his opioid-induced coma!   💊💊

OOTSY:  Watch out for that stuff!  Takin' too much of it is bad for ya!  → Here's a couple of Band-Aid's for your edification:   🩹🩹

Cheers!  👍

[unwatchable]

We could wait until the sun goes nova for him to defend his position and it's not going to happen.

Quite a coincidence- ootsy showing up after a troll had all his posts deleted last night. I'm certain that's all it is. Mere coincidence.

[NipkowDisc]

overseers of once greatness now mediocrity.

whither TCM.

[NipkowDisc]

"doan blame nip, he tried many times to urge them to put us on but they never listened.

now their channel is in decline and they brought it on themselves....

but always remember, this is the way tcm wanted it...well they get it."

[unwatchable]

19 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

overseers of once greatness now mediocrity.

whither TCM.

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

[txfilmfan]

25 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

overseers of once greatness now mediocrity.

whither TCM.

Certainly not overseers.  They may have some influence over content (some with more influence than others, I'd suspect), but they certainly don't drive the overall content and direction of the channel.

Photo was taken in the bar of the Hollywood American Legion Post 43 building, btw.  

[Vautrin]

4 hours ago, NipkowDisc said:

overseers of once greatness now mediocrity.

whither TCM.

Might be the most upscale AA meeting ever. Hail to thee, blithe Spirits!

[unwatchable]

Vautrin, you are a bad, bad man. 😁

[Fedya]

22 hours ago, Fedya said:

They don't?  Here's a photo of Jane Powell and Fred Astaire from Royal Wedding that I've got up on my Google-hosted blog:

And here's another photo:

 

BTW, the reason the photos came out a bit small is that Google puts something in to size them based on what size you pick when you put them in a blog post.  There's an "/s320/" in the URLs of the ones I originally posted that I think can be replaced by "/s0/ to get the original size photo:

I haven't changed the layout of my blog in the close to 14 years that I've been doing it, and reflexively pick "medium" for the photo size and then manually change the width when I'm editing posts.