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

Recommended Posts

You do get to see Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, and Clark Gable. All the time. Me too, as I happen to love many of their films myself. In fact, Bette Davis is probably my favorite actress of all-time, and I'm 24-years old. I've come to love the classics as well. Anyway, my point is, have a bit of tolerance when concerning movies you may not like. It's incredibly unfair to bash something simply based on the fact that it doesn't meet your personal tastes. You could just change the channel for a few hours you know. No need to get so irate that you have to resort to caps. My goodness. >>

 

Definition for classical movies aside, Nausicaa happens to be two decades old. But I'm not one to gripe and complain over exactness. I'm not so ****-retentive, or bitter.

 

As for Princess Mononoke's violence, it's violence of a methodical nature. Not needless nonsense like children can watch any day of the week on the various police dramas on basic television. Personally, I find mind-numbing material to be more deplorable than violence. The United States happens to be very fickle when it comes to such matters. Anyhow, I don't see how it matters if an adult is there to put it into context. Hence the 'PG' rating.

 

**Edit: Actually, you know what else is funny? When I'm fifty or sixty years old, movies like 'The Goonies' and 'Risky Business' will be classics. But I can't see myself having a fit over one night taken from me, where I can't watch Tom Cruise dance around in his underpants. I think I'd rather share something new, on my favorite channel, with my children or grandchildren. Then maybe they'd toss in a day for one of my old favorites. Anyway, it's all about family, I think. I could be wrong, but at least I'm willing to be objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do get to see Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, and Clark Gable. All the time. Me too, as I happen to love many of their films myself. In fact, Bette Davis is probably my favorite actress of all-time, and I'm 24-years old. I've come to love the classics as well. Anyway, my point is, have a bit of tolerance when concerning movies you may not like. It's incredibly unfair to bash something simply based on the fact that it doesn't meet your personal tastes. You could just change the channel for a few hours you know. No need to get so irate that you have to resort to caps. My goodness. >>

 

 

 

First things first. As I've already stated,the point in question is not movies that I like or dislike. I tried to be very clear and specific about that.I can and do change the channel when TCM shows movies that I just don't like,and I've never made a peep about them,in this way,here or anywhere else.Why? Because they were simply movies,that I didn't care for. Can you not see the difference? Those of us who are concerned about this,are concerned at it portending a trend. If it does,then the only place most of us can see truly classic movies,will be devoting less and less time to them(and there are many still that are seldom if ever seen),as it devotes more and more time to "expanding our horizons"(give me a break). I'm not irate,I'm passionate. I will be irate down the road,if I have to just to cancel my cable,because the only reason I ever got it just went down the pipes.

 

Again,it's NOT a matter of personal preference. I don't know how I can make this concept any plainer.

 

The caps,if read in contaxt,are obviously for emphasis,not shouting. Context. It's all about context. So many things are.

 

 

 

Definition for classical movies aside, Nausicaa happens to be two decades old. But I'm not one to gripe and complain over exactness. I'm not so ****-retentive, or bitter.

 

 

 

I'm not bitter.Where did that come from? ****-retentive~~yeah,I can be,but I don't consider this one of those times. I have a right to expect classic movies from a station advertising itself as a "classic movie" station. Nope,I won't cop to that one in this case.

 

 

 

 

As for Princess Mononoke's violence, it's violence of a methodical nature. Not needless nonsense like children can watch any day of the week on the various police dramas on basic television. Personally, I find mind-numbing material to be more deplorable than violence. The United States happens to be very fickle when it comes to such matters. Anyhow, I don't see how it matters if an adult is there to put it into context. Hence the 'PG' rating.

 

 

 

This wasn't my post,but since it's in the reply to me,I'll bite.

 

Oh,so it's violence of a METHODICAL nature(not shouting,that's emphasis,as I don't feel like doing the tags for bold or italic that often). Oh,well THAT makes it more palatable.It's still as violent as the non-methodical kind,but as long as it's methodical...

 

 

 

 

**Edit: Actually, you know what else is funny? When I'm fifty or sixty years old, movies like 'The Goonies' and 'Risky Business' will be classics. But I can't see myself having a fit over one night taken from me, where I can't watch Tom Cruise dance around in his underpants. I think I'd rather share something new, on my favorite channel, with my children or grandchildren. Then maybe they'd toss in a day for one of my old favorites. Anyway, it's all about family, I think. I could be wrong, but at least I'm willing to be objective.

 

 

 

This is why I insist that "classic movies" are a specific category,and one that's actually already been set in stone for the most part,using era of production as a rough guide. Going back to my "classic rock" analogy-classic rock has long been recognised as a specific category of music from a certain era of rock. That's all classic rock will ever be,forevermore. Other songs can and will be classic,but they won't be "classic rock". It will be what it has been(unless someone else somewhere decides to attain their 15 minutes by screwing it up) for lo these many years. A specific genre of music. NOT songs that someone somewhere,considers to be a "classic".

 

 

 

Message was edited by: Melanie-for a couple of dreadful typos,LOL

Melanie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Melanie, you're right. 100%, absolutely, positively right.

 

Period. You're right. TCM can come on and protest to the opposite all they like, but you're right.

 

This latest onslaught of whatever the heck it was that belongs on the Cartoon Channel is not classic, it's not previous TCM fare, and it is something I turn off even faster than I turn off Charlie Chaplin, and even I will admit that HE is classic.

 

Bottom line, and tcmweb, if he were honest, would admit this: TCM is now appealing to a market other than those who admire, love, and revere the TRUE classics from the teens up until the mid-1950s, or later, depending on your point of view.

 

But Austin Powers is NOT classic and this cartoon crap is NOT classic. By the way, whom do they choose to intoduce the Anime stuff, BM or heaven forbid, RO? Poor Bob if he is forced for a paycheck to introduce that drek.

 

TCM die-hard fans may support them, and bless their hearts they must really believe what they write, but this is the beginning of the end for TCM. This is beyond the changing of the intro or the introduction of Mr. Roboto, or even the inclusion of inferior films like Austin Powers.

 

No matter, as I've often advised Leo the movie producer and renowned writer, I turn it off when I see drek on TCM. When they show the breathtakingly wonderful stuff like they did yesterday with the true heros like Walter Huston, I will tape it and exit, stage right.

 

But don't, repeat, DON'T, TCM, try to hoodwink me into believing Ben M. or the new graphic or the Anime crap is TCM classic. Like the NEW Coke, it's TCM Lite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Miyazaki animes, and personally don't mind them on TCM, but at the same time I agree that this isn't the place for them. They have shown a disturbing trend in airing films that don't belong on there like Sleepless in Seattle, etc. What's next, showing the origianl Ocean's Eleven back to back with the idiotic remake? Some of us may regard Miyazaki's films as classics, but we have to be consistent in our criticism of TCM straying from their raison d'etre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the majority consensus. I've never heard of Miyazaki Anime, and one look at it makes me switch the channel as fast as I can. Subscribers to TCM want to see classic movies by the classic stars we know and love. I cannot judge the work of Miyazaki and don't really know how this qualifies as classic fare, but it is certainly not what I pay extra every month to watch.

 

I also agree that TCM is becoming TCM Lite. Why subscribe to TCM if they're showing something like "Sleepless in Seattle" or Elvis movies? You can see these on so many other channels. I don't care what movies qualify as new classics...I want the old "tried and true" classics and stars like Greta Garbo, Ginger Rogers, Clark Gable, Bette Davis, etc. TCM - please don't deviate from what has made your channel unique and special. Look at what's happened to AMC...it's truly terrible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I agree with some of the posters who believe Anime does not belong in TCM I think that some of you are a bit to closed-minded when it comes to Anime. I've never watched Miyazaki Anime, but I'm not automatically going to put a label on it because it is anime. I mean it's your own right to turn something off that you don't want to watch but, I'm not going to automatically think anime is bad. The thing that just bothered me is that anime seemed so random on TCM. It has absolutely nothing to do with most of its other shows. I can see why they can get by with putting "Sleepless in Seattle" on...(the obvious allusions to "An Affair to Remember") but, anime?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, TCM Lite, for sure.

 

We (well, not me) have been had, fellow film-o-****.

 

The Cartoon Network...owned by three guesses whom and the first two don't count...is rolling out a (drum roll please) new contingent of Anime in February. So says the NY Times...do you own that too, TW? (no, they don't, not yet)...and they refer to Anime as something for tweenagers. Duh, ya think?

 

Anyone else not surprised this CLASSIC Lite Anime in primetime was an advert for the purpose of getting...wait for it...MONEY????????????

 

Not I. Can TCM 2, 3, and 4 be far behind?

 

Message was edited by:

stoneyburke

 

Message was edited by:

stoneyburke

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stoney........it's not even worth banging your head on the wall about this.......most people will not see that TCM has been changing slowly over the past few years and one day in the future they will all say......"hey what happened to TCM?.........and then it will be too late. But for now they all have the ammo of the famous pun: "closed-minded" - I love that.....it cracks me up. If you don't believe something EXACTLY as someone else thinks you should.....then you are close-minded.

 

Until we have Tom Cruise as "star of the month"......and a three hour block per week to show the oldies.......most won't agree with us. But that is a ways down the road. Keep recording while you can. I've recorded enough DVDs over the past few years to watch a different "classic" movie everyday for 10 years without repeating one. So if the TCM plug got pulled today it wouldn't matter to me.

 

Is anime art? Sure! Whatever!

Does it belong on TCM? Well, I don't think so.

 

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....

 

You people are bitter. Your post disgusted me. At least melanie could recognize my points and argue them with some articulation. Though melanie seems to have it in for me, and flames me like an ignoramus. I'm simply trying to encourage people to take it easy, and not be so uptight about their television. It's ludicrous. I've posted on message boards with users in their teens and they have more sensible views on being objective.

 

Stoneyburke.....you make me positively sad. It's stubborn, foolish people like you that end up electing bigot, racist, closed-minded officials to govern our countries with a will to power instead of a will to grow. Sad, so sad. Perhaps it's best though. Our generation will learn from stories, like those Miyazaki weaves so wonderfully, and take his lessons to higher planes. I feel bad for you that you miss out on life's beauty. ;_;

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judecca,please may I ask,in all sincerity,where have I flamed you? Flaming is irrlelevant name-calling and ad hominem attacks,amongst other things. Where have I done that? I most studiously avoid doing that to people,as it doesn't have anything to do with the point and what I want to try to explain. I've tried to debate,as best I can,and make my case. But flaming,no,please tell me where I did that to anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Methodical violence, as I stated, in relating to Princess Mononoke may be above the heads of a few. Or, perhaps it just requires too much thought and is tossed out as just pure violence out of sheer laziness. In order to understand the nature of the violence seen in Princess Mononoke, you have to first remember that human beings are in fact, animals. If you cannot or will not grasp this concept, then the method is possibly beyond you. There is a balance in nature, and when interrupted by misunderstanding and apathy, chaos will erupt and one force will fight against the other. The violence seen in the film is simply the violence of nature, the violence of life. It is in no way comparable to hack and slash violence, and anyone who would make such a connection is an ignorant fool. Anyway, that's part of what I mean by methodical violence. I would explain more on the subject, except that I find it will most likely be unappreciated. That, and my wee little fingers do get tired. ^.^;;

 

With all arguments aside, I'll make a final note. The only reason I even bothered signing up for these message boards in the first place, was to express my honest appreciation that TCM chose to highlight Miyazaki's films. Without any bitterness, or mind to the current or past schedules and formats of TCM. It's simply because I'm young. I'm young, and I'm trying to think positively, and objectively about these animations that I have watched since I was five years old. I saw Nausicaa then, and didn't understand it, but was so happy to see it again and find that I could believe in something so strongly, many years later. When I first saw the advertisement that TCM was going to show these films that I cherished, I was ecstatic that I could share these little pieces of my childhood with people that might not otherwise watch such a genre. It is because TCM scheduled these movies that I believed the unknown and unseen, could be appreciated by an audience that wouldn't be made up of children, clamoring with their parents for remote time.

 

TCM has a default, brilliant built-in-audience. I was so excited. elated even that others who love the old classics like me, would see some of what brought me up to be a bright, intelligent, objective, and loving young lady. In fact, my sixty-five year old father, mother and I sat and watched Nausicaa and Castle in the Sky together last Thursday. My father, whom falls asleep now during most everything he watches, was entranced. I was so happy that I could share that time with him. He stayed up until past midnight! Laughing and smiling all the way through. I thought to myself; "How incredible this is, and to think other families may be sharing the same kind of evening with one another!" However...it turns out that most of you would rather just stay bitter, sit in your chairs, and have your 'tea as usual'.

 

I apologize. It's probably people at TCM, people like me, that ruined your month. I will continue to enjoy this month-long festival. But...not quite as much as I thought I would. Enjoying something to yourself is one thing. But sharing something you love with others, is quite a different thing altogether.

 

Anyway, I'm done posting here. Even though there have been good arguments made, and some that even support my views, I find it loathsome to argue about something that is dependent upon tastes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I just wanted to express mine.

 

Oh, and melanie, you didn't flame me really. You just seemed awful sour, and that upset me when I was just trying to achieve what I composed above. Sorry for a false accusation. I was mostly angry with the unkind remark made by omgih8lyfe!!11 Stoney-face. I guess words beyond "crap" escape him. Not his fault. But, yeah, done now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we depart from the beginning,as I don't subscribe to the idea that man is just another animal-I agree more with the sentiment,""What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! ". I don't agree that we're just a member of the brotherhood of animals.

 

I do apologise if I seem sour,I certainly never meant to appear so,as I'm not:) I'm sorry your experience at the forum has been disagreeable. TCM has a long-time faithful audience of viewers who jealously watch for any signs of incipient AMCism(AMC began as a classic movie channel,and evolved-overnight as it seems because we were unwary of what they were doing-into the horrible mess that it is today). So it's really not unnatural that we,the long-time faithful viewers and fans of classic movies that Turner Classic Movies does indeed have a mandate to show,by its very title,would be en garde for anything of the kind hapening here,at TCM,the only place period that most of us can see the great old classics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing the promos for Miyazaki's films last night before "Airport" (a 1970s film, I know but with such classic stars as Helen Hayes, Burt Lancaster and Dean Martin) and the John Lassiter interview about Miyazaki's films, I still don't understand how anyone can look at those films or those promos and think the films should be shown on a cartoon network.

 

The high quality of work I saw was reminiscent of Disney's finest work and while it may not be everyone's cup of tea, I applaud TCM for running these movies and still don't think it ushers in the demise of TCM as we know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly whom did I spit down on? I actually took the next step further and decided not to go on with the argument. I stated my case, and explained it. I recognized my faults and apologized for being out of line if I had. If you missed that, then I'm sorry. The only person I exacted my detest upon was someone who outright stated that what I loved was "crap". Isn't it fair to defend something you believe in?

 

In case you forgot, that post was; Re: Miyazaki Anime

Posted: 01/15/2006 1:36 EST

 

>>;;

 

We all bear fangs and have sharp tongues sometimes. We're only human. I'm sorry if I don't live up to your expectations, but I personally find you to be wrong. I acknowledged that everyone was entitled to their opinions. Even you. Who judges me without knowing me at all.

 

Sarcasm is the ugliest visage a human being can wear..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm sure that you know that we are just intolerant Neanderthals for not appreciating and being converted by the beauty and nobility of anime,and learning our life's lessons by it.

 

 

 

Why is it so difficult to understand that most of us have no desire to stamp out anime,we just aren't obligated to accept that it has a place on TCM? I don't care if people watch anime until their eyes spin,and if I cared to,I might even find something about it to like, But I'm not obligated to,anymore than I'm obligated to eat and appreciate (insert your food of aversion here,so I don't offend anyone),when I go to a particular restaurant based on their fame for a totally different type of menu. And I don't require that others love my choice of food,but I do have a right to keep them from trying to force change on my favorite restaurant in order to make me like and eat said food.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Melanie, I was starry-eyed and naively optimistic once too, years and years and years ago.

 

If I'm still alive and TCM is still around, I'll look forward to reading Judecca's posts in 40 years, to see if there's been a change.

 

Until then, I'm happy for her that crap is one of the worst words on her planet and that she feels so passionately protective of the Anime stuff.

 

It's interesting that protection takes the form of attempted censorship here, though, isn't it? Last I looked, this was still America and as I've said many times to many others here, unless you're a moderator, I can think and say anything I damned well please. If you don't like my posts, read on, brother, read on.

 

By the way, Judecca, another stereotype shot to heck -- I'm not a man. Oh the humanity. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judecca, you stated your case and you did just fine. Please don't let this discourage you.

The negative prattle about TCM going the way of AMC has been going on for years now and the station is still here in all its commercial free glory.

 

My grandson enjoyed the Miyazaki Anime films as I'm sure millions of other kids did, thanks to TCM. And of course I enjoy the hundreds of classic films that TCM presents to us each month. Just watched "A Place in the Sun" (WOW).

 

Stick around Judecca. You could be just what the doctor ordered.

 

Mongo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you did apologize for being out of line, but I thought it was ironic that you extol the virtues of Miyazaki's higher plane, and still go off like that. It's one thing to defend what we believe in, but when it's only an opinion of a cartoon or movie, you shouldn't take it personally. Check your emotion ... focus your mind, young padawan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tolerate intolerant tolerance.

 

Speaking of eating, I do agree somewhat with Judecca that we are animals. After all, we're mammals and primates. I use this argument with PETA vegan girls who try and convert me. As animals, PETA should respect us too and since we're the top of the food chain ... let there be meat. I don't see them criticizing the carnivorous habits of other animals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,strictly speaking,we are animals-what I'm saying is,we are not just another animal. We are the crown jewel of the animal kingdom. That's why we have Michelangelo,and Anna Pavlova and Alvin Ailey and Josephine Baker,and Degas, and the Wright brothers,and F Scott Fitzgerald,and saurbraten with red cabbage,and Mozart and George Gershwin and Scott Joplin,and the claymation Christmas film classics,and they don't;)

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...