Wonderful. $250 a month for cable and TMC is the only package I don't have. :thumbsdown:

I have Comcast in Chicago and until one of the recent (a year or so ago, I want to say) rounds of upgrades they carried the sd TCM but not TCMHD.

Talk about maddening...

Enjoy Beta! Nice to see you...haven't seen much of you lately...

Bah, I just checked. No SD for me.

TMC always has a movie playing that I want to watch when I'm bored and flipping around but I know once I give in and finally get the channels they'll stop playing them.

U-Verse here in Detroit has regular TCM but not TCMHD ....and I bought the HD package too :angry:

http://www.corigemanimals.com/images...nyMarshall.jpg

:yikes:

:thumbsup:

+1 !!!

Really, this thread has been going incredibly far with the Lena Dunham argument :deadhorse:. I remember a time when we actually discussed more things other than Dunham or Tiny Furniture. If everyone hates the film/her so much, I suggest we all forget about it. After all, the first step for something to vanish is by forgetting ;).

Someone trolled it back after a week? They are late and now no one cares.

IMO, a flawed assumption on several levels BG:

1. Many of us boomers have not yet retired - though gawd knows we keep trying - because our companies won't let us. An increasing number of firms will jump through enormous hoops and strike sweetheart deals just to keep older workers on staff. Why? According to the HR reps I've talked to (while practically begging them to put me out to pasture), generationally we have a better overall work ethic...are more multi-faceted in our experience...typically are more balanced and focused, having already worked through our personal 'shite'...and can communicate via real honest to goodness sentences, not just 142 character leet-speak tweets.

2. Companies actively retain boomers because they end up being less costly in the long run. When HR crunches the numbers each year, as a demographic, we tend to be more dependable...and loyal...so companies are more likely to recoup their hiring 'investment'. Typically, we are more likely to stay put and work through organizational issues instead of bolting for the door at the sight of any competitor waving a fatter paycheque with more indulgent perqs. Generationally (and generally) speaking we are less "fickle".

3. Many companies have also been burned too many times hiring out of the gate from the pool of young 'entitleds', often more interested in cultivating the perfect Zen work experience than delivering certifiable results. The concept of cost vs. benefit? Almost alien. Wants? Continually reframed as "needs". Getting the job done, and done right? Oh, "it's just another iteration". I could go on, but I see this self-absorbed BS play out every day. Weirdly, I get along wonderfully with all age groups, which is another reason why many companies are anxious to retain boomers; we tend to be less "tribal", at least internally, reserving most of those primitive instincts for the larger success of our company vs. its competitors.

4. Finally, most of us boomers also 'paid our dues' in crappy entry level jobs...often serially. I'd actually go so far as to say that anyone worth a toot at any level of an organization or in their own business has at some point done precisely that. In my own case, that was several recessions ago...arguably tenfold worse then because we didn't have the benefit of wider personal and peer internetworking. And woe be to anyone who left their academic cocoon and returned to a small or medium sized town. It was the farm, the factory, the service sector, or nothing. Our guidance counsellors in those days painted just as rosy and unrealistic picture of our post-graduate prospects too.

Just sayin'...

It's this weekend, 2:00 AM EST Monday Morning, and it's in SD too. I have it set to record actually. It's on the Canadian channel too, and I only get TCM SD.

Speaking of TCM, it's only 4 more days before they kick off their 31 days of Oscar programming. :)

http://auntiefashion.files.wordpress...pg?w=582&h=436

I counter your yikes with this. :p She's a fantastic comedienne. :)

I like Ben Mankiewicz well enough I suppose but I'm really going to miss Robert Osborne when he eventually slip this mortal coil. Most Oscar month hype/celebrations leave me pretty cold (as do awards shows themselves) but I love their 31 Days of Oscar and he's one of the reasons.

It's definitely a fun month.

I find it kind of refreshing. No Wes Anderson bash in quite some time. :p

I've been watching all these sets in order, so I'm up to Ornamental Hairpin in the Shimizu set and Three Resurrected Drunkards in the Oshima set.
I've also got two to go in the silent Ozu set.
I've finished the three Teshigahara films and the five films in the Nikkatsu set.

Eh, not necessarily. I bashed him about one or two pages back ago.

If you're being serious I have to disagree and say that it's the complete opposite. I would hope that if Tiny Furniture ends up not selling very well that Criterion would consider the general input by it's customers through feedback on websites etc. (maybe then 100 pages of Lena Dunham argument will stand out better for them to find :))

Maybe Tiny Furniture just won't sell very well and they'll say "Let's try again. Maybe this one wasn't full of enough obnoxious rich brat culture" So then they release something even worse. I also think that a lot of people who consider Criterion's "base" as a bunch of art school students stuck in career limbo because they shot for an art degree in an economy where professional jobs are hard to get as it are forgetting that MOST of us are just movie nerds plain and simple. We want stuff that movie nerds want. We aren't part of this commercialized "hipster" crap that every entertainment corp. is cashing in on.

As a side thought, I think it's so pathetic that people will actually identify as a "hipster". Of course they'll never accept the word but they will accept the label. For example they have no problem living and advertising the cliches that mainstream society has already blatantly pointed out. Why do you think hippie culture died in the early 70's? Because everyone was putting the hippie persona in the spotlight through capitalism which is one of the things (they thought) they were against. I would imagine the same thing SHOULD go for the hipster art-school thing. They thought they were important and unique because of all the "inside" stuff that they were into but now that everyone knows about all that stuff and is laughing about it you would THINK that this faux-culture would die. However, and back to my main point, in this country we are so influenced by consumerism that these "trends" might never die as long as the corporations are still making money by convincing people that they are still a unique individualist even though 7/10 people their age are buying into what they're selling.

So to end my post I will say this. Keep quiet and expect more crap. These people running the show aren't in touch with the consumers. The feedback we put out there is the only way to voice our opinions. When it comes to things like movies, we have to use our consumer rights to even have access to the things we like because they hold the cards. Don't put up with crap like MPAA lobbying to pass "anti-piracy bills" which we know are just a way for Hollywood to tell us what we can and can't see. Don't put up with diminishing pro-consumer things such as public domain laws. Especially don't put up with them trying to tell you something that sucks is just as good as something that is a masterpiece. The wheels are in motion for an establisment of this consumer attitiude that we'll buy whatever they're selling as long as THEY say it's good. If you don't think this has anything to do with the current state of Hollywood and the film industry in general then you aren't thinking about it enough and we as consumers aren't voicing our opinions strong enough. Let's put an end to this crap and protect the sanctity of the art of film because modern consumerism is it's all powerful enemy.

Oh, and if a thread about the Criterion company on a message board about the film distribution industry isn't the place to air your grievances with them then tell me where we should do it because i'd like to know.

Well, I think you are probably reading a bit too much into my post. I sincerely never meant to actually "forgetting" everything, I just suggested to move on. It is truth that by voicing ones corcerns there is a probability Criterion (Or any other company by that matter) will change their attitude towards the customers but I don't really see how this discussion from the past days will change a thing for them. The main factor here, after all, is how many copies the film actually sells and I have not seen a single post "changing" their opinion towards the film. Some people will get it, some people won't but so far everyone who is talking about it right now is in the same side they started on. Also, there is a lot more people who don't discuss in this thread but will find the film likeable. I am not "disagreeing" with you, I just wish we could talk about something else apart from Dunham.

Ok, here's a movie that I care about and wish it were released on blu-ray AND represents a recent trend (politics) that criterion could cash in on that is actually a great movie.

Peter Watkins' Punishment Park

Just watched it for the second time the other day and was reminded of how realistic and ahead of it's time it actually is/was. It's my understanding that it was never released in the US but I really wish Criterion would pick this up as well as The War Game. With OWS resurrection looming over the horizon when the weather gets warmer and the fact that it's an election year I think releasing this film would give them that extra boost of special interest sales that they are obviously seeking with Tiny Furniture.

Anyone agree with this film's worthiness?

I'm only quoting what my MLIS profs said. Most students graduating aren't expecting management level jobs from the get-go, but the fact that the boomers are unable to retire (in many cases due to their RRSPs going down the tubes due to the recession), doesn't open up the entry positions. There's no upward mobility within an organisation because those at the top aren't moving on.

I think you are also making wide assumptions about the work ethics of the younger generation. How can they prove themselves in an entry level position, when that entry level position doesn't even open up, because the person currently occupying that position isn't allowed to move up to the next level because someone in a senior position hasn't retired? This is also applicable to those who do managed to get hired, and then bolt. Why stay in a job where there's no chance at mobility? I will admit that there are few people who are like that, but I know that it's the type of person, not the age of the person. I myself have worked with boomers who have the same poor work ethic you accuse all of the younger generation of having. So that self-absorbed BS works both ways.

The fact that companies retain boomers who want to retire is silly, and just compounds the problem. How can they expect to compete if they aren't willing to train anyone? You don't just walk into a job knowing everything.

Also, I'm pretty sure this generation you speak so disparagingly of was raised by Boomers. If you're complaining about the attitudes and work ethics, don't you think the boomer parents should have taught them better?

This, I had issues with Bob went on vacation for two months. I love listening to him talk about films, as he seems much more passionate about them than Ben. Ben may have the family connections, but Bob's the man. :D