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

Why do you think there are so many of the same movies repeated so often recently?


Recommended Posts

Whatever happened to RIDE THE PINK HORSE? An interesting noir with Robert Montgomery. TCM used to show it at least once a year. Now, no showings for several years.

 

rtph2.jpg

Whoa. Never seen that one. Montgomery was another actor who was very adept at both comedy and drama.

 

Wanda Hendrix? Never heard of her before, and dang, she died at 52. This looks like the picture with Heston and Welles in Mexico.

 

How 'bout it, TCM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rey,

 

What you failed to explain is

 

1.) If there is no longer a Turner library of classic films that is readily available to TCM why does Robert Osborne and Ben M. continue to refer to some vast film library that is readily available to TCM?

 

2.) You continue to quote that old canard about the lack of digital film masters, yet we see commercials on TCM every day for the latest DVDs and Blue Rays from the Warner Archive collection made from the latest digital video masters. There are some new digital masters of films that have been available on the home video market for years. Why can't we at least see those films on TCM?   

 

Yes, I know all about how Robert O and Ben M continue referring to the that vast library. Well guess what? Do you really think that when they discuss that vast library, they are then going to sit there in front of the cameras and say the following:

 

"Yes, we have access to the vast libraries but we also have to pay for the rights to play all those films."

 

Ted Turner when he sold TCM to Time Warner, also sold his interest in those vast film libraries and now those libraries are owned by a different entity that TCM. You really think that the average viewer is going to understand this or will they be like most of the viewers here on the message board and accept that information rolling off the tips of their tongues?

 

When Turner sold his company to Time Warner in 1996, TCM effectively lost “ownership” of those assets, and was required to license them, along with every other film they broadcast.

 

As far as the lack of film masters, where should I begin? Just how many film masters of the older films that the studio libraries have do you think have been converted? You make it sound (in this case lets talk about Warner Brothers), that they have taken all of those older films and created new masters for them to be broadcast on cable tv. They haven't. What they have done is taken the older films nd custom burned those films onto new DVDs. They have NOT created new masters of the films to be shown on tv. That is what is needed to show these films on tv. This is two separate things.

 

Yes, there are literally hundreds of titles available for purchase, but many of these films were copied or burned to newer dvds using whatever format they were in before they were copied and or burned to a new dvd. For all anyone knows, Warner takes older dvd's of average or bad looking prints and burns these older dvd's or tapes onto new dvd's. Thus the customer is not really getting high quality videos. Yes there are many dvds now available but TCM still has to purchase those films to be shown and many of those films have still not been converted and probably never will.

 

The costs are staggering to convert older film into a digiatl format or in this case creating a digital master. Some figures have placed the cost of conversion to a digital file to be more than $12,000 per film. And that is without having to do any form of restoration. If any form of restoration is needed, then the costs start to skyrocket.

 

According to the National Film Preservation Foundation, the laboratory work necessary to save a film is expensive. In 2010, making a new master and viewing print of a seven-reel black-and-white silent feature costs about $18,115, assuming that no special restoration work is required. Making a supervised digital video for public viewing adds another $3,000 to the total.

 

Preserving a sound feature costs even more. So that is why many of the studios that have vaults of old cannisters have yet to start this process. Now if the film industry really cared about the past then they would take some of the money that they make on all the crap they are making now and put some of that money into restoration projects. Then possibly we could see even more features on TCM.

 

But again, TCM must compete to pay for the films it shows on the channel. Even though Robert O and Ben M continue to peddle that often told tale about the film library they have access to.

 

Here are some articles you should read that will shed some light on this sensitive subject:

 

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/02/13/pandoras-digital-box-pix-and-pixels/

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119431/how-digital-cinema-took-over-35mm-film

 

And then there is this website:

 

http://www.filmpreservation.org/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no company (TCM) library.

 

The library that is often referred to is the library owned by Time Warner, of which TCM is a subsidiary of. That library is mention by Robert O and Ben M all the time.

 

They are not going to sit there in those really comfortable leather chairs and start explaining to the average TCM viewer (and to a far lesser degree the visitor to the Message Boards) the ins and outs of how TCM must go through an acquistion process of leasing and or renting films from said library. It is that simple.

And for those of you who still sit here in judgment of what Robert O and Ben M repeat each time they say that is bordering on lunacy.

 

Who cares if they refer to a library of films? The only people I know of that complains about this are the very FEW folks on the message boards. Like some of you on this thread.

 

I have never, ever heard anyone I know of that likes films to ever say to me:

 

"Well what about that film library that the hosts on TCM are always talking about? Surely they have unlimited access to those films, right??

 

As William Shatner said on Saturday Night Live:

 

"get a life people! Its just a little tv channel!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no company (TCM) library.

 

The library that is often referred to is the library owned by Time Warner, of which TCM is a subsidiary of. That library is mention by Robert O and Ben M all the time.

 

They are not going to sit there in those really comfortable leather chairs and start explaining to the average TCM viewer (and to a far lesser degree the visitor to the Message Boards) the ins and outs of how TCM must go through an acquistion process of leasing and or renting films from said library. It is that simple.

And for those of you who still sit here in judgment of what Robert O and Ben M repeat each time they say that is bordering on lunacy.

 

Who cares if they refer to a library of films? The only people I know of that complains about this are the very FEW folks on the message boards. Like some of you on this thread.

 

I have never, ever heard anyone I know of that likes films to ever say to me:

 

"Well what about that film library that the hosts on TCM are always talking about? Surely they have unlimited access to those films, right??

 

As William Shatner said on Saturday Night Live:

 

"get a life people! Its just a little tv channel!"

So they patronizingly refer to it as the TCM library, thinking that these morons won't know the difference? Maybe they are just broadening the meaning of the word "library".

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they patronizingly refer to it as the TCM library, thinking that these morons won't know the difference? Maybe they are just broadening the meaning of the word "library".

 

Yep. You got it.

 

Especially those here who often write and complain about this topic adinfinitum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to RIDE THE PINK HORSE? An interesting noir with Robert Montgomery. TCM used to show it at least once a year. Now, no showings for several years.

 

rtph2.jpg

I guess someone borrowed the film rom the "TCM library", and didn't return it. Maybe they should have higher overdue charges.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They are not going to sit there in those really comfortable leather chairs and start explaining to the average TCM viewer (and to a far lesser degree the visitor to the Message Boards) the ins and outs of how TCM must go through an acquistion process of leasing and or renting films from said library. It is that simple.

And for those of you who still sit here in judgment of what Robert O and Ben M repeat each time they say that is bordering on lunacy.

 

Who cares if they refer to a library of films? The only people I know of that complains about this are the very FEW folks on the message boards. Like some of you on this thread.

 

I have never, ever heard anyone I know of that likes films to ever say to me:

 

"Well what about that film library that the hosts on TCM are always talking about? Surely they have unlimited access to those films, right??

 

 

Gee Rey, it must feel really wonderful to feel so superior to us average crazy folk?

 

If it's, as you say, "so simple", what would be the harm if this was explained to the average TCM viewer? Just what is it that they are afraid of? Perhaps it's crushing that image they created and continue to perpetuate of TCM as this magical repository of Golden Age films, safely tucked away in some hidden underground vault and guarded by dwarves out of Tolkien's fairy stories. Of course they can't admit it's all make believe, why, they might lose their standing and respect in the classic film community of fans. The ticket sales to their festivals and cruises might drop off and horror of horrors, they might even have to start showing real commercials. No, nothing that serious would happen. The real reason is that they don't want to come off as lying buffoons. But, at the very least, the truth would cut down on the amount of us average crazy people pestering them for certain titles that will never see the light of day on TCM and the endless amount of repeats. We average crazy people will just turn the channel and watch the news, which is what we already do. So, you might ask, what's the point in having them admit it? Because it would give us an infinite amount of pleasure and satisfaction to hear them admit and eat crow that they've been lying to us all these years. At least it would to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee Rey, it must feel really wonderful to feel so superior to us average crazy folk?

 

If it's, as you say, "so simple", what would be the harm if this was explained to the average TCM viewer? Just what is it that they are afraid of? Perhaps it's crushing that image they created and continue to perpetuate of TCM as this magical repository of Golden Age films, safely tucked away in some hidden underground vault and guarded by dwarves out of Tolkien's fairy stories. Of course they can't admit it's all make believe, why, they might lose their standing and respect in the classic film community of fans. The ticket sales to their festivals and cruises might drop off and horror of horrors, they might even have to start showing real commercials. No, nothing that serious would happen. The real reason is that they don't want to come off as lying buffoons. But, at the very least, the truth would cut down on the amount of us average crazy people pestering them for certain titles that will never see the light of day on TCM and the endless amount of repeats. We average crazy people will just turn the channel and watch the news, which is what we already do. So, you might ask, what's the point in having them admit it? Because it would give us an infinite amount of pleasure and satisfaction to hear them admit and eat crow that they've been lying to us all these years. At least it would to me.

For one thing, there are time constraints in the intros and outros. A adequate explanation of the film acquisition process may be appropriate for a magazine article, not as part of a 2 minute film intro.i

Link to post
Share on other sites

For one thing, there are time constraints in the intros and outros. A adequate explanation of the film acquisition process may be appropriate for a magazine article, not as part of a 2 minute film intro.i

 

Perhaps they should make a several-minute-long interstitial to finally replace the very tired "Letterboxing" segment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Infinite1:

Gee Rey, it must feel really wonderful to feel so superior to us average crazy folk?
 

fx:

I am not superior to you or anyone else around here. I just don't expect the truth to be told from a corporate entity. At least NOT this entity.

 

Infinite1:

If it's, as you say, "so simple", what would be the harm if this was explained to the average TCM viewer?

 

fx:
Who is the average viewer? You? Me? TopBilled? Darko? dark blue? Anyone who writes here everyday or in the case of some people like you whenever you can gain access to a library computer?

All I know is that many who do write on these pages are extremely talented folks who have a love for all kinds of movies, actors, directors, writers, photographers, composers, animators and so on and so on.

And those of us like you and me and many others are here for what exactly? To uncover the truth behind how TCM operates or are we just here to write about and communicate with others our love for film?

 

Infinite1:

Just what is it that they are afraid of? Perhaps it's crushing that image they created and continue to perpetuate of TCM as this magical repository of Golden Age films, safely tucked away in some hidden underground vault and guarded by dwarves out of Tolkien's fairy stories. Of course they can't admit it's all make believe, why, they might lose their standing and respect in the classic film community of fans. The ticket sales to their festivals and cruises might drop off and horror of horrors, they might even have to start showing real commercials. No, nothing that serious would happen. The real reason is that they don't want to come off as lying buffoons. But, at the very least, the truth would cut down on the amount of us average crazy people pestering them for certain titles that will never see the light of day on TCM and the endless amount of repeats. We average crazy people will just turn the channel and watch the news, which is what we already do.

 

fx:
We have all been writing here for years. And what have we seen? We have never, ever really been given any reasons why TCM does what they do either for reasons as to why they select the kinds of films they select, that why are certain films played over and over again, and why does it seem that TCM can not find a suitable replacement for Robert Osborne. And it is going to continue simply because they do not have to tell us anything, ever. And to sit here like you and several others seem to do every few weeks or months, demanding answers, well you just aren't ever going to get any answers.

TCM is not in any position to offer an explanation as to how they as a cable channel operates, or how they perform negotiations between themselves and media partners or distribution companies. And why should they?

They are a private entity within a huge conglomerate. And I am going to assume that they will just keep towing a line that they have been using for years while at certain times of the year, like the film festival where people might be able to glean certain information from the power brokers at TCM some ins and outs of how they pilot the TCM ship through heavy seas.

To admit anything else would be silly on their part and would only complicate matters for them. Will they lose viewers if they continue down this "we are not telling you anything about how we operate mentality"? Or will certain people just tire of what they show and move as you say onto other cable offerings?

I have to tell you, I have been posting here since 2007 and I have yet to see any evidence except for those special occurrences where the TCM management gathers in one place to talk about what they do and provide a glimpse of the wizard behind the curtain. What I have seen in almost eight years is very little info coming from TCM that would allow me to understand how they operate except as I wrote earlier what has been gleaned from those informal sessions at the festival or when someone in the know appears on the channel with Osborne.

Infinite1:
So, you might ask, what's the point in having them admit it? Because it would give us an infinite amount of pleasure and satisfaction to hear them admit and eat crow that they've been lying to us all these years. At least it would to me.

fx:
To me it sounds as if you want TCM to admit that they have been lying to some of us all of these years and nothing short of a corporate capitulation is in order and people like you will not rest until that is accomplished. My thoughts? You are going to have to wait a very long time for that to happen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For one thing, there are time constraints in the intros and outros. A adequate explanation of the film acquisition process may be appropriate for a magazine article, not as part of a 2 minute film intro.I

 

It doesn't have to be in all of the intros and outros. It could very well be placed in-between films like they do with that short film explaining what those black bars on the side of letterboxed films is all about. Just as that film is periodically replayed on the channel TCM could do the same with an explanation that I suggest. Sort of a public service announcement for viewers of the channel. They could address other concerns that fans have as well this way. I don't understand why asking for transparency in how TCM obtains films is such a forbidden topic that is only whispered about in friendly company, but not made common knowledge to the general audience who does not have access to film festivals or computer message boards.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be in all of the intros and outros. It could very well be placed in-between films like they do with that short film explaining what those black bars on the side of letterboxed films is all about. Just as that film is periodically replayed on the channel TCM could do the same with an explanation that I suggest. Sort of a public service announcement for viewers of the channel. They could address other concerns that fans have as well this way. I don't understand why asking for transparency in how TCM obtains films is such a forbidden topic that is only whispered about in friendly company, but not made common knowledge to the general audience who does not have access to film festivals or computer message boards.   

Good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Infinite1:

Gee Rey, it must feel really wonderful to feel so superior to us average crazy folk?

 

fx:

I am not superior to you or anyone else around here. I just don't expect the truth to be told from a corporate entity. At least NOT this entity.

 

Infinite1:

If it's, as you say, "so simple", what would be the harm if this was explained to the average TCM viewer?

 

fx:

Who is the average viewer? You? Me? TopBilled? Darko? dark blue? Anyone who writes here everyday or in the case of some people like you whenever you can gain access to a library computer?

 

All I know is that many who do write on these pages are extremely talented folks who have a love for all kinds of movies, actors, directors, writers, photographers, composers, animators and so on and so on.

 

And those of us like you and me and many others are here for what exactly? To uncover the truth behind how TCM operates or are we just here to write about and communicate with others our love for film?

 

Infinite1:

Just what is it that they are afraid of? Perhaps it's crushing that image they created and continue to perpetuate of TCM as this magical repository of Golden Age films, safely tucked away in some hidden underground vault and guarded by dwarves out of Tolkien's fairy stories. Of course they can't admit it's all make believe, why, they might lose their standing and respect in the classic film community of fans. The ticket sales to their festivals and cruises might drop off and horror of horrors, they might even have to start showing real commercials. No, nothing that serious would happen. The real reason is that they don't want to come off as lying buffoons. But, at the very least, the truth would cut down on the amount of us average crazy people pestering them for certain titles that will never see the light of day on TCM and the endless amount of repeats. We average crazy people will just turn the channel and watch the news, which is what we already do.

 

fx:

We have all been writing here for years. And what have we seen? We have never, ever really been given any reasons why TCM does what they do either for reasons as to why they select the kinds of films they select, that why are certain films played over and over again, and why does it seem that TCM can not find a suitable replacement for Robert Osborne. And it is going to continue simply because they do not have to tell us anything, ever. And to sit here like you and several others seem to do every few weeks or months, demanding answers, well you just aren't ever going to get any answers.

 

TCM is not in any position to offer an explanation as to how they as a cable channel operates, or how they perform negotiations between themselves and media partners or distribution companies. And why should they?

 

They are a private entity within a huge conglomerate. And I am going to assume that they will just keep towing a line that they have been using for years while at certain times of the year, like the film festival where people might be able to glean certain information from the power brokers at TCM some ins and outs of how they pilot the TCM ship through heavy seas.

 

To admit anything else would be silly on their part and would only complicate matters for them. Will they lose viewers if they continue down this "we are not telling you anything about how we operate mentality"? Or will certain people just tire of what they show and move as you say onto other cable offerings?

 

I have to tell you, I have been posting here since 2007 and I have yet to see any evidence except for those special occurrences where the TCM management gathers in one place to talk about what they do and provide a glimpse of the wizard behind the curtain. What I have seen in almost eight years is very little info coming from TCM that would allow me to understand how they operate except as I wrote earlier what has been gleaned from those informal sessions at the festival or when someone in the know appears on the channel with Osborne.

 

Infinite1:

So, you might ask, what's the point in having them admit it? Because it would give us an infinite amount of pleasure and satisfaction to hear them admit and eat crow that they've been lying to us all these years. At least it would to me.

 

fx:

To me it sounds as if you want TCM to admit that they have been lying to some of us all of these years and nothing short of a corporate capitulation is in order and people like you will not rest until that is accomplished. My thoughts? You are going to have to wait a very long time for that to happen.

 

 

So, basically you are admitting that TCM has lied to us, that it's their right to lie to us, and that they will continue to lie to us. Well, to quote from a popular commercial in the 60s "you've come a long way baby". There was a time that you denied any misleading on the part of TCM. Thanks, at least, for that much. As far as TCM is concerned, it's comfortable to know in this time of unrest and uncertainty that in an uncertain world TCM will remain consistent in their desire to portray themselves in a less then honest fashion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically you are admitting that TCM has lied to us, that it's their right to lie to us, and that they will continue to lie to us. Well, to quote from a popular commercial in the 60s "you've come a long way baby". There was a time that you denied any misleading on the part of TCM. Thanks, at least, for that much. As far as TCM is concerned, it's comfortable to know in this time of unrest and uncertainty that in an uncertain world TCM will remain consistent in their desire to portray themselves in a less then honest fashion.

 

I never said that TCM has "lied to us". You have written that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real reason is that they don't want to come off as lying buffoons. But, at the very least, the truth would cut down on the amount of us average crazy people pestering them for certain titles that will never see the light of day on TCM and the endless amount of repeats. We average crazy people will just turn the channel and watch the news, which is what we already do. So, you might ask, what's the point in having them admit it? Because it would give us an infinite amount of pleasure and satisfaction to hear them admit and eat crow that they've been lying to us all these years. At least it would to me.

 

I think it would give you and possibly three others who write here on the message boards some sort of satisfaction to know why TCM does what they do in order to show films on THEIR channel. Why this is so much of a paramount concern to you and a few others here is beyond me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have a stunt introduction to this topic on TCM. Have Uncle

Bob sitting in his usual comfy chair. He gives a short hello, then stands

up and moves over to a wall wide bookshelf, he being dressed in a

smoking jacket and smoking a pipe. He takes out one thin DVD and

says something like 'Tonight we'll be showing [name of flick] from our

extensive TCM library. I'm sure you'll all enjoy this TCM library exclusive."

Golden.

I think that's a misleading statement/joke and it only serves to confuse matters more. They do lease out films from the TCM Library. Nobody said the library was an exclusive thing. Just like the Fox library is not exclusive to FXM. For instance, several MGM westerns from the 1940s and 1950s turn up periodically on the Encore westerns channel. This is why ESCAPE FROM FORT BRAVO could not air during Eleanor Parker's Star of the Month tribute a few summers ago, because they had farmed it out, and Encore had broadcast rights at that time. We covered that topic in several threads. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would give you and possibly three others who write here on the message boards some sort of satisfaction to know why TCM does what they do in order to show films on THEIR channel. Why this is so much of a paramount concern to you and a few others here is beyond me.

 

I can't speak for the "three others" or "few others" (which is it?), I'll leave that to you, but it's not so much a "paramount concern" to me as it obviously is to TCM, you, and your friends. TCM is the entity perpetuating the myth because of some irrational fear to tell the truth. Why? And you, and others are defending that myth even though you all know better. But, that aside, why does a harmless question from me and "possibly three others" cause you to go so bonkers that you feel the need to take us out to the woodshed and make an example of us? Why you always feel the need to ride to the defense of TCM is beyond me. Why can't they speak for themselves. That's all we're asking for.

 

By the way it's not "THEIR" channel, it's OUR channel. As a viewer I have every right to question why TCM does what they do in order to show films on OUR channel. Robert Osborne is not talking into a mirror, he's talking to us, his consumers, it's time TCM stopped talking down to us like we were idiot children. I expect better from OUR channel.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for the "three others" or "few others" (which is it?), I'll leave that to you, but it's not so much a "paramount concern" to me as it obviously is to TCM, you, and your friends. TCM is the entity perpetuating the myth because of some irrational fear to tell the truth. Why? And you, and others are defending that myth even though you all know better. But, that aside, why does a harmless question from me and "possibly three others" cause you to go so bonkers that you feel the need to take us out to the woodshed and make an example of us? Why you always feel the need to ride to the defense of TCM is beyond me. Why can't they speak for themselves. That's all we're asking for.

 

By the way it's not "THEIR" channel, it's OUR channel. As a viewer I have every right to question why TCM does what they do in order to show films on OUR channel. Robert Osborne is not talking into a mirror, he's talking to us, his consumers, it's time TCM stopped talking down to us like we were idiot children. I expect better from OUR channel.    

 

There could be very solid reasons why TCM doesn't disclose more information about how they lease movies.   e.g.  the lease may have restrictions related to the disclosure of price,  how often one has to show a film during the lease period,  if one has to show all movies leases as part of a bundle etc...

 

NOW:  I would love to know more about such things.  I'm just pointing out that there may be contractual reasons why TCM doesn't disclose such info.

 

To  me the bottom line is this:  I wish TCM would show less repeats.    e.g. there are many Warner,  MGM and RKO movies that I assume TCM can lease that they don't show.    I also wish TCM would work out deals with Universal and Fox.    We have seen TCM get more Fox films recently (e.g. Laura) but I would love to see more of the Fox noir films from the 40s and 50s.   Also more 30s Columbia movies would be great  (e.g. Jean Arthur ones).    

 

While it would be nice to know the WHY behind TCM not showing these movies,  knowing this WHY isn't going to satisfy me.   At the end of the day,  only seeing those movies,  without commercials, will.      (I can see cool Fox noirs on MOVIES,  but the commercial breaks are uncool).

Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be very solid reasons why TCM doesn't disclose more information about how they lease movies.   e.g.  the lease may have restrictions related to the disclosure of price,  how often one has to show a film during the lease period,  if one has to show all movies leases as part of a bundle etc...

 

NOW:  I would love to know more about such things.  I'm just pointing out that there may be contractual reasons why TCM doesn't disclose such info.

 

To  me the bottom line is this:  I wish TCM would show less repeats.    e.g. there are many Warner,  MGM and RKO movies that I assume TCM can lease that they don't show.    I also wish TCM would work out deals with Universal and Fox.    We have seen TCM get more Fox films recently (e.g. Laura) but I would love to see more of the Fox noir films from the 40s and 50s.   Also more 30s Columbia movies would be great  (e.g. Jean Arthur ones).    

 

While it would be nice to know the WHY behind TCM not showing these movies,  knowing this WHY isn't going to satisfy me.   At the end of the day,  only seeing those movies,  without commercials, will.      (I can see cool Fox noirs on MOVIES,  but the commercial breaks are uncool).

 

James,

 

I'm not asking for all the nitty gritty such as copies of their lease agreements. I don't see what the harm would be in TCM making a general ON AIR comment to their loyal fans regarding the fact that TCM needs to lease films, period. It has been explained very simply by Rey and others on these threads for years without getting into too much financial detail. We don't have to know that. All I want is for TCM to admit that there is no library of films, that all films have to be leased and are tied to certain rental agreements, and TCM does not have the capital required to obtain all the films that people request. Perhaps if people heard it from Robert OR Ben they'd stop asking for something they now know, for a fact, they will never get. It's not rocket science, it's called leveling with the folks who watch the channel, buy their products, and pay their bills. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why infinite and others of his (her?) ilk continue posting these questions on the message board when they know good and darn well no one from the staff will EVER address it here.

 

If I wanted to know why they do what they do badly enough, I would send a certified letter to corporate headquarters. And if I got no satisfactory answers I would escalate my query to the FCC, or whoever handles complaints regarding programming. I speculate that the only reason for the constant bickering these questions inevitably cause is that the people who assign negative attributes to the channel get a kick out of berating folks who are a little bit more "laid back" and less critical.

 

I do get tired of Hitchcock films being constantly shown, but in the grand scheme of things I couldn't care less for the most part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why infinite and others of his (her?) ilk continue posting these questions on the message board when they know good and darn well no one from the staff will EVER address it here.

 

If I wanted to know why they do what they do badly enough, I would send a certified letter to corporate headquarters. And if I got no satisfactory answers I would escalate my query to the FCC, or whoever handles complaints regarding programming. I speculate that the only reason for the constant bickering these questions inevitably cause is that the people who assign negative attributes to the channel get a kick out of berating folks who are a little bit more "laid back" and less critical.

 

I do get tired of Hitchcock films being constantly shown, but in the grand scheme of things I couldn't care less for the most part.

 

It's his, HelenBABY and I prefer my ilk as opposed to the "I couldn't care less for the most part" or "go with the flow" variety that always stand on the sidelines with a blank look on their faces.  

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