patful Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 DOSFAN's not back, just the folks that loved needling him (her?). Who, ME? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzcutter Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I remember the changeover of channels awhile back with History Channel and Arts & Entertainment modifying their look. >> If memory serves me correctly, that was right after Disney bought both channels, which may explain the changes in their format and their programming. I vaguely recall both TLC and Discover Channel being bought about that same time though I can't remember who did the buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarboManiac Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Sorry, lzcutter! But, I have to comment on the Osmond thread! Patful was right, Larry! So far, he (she) has not come back, only those goofy-headed-trouble starters! And, if he (she) does come back it is on their heads. That empty headed wonder has no sense, and you guys just keep taunting him (her) for fun! But, it is not constructive. Now, I am going to have to smack you! Put out your hands and then go to the corner. And, stop looking at that magazine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarboManiac Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Ok, everybody go over to lzcutter's new thread about the best opening shot of a star in a movie. That ought to redeem you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictorECoffee Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Are we (the universal we) spending less time watching TCM because our lives are not what they were ten years ago when we started watching (meaning busier, other interests, etc) or maybe because we have more choices now with DVDs and the classic films in our own collections that make us less likely to turn on TCM just to watch a classic film? That's an intriguing thought. It's a good question why some people here "feel" TCM has changed, despite all evidence to the contrary. One other possibility -- When AMC was still a classic movie channel, perhaps the "modern" films didn't stick out so much on TCM. But after AMC changed formats, added commercials, etc., the presence of newer films on TCM sparked fears that it was going the same route. Nowadays, it seems like when TCM shows two modern films in a row, somebody will spotlight it as proof that TCM is going the way of AMC. Hence, the modern films on TCM could well have a much higher profile than they used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 "...goofy-headed-trouble starters!" Why do I think he means me? In all seriousness, GM, if you were to go back deep in that thread, you would see I tried everything I could do to make him stop, to give up on his quest. Nobody tried as hard or tried more to get through to him on a sympathetic basis, explaining many times the films could not be shown in TCM. Ask mongo, ask lzcutter. But then I got to the point of realizing he would never give up or else he was an internet troll. As stated, I would be happy if he never came back (but he will, whether anyone else posts or not). For awhile there, I thought he came back under a different identity and started the Hedy Lamaar thread and kept it going and going. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmoviedork Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 i agree caddyshack is a classic i'm 30 yrs.old and i grew up watching flicks like that,i mean i love all years of movies.i first started watching amc to see classic movies then they totally started to blow,thank god for tcm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarboManiac Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Filmlover, I DID apologize! I DID! I just can't find it. Somewhere on this forum in the threads is an apology. I do know you were the one who fought to end it! I was there for a brief while. And, as for the goofy trouble makers I was just trying to be gentle cause I thought someone really did bring the thread back. But, no one did, so I will now go quietly to a different thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarboManiac Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Oh! I found it! It is over in the Osmond thread!! I can't believe I even frequented the sight, but I guess I am guilty too. So, two apologies! Are we cool now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patful Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 > only those > goofy-headed-trouble starters! You can't mean ME? ;-) I'm bald-headed, not goofy-headed. And I can attest that filmlover did indeed try to help the person. I recall saying it was a waste of time. The only reason I got back on the thread was because I knew DOSFAN most likely got bored and left us for good. I'm trying to fight the force drawing me toward the thread, but it's just so powerful...OK, it's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 GM, definitely. lol, and I wanted to say that here because that other thread is making me think it is possessed. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarboManiac Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Thanks! And, I know what you mean! LOL Oh, and you too patful! No hard feelings!! Oh, and patful, that has happened to me, too! I edit something and it throws it back to the beginning. I am ****, too. So, that was part of my theory, that he (she) has been following us and when Larry made that comment, he (she) edited, and bounced the thread back up! Spooky! I answered you on this thread cause I don't want to be over there either, although this thread is turning out to be a "safe" place, instead of Caddyshack! Oops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patful Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 No, please don't let my post on the Osmond thread be the last. It's bad enough when I'm the last one on a normal thread. As I'm drawing my last breath someday, my last thought will be: "I was the last responder on the Osmond thread". Arg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarboManiac Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 LOL! Don't ya just hate that? The thread is going along great! Then, you make a comment and the whole thing dies, drifting into oblivion with your name forever at the top! Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddysprimadonna Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Hey y'all, what is the deal with the Osmond thread? Your comments are making me afraid to look,LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarboManiac Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Well, I hope I have put it to rest! patful didn't want to be attached as the eternal last comment, so I went in and read the eulogy. It should be dead now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddysprimadonna Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 You are a brave and a kind soul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeanddaisy666 Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Are we (the universal we) spending less time watching TCM because our lives are not what they were ten years ago when we started watching (meaning busier, other interests, etc) or maybe because we have more choices now with DVDs and the classic films in our own collections that make us less likely to turn on TCM just to watch a classic film? That's an intriguing thought. It's a good question why some people here "feel" TCM has changed, despite all evidence to the contrary. I never took debate in college. However, this reminds me of other message boards, where people far more clever than I can trot out any statistic or any conglomeration of words to make what I have stated appear to be incorrect. Despite all evidence to the contrary is such a statement. I was with AMC a long time, I don't know if it was from the beginning of the channel because I only got cable in the mid-1980s. I saw the gradual changes and I remember distinctly when the b/w movies were relegated to the wee hours of the a.m. rather than during the day or primetime. I was into the second year of my three year magazine subscription (naive, wasn't I?) and called them to cancel. I also remember distinctly bleating to the pod on the other end of the phone about how a formerly wonderful station was going to hell. Did she care? No, of course not. This was even BEFORE the station accepted commercials. Needless to say, when they did, I was outta there. As I've shared, Cablevision the idiot didn't carry TCM until Jan. 2004, which I believe was TCM's tenth anniversary on the air. So, I cannot attest to anything that came before Jan. 2004. Now, you all may Despite all evidence to the contrary all you want, and you all may count up all the movie statistics you like, but when a station shows Sonny and Cher and Rodney Dangerfield movies, it is NOT the same station. In addition, IF it goes ahead with the plan to program a so-called REALITY (they are, after all, pre-scripted crap) program...I'll say it again, THIS IS NOT THE SAME TCM. I don't care if they manage to somehow squeeze three pounds of baloney in a two pound bag, and someone comes here to tell me they have 147.6 b/w movies, 113 crap movies, and 12 hours of reality crap, they are NOT THE SAME TCM. I never sat and watched TCM, I simply taped like a maniac to forestall the same fate that befell me when I was in love with AMC. I am successful, I think, in that I have scads of b/w movies and one or two color ones... Therefore, I have no vested interest in whether TCM hires Paris Hilton to read the part of Martha Ivers or Brad Pitt replaces Fred McMurray in Double Indemnity, or whether their ORIGINAL programming is extended to a game show that has Charles Nelson Reilly guessing which film noir star that is under the fedora. We who feel TCM has changed have our valid viewpoints. It HAS changed for us. ANY station which is now considering the inclusion of REALITY programming ....... has ........ changed. SINCE they were previously a station that played ONLY classic ... not Rodney Dangerfield CLASSIC ... movies, exclusively, the very.fact.that.they.have.stooped.to.include. REALITY.programming: MEANS THAT THEY HAVE CHANGED. Sorry for the shouting. So, I for one won't care what they program, I don't watch the channel. I for one will continue to enjoy this message board and appreciate all the wonderfully knowledgeable people here. Larry, I still think you should write a book. I for one will also hope that the message boards aren't slaughtered the way those of A&E were when it was bought by a corporation. In case you suddenly see 'moderators' here, you'll know the end is near for the message boards. This isn't an either/or proposition. I say TCM has changed, you say it has not. We're both right. Thanks for listening. dolores Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrtbsh Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Stoneyburke - maybe you're right in a way, because of course we've always been changing. We used to have a Director-of-the-Month but we stopped doing that a few years ago (because it became too difficult to consistently do well). We used to have a franchise every week devoted to "Films on Film" (documentaries about films/filmmaking). We didn't used to have guest programmers. Some of the packaging has changed (menus, opens, etc.). A lot of our rights agreements have changed, providing us with different levels of access to films (this is a very complicated subject, but TCM doesn't even "own" the Turner library anymore - we license the films from Warner Brothers and have to pay for them just like anyone else). I definitely can't argue with you about whether or not you watch it less or like it less. But I can say that there's never been any threat of adding commercials and that there are no existing plans to go the way of AMC. Nothing is forever - maybe someday some accountant in New York will look at a spreadsheet and send word out that TCM has to add commercials to help the corporate bottom line. And we are definitely a business and have to make business decisions. But the people at this network love classic movies and are proud to work here and want to share our passion with everyone else. And we keep licensing older movies for years into the future and every decision that's been made regarding programming and film acquisitions has been with the belief and assumption that TCM would not have commercials and it will continue that way into the forseeable future. Anyway, I guess we can at least agree on the fact that the message board has a lot of wonderfully knowledgeable people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vecchiolarry Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Dear Dolores, Thanks for the vote of appreciation. It makes me feel valued and that's what we human beings stive for, isn't it!!! I have thought about publishing a memoire of just the people I knew in the movies; perhaps a chapter on each one. I would have to leave 'granny' out however as I have a large pack of relatives, who wish her to "go away". I'll see if I can gather up all I've written here and expand on it. If I come up with 500 pages, then I'll see what a friend of mine (a literary professor here) says..... Who knows!! Love Ya, Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollbergsmith Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Although I agree with most of the more traditional definitions of classic here, I am reminded of the many times I've heard people talk about a favorite scene from a recent film and laughingly say, "That was classic!" One example: Rodney Dangerfield's diving board scene in Back to School. And I think the new AMC has done a good job of marketing 80s and 90s films as new classics. It all has to do with how people connect with films. I wouldn't want to dilute the quality of TCM with a broadened version of the term classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inglis Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I think I might have mentioned this in another thread,but I love the scene in Caddy Shack where Rodney Dangerfield is golfing and his golf bag had music and a bar .Journey was playing Anyway You want It .Ted Knight's character was getting so **** off. That was classic Rodney too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamTherapy Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 //. . . with the belief and assumption that TCM would not have commercials and it will continue that way into the forseeable future.// TCM Programmr -- You and everyone involved at TCM have my loyal gratitude for everything all of you do there at TCM. You consistently provide excellent and eclectic programming, and the art direction of TCM's original productions and promotionals is wonderfully varied and highly aesthetic. You and your peers have never mis-stepped in TCM's commitment to its artistic endeavour to promote quality cinema in a non-proprietary manner to humankind. Your efforts are unparalleled and extremely commendable. TCM raises the standard and holds it high like a celestial beacon in the terrestrial smog that would otherwise engulf. TCM is the quintessence of broadcasting. Thank you eversomuch, now and forever. ~Peace~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts