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

2002-2006 films AREN'T classic movies!!!!!


Recommended Posts

Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but I do find the same complaints being raised over and over and over again to be more than a bit tiresome, especially since the substance of these complaints has been addressed nearly as many times in great detail by Rey and others.

 

As for what to do about these repetitious complaints, I suppose the best strategy is simply to ignore them. But when it comes to respect, I also find that many of the complaints are accompanied by such a strong dose of self-entitlement that it borders on disrespect for both TCM's programmers and the people who don't agree with the complainers' ideas of what sort of movies TCM should be presenting. It was in that context that I found amusement in those three crying babies, which IMO I found to be directed at the overall tone of those complainers rather than at any one person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>In fact... what are the topics you'd be happy to never see posted again?

 

Greta Garbo's magnificence,, Robert Osborne's gaffes, Ben Mankiewicz' wardrobe, facial hair, and wisecracks, Guest Progammers people hate, Politics, Religion, How TCM is going into the toilet, Singin' in the Rain, ... just for starters ...

 

On the other hand, it's been awhile since we've had a Joan Crawford thread, or a Donny and Marie Osmond thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TCM Admin: In fact... what are the topics you'd be happy to never see posted again?

 

ScSu1975: Greta Garbo's magnificence,, Robert Osborne's gaffes, Ben Mankiewicz' wardrobe, facial hair, and wisecracks, Guest Progammers people hate, Politics, Religion, How TCM is going into the toilet, Singin' in the Rain, ... just for starters ...

 

So,what you're saying is that a TCM Forum Poster's primary responsibility is not to express his or herself but avoid offending other members weary of redundant complaints. This of course precludes any board newcomers from ever registering an opinion on these matters, which I suppose it just as well since you've decided the matters are inconsequential and not worthy of discourse.

 

That's reasonable.

 

Look- I find many of those topics to be dead ends. As a one time lurker (and a member of other boards where similar sentiments are repeatedly put forth) on these boards I tire too of some of them, particularly threads of the "Henny Penny" variety (and semantic debates over what constitutes "classic" can be vertigo inducing). But I'm not going to suggest a moratorium on posts and threads that call out the shortcomings of a service for which I pay and I resent being told what is an acceptable topic- and by a fellow member, not an admin.

 

Politics, religion, etc.- That's one thing. This is a film site. There might be legitimate crossover that sparks relevant discussion and that's cool as long as the discourse can maintain a civil tone. But this venue is hardly a soapbox for such topics.

And if I want to chide Robert Osborne for perpetuating a myth about Hedy Lamar I will do just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TCMWebAdmin wrote:

<< n fact... what are the topics you'd be happy to never see posted again? >>

 

People are not so much complaining about the topic but a single poster post different threads discussing the *same* subject in a short order of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try this...

 

Whenever somebody posts something like, "I think MARY WICKES was the most gorgeous woman in film.", try not responding by posting something like, "WHAT? Are you full of SH!T, or what? Don't you have any eyesight at all? That hook-nosed ogre couldn't act her way out of a wet paper BAG!"

 

Try instead, "While Ms. Wickes had a long and fruitful career, I found her looks and acting style never to be to my liking."

 

After all, we each have our own likes and dislikes, and differing tastes. My wife LOVES asparagus, while I turn my nose sharply up at it. But I would never indicate that she's somehow half-witted because she likes it. It's just that SHE finds it delicious.

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's shake things up a bit. Instead of politics and religion, let's talk about Hindu philosophy. Instead of Garbo's magnificence and TCM going in the toilet. let's talk about Garbo's going to the toilet. Instead of Ben's facial hair, let's talk about RO's embarrassing lack of facial hair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not going to play ball. Come on; if someone was to say "I think MARY WICKES was the most gorgeous woman in film", I'm going to call that comment out.

 

Why? Because I'm not buying that the person posting it is being sincere. Instead they are making an over the top statement.

 

NOW, if they said "I find Mary Wickes gorgeous". I would let that go but "the most gorgeous women in film"? I have to assume they are pulling my leg and I?m going to comment to find out why.

 

Yes, I've stressed the over the top comments because to me that was THE issue related to some posters. e.g. All movies made after 1969 are crap. That type of comment was made. Is it rude to reply back "so, for example, The Godfather movie was crap, yea!" I say NO that is not being rude since the initial comment was so out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sepiatone: Let's try this...

 

Whenever somebody posts something like, "I think MARY WICKES was the most gorgeous woman in film.", try not responding by posting something like, "WHAT? Are you full of SH!T, or what? Don't you have any eyesight at all? That hook-nosed ogre couldn't act her way out of a wet paper BAG!"

 

Try instead, "While Ms. Wickes had a long and fruitful career, I found her looks and acting style never to be to my liking."

 

LOL.

 

Well, I'm not the most well-traveled gent but I think a region might exist between the Lands of Louts and The Prairie of Passionless Lobotomites. ;)

 

Not to mention, Sepiatone, a person who sees Mary Wickes as a beauty is someone I fathom would be worthy of dialog, provided said person is not reading for the part of Banjo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be relevant to the original thread topic:

 

While I agree that the perspective gained with the passage of time can bring a film's greatness and impact into focus there is no proscribed time period that must be met to define a film as a "classic". If I had to adhere to some slightly less than arbitrary time line I'd say a decade should be a long enough time to determine if a film can live up to the standards of a "classic", however those standards may be defined.

 

Like I think most TCM fans I prefer the network show older fare I think it's past time to admit films now between 20-40 years old deserve consideration for regular play. I believe the 60s-70s represent some of the greatest films of all time and avoiding that era when averring a commitment to classic cinema is a contradiction. I'd much rather see "Five Easy Pieces" or "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" on the schedule than "Bundle of Joy" or "Iron Petticoat".

 

Lastly, I also agree that the recent spate of 2000+ releases being aired simply correlates with the Mark Cousins series. I seriously doubt it signals a wholesale change in TCM programming. We might see an increase in series like "Story of Film" and with them corresponding movies, but I have a hard time believing recent films are suddenly going to be on the regular schedule.

 

Edited by: Drimble on Dec 12, 2013 3:31 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you 100% here. The only reason to post something like "I don't' is to be mean. Ok, we all don't get along, all of the time, but I see no reason to go out of one's way to be rude or mean to someone (even someone not here).

Link to post
Share on other sites

>So,what you're saying is that a TCM Forum Poster's primary responsibility is not to express his or herself but avoid offending other members weary of redundant complaints. This of course precludes any board newcomers from ever registering an opinion on these matters, which I suppose it just as well since you've decided the matters are inconsequential and not worthy of discourse.

 

No, that is not what I am saying, it is what you are inferring because you don't understand humor. Then again, maybe I am interring you don't understand humor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real scenario is someone who's been watching TCM awhile gets annoyed over; (choose one) too many repeats, too modern a film, the term "classic" or their desire to see a film TCM hasn't shown. It's usually one of their first times posting here.

 

Us "regulahs" are sick of the debate. We ALL usually calmly explain that TCM is a cable channel and works within their budget restrictions, rental availability, etc. In short, we understand.

 

I simply add a photo of a crying baby to succinctly point out to the OP complaining is childish. OK, maybe it's condescending, but I don't see it as mean, just a nudge to point out to them "it's not all about YOU"

And unlike a crying baby, YOU have the power to control what you watch, don't expect the world to bend to your needs.

 

Like I said, I was aghast my post was considered offensive enough to be deleted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I simply add a photo of a crying baby to succinctly point out to the OP complaining is childish. OK, maybe it's condescending, but I don't see it as mean, just a nudge to point out to them "it's not all about YOU"

 

Actually, I thought it was funny!

 

In the TV show MODERN FAMILY, a phrase that was used went something like, "Does SOMEBODY need a WHAA-MBLULANCE?"

 

THAT works for me, too.

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

scsu: Then again, maybe I am interring you don't understand humor.

 

Hey hey hey- As I myself am tumbling headlong toward the great abyss, such grave humor leaves me cold.

 

I caught your tongue locale, I'm not as dim as all that (least not ALL the time).

So if you can grant me that much allow me the time-worn observation that we use humor to charm or diffuse while still making the legitimate point we wish to make on topic.

 

My reply might have come off terse but it wasn't simply a reply to your post and the way it was phrased, scsu. It was a reply to all the long-time posters of these forums who agree with your basic points and have registered their frustrations at reiterated complaints in tones less faux-fascistic than yours. Sorry if using your post as my jumping off point caused some confusion, but even intended half in jest it incorporated every complaint cited as a nuisance by long time posters.

 

Like I said: I get it. I've seen it on dozens of boards. It gets old. hamradio makes the excellent point of the redundant poster who posts a new thread when a bump would suffice; jamesjazzguitar mentions the OTT breed who carries matters to ridiculous operatic heights.

 

My point was simply that it's hard and often unfair deciding what complaints, what topics, what arguments should be deemed too specious to merit repeating.

 

I joined the forum because the vets here know classic movies and post about film in an intelligent insightful manner. Leave your average imdb discussion page for one of these boards and you'd swear you changed planets. And I love a good dismissive put down, a blistering bon mot- I think some arguments can only be met in that manner, absurd v. absurd.

But have some patience with us newbs, and exercise a little taste with the gestures. I didn't find the crying baby photos funny at all. Too obvious, kind of juvenile. Just the opinion of this newb, but I expected something a bit more clever.

 

Again, scsu, this response is not specifically addressed to you, but all the vets who tug at their hair every time another redundant complaint thread clutters a given board.

 

Edited by: Drimble on Dec 13, 2013 12:27 PM

 

Edited by: Drimble on Dec 13, 2013 12:28 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how people continually start new threads about how they're the arbiters of what is a classic film and what is not. GONE WITH THE WIND was a classic in 1939. Every year there are new classics, instantly created. People need to learn the definition of the word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The term 'classic' is often defined as having a time component. E.g. a work that has stood the test of time. The term ?pop? defines works that are currently popular. A common view is that it takes time for pop artist and their work to become ?classic? (and of course most pop stuff never becomes ?classic?).

 

HEY, I don?t have an issue with TCM showing more current movies (I just would like TCM to keep around 80% of their programming focused on studio era movies). But it is folly to say one has THE definition and that other need to accept that definition PERIOD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Us "regulahs" are sick of the debate. We ALL usually calmly explain that TCM is a cable channel and works within their budget restrictions, rental availability, etc. In short, we understand.

 

Hi Tiki. :) How much do you pay a month for your cable bill so you can receive TCM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is often defined as having a time component (something that has stood the test of time), or it can mean an ultimate example of something. Something that is timeless. That's its definition. We don't just make them up to suit ourselves. A classic film may or may not have a component of time. The lack of time does not make it less of a classic. Nor does the presence of time make it one. Just because a film is old, doesn't make it a classic, as so many love to claim. Furthermore, the word may be applied to any film TCM sees fit to apply it. It's their channel, not ours. So I say to those who never get tired of complaining how TCM does not honor THEIR definition of the word "classic", start your own "classic" movie channel and you can apply the term to whatever films you see fit.

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
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...