retromikey

Anyone have any predictions for insights AB might offer up for Ball of Fire? Maybe something like, "I'm 50/50 on whether Barbara Stanwyck's bare foot would titillate me, but I suppose it was sufficiently enticing for a group of codgers in a 1941 film"

This all makes perfect sense now! With AB, TCM is targeting ULL's (Upscale Luxury Liberals). (sorry, couldn't resist)

You might check this out. Their "targeting" extends beyond programming. http://www.magazine.org/advertising/case_studies/CaseStudyDetail.aspx?k=BC810BE321B64BE08A590E7E4B681E08&t=TurnerClassicMovies

Gail Russell, Bergman and Hayworth all came along in the 40's, but if AB was referring specifically to the 40's in his comment about Virginia Mayo then your point is well taken. And in that case, I'd add Gene Tierney and Lauren Bacall to the list, although my personal favorite was a young Teresa Wright. Give me TW as Carol Beldon or Peggy Stephenson any day of the week : )

Yes, so there were some classic movie actresses who weren't "raving beauties".......so where are the contemporary actresses who put Hedy Lamarr, Gail Russell, Rita Hayworth, Ava Gardner, Grace Kelly, Brigitte Bardot, Virginia Mayo, Natalie Wood , Ingrid Bergman and Elizabeth Taylor to shame? I'd like to see Baldwin's list.

Because TCM doesn't sell advertising, doesn't mean they don't have a targeted audience(s). It seems that they have a rather sophisticated marketing department, and they doubtless have a very defined idea regarding how they intend to gain viewership within different age groups. Ads or not, what the cable companies pay them is dependent upon the popularity of TCM with cable/satellite subscribers. I have no insight as to whether they covet younger viewers, but I agree with the comment that AB would be an OG to the hipster/Y crowd.

As a member of the "legacy audience", I will continue to object to ill-considered drivel even if it does resonate with TCM's targeted demographic. In AB's case, his pop culture status may create some pull, but even among younger viewers, I think his act will wear thin if they actually listen to what he is saying.

My issue with Baldwin has nothing to do with " subconsciously refusing to accept a person having an opinion." If Baldwin's charter as co-host of The Essentials is to enhance ratings by making controversial comments, then he is certainly succeeding. If his charter is to provide insights and make comments that enhance the viewer's experience without antagonizing them, then I'd say he is on on the road to spectacular failure. RO is expert at the latter, but given AB's proclivities, it certainly stands to reason that he'd be better suited for the former. RO is a national treasure who despite the fact that his knowledge of classic movies is nonpareil, never lets his ego drive his comments and opinions. Baldwin on the other hand, needs to inform us mere mortals of insights like a beloved classic movie icon actually being only 50/50 as an actress, and current actresses being more beautiful than those we love from the past. Baldwin (like the rest of us) has his opinions and is entitled to them. What I question is whether TCM and it's loyal viewers are being well served by being subjected to much of what he has to say.

Movies are a visual medium. The visual impact an actor imparts to the audience is an important element of his/her effectiveness. And in this regard, Natalie Wood is in rarified air. -Very rarified. This consideration alone makes Baldwin's 50/50 comment difficult to fathom.

Yes, he said it. Just as he said that Virginia Mayo was one of the few actresses of her era who was as beautiful as actresses of today. Baldwin is offensive, and adds little in the way of true insights. As much as I love TCM, it is terribly disappointing that we will be subjected to another stint of Baldwin co-hosting The Essentials.