Talk:Turner Classic Movies/Archive 1

Untitled
There is something wrong here with the chronology regarding colorization. The current text implies that, sometime after 1994, Orson Welles objected to colorizing his films. This is impossible, as Welles died in 1985 (as per Wikipedia entry on Welles). Comment by 68.80.103.230 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.103.230 (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have removed this bit, which just sounds like vandalism. The channel has a rather purist ethic anyway; I doubt they would ever show anything colorized.--Pharos 07:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Turner Classic Movies did in fact show colorized versions of some movies in the network's earliest days, but later began only showing the original versions. The complaint from Orson Welles came in the mid-80s, and was about supposed plans to colorize Citizen Kane (which Turner later claimed were made in jest). Turner was once a driving force for the colorization of black and white films but later stopped producing colorized titles because the cost of colorizing these films was far too high and audiences were unfavorable to the alteration of these titles. (Ibaranoff24 04:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

I updated the range of films TCM has aired throughout the range of years of release. I guess they just recently aired the 1989 film Honey, I Shrunk the Kids about a week ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.7 (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, they had a Hayao Miyazaki special about a year ago and showed Spirited Away from 2001. They hold copyrights to all (MGM)? films up to 1984.  They mention this from time to time, so I'll update what films they can show when I hear it again.  Anyway the post 1984 films are aired with special permission.  Umeboshi 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I just read the article, rather than glancing over it, and noticed the mention of Spirited Away. When I hear again about what range of movies they have access to, I'll get back to you.  Umeboshi 01:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is my memory in error or wasn't Rob Reiner the original host of The Essentials? There may have even been a host between him and Bogdanovich. I've been unable to find corroborating evidence on the web, so I have not amended the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebluepearl (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

TCM Underground
I've recently got around to creating an article thereon, but I'd welcome all of you to improve it seeing as it really deserves the attention (unless you're not a cult film fan/fanatic). DrWho42 13:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your article is a candidate for speedy deletion IAW WP:NOT. I'll provide explanation on that page's talk page. David Spalding Talk / Contribs

How is TCM financed?
U.S. TCM is a huge company with lots of employees. How does TCM make its income? The small sale of books and newsletter, plus a few videos, wouldn't cover that. The station is commercial-free. How do they make their income? Softlavender (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Uninterrupted?
Uninterruppted, eh?

TCM sacrificed this adjective tonight. I watched GANDHI on TCM, and after two hours (or a 3+ hour film) witnessed a half-an-hour commercial for their other films, starring Ben Mankiewicz and John Lithgow, and including their public service piece supporting letterboxing versus pan-and-scan. Only then did they show the rest of the movie.

I've always vocally supported their uncut/uninterrupted stance, but unless enough people complain, it's the end of an era for film lovers. WHPratt (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It may have been merely an automated scheduling mistake. WHPratt (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

TCM Remembers
I'm not sure if the list of deceased celebrities in the TCM Remembers section belongs within the main article. Debate upon this, but the TCM Remembers section may need to be split into its own section, although I known there might be a question as to whether the complete section warrants its own article in its current form. TVtonightOKC (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

TCM Remembers
The TCM Remembers section takes up a sizeable amount of the article that it seems unfeasible to keep it within the main TCM article. I think it should be split into another article or at the very least cut down to only mention the basis behind the segment. Thoughts? TVtonightOKC (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Charlie Chan
I'd like to see some Charlie Chan movies on TCM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.85.235 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"TCM Remembers"
Is this morass of names encyclopedic? I posit that WP:ISNOT, specifically WP:IINFO, should be applied. The section is simply a listing of names and certainly does not summarize info. With this in mind, I propose that we remove the section. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's the late hour, but I've read WP:IINFO twice now and I fail to see how it applies to these specific lists. I don't see an issue with listing the names in the TCM Remembers videos, but perhaps we could format them in some way that they won't look so cluttered. I think we could also add brief descriptions of what's going on in each video (setting, theme, etc.), so that it's not just a listing of names. As for your proposal of removing the entire TCM Remembers section (if that is what you're proposing), that gets a big "nay" from me. TCM Remembers has been a proud annual tradition for TCM since 1998 and worthy of its own section. --ThylekShran (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Speedy close Nominator wants to move it to the abbreviation, yet says 'not commonly referred to by its abbreviation', so nomination is too confusing to take seriously; at that the Turner Classic Movies name is still well-used and hasn't become orphaned branding like AMC, A&E or TLC's decommissioned full names and both the TCM and Turner Classic Movies brands are still well-used in all media. Finally, Turner Classic Movies is a clear destination and adding the (TV network) suffix to the abbreviation is a solution without a problem. Non-admin-closure. 03:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Turner Classic Movies → TCM (TV network) – Not commonly referred to by its abbreviation. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:8C56:D3CA:D8B1:C3B8 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Untitled
I cannot believe that TCM is not offering a tribute to perhaps the top female box office star, Betty Grable, on what would have been her 100th birthday on 12/18/16.

Even General Eisenhower credited her pinup with helping to win WWII. He said it exemplified everything that the troops were fighting to come home to.

Let's have a special tribute to Betty....please.

Goodfela 15:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Goodfela (talk)

Requested move 1 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Turner Classic Movies → TCM – This is basically a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC repeat of the aborted RM from November 10, 2015, as seen above. In the same manner as American Movie Classics has been rebranded as AMC (TV channel), Turner Classic Movies has been rebranded as TCM [with the original name, Turner Classic Movies, indicated in smaller fonts on TCM's website, but not on the TV channel]. A concurrent RM (Talk:TCM) is aiming to position TCM as the primary topic of the TCM disambiguation page. If the primary topic proposal is not accepted, there may still be consensus here for the main title header to appear in the form analogous to AMC --- TCM (TV channel). &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just because the full name has become smaller-typed doesn't mean we should move this at all. It's not becoming AT&T Classic Movies because of the Time Warner AT&T merger. It's beyond tied to Turner. Unlike AMC they still show classic films and that's it. This move request seems to be done for want of something to do.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are far too many meanings of TCM and none of them are truly a primary topic. I might be happy with TCM (TV channel) if there's support for it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. All are most of the TV channels or networks have a secondary branding usually of its initials to make a smaller logo to put up as a bug on screen. In AMC's case, they did move away from just showing classic movies, thus a need to rebrand. Which isn't the case here. Nor does owner Turner Broadcasting considered this a name change per its pressroom (for example). Plus given that there isn't a true primary topic for TCM, even if TCM is the common name, Turner Classic Movies as its legal name (see copyright at bottom of its website) is the most acceptable disambiguation. Spshu (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see Turner Classic Movies being the PRIMARYTOPIC for the abbreviation "TCM". Also per Naming conventions (broadcasting): "Use of the longer business name is appropriate when disambiguation is needed (e.g. The Sports Network linked from TSN disambig page)". Its an example which is directly on point. -- Netoholic @ 10:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.