Tikisoo
-
Posts
9,238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by Tikisoo
-
-
>I can't believe we live in a world now where people cannot be trusted to use common sense and discretion when it comes to conversing with others in a retail environment.
Finally comes the day when I disagree with you, MissW.
I am amazed at what "common sense" items are listed in most employee handbooks these days.
You actually have to STATE all employees wear closed footwear to work? You mean any employee would be STUPID enough to wear flip flops on the job?
Many jobs require employees to remove any piercings and completely cover tattoos while on the job. This is why you see the doopahead in a long sleeved turleneck in July.
Just recently, a 30 yr old I work with called merchandise "crap" right in front of a customer! Glad a manager didn't hear that! (but it IS crap)
So yes, management leaves nothing to the discretion of the employee and in some cases it truly helps kids grow up. A demotion at 21 because I had pink hair taught me that-thank goodness I never did anything permanent!
Another lesson on "meaningless conversation":
While working, mall visitors will come up to me all day and say, "What are you doing?" (sweating) or "Are you painting?" or "Are you an artist?"
I mentioned this to OfficerTiki because it drives me bonkers. He said, "People just want to make a connection....they don't know what to say" which of course made me feel like a jerk. So now I try to be a better citizen & nicer person.
PS MissW I loved your "bshite"
-
I recently watched a movie recorded from the last 31 Days (took me 4 months!) and recalled the format as organized by studio. I really liked that a lot because it showcased the different studio styles and stable of talent.
It'll be tough topping that one.
-
My first thought was "these are the real Essentials" too! Wow!
>so, it looks like it's an academic/influential/enterainment "story" as opposed to a popular/entertaining/renowned review.
Thankfully.
I just detest those "clipfest" walks down memory lane "docu-crap".
I really like the decade "chapter" descriptions and the films chosen to illustrate it. Thankfully, I've already seen most of the films but am thrilled to see a Wenders film new to me! Thanks SansFin about recommending DAISIES.
I'll recommend HAXAN (1922) if you like gothic film with historical aspects...good story sprinkled with truly bizarre visuals involving nuns, the devil & sex.
>Let it be said again: Anyone who thinks TCM is going downhill needs to go jump off a bridge RIGHT NOW.
Yes, Indeedy.
Thanks Liz for posting all of that!
-
We're ALL infuriated with this new found rudeness-especially in movie theaters which is supposed to be a sort of intimate experience. But people have brought their bad manners into every public space. I think we have completely lost our sense of community.
When did we forget as a society the importance of making those around us comfortable?
>helenbaby said on pg 1: I could even overlook it with the kids, ages 6 and 9. But their mom is in her early 40's--she should know better.
There's your answer-she DOESN'T know better. Manners need to be TAUGHT. You can't expect a 6 or 9 year old to know how to be nice unless they're taught by their parents (and sometimes schoolyard fights)
So many parents today were brought up as the center of the universe, they simply have lost the idea there's anyone else. Their kids learn the same lesson.
One of my jobs is to paint a carousel in a Mall Food Court. I'm amazed at the bad behaviour I see daily:
? Children running out of control while parents sit & text (hands in my paint!)
? Parents texting while holding 2 year old on carousel horse (enjoy the ride!)
? People who talk or eat with their mouth full (and texting!)
Seems to me youngsters are acting out just to get attention from their parents who are just too busy.
Many people do not know the protocol of elevator manners is to let all exit before boarding. Gender has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the tight confines.
I also work as a cashier, and I too dislike fake politeness. Yes, I have to acknowledge anyone walking in with a "hello". The real reason is to check if the person is carrying a bag, instrument or whatever for security reasons. I hate treating people like criminals before even interacting with them.
MY final salutation is "Thanks for shopping with us today" or something to that effect because I know if they didn't come in, I wouldn't have a paycheck.
Capuchin-do you have a snappy answer for the awful parting greetings:
"There you go" (no, there YOU go)
"Have a good one" (good what? Lunch? Drive home? Bowel movement?)
-
>Certainly seems like the same idear of mindless escapism. Although it's shifted from positive hope messages for negative destructive messages.
My statement was kind of jumped on with interpretations of "message" movies. OK, how about substituting "overall feeling" for "message" in the above sentence?
My intention was to compare the demographics of 30's movies to today's-
Today's popular movies are generally short on story while tall on mindless escapism.
They made mindless escapism movies in the past too. Just the overall feeling when you left the theater after watching a Shirley Temple or Astaire & Rogers was, "Don't let things get you down, it'll work out in the end"
When I leave the theater after seeing a modern movie, my overall feeling is negative, sadness and fear for the future. Not all of them, but many of them.
-
>I don't expect TCM to fulfill my move preferences 24/7
Apparently, others do. And how can that be done when everyone has individual preferences?
I suspect that after watching TCM awhile, you start seeing repeats of films you've already seen or even get your fill of a certain genre.
I used to have TCM on while working, and although I couldn't watch, could listen ALL DAY. Then I'd actively watch TCM at night.
There would be times I'd have to turn it off- most notably for silents or foreign films-you just CAN'T listen.
Funny, it never occurred to me to complain on an internet message forum about it.
I no longer have cable and can't watch TCM. Those who do are pretty lucky, so stop complaining.
-
Dargo, I'm becoming a fan of your photo punctuations....
I am pretty much bored by modern movies....even the better ones like The Artist or Hugo are still pretty meh.
Yes, they gear movies to a different audience - teens, especially boys because they're willing to pay $15 for an empty shoot-em-up gore fest and I'm not.
The popular films during the depression were musicals- Busby Berkeley, Astaire & Rogers, Shirley Temple, etc. They were geared towards a certain demographic. If you didn't like screwball comedies or silly musicals the choices were few & far between.
Certainly seems like the same idear of mindless escapism. Although it's shifted from positive hope messages for negative destructive messages.
-
>casablancalover said: There were some stations that would include shot of street sign at the corner after the establishing shot, then return to a close up of the the ambulance or fire truck, but you don't see this too much anymore.
Now they just show a googlemap picture to establish location.
>And Re the Gene Kelly scene in "SINGIN'"
Dargo, I started by explaining exactly what the Broadway Melody number was going to look like. I said "the ending is a big crane shot-watch the backround - and the camera is going to zoom in to Gene's face, so close you're going to see his tonsils!"
So as it zooms in I implore "slow down!" and then put my hands in front of my face and jokingly yell "Aaahhh" as if we're going to crash!
It got a big laugh out of her....I know, overly dramatic. But I'm just illustrating how you can be an active viewer instead of a passive watcher. (at least when we're in our own homes)
The kid hated musicals, but now she understands and enjoys their fantasy aspect. And now when she watches a film, she's much more aware they are not "real stories" but team efforts of many people putting their talents together for one vision-which is kind of what this thread is about.
It's just kind of funny that whenever she sees an extreme close up, in any movie, she'll repeat my silly performance. Laughter is a good teacher.
You want gifs? I'll give ya gifs:
-
I've always loved him- although he seems like a tough guy stereotype, his handsome looks, gravelly voice and big guy grace created the stereotype.
He wasn't a trained actor but he always brought truth to his roles just by being himself.
Amazing when you think THE MARRYING KIND was only his 5th movie-as the husband he carried half the film with wonderful Judy Holliday. He was great in that, totally believable.
Then his small bit in PAT & MIKE as the boxer-another great performance. Three films later, he's in a lead again as a soldier in BATTLE CRY and 2 films later a convict in WE'RE NO ANGELS.
He seems to be that big tough dope with a heart of gold, a sweetheart inside. Who doesn't love that? I'll watch just about any film with Aldo Ray in it, he just seems to elevate it.
-
Just to clarify something....
When I mention John Ford's "inappropriate choices of long/medium/close shots"
For example- when a charactor realizes they love another-it's a full body shot and when someone's drinking a beer at the bar-it's an intimate close facial shot. Opposite of what you'd expect to create mood. Maybe that's Ford's "genius", but I don't get it.
And just because my friends made documentaries, doesn't mean they didn't study (or work in) film in general.
I love that example Dargo. When I showed TikiKid Singin' In The Rain, I warned her about the extreme close up crane shot coming for the big ending in the Broadway Melody number. When it closed in on Gene's big toothy smile I screamed like PeeWeeHerman, "GAH!"
Now, no matter what we're seeing, if the camera gets too close we both do it in unison, which usually gets a chuckle from those around us.
I agree about the editor imput too. Remember how Hitchcock edited by only shooting one way, not letting anyone change his vision? I rarely pick up on bad edits but always notice the impact of great editing.
And you never really know if an actor disregards direction and gives the performance THEY want to give, especially with a Bette Davis or Marlon Brando egotist type.
Just goes to show you film is a team effort with many unsung contributers. In fact, if anyone stands out _too_ much, it can ruin the finished product. It needs to mesh, blend and flow as a whole.
-
Thank goodness....a real "general discussion"!
I am reminded of a time I was on a job with 2 young accomplished documentary filmmakers from Canada. We were in our hotel having pizza when "The Quiet Man" came on TCM, one of my favorites. Neither had seen it before so we all watched it together.
They were in stitches laughing over the director's choices of close/medium/long shots, something I've never noticed since I was so mesmerized by the fantastic performances of the actors.
Once the movie was over, they couldn't believe John Ford was such a beloved director, they thought he was the worst!
Since then I have tried very hard to watch John Ford films without noticing this major flaw in his direction, although some are more pronounced than others.
Doesn't ruin the film, just his films could have had even more impact if more conventional shots were chosen.
I also have seen talent misdirected by Ford, such as Ava Gardner in Mogambo. She can be great but in that movie seems cartoonish. I can only assume she was "directed" to act that way by Ford.
-
Blurbs
in Hot Topics
Gotta agree with Fred here again....it's most likely the "editor" which is a machine instead of a knowledgeable person.
No one buys books anymore, so to cut costs of publishing, real editors have been replaced by computer spellcheckers. Reading simple typos in published books make me so angry, I'm less likely to buy books these days. No savings when they lose customers!
The saddest part is most people just accept it and continue paying.
The worst offender so far was the Busby Berkeley book TCM hawked about 2 years ago. The typos filled a notebook page jotted down as found while reading.
Several "to/too/two" and "their/there/they're" simple mistakes found in a $45 soft cover book.
-
>the demise of American manners began with: Howdy Doody
...or TV
...or cel phones
As we all know the complaint of "youth out of hand" has been going on for hundreds of years. I'd guess one reason is because manners are a refinement of age and experience for most.
It takes a long time for a child to realize they are not the center of the universe and even longer to realize their role in society means respecting others.
I am extremely dismayed at what I call "The Infantilization of US Society" where youth is so glorified, adults simply refuse to grow up. You've all seen the results: grown men who live in their parent's basements at 40 because they spend every penny earned "gaming", the 30 year old wearing cartoon animal head hats & mitten sets and the constant nattering (like a teen) on their cel phones.
The constant nattering or texting in movie theaters (or restaurants/stores/etc) just illustrates the utter self centeredness many people accept as their "right". They simply do not understand or care about anyone else besides themselves, just like 5 years olds.
I've observed erratic outlandish behaviour by fully grown adults that just crave attention from the crowd, anyone....LOOK AT *ME!* Just like people driving-taking up two lanes, turning in front of others, speeding....GET OUT OF *MY* WAY! It's all about ME.
That's what I see as the social deterioration, the inability to comprehend "society". Cel phones and texting just reinforce that idea.
-
>Markfp suggested: their requests have been turned down numerous times simply because those stars didn't want to do it. Perhaps that's the case with Mamie.
I'd speculate that she'd jump at the chance to be on TCM, she's never been a modest wallflower type.
A friend does artwork for MVD and he's in contact with her pretty regularly.
From what he says, she's still a very outgoing lady and thrilled to know she has fans out there wanting to see her. Any TV appearance would be good promotion for her & her autobiography.
(there's a ton of contemporary photos on mamievandoren.com)
-
I'm a big Mamie Van Doren fan too and was thrilled to see the line up of her films being shown on TCM. Too bad they couldn't get the rights to show my favorite GIRLS TOWN though. It has the added bonus of Mel Torm? and super goofy story line.
At least they are showing UNTAMED YOUTH, another pretty good one.
While MVD is still around and kicking, I doubt she'd be a good guest host on TCM. From the comments on this thread you can see that many view her as a joke and she hasn't done much to dispel that image.
Cher, even with her knowledge and true love of classic film is scoffed by many TCM viewers....I could foresee MVD would get even less respect.
-
>This is the movies, man. They don't need no stinking air intake!
This question reminds me of all the movies where you see a car speeding away on a dirt road punctuated by a squealing tire sound as it rounds a corner.
-
>She feels that her father's original agreement with the studio did not take into account the re-marketing of his stories using newer technology.
No one can see into the future, and no one could have anticipated the technology.
Film makers were *businessmen,* and they wrote in "future royalties" because they know "properties" can change hands.
The artist/actor just wants to be paid for their work.
>She told me that if she squawks loud enough, Sony will probably agree to some sort of settlement to get rid of her.
Milking her descendant's talent for a piece of the pie. It's crazy claims like this made by people who weren't even present that keep films out of circulation for the public enjoyment.
>The families are trying to protect their relatives' legacies
How? By keeping them in litigation & out of public view?
>and to see if they can still benefit from the on-going lifespan of the original products, as long as the studio is still selling them.
Milking their descendant's talent for a piece of the pie.
I disagree about Jack Pierce too. He was an artist being paid to do his job. He did an outstanding job and it was up to him to negotiate his salary.
Descendants need to negotiate their own salary for their own talent, not ride their forebears coattails.
-
-
>The family feels frutstrated becuse the studio keeps making money from the image of both Lon Sr and Jr - probably a lot more money than either actor received when they were living.
And please explain to me WHY descendants are entitled to royalties if the actor never signed up for royalties? It certainly seems to me if Universal took the trouble to copyright the designs, they own the images, not the talent that portrayed the charactor.
For example-my grandfather designed fly fishing rods & flies. Some of his work may sell at auction or flea market for hundreds of dollars-well more than he sold it for 80 years ago. Why would I be entitled to a piece of his work that I do not own?
Now, if the family has protected the images they own of their forbears and that is used without permission (like a wedding photo) then suing makes sense.
Question for all you out there versed in Universal Horror facts: I recently watched MAD MONSTER PARTY that featured Universal Charactors. Although most designs were altered, they were called by name, no mistake. Were they ever sued by Universal?
-
I've been annoyed by this for years & even suggested a one line "definition" be added to each forum title to aid users to choose where to post.
Really, why someone cannot understand "Information, Please" is the correct forum to post "Need Film Title" or "ID This Film" instead of Hot Topics or General Discussions is beyond me.
It just reinforces my feeling that people have lost the ability to comprehend what they are reading or just ignore "rules" (or in this case, organization) because it's all about THEM*.
*Re typical complaint: TCM should show more (insert) because _*I*_ want it!!
-
>WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE IGNORING ME ?!
>my posts don't matter on here. so i'll no longer post anything here.
WAH!
BTW, if you won't bother to make complete sentences, use grammar or punctuation, you run the risk of others misunderstanding your posts.
Ever think maybe there's no response because no one knows the answer to your question?
-
Jean was a versatile actress...yes she made Edith Bunker a star, but in contrast look at her in BELLS ARE RINGING as "****-ansa-phone"-the first time I realized she didn't really talk like Edith!
Can you imagine talking in that voice day after day, year after year? Her portrayal was classic, a charactor everyone could understand and relate to. It takes a powerhouse actor to create such a memorable charactor, and she's done it several times.
(her sister Maureen was so similar, just more subdued-what a talented family!)
-
Well I for one thought Pat O'Brien was adorable and sorry he never got any "leading man" type roles. He comes across as thoughtful and sensitive in most of his roles.
I never understood why he wasn't better appreciated for his contribution to film either. Supporting roles are just the unsung heros of classic film.
When I first saw George Clooney, although yes, he somewhat resembles Gable, (esp in attitude) I see a stronger resemblance to Pat O'Brien
-
>ThelmaTodd wrote: Indian film needs to be taken seriously, because it's an up and coming nation with a huge and established domestic film industry. I predict that Bollywood will not remain a provincial backwater indefinitely.
I agree 100% and have been saying this for years.
If you watch the credits, you'll often find several Indian names among the crew in US films...especially if made in Canada (Hollywood North).
When I saw Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video, I noted his dancers were in a triangle formation (with MJ at the peak front) dancing "moves" in one spot instead of fluid movement using the entire floor space. This is a style of dance perfected by Bollywood movies previous to MJ's choreography, which is now typical in the US-you see it on all the kid's group dance competitions.
So, Bollywood dance style has already infiltrated US productions.
I can't wait for the "tradition" & "morality" aspects of B'wood to filter into US filmmaking. That's what I like most about their films-they remind me of grand MGM musicals of the 40's-50's.
I don't think you need any historical backround to understand their traditions.
And musicalnovelty, Ted Lyons & His Cubs are great! A clip from Gumnan was featured in GHOST WORLD to illustrate the teen girl's acceptance of all types of music. Superstar Helen is the featured dancer in the number. I didn't know Lyons was in other films!
When TCM had it's spotlight on Merchant Ivory Productions, they showed "Helen, Queen Of The Nautch Girls" a short about her life as a Bollywood dancer in the 60's. (introduced by Illeana Douglas) It can be found on the Shakespere Wallah dvd as an extra.
I have never seen the 90's FBC film "Desperately Seeking Helen" about Canadian/Indian film fans who wanted to meet her. Although now rediscovered, she often is in cameo roles in B'wood films.
TCM, stop the Letterbox short, please
in General Discussions
Posted
TCM is still showing that filler spot? Gives me the heebie jeebies just thinking about it.