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

What is this baloney on TCM now?


Recommended Posts

"Cable in my area is $50. plus for 75 channels, 85% of which are crap".

 

How lucky for you! Mine hovers between 96% and 99% crap.

 

Bravo, along with A & E used to be THE channels to watch. Bravo used to run foreign and independent films uncut and commercial free. A & E used to do the same thing with their great classic dramatizations which were first rate. Not anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stoneyburke:

 

The 'free t.v.' I was talking about is exactly what you said. I pay for the dish and those stations come with it at no extra charge, I pay extra for HBO and STARZ, the rest is $39.99.

 

But . . . So, TCM is the last holdout and is ever so slowwwwwwwwwly going the way of the wooly mammoth and the flightless dodo.

 

In the above quote from you, I agree 100%. These people who call us 'naysayers' are in actuality, themselves the 'naysayers' who don't, or won't understand, what you and I call the 'corporate' mind. Maybe by some stroke of unbelievable luck none of them ever had the company they worked at for 15 years be bought out from under them, or never had an influx of 'young', 'forward thinking' luminaries come in and sack them because their 15 or 20 years experience (in their estimation) didn't add up to that sacred college degree. On the other hand, these 'naysayers' are probably the 'young', 'forward thinking' luminaries, themselves who are on the onion skin parade. FYI, this didn't happen to me, I was chosen to move with the company, but many of my friends were out of work at ages 45 thru 55 for a long time, and never got back into the same profession. They ended up, instead as clerks, and sales people. Because of my position I was in on the 'corporate' secret and watched people buy houses and cars which I knew they couldn't keep because they would be out of a job within 6 months to 3 years, which actually happened. The heads at TCM are no different than mine were, I assure you, nobody will know anything until that last few weeks when you see people disappearing and desks being cleared out. The new wave is just beginning when that happens, so keep your eye on the birdie ! ! !

 

To whoever printed that URL,

My hair is propery curled.

 

Anne

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I was being polite or else my math is off. You're probably right, NortBanba.

 

And HOW could I forget about A&E....A&E which used to show, almost nightly: Frost, Cracker, Poirot, Miss Marple, Sherlock Holmes, Morse, An Unsuitable Job For A Woman, Prime Suspect, all of them reruns of perfectly wonderful British mysteries which I'm not even sure Britain makes anymore. I wonder that the 'reality' crap hasn't hit them too.

 

But oh how I loved A&E, and only taped a few shows, dang it. Sometime after they killed the mysteries on their original channel, a suit came up with the nasty idea of moving some of the British shows to a sister station, The Biography Channel.........WHICH could be yours for MORE money. Clever little buggers, no?

 

Their message board was similar to this, only flush with lovers of British shows that were written well, acted beautifully, and replete with enough British countryside to make any Angliophile swoon.

 

THEN they began to change and the board started to get ugly...hark? Do I sense a portend of things to come? Nah, just a bothersome bottle fly in the corner.

 

Red Barn (TCM please stop reading) was called in to moderate the boards. There were good moderators and bad moderators. It never got to the editing invasiveness of other boards I have named, but most of the original posters, including myself, finally left. I think they now have a sad little board, sans moderators, wherein people revel about Black.White. and other such piffel.

 

Ah well. And so it goes.

 

dolores

Link to post
Share on other sites

> thank ya, mongo. Sometimes I feel just like Crazy

> Cousin Ed with my willy-nilly interest in film

> and music. My DVD shelves look like a blind monkey

> stocked it. I'm not exaggerating, here's the top

> shelf:

>

> Foolish Wives (Von Stroheim), I Know Where I'm Going

> (Powell/Pressburger), Medea (Pasolini), Pick-Up On

> n South Street (love that Richard Widmark)

> (Sam Fuller), Victor/Victoria (Blake Edwards), Talk

> to Her (Almodovar), Taste Of Cherry (Kiarostami),

> Fort Apache (John Ford), Cowards Bend the Knee (Guy

> Maddin)

>

> you know, that kind of movie (and you should

> see my CD library!)

 

Aw, shucks, that's nothin'. Here's my first VCR shelf (oversize cases):

 

3 Beatles tapes: First USA Concert; Ed Sullivan Shows; Live in Japan 1966

The Black Bird (George Segal as Sam Spade Jr.!)

The Breaking Point (obscure John Garfield)

Rolling Stones: C**ksucker Blues

Disk-o-Tek Holiday: journey through mid 1960's garage bands; so obscure it's not even on imdb

last time I looked

Fantasia. Yes you just read that.

Force of Impulse. 1960 low-budget indie teen exploitation flick with Robert Alda slumming as

the bad girl's father

Husker Du live

The Initiation of Sarah. Ca. 1976 TV movie with Morgan Fairchild and Shelley Winters

The Iron Horse. You just read that too.

Lady Blue. Pilot of failed 1985 TV series. Gorgeous redhead Jamie Rose shoots things for

two hours.

Minor Threat live

Outward Bound. 1930 with Leslie Howard in what I believe to be his first movie.

A tape I won't tell you about.

The Residents. The most avant-garde of all rock and roll bands.

State Fair. The original with Will Rogers.

Tap Roots. 1948; Boris Karloff as an American Indian turned upper-class patrician in anti-

Confederate (!) Jones County in Mississippi

The Viking (1928) 2-strip Technicolor silent (but with soundtrack)

Young Marble Giants. Quiet, placid early 80's rock band

Yum Yum Girls. 1970's chixplotation movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the perspective movieman1957.

 

To the rest of you, you move me, truly you do.....towards a deep chasm. Your insane rantings make me want to jump. And I'm *new* to these message boards.

 

Just take a look at the entire rest of the month of September. Look at it. Starting tomorrow (Tuesday the 19th).

 

Do you know how many dreaded new films (post-1980) TCM is showing from then until September 30th?

 

One.

 

One single movie.

 

And it's buried at 3:15am ET.

 

I think some of you watch too much television.

 

 

> 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.

 

TCM has earned an awful lot of awards, kudos, comments, and endorsements for their promos, their style and design, their programming, and their committment to film preservation and the cinematic heritage for them not to be 'hip' and 'trendy.' Explain that.

 

Maybe they're defining 'trendy' and 'hip' differently than you do. Or maybe they're better than that.

 

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

 

I don't think TCM thinks kids are dumb. If anything, TCM thinks they are way smarter than you give them credit for.

 

 

You guys make me want to cry. You claim to love TCM so much that you don't ever want it to grow. Like smothering a child so it won't become something even greater.

 

 

Araner1973

Link to post
Share on other sites

[nobr]//Many others feel the same way I do.//[/nobr]

Some others feeling the same way you do does not constitute many others.

Don't lets exaggerate.

 

//TCM is the channel we turn to for the old classics, that is what the C stands for.//

Actually, the 'C' in TCM stands for neither "old classics" nor, for that matter, "classics." What it stands for is 'classic,' an adjective not a noun.

 

The primary definition of the adjective classic is:

1. top quality: generally considered to be of the highest quality or lasting value, especially in the arts.

 

The primary definition of the noun classic is:

1. work of highest quality: something created or made, especially a work of art, music, or literature, that is generally considered to be of the highest quality and of enduring value.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/classic.html

 

When a work is/was created is by definition irrelevant to something being considered a classic.

 

Arguably, not every film aired on TCM, from a variety of years, is a classic movie (e.g. The McGuerins From Brooklyn 1942, The 30 Foot Bride Of Candy Rock 1959, Postman's Knock 1962, Pretty Maids All In A Row 1971). But some viewers do find them, nevertheless, entertaining, so TCM does not (and has never) overly restricted itself to some dogmatic adherence to the term classic. This is a good thing. It's very democratic and respectful of all of its viewing audience, guarding against what Mills identified as the tyranny of the majority.

 

However, although TCM does show non-classic yet potentially entertaining films, now-and-again, the majority of the films broadcast are classics by definition and therefore the standard promised is provided just as it always has been.

 

What you, and those who agree with you, desire is an accompanying alternative station: either TOC - Turner Old Classics, or TOM - Turner Old Movies, or both.

 

Your preferences aside, however, Turner Classic Movies' wonderful programming has never been solely devoted to film created in a specific period in history. It never has been from its inception.

 

And no one viewer, nor any minority group of viewers, nor any majority group of viewers have a proprietary claim on TCM and its wonderful library and programming.

 

I understand your preference, but it just is not what TCM is or has ever been about.

 

So to perceive TCM's same-as-it-ever-was programming as reflecting some dire change is simply not grounded in fact nor in reality.

 

About the only thing that has changed (but only here-and-there) is some of its art direction, but only nominally for commercial reasons.

 

 

 

S A M

[nobr]527.gif[/nobr]

Link to post
Share on other sites

You pompous a**. I don't need an idiot like you to explain anything. I am tired of your long drawn out posts, some which border on sickening when you kiss TCM's ****. I am frequently embarrassed for you. Leave me alone, find another thread where the subject is to your liking. Fred started this thread and I happen to agree with what he says.

The cutesy emoticons need to go too.

 

I do apologize to the others for getting nasty but that guy really boils my blood, which is what he wanted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> You pompous a**. I don't need an idiot like you to

> explain anything. I am tired of your long drawn out

> posts, some which border on sickening when you kiss

> TCM's ****. I am frequently embarrassed for you.

> Leave me alone, find another thread where the

> subject is to your liking. Fred started this thread

> and I happen to agree with what he says.

> he cutesy emoticons need to go too.

>

> I do apologize to the others for getting nasty but

> that guy really boils my blood, which is what he

> wanted.

 

Not very "sweet", Sweetbaby. Why don't we try to control ourselves when all someone is doing is presenting opinions differerent from yours? What a concept, huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweetbabykmd--

 

Just ignore this loser. He was doing the same thing to MrsL last week. This is probably the only thing that this guy knows how to do. Ignore him and maybe he find someone else to bother.

 

This is in reply to SamTherapy in case there is any confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"About the only thing that has changed (but only here-and-there) is some of its art direction, but only nominally for commercial reasons."

 

Dick Cavett

Unedited language

Rock music

Heavy rock 'music' or whatever you call it, it's not music in the traditional sense

Sonny & Cher

Rob Zombie

Ben Mankiewicz

Horror movies - Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Mummy are 'scary' movies, not aimed at bloodshed for shock value

Naked, tattooed ladies - I forgot to add this to my minimal changes list

 

Obviously none of you read my post from earlier this afternoon. If you are not aware of how change occurs in today's world, you are in for a shock some day. Change doesn't come gradually to those in the know, it comes as a surprise with a blow between the eyes, or the pit of the stomach to the masses. Changes cannot be made known, because the underlings, and in this case, the fans would exit stage left with no hesitation. This way they lull viewers into a false sense of comfort with just a touch of the new, then suddenly the hammer falls and we, the fans, are left out in the cold.

 

From the lists indicated today, I'm sure the change will be welcome to a large portion of the audience, but those of us who love and respect the old, lost ways have a right to mourn their passing in the only way we can, on these boards, just as we mourn the loss of temperance in new movies, music, and culture, in general.

 

Anne

 

Message was edited by:

mrsl

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to direct that to him. It is obvious he is not presenting a different view, he is being condescending.

 

I don't think he was being condescending at all. I thought it was a well-reasoned post that explained his POV and how he sees TCM very well. I'm in full agreement with everything he said, and he didn't feel the need to call anyone names to do it.

 

There's some sort of weird emotional attachment to the TCM brand going on here that really doesn't bear much relation to reality. It reminds of the sort of cognitive dissonance I'm seeing from Bush supporters lately.

 

We have had TCMProgrammer's assurance that TCM is signing contracts to bring us more and more classic films. 95% of the programming is classic films, and what isn't relates to classic films, such as Dick Cavett's star interviews.

 

Seriously, this whole thing is just weird.

 

There's nothing wrong with a heated debate, but when you let it degenerate into name calling, you lose, and the boards themselves lose. We all lose. Attack the points, not the person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon Parker:

 

Like I said, you obviously didn't read my earlier post. The TCM programmers don't know a thing, they don't know if TCM is changing their programming, or if it's for sale, or if they plan to stay with 1920 thru 1960 as stated in their introductory news clipping. They just keep plodding along making deals, and doing their everyday chores, until the boom comes clattering down on their heads. The programmers can promise to high heaven all they want, but if the 'suits' decide differently, the programmers have NOTHING to say about it. They just have to keep acting like nothing has changed because that's all they know.

 

Anne

Link to post
Share on other sites

[nobr]Am presuming you are suggesting that your list evidences changes beyond mere art direction of the broadcasting (sorry, but you're right: I didn't read the earlier post you reference which I presume would have shed light on this for me). Anyway, I'm understanding that what you list suggests changes you regard as subtle yet significant redirects which will result in total upheaval eventually. Yes?[/nobr]

 

Your logic has not swayed me, but I'm intrigued by what you cite, so I am going to respond to each item of your list to specify why I see the situation differently.

 

//Dick Cavett//

The Dick Cavett interviews are in keeping with TCM programming for they are interviews of movie-related persona. Just as Osborne's Private Screenings (which have been aired for some time now) are intended, so no change there.

 

//Unedited language//

Uncensored programming (except on the rare occasion when the print acquired is already censored) is a quintessential quality of TCM since its inception, so no change there.

 

//Rock music . . . .Heavy rock 'music' or whatever you call it//

All sorts of music (rock in all of its manifestations, hard or otherwise, inclusive) have been utilised on TCM from time to time (and certainly in films aired on TCM) since TCM's inception, so no change there.

 

//Sonny & Cher//

You are referring, I presume, to the airing of Good Times? Again, no change there - the connexion to TCM's usual programming is that it is an example of one of those non-classic films which I referred to, which some might find entertaining on some level. For the record, I found it mildly entertaining for two reasons: (1) to examine Cher's acting then vs. now, and, mostly, (2) to examine William Friedkin's direction then vs. now.

 

//Rob Zombie//

Since I have as yet to actually see anything of 'TCM Underground' and CheeseZombie's hosting of it, I cannot really form an opinion yet. However, this is one example of art direction to which I referred, for that it clearly what it amounts to, a variation of art direction.

 

//Ben Mankiewicz//

Robert Osborne is not (as far as my own register cites) one of The Eternals, and I cannot think of many with expertise as well as presence who could replace him, for, eventually, regrettably, he ultimately will be replaced when/if he ever decides to retire (the machine that he is!). So, it figures that TCM will want to enlist someone young with a lot of airtime ahead of him (to avoid annoying turnaround) to be the replacement.

 

In fact, this is encouraging of TCM staying 'as is' for some time to come: that they chose a pre-existing 'persona' who has film knowledge instead of some 'nobody'. Look at AMC (if one must): the wonderful Clooney was replaced by what's-his-name and now what?: he WhatsHisName is gone and its all automated (at least I presume there's still no hosts, for I haven't tuned-in to AMC for years now).

 

Anyway, still no change here on TCM: Mr.M has delivery, saavy and personal knowledge of film. He just also happens to be young-ish and of his generation.

 

// Horror movies - Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Mummy are 'scary' movies, not aimed at bloodshed for shock value//

I don't fathom what you are referencing here. Early "classic" horror films are ok? They're not ok? Blood good? Blood bad? Smoke good? Smoke bad?

 

And as for . . .

// how change occurs in today's world//

Change occurs as it has occurred in History and as it will ever occur - in a manner disruptive to we in the Now. But I guess I just don't regard that as something good or bad; it just is. And I can work my self into a frenzy about it when it challenges me (which it often does), or I can take a moment and regard the change impersonally. If, ultimately, it is a new way to which I am unable or unwilling to acclimate to, then I guess I'll move on to something else. There's always something just around the corner (if not actually sitting in my lap).

 

~Peace~

S A M

[nobr]527.gif[/nobr]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[nobr]*whew*[/nobr]

Thanks for the save, Jon. :)

 

Sometimes, it's a bit nerve-wracking being on the stack of kindling until the citizen who comes forth and says "HOLD!" does so.

 

cognitive dissonance, eh?

You aren't perhaps a member of the League Of Gentlemen are you? ;)

 

Again, my thanks for your validation.

 

 

 

S A M

[nobr]527.gif[/nobr]

Link to post
Share on other sites

>

> And as for . . .

> // how change occurs in today's world//

> Change occurs as it has occurred in History and as it

> will ever occur - in a manner disruptive to we in the

> Now. But I guess I just don't regard that as

> something good or bad; it just is. And I can work my

> self into a frenzy about it when it challenges me

> (which it often does), or I can take a moment and

> regard the change impersonally. If, ultimately, it is

> a new way to which I am unable or unwilling to

> acclimate to, then I guess I'll move on to something

> else. There's always something just around the corner

> (if not actually sitting in my lap).

>

> Very well said. Those might be the wisest words on this thread yet. I think everyone should try to live by them.

 

Brad

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam:

 

I think both of your posts are well studied and well intended. I hate that we have these debates every three or four months. It eats up time and energy and there's not a thing we can do about it. The fact that some posters over the last year or so feel there is a conspiracy or some force at work to take away "our" channel leads only to heated disagreements. In the end what we feel or say won't matter at all. We can disagree about the movies, the promos, the documentaries, whether there ought to be silents or not, etc. but all this worry doesn't get us anywhere. (Take it from one who excels in worrying.)

 

The fact that TCM programmers and management are at the mercy of those higher up is a fact that we have to accept. That alone shouldn't be a point of argument. We all know it. I hope the heads at Time/Warner see this as a philanthropic endeavor worthy of the expense. How else would anyone explain a channel that shows 60 year old movies with no commercials and no premium fee? Whatever comes, comes. I will treasure TCM, whatever its faults, for what it does. It provides movies of a type and history that you can't get anywhere. Save for the sparse showing on Cinemax or Retroplex (I don't have Fox) TCM is it. I'll say it again. God bless 'em.

 

Chris

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...