speedracer5
-
Posts
11,245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Posts posted by speedracer5
-
-
Sexy high heels have been known as "F*** Me Pumps, or whatever, for a long time. Starlets Shelley Winters and Marilyn Monroe apparently shared an apartment, many men and FMPs, to hear Winters tell it.
Funny-I'm just reading Winters' autobiography and read that reference last night....I thought "wow they called them that back then too!"
What's even more interesting than looking at women's clothing style changes, speedracer, is realizing different "body types" come in & out of fashion, supporting the clothing cuts.
In the 20's-30's it was a lithe flat chested "childlike" look that spawned the flapper "sheath" dress look. After WW2 bewbs came into style so women's clothing became cinched at the waist to show off the bust. In the 50's, the womanly hourglass figure was the style, so dresses were small at the waist and full at the hem to create the illusion of an hourglass figure even on the waifest gal.
The 60's bell bottoms again, created curves while the "baby doll", sheath and dropped waist dresses harkened back to childlike long waisted forms on women. The 80's & 90's were all about big shoulders, small bottoms & skinny legs.
And of course today it's all about cleavage. It's almost impossible to find t-shirts for women that aren't very deeply low cut. Girls look as if they have a butt in front. I wonder if it's to balance the cracks the boys are showing in the back? (say no to crack!)
I am always amazed at how there are trends in body type as well as hair to accentuate it. I loved in HAIRSPRAY when Tracey Turnblatt says to Pia Zadora, "Your hair is so FLAT!"
I agree with you about body types. In the 1920s, I've read that some women who were actually endowed would bind their breasts down so that they could create the illusion of being flat chested. I believe that the Flapper look was a reaction to the constrictive "Gibson Girl" type clothes they were forced to wear, complete with corsets, bustles, petticoats and whatever other layers they could fit underneath the long dress. They wanted to minimize their curves, perhaps because of the undergarments they had to wear (previously) to accentuate them, which in turn, were oppressive. The women in the 1930s had the same body types, but the hemlines dropped. I wonder if this was a reaction to The Depression?
I like the 1940s clothing the best, they seem like the type that would fit my particular body type well. Many of the clothing styles seem to work with the long, lithe body in mind. First in the 20s-30s the shapes of the body are minimized in flowy gowns, then in the 1940s, the actual shape of the body is being worked with and then in the 50s we're creating clothing to mimic the hourglass shape which is the shape that was popularized during the early 20th century. The hourglass shape is just being created in less restrictive ways.
I find it interesting that during the 1950s, two actresses (Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe) with very different body shapes were hugely popular, in part because of the image that their respective bodies helped project. Audrey wore the very long and lean "waify" type gowns and casual clothing that would only look good on a very thin person. Marilyn on the other hand, dripped sex with her tight gowns showing off her voluptuous curves.
Nowadays, it seems to be all about letting EVERYTHING hang out, which is really a shame. The average bra size has steadily increased over the years, which I imagine is partially the result of the obesity epidemic.
While I wouldn't want to have to wear a girdle, stockings, or heels everyday (or ever), and wouldn't really want to have to look for a matching hat, gloves and bag all the time, I do think it's a shame how sloppy people have gotten when it comes to attire. When did it become okay to wear pajamas and slippers to the store?
-
In Salem, we have Regal (which I think used to be ACT III theaters, but Regal purchased them). The old Drive-In closed in the early 90s (I think the last film I saw there was Wayne's World) and it was torn down and an 11 screen Regal Cinemas was built in its place. It opened in I believe '98 or '99. The first film I saw there was the second Austin Powers movie. It is still operating and has been maintained or perhaps recently remodeled. I just saw White Christmas there in fact. It was a big deal when it opened up because it was the first theater to have stadium seating.
As a result of Regal opening, the theaters with non-stadium seating saw a decline in ticket sales. We had two smaller theaters in town, a 4 screen and a 7 screen, that didn't have stadium seating. Their original incarnations closed long ago but a theater still operates in both locations. The 4-screen theater has removed seating and replaced the spaces with tables. You can now order food and a beer to consume while you watch your movie. This theater shows second-run films. The 7-screen uses the same food/beer concept, but they show first run films. We also had another 4 screen theater that was part of the mall across town. I remember when I was little that that was the last place you wanted to go because the theater was dirty and the floors were really sticky. However, they did show first run films, but the theater was gross. The theater closed in the mid 00s and was torn down. A few years ago Regal opened a new 11-screen theater opened in its place (and the place of other businesses on that side of the mall). This is now the theater to go to for first run films.
I remember going to the theater back in the day and if you wanted to see a new movie, you usually had to send someone down to the theater earlier in the day to pick up tickets--otherwise, the film would be sold out. Nowadays, the theater would be lucky to sell 20 tickets to a film. I haven't been to a packed theater in years. Strangely enough, the last movie I have been to that was actually sold out was TCM's re-release of Singin' in the Rain a couple years ago.
I like Cinemark Theaters (which are up in Portland) better than Regal Cinemas. It's a little cheaper and the theaters are just as nice.
There is also something to be said for seeing a movie in a renovated old theater or even going to the independent theaters. There is something a little more intimate about the experience.
-
In regard to Mason in Lolita, his character was creepy because of his infatuation with Lolita. While he shouldn't be carrying on with a 13-year old girl, the book and film do explain why Humbert Humbert is attracted to her. As a child, Humbert fell in love with a girl named Annabel. The two children almost had a sexual encounter, but Annabel's parents caught them and took Annabel away before anything happened. A little bit after this incident, Annabel died. From then on, Humbert was obsessed with "nymphets" as it took him back to his true love Annabel. It is said that Lolita reminded him of Annabel, which is why he was so infatuated. His obsession with her is still wrong, but there is a psychological explanation.
I really liked Mason in A Star is Born. He was fantastic as Norman Maine, the declining alcoholic matinee idol who creates a star in Judy Garland. I know that Cukor originally wanted Cary Grant, but I think Mason was perfect.
He was also great as Phillip Vandamm in North By Northwest. He plays the sophisticated bad guy quite well.
-
Hmmm...and here I've always heard them described as "CFM Pumps"..as in, "Come F*** Me Pumps"!
(...maybe it's a "regional thing", eh?!)
Lol. Perhaps. All I know is that I don't have any... Considering the way I walk in them, I don't think they'd be as effective as they probably were when Marilyn Monroe wore them.
I think the 20s were probably the beginning of sexing up women's clothes-- hemlines got shorter and 10 layers of clothing came off. In the 30s, hemlines dropped but maintained their sexiness. Bias cut, slinky satin gowns were the norm on the big screen. There are many films where Jean Harlow and Myrna Loy are obviously not wearing bras. The 40s seemed to be more conservative but the dresses were more figure flattering. Women's 40s attire seemed to include more "suit skirts." The 50s brought sexier fashions and very ornate dresses. Watch some of the later episodes of "I Love Lucy" or Marilyn Monroe's films. This makes sense that this era would usher in the beginning of FMPs.
-
Sexy high heels have been known as "F*** Me Pumps, or whatever, for a long time. Starlets Shelley Winters and Marilyn Monroe apparently shared an apartment, many men and FMPs, to hear Winters tell it.
Ah okay. I didn't know FMPs had such a storied history.
-
Some of those 1940s suits are pretty sharp, as long as the lapels
aren't half an inch from the shoulders. I always get a kick out of
those 1930s neckties. Short and wide, can't tell if they're ties or
napkins.
Lol. Some of the women's 1930s dresses are pretty wild. In The Thin Man, the women in that film wear these dresses with these enormous sleeves that touch the floor. I have to say though, I love Myrna Loy's striped dress that she wears during their Christmas party. You definitely have to have the right figure to carry that dress off.
The thing about these old films is that the women, no matter what crazy thing they're wearing, always look so elegant and classy. It might just be the setting, or the black and white, or something, but I always think they look great even if their dress, hat, whatever is crazy. I always think of how much I need to go on a diet so I can have a lithe figure like these women. Except sans the girdle and frumpy undergarments, I'm not into that. I've also noticed that a lot of the simple, everyday high heels that these women wear are so dowdy. They look like grandma shoes. Footwear at the time must have been more about comfort as opposed to looks. This concept must have changed overtime, now it's all about wearing the most teetering and uncomfortable looking shoes you can squeeze your foot into (too bad you can't walk). I think these shoes are now known as "F--- me heels."
My footwear comment reminded me about a scene from I Love Lucy.
FRED: When you spend $16 for shoes, they're not supposed to hurt!
ETHEL: You don't buy $16 shoes for comfort, you buy 'em for looks!
-
And thus, the very reason, Speedy and James, that I've been pushing for years an idea that I think world make a better place for ALL children in the futurre:
Everyone, both women AND men, be placed on some form of birth control from age 12 to age 30!!!
'Cause the VAST number of people in the world have NO freakin' idea about who the hell they REALLY are and/or how the "world works" and thus have NO freakin' business having AND raising children until they're AT LEAST 30 freakin' years old!!! LOL
(...I mean, just think how many children TODAY wouldn't live in "broken homes" IF my plan were instituted, RIGHT?!)
Lol. Especially with all the babies having babies these days. Unfortunately, there are some post 30 year olds that have no business having children either. At 30, I'm not in any rush to have children, because I don't want the responsibility. I'm happy that thanks to the actions of women before me, there are options and things available to keep me child-free. Nowdays, there are still women who don't have the right to make that decision for themselves, which is unfortunate.
I think along with an age requirement, there should be some other type of test people should go through to procreate. Maybe we wouldn't have so many people abusing the welfare systems and/or such a high number of children living below the poverty lines.
-
1
-
-
I always laugh at the end of The Adventures of Robin Hood, after Robin Hood has killed Sir Guy and threatens the guard of Maid Marian's cell with his sword. Robin Hood's sword is so obviously bent, that I doubt it would be that effective.
-
Related to Debbie Reynolds comment; is it the marriage part or the having a child part or both? As you know for the human race to continue some percentage of the women have to have children. Also, while I support the notion that the traditional marriage as defined by movies of the studio-era doesn't fit the feminist POV (a POV I fully support) I don't see the same connection with women having children.
Well in the film, Reynolds is 22 and works as a dancer. She has her entire life mapped out, the number of children she's going to have, where she's going to live, where the children will be born, the school districts the kids will attend, etc. She's only missing a man. She makes it clear that she's only dancing until she meets the man she has envisioned to help her carry out her fantasy life.
I think Reynolds says something to the effect of "A woman just isn't fulfilled until she's married and has children." Obviously some people have to procreate in order for the human race to continue, I wasn't thinking her comment was absurd in the sense that people think they have to have children. Fortunately, I think there are plenty of people out there doing more than their share of procreation to keep the human race going (those people having 6+ children will make up for those who aren't having any). I just think Reynolds' comment is ridiculous in the sense that a single woman without children could not possibly have a worthwhile, fulfilled life. Even if the woman was married, but happily (or unhappily) childfree, she's only semi-fulfilled. However, I understand that in the 1950s, most women were looking for a husband that would make a good father for children. It was pretty much assumed back then that women wanted children and that women should aspire to have children. I don't share the same affinity for children as some of my peers do, they're not on the top of my list. I rather like having the independence and quiet that goes with not having children. However, if someone else feels that their life isn't worthwhile unless they're married and with kids, than that's their prerogative. I myself, completely disagree with Reynolds' comment, but do understand that the comment and film are a product of their time (1955).
-
Ah, yes, the good provider, the bane of stupid women in the 1940s who thought marriage was the be-all and end-all and quit their jobs when they married. I knew a few of them, and it didn't turn out well.
Happily women's lib came on the scene and made intelligent women more intelligent.
But ah, yes, there are still stupid women who think marriage to a rich man is the be-all and end-all. Sometimes, though, it does turn out quite well, especially when they divorce and take the stupid men for everything they're worth. The really smart stupid ones get a reality show.
I wasn't around when the women's lib movement was in full swing (I'm still sad that the ERA failed even though I wasn't alive when it did), but I am happy for the progress that these women made for future generations. While I am married (happily), I didn't marry for security. It's nice knowing that if something were to happen, I am fully capable financially, mentally, whatever other '-ally' you can think of that I could completely take care of myself without needing government assistance. There are unfortunately too many women out there that leave the job market completely to stay home taking care of children they can't afford and put all their hopes and dreams into their husband's breadwinning basket. If the husband loses his job, they're up s--- creek without a paddle. Unless the family is independently wealthy, I think these women are doing themselves and their families a great disservice by not at least maintaining a part time job. However, it can be argued that the United States' maternity/paternity policies are partially to blame and the lack of affordable childcare. My husband's sister (19 years old) is married, with a 3-month old baby and her husband has signed up to be in the infantry. He hasn't been deployed yet. He just finished boot camp and I don't know what else he does. She's spoiled and has never in her life ever had to earn her own money. Unfortunately this has translated into her "adult life" (she's so far maturity-wise from being an adult, I can hardly refer to her as one) and she's fully expecting her husband to take care of her and all children they have. We keep trying to impress upon her the importance of at least having part-time employment. Her husband joined the freaking infantry for godsakes, what is she going to do if he were killed? But she won't listen to us-- she just wants to be a mom and wants to be with her child 24/7. Which being a mom is fine and all if that's what someone wants to do, but you have to at least be able to provide for yourself if you needed to.
In older films, I sometimes have to laugh when women make outdated comments about marriage. In The Tender Trap, Debbie Reynolds makes a comment about how the highest thing any woman can do in her life is be married and have a child. While I enjoy that film, I always have to laugh at the absurdity of it. Also the end of The Thrill of It All, irritates me to no end, because Doris Day gives up her lucrative 6-figure job because James Garner can't handle his wife having a job and being successful to boot. Women back then were sold a bill of goods when they were told all they needed to be happy in life were 2.5 children, a home in the suburbs, a husband, etc. No wonder so many women were addicted to pills and alcohol. It was the only way they could cope. I think it's such a shame that women after WWII ended gave up their jobs in the shipyards, and the like. It was probably freedom for them.
I've noticed to in older films that many single women are working and have their own places. Except when they marry, they're expected to give all that up and become a housewife. In other films, the women are single and working, but still live at home with their parents. The parents are from then on always trying to unload their daughters onto any eligible man that will have them. These poor women never get to know what it's like to live independently, as they move from their father's house to their husband's.
-
1
-
-
I think the dancing star one was with Van Johnson, because Lucy and Van dance at the end of it. The episode you are thinking of is simply called 'Lucy and Harpo Marx.'
"The Dancing Star" is the name of the episode with Van Johnson. However, it is a two-parter with the 'Harpo Marx' episode. Carolyn Appleby is enroute to Hawaii and she decides to stop in LA to visit Lucy and attend one of the Hollywood parties that Lucy brags about. The plot that I described below is what happens in the Van Johnson episode. In this episode, after Carolyn mentions that she lost her glasses, Lucy says it's a shame because she's having a big Hollywood party later that week. After Carolyn sees Lucy and Van dancing, Lucy thinks she's safe. Carolyn will be leaving for Hawaii and will be able to go back to NYC and tell everyone about seeing Lucy with Van Johnson. After Lucy helps Van out by filling in for his partner, she is surprised to see Carolyn in the wings after the performance. Carolyn tells her that she convinced her husband to go onto Hawaii without her (she'll take a later plane) and now she can meet all the stars that Lucy was promising were going to attend her big Hollywood party.
In "Lucy and Harpo Marx," Lucy is trying to figure out how to produce all these celebrities for the party so that Carolyn doesn't find out what a liar Lucy is. Lucy and Ethel manage to get Carolyn's glasses away from her and that's when Lucy puts on all the celebrity masks and does her celebrity impressions for Carolyn. Ricky and Fred meet Harpo down at the pool and wanting to help Lucy out, Ricky asks Harpo to do him a favor and head up to their room (Room 315) and pay Lucy, Ethel and Carolyn a visit. Harpo happily obliges. He then plays "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" on his harp for Carolyn and Ethel. Lucy, doing her next celebrity impression as Harpo, is hiding behind a partition. Harpo sees Lucy and they then re-enact the famous mirror routine from "Duck Soup." Carolyn, needing to catch her flight to Hawaii, announces she needs to leave, Ethel "miraculously" finds Carolyn's glasses and Harpo carries Carolyn out of the room.
For some reason, they filmed the Harpo Marx episode first, but the storyline of the Van Johnson episode clearly takes place before the Harpo Marx one. Perhaps Harpo had some scheduling conflicts or something.
Sepiatone: The only reason I used the episode titles is that I've seen every episode a gazillion times (and have the entire series on DVD) and have a bunch of books about "I Love Lucy," so for whatever reason, I just know the episode titles. I'm to I Love Lucy what others are to Star Trek.
-
speedracer, you'll like this story about the Christmas Story house:
http://quickbooks.intuit.com/r/business-profiles/fishnet-leg-lamps-spawned-christmas-story-house
It's a museum now:
http://www.achristmasstoryhouse.com
In addition to those you mentioned, one of my favorite scenes was the fa-ra-ra-ra-ra one.
Not to worry, I liked Elf too.
Wow. If I were in the area (quite a ways away for me, so it probably won't be soon), I would visit this museum. I saw the pictures of the house after it was renovated (but before it was renovated back to its appearance in the film) and I hated it. A big grey block. What a boring house. The yellow house with green trim is much more interesting. I love that the "soft glow of electric sex" is displayed so prominently in the window. I know Mother hated the lamp and it is pretty tacky, but I find it pretty hilarious too and would probably display it in my house just because it is so tacky.
The scene at the Chinese restaurant is hilarious. I always laugh when they chop the duck's head off right on the table.
-
I love A Christmas Story, it is hilarious. I don't know how many times I've seen it. My family can pretty much recite the whole thing. While I can't identify with the time period the movie takes place in, I can identify with the central story-- a kid who really wants one particular gift for Christmas. The rest of the story is funny and all, but the whole point of the story is Ralphie's quest for the Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle. He explores all avenues-- mom, teacher, Santa, yet to no avail. His old man is the only one who "gets it." While I love Meet Me in St. Louis, I like how realistic and "gritty" the film and sets look. I believe they used a real house for the outside shots. While the movie takes place in Indiana, they used various locales in Cleveland for the outside shots. There are so many great lines and scenes and Jean Shepard's narration really makes it.
My favorite lines:
Randy lay there like a slug. It was his only defense.
It's a major award!
Randy's gotta go!
It... It 'twas soap poisoning!
For some reason, I also find the scene when Santa pushes Ralphie down the slide with his foot hilarious. I also like the scene when Mother calls Schwartz's mom (after Ralphie claimed that Schwartz taught him "fudge") and you can just hear Schwartz's mom wailing on the kid and screaming at him, with poor Schwartz yelling "what did I do mom?"
One thing I always thought was interesting was Mother's hair in this film. It is supposed to take place in I think 1939 or 1940 and she has a perm-- very 80s.
I'll just forget that my beloved Elf was disparaged in the original post. I love that movie.
-
I was intrigued to find out why "m-u-f-f " was bleeped on these mesaage boards.
Apparently it's a slang term for "vajayjay" that I was not familar with and from online research it seems to have been popularized from its use on THAT 70S SHOW----which used to be one of my favorite TV shows but I don't remember hearing m-u-f-f used in that context on the show.
What if we were trying to discuss a m-u-f-f in regard to an accessory typically made of fur which women used to keep their hands warm?
While I'm familiar with its slang usage, I would agree that vajajay is far worse. Most of the slang words used to describe that part of the female anatomy are unnecessarily crude or stupid.
-
1
-
-
I love "I Love Lucy," especially the Hollywood episodes. They're some of the best of the series. She also encounters movie stars in other places. She meets Charles Boyer in Paris and Bob Hope and Orson Welles after Ricky buys the Tropicana Club and renames it "Club Babalu." If you include all the hour long specials, she meets a star in each one.
My favorites are:
1) The aforementioned "Hollywood at Last!" episode, which is also known as "L.A. at Last!" It is hilarious. I love the scene between Lucy and William Holden at the Brown Derby. The highlight though is definitely when Lucy sports her fake nose in an effort to disguise her identity. Ricky met Holden at the studio and Holden volunteered to give Ricky a ride home. The funniest scene, in my opinion, are the looks on Ricky and Holden's faces after Lucy re-molds her nose and makes it long and pointy. Desi Arnaz, hands down, has the greatest enraged/shocked face of all time.
2) The episode "The Star Upstairs." Lucy has met 99 movie stars and is determined to meet one more to make an even 100. An item in the newspaper hints at Cornel Wilde hiding out in one of the hotels with the word "Beverly" in the name. Lucy and Ethel immediately assume it's their hotel-- The Beverly Palms. Bobby the bellboy lets it slip that the girls' assumptions are correct. Lucy, with Bobby's help, manages to get into Wilde's hotel room. It is located directly above the Ricardo's room. She hides and is subsequently trapped. Not wanting Wilde to find her, she tries to lower herself to her balcony--with Ethel's help. The highlight of the episode is Lucy hanging from her makeshift towel rope from the balcony and Ethel's desperate attempts to distract Ricky from seeing Lucy dangling in front of the window. Ethel pushes Ricky onto the couch and frantically recites a cake recipe to him. She sees Lucy fall and quickly rushes out saying that she "hates to eat and run (even though she and Ricky didn't eat) and has to go pick up a friend."
3) "The Fashion Show." Lucy desperately wants a Don Loper original dress. She manages to get Ricky to agree to buy her one. He gives her a $100 budget. Lucy and Ethel go to Loper's boutique to shop and Lucy, not wanting to let on that she doesn't shop in boutiques all the time, ends up buying a dress (and having it tailored) without looking at the price tag. When she gets home, she looks at the price tag-- $500. She cannot return it due to the tailoring. She ends up back at the salon and overhears Sheila MacRae talking to Don Loper about a charity fashion show being put on by Hollywood wives-- Mrs. William Holden, Mrs. Richard Carlson, Mrs. Forrest Tucker, Mrs. Dean Martin and Mrs. Van Heflin are all participating. MacRae and Loper are in a conundrum, because another Hollywood wife (that was slated to participate) drops out. Lucy not so subtly makes a phone call stating that she's "Mrs. Ricky Ricardo, wife of the movie star, Ricky Ricardo." MacRae overhears and offers Lucy a spot in the show. Loper offers to give Lucy the dress she purchased if she'll wear another of his creations. Lucy of course, agrees. With her new role as model, Lucy decides to get some sun hoping to tan a little. She ends up falling asleep in the sun and is burned, however she won't let a severe burn stop her. The next day, at the fashion show, Lucy ends up modeling a tweed suit. You can feel the pain just watching her walk up the steps. Lucy finishes her spot in the show and gets her Loper original.
4) "In Palm Springs." This one was mentioned earlier, it guest stars Rock Hudson. The Ricardos and Mertzes start getting on one another's nerves and decide to spend a weekend apart. Lucy and Ethel go to a hotel in Palm Springs and Fred and Ricky stay in Hollywood. Both Palm Springs and Hollywood are pouring down rain, so both parties are stuck inside. The girls miss the boys and vice versa. Of course, neither party wants to admit it. Lucy and Ethel end up meeting Rock Hudson outside of the pool (after the rain disappeared). Ricky, knowing that Rock Hudson was staying at the same place as the girls ends up contacting him to have Hudson tell Lucy and Ethel a fake sad story about a woman who let her husband's annoying habits (the very thing that caused the men and women to fight in the first place) get to her and caused her to take drastic measures. Lucy, disguising her voice and pretending to be Dore Schary's secretary, calls Ricky to Palm Springs to discuss a movie. Ricky, Fred, Lucy and Ethel are reunited at the end.
My favorite two lines from this episode come from Ethel:
ETHEL (to Rock Hudson): Would you like a piece of Rock, Mr. Candy?
ETHEL: I'm getting a little sick and tired of being called a cow!
5) "The Dancing Star." This episode is kind of a two-parter with the Harpo Marx episode. Carolyn Appleby is in town (on her way to Hawaii) and decides to drop in on Lucy. Lucy has been sending Appleby and other friends back in NYC postcards telling tall tales about all the celebrity parties she goes to and all the new Hollywood friends she's made. Carolyn, for two episodes only, has very bad eyesight and cannot see two feet in front of her face without her glasses. Lucy, hearing that Carolyn is on her way to the hotel, freaks out because she's been telling Carolyn all these stories (which obviously are untrue). Ethel tells Lucy that Van Johnson is asleep by the pool. Lucy goes down to the pool (with Carolyn and Ethel supposedly looking on through a window) and pretends to have a conversation with sleeping Van. Lucy comes back and it turns out Carolyn didn't see anything because she lost her glasses. Of course, Lucy being Lucy, doesn't know when to stop and tells Carolyn about a big Hollywood party she's hosting in a couple days (this ends up being all the "celebrity drop-ins" in the Harpo Marx episode). Lucy suggests Ethel take Lucy down to Johnson's practice as Johnson's partner bears a passing resemblance to Lucy. Without her glasses, Carolyn wouldn't be able to tell the difference.The airline finds Carolyn's glasses and now Lucy's really in a pickle. Knowing that Van Johnson is doing a show at the hotel, she rushes down to his practice to beg him to let her be in the show. Johnson, of course, says no, but then agrees after Lucy flatters him by saying she has seen the show 14 times and knows the whole act. Carolyn and Ethel see the act and it would seem all is well. Later, Johnson calls Lucy asking her to help him out because his partner is sick. This is one of the few episodes where Lucy is able to perform a musical routine without purposely or inadvertently messing something up.
-
Yep, probably considered the best of the "Hollywood" episodes alright, Arturo. However, for "some strange reason", MY personal favorite of them was always THIS one...but don't ask me why...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A35CAtLo664
(...what a beautiful rendition of "Take Me Out To The Ballgame", eh?!)
Harpo's rendition of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" is amazing. I also loved all Lucy's "celebrity impressions" with the big rubber masks. Hilarious and awful. Carolyn Appleby's eyesight must have been really bad. It is also the only episode that mentions Carolyn's terrible eyesight. She must wear contacts in other episodes, lol.
-
We watched the Yule Log this morning while opening presents... although the music the station was playing to accompany it was terrible. We muted the TV and played "The Rat Pack Christmas" and Vince Gualardi's "A Charlie Brown Christmas" albums instead--much better options.
As for "newer" Christmas songs that could join the pantheon of Christmas classics:
"Merry Christmas Darling" -The Carpenters
"All I Want for Christmas is You" -Mariah Carey (I know, I know, but I really like this song)
"Christmas Wrapping" -The Waitresses (good choice Fedya!)
"Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)" - Darlene Love
"Marshmallow World" -Dean Martin (Ridiculous song, but I love it)
"Santa Claus is Coming to Town" -Frank Sinatra & Cyndi Lauper
"You're a Mean One Mr. Grinch" - Love this song!
-
My vote would go to "The Adventures of Robin Hood." The Technicolor in that film is gorgeous. Combine the bright sets with the beautiful brightly colored costumes, and you have a visual treat for the eyes.
-
I think that your statement here is really the crux of the whole "problem" being discussed here. It's not that films aren't being made to appeal to older audiences, it's that the CGI, animated, blow 'em up type of films are the ones making money. They're the films that receive heavy marketing (probably to recover the expenses to make the film). These are the films that audiences hear more about and they're true type of film that best take advantage of "the movie theater experience." These films rarely however receive critical acclaim, and very rarely are the darlings of the award show circuit.We old f-a-r-t-s can appreciate a film from any time frame, it's a shame Hollywood has decided (rightly or wrongly) that the youts can't do the same.
There are a lot of great movies out there that just tell a story, no glitz, no explosions, no special effects, just old fashioned story telling. Since these films aren't as exciting to advertise, the younger crowds won't be as attracted--unless someone just loves film and storytelling. Based on experience, (while I'm not sure how young we're talking (I'm 30) , but I'll use the Millenials as an example) we're not given enough credit by Hollywood or older generations for that matter, for being interested in more serious fare.
-
I don't know exactly how Hollywood gets the info, but I'm sure they
have their methods, though they may not be all that exact. I'm sure
they know that certain pictures will appeal to an older audience.
Straight drams, movies with older stars in them playing people
around their own age, etc. Maybe these films for the older
demographic are a bit like loss leaders. The money from the
big blockbusters allow the studios to produce some of these
films, and if they make money too, all the better.
How do you screen aholes at the ticket window? With kid
gloves. Make that heavy duty rubber gloves.
Agreed about how films are constructed in order to appeal to specific demographics. Younger audiences aren't going to be attracted to films starring Helen Mirren and Albert Finney, but older audiences will be (or younger people with more sophisticated movie palettes). However, some older actors like Patrick Stewart (for example), do appeal to younger crowds. Subject matter also matters as well. A film about someone struggling with aging (for example) will attract older audiences because they identify with the subject matter. Younger generations still they are invincible and probably won't want to see this film.
The good thing about A-Holes, you don't need to screen them, they usually make themselves pretty obvious ;-)
-
I think Johnny Depp was in talks to take on the Nick Charles role,
Oh good grief. He's overplayed. I loved him in Edward Scissorhands, but he's starting to take on a Jim Carrey vibe for me.
Thanks, I thought it was just me, and I don't usually mind Drew.
It'd be nice if the Essentials could be Robert O. and Ben M. or something.
Yes to this.
I like Johnny Depp, but agree that he's overplayed. I think he needs to be more selective with his projects. I appreciate that he takes on different types of roles and doesn't allow himself to be typecast. However, he's getting a little too eccentric in his roles (case in point, Tonto in The Lone Ranger), and too out there and is turning himself into a caricature. While his collaborations with Tim Burton have been lucrative for his career, I think he needs to branch out and use other directors.
-
I think the studios are just making films based on what type of films are making money, not specifically which age ranges are paying the money.
Now that makes sense, thanks speedracer. They throw us old f-a-r-t-s a bone with Exotic Marigold Hotel and The Lunchbox, but otherwise it's murder, mayhem, and sex, with the occasional good movie. Then there are the Oscar winning movies, which I have no idea whether they are good or just popular.
A THIN MAN remake? I can see it now. Jennifer Lopez and Matt Damon. Count me out. Did you see the Essential intro last night? I found it odd. I didn't get anything out of it. Perhaps it's just because I am now totally sold on Ben M. His intro of one or the other recent movie about his record with old girlfriends was just totally cute. Who woulda thunk, I used to hate the guy.
I think Johnny Depp was in talks to take on the Nick Charles role, but they were having trouble casting Nora Charles. Nobody can replace William Powell and Myrna Loy, I'd just prefer they leave that classic alone.
I did see the intro to the Essentials. To me, it seemed like Drew Barrymore was grasping at straws trying to explain how she thought the film was Essential-- which the film most definitely is, she was just having trouble articulating it. For me, Barrymore, while I'm sure she saw the film and does think it's 'Essential' likes to throw out phrases and metaphors that makes it seem like she knows what she's talking about and that she's some great film historian, but most of her statements don't make sense. Osborne, on his own, has better information.
I also like Ben's intros. It'd be nice if the Essentials could be Robert O. and Ben M. or something.
-
1
-
-
Lol. I do. I might just be a weirdo though.
No, you're not a weirdo. I bought them in my time, but it was said that most data is captured by DVD sales.
I don't think that's accurate. I don't buy them anymore, and I imagine more people use a DVR and Hulu and Amazon Instant Video and Netflix than buy DVDs.
Of course, you are quite correct, people of all ages are going to movie theaters and many good movies are being made. I loved The Lunchbox.
I was just wondering how data is captured and what studios use when deciding whether to make which movies for which demographics.
I know that when I go to the mall in Portland, occasionally there will be a group of people standing outside of the movie theater asking people if they'd like to see a movie and if they do, they fill out audience cards. The audience cards have demographic information and their thoughts on the movie. I've never gone to one of these movies and fill out one of these cards, but I've had friends who have.
I would think there would be a variety of sources that companies could glean demographic information, not just one source. However, in the case of things like Netflix or even cable/satellite, a company would really only have the information on the subscriber, not on the other people who might actually be viewing a particular program/movie. Companies like Fandango might be able to see what ages are purchasing tickets for what films. Although, this might not be entirely accurate either, as this person could be buying tickets for a variety of age ranges that Fandango wouldn't know about.
I think the studios are just making films based on what type of films are making money, not specifically which age ranges are paying the money. Right now, there seems to be a resurgence in 1980s nostalgia, most likely because people who were born early enough to have memories of 1980s movies, cartoons, etc. have children themselves and the movie studios are able to not only capture the parents, but the children of them as well. Children drive a lot of sales for a variety of different type of products. As long as people keep making the Transformers films successful, the more that Michael Bay (and whatever production company he works for) will keep making them.
There was talk a few years ago of a Thin Man remake, which for the record, I can't see how anyone could improve upon the original, but if this film actually happened and was a hit, I could see them trying to remake more and more of the sequels until they run the franchise into the ground and move onto something else.
-
Unlike Santa, I save the best gifts for the naughty girls...
Man, I really hope my name is in his little black book.
-
2
-
James Mason - under-appreciated great actor, why?
in General Discussions
Posted
You're right, sorry. My mistake.