sewhite2000
-
Posts
6,478 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by sewhite2000
-
-
So, I'm checking out the new SUTS page, which you can link to here:
It's pretty straightforward. You don't have to jump through any hoops, make a lot of clicks or wait for some giant picture to load first. I like every movie title being aired all there on one page.
I do think in past years maybe someone at TCM has written a bio paragraph or three about each featured star, and that is missing this year. There are just links to the movies and each star's database page. So, I will put that in the minus columns.
Any other thoughts?
-
Yay! Now watch it fall to Page Nine like it probably should because no one else looks at it ...
-
Oh, it's suddenly back! Wonder if my whining about it brought it back or if threads that accidentally got deleted along with all the spam are systematically being restored. Seriously, I couldn't see it on my computer until just now. Sorry if I sounded really dense.
Okay, my apologies if I besmirched the movie knowledge of our anonymous TCM administrators.
-
1
-
-
Was it moved to Off Topic? I haven't been able to find it in General Discussions.
-
And I think Bogart only made three color films in his whole career and none of them until his career had been going for a very long time: The African Queen, The Caine Mutiny and The Barefoot Contessa. If I'm forgetting one, I'm sure someone will let me know.
-
I do half-suspect though I was punished for trying to be too clever. I wanted to be obscure and not reference the movie, just a line from one song from one movie. My guess is the TCM Administrator has never seen that movie, didn't get the reference, had no idea what the thread was about, thought incorrectly I was being nonsensical, and decided policing was necessary.
I was suppose I will have to be more dull and obvious in the future to avoid getting more posts deleted.
-
1
-
-
All right, I guess I'll buy that ... for now ... and not take it as a personal attack.
The spam has been really terrible for about a week now.
-
Maybe it's on page 10 already, but I can't find it anywhere. I made a post last night quoting a line from the song "Secondhand Rose" in Funny Girl, just to see if anyone would get the reference. It was definitely movie related so did not deserve to be deleted. That's pretty sorry, TCM Admin. I guess you weren't knowledgeable enough to know what I was doing, which makes me sad.
-
1
-
-
From Second Avenoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Noo?
-
The thread is long since back. Why do the posts on this thread eternally continue to be more recent than that thread? Possibly just so we can have more posts of movie stars dancing ...
-
Eisentein briefly spent time in Hollywood, as extraordinary as it sounds, and I think primarily the short-sightedness of the American studio system prohibited him from ever making a film there. It would have been cool if one of the studio heads had actually been visionary enough to let him complete a project. Anyway, you can read about it here:
-
2
-
-
The female lead is a cheap hooker? I don't think we watched the same movie. Perhaps you don't mean that literally, but because she offered herself to Brosnan too easily?
-
I was pushing page 200 very early this morning, trying to find the first non spam thread, jumping ahead five pages at a time. I couldn't stand it any more at around p. 176 and went back to bed.
-
Star Wars geeks have for many, many years now suggested it was because she was manifesting her latent Force power which we learn later in the movie she likely has, being Luke's sister and Darth Vader's daughter.
-
6 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
Cher is playing Steep's mother? I saw an ad clip from the film, and based on what I saw, Steep looks more like Cher's mom (i.e. older), than the other way around.
Possibly that's because Cher appears to have had about 1,743 plastic surgeries, while Streep appears to have remained natural.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Hibi said:
What I find hard to buy is Holden's complete reversal at the end. Maybe there were scenes cut, but it's too abrupt and hard to believe........
I find that a little problematic, too. It's sort of like the film had reached its pre-approved running time, and they needed to just wrap things up. But it doesn't drag down my overall enjoyment of the film.
-
25 minutes ago, Hibi said:
LOL! Bogart's age doesnt bother me that much because he's SUPPOSED to be old in the film and there are jokes about it. But he just isnt a good fit for me in the romantic parts. Cary Grant would've been SO much better. (But he turned down the part).......
Doesn't Casablanca count as a romantic part?
-
Well, there's the standard objection that becomes increasingly common in modern times to the age difference between the romantic leads. Bogart was 55; Hepburn was 25. And all the accompanying boos and hisses and ooh, yuck, gross, creepy from people who don't know or don't remember that such age differences, while not always so dramatic, were pretty standard fare for Hollywood in those days, especially for Audrey! This doesn't bother me so much personally, as I am a man rapidly approaching something close to what Bogart's age was in the film, and I would have no objection at all if a 25-year-old who looked like Audrey Hepburn wanted to have a romantic relationship with me! But the Me Too people would probably say my paleolithic attitudes are part of the problem ...
I shy away from most social media but I got into a little bit of a debate on Facebook a few years ago with a woman I went to high school with who opined that in every instance, original films are superior to remakes except, in her opinion, for Sabrina. She declared the remake to be "much superior". This threw me for a loop, as I both love the original and find the remake to be an overlong snoozer. Sorry, Sydney Pollack, you made a lot of great films, but this one gave me the heebie-jeebies. So, I asked what her reasons were, and she said it rested pretty much entirely on her finding Harrison Ford so much more romantically desirable than Humphrey Bogart, whom she just found weird-looking and ugly. I didn't feel like this was going to be a rewarding debate, as her entire thesis on comparing the two films was based entirely on the physical desirability of the male, but I kept it going a while longer, saying that in his day, Bogie was both a man's man and a ladies man. She replied, "Bogart, no, yuck, but Cary Grant, mmmmmm ....". I didn't reply again.
Personally, my objection to the remake was with neither Ford, whom I pretty much always love in anything and whom I think deserves more credit for versatility than he receives, nor Greg Kinnear, who uncannily channels the spirit of William Holden and whom it didn't occur to me how Holden-like he was until I saw this film. No, it was with Julia Ormond, who's lovely but was dull as dishwater in this film and brought none of those special charms Audrey brought to the original.
So, to some up, yeah Bogie is a bit of an awkward fit in this film, but he's always watchable, just like he is in every movie. I can't imagine anyone objecting to William Holden's performance. He's a delight as the irresponsible younger brother who's going to be forced to grow up by his family against his will. In contrast to all the really heavy roles he played in the '50s, he seems to be having a blast getting to let loose a little bit with his comic timing in this one.
-
3
-
-
I didn't watch, and I found the whole thing a little odd, given Bernstein's very tenuous connections to the movie world. But TCM has many hours to fill, and this was definitely something different and unique. There's nowhere else you would see these concerts on TV except maybe PBS. I think for one weekend out of the network's quarter-century history, we can appreciate the effort to think outside the box. I've been aware of these concerts since I was a child, but have never seen them. I don't know if they're available on DVD? As I say, it still didn't interest me enough to actually WATCH, but I like the idea of it.
-
There are a lot of weird psychosexual dynamics going on in The Birds that keep it entertaining for me until the birds actually show up. What are we to make of Suzanne Pleshette moving to town and getting a job in the little schoolhouse just to be close to Rod Taylor, even though she acknowledges their relationship is over? Or Jessica Tandy's icy resentment toward all women who try to enter her son's life? Or both our romantic leads having mommy issues (she just wants to know where hers is; he can't seem to fully cut the apron strings)? Or the reduction of Tippi Hedrin from free-spirited, wealthy heiress who thinks she's in complete control of every aspect of her life to completely helpless waif, babbling nearly incoherently? (I suspect this last bit was Hitchcock's favorite part of the story).
Personally, I think your sapphic, intergenerational spin on the story is too far out of left field even for Hitchcock, and I feel pretty sure it was not on his mind or anyone else's at the time. But the beauty of the classic movies is that we're free to read our own interpretations into what they mean, so who am I to rain on your parade? Interpret away!
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:
Maybe the Cagney enthusiasts are at it again! Watch for a crop of 1 post only members to post their praises of Tiffany.
The other thread was indeed started by a first-time ever poster!
Edit: Yep, the two threads were just merged.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, EricJ said:
The Young People's Concerts are considered rare, revolutionary bits of television history, and thus "historical" enough for TCM to dig up and premiere for their library.
That said, I'm also smelling Warner stirring the Spielberg-promotion pot. Broadway wants to do another big revival so I'm guessing Spielberg will be shut out on West Side Story film rights, and he'll end up doing that historical "Leonard Bernstein biography" he wanted to do instead as a backup. Probably with Mark Rylance.
imdb says the movie is already in pre-production, which I assume they wouldn't go ahead with if the rights weren't secured?
-
There are two threads entitled Tiffany Vasquez in the upper reaches of Page One right now, one in all caps. Seriously? She's been gone from hosting duties so long, I figure some of the newer posters don't even know who she is.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
With regards to birthday tributes; Do you really want such tributes to be a cornerstone of TCM's programming? For those that say 'yes', I'm interested in what criteria they would use if they had complete control over TCM's programming. By criteria I mean things like:
1) What members of the movie making business must be honored? Of course actors and actresses are a given, but what about directors, producers, studio heads, screenwriters?. These folks had birthdays also!
2) Once #1 is defined, what is the criteria for 'this person must be honored'? I.e. what makes someone 'big enough'? (as defined by a consensus of studio-era TCM viewers). This is the most important criteria since it determines the aggregate number of 'must be honored' tributes.
3) Should birthday tributes trump all other types of 'special' programming; E.g. Summer under the Stars days in August are set-aside for those that 'must be honored' that were born in August? The same for Oscar month, and even Star of the Month; E.g. if the films are shown each Thursday during the month for the SOTM, and there is a 'must be honored' birthday on one of those Thursday, the SOTM gets one less day????
Of course there is also what happens on holidays; E.g. someone that 'must be honored' that was born on Memorial day; their films are shown instead of the typically Memorial day films?
4) What are the 'must be honored' birthdays? All of them (so every year actor XYZ has a tribute?), only those divisible by 5, by 10, by 25?
5) How many films should be shown to ensure the proper level of respect is shown? E.g. All day tribute, only east coast prime time?
Once the above is determined then one would know what percentage of programming has to be set aside for birthday tributes.
Every day is some celebrity's birthday, right? I felt Dargo also nailed how exhausting this concept is. This bit on the Cagney thread were something like five allegedly different people made their first posts ever to say TCM was "pathetic" for not honoring Cagney on a birthday that wasn't even a round number, it got my dander up ...
I was half-thinking about searching imdb until I saw it was Grant Mitchell's birthday, and then deliver a passionate, angry post about how TCM has always ignored Mitchell and how Eddie Mueller and Dave Karger clearly have a bias against him and just lay a lot of angry invective about why TCM is the most stupid abysmal failure in the history of television programming for ignoring this moment. But I feared people wouldn't get the intended irony.
-
3
-
What happened to all the Golden Age classics?
in General Discussions
Posted
OP, you should provide some specifics. I don't feel your claim holds up.
I took a look back at the last 18 movies I've watched on TCM. All of them were during primetime, between 8 pm and 2 am ET. By decade, they broke down like this:
'30s 5
'40s 4
'50s 3
'60s 6
None from 1970 or later. And it was probably my personal choice that I fit my scheduling around watching more movies from the '60s than any other decade (barely).
And even if that ratio was indicative of TCM programming in general, THE SIXTIES WAS A LONG FREAKING TIME AGO, DUDE! Unless it came out in 1969, EVERY MOVIE FROM THE SIXTIES IS AT LEAST 50 YEARS OLD! That's old enough to earn consideration for classic status, in my book. I don't know what to say if you're old as dirt, and the '60s feels too new to you (actually, it sounds like late '50s is too new for you, and late '50s is SIXTY years ago!). TCM can't keep catering exclusively to your generation forever, because frankly, you'll all be dead eventually. Sorry to be so cruel about it, but TCM has to be more inclusive than just trying to continue to appeal to the oldest of its viewers.
I don't know how you could have watched anything TCM has done recently and still believe what you said. Let's look at a couple of recent Stars of the Month. Marlene Dietrich's month didn't show any movies more recent than 1961. Leslie Howard's month didn't show any movies more recent than 1942. The movie musicals theme moved chronologically. At least 60 per cent of the movies featured were from before 1960. And Lawrence has provides you with a decade by decade breakdown of the entire month of August, which shows that everything you say is actually incorrect.