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

What is this baloney on TCM now?


Recommended Posts

Well, well, well.

Good evening, sweetbabykmd.

We now come to the essential point, don't we?

It is perfectly valid to discuss different points of view but to be willfully rude to Anyone is beyond the pale. To quote a king of some renown. "A soft answer turneth away wrath." To quote somebody else, "What goes around comes around." (I'm not sure who that was. Laurel & Hardy? Or possibly a Bosnian?)


Anyway, it would be better -- this is just my opinion, of course -- if your ripostes were grounded just slightly in reality. Since you obviously were referring to both Sam and myself when you posted that "you guys" would probably be cheering TCM on if they showed porno films. This is not true, and again, you surely knew it at the time your typed it.


Believe me, I am NOT in favor of porno films. Golly. I blush during the staircase sequence in "Gone With the Wind."


Now please have a pleasant evening and please don't yell at me. I'm trying to be lighthearted and I have an awful feeling you're going to get all hot n bothered again.






Message was edited by:



Message was edited by:


Link to comment
Share on other sites



Well I checked in with my mascot about his canine sensibilities surrounding pornography - asked how he found sex and he replied . . . "Ruff!"




But seriously . . .

As the primary definition of pornography evidences it as healthy and innocuous to someone free of priggery:

(Encarta) sexually explicit material: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal.



(Webster/Merriam) the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement



Then, yes (when it is free of adjectival, harmful deviations such as exploitational or child or non-consensual et cetera) I regard pornography as perfectly acceptable, for I regard sexual arousal or excitement as natural and good.


Which is why I indeed have had no qualms with TCM airing films which contain pornography by definition (e.g. Ekstasy, Red-Headed Woman, Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask, Pretty Maids All In A Row) because there is nothing wrong about human sexuality, explicit or otherwise.


What is truly insidious and obscene is eating of the apple of censorship and militant prudery, and thereby developing (through sexual repression) unhealthy, prurient associations with human sexuality.


//I'm also sorry to still be harping on this incivillity. Really, I'd much rather talk about movies -- and yes, that still means ALL kinds of movies. Sorry to have such wide-ranging taste. Didn't know that was a fault in the old US of A.//


Incivility is disgagreeable and, indeed, undemocratic.


However, when others regard me as rude for bluntly exposing arrogance and intolerance evident in the comments of others, the accusation is mistargeted.


Some seem incapable of differentiating criticism of perspective from namecalling, and yet those who seek to label me as a namecaller are guilty of the very thing they accuse me of --- namecalling (calling me everything from a "commie" to an "a**hole" in different instances). Hypocrisy will rear its ugly head. It reminds me of a scene in A Fish Callled Wanda, when the Kevin Kline character, in retort to the John Cleese character calling him a vulgarian says, "Vulgarian? You're the vulgarian, you F*CK!!!" :P


I wish TCM's website had the 'Ignore User' option that another message board I've been to has. This delightful function allows one to literally 'not see' posts of of a user whom one ultimately finds disagreeable or incompatible with. The function also renders impotent the potential of mischievous spamming from silly posters (there's no incentive to corrupt if no one can give you the attention craved).


Anyway, you're right Robert et al who say lets talk movies. And indeed I have endeavoured to do only that of late until the quips herein, and now shall return to that healthier perspective.


Think I'll take lz's cue and check out November. :D







Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is kind of funny isn't it, Sam?


(Egad, I don't know quite what to call you, mate! Mr. Therapy seems a tad formal, but we'll let it slide for now.)


I thought my comments toward Mr. Dobbs were, well...accurate is the best word that comes to mind, but I've encountered his invective before on other boards. If anything, I thought I showed exsquisite restraint, not to mention exqusite wit, in my earlier postings, although there are some who clearly disagree,


One must chuckle at this attitude of "Well I think you said a rude thing so I feel I have the right to be rude back" blah blah blah. Essentially content-free, and I guess the only proper rejoinder is "Oh yeah?? Sez you!" I've tried content several times running now, and unfortunately there are some folks who just don't seem much interested in content, which is too bad.


Of course there are exceptions like Anne, bless her, and I appreciate the give and take and I really do hope she likes "Rashomon" as much as I'm sure we will.


Your libido is obviously much healthier than mine, SamT., and that of course is entirely your problem. Personally, I thought Ecstasy was kind of a bore (it was the censored version, I'm almost certain, since I saw precisely one of Hedy Lamaar's breasts and an awful lot of tree limbs, and I certainly was paying close attention to the scene). I can't argue about the Woody Allen film, but "Red-Headed Woman?"

How erotic can any film be where Chester Morris is the leading man?


Just kidding. I love Chet. Really. But he wasn't exactly a Valentino. Know what I mean?


Must toddle and feed the cats now.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

[nobr]Anything but . . . not Mr. T. :P [/nobr]


I never saw your comments towards Dobbs, nor any of his past the intial post, nor much of the majority of the posts beyond the current and next past page of the thread. No time to indulge to overexposing myself to naysaying.


//Your libido is obviously much healthier than mine, SamT., and that of course is entirely your problem.//



The definitional pornography I referred to in Ekstasy is the brief nudity and also the close-up expressions of Lamarr in the throes of ****. In Red-Headed Woman, there is a little-known moment when, but for a flash, but discernible, we can glimpse Harlow's breast slightly out-of-focus in the foreground just before its exit stage left; she is changing while her pal's gabbing on the bed.


[nobr]Hope your puffs get a good helping.

Guess I'd best attend to Fagen and Xena, too. 928.gif[/nobr]





Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, OK this is getting off topic. But then again, maybe that's a good thing.


It's true about Clara Bow's naked breasts, which are clearly visible for about five frames if you use a freeze frame on the Paramount VHS of "Wings." (Alas, boys, the title is out of print, so I am told.) I have a VHS of "Hell's Angels" and haven't ever noticed Jean Harlow's breasts spilling out of anything -- all the romantic clinches in that film seem to be between Ben Lyon and James Hall anyway. Just kidding.


Has anyone ever noticed in the restored print of C.B. DeMille's "Sign of the Cross" that Claudette Colbert's breasts are -- uh -- plenty visible in that infamous milk bath scene. I did a spit take with my coffee the first time I saw that scene, which is not only messy but dangerous if the coffee is still hot.


There's also a moment in D.W. Griffith's "Orphans of the Storm" (1920), in which two members of the French Aristocracy (both female) are cavorting in a fountain of wine. One of the gal's finery is pretty well saturated with the liquid and, uh, well, who sez the silents are boring?


Supernatural? Perhaps. Baloney? Perhaps Not. -- Dr. Vitus Verdegast (Bela Lugosi) in Edgar G. Ulmer's "The Black Cat" (1934).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert E:


You said 'Roshomon' is on next week, When? My wireless is down since the storm we had, so I'm on dial-up this week, and the schedule takes FOREVER on dial up to find anything. If you tll me, I can go directly to the day, and put in a reminder notice.






PS.. Lucky its only 88 minutes long, crochet season is coming up and you can't read and crochet at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anne--I shall be happy indeed to do that.


"Rashomon" airs Tuesday, Sept. 19 at 8 p.m. EST.


By the way, here's another foreign film that you've just gotta see. On Tuesday, Sept. 26 at 11:15 p.m. EST. TCM will air the remarkable "La Belle et La Bete" (aka "Beauty and the Beast") which was directed by Jean Cocteau in 1946. This is an extraordinary, incredibly poetic and imagniative masterpiece which uses numerous bits of camera trickery and directoral stylization to retell the classic childrens' fable. This is a glorious masterpiece, and probably a better vantage point from which to approach European cinema than something like Dreyer's "Day of Wrath." Do check it out.





Link to comment
Share on other sites



Let me throw in another vote for "Rashomon." Kurosawa was not only a great director, but his films tell fascinating stories. Kurosawa was insopired by American films, but just about every film he made was remade for an American audience. But it's still well worth watching the originals.


If you're not used to watching films with subtitles it can take a little getting used to. Give it a little time and you'll be surprised at how natural it becomes. Foreign film (and silent as well) demands a level of attention that we're not used to. But once forced to pay attention, it's some great stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a VHS of "Hell's Angels" and haven't ever noticed Jean Harlow's breasts spilling out of anything -- all the romantic clinches in that film seem to be between Ben Lyon and James Hall anyway. Just kidding.


The gown she wears in the color sequence shows most of her assets from the side. Later, in her apartment when she changes into the robe, she bends over for her drink and pretty much shows off everything.


Edit: I am referring to the DVD version, which is probably the same as the VHS (I don't know) but a lot clearer.


Also, Colbert's shot in "Sign of the Cross" is quite famous. She also wears very translucent undergarments in "It Happened One Night," something I never noticed until the much clearer DVD version. Ditto the screen tests that Fay Wray makes on the ship's deck in "King Kong." DVD has been a godsend to the lecherous among us.


Message was edited by: Jon Parker


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched several of the shorts played during the day the other day...and while I probably wouldn't watch any of them again, I felt it was an educational experience, and I'm up for a little of that, occasionally.


That said, however...I must confess that I'm becoming concerned about the direction I see the station taking lately. A few months ago, we were arguing about the occasionally 1980's film being shown on TCM - again, something I don't necessarily have a problem with (if it's something like "Out of Africa"...and not "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids".) ;)


Now, it seems the whole face of the channel is changing - not only are we seeing more 80's films...but we are also interrupting classic film to see Dick Cavett (some of them okay, but some not, IMO), shorts (again, okay if it's only one day or on Festival of Shorts...but who knows where this is headed, given the 'overhaul' that seems to be going on on a pretty massive scale??), lots of foreign language stuff (as a silents fan, far be it from ME to dislike a film where you have to read...but even *I* don't want to see an entire evening of them!) and now this "Underground" thing they are starting.


IMO, all of this adds up to too many changes all at once. And even when they DO show traditional classic film, they have already filled the schedule with so much other junk that what part of the schedule that is left for real classic film is filled with 'the basics' - the millionth showing of "Casablanca", as opposed to something alot of us would actually tune in to!


Now...no one loves "Casablanca" more than I do. But because of all this emphasis on gaining new audience with not-quite-classic stuff....and then 'educating' them with only the basics of traditional classic film, I find myself tuning out more and more.


And I really doubt many new viewers will tune IN. I mean, do we REALLY need another station out there trying to be 'trendy' and 'hip'???? I mean, how many of them are there? About a billion? And each getting smaller and smaller market share with each addition to that so-called 'niche' market.


And the sad thing is that no matter how hard TCM tries, it will NEVER come off as 'trendy' and 'hip'. NEVER. It won't WORK. Guy-with-the-tats aside, it's just not a 'hip' and 'trendy' station. And if it tries to be, it will only embarass itself. I mean, until a few months ago, the 'hippest' TCM ever GOT was Ben...and trust me, folks...he ain't hip. I love the guy to death...but he's NOT hip. Adorable and sometimes-funny film geek? Yes. Hip? Nope. No friggin' WAY. Did you see "Reality Bites"? Sorta like Ben Stiller's character. ;) NOT Ethan Hawk's character. ;)


And so guy-with-the-tats doesn't come off as 'cool' - he comes off as out-of-place and ridiculous. A lame-**** attempt at trying to be MTV...only...erm....not. Because MTV doesn't have Robert Osbourne on 5/7ths of the time. Guy-with-the-tats is NOT gonna be believable to kids...because by JOINING TCM, the guy has ALREADY sold out the counterculture to 'the man'!


Good grief! How DUMB to you think kids are?????


In trying to be 'trendy' and 'hip', I think TCM will find itself losing alot of it's core viewership, and then they will end up like AMC - an absolute junk station that NO ONE watches. AMC tried to be all things to all people too...and ended up being NO things to anyone - except maybe the laughing stock of the industry....or to the more kind among us, the station we pity the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of us feel the way you do pktrekgirl. We see the gradual change away from all classic movies all the time to what it is now and is becoming. In order to show us these talk shows, shorts, etc. they have to take away from the classics, and it is frustrating to those of us who tune in to see those old movies that are not shown anywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can say this much...I am currently in red alert mode. I'm recording and burning to DVD every classic film I don't have in my collection already...whether I have seen it and like it or not.


I must confess that I am now preparing for the day when I won't be able to see many of the more 'obscure' classic films anymore in between all the faux 'hip' stuff....and so I'm burning every SINGLE one that comes on...whether I currently have time to view it or not.


I figure I'll stockpile them now...and so will have something to watch once TCM deteriorates past the point where I'll willing to continue watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past I've defended TCM's showing of some films that could hardly be called "classic movies." However, I do see that you have a point: I would hate to see TCM, in an attempt to mainstream, become just another bland, trying-to-please everyone channel. One of the things that I like about cable TV is the existence of all the niche channels. Sticking to one subject allows those channels to explore their topics in depth, rather than giving the viewer a little of this, a little of that. After a while, that mix becomes muddy and bland. I've seen this happen at our flagship PBS station in NYC, which I rarely look in on any more. In trying to please everyone, I think they've lost their way, and to make matters worse, they have become much more "commercial" in the process.


Isn't it generally the position of advertisers to convince us that we want what they have? Why can't TCM advertise more aggressively in non-classic movie markets, to attract viewers who haven't seen classics before, rather than trying to attract those people something other than classic movies. That makes no sense to me. The whole country is falling into that dumbing-down mode. I don't want to go there. If TCM is a classic movie station, why is it trying to show us oranges, when we want to see apples? When new viewers tune in to see the classics, why show them something they can see anywhere else? Isn't there anyone left in the entertainment industry who is willing to lead, and set a standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is purpose of TCM? A thing's purpose is how it is used. That means many, many purposes, because we are many, many different people.


Ronco-Phobics: to watch movies without commericials.

Blockbuster weary: to watch something old that's new to them.

Top 100 List worshippers: to only watch films they've seen dozens of times.

Film Snobs: to see what TCM's showing instead of his beloved avant-garde Swiss color-collage film

Dad: to watch John Wayne or Steve McQueen.

Ms. Lonely Heart: to watch how REAL romance should be.

Little Timmy: so he doesn't have to actually read the book - "hey, they made a movie of it!"

Hubbie: to please the Mrs., if there's no game on.

Crazy Cousin Ed: to watch Doris Day, Rob Zombie, William Powell, David Lynch and others like that.

Lost in the Past: to pretend all old movies were better than anything made after he/she turned 21.

Nielsen Family: because they pressed the wrong buttons on the remote

"Real" Film Lovers: just me (wink, wink) oh, and you, too.


There are no two people alike here. We all disagree about what should be on our TV and especially what should be on TCM, so let's not fool ourselves that there is a CORE here on this forum. Or that any one of us is best to represent any CORE (ie, the great silent majority, the true watchers, the faithful followers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


> Isn't it generally the position of advertisers to

> convince us that we want what they have? Why can't

> TCM advertise more aggressively in non-classic movie

> markets, to attract viewers who haven't seen classics

> before, rather than trying to attract those people

> something other than classic movies. That makes no

> sense to me. The whole country is falling into that

> dumbing-down mode. I don't want to go there. If TCM

> is a classic movie station, why is it trying to show

> us oranges, when we want to see apples? When new

> viewers tune in to see the classics, why show them

> something they can see anywhere else? Isn't there

> anyone left in the entertainment industry who is

> willing to lead, and set a standard?


This is what I have been wondering.


pktrekgirl my boyfriend has been recording like mad as well so we will be able to watch the good movies when TCM becomes unwatchable, or barely watchable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think TCM is getting ridiculous. September's commercial with the nasty looking model and the telescope, and the rapid fire cutting is absurd. It totally misrepresents the channel's programming. And I am a young man, not some old fogey who doesn' t like new things. I am one of the few people logging here who can identify the music playing in this ridiculous commercial. It's the British band, Radiohead, whom I like. But to use this music to advertise William Holden films and "The Seventh Seal" is the height of ridiculousness.


TCM, to quote another melancholy Radiohead song, "You're turning into something You are not."


Quit the nonsense.



Thank you TCM for showing "Side Street" (1929) with the Moore Brothers, Owen, Tom, and Matt. I taped it, and I love it. Rod Zombie can kiss my ***.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Morning George--


Afraid I cannot agree with you about the new commercial. Somehow, when I look at it -- especially intercut with clips from "La Jetee," "La Strada," "The Seventh Seal" and especially "La Belle et La Bete" -- it all seems of a piece. Sure, the commercial is stylized and surreal, and I think Jean Cocteau has got to be out there somewhere going, "Blimey. 'Wish I'd shot that!"


I know. I know. He wouldn't say "Blimey." But I don't know what the French would say. I'm a Bertie Wooster man myself.


Still, to each his own. I am so pleased you liked "Side Street." Films from 1927 to 1930 are inviariably my favorites.


P.S. Are you really called George O'Brien, or do you just love "Sunrise?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<< I am a young man, not some old fogey who doesn' t like new things.>>


You certainly sound like you're well on the way to old-fogey-dom, George. (I'm smiling as I'm typing, btw.)


But really, why is the Underground Series, so wrong? It's on a 2am, once a week. These are important, influential movies. They are classics.


p.s. ditto on the Side Street thumbs up, I loved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, I thought it was MUSE's Time Is Running Out??? I've been playing it since I found out the name.


I am an old fogey who doesn't usually like new things, like cell phones in supermarkets used by rude gits, but I like new things when I like them. And I like the promo and the song, but at the same time don't think either belongs on the TCM I liked in Jan. 2002. It probably belongs on the new and improved TCM, and will seem like Bach, I fear, on the 2011 TCM.


They are not sure what they are anymore, George, so we all can watch their growing pains as the new suits offer up their ideas...can you just SEE those meetings in those TCM conference rooms?? :0 ...talk here freely thanks to those same suits, enjoy what we see, tape madly if we like the stuff, and turn off the channel when Cher or Tootsie is shown.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's September so time for another round of.... "Is This The End?"


Why do we worry so much about things we have no control over? We worry about TCM changing. But it's completely out of our control. We get a chance to see Bette Davis and Robert Mitchum and Groucho Marx, albeit with Dick Cavett, but we get to learn something about the stars. We get "Shorts" to fill in between movies. We get foreign films, silent films, pre-code films. Nowhere else do you get even the slightest chance of seeing anything like these films. I think it is still a niche channel serving a niche group. God bless 'em.


We're getting all these so maybe they won't have to show "Casablanca" one more time. To always stay the same is to die. If there was no growth, no broadening of what they do, no taking a chance then one day we'll turn on TCM and we'll say "Citizen Kane" AGAIN! (Never mind that some may already do that.) I by no means agree with all the changes. Rob Zombie's plan has no appeal. I have more of a problem with that than the other programming, but that's my opinion. I'm not crazy about the commercials but for two minutes I can find something else to do.


One thing about AMC. I am among the many, like you, who felt stabbed in the back by their change. At the time I couldn't get TCM so I was really lost. For AMC the change gave them increased ratings. They got more viewers. It took a lawsuit to bring any old movies back so they are probably not happy about that. I'm not going to fault TCM for trying things to keep their core plan going. Remember, even TCM doesn't have the ultimate say in what TCM becomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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