Spot on on your comments about Drew, finance! She does not strike me as a person with deep knowledge or LOVE for classic films. Hardly ever any insighful comment. Last Saturday she even said she did not like Summertime much ...then why do you add it as an essential??? Robert Osborne is always helping her along the way with some insighful comments. I'm not an Alec Baldwin fan, but you could tell he was passionate.

I don't drink beer or eat chips, so all I have to do is to listen to her and get annoyed.

DISLIKE!

(I have a Barrymoratorium going in my house. If there's a film that I've not yet seen and I want to watch "The Essentials," I tune in five minutes in so I can avoid her.)

I have to add myself to the list that doesn't enjoy Drew as host. She's not particularly articulate, nor do I think she really adds anything. I'm not a huge fan of Baldwin, but he was knowledgeable and passionate about the movies. Barrymore is just such a strange choice. That's not saying I haven't enjoyed TCM's 'odd choices' in hosts before. One of my favorite features of the channel was when Rob Zombie hosted The Underground movies. He was extremely intelligent and you could get a real sense he truly enjoyed the movies that were being presented. With Barrymore it always seems like she is just trying too hard. ....ie fake. McGowan was awful too. I suppose I understand the channel's desire to appeal to a younger audience, but I don't feel Barrymore nor McGowan brought anything to the table.

fi, I have it on good authority that Drew Barrymore's favourite movie is The Apartment. Also that she's a big fan of the Phillies. And she listens to 70s soul and 80s "new wave" all the time.

Now what do you have to say about her?

<Drew is a worse co-host than Rose McGowan, and that's saying a lot, because Rose was absolutely horrible.>

I remember hoping that Rose would bring along her squeeze, Marilyn Manson. He can be quite articulate.

LOL. See what I'm missing?

hlywdkjk

Of course I was being facetious in my last post (albeit with a poker face, sans smiley face ), in all except the part about finance having a secret (well, not so secret anymore), crush on Drew.

I think my previous posts in this thread and elsewhere make it quite clear where I stand on Drew's sincerity.
I went along with Finances "devil's advocate" routine to hopefully illustrate how foolish (in my opinion)his (and some other posters) rationale can be along this line if carried to extreme.

I quite agree with you that it is pure non-sense to project that Drew or practically, any guest host (likewise anyone associated with TCM or these boards) would "feign" their enthusiasm for classic films or TCM.

Likewise if someone said they don't like something or another and can rationally back-up their reasoning why, then they are probably being genuine as well.

While some persons are no doubt addicted to bulletin boards (here and elsewhere) that doesn't negate them as being a sincere fan of classic film, or TCM, or whatever else they partake in religiously.
But, I am not sure where the cut-off mark is that determines a "genuine classic film fan of long standing"?
Drew may have"officially" become a part of the TCM "family" at the 2010 Classic Film Festival when she enthusiastically agreed to introduce the screening of NIGHT FLIGHT, but that's not to say that she hadn't been watching the channel and studying film through other venues for many years prior to that event.
Many of the first time posters here have been enthusiastically watching TCM since its inception and sharing the channel with their friends. Some loyal TCM fans may never post on these boards, for a variety of reasons.
Like wise a "new" guest host doesn't equate to a new fan of TCM or of classic film..., quite the contrary.
Some extremely prolific posters here have only been "registered" members for a relatively brief time, Does that make them any less a TCM fan or classic film lover than someone who registered several years prior? Likewise, do we/should we measure the "genuineness" by the quantity of posts a member has made?

We don't yet possess the ability to look into each others TV rooms and see what it is each of us watches in our precious "free" time. So how are we to quantify whether someone is truly a "recent" addition to the "party" and "just sampling the program," vs someone who is a truly dedicated fan? How do we qualify what a "genuine" classic film fan is? What does it mean to be a TCM fan?
Since, on these boards anyway, we haven't been able to achieve a general consensus as to what exactly qualifies as a "classic" film, let alone what an "essential" film is,...
I'm confident that we likewise have many divergent opinions as to what exactly defines a "genuine classic film fan" and where the cut-off is/or should be, that differentiates between an implied "steadfast" long standing one, vs an implied "flighty" short standing one.

Surely one can be a "genuine classic film fan" and still have other interests as well?
Some of us may have TCM as our primary channel and watch it 90+ percent of our viewing time, but may also watch some other channels on other occassions, be it PBS or whatever.... Are there not other sources (albeit perhaps not as good or readily available 24/7/365, as TCM) for "classic" film viewing? Does that make us any less genuine than another classic film fan.
Some of us are actually employed in the film industry, should that make those of us any more "genuine" a classic film fan than another?

Some of us may also read, perhaps "classic" books, perhaps some of those same books that have been so famously adapted to film. Does that make us more or less than someone who doesn't or who perhaps can't read???

Some of us are scholastic students of classic film, others of us are self taught....
Some of us have been at it longer than others of us and have the benefit of being "seniors" either didactically, or experientially, ... others of us are new to the game but no less dedicated to the subject.

In my humble and "genuine" opinion, I view the "classic" film family of viewers as I do parts of the body... we are not all hands or feet, ears or eyes,... but together we make a whole. Some of us are old exfoliating, keratinized epithelium, and others of us new emerging dermis... We, each of us, contribute to the whole in some unique way that another part of the body cannot quite do as well, and we would be less than we are without the most humble small toe among us....
Granted we may be "blessed" with a few extra rectums, that most other organisms do not possess, but perhaps they serve the positive purpose of keeping the brain alittle clearer and less "foggy," than it might be otherwise?