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

Why is TCM allowing Ben Mankiewicz to ruin the channel?


Recommended Posts

It was bad enough that Mankiewicz was reminding people in a recent issue of What's Playing that because his relatives were in the movie biz, he was supposedly "important."

 

Then, when I was last here, there was a bizarre post promoting a REALLY bad piece of 1990's propaganda called Three Kings, starring the extremely untalented soap actor but puppet of Marxist propagandists, George Clooney. Not so surprisingly this widely panned movie then magically shows up as Mankie's Movie pick, complete with a farcical promotion of Clooney by Mankie as a "great" actor.

 

(I find it very creepy that Mankie is promoting his political activities and himself using aliases on this board. How low does this guy have to go? He actually creates ids on this message board to promote himself)

 

We then get some exposure online of Mankiewicz's real life activities as a raving political propagandist who calls people names, harasses people, makes sexist and racist attacks and insults gay people, and behaves along the lines of Andy Griffith's character in A Face in the Crowd.

Even his wife insulting poor people with some sort of snide, derisive story about how she turns the labels on her $800 shoes around on the shelves so their maids and cleaning employees won't be bothered because the help is financially struggling, while Mankiewicz is buying his wife $800 shoes, thanks in part to TCM.

 

Why would TCM ever hire someone like this?

 

Because he has never accomplished anything whatsoever in his life other than work as a political propagandist and namecaller (and he has even been panned for that)

 

WHY WOULD TCM HIRE SOMEONE LIKE THIS WHO TURNS OFF SO MANY VIEWERS AND CUSTOMERS?

 

I would be considered by most a "Liberal" politically, but Mankiewicz is just hateful and hysterical. Politics has nothing to do with this guy. He's just a hater. Politics are an excuse.

 

Now his is "filling in" for Mr. Osborne? We actually turned off TCM for the first time ever while watching when he suddenly appeared.

 

We are fans of TCM. We pay extra for the channel with our cable provider, encourage others to do so as well, buy subscriptions to What's Playing (and as gifts), buy dvds and merchandise through the TCM online store, and attended the two Film Festivals.

 

We even thought about attending the cruise, until we found out that Ben Mankiewicz was involved and we cancelled our plans along with two other couples.

 

We extol the channel to other people and many have some awareness of TCM, but nearly to a person EVERY ONE makes a face and says "But that Mankiewicz person? He's disgusting" or annoying, unattractive, or some other criticism of a personality they find to be a turn- OFF.

 

Why would TCM hire a TURN OFF?

 

What sense does this make, business wise?

 

After listening to Jack Shaheen for the Arab special focus, perhaps what TCM needs to do is practice diversity and replace Mankiewicz with an Arab American host? Or a woman? Or an African American? Or an Asian? Or a Latino?

 

Why should Mankiewicz get a special preference because he by chance is related to some people who worked in Hollywood? Why step on minorities and women to do a favor for Ben Mankiewicz?

 

Edited by: WonderMoon on Aug 3, 2011 11:52 AM

 

Edited by: WonderMoon on Aug 3, 2011 11:55 AM

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Better yet, let's see TCM offer some diversity and allow an African American, a Latino, an Asian, an Arab American, a woman, the job of host, replacing Ben Mankiewicz.

 

Then there is no need to mute, and we can actually watch and listen to someone appealing and intelligent.

 

Edited by: WonderMoon on Aug 3, 2011 12:46 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon, Wonder! This whole thread is a friggin' joke you're tryin' to pull over on us, RIGHT?!

 

Well, except maybe the idea that Hollywood is rampant with nepotism, anyway! THAT I agree wholeheartedly with ya about. (but let's not get into any o' that whole "Sheen Business" right now, okay?!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

> WonderMoon wrote:Then, when I was last here, there was a bizarre post promoting a REALLY bad piece of 1990's propaganda called Three Kings, starring the extremely untalented soap actor but puppet of Marxist propagandists, George Clooney. Not so surprisingly this widely panned movie then magically shows up as Mankie's Movie pick, complete with a farcical promotion of Clooney by Mankie as a "great" actor.

Yeah...riiiiiight! I think I get this first part of "the joke" here, alright. Yep, if I've heard it ONE time comin' outta the mouth of that dirty "Commie" Clooney, I've heard it a friggin' THOUSAND times, when he said... "All businesses should be taken over by the government"...riiiiight.

 

Now THAT was a REALLY good "joke" there, dude!

 

BUT, the friggin' CAPPER was THIS one:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> {quote:title=WonderMoon wrote:}{quote}I would be considered by most a "Liberal" politically...

Yep, I was rollin' on the friggin' GROUND after readin' THAT one!!!

 

Saaaaay...have you very considered STAND-UP comedy? I think you're a NATURAL, kid!

 

(...but, word to the "wise" here...whatever ya do, DON'T try to break into The Biz out there in that crazy "Commie Infested" La La Land...well, that is unless, as we talked about earlier and which is a point we DID find some common ground about, you happen to be related to someone out there who is in The Biz...THEN ya might have a chance!...yep, you COULD even be the next comedy "WONDER"!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In this thread it is posted that nearly EVERY ONE dislikes Ben. In another post (because of course they have to have multiple theads) instead the term 'many' is used.

 

While I welcome optinions (even unintelligent ones), one should only speak for themselves unless they have some polling data. I for one enjoy Ben. Is he a silver spoon guy? Hey, I don't know if he earned his way or is just using his famous name but as a host I like him. I guess that makes me a Marxist!

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> In this thread it is posted that nearly EVERY ONE dislikes Ben. In another post (because of course they have to have multiple theads) instead the term 'many' is used.

>

> While I welcome optinions (even unintelligent ones), one should only speak for themselves unless they have some polling data. I for one enjoy Ben. Is he a silver spoon guy? Hey, I don't know if he earned his way or is just using his famous name but as a host I like him. I guess that makes me a Marxist!

>

Well, we CAN'T be REALLY sure if you're a "Marxist" or not yet, james.

 

Let's see...who did you vote for in the last Presidential election? THAT'll tell us if ya are or not, ya know!

 

 

(...and no, I hear being a fan of Groucho and his brothers doesn't qualify you as being a "real true Marxist"....sorry!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=rayallen wrote:}{quote}Do what I do.

> When Ben is on mute the sound, or if you recorded the movie and Ben is the host, fast forward through the intro and just get to the movie.

> No Ben to deal with.

you are wise man, Mr. Allen, and I like your style.

 

the only footnote I do tack on is that Mankiewicz makes money to do these bumpers. How much money, I don't know, but as he's been on the job for, what, eight?, nine?, ten? years now- I assume it's upwards of $600.00 a bumper segment (this is an estimate based on my time in television years ago.)

 

That's $599.99 too much and it's money that could go to producing in-house docs, acquiring new titles, finally freeing up the rights to some long-lost old titles, restoring classic films, and promoting the network in print media and advertising.

 

But yes, Mr. Allen, I do advocate your viewpoint and admire your Zen.

 

Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 3, 2011 1:35 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the OP -

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin. So I'll just leave it at "Thanks for sharing."

 

But I would be interested to learn which "members" you think are Ben's "aliases on this board."

 

Kyle (FredCDobbs perhaps?) In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}Re: the OP -

>

> I wouldn't even know where to begin. So I'll just leave it at "Thanks for sharing."

>

>

> But I would be interested to learn which "members" you think are Ben's "aliases on this board."

>

>

> Kyle (FredCDobbs perhaps?) In Hollywood

>

Well Kyle, after what I SAID in this thread, MY money's on him thinkin' that that jerk "Dargo" might be one of 'em!!!

 

(..though there's NO way that little Ben would OR could be half as funny as I AM...I just wish that MY Pop would've settled in,say, Bevery Hills after the war, and been involved in The Biz, instead of down there in the South Bay and been a Aerospace Engineer...THEN I might've hit the BIG TIME!!!!)

 

ROFL

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}I think we need some hearings so we can create a blacklist and round up all these marxist.

>

> Yea, the good old days!

>

LOL!!!

 

Yeah james, good idea! ;)

 

(...what say we start by gettin' all the names of people who declare themselves "Democrats" for the Primary elections...I "think" we know where all their collective sympathies REALLY lie, don't we?...that's right..Beijing!!!)

 

ROFL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, screw politics. Forget politics.

 

*BOTTOM LINE:* The dude takes money away from acquiring new films and preserving films- which is (or should be) TCM's primary goal. In spite of the really stellar SUTS line-up this year, the programming on the net has been at best so-so for some time now, with scads of titles in HEAVY rotation while the really fun, between-the-cracks, not-on-dvd, really obscure titles that used to be on stay locked in the salt mines. I cannot imagine how hard it is for the programmers to acquire, wrangle the rights to, and pay for new stuff to show- made even harder since a healthy chunk of cash is dedicated per annum to pay for this un-appealing lump of melted wax who attracts NO ONE to the net, adds no insight to what is shown and has- after almost a decade- not improved on his wooden, stilted and thoroughly un-engrossing delivery.

 

Let the movies introduce themselves and save some damn money, TCM! The Mank serves no purpose

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought everyone was aware that the Mankman isn't really paid by TCM,

but is one of the last recipients of Moscow gold (though I believe they just

wire it from Switzerland to your bank account these days). That's one reason

I'm glad I don't pay extra for TCM on DirecTV.

 

Actually I like the scruffier, somewhat sarcastic Ben of the old days, but I think

that persona is gone for good. Even the more vanilla Mank is usually enjoyable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}

> I thought everyone was aware that the Mankman isn't really paid by TCM,

> but is one of the last recipients of Moscow gold (though I believe they just

> wire it from Switzerland to your bank account these days). That's one reason

> I'm glad I don't pay extra for TCM on DirecTV.

>

> Actually I like the scruffier, somewhat sarcastic Ben of the old days, but I think

> that persona is gone for good. Even the more vanilla Mank is usually enjoyable.

LOL!

 

Good one, C!

Link to post
Share on other sites

*"BOTTOM LINE: The dude takes money away from acquiring new films and preserving films-"* - JG

 

Apples and Oranges. There is no evidence that one has any relation with the other.

Conjecture on how and where TCM spends its revenue is foolish as no one here has the slightest idea of how TCM allocates its budget or the costs involved with any investment the channel makes.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=JonnyGeetar wrote:}{quote}Look, screw politics. Forget politics.

I would've LOVED to Jonny! BUT, as I believe I've made clear in this thread, much of Wonder's criticism of little Ben was BASED of that topic.

 

Ya see, over the years and before I retired, I worked with a whole LOT of folks with whom I disagree in regard to politics. AND, over the years, I've watched many a performance by those who I think are pretty good performers, but who I know didn't share MY particular view in this regard, too.

 

 

BUT, that NEVER stopped me from working along side of these people, OR to stop watching a particular performer because I didn't like their politics.

 

 

And sooooooooo, THAT is why I've made "such an issue" of this and with all this sarcasm of mine here! I DON'T LIKE WHEN PEOPLE DO THAT! and ESPECIALLY whenever some people make REAL BIG LEAPS in their pontifications, such as going from that the idea that another might be a "Commie , when in fact they're mostly holding ideas that are only "Left" of their own.

 

 

It, in effect, IS a form of "blacklisting", which james most observantly made mention of and made a joke of earlier, also.

 

 

Okay....and NOW that I've got THAT off my friggin' chest...WHAT were you sayin' about nasally little nepotistically-career-enhanced Ben here again??????

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is this thread for real? Why all of a sudden all this Ben hate? I dont know how he got the job and dont care. I think he does a good job, and that's all that counts with me. I'm sure others could do so as well. So?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Stevie Wonder criticized Ben? I must have missed that, but "I Wish" I hadn't.

Ooooh, now finace,...with material like THAT, I sure hope you've got a WHOLE lot o' friends and family in The Biz if you ever expect to make it to the Big Time TOO!!!

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=JonnyGeetar wrote:}{quote}(throws up hands)

>

> All right, I give up. I'm going to watch No Man of Her Own (1950) on youtube.

>

> (stomp, stomp, stomp)

>

> Door shuts.

>

> ps- whatever they're paying the Mank, it's too damn much.

Well, I can apprecate that!

 

(...though I sure hope while he's in there watchin' TCM, that all that talk o' mine about little Ben's nasally voice doesn't also begin to grate on his nerves too much now that I've pointed that out to him too!)

 

LOL!!!

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
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...