Talk:AMC (TV channel)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about AMC (TV channel). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Change

Changed "classics as Phantom of the Opera" to "classics SUCH as..." Don't shoot me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Contact info?

Also, what the heck is their phone number? I used to have their New York state phone number but it doesn't work anymore. If anybody has their number, they should post it in the wikipedia entry. --Ragemanchoo 09:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need their phone number? Is it common for Wikipedia articles to have phone numbers? Vorenus 17:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice if the article had their number. Plus any listings showing their number are outdated, I've noticed. (They've tended to try and hide their phone number in the past.) --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Their # is utterly irrelevent to both the AMC article, and the discussion board!72.80.0.182 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Having worked at a TV station/channel in the past (I'm at an Internet media company now), calling the TV station/channel is the dumbest thing you can do. I was a traffic manager and programmer, and the only person I gave a shit about was the station manager, as he/she signed my paycheck. The manager never took a call from the public, and there's not way, unless you knew my personal extension, could you get to my office's phone to talk to me. If you showed up to the station, we damned you to the lobby.

So, why in the world do you need AMC's phone number? Why do you want to include it in the article? To bother some traffic manager or station manager who is lucky to have a fun job like working at AMC? Look, I'm not happy that AMC went from a TCM-like station (I know, I know, TCM is based on AMC, but still . . .) to a disorganized mess (my opinion), but calling them seems rude and on the verge of criminal harassment (at least, under NV, AZ, and CA laws). Apple8800 (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: the addition of Disney information

The latest additions at the bottom of the AMC (TV network) page appear to be an attempt to build a list of Disney programming information. The list, however, already exists at List of Disney Channel original series and related categories. Moving the text from the body of the aMC article to this Talk page for now. Ahasuerus 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

TV

Disney Channel Shows: W.I.T.C.H. (TV series)|The Suite Life of Zack and Cody|Sister, Sister (TV series)

Channels: Fox Family|ABC Family|Family Channel|Disney Channel

Movies:Zathura (film)

Disney Channel Original Movie Actors: Zac Efron|Vanessa Anne Hudgens

On behalf of all people who stumble upon this Discussion on AMC: "Huh?" Apple8800 (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Worst Channel to Watch Movies On

Okay, back in September '09, a friend of mine found out that Ghostbusters I & II would be airing (for the 1,000,000th time in a year) on AMC. He comes over and the first movie starts at 4 PM PDT. I start timing the movie and commercial breaks. The movie didn't end, and I'm not kidding, though I wish I were, until 8 PM PDT.

The average movie segment length is 2 mins. 30 sec. while the average commercial is 6 minutes for this particular airing.

So, on my own, I DVR'd The Concorde: Airport '79. Same deal. This is a short movie, too, and very action-packed. Well, with AMC showing it, to stretch the movie out to 3 hours, the average movie segment was 1:45, while the average commercial was 5 minutes.

AMC went from a TCM competitor to the ALWAYS MANAGING COMMERCIALS network. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

PAID PROGRAMMING WHO WATCHES IT ANYWAY?

I RECENTLY WENT TO MY CONTROLLER TO SEE WHAT WAS ON AMC AND GUESS WHAT I FOUND, THE FIRST FOUR (4) HOURS OF THE DAY HAVE BENN DEDICATED TO THE USELESSNESS OF EVEN MORE NON-WATCHED COMMERCIALS EVERYTIME I SEE A COMMERCIAL COME ON THE FIRST THING I DO IS FLIP THE CHANNEL. NOW I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH FOUR (4) USELESS HOURS OF "PAID PROGRAMMING", WHO COMES UP WITH THESE "BRILLIANT" IDEAS ANYHOW? THANKS FOR FOUR (4) LESS HOURS OF PROGRAMS WE COULD HAVE WATCHED. IF THE ADVERTISERS REALLY THINK ANYONE WATCHES THIS "CRAP" THEY ARE ONLY KIDDING THEMSELVES, NOT THE PUBLIC!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.199.6 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, I'm as angry about it as you are. What really makes me mad is, unlike free OTA channels, I'm paying for this channel. We all are. Even if the channel doesn't want to be like the old days in format, there's over a 10,000 movies this channel can run. If the channel isn't making any money on the overnights, what's wrong with getting some public domain movies from archive.org and running those, with commercials, on the overnights? Again, it's like this: Free OTA networks (ABC, FOX, NBC, CBS, The CW, MNTV, Ion) complain there's no ratings, as do local free OTA channels, so they blame cable or piracy. Cable, though, complains about the same thing, then blames piracy. (I don't know anybody pirating sports events, but okay, whatever.) Network, local, and cable channels then claim they can't make any money because nobody's watching. Well, let's see...people will watching AMC, say, if the movies are cut to two hours and commercials are limited to a total of twenty minutes in the those two hours, spread out evenly. For TNT, enough with the Law & Order reruns. For local TV, don't air an infomercial during the daytime ever, and bring back afternoon cartoons. For most other cable channels, ditch the reality TV. A&E should be arts and entertainment, not hoarders and rehabbers, or Dog. Spike should be all kinds of stuff, instead of 59 hours of CSI every day. USA should look at their glory days with how they had Weird Science and Cartoon Express. Anyways, I can go on and on. So, for the article, I think that somebody ought to address the four-hour block of informercials. I find it as a negative, as does the user who posted that above me, but I guess until somebody writes an article about it at a "reliable" source, it will go uncited. Coffee5binky (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

repetition

i think you wore out forrest cump a whole week. you ran me off.had enough of amc.does amc stand for after many copies? please i gave you up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.103.81 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with ya man!....AMC is a complete waste of time...they run the same movies for a month, every FRIGGIN DAY!!! Hey AMC...how does it feel to be thought of as the WORST television station on the air???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.182.54 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette

Let's all remember that the Talk Page is used to discuss how to improve the AMC article, not complain about what they do or don't air, how you're unhappy with them or how they should run their company. They changed formats for a reason and it's obviously working for them even if you don't watch it. And honestly, no one at AMC probably looks at their entry on Wikipedia and if they do, they don't care how we would run their network. Bhall87 ^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 22:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming you're right nor wrong. However, I noticed AMC's commercials, as of the date I'm adding this, have gotten less. Perhaps somebody there may read the page. It's silly to claim either way. Still, a 90 minute movie will be slightly over three hours with them. Sierraoffline444 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Too glossy

AMC censors everything, and over half their commercials after 10pm are penis-related. This wikipedia entry is waaaay too glossy. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone might do some research and put some info in about AMC's previous work with supporting film restoration. I believe that had a hand in funding a restoration of A Hard Day's Night. Also, they created some controversy in the 1990s for showing Apocalypse Now unedited as part of a film restoration event; I believe it was the first R-rated film shown unedited on basic cable. (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.24.119 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Made a start at a writeup of the on-air Film Preservation Festival under the "1990s" subhead, but I drew a blank as to when the festivals actually ended. The latest mentions I've seen are for the tenth anniversary, but of course that doesn't prove anything. And yes, they definitely did sponsor the restorations of A Hard Day's Night and Help that were standard until just recently. I might dig into that later unless someone else wants to have a bash at it.--Enwilson (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Prior to its switch to advertising support, AMC was one of the great cable channels. It showed everything, from utter garbage to classics, a gold mine for people who love movies. I've seen The Scarlet Empress exactly once, and it was on AMC. The variety and depth of AMC's offerings should be emphasized in the article. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for a few years there, AMC was the best bargain on cable TV. True, it din't show "recent" films, but that wasn't a drawback to many of us. They did have a wide range of films up to about 1970, uncut and uninterrupted. Once the commercials came in, the drop in quality was stunningly sudden: it was just like USA and TBS and all the others. Watching a movie on any of these channels is just like seeing a very long trailer. If you sense there's a good film lurking behind the incessant advertisements (some superimposed even while it's playing!) and the censorship, you may seek out a home video copy to see the film as it was intended. That's their only remaining value. WHPratt (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye, AMC; Goodbye, IFC; Goodbye, WEtv

AT&T U-verse is about to say goodbye to AMC, Independent Film Channel and WE tv in less than two days unless it makes a deal with Rainbow Media...which is not going to be very easy!! AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

AT&T U-verse still carries AMC, Independent Film Channel and WE tv, despite the ongoing dispute between AT&T and Rainbow Media.

AT&T U-verse still carries AMC, Independent Film Channel and WE tv, despite the ongoing dispute between AT&T and Rainbow Media. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So AT&T and Rainbow Media have finally reached an agreement. Hooray!!

I'm happy to report that AT&T and Rainbow Media have reached an agreement to keep AMC, Independent Film Channel and WE tv on AT&T U-verse. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Censorship

No criticism section? I am watching "The Godfather" on AMC right now and the first thing I noticed is the disclaimer at the beginning that some "content has been edited." I wonder how many millions of people roll their eyes every time a "shit" is replaced by "shucks." This is cable, and I just can't believe someone has the right to edit this work of art by voicing over language someone has deemed "offensive." Worse, I have to wonder what other content they have censored from the original besides language.

If anyone can find a reliable source, censorship of movies would seem to belong in a criticism section along with the excessive commercials as noted above. 76.105.136.105 (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The closest source I can think of is the Basic Instinct DVD. A particular edition has a featurette about TV editing. Another source could be Bio's recent Saturday Night Live documentary, where the director and producer talk about TV editing and how they had to re-shoot scenes. What else? Oh, the Crank DVD has a silly audio track where all of the language is edited for "TV viewing", and I think Scarface's DVD has something on it. And an episode of Grounded for Life has the Finnerty Brothers make fun of Scarface on TV with a "forget you" mock.

I think if you're trying to get to AMC specifically using the "FCC OTA" guidelines for the movies, good luck. Your only source would be a pre-1998 internal memo when Bob Dorian ran the place. That's about all I can say about it from off the top of my head. If anybody else can help you, I hope they post here and guide you to the proper articles or sources. Apple8800 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Programming

The programming section is getting a bit long, I suggest we created a seperate article much like List of original programs broadcast by TNT, List of Syfy programs and List of programs broadcast by USA Network. Thoughts? Pat (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

oppose The article is not "long". There are less than a dozen programs. It was even more compact before you split the programs into three tables for an unstated reason. It's pretty silly to list "Future" programs in the table format, as almost nothing is known for sure, especially if they will be produced at all. So I have reverted that. I think it simpler just to list shows in chronological order, whether they continue in production or not. Then there is no need to move a program from "future" to "current" to past", or to argue about which is appropriate when a show is on hiatus and and may or may not return, as has happened for long periods with AMC shows (e.g., Mad Men). PS, you also noted "AMC passed on 4th estate, Man with the golden ears and voyage": Please back up such edits with a source. Barsoomian (talk)

The Upcoming shows i had listed in table format have all been given the greenlight therefore we know they WILL be produced so I'm not sure what your problem is there. Furthermore it is standard to split it up in that manner as current, past and future (just look at any other list of programming list for the other cablers) and it appears you decided about a month ago and changed it to your continuos list because you preferred thereby disregarding the standard with your preffered chronological list. And the three shows in development I removed were passed on by AMC as you can see here [1] only The Voyage is being carried over into the next development cycle. also it raises the question as to whether we should be listing the shows which are in development, as they never recived even pilot orders and werent even remotely close to being upcoming series (which is what the header is titled as) Pat (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I explained why I think simple chronological order makes sense, what advantage is your system? How would you know which table to find, say "Mad Men" a few months ago when the future was uncertain? Simpler just to ignore the question and list by something that is definite and unchanging: the starting date, that also adds to historical context. Other details are easy to update, no need to move programs from one table to another. Just add new ones as they air. If a show is renewed or cancelled, just change the "Status" box. And it wasn't my idea to make a single table, it was like that until April this year when someone split it, a few months later I came by, noticed what a mess the page was and reverted to the original format and cleaned it up. Maybe if there were 50 shows you might look for splitting, but there are just 11 now. Otherwise, if you have information about upcoming shows, why not write a section about them, not just add or delete names. If you don't want to do that, at least use the edit comment to explain where the information comes from. That YOU know which shows have been greenlit and which haven't isn't any help to anyone else if you don't document it. I've been concentrating on the shows that have actually aired. PS: I checked the link and updated the upcoming section. [User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My concern was about readability and people who come looking for details of Current shows might find it hard to do so which is the same reason i structure the template in the manner i did. Thanks for updating the upcoming series section, but i would not I only mentioned that the 3 scripted shows were passed on by AMC, the two reality shows were picked up [2]. I'll edit it when i get a chance Pat (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add (sourced) information about upcoming shows, I think better as text than in a table though until it's really solid. I don't follow that kind of news much myself. Since Hell on Wheels has a launch date I thought it safe enough to formalise it. And the table can be modified to make it more clear which shows are current. Basically, just add another column instead of splitting the table. I think we could delete Golden Globes columns to make room, Emmies are enough. Also; I edited the AMC navbox. If you really want to split off current shows as a separate line, go ahead and revert that. But it really is unnecessary to have "original programming" as a group when ALL of the programs are in that group. As for "people who come looking for details of Current shows": this is an article about AMC, in general, not particular shows, and putting the shows in chronological order supports the article, illustrating the way the network has evolved. Barsoomian (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok ive added the information which is sourced Pat (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Separate page needed for programming

If you browse around Wikipedia, you will find very few television channels that do not have a separate page for their programming and I see no reason why AMC should be an exception. The arguments listed above for why the programming should stay on the main page seemed to hold water a year ago when this was discussed, but since then AMC has greenlit many new projects and the main page is quickly becoming cluttered. Not to mention inaccurate, seeing as how a few of the future programs now listed on the main page have been scrapped, while other projects have gotten the green light.

So can anybody give a compelling reason why the programming section should not be replaced with a brief overview of AMC's programming and how it has changed over time and a link directing readers to the main article, which is List of programs broadcast by AMC? That's the way it's done on every other article I've seen here, whether it be network channels like NBC, AMC's cable competitors like History (TV channel) and FX (TV channel), channels showing mostly reruns such as Chiller (TV channel), channels marketed for children such as Nickelodeon, or even music channels like Great American Country and 24-hour news networks such as the Fox News Channel. So I think it's time to bring AMC up to date with the rest of Wikipedia. BillyJack193 (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The programs are referenced in the prose above. It is inconvenient to have the programs list on another page, and unnecessary. Note: WP:SIZERULE "< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division". The article is currently 26,605 bytes. The programing table is about 5 kB. There is a long way to go before the page is "cluttered" to the extent that a split is necessary.

Also, the formatting of the existing table is compact, clear and sortable by several critera. The article you (re)created is a collection of simple lists and poorly formatted. What reason is there to destroy the unity of this article and replace it with that? As for other articles, I refer you to WP:WAX. You need to cite an actual policy, not just "because X does it". Barsoomian (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the article remains it's inaccuracy, particularly in the future programming section. The Inside the DHS show is dead, Thunderstruck is unlikely to happen, etc. The future programming I listed on List of programs broadcast by AMC is accurate and current. In fact, two of them (Freakshow and Immortalized) already have a premiere date of Valentine's Day 2013. Article is also missing a show called The Movie Masters.BillyJack193 (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I updated them (though didn't remove the "dead" projects, if you have reference, you can do so). You could have done that, it doesn't require a new page. I never objected to corrections and updates, though if you do please try to follow the existing style if you can. I don't subscribe to the channel, my personal interest is their recent dramas. Barsoomian (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So, can we finally move the section to a separate page? It makes absolutely no sense that this is still on the main page and it was basically only one user who was complaining about this.DerZensor (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the WP:Sizerule argument is still in effect. Encmetalhead (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I love your shows that show the story notes. I am a avid movie watcher and notice the difference in takes. People don't like to watch shows with me as I point out the bad editing. I was watching a show tonight and in your story notes you did actually what I do, sooooooooooooooo thank you. I like that.

Sleek_meek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleek meek (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight to advertorial content

The Future programming section gives WP:UNDUE weight to items that have not happened by presenting them in equal value to actual programming content. In addition, the presentation of events that have not yet occurred without any context such as this list provides only promotional value with no encyclopedic value, in violation of WP:NOTADVERT / WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation style

I did a bit of minor clean up of some of the citation templates, but much more is needed. Multiple citations styles are being used so the formating is inconsistent. I have no problems cleaning things up, but just want to ask a few questions first.

Manually added citations and citation templates are both being used. It looks like the manually added ones (the ones not using template) are the older of the two so per WP:CITEVAR that should be the style used. However, many of the more recently added ones use the citation template. Both ways can be formatted to appear the same to the reader, but citation templates are a little easier to use and help keep the formatting consistent in my opinion. Some people don't like using the templates, however, so I'm just asking to see if there's a preference. Regardless of style used, some of the citations are badly format with parameters incorrectly placed and links incorrectly named added. This stuff should be cleaned up whichever style is used per WP:CITEHOW.
Date format. A consistent date format for publication dates, etc. should try to be used per WP:DATEUNIFY. Right now, a mix of all numerical, US, and UK formats are being used. Again it makes no difference which is used as long as it's consistent. Per MOS:DATETIES, however, it might be best to stick with either the US or all numerical. Cleanup wise the US format seems to be the one predominately used, so using this will mean a bit less clean up.

Not sure if any of the above has been previously determined through consensus. If not, then maybe that can be done now so as to try and keep the citation formating consistent from here on out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on AMC (TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AMC (TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417043745/http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/03/networkacronyms.ap/ to http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/03/networkacronyms.ap/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

How about "cable" channels ?

The Infobox lists all sorts of satellite and internet channels.

How come no cable channels are listed?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There's BBC America, IFC, Sundance TV and We TV, which are cable channels. I don't understand your question. --Bankster (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)