Jump to content

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

I hate Ben manachawitz

Recommended Posts

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote}Who cares who hosts? I watch TCM for the films, not the hosts. The beauty of watching everyting via Tivo, is you can easily skip the nonsense, or not.

I commend you Mr. 001. That is the best, healthiest, sanest viewpoint to have on the whole thing.

 

However...(Whipping out my nine iron to beat the dead horse at every chance I get)

 

Mankiewicz makes money (how much I know not, but by now it's got to be a good chunk of change as he's been on the net for at least 10 years) to record those superfluous, ham-fisted intros and outros wherein he merely regurges the imdb and/or wikipedia trivia entries for the films and brings no one new to the network (really, does anyone watch for Ben?)

 

And whether that MONEY comes from a "talent" budget or not, it is MONEY that could and should go to acquiring some new titles (My GOD, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was on for the 32nd time this year this morning!), restoring classic films, promoting the net in PRACTICAL ways and guaranteeing that what is essentially a niche network will be on the air, commercial free for years to come.

 

Go ahead and lob your kunquat/orange/apples/and pears metaphors at me: but times are tough, the guy isn't qualified and HE SERVES NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DRAIN REVENUE AND TEST THE MUTE BUTTON ON MY TELEVISION (and the mute buttons of countless others.)

 

Really, if he at least had a screenplay produced or something to give him some cred, I'd leave him alone. He doesn't do anything any one of us couldn't do (and quite possibly better) I mean, I don't care for Baldwin, but at least the guy has CREDENTIALS and quite possibly DOES ENTICE PEOPLE TO WATCH WHO WOULD NOT OTHERWISE WATCH.

 

WHACK! WHACK! WHACK!

 

(beating the dead horse.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unexplainedly, Mike (at least I think that this is your Americanized first name), you are confusing Ben with Kosher wine! Proof of this confusion is the fact that Kosher wine does not age at all, since its high added alcoholic content (compared with no-alcohol-added vintage wines) kills the bacteria that causes aging in the bottle.

 

But as anyone can clearly see, Ben is aging at an accelerated rate, what with all of his challenging hosting duties, learning to read the scripts laid down for him while sounding very natural and folksy in his new-found "knowledge," running around here and there and everywhere, etc. Just look at those tinges of gray around the edges. Yes, gray will win out, despite all of those dyes, shampoos, etc.

 

So Mike, it's time for you to get deconfused on this particular issue. Perhaps there is some realistic comparison between Ben and a good Irish whiskey, but somehow I doubt it. Maybe you can compose a limerick about and/or for Ben. By all means, be sure to post it here. The world (i.e., everyone who understands Gaelic) will love your latest messageboard contribution.

 

 

Gerald

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to permeate everything these days. We are already stuck with Alec Baldwin... can we please get someone else next time? I have not heard the show you spoke of, but I can only imagine. Actually, I thought Ben was doing a pretty good job. Of course I have not heard him opine on the "Turk" thing so I don't have to get past it like I do when A.B. is on. We middle Americans in flyover country who are movie buffs have a tough row to hoe!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=geraldrobertson wrote: }{quote}But as anyone can clearly see, Ben is aging at an accelerated rate, what with all of his challenging hosting duties, learning to read the scripts laid down for him while sounding very natural and folksy in his new-found "knowledge,"

Yes, and that knowledge is as infallible as ever. Twice last night he claimed No Highway in the Sky was made in 1952. It was made in 1951.

 

A minor gaffe, I admit, and one I would tolerate from someone who had an iota of charisma and any kind of cred...But not Manksy-Poo.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's only a matter of time before we get a "Ben Mankiewicz Blows It Again" thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote}I guess it's only a matter of time before we get a "Ben Mankiewicz Blows It Again" thread.

It would never lack for posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance that it was"made" in 1951 and released in 1952? I don't recall what film this comes from, but did you just return from the hairsplitters' convention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You sounds like those that complained about Rush when he was on Monday Night Football.

 

If the job is not political and one doesn't infuse their own politics into said job I don't let the fact someone has a political POV different than my own impact me.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall what film this comes from, but did you just return from the hairsplitters' convention?

 

Hey, if it was good enough for thousands of petty posts about RO, it's okay that the hair- HE BLEW IT! -splitting torch is passed to Benny M., isn't it?

 

Of course it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Any chance that it was"made" in 1951 and released in 1952? I don't recall what film this comes from, but did you just return from the hairsplitters' convention?

 

I wondered that too, and looked it up. It was released in September of 1951 in the US and three other countries. It was released in 1952 in six countries. Maybe Ben was abroad then... ;)

 

Seriously, it would be nice if there were never any errors in such details, but it's a very small thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Ben did the intro for *Anatomy Of A Murder* last night he didn't mention Lee Remick. That is unforgivable. Usually I think Ben does a good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

>

> Seriously, it would be nice if there were never any errors in such details, but it's a very small thing.

Some people can find no reason for existence if they can't point out such small things on these boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, it would be nice if there were never any errors in such details, but it's a very small thing.

 

OK, the researchers had him say 1952 instead of 1951. Just a small error. Suppose they had him say that it starred John Wayne instead of James Stewart? Another minor detail, right? After all, John Wayne was in a 1954 film about a plane that they feared would crash, that's not too far off.

 

Suppose in addition to those two small errors, imagine the researchers had him say that the film was directed by Morton DaCosta instead of Henry Koster. It's sounds enough alike and it's just one more small error.

 

It's not as if we listen to these intros expecting them to be accurate or provide useful info, is it? I mean, we can always look up this stuff if we really wanted to know about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Any chance that it was"made" in 1951 and released in 1952? ...did you just return from the hairsplitters' convention?

I DID as a matter of fact, and let me tell you it was awful ! They gave you only four hand towels at the hotel instead of six, they had turkey bacon but not sausage and the welcome brochure said "its a great day for hairsplitting" using no apostrophe .

 

Unacceptable

 

The Roman Numerals during the credits for No Highway in the Sky had one I at the end and not two II's, and all other sources list it as 1951. I have a slightly Rain Main - esque ability for film years, even ones I have never seen so I spotted the gaffe instantly.

 

Plus I admit I have it out for The Mank.

 

Yes: it is a bitchy little moan on my part, thoroughly influenced by my rancor for that sack of potatoes in a pin-striped suit. Personally, I thought it was cute when Osborne goofed numerous times over the last year- saying for example that Joel McCrea was in Cabaret and not Joel Grey- which is a pretty big entry in the Goof Department even I must admit.

 

But you know why I tolerate it from Os? I like RO and the dude has gobs of credentials and clout, plus he GENUINELY knows his stuff (even if the files have gotten a little mixed up with time, which the Good Lord knows happens to the best of us.) I'll take any goof he makes in stride, because he's earned the right to be the keeper of The Classic Movie Candy Store that is TCM.

 

But not Manksy. No way, no how, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

 

ps- it is fun to imagine Joel McCrea dolled up in decadent mascara and cupid's bow lips, dueting with Liza on Money! Money! Money!

 

pss- Please come back soon R.O.

 

Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 14, 2011 8:25 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Sometimes I suspect that we're all a bunch of nerds.

Your suspicions are well-grounded.

 

Manksy-Poo just ended his outro of The Awful Truth by noting that Ralph Bellamy plays the guy who loses the girl in that movie, His Girl Friday and The Wolf Man.

 

Um, no.

 

In The Wolf Man Bellamy doesn't have a single exchange of dialogue or significant scene with leading lady Evelyn Ankers, in fact he doesn't have a romantic role of any kind- just straight supporting. Patric Knowles has the "Ralph Bellamy" role in that one, while Bellamy has more of a "Lionel Atwill" role. (Or the "Basil Rathbone" role if you will.)

 

Jeez Ben, they pay you, can you at least watch this stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez Ben, they pay you, can you at least watch this stuff?

 

Why does the host have to be familiar with the film? Isn't he counting on the researchers to do THEIR work properly?

 

Obviously THE WOLF MAN is one that no one is familiar with because when it last aired and was introduced by Robert Osborne, they had him say that Claude Rains plays a scientist "who is up to no good."

 

The staff's job is to make the host look as if he knows what he is discussing. Since the format of TCM is to give us the impression that the host is watching with us, maybe the whole process needs to be discused. As it is now, the staff is making the hosts look ridiculous. Not always, but enough that some changes have to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm just back from vacation and catching up on stuff on my DVRs -- both at 93% capacity!

 

I haven't followed this thread but I've been watching films from a week ago Sunday and, yes, Ben is making his usual goofs and trying way to hard to sound relevant (jeez, on Jimmy Stewart day when discussing Shop Around the Corner we got more about icky Tom Hanks than about Stewart!) but ...

 

He's wearing those nice tight jeans and an open collar shirt sans jacket and he looks HOT HOT.

 

Cathy Cartee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The entertaining quality of the rebuttals aside, there's no discussion of films and filmmakers here and no reason for it to continue.

 

Michael/TCMWebAdmin

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...