I’m sorry I tried to alert people to a rare opportunity to see a great movie. Good thing you had enough time on your hands to set the record straight.
I can’t fathom your argumentative tone. You say you’ve seen it “several” times. How many times is “several”? over how many years? And why the hell would I even believe you?
How does all your OCD factchecking disprove the fact that over 9 years of my trying hard to see this movie, I’ve come across it projected once; I’ve happened upon *one *bootleg; and in the 7 years I’ve had TCM, it has *never *been shown?
How does that make me a liar that you need to show up with your “10 times in 10 years across the US” refutation of my egregious exaggeration? Why are you so invested in trying to spin my characterization of this movie as hard to track down as an exaggeration? And seriously, why is it so important to you to show me up as exaggerating that you would make the bizarre attempt to characterize 10 showings in 10 years, from LA to NY, as not a hard film to see? What kind of unfathomably hostile impulse are you driven by to put the effort you have into such a bizarre hijack?
The *inarguable *fact is that this showing on TCM is an extremely rare opportunity for anyone who wants to see this movie, to see it. I.N.A.R.G.U.A.B.L.E. Unless you want to argue that travelling to NY or LA every 3 or 4 years is just as easy as checking a box at netflix.com.
Why on earth would you focus so obsessively, and hijackily, on the “rare opportunity” part of the OP, at the expense of the actual subject, the movie itself?
I’ve had an awful lot of Dopers argue with me simply for the sake of arguing; I initiate very few posts in CS anymore because invariably someone decides the cool kids will invite them to their table if they pick a fight with lissener. But this is the single most bewildering such case I have yet experienced.
Thanks, Walloon, for making CS seem just as inhospitable as any other forum at the Dope; for proving to me that no matter what the subject, no matter how generous my impulse in raising it, someone will see the name “lissener” and come in and pee on it.
I agree. He’s not my favorite director by a LONG shot. But Ace in the Hole is very uncharacteristic; very dark, very cynical. It’s my favorite Wilder. Even so, it doesn’t crack my personal top 50 list. Nonetheless, it’s worth seeing, if only to ponder why it’s never been available.
As soon as my edit window had closed, I realized I shouldn’t oughta had included those last two paragraphs; that this thread was likely to become a referendum on my paranoia, rather than on Walloon’s thread pissing. But that made me laugh, Rig.
I’m not sure what issues you two have, but I didn’t see “liar” as the crux of his point. It looked more like he was showing how it has been shown in contrast to you not saying it has been shown. But again, you two might have something else going on.
He did prove your point of it being so rare though. In a country of 300 million people it has been shown, on average, once a year for a decade. Now, The Movie Channel has some headway into American homes, but if we’re talking about screenings in select cities (30% in NYC?), it still qualifies as an extraordinarily difficult film to see.
And based on the fare offered up from The Movie Channel, I’d say it’s more likely someone has access to watching a rerun of Sanford and Son than seeing this flick on TMC.
Oh, and thanks for the late notice. I missed it you dick. Now how the fuck will I see it.
I don’t have a dog in the “lissener against the world” fight, not paying attention to board wars that much, so I’d like to give an objective comment. I opened the thread to see what the event was, and I was surprised to see it called so rare. I, as a longtime cable and satellite customer, have seen this movie many times over the past ten years. I don’t have a list of movies I’ve been obsessively searching for, but I love old movies, and I frequently watch the channels that show them. I’m not trying to get you pissed off, lissener, since I frequently agree with your insights and opinions. I just thought you should know that pointing out the fact that this has been broadcast as much as it has isn’t necessarily a hostile act.
Of course, if you and Walloon have a history I don’t know about, then by all means, “Fuck you” away, and sorry for the hijack.
Absolutely not, but Walloon did it in a pretty hostile way, I thought. Making post after post after post baldly contradicting someone without stating your actual point is pretty dickish. If he’d made his last post in the thread his first, and not tried to come across as a gainsaying know-it-all, there wouldn’t have been a problem.
True, but there are times when correcting facts is important to the discussion, and times when all you’re doing is preening in front of an audience.
This particular line “The Movie Channel also showed Ace in Hole in July 1999. It’s getting less monumentaly rare every minute.” is just being a dick about it. Oh boy, it was shown 8 years ago, on a pay movie channel, and six whole times in art houses on the coasts since then… that thing is as overplayed as Stairway to Heaven.
If lissener was making some assertation that this was the hardest to find good movie out there, then I can see refuting that idea with facts. This was an informational post, discussing a rare opportunity to see a good movie. Unless lissener made some gross error in thinking it was rare (he didn’t) there’s no reason to try and correct him.
Walloon’s last post was wonderfully informative, throw in a “it’s been shown a few times on cable before 2000, and a few times in art houses after 2000” and everyone is happy.
I thought that Walloon was proving your point, that it’s not shown regularly to a national audience, especially when he was bringing up local screenings. Given that the relevant series of posts occurred within a one-hour period, it’s pretty obvious that he was doing this research while at his computer.
I would’ve thanked the man profusely and asked him about some of my other “must see unseen” movies rather than calling him an ass, but that’s just me I guess.
Regardless, thanks again for the heads-up, Lissener.
Hmm. I thought I made it pretty clear that I did NOT know why it hadn’t been available; that all my musings about conspiracy were speculative. And my “telling” reply? seems like more acknowledgment that I had been speculating. I don’t see where anyone was full of shit on this count, hawthorne.
and Walloon answered that yes they have twice already You start getting pissy and say “thanks for confirming my point”, despite that he had just refuted your point. In response to that, Walloon mentioned a whole bunch of other places it showed up, thereby disproving your ad hoc rebuttal of his first point.
And we’re off to the Pit! Don’t you DARE point out how wrong lissener is!!
Walloon properly put your eye-rolling conspiracy crap in it’s place after you started this Pit thread.
Well, I like movies as much as lissener does, and Billy Wilder more, and I’d never managed to see it at all. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, it certainly counts as being worth a thread noting its broadcast. Walloon seemed to be implying otherwise, which is clearly incorrect.
His tone was also obviously intended to bait lissener, so none of this “oh, lissener’s bitchin’ again” bullshit. Pitting is the appropriate response to the kind of people who like to poke sticks at caged bears.