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

The Third Thread of Mystery


Guest obrienmundy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Following the discussions on Genevive Bujold and My Fair Lady, I thought that maybe all of you could help me figure this out.

 

In the most recent Now Playing magazine, Robert Osbourne looks back on the first 20 years of TCM saying only the nicest things about everyone. But he said that he did not care for one of the early celebrity guest programmers because this guest could not disguise the fact that he had not seen any of the films he had picked to co-host with Osbourne that night.

 

Do any of you have an inkling as to who this mystery man could be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do admire it.

And I wasn't saying I think Mr. Osborne should have revealed the person's name. I don't think obrienmundy was either.

We were both just wondering if anyone else knew who he might have been referring to.

It is pretty outrageous for someone to be invited on TCM as a guest programmer and then have it turn out that they haven't even seen the films they suggest !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It is pretty outrageous for someone to be invited on TCM as a guest programmer and then have it turn out that they haven't even seen the films they suggest !

 

Well, I've seen hosts commenting on films and it can be obvious that neither he nor the researchers have seen the film. Such as the intro to THE WOLF MAN which contained the claim that "Claude Rains plays a scientist who's up to no good."

 

Yes, I know, the hosts don't pick the movies so the situation may be different in that regard. But it can still come across to the viewer that the host does not know the subject, so the end result can be the same.

 

As for a guest host who has not seen the films that he/she suggested - yes, that's pretty bad. But someone at TCM management still has the option as to whether to play the intros or not. Were it moi, yeah, I could have a perverse enough sense of humor to have my "revenge" on an uncooperative guest and show it.

 

Or else, maybe the better path is to just bury the intros and thus not put the person's name out there as "Guest host of the month" and set the audience up for disappointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But clore, this whole issue begs the question, "Why the hell hasn't the guest seen the film ?"

Surely it would be a simple matter for the guest/host/programmer /whatever you want to call them to pre-screen the movie at some point before the "intro" is filmed.

 

It's just an exercise in meaninglessness and stupidity - not to mention dishonesty - to have someone sit there and blab away about a movie they haven't even seen.

 

I don't know if I want them to solve the problem by eliminating the intros and outros altogether. I'd prefer it if they changed what they talked about.

Especially when the screening is over. They almost never actually talk about the film that's just been aired, they talk about all kinds of other stuff. (see my comment on the "Act of Violence" thread.)

 

But that's a different topic altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>But clore, this whole issue begs the question, "Why the hell hasn't the guest seen the film ?""

 

Oh no, there's no excuse for that. To show up for the gig and be completely unprepared is not tolerable from my perspective. This is why I'd consider just shooting the intros without the guest rather than give him the build-up and eventual exposure. If the person wants to complain, well too bad Charley, at least you got to spend a night in Atlanta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it seems like it'd be more work on the guest's part to choose four films to showcase that they hadn't seen, as opposed to choosing four of their favorite films. Presumably, a film is a favorite because he or she has seen it multiple times.

 

Maybe the guest was trying to choose films that they thought would make them seem more sophisticated or something. Maybe they were just being pretentious in their selections and made the fatal mistake of not actually watching the film they're supposed to be gushing about to Robert Osborne. I could see how that would perturb Osborne, he's supposed to be having a conversation with someone about their favorite film, and instead it turns into a one-sided conversation with Osborne having to educate his programmer about their "favorite" film. It makes both Osborne and the programmer look bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Maybe they were just being pretentious in their selections and made the fatal mistake of not actually watching the film they're supposed to be gushing about to Robert Osborne.

 

It's called "name recognition" and it happens more than we want to think.

 

Sadly, 90% of elections are won by those who "get their name out there" doesn't matter if in a positive or negative way.

 

A movie theater around here has "polls" as to what classic movie the audience would want to see come to the theater next. Sadly, what "wins" are often terrible movies, but familiar titles.

 

In other words, for a Hitchcock night, THE BIRDS and NBNW won votes over STRANGERS ON A TRAIN or REBECCA - much better films (imho) but lesser known titles to the general movie going public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It makes both Osborne and the programmer look bad.

 

 

I don't think so. We know Osborne is the "face" of TCM. Whom the guets programmer turns out to be is largely out of his hands. It WOULD be nice if the producers "prep" the guest before the airing date though. Since Osborne mentioned only one guest programmer, they may have started being more cautious since then.

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...