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

Why the PROFANITY????


Recommended Posts

Arg! I don't understand.

 

This month we have festivals devoted to Orson Welles and Mexican cinema. We play silent films at least once a week, and often a whole lot more than that. We just had a comedy festival that included Charley Chase, Fatty Arbuckle, Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin. We're playing Ingrid Bergman's Swedish films next month. How can anyone really say we're becoming AMC?

 

I have always believed we should play some contemporary films (uncut, commercial-free, in letterbox) in the proper context (as part of festivals where they're appropriate). I continue to believe that and have explained the reaons in previous posts. I respect that many people don't like it, just as some people don't like it when we play silent films (I'm looking at you, Leo).

 

But, having been the head of programming here for several years, I can tell you with certainty that there is no "direction" toward AMC or any other network.

 

Sorry, sorry - I guess I have to calm down. Talk like this makes me crazy, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tcmprogrammer, I share your sentiments exactly.

I have noticed no signs of TCM going the route of AMC especially with the hundreds of classic movies that you present each month.

While I'm writing this I'm enjoying your birthday tribute to Katharine Hepburn. Where else in TV land can you fond such a tribute today? No where!

 

 

Mongo

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Talk like this makes me crazy, though.

 

As well it should, tcmprogrammer.

 

You see, we here who were loyal to the BRAVOs and the A&Es of the world believed them when they came onto the message boards and said everything was to remain as it was. Then blammo, there were suddenly the Bill Kurdless and A&E Confidential's, and that was all she wrote.

 

I am more cynical than most, I'm not a pie in the sky palaver personality. Consider me the Devil's Advocate.

 

If my irritating posts cause you to doubt the PTB or the suits who give you direction, good. I work for IBM, and we know not to trust anyone who is an executive.

 

So, if you mistrust your corporate suits...unless you are a suit...and bring our (my) mistrust back to them, and don't believe them even when they tell you it's the truth, then it's a good thing.

 

I still don't believe them. But I'll hope against hope.

 

And yes, as I've said, your April schedule was amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TCMProgrammer, that endless and utter nonsense about TCM becoming another AMC makes me "crazy", too! I fail to even find the "point" in it anymore...it's a totally tired & worn-out assumption, and I'm tired of hearing about it! But,just consider the "source" and remember that you have a great many viewers who fully recognize and appreciate your Programming, and support you 100% every single day that we tune in to TCM. You're doing a great job, and I have absolute faith that you will continue to keep doing it. :)ML

Link to post
Share on other sites

You identified YOURSELF as the "source" Delores...the "Devil's Advocate" in your OWN words. Additionally, your personal attacks on me have also become tired and worn out, but it's only yourself you're "hurting" with them, so please don't stop! ;ML

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you can argue semantics with the likes of leo, but not with me.

 

Your 'consider the source' is a shot, not an identification.

 

So don't try and turn it around to look like a series of personal attacks on poor little you, because YOU started with the personal attacks.

 

By all means, you continue as well. Funny, I'm not hurting at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey happyowl55. You're proof that you can learn something new every day. I followed your tip and did a search on Google for "tv guardian." The thing really exists.

 

I don't know how I missed this one. The information I read said it filters out somewhere around 95 percent of the profanity. That's a major improvement, but still, I'll have to think about it a bit. Great idea though.

 

The main difference between that gadget and the DVD player from clearview.com is that Clearview's player works only with DVD's, not TV programming. It does, however, remove 100% of objectionable content.

 

It doesn't work automatically like the TV Guardian. You have to subscribe to a monthly service where you can download programs to your DVD player that will "filter" some of the current movies on DVD as you play them.

 

They don't seem to cover ALL movies, so I guess they find some of them too hard to work with or something. Anyway, for now I think I'm going to get one of their players and see how it goes.

 

I will keep my eye on the progress of the TV Guardian though. Thanks again for the tip.

 

Indianbear10 take note of this. happy was right. The thing just might be what you're looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We certainly appreciate the support of everyone, and I accept the skepticism of many of you. I guess I am a "corporate suit," since I'm employed by a mega-corporation, but I wear jeans to work every day and am as cynical as anyone else on these matters. And I've always said there may come a day when the company decides to take TCM in a different direction (hopefully I will be gone when and if that happens). But I can promise that, as of now, there's no pressure from anyone. In fact (dont' hate me for this), I have to fight with my boss to play a lot of the contemporary films sometimes, because I do believe they're a legitimate part of the mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, you MUST be aware of what you watch. This is not 1957 where there are 3 channels and you endlessly circulate them in an effort to find somethibg watchable, secure in the knowledge that while the show you flip to may be excrement, they certainly won't SAY the "S" word. Anyone who mindlessly channel surfs gets about what they deserve. TCM does not censor. If the movie you want to watch was made after the mid 60's chances are it may have language/nudity issues. So don't watch it!!!!! "Patton" 1970... best Picture , best actor. George C. says G.D. a lot, just like the REAL Patton. Adds realism. Don't watch this great film because I don't want to hear you whine. "Kramer vs. Kramer" great film. Few scattered profanties. Funny scene with bare female butt. DON'T WATCH IT! Godfather I &II. Definative film film making. Great themes, story direction, acting. Don't watch. The murderers don't say "darn & "oh heck." They don't call each other "varmint" or "mangy sidewinder." PLEASE don't watch! Harvey like many other folks you ASSUME that it is only liberals who hate censorship. I am a conservative Republican who would have voted Ronnie Reagan to a third term. I am not comfortable watching shows about homosexuality. I DON'T WATCH THEM!!!! It's your responsibility to see that YOU are not offended and your kids don't see things you don't want them to. Censorship is just WRONG. It's like making the park off-limits because some people litter. I agree that there is too much garbage on TV. STOP WATCHING IT!!!!! Read a book. If there's nothing on neither is my TV!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To tcmprogrammer, Hi, I'm Harvey.

 

I would like to address your comment about pushing for more "contemporary films" to be played because "...they're a legitimate part of the mix."

 

That's where we see things differently.

 

My stand is that there should not be a "mix" if that means including films that contain (what is for some of us) morally objectionable material; profanity and nudity being first and foremost.

 

TCM is a PUBLIC network. You are not a paid network like HBO, The Playboy Channel and the like.

 

As such, a public network has an obligation to offer only such programming as is morally acceptable to it's entire audience. Not just some of its viewers, or even most of it's viewers, but as near as is humanly possible ALL of it's viewers.

 

The key word here is limiting content to what is MORALLY acceptable. I'm not talking about personal taste. We have to be careful about semantics here.

 

Limiting programming to what is morally acceptable will not solve the problems of people that don't like silent movies, can't stand westerns, or are bored by musicals. What we're talking about there is a difference in personal taste, like chocolate or vanilla ice-cream; not moral content.

 

Lest we open the door for an endless and fruitless debate about "what is moral or immoral content" let me just limit the definition to the aforementioned issues of profanity and nudity; those two will suffice.

 

I can already hear the drums rolling and the troops gathering to wave the flag of "no CENSORSHIP." It's a moot point. Those that find profanity and nudity to be acceptable have access to all they can possible want 24 hours a day on an ever increasing number of paid PRIVATE channels that satisfy their tastes. They're not being censored at all. They're simply being given what they want in a PRIVATE environment that does not interfere with the choices of their neighbors who find that content to be morally objectionable.

 

Having public channels that are morally acceptable to all and paid channels that satisfy private interests is simple freedom of choice; not censorship.

 

However, this only works when we agree to operate within common guidelines that respect the other persons moral beliefs.

 

As AMC has now added films that contain profanity and nudity they are telling many Christians, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons etc. and even atheists who simply don't like P & N, that their moral standards are no longer being considered. That's bad news indeed.

 

Again, I remind you that AMC is a PUBLIC channel. The moral standards of your viewers should ALWAYS be considered. It's seems that you have lost sight of that fact.

 

Thank you. I await your reply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old question Harvey. WHO decides? The Hindus who find a kiss on the mouth to be ############? No no no. The answer is keep the adult stuff off the air until 10 pm and be careful after 10. Take responsibility for your own viewing!!! Find out the ratings. Back in the 90's a woman sued MTV and the producers of "Beavis and Butthead" because she claimed the show incited her 6 yr old son to set the house on fire. Beavis was fascinated by fire, and would nervously chant the word due to his inner demons. There was a warning that the show was not suitable for anyone below 18. It was also on at 11 pm. As it turned out the child was up at midnite on a school nite, he was left entirely alone, and this was his third attempt to set a fire. Obviously, it was all the fault of the show!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Harvey,

 

Thanks for the post. I respect your point of view.

 

However, you suggest that you just want to limit what you consider morally objectional content to "nudity and profanity" and want to "leave it at that."

 

Well, how can you just leave it at that? We receive more complaints about films that contain blackface scenes than anything else - plenty of people (understandably, in my opinion) find those films extremely morally problematic. Several Native Americans have complained about the westerns we play because there are caucasians in Native American roles.

 

A lot of people complain when we have war-movie marathons because they feel those films glorify war, or films that are particularly violent.

 

Now, your particular concern seems to be with profanity and nudity - and I understand a lot of people feel that way. So we play those films later and night, in deference to those moral values. We also label them "TV-MA" before the film starts so people can know what to expect. There are also many films that we just won't play because the content is too strong.

 

But, I believe there are many films made in the last 40 years that are very appropriate on our network - as truly great, important classics (examples: "The Pawnbroker," "Raging Bull," "The Conformist") or as part of a festival devoted to a piece of film history (examples: we have a "Cars in the Movies" festival coming up that includes "Back to the Future"; "When Harry Met Sally..." as part of a Romantic Comedies festival).

 

Anyway, as I said, I respect your point of view and I appreciate you taking the time to post. You're certainly not alone in your beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, pu-leeeeze, Harveysrabbit! Stop it! You've made your point early on! Please move on! You're dragging this thing on over and beyond what needs to be said. We all know your point by this time! Please, go to a different topic! Adios! Good-bye! Let it go! We're all beating a dead horse here! Just stop watching TCM and leave it alone. Got it? Good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tcmprogrammer,

 

Good first step. Now, let's go a little further.

 

If we are to have an open and worthwhile debate, which is what I'm asking for, then we must of necessity limit the subject matter being debated.

 

The subjects I submitted for debate are profanity and nudity. While I may feel for those who find moral problems with the subjects you mentioned, those are not the topics at hand.

 

If someone wants to debate blackface in movies, an interesting subject by the way, then make a new post, start a new debate limited to blackface in movies and go for it. I might join in that one myself. This debate, however, is about P & N. Period.

 

Let me again make the point that I am calling TMC to be respectful of the (P & N) moral standards of their entire viewing audience, I repeat from my opening comments, "as near as is humanly possible."

 

The suggestion that because you can't satisfy ALL moral standards, then it follows that you should establish little or NO moral standards is simply not acceptable.

 

That's not responsible respect for your audience, that's simply misuse of privileged power on the part of TCM.

 

One poster (sorry, for the sake of simplicity from this point forward I won't deal with individual screen names; we all know who we are) said the answer is to play the films with "objectionable" content late at night and then watch out for what you can't accept. TCM and you also seem to feel that is an answer. I disagree.

 

My business is on the internet so of necessity I spend many hours seated at my computer; often into the wee hours of the morning. I used to be able to play TCM in a little window while I was working (the old films are good company) without any concern about content. Now, that is not the case. Things are starting to jump out at me from that little window that I never had to concern myself about before. For me, your late night idea is no answer at all; it is just another problem that I don't believe I should have to deal with.

 

I will expand my earlier comments about the responsibilities of TCM as a PUBLIC TV network to include the idea that the same standard should be held to 24 hours a day. There should be no need to tell some of your viewers that "you can't enjoy yourself here anymore" because you're running so called "mature" material.

 

Another poster asks "who decides" what is morally acceptable. While I addressed much of his statement in the first part of this message (we must limit the subjects under debate) taken directly, his question is a very good one.

 

I offer the following suggestion. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I suggest that TCM had the right formula for many years. All you need to do is return to that level of already proven to be generally acceptable moral standards and you've got it right. What you were doing was rolling along just great. You don't have to reinvent the wheel.

 

Yes, I'm well aware, as another poster submitted that this is not 1957. Great. I for one am not interested in returing to that particular year. The different types of films that are being produced today indeed have their place, and many of them will have their place in the history books. But I submit that some of them, again because of P & E have no place on AMC. Changing times does not require us to change our moral values. Indeed it's when times change, that those values are put to the test.

 

Suggestion. The changing times and different films of today may have opened an opportunity for TCM that did not exist before. Why not consider a TCM-2 (for lack of a better name) where you can start up and play ALL of the contemporary films that you want to? You would not have to hold to the same standards as TMC-1 and it would give you much more programming freedom to offer variety.

 

Offer it as a paid channel and stand back. I think it's possible that you would have a stamped of people signing up for a such a channel. No, I would probably not be one of them, but I can certainly imagine the interest and appeal of such a network to many others.

 

 

Your move. Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, there seems to be a desire by an inexplicably large segment of our population to want "the government" or ANYONE else to take responsiblity for them or others. Now someone is asking TCM to show only films which exclude four letter words and/or nudity. Well guess what, you have to take RESPONSIBILITY for what you (or your children) watch!

 

Firstly, if I'm reading my Now Playing guide correctly, A Fish Called Wanda (1988) was last shown on February 5 at 12:15 AM ET ... I guess you were doing a slow burn;- ) In any case, this shows that tcmprogrammer and staff have already been sensitive to your concern in that the channel only airs this R rated movie (shall we say) "after hours". If that's not enough to satisfy you:

 

Secondly, every TV set manufactured in the past 5 years has a V-chip installed which allows you to filter out all but the most mundane TV-Y, TV-Y7, TV-Y7 FV or TV-G programming. Note: It is only TV-PG and higher ratings which allow moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D), or worse. And, if you've got a cable (or satellite) box, even your pre-January, 2000 television can utilize these (parental) controls. If that's not enough to satisfy you:

 

Thirdly, you can research any film's rating (e.g. why it received that designation) prior to sitting down and watching it by any number of means - countless websites, books, newspaper archives, etc.. If that's not enough to satisfy you:

 

Change the channel or turn off the TV! I realize that the options I've provided are listed in order of increasing PERSONAL responsibility, but you need to realize that ONLY you can regulate your "response ability". Yes, that's right, you can CHOOSE HOW to respond to something you don't like.

 

As far as the more contemporary films are concerned, I applaud tcmprogrammer and staff for showing some of these newer movies in the context of their various themes: 31 Days of Oscar ("Wanda" featured Kevin Kline's Oscar winning Best Supporting Actor performance), Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) was part of a series of Michael Caine's films, etc. provided it's not excessive and I don't believe it portends a future for our beloved station like Another Movie Channel (AMC). In fact, I think "Hannah" has to be one of the best films (out of the 233) I've seen this year!

 

Oh, and, there is NO WAY I know of to get TCM free, so your PUBLIC channel nonsense is just that harvey;- )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvey - you already brought me into the conversation further than I'd like to go. I will just say 2 things: I believe many contemporary films do belong on TCM; while you understandably want to limit the conversation to your concerns about nudity and language, I believe the issues that others take offense to are relevant to this discussion. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on both of those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also going to mention the v-chip. I believe my cable box even has some sort of a blocker in it. You can set it up with a password and you can select to block channels showing tv-ma or whatever rating you change it to.

 

I agree that tcm should show the occasional newer classic because after all; films such as raging bull in the future will be considered one of the classic films of the 80s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stoney, You needed only to address the topic at hand, instead you started bashing Marylou, in a sarcastic

manner at best!....everyone on these boards would like you to stop including myself. Just give your opinions

on any topic you would like, without personal comments about any particular person , you address that person in private that you are having a problem with not on these boards. TCM thanks you,TCM PROGRAMMER THANKS YOU, AND I THANK YOU lolite blue....

 

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...