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

Recommended Posts

*"Ha! They just like to see newer movies with no commercials."* - FredCDobbs

 

Now Fred, that's not necessarily true. I just don't mind if TCM chooses to show them. Newer movies on TCM are few and far between. Most often, the more contemporary films are included in the schedule for very specific reasons. "31 Days of Oscar" is one of those reasons.

 

I find it frustrating that all hell can break loose over a handful of "recent" films on TCM so soon after the channel programs something as extraordinary as January's Hal Roach festival. Given the ratio of positive-to-negative threads about programming, it's as if those truly special efforts are all for naught. For too many people, three hours of *The Lord Of The Rings* says more about the channel (Awful!) than three full days of rare Hal Roach shorts.

 

I just don't get that.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred, I now you love digging back for things...so here, take a moment to look at this link:

 

http://www.tcm.com/2009/15thAnniversary/index.jsp

 

And then:

 

1. When the years appear down at the bottom, click on 1994.

2. You will be taken to an image of a storefront saying "1994".

3. Click on the left side window, on the TCM logo.

4. It will then load a video

5. In the bottom right of the screen, you will see it says 1 of 7

6. Move your cursor up the right side to the arrow marked "NEXT"

7. Clcik on it until you get to the 3 of 7 screen.

8. Watch it.

 

It is Robert Osborne's first movie intro on TCM, and within the VERY FIRST MINUTE he says:

 

"...so, come join us and see not only great films and stars from the past *but also films from recent years featuring some of our newest and most watchable stars*."

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}

> *"They evolve...you don't."* - filmlover

>

> Now don't be bringing *Inherit The Wind* into this thread too. Fred might start advocating eugenincs be performed on TCM - if he can figure out how to do it.

>

> Kyle In Hollywood

 

 

Just remember, if evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}

> I find it frustrating that all hell can break loose over a handful of "recent" films on TCM

 

The guy in the OP just expressed a brief opinion about a 2003 movie showing on TCM. It was the usual gang of new-film buffs that erupted in the street riot and general fanatical freak-out.

 

When new posters come on the board to complain about newer movies being shown on TCM, the same gang teams up to try to insult him, lynch him, and drive him away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Ha!*

 

*They just like to see newer movies with no commercials.*

 

Fred,

 

That's not true and you know it. I have been a film buff since I was about 12 years old. I had the opportunity growing up to see classic MGM films on the big screen thanks to the movie theater in the original MGM Grand Hotel. I went to the movies almost every weekend to see classic films and modern films and that tradition carried over to adulthood.

 

I moved to the City of Angels in 1977 when there were plenty of revival house theaters still in business and there was an embarrassment of riches back then from classic films to modern films. There was ample opportunity to see both. All that was needed was more hours in the day at times. In that era, there was a student run film society at USC that ran an amazing eclectic film program that brought us all of Ozu's films, Peckinpah, Don Siegel and more. They brought Gene Kelly to talk as well as Orson Welles and Marty Scorcese and many others.

 

I love film regardless of when it was released. I love watching silents, classic studio era films and I still go to see modern films on the big screen from time to time.

 

You know from my many years of posting here that I have no problem with the big tent that TCM provides for film buffs. To them all films (regardless of release date) are important and worthy of broadcast from the classics to the the cults to the obscure to z-grade bad films.

 

I also know from your many years of posting here that you don't agree with that and don't like many films made after 1970 but there are some you do like and some you have watched on TCM and encouraged others to watch as well.

 

I wrote about the *31 Days of Oscar* because from the very beginning of the salute in 1995, it has always been about the entire history of the Academy Awards not a truncated only through (fill in the blank with a cut-off year here) version.

 

Back in 1995 and through-out the 1990s, that's why the *31 Days* salutes included films that had been nominated and/or won from the 1990s.

 

That's why in this new century films from the 2000s are included because they are part of the Academy's history.

 

It has nothing to do with my wanting to see modern films with no commercials on TCM. It has to do with the fact that every year TCM salutes the Oscars and *ALL* its history.

 

And it still amazes me that posters who claim to be long-time viewers who only watch TCM are suddenly up in arms every February because a recent modern film is on the schedule during the *31 Days of Oscar* salute.

 

For over 15 years the TCM and the *31 Days* has celebrated *ALL* Oscar history. They are not doing anything different this year.

 

And next year, they will celebrate *31 Days* again including *ALL* Oscar history and people will again be up in arms.

 

Some things here at TCM City never change. Though we haven't had too many posters contact their politicians to get TCM shut down because of their film schedule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=babydiapers wrote:}{quote}

> yes, foxrayman, I get this is 31 days of Oscar (even though only 28 days in this month.) I do watch TCM. In fact, it is the only channel on television I will watch.

>

> The Oscars started in 1929. I'll be charitable and extend the acceptable period of movies out to 1974. That means we've got 45 years of Oscar movies to focus on, and we don't need to go wading in the dreck of the post oil crisis world for more movies.

>

> If I wanted to watch Lord of the GD rings, I'll watch TBS or AMC or some crap.

>

> I want TMC to focus on the silent era, and the 30's through the early 60's (but mostly the 30's). Leave the CGI shittake for the 1000 other vacuous stations out there.

>

> This isn't a difficult concept to understand, einsteins.

 

****! I never knew until I joined this board that people pick a favorite cable channel and insist the channel please them 100%. with a name like babydiapers, do I really have to tell you what you are full of? Go take a walk, prepare your garden for the spring, take a nap, or go get laid! Don't be a slave to the boob tube!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think any poltician would laugh at the argument that TCM shouldn't show new movies, ROFL!

Their only concern in the past was the *effect* horror and violence had on the minds of young people, that is did it turned them into juvenile delinquents.

 

I found this old report from the 1950's, thought it would make interesting reading.

 

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6559/ I've read it, was they referring to 1955 or 2005? LOL!

 

Even back then, little was done by the government. They would have been horrified to say the least if they saw what young people see today. The only thing that came out of all this was the timing during the day of certain materials broadcasted and the V chip by which some parents groups were responsible for. Like to add, I have watched violent movies and horror during my whole life and today I like to say I don't even have so much as a moving violation.

 

Washington has *bigger* things to worry about!

 

About the original post, maybe this creepy little troll that gets under one's skin caused babydiapers to snap.

 

gollum4.jpg

 

Edited by: hamradio on Feb 20, 2011 1:46 PM

 

Edited by: hamradio on Feb 20, 2011 2:14 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

*"Like to add, I have watched voilent movies and horror during my whole life and today I like to say I don't even have so much as a moving violation."* - hamradio

 

Sure. But what about all those blackouts in the neighborhood caused by your attempts to build a time machine in the basement with all that electrical equipment you have?

 

Kyle

 

(Kidding!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote}

> Fred, I now you love digging back for things...so here, take a moment to look at this link:

>

> http://www.tcm.com/2009/15thAnniversary/index.jsp

>

> And then:

>

> 1. When the years appear down at the bottom, click on 1994.

> 2. You will be taken to an image of a storefront saying "1994".

> 3. Click on the left side window, on the TCM logo.

> 4. It will then load a video

> 5. In the bottom right of the screen, you will see it says 1 of 7

> 6. Move your cursor up the right side to the arrow marked "NEXT"

> 7. Clcik on it until you get to the 3 of 7 screen.

> 8. Watch it.

>

> It is Robert Osborne's first movie intro on TCM, and within the VERY FIRST MINUTE he says:

>

> "...so, come join us and see not only great films and stars from the past *but also films from recent years featuring some of our newest and most watchable stars*."

 

 

Ok. That is a nifty page. Thanks for posting it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=babydiapers wrote:}{quote}

> yes, foxrayman, I get this is 31 days of Oscar (even though only 28 days in this month.) I do watch TCM. In fact, it is the only channel on television I will watch.

>

> The Oscars started in 1929. I'll be charitable and extend the acceptable period of movies out to 1974. That means we've got 45 years of Oscar movies to focus on, and we don't need to go wading in the dreck of the post oil crisis world for more movies.

>

> If I wanted to watch Lord of the GD rings, I'll watch TBS or AMC or some crap.

>

> I want TMC to focus on the silent era, and the 30's through the early 60's (but mostly the 30's). Leave the CGI shittake for the 1000 other vacuous stations out there.

>

> This isn't a difficult concept to understand, einsteins.

 

 

TCM is trying to expand its viewership. It is a business. It is a profit center. It must evolve. It must survive. It clearly sees this variety is good for business. It brings new people to TCM, who might just stay at TCM.

 

Newer films still only account for a small percentage of each month's line-up. This is a station with a Jean Harlow month coming up, for pete's sake. Think about that. No one has this variety of programming. No one. Where else you gonna go?

 

Much ado about nothing. And, actually, not in any way "a difficult concept to understand, einstein."

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>About the original post, maybe this creepy little troll that gets under one's skin caused babydiapers to snap.

 

What is Don Knotts doing without his shirt on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Fred C Dobbs! I actually recognize you from Professor Thoma's board. I enjoy your comments there, as well.

 

You appear to be the only sensible one here. Frankly, I don't get it. I thought a cable channel which is known for showing old movies would attract, you know, viewers who enjoy old movies. Guess not.

 

CGI movies have no business being shown on TCM. None.

 

You want to talk about business decisions? TCM's core competency is old movies. Not CGI summer blockbusters. Here's a prediction: any movie made today with CGI will be thought of as a complete joke 20 years from now. When you base your whole movie on cheap technical gimmicks, you might wow audiences initially and create a media sensation, but the technology in time will be eclipsed, and when the special effects become just ordinary (or laughable), there's usually not much of a movie left to be considered any good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't always agree with Fred but at least he does actually talk about movies he enjoys. You however seem to have just joined this website to complain. There is nothing sensible about that.

 

I love old classic films but I am pretty sure the Lord of the Rings films will be remembered 20 years and even 50 years from now because they are based on a very famous & beloved Classic fantasy story from the 1950's. The films successfully captured the essence of these novels. And I was a fan of the novels first. There was much more to these movies than the CGI.

 

While the majority of films shown on TCM are from the studio era the channel has been showing the occasional recent film since its creation (no they did not play 2000 films in the 1990's however). So there is nothing new here. There has also always been more recent films in Oscar month. Again nothing new here. But I guess the complaints are nothing new either. They are getting old however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never watched *Lord of the Rings* or read the books. It just is not my "cup of tea". However, I do recognize it as a classic, adored by many and will be remembered for years to come. The fact that +I+ don't care for that sort of thing means nothing. Its fans deserve to see it.

 

One thing I learnd watching TCM is this: "You don't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need." Sometimes I see movies scheduled on TCM and think "oh, no, I don't want to see that!" I am often surprised. I'll start watching it anyway, giving it a fair chance. At the end I'll think "that really was good and I enjoied watching it," even though I thought I wouldn't.

 

The moral of the story is, we should all be open-minded. You never know what you'll find!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously do not know or care to know why TCM exists. The channel doesn't just exist for the pre-1970 films, it appears for all films from all eras.

 

That was there mission statement in 1994 and it is true today.

 

The fact that you find CGI films here is a telling one. Just so happens Lord of the Rings won 11 out of 11 Oscars. It is being featured as part of the annual salute to the Oscars that this channel has done since the beginning.

 

If you and others believe that the only films that can be shown are pre-1970, or pre-1960 films, then you are missing the point here. This is the time of the year where all films are shown from all eras because they all have one thing in common: They were all nominated for an Academy Award.

 

Your argument is so far off it is unbelievable that you would say something like this:

 

*I thought a cable channel which is known for showing old movies would attract, you know, viewers who enjoy old movies. Guess not.*

 

Well of course the channel attracts viewers who enjoy older movies. Do yourself a favor and look at the schedules for March and April. Less than 10% of the films being shown were made after 1960.

 

*You want to talk about business decisions? TCM's core competency is old movies. Not CGI summer blockbusters. Here's a prediction: any movie made today with CGI will be thought of as a complete joke 20 years from now. When you base your whole movie on cheap technical gimmicks, you might wow audiences initially and create a media sensation, but the technology in time will be eclipsed, and when the special effects become just ordinary (or laughable), there's usually not much of a movie left to be considered any good.*

 

Business decisions? What do you know about business decisions? TCM's core competency is showing films from every time period. Yes, most of the films shown are pre-1960, but more and more films made after 1960 are being shown. Not enough to replace the pre-1960 films one for one, but more are being shown.

 

Your prediction is wrong. What would you say about the 3-D films from the 1950s? They are not looked upon as jokes, are they? The reason why CGI is being used today has nothing to do with cheap thrills. It has everything to do with presenting the audience with having a worthwhile movie going experience. Take a movie like Titanic. Personally I ma not a big fan of the film. But in order to give the story the right kind of look CGI effects were used to show the Titanic as it was meant to be shown. Models would not do the trick. CGI allows film makers to have the freedom to explore areas of technical expertise that they have never had before. I keep thinking of films like Sink the Bismarck! and In Harms Way both from the early to mid 1960s that could have been much better had CGI effects been available to the producers.

 

Also, technology is improving each year. You think 20 years from now people will say when they watch Lord of the Rings they will laugh at it? What do you think people say now when they watch a film from 1977 called Star Wars? I am sure that film fans who love that movie, still love it and still will watch the original. I look back at films like The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Thing From Another World with awe. I amazed that the producers of those two films were able to get the special effects to work so well for them back in 1951. I don't laugh at them at all. I respect what they had to go through to get their film up on the screen. Most hard-core fans would appreciate that.

 

One of my favorite films is Tora! Tora! Tora! from 1970. And even though the producers were able to recreate the attack on Pearl harbor with great skill, the models still looked like models. Flash forward to the film Pearl Harbor. Again, not one of my favorites, but with the availability of CGI, the attack on the harbor was much more realistic.

 

Lord of the Rings will probably not be seen again until next years as art of next year's 31 Days of Oscar programming. If it is shown again, rest assured that the film will be in the minority of post 1960 films being shown on TCM.

 

CGI is not meant for every film. And not every newer film has CGI in it. Just happens that LOTR has CGI effects and it was a big winner on it's Oscar night, and that is why the film is being presented on TCM this 31 Days of Oscar.

 

Edited by: fxreyman on Feb 20, 2011 6:14 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have a thing against CGI in of itself instead of the movie. CGI is a tool that helps the story of the film if done correctly. CGI will not make a bad story good no matter how well its done.

But on the flip side of the coin bad CGI can ruin a potentually good movie.

 

How many movies used one form or another of CGI since its inception several decades ago?

I like to look back on those primitive beginings and how it evolved over time. "Star Wars" (1977) is a perfect example. Those mostly wire frame graphics used mainly during the TIE fighter attack and the battle over the Death Star, even though primitive by today's standards, helped made that movie an unexpected blockbuster.

 

How many people told George Lucas that creation of his will flop, the reasoning why many film studios wouldn't take it on. I watched the movie "Tron" (1982) and several people walked out of the theatre complaining they couldn't understand the thing. I knew back then what it was all about and knew the future impact this technology will have on movies. "Tron" was the movie that actually got me interested into computers. As a tribute, this is why they came out with "Tron Legacy" (2010), not a great film but it shows what modern CGI could have done for the film back then if it was available. I'm planning to buy the DVD as soon as it comes out. :)

 

Don't forget the overwhelming response movies like the "Toy Story" and "Harry Potter" series has on the movie goer today. Unbeleivable! Matter of fact "Harry Potter" would had flop if done with the same special effects done with the "Wizard of Oz". I myself am not a fan of Harry Potter but recognize the impact he has on the public and will be a classic eventually, his fans telling their children 20 years from now like we tell ours about "Star Wars". You can bet good money TCM will be showing his movies in the not to distant future.

 

I love both the old and the new - everything from the Thomas Edison's shorts to "Predators", the last new movie I recorded. Haven't seen "Despicable Me" yet but look forward to it. Not buying the Pay-per-view right now because I think it will be on Starz very soon.

 

The *way* you posted at the beginning is a turn off to many members here, it could have been done not out of anger that came across loud and clear. Be thankful some of the old posters who are no longer here are not around the board to read that or you will have got an eyeful. Beleive it or not the replies have been pretty low key and polite.

 

Edited by: hamradio on Feb 20, 2011 6:38 PM Typos

 

Edited by: hamradio on Feb 20, 2011 6:40 PM

 

Edited by: hamradio on Feb 20, 2011 7:03 PM Better not mnetion his name, lol!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Very funny isn't it? And thanks. I appreciate it.

 

However, I don't think you should sell yourself short.

 

You make several very wise points and overall your statement is very good at explaining several details that I do not go into.

 

Unfortunately for us, we have to keep explaining these things to other less knowledgeable folks.

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...