brackenhe

Considering the 70's ended 32 years ago, I'd say those films made during that decade are "old." However, I don't want to steer this discussion in that direction, just emphasizing the obvious. Edited by: helenbaby on Jul 23, 2012 4:07 PM

audreyforever--you see why there's a parents guide. While I appreciate why you dislike the direction movies take these days, the movie you posted about (and included what appear to be spoilers) is rated R so it's not meant for children. Speaking for myself I don't mind a hard R comedy if it's funny. And I know where that argument will be, but you have to decide for yourself whether you want to watch. I don't think we need codes to tell filmmakers what story they want to tell. I don't think everything should be family friendly. Edited by: helenbaby on Jul 21, 2012 1:02 PM

It's not that some members "don't take kindly" to criticism of TCM--it's just that the complaints are so redundant or that these complaints are posted because someone is bored and decides to act provocatively to generate arguments. Both reasons are becoming tiresome, especially for those of us who have been around here for a while.

The Wayback Machine was a time travel device used by Mr. Peabody & Sherman on the Bullwinkle show back when Lynn & I were little kids.

Checking his credits on IMDB he appeared on several variety shows in the 50's but not on Your Show of Shows.

He was on the TCM cruise in Dec. & was out & about visiting the fans during the entire cruise. He loved his fans and appeared to love life. Truly a sweet guy and he did good work.

A Royal Scandal came out in 1945. Maybe on re-release, Baxter's star was rising while Bankhead's star never really rose in films (not that she wasn't important but she never really clicked in films either.) I also think while Fox tried to make Eythe happen, he just didn't click. Could exolain the change in billing. Don't really know--just speculation.

slaytonf--if you are insinuating I fabricated this, I can assure you that this subject was actually posted on the classic film board at IMDB.com. Now whether that person fabricated it or not, I can't say for sure but he sure sounded convincing, based on several posts he made on the thread. If you wish to check it out, it's still an active thread there, although it's about to slip to page 2. Based on another incident he relayed regarding this same woman, I have a feeling it's true.

Mr. Dobbs, I would consider it a great personal favor if you would delete the link from your post. If people want to seek it out, thar's fine but I don't want to be responsible for any backlash if anyone gets nasty with this woman's friend. Thanks in advance.

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote} Yes, but they didn't treat the women they took like sisters, and you could assume they didn't go willingly. It's a brutal story from a barbaric period of the kidnapping of women and their forced marriage. You don't need to downplay the outrage of the source material to excuse your liking the derived, sanitized end product. Hollywood (that is, Louis B. Mayer, the jew who more than most people was responsible for propagating the myth of Christian America) took great pains to insulate the captured women from the danger posed by the sex lust of the Pontipees (and their own inclinations). They were obviously well-grounded in Bible morality by their mother, as evidenced by their naming. Their slovenliness was only characteristic of their maleness, not their barbarity. Having lost their mother, they degenerated into shabby types until Millie came along to take up the role as civilizer and enculturator, and turn them into proper men. *SPOILER BELOW SO PROCEED WITH CAUTION* So you're saying the woman has a point, and we all should be appalled at how this movie plays out while still enjoying the movie? It never even occured to me to be offended because of how the script makes sure they are all "unspoiled" until the end, even though they are married at the point of a shotgun. But only because the women wanted to marry them and achieved this by telling a lie. Now I'm really confused.

I agree with you Sepiatone. I'm all for sensitivity toward minorities & as a woman, understand the traumas & struggles women have had to overcome throughout the ages. But this seems so out of the ordinary overreaction to a film that I've ever heard or seen in my life. After a few replys, the person who posted this turn of events started referring to that portion of the film as the "rape sequence." I tried to refrain from comment until that happened. I know the song is based on the story of the Rape of the Sabines, but there is no rape, or anything even close to it, in the movie. I feel like these events in the film are handled as sensitive as possible, and the Brothers learm a lot about women along the way. It's a tempest in a teapot, IMO. Edited by: helenbaby on Jul 7, 2012 10:44 AMbecause it's hard to type on these damn pads

I frequent the IMDB message boards which I'm sure some of my fellow posters do as well (I see clore there often.) Anyway, one of the regulars posted something that's been on my mind for a few days. It seems that one of his colleagues went to a film festival featuring dance in film and 7 Brides was a film that was going to be included. I don't know whether his friend prescreened the film or what (that wasn't quite clear from the initial post.) She was so upset about the Sobbin' Women number & subsequent "abduction" of the girls that she left the film in hysterics & convinced the film festival comittee to delete the film from the line up to "protect" other women from seeing such horrible acts. Okay, whether you like the film or not (and I like it very much) what does anyone think of these actions, what happens in the film or this person's reaction? It's my understanding that she didn't see the rest of this movie after those scenes.

There is a child actor from the 1980's named Huckleberry Fox. His highest profile role was playing Teddy, one of Debra Winger's kids in Terms of Endearment.

Well, I look at it differently. People who act for a living owe the audience nothing more than their best performance, just as the folks at the DMV owe you nothing more than handling your business in a timely and efficient manner. I think anytime a "celebrity" owes you more is if they are making a personal appearence where their sole purpose is to nteract with fans. If I'm eating dinner or shopping or walking my dog, I'd hope I could do it in peace. As far as Ron Howard never putting him in films, it's my understanding that Griffith never wanted to go too far away from home when he was winding down his careere,even shooting the last few seasons of Matlock in North Carolina.Maybe Howard tried to hire him many times & he didn't want to leave NC. Edited by: helenbaby on Jul 5, 2012 4:32 PM

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}I was also glad to see the original author cited. > > I did wonder how much of the text was editorialized. After all, was the writer in the room when the inquests were held? It was so descriptive, especially the death scenes, that unless one had access to a crystal ball or the actual police reports, then my guess is some of it was embellished. > > Still, I think the facts are mostly there in the article. Exactly how do you know what research the original author did or didn't do? He could very easily filed a FOIA for the police report and/or researched contemporary (to the time of his suicide) news reports.

Great info, Tom. I remember when I first noticed him in the Dick Powell films, that it was darn near impossible to find anything on the internet about him and really didn't have any way to research him in my local area. Slowly info has been coming out regarding him & his career and his tragic end. This is the most I've read to date. I've actually liked himin most of what I've seen.

It's funny you mention this because he was on Letterman a couple of weeks ago, and Dave brought up the subject of his appearance in these movies. He didn't back away from it and even made a nice mention of Avalon. What does he care? He's an old man who's been successful.

How do you know it's good natured? Maybe some folks prefer civility to "sniping & sniding".

I didn't mean to come across as scolding anyone, just giving facts as they were told to those folks who got to attend the q&a he had on the cruise. Maybe it seemed a long time to be off but he has 2 jobs (TCM & Hollywood Reporter) and IMHO deserved a few weeks off. I don't know what kind of dental work he had but sometimes those things can involved a few appointments. In reality he was only off about 8 weeks, even though he was off the channel for 12 weeks. Disclaimer: I never spoke to him personally, just relaying what he told us as a large group.

Mr. Osborne did not take off because of health problems. I went on the cruise in Dec. and he said he had no time off in the first 15 years and needed to have some dental work done & routine medical tests. Nothing major, just tired. He was out & about during his time off and was back at work a full month before we actually saw him back intoducing movies. He spent a lot of time before he started back filming the Essentials intro/outros with Drew Barrymore because she only had a short window for the tapings. Now he is 80 years old but I suspect he will be here for a few more years, God willing.

Not only Boardman's dress but her friend's dress were both just gorgeous.

One month a few years back, actors born in Canada were Star of the Month, although i'm not sure if any films were shown that were made there.

It's On Dangerous Ground starring Robert Ryan & Ida Lupino.

Any particular reason you bumped this? Seems like it's played out as well as the other one you bumped.

Excellent job, rey. Too bad your efforts will be lost on persons basing their opinion on "feelings."