JonParker

> Expressing our opinions is "disruptive"? Really? > Maybe some of us feel that 4 or 5 threads devoted to > Rob Zombie is a little disruptive. Maybe I'll start > some threads devoted to Seven Brides For Seven > Brothers. Comparing Rob Zombie to a gorilla repeatedly is not an "opinion," it's an insult. Any substantive discussion as to whether or not TCMU is appropriate programming for the channel, on either side, was over months ago. At this point yes, it's disruptive.

> This country was built on protest's (sic) and as I > mentioned before I am exercising that right and will > continue to do so with or without your approval! > Thank you! Comparing a lot of whining about a TV movie host to the right to protest oppression and war just makes the complaining look siller than ever. And oobleckboy, maybe the TCMU site does need a message board, or at least its own segment under genre forums. Apparently we're being told that the anti-TCMU contingent will continue to be disruptive if we attempt to have civil discussion of the films here.

One of the things I really enjoy about the serials is Noel Neill as Lois Lane. She was by far the best Lois ever -- smart, sassy and driven. She's everything Lois should be. It's a shame that she wasn't in the first and best season of the TV show. I'm not fond of Margot Kidder's portrayal. I like Erica Durance in "Smallville" -- she seems to really get the character. I haven't seen Teri Hatcher or Kate Bosworth yet. It's hard to imagine anyone else nailing Lois the way Neill does, though. She was the perfect Lois in my book.

The Old Dark House with Boris Karloff. Great movie. It shows up on TCm now and again, and it's on DVD.

Keaton's not even in the top ten? Blasphemy!

> 3. I hardly think anyone on this board would use the > 'F-word' in Highlights Magazine. Well, Goofus does. Gallant, however, does not.

I've been looking at this thread for a few days trying to think of someone who feels comfortable to me. It's a tough call -- that's not a reaction I usually have to actors. After much thought, I'd have to name Eugene Pallette. He may have been a right wing nutjob in real life, but I love watching him on screen. Even in his worst movies (Lights of New York) he's fun to see.

Kurosawa, Dreyer and Murnau.

I missed seeing that one, but I love the revivals at the Charles. Sadly, they aren't showing right now, and there's no indication of when they'll be back. I've seen some great movies there.

You can add me to the list of Kay Francis worshippers. Louise Brooks was amazing. Clara Bow was good too. Audrey Hepburn sends shivers down my spine.

I completely agree. I love TCM, or I wouldn't be here. I hope that TCM understands that a lot of the complaining comes from people who are scared. Classic movie fans felt really burned by what happened to AMC, and there's a lot of fear of losing TCM too. When programming changes that appear positive to some of us (like TCMU) come along, it raises that fear level. I'd be devastated if TCM went down that path, as I'm sure all of the posters here would be -- it may be the one thing we can all agree on. People are jumpy when change happens, fearing that it may be a portent of things to come. We have assurances that this is not the case, and hopefully we can relax and enjoy the finest channel going. I'll add my thanks to Anne for starting this thread. It's good to see a positive discussion for a change.

> You want a Ritz Brothers Night .... And I won't > wish you dead. I dunno Jack. There are limits.

> > where did heidigunn go, anyway? > > I've been wondering the same thing myself. I sent her > a PM a while ago and never heard back. She probably > got tired of all the negativity and Rob Zombie > obsessions on this board. *snicker*

I was once on a cooking site whose profanity filter would remove the word "cucumber." Profanity is not only used by people with poor intelligence or vocabularies. I cuss constantly in real life, at least in social situations. I don't do it here because it's rude, although I would if I felt the situation warranted it.

> Overall - subtle is better for me. I don't > need lessons. Maybe that's why men appreciate sex in movies more than women do : )

> Guess you didn't read what I wrote. > > First, even if I had an inclination for politics, no > one in today's America would vote for me. I would!

> > I agree entirely! I'm amazed anyone could agree, because upon rereading the first sentence of that paragraph is the clumsiest thing I've ever written.

I've been trying very hard to stay off of politics on these boards. If you knew me you'd understand just how hard that is. But I've got to say, man, that was beautiful.

> You know, if I wanted political discussion, I'd go to > the CSPAN message boards (if there are things like > that) or a political blog and fight with people > there. Perhaps TCM should start a Turner Classic > Politics message board. In all seriousness, that's not a bad idea. A lot of web forums I've posted to have some sort of discussion area where off topic threads can be created or moved. A "Not About Movies" forum might help take some of the pressure off the main boards.

I watched Cold > Mountain in the theaters with my mother... when > the first sex scene came (not the one between the two > lovers... the one with the prostitutes) It was > nothing short of repulsive... And what a shame! It > took a film that otherwise had a beautiful story > about love and made it disgusting. I have not seen Cold Mountain, so I can't speak to that particular scene. But let me try another one -- the scene where the brutal cowboy cuts the prostitute in Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven." It's repulsive, but it's critical to the story -- it sets up everything that comes afterward. An even better example is the scene where Jody Foster is raped in "The Accused." It's vitally important that we see what actually happened, because the rest of the movie is about her attackers and the legal system making the rape to be something less than it actually was. By showing it to us on screen, we know who is lying throughout the rest of the film. I respect your choice to avoid movies that have sex in them, but for me it's really a matter of artifice. Throwing a sex scene into a movie to make the audience momentarily forget how dumb the storyline or directing is is just as bad as some of the stretches they used to go to in the 40s and 50s to avoid even a hint of sex when showing us would have been far preferable from an artistic standpoint. As long as the scene moves the story forward and reveals something about the characters (pun intended), I'm fine with it. It's like any other dramatic device -- it can be used for good or evil.

imdb says that it's in widescreen, but other sources say that it was shot in Academy ratio. I've never see it in anything but 4:3, so I question whether or not imdb is correct.

I don't propose to get into an argument over Jane Fonda here. My post was solely to correct inaccuracies. I don't see that Ms. Fonda's extracurricular activities have any bearing on her movies, which is what TCM and this board are about. She's been an actress since the 60s, and is the daughter of a Hollywood icon. That makes her a suitable candidate for TCM in my opinion.

RT, I agree about Dailey. I always loved watching her.

Anne, First off, I know you don't advocate censorship, and that's one of things I admire about you. You're able to separate what you want to see from what anyone should be allowed to see, and there's too few people who can do that. My response was to the thread in general, which was about the "less is more" theory. I agree that sometimes that's the case, but not always -- it depends on the skill of the filmmaker. Todd Solondz makes movies with fairly explicit sex that's almost never about love, and usually ends up being a horrible mistake on the part of the character involved. They're good movies though, and the non-erotic way in which sex is presented is important to the story. If you want to show love on screen then sex is not the way to do it -- there are many other ways to get that message across that are far more effective. But that doesn't mean that sex isn't an important part of people's lives, and by extension an important part of the lives of fictional characters. I'm hard pressed to think of many movies in which sex was important to a love relationship, even to the present day. Sex is usually shown between characters who are cheating on spouses or in other situations in which sex and danger are intertwined. I'm not sure this is a good thing. As much as I love film noir, the attitudes towards sex are fairly repulsive -- a sexually aware woman is either willing to murder or to make some poor **** murder on her behalf. For all the hipness in noir, the films are pretty biblical in their sexual attitudes. I don't think modern films are much better. From a female perspective, the last era when female attitudes toward sex were presented as healthy was in the pre-codes.

> You're not a Vietnam vet, I take it. Nope, too young. > > You are correct, I was wrong about the notes and the > tank, but Hanoi Jane is still a traitor and I would > only watch Osborne interview her if he spat tobacco > juice at her: Whatever. I'm no Jane Fonda fan, but this stuff happened so long ago it seems pretty irrelevant to me. I'm also not in favor of judging the quality of the work by the life of the person creating it. Reifenstahl was a fantastic filmmaker, even though she used her talent in the service of odious ideas.