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

You've Heard this Before, But?.


SimplySandy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Know there are people who like the changes in TCM and some who do not. I haven't commented on this?until today. My opinion -

I'm not a fan of newer movies; sure I like some but give me the old classics any day. That's why I started watching TCM years ago.

My solution - I don't watch TCM as often as I did. Our station was tuned to TCM constantly; not so much now. For those who also agree with me, my solution is to look ahead on the Schedule?.I look for the year of the movie and the actors. I might watch a "newer" movie but seriously there aren't a lot of great movies to watch like the old classics. They just don't have that large pool of good actors today.

That said?.if you don't like what is showing on TCM, change the channel.

No arguing with anyone about how TCM is changing?.it's up to you what your personal taste is in movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SimplySandy wrote:

<< That said... if you don't like what is showing on TCM, change the channel. >>

 

I used the *channel selector* when "Ellen" shows Sophia and Rosie (ENOUGH ALREADY) or skipping the trashed TLC, CNN and AMC channels.

 

Obnoxious Pee Wee Herman can wear the selector button out. Hope he drives that bike over the rim of the Grand Canyon.

 

Edited by: hamradio on Nov 19, 2013 1:22 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an entire world and I do mean the whole entire world of classic movies out there. Some sound and some silent. Some B and W and some color though I do prefer B and W at any age. Some good and some bad at any age. Some are a century old and some maybe 1-2 decades old. I personally enjoy the new wider range of worldwide classic movies be they of whatever language or subtitled in nonEnglish. They are a window on times and cultures and human experiences far far beyond my own narrow and tiny place on this Earth. As the world becomes a smaller and smaller place due to technology I like that our range of movie experiences grows wider and wider on TCM. I pick and choose what I want to see no matter from where it comes from. TCM is evolving as a learning and viewing experience as are our "modern" times on a far reaching basis. Fascinating "classic" movies can come from anywhere or any time period though the last few decades have seen few new movies worth watching as many of us believe. Keep picking and choosing wisely TCM so that all of us can pick and choose hopefully wisely and keep learning of the world until we depart. I like the changes as long as they don't turn into a full fledged commercial-driven and drivel-driven channel of mindlessness as most of the rest of the entertainment world has become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I've said this before...as each year passes, more of the "newer" movies people claim they don't like to see on TCM become older, and eventually become the old "classics" some prefer.

 

Plus, I don't know YOUR criteria for "newer" movies. There's a contingent here that dismisses anything newer than 1960. There's another group that gives 1970 as their cut-off point.

 

Where do YOU stand?

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the "age" that makes great classic films. It's the original artistic use of creative lighting, front, side, back, and top, plus special lights for smoke, flog, eyes, etc. And Marlene Dietrich's "butterfly".

 

And it is the solid use of tripods and dollies, with NO hand-held shots and NO zoom, zoom, zoom.

 

And good color. REAL color. Original Technicolor, not Eastmancolor, not De-Lux color, not Tru-Color, and not all yellow-color in 1960s,70s, and 80s films that are supposed to look like "sepia".

 

It's the good acting, and the classic actors, and the proper clothes, cars and trains. not like the 1960s trains used in the 1920s settings in THE CINCINNATI KID. And NOT 1960s clothes and hair styles on women who are supposed to be living in the 1920s and 30s.

 

Just as it is NOT the "age" of Classic music that makes it "Classic". The fact that it was composed by Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach that makes it Classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> And it is the solid use of tripods and dollies, with NO hand-held shots....

 

I first noticed that technique used in television commercials in the early '90's. It might go further back, but that's MY referrence point. It soon moved into actual television episodes shot in the same technique. NYPD BLUE was rife with it.

 

I never liked it. It always reminds me of when my brother-in-law let his five year old son take over shooting with the camcorder. Someone tried to tell me it was supposed to give the notion of "how things are seen through the eyes of a person on the scene." Yeah, if that person was three sheets to the wind!

 

Although I will contend that many movies made in the '60's, '70's and even in the '80's are very good movies and shot with the highest quality of cinematography, I'll contend there WAS an annoying trend of many others shot with what can only be regarded as a "Super 8" home movie camera. Held at an angle. AND "zoom, zoom, zoom". And phoney-baloney "mock-rock" soundtracks.

 

And I'll not take issue with your "sepia" comment. I knew it wasn't personal. ;)

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sepia, :)

 

I have some old still photos from around the early 20th Century and late 19th, and the REAL sepia-toned color of them is very beautiful. It is a kind of a brown, but a special brown like a slightly golden brown that I've only seen in the old original sepia photos. Modern brown or brown/yellow effects in films just don't look right. I don't know what processor chemicals they used to get the original sepia tone on the old photos.

 

Oh, and yes there were a few classics films made in the 1960s through the 00s. But watch out for this trick: the sneaky showing of a RANDOM, BAD, CHEAP-TO-RENT film from the 1960s-00. And that awful gangster film from Indian shown a couple of weeks ago. I couldn't get through 2 minutes of it. Being "made in India" does not make ALL Indian films "classic". The same goes for France, Germany, Poland, England, etc. The ONLY good thing about KNIFE IN THE WATER was that girls jiggling breasts, while she wore the bikini and moved around that boat. Now THAT was classic. :)

 

knife-in-the-water-jolanta-umecka-and-zy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sepiatone?I'm in the nothing newer than 1960 ? but I really prefer 30's and 40's?a few in the 50's. That's not to say I don't watch anything newer than 1960; I just have my favorites.

I agree that sometimes it depends on who the director was, the type of film used, and sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> And it is the solid use of tripods and dollies, with NO hand-held shots

 

I'm sure the folks who made *The Narrow Margin* would be pleased to know their movie doesn't qualify as a classic because they used hand-held cameras.

 

> and NO zoom, zoom, zoom.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Erich von Stroheim had had wide-screen cameras in 1923, his Death Valley scenes in *Greed* would have been more brilliant than anything David Lean came up with in *Lawrence of Arabia. Just because techincal quality advances doesn't mean that the new advances can't be classic.

 

> And good color. REAL color.

 

Two-strip wasn't good. Not having blues isn't real.

 

> Original Technicolor, not Eastmancolor, not De-Lux color, not Tru-Color, and not all yellow-color in 1960s,70s, and 80s films that are supposed to look like "sepia".

 

How real was three-strip, anyway?

 

> It's the good acting,

 

Oh, there was a lot of bad acting in old movies. And a lot of good acting in more recent movies.

 

> and the classic actors, and the proper clothes, cars and trains. not like the 1960s trains used in the 1920s settings in THE CINCINNATI KID. And NOT 1960s clothes and hair styles on women who are supposed to be living in the 1920s and 30s.

 

Last week, TCM showed *Back Pay* from 1930. It's supposed to be set during World War I, but the cars, fashion, and hair styles were obviously 1930 vintage. What a non-classic movie. I don't know why TCM bothers showing such non-classic crap as *Back Pay*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People complaining about TCM showing "newer" films is the most popular topic. For years, people have done it. Since TCM went on the air, they showed "newer" movies, in addition to the classics. As years go on, the "newer" films just get newer, and more classic films get added. Nothing's changed at TCM. It's always been their practice. I love how people, for years, have been posting the exact same rant. People always act as if it's some recent development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the demarcation line between "old" and "new" movies is about 1967, the year of Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate. And while I'm sure there are just as many first rate movies since then as before then, I'm glad that TCM concentrates mostly on the "older" movies for the simple reason that no other channel does, or ever will.

 

OTOH I'm glad that TCM doesn't pay attention to those who would impose an arbitrary "nothing after (insert year)" rule on what it shows. There have been hundreds of post-1967 films I've seen on TCM in the past four years that I never could have seen commercial free on any other non-premium channel.

 

Just to take one random year, here's what I've seen on TCM from 1973 alone since September of 2009:

 

Sweet Jesus, Preacher Man

The Friends of Eddie Coyle

Such a Gorgeous Kid Like Me

Five on the Black Hand Side

Badlands

Sisters

Touki-Bouki

Katharine Hepburn on Dick Cavett (two long interviews)

Scenes From a Marriage

Zanjeer

The Sting

Serpico

Magnum Force

The Way We Were

Shaft in Africa

Mean Streets

Theatre of Blood

The Outfit

Enter The Dragon

 

Obviously some of these movies are better than others, but then you can say that about any other year going back to the 19th century. I fail to see how the above list diminishes TCM's mission in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus everybody has their own opinion of what makes a classic a classic. To me, it has absolutely nothing to do with what year a film is made; but rather, how well that film represents the genre, sub-genre, subject matter, acting, directing, cinematography, etc. Yes, one of the examples is that it is a film that has stood the test of time, but that's only one example. For me, THE SOUND OF MUSIC was a classic on March 17, 1965, when I originally saw it. Instantly, for me, it represented the best possible example of transferring a stage source to the medium of motion pictures. Additionally, it was a classic example of perfect casting, performance, cinematography, orchestration, directing, etc., right there on the spot. Of course, it remains a classic, due to its unending popularity, almost 50 years later. Meanwhile, THE CREEPING TERROR is a classic example of a horribly made creature-feature, that is unintentional entertainment gold. So many diverse examples of what makes a classic a classic. The date of the film isn't so significant; and, of course, it's all very subjective,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Most of the posts are initiated by newcomers to the boards who haven't been privy to the previous rants

 

We've all been "newcomers". I was one. You were one.

 

One way we get new posters on this board is when they read other comments, lurk for a while, then they decide to post their most important opinion. So there is nothing wrong with being a "newcomer".

Link to comment
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
 Share

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