Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

JamesJazGuitar

Members
  • Content Count

    31,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

Posts posted by JamesJazGuitar

  1. What I've been doing is re-starting my weekly or bi-weekly jam sessions.      I really missed these.     While I didn't play with other musicians (since March of 2020),  I did practice a lot and work on things I had put off for years.    We also shared what tunes  we were working on.      So even though we hadn't  played together for over 15 months we were more connected,  musically than we were before;    This is important to me because I get so much joy connecting musically with others.   

    • Like 1
  2. 1 hour ago, unwatchable said:

    Yes, an unusual film.   Hobo hype. No less true than the type of things people put into their resumes these days.

    I had to look up the storyline for this film and hobo-hype fits to a T.      Marvin and Carradine in competition for hobo of the year.

     

  3. 7 hours ago, Katie_G said:

    Gloria really deserves to have a good biography written about her.  I didn't like Suicide Blonde, and not only because the catchy name is so misleading.   It's a thin 183 page bio that seems mainly drawn from the author's interviews with her sister Joy Mitchum.  The other book Nakano mentioned is better, imo,  but it deals mainly with her work.

    For an actor I define a good biography as one that most covers their career;  the films they were in,   what they might have said about the directors and other actors they worked with,  and in Gloria case,  how she developed her hard-but-vulnerable-no-nonsense screen persona,  which we see starting in 1947 in Crossfire  and Song of the Thin Man.  

    But I assume any biography about Gloria would focus mainly on her off-screen "antics" (mainly the relationship and marriages with Nicholas Ray and his son,  Tony).    I'm really not that interested in that angle (for any actor,.  musician, artist or celebrity).

    Thus I might check out that other-book that "deals mainly with her work".

     

  4. 16 minutes ago, ColonelLudlow said:

    Rage, from George C. Scott night.

    You know, I've never been able to understand why TCM will not air one of my favourite George C. Scott movies: Islands In The Stream.  Anybody know why? Is it too dark? Or, is it that bad?

    Islands in  The Stream is a Paramount film released in 1977 and thus,  TCM would have to go-out-of-their way to lease film.    (such a film isn't part of the Ted Turner library of films that is now owned by TCM's parent Time-Warner).

     

  5. 13 hours ago, Dargo said:

    Heck, I'm old enough to remember wondering how in the world Ozzie and Harriet's BORING son ended up getting a hot babe like June up there to marry him.

    (...she was WAY hotter than that Harmon girl Ricky married, ya know)  ;)

     

    I forgot about that.     June was added to the cast of the T.V. show.

    130 June Blair ideas in 2021 | david nelson, blair, ricky nelson

  6. 1 hour ago, LuckyDan said:

    That is my point. They claim scientific bases but lack them entirely. They use certain arguments (immutability for example) while it serves their purpose, then move on when it's no longer useful, and cook up something else. 

    You are assuming intellectual honesty on their part, while I am pointing out their dishonesty. 

    There are two kinds of leftists: Those who lie and know they're lying and justify it as being a dishonest means to a noble end, and those who believe the lies, parrot them, and help propagate them.

    There is no intellectual rigor on the left. It's mainly sloganeering and social pressure. That's why it's so easy to BE a leftist. It doesn't require much thought and people are nicer to you.

    (MAGA does much the same on the right now, but MAGA is a reaction to leftism.)

    Like I said we will just have to agree-to-disagree.    For one I don't really know what a "leftist" is;   I.e. it is too broad of  a term and,  like a lot of labels,  tends to be used by people to scapegoat and marginalize segments of the population.      But hey,  I see you're doing the same with MAGA.     I would rather discuss actual topics instead of broad categorizations;   Conservatives are like this,  or liberals are like that,  Dems believe this,  GOPers that,   etc...      I find discussing actual topics  is a better way for me to find common ground with people;  i.e.  these broad categorizations just divide people.      I guess in that way I'm woke!  (ha ha).

    One thing I'm sure you noticed is that the people with TDS at this site,  are too cowardly to even discuss a topic once it doesn't fit into how they frame an issue, especially after they find out one isn't a Trumper.     Illegal immigration,  what do to about refuges at the southern border,   the issue with the budget,  debt celling, etc....

    Now that a Dem is President they are silent but when Trump was President,, well they just wouldn't shut up!

     

     

       

    • Confused 1
  7. 33 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

    sounds like some folks reaction to climate change........

    'it's always been that way.......there's nothing we can do to effectively change things.........

    so why bother doing ANYthing at all? '

    :unsure:

    BS.   Climate change can be addressed and there are many changes that could be made to reduce potential future harm  but with gun violence in the USA with the sheer amount of guns already out there:    Sorry,  I just don't see where more gun-control laws (like the ones CA already has) will make much of a difference. 

    But hey,  if you know of some, I'm open to them (expect CA already has the strongest gun laws in the nations so it would not apply to my state anyhow).      One has to be open enough to understand little beyond the government taking guns away and outlawing the sales of bullets will likely have much of an impact.    But again,  if you have any actual measures that you believe would have an impact (say reduce gun violence by 10% or more),   tell us what they are.

     

  8. 1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

    It's often the views of the customers on social media that get corporations in hot water, not the products or

    services themselves. TCM doesn't really care if a small number of people don't like their new logo or sets

    or their harmless superficial social commentary.

     

    Well I guess it all depends on how defines "product";   as you have seen some TCM viewers believe the social commentary is part of the TCM "product"  (i.e.to them it is not only the movies  shown).

    While I find that POV silly,   it could impact viewership.        E.g.   if a guy with orange hair was to advise his followers not to watch TCM because TCM hates white people based on their social commentary,    that could be something that would impact TCM's bottom line.      

    (just like if famous African-Americans like Oprah said to boycott TCM because they are showing films like GWTW or Birth of a Nation etc..).

      

  9. 4 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

    Pandering to, or legitimizing, gender identity disorder, now termed gender dysphoria (which sounds nicer). Those in the medical and psychology fields are under the same political pressures as are politicians and bakers. Sometimes they cave, and we get the crap you see in a return of results on the search question "how many genders are there." 4. 5. 58. 64. 12. 

    God help the progressive who answers that question with 2. 

    This is what I meant when I said progressives have made a faith of science, which unlike tenets of established faith, they have learned they can influence to leverage changes in public policy. You see it in identity politics and in climate change discussion.  During the SSM debates, way back when, they would say "Sexual identity is immutable. I was born this way." They won that debate and then the gender identity stuff started. Born with a ****, but feel like a natural woman? You don't need counseling, you need access to the ladies room. They don't use the "born this way" stuff anymore. 

    Edit: Can't say peeniss? Wow. Okay wee-wee then. 

    Well we can disagree that progressive have made a faith of science.     Again,  if they did they wouldn't have such an anti-science stance on issues like gender identity.  

    But I do wish to note that I don't believe that there are any inherent behavioral differences between the genders other than those related to biology; E.g. child birth,  breast feeding etc...

    How one dresses,  what their hobbies are,  their hair style, etc..   are gender neutral in my world.    Also what gender someone has sex with doesn't concern me at all.   

    I.e.  there are no inherent masculine or feminine traits.     Instead they are social norms and in my view they need to be eliminated. 

    So I feel the progressive movement in their mission eliminated these bogus social norms,  decided that they needed to corrupt science.      People should feel free to dress  as they wish, etc... without having to get surgery to make it "OK" to themselves or anyone else in this  world.

       

  10. 50 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

    No, that wasn't my intent.   We're past the point of trying to curb the number of guns available.   The intent was that even common-sense measures, like training and licensing seems to escape many of our state legislators.

    If gun training  wouldn't have much of  an impact why should state legislators push such measures.   Wouldn't doing so be lacking common-sense?

    Hey,  I'm not a gun owner and I live in CA which has the strongest gun laws in the nation,  so I'm not opposed to them.      But if such measures don't reduce gun violence enough to make them worthwhile I don't see what is gained by others states pushing such measures.      (so to me the debate is if there are measures that can make enough of an impact).

     

    • Like 1
  11. 13 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

    I'm saying that we are third-world status when it comes to gun violence.  Why people are allowed to buy and operate a lethal weapon with no training is beyond my understanding.

    While I agree with the first sentence,  the second sentences appears to imply that there would be a lot less gun violence in the USA if gun training was mandatory.

    Is that what you meant to imply?     I don't think that would help much since the main issue is just too many guns in too many homes.      E.g. if I'm a criminal and I need a gun all I have to do is break into 5 or so homes before I find one  (depending on the state).    In Britain or Japan etc...  I might have to break into 150 homes before I found a gun.

     

    • Like 1
  12. 23 minutes ago, ElCid said:

    Not on a train - not big enough.  One of the misconceptions re: passenger trains and cars is how spacious they are based on what is in the movies.  Most times, the studios built special sets so the rooms and other areas would be larger than in reality.  They would also reduce the number of people in the club car, diners and so forth.

    I think the director of Murder on the Orient Express (1974) intentionally used sets with accurate spacing, particularly in the bedroom scenes.

    Of course I knew the photo wasn't taken on a train.   I was just making a joke since the other poster mentioned that Hell Bound featured a feet fetish and trains. 

    Also,   who cares about trains when there is a photo of a Playmate of the Year.     Even Casey Jones wouldn't  go there.

    Do You Remember... "Casey Jones"

     

  13. 5 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

    Do folks still think that large corporations care about what a small number of their customers

    like or dislike about their product? Hilarious.

    In these times,  large corporations do care about the potential harm a small number of customers can do using social media.     It would be foolish not to have a strategy to try to minimize that potential harm. 

     

    • Like 4
  14. 1 minute ago, rjbartrop said:

    It's already happening.  Look up "Radwood".   It's alays almost exactly 25 years ago that they stopped building "real" cars.

    But yes, there is a big difference between classic, and just old.   Good films still got made after the studio era, and some of them rightly deserve the title of Classic. 

    Even films that are just old are still interesting as glimpses into another time, whether it's one we remember fondly, or one that happened before we were born. 

    Just an aside bout the studio era.  In some ways, we seem to be headed beck to the studio system as the companies that make movies are also increasingly involved on the distribution end.

     

    TCM uses "classic" as just a marketing term it has  no actual meaning with regards to the qualify of the film.

    E.g.  how many 30s "programmers" are high qualify films?   Few IMO.   The studios made these to be released one time as the "B" picture.    

    Hey,  I love many of those films warts and all because I'm a fan of the actors and directors of that era,  but they are not high qualify films and they were never meant to be. 

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 2
  15. 1 hour ago, txfilmfan said:

    The point is that they don't fit into the two-gender category system.   The language we use is insufficient to cover all cases.  Whether they are rare or not is irrelevant.   Their existence shows that there are people born male, people born female, and people that are born other.  

     

    There is a term for them and that is the term that should be used and not transgender.     AND it does matter how rare they are since the term transgender is being used for the 99.9% that were not born-that-way (having characteristics of both genders) and the entire social justice movement is about those with psychological issues and not those born with birth defects.

    Clearly those with said birth defects may need medical treatment,  especially when they hit puberty.   A just society should do all it can to assist them (just like the blind etc...).

    But those with  psychological issues should not be given hormones or surgically "treatment".    They need intense counselling. 

    PS:  I'm sure you're aware of  all this.   We are not trying to make this political,  but instead the focus was on the science.

    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
    • Sad 1
  16. Great to see Sydney Greenstreet as SOTM.     Also happy to see TCM is showing  THAT WAY WITH WOMEN (1947) with Dane Clark and Martha Vickers.

    This was a film Warners had Vickers star in after her splash as Carmen in The Big Sleep.    Silly film but fun with Greenstreet playing Vickers' father.

    Vickers has a lot of nice outfits (daddy is rich),  and she wears them well:

    Martha Vickers – MovieActors.comSydney Greenstreet Martha Vickers Editorial Stock Photo - Stock Image |  Shutterstock

    • Like 3
  17. 1 hour ago, fxreyman said:

    It will be interesting to see if Ootsy will be coming back to comment on our thoughts....

    I gave the  same reply I always do:  as long as 80% or so of the films TCM shows are American Studio-Era films (pre-1969),  I'm fine with the brand.

    What we are seeing is the same-old-same-old;   TCM shows a couple of post-2000 films and oh,  my,, oh my,,,,   all is lost!

     

    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
  18. 15 hours ago, Katie_G said:

    Just practicing my free linked pics skills ...

    One reviewer called Hell Bound  "Like "The Killing" But with Foot Fetishism and Trains"  😄

    Hell_Bound_poster.jpg

     

    June Blair was Playboy's Playmate of the Month,  the same year Hell Bound came out (1957).     Here is a photo where she is paying a lot of attention to her feet.

    Don't know if the photo was  taken on a train or not.

    Margaret June Blair (born October 20, 1933, San Francisco, California) is  an American model and actress. She is best known for being Playboy  magazine's Playmate of the Month for its January 1957

     

  19. 57 minutes ago, nakano said:

    Yes Alain Delon is in my top 5 for most beautiful leading man in the movies,he has made many good films,he has an extensive filmography,a varied one.I think he dies in 17 of them (as he made many action films) if not more, he will be 86 in november,he was a great pal of JeanPaul Belmondo who died 2 weeks ago.

    Delon was a very handsome and dashing actor.    Just saw him a few days ago in The Sicilian Clan.      The film also stars Jean Gabin and Lino Ventura.

    I only saw the last half and the ending and how Delon makes-outs,   didn't surprise me.   

  20. 27 minutes ago, ElCid said:

    Late to this discussion, but the problem is the conflict between "classic" and old movies.  TCM shows old movies, but not all are classic.  However, I have been exposed to and entertained by many "old" movies and have purchased the DVD's because of that exposure.  Lot of them were B movies, at best.  Some SciFi movies shown on TCM are C's, but very entertaining.

    As for old or "classic," it is a moving target. The same argument occurs in the old car hobby.  God Forbid, they are now including cars from the 70's and 80's as "classics" and soon cars from the 90's.  Roughly 25 years ago.

     

    I assume you're joking with the "god forbid";   to someone 25,  a car from the 70s is something their grandparents owned  and in their mind a "classic".

    The moving-target is why I don't use "classic";   instead I try to use  something that is actually meaningful;  E.g.  car from the 70s or studio-era movie.

     

  21. 2 minutes ago, unwatchable said:

    I beg to differ.  Refraining from airing these horribly offensive films would have lessened the risk of apoplexy in the fragile flowers out there in movieland. What they want, though, is to have a straw man to batter around. How can one put their virtue on display if there are no longer any films to  declare racist, misogynistic, etc.? That is the real problem for those who are pure of soul and bereft of sin. Unless they have some "injustice" or "outdated yada yada"  over which they can clutch their pearls and shed crocodile tears, they are incomplete.

     

    Not sure where you big to differ;    if  your  point is that nothing short of a full banning of  these films will satisfy the cancel-activist,     I agree with that 100%.    

    But it appears when you say "What they want" that "they"  is TCM's management and that TCM desired to have their cake and eat it too.       I just don't see it that way based on the comments made by Ms.  Stewart with regards to the new museum and TCM's programming;   Note that the Academy Museum will feature films like GWTW,  Birth of a  Nation,  etc...  just like TCM does;  because they are part of film history and history shouldn't be erased. 

     

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...