Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
BonnieC

Tiffany Vasquez

Recommended Posts

It is ridiculous and yet it's also true that a good movie is still a good movie whether one sees it alone or surrounded by people. There's just no real point to her commentary here. It doesn't promote her nor TCM nor does it make any real sense. It would be one thing if she said that she loves to use social media to read more about film or to see the opinions of others about film in order to write better commentaries and become a more knowledgeable host.

 

In truth, it makes me think that she graduated from Trump University - there's a bunch of words there (between gulps of air in order to affect the vocal fry) but there's no real point and not much promise.

.

 

You are really out of touch with how many young people communicate today.    e.g. when they go to a concert and they will Tweet to each other during the show 'hey, did you see what Katy Perry did during XYZ'.   

 

Or there is the water cooler type of experience between 'friends' about shared experiences.  

 

While I don't participate in these new forms of communication and find them 'odd' this is where it is at.    TCM is trying to build market share using these methods.     Sports programming is going this way as well;   Tweets after great plays to the 'gang'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are really out of touch with how many young people communicate today.    e.g. when they go to a concert and they will Tweet to each other during the show 'hey, did you see what Katy Perry did during XYZ'.   

 

Or there is the water cooler type of experience between 'friends' about shared experiences.  

 

While I don't participate in these new forms of communication and find them 'odd' this is where it is at.    TCM is trying to build market share using these methods.     Sports programming is going this way as well;   Tweets after great plays to the 'gang'.  

 

First off, you are not in the position to make judgments about me or what I know about how young people communicate today. Second, why use a concert as an example when we're discussing seeing movies in a theater? Tiffany mentioned movies that were made to be seen with other people, you might have a point if she was referring to concerts. Besides, If people are tweeting while watching movies on TV, that's nothing like how most people behave while sitting in a darkened theater watching a movie - most do not converse while watching and if they do, they tend to get shushed.

 

The theaters that I attend don't allow the use of devices to tweet as the light they emit are distracting to other patrons. Your mileage (and your theater) may vary - notice that I did say "may" - I don't want to make any judgments about you based on my minimal familiarity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The theaters that I attend don't allow the use of devices to tweet as the light they emit are distracting to other patrons. Your mileage (and your theater) may vary - notice that I did say "may" - I don't want to make any judgments about you based on my minimal familiarity.

 

You're lucky with your theater, because at mine, despite the multiple on-screen admonitions to turn off your mobile devices, people continue to use them throughout the film. Texting, playing games, taking calls, whatever they want to do. And if you complain to the management, they actually say that they won't throw people out or confront them about mobile device abuses, because they can't afford to lose the business, and that's the way of the world now. This actually happened to me.

 

The last movie I saw in the theater was Lights Out, about a murderous being that could only attack people in darkness. Well, me and my fellow viewers need not worry about that, since three separate groups of people kept their glaringly bright phones on through the entire movie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, you are not in the position to make judgments about me or what I know about how young people communicate today. Second, why use a concert as an example when we're discussing seeing movies in a theater? Tiffany mentioned movies that were made to be seen with other people, you might have a point if she was referring to concerts.

 

The theaters that I attend don't allow the use of devices to tweet as the light they emit are distracting to other patrons. Your mileage (and your theater) may vary - notice that I did say "may" - I don't want to make any judgments about you based on my minimal familiarity.

 

First who said that we were talking about movies in a theater?   It was my understanding the discussion was about  TCM (which isn't shown in a theater),  and the comment Tiffany made related to watching movies on TCM.

 

Many young people don't wish to travel to visit friends,  instead they use a smartphone.   A group of friends will plan an evening 'together' where they all decide to watch the same film,  but all from their own place.    While the film is running they Tweet back to each other about what they are seeing just like we might to the person sitting next to us on the couch.

 

That is what Vasquez was talking about.   Sorry you were offended but I stand by what I said.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are really out of touch with how many young people communicate today.    e.g. when they go to a concert and they will Tweet to each other during the show 'hey, did you see what Katy Perry did during XYZ'.   

 

Or there is the water cooler type of experience between 'friends' about shared experiences.  

 

While I don't participate in these new forms of communication and find them 'odd' this is where it is at.    TCM is trying to build market share using these methods.     Sports programming is going this way as well;   Tweets after great plays to the 'gang'.  

A lot of young people are doing something with their devices during their entire waking hours, which I find extremely psychopathic.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First who said that we were talking about movies in a theater?   It was my understanding the discuss was about  TCM (which isn't shown in a theater),  and the comment Tiffany made related to watching movies on TCM.

 

Many young people don't wish to travel to visit friends,  instead they use a smartphone.   A group of friends will plan an evening 'together' where they all decide to watch the same film,  but all from their own place.    While the film is running they Tweet back to each other about what they are seeing just like we might to the person sitting next to us on the couch.

 

That is what Vasquez was talking about.   Sorry you were offended but I stand by what I said.

 

I quoted Tiffany's comment verbatim:

 

Because a lot of these movies were made for the social experience, they were made to be seen with other people.

 

Where are movies intended to be seen with other people? In a theater, especially the films that TCM airs, 99% of which are theatrical features. That's where people go to see them. If she's trying to compare the viewing habits of then versus now, she failed. Most of the films that TCM airs were made in a period when people had to retain their thoughts until they left the theater. If one is insistent on conversing during the film in any manner, then one really isn't paying attention and that's not what movies were made for - an inattentive audience. The social experience came from being scared next to someone, or laughing at the same jokes. They were not made to be discussed while they were unspooling.

 

I understand the difference between presentation then and now and how contemporary audiences of a certain age may act. I doubt that Tiffany does and if she does, she positioned it incorrectly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of young people are doing something with their devices during their entire waking hours, which I find extremely psychopathic.

 

I'm not saying I support these type of 'group' (but really non-group),  experiences.    When I 'visit' with my friends I like to be in the same room with them!    Yea, their extreme need to communicate borders on the insane.     When I took my nephews hiking I said no devices were allowed.    They did it,  and while they said they enjoyed the hike,  they appear to be avoiding me about doing this on a more routine basis.    (yea, that single was loud and clear without a Tweet!).

 

 But this is the way things are going.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I support these type of 'group' (but really non-group),  experiences.    When I 'visit' with my friends I like to be in the same room with them!    Yea, their extreme need to communicate borders on the insane.     When I took my nephews hiking I said no devices were allowed.    They did it,  and while they said they enjoyed the hike,  they appear to be avoiding me about doing this on a more routine basis.    (yea, that single was loud and clear without a Tweet!).

 

 But this is the way things are going.

DO you feel the need to be with your live friends ALL the time? These young people can't stand to be EVER out of touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quoted Tiffany's comment verbatim:

 

Because a lot of these movies were made for the social experience, they were made to be seen with other people.

 

Where are movies intended to be seen with other people? In a theater, especially the films that TCM airs, 99% of which are theatrical features. That's where people go to see them. If she's trying to compare the viewing habits of then versus now, she failed. Most of the films that TCM airs were made in a period when people had to retain their thoughts until they left the theater. If one is insistent on conversing during the film in any manner, then one really isn't paying attention and that's not what movies were made for - an inattentive audience. The social experience came from being scared next to someone, or laughing at the same jokes. They were not made to be discussed while they were unspooling.

 

I understand the difference between presentation then and now and how contemporary audiences of a certain age may act. I doubt that Tiffany does and if she does, she positioned it incorrectly.

 

Clearly she wasn't saying one had to go to a theater to see the type of film TCM shows.   The main reason should be obvious;    99% of the films shown in theaters are NOT the films shown on TCM.

 

What she was doing is what I stated;  That because these films are NOT shown in theaters there isn't the same type of social experience.    But using social media (like the example I provided),  one can have something similar to that theater experience.

 

To me she didn't position it incorrectly if one understands how social media has changed how people experience things and communicate about these experiences.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of young people are doing something with their devices during their entire waking hours, which I find extremely psychopathic.

 

Not just young people. I've had recent "dates" with women who are about a decade younger (let's say early 50s) and both could not put their phones down. These were both women I've known for years, just that my situation had changed and I was free to go out for an evening with them - separately. In each case we were at dinner and they kept answering the phone, checking email and sending text messages. It's acceptable if someone has to take an emergency phone call, but just damned rude otherwise.

 

Yet each one has asked me why we don't go out for dinner anymore and when I responded, I was told that I'm just not with it, this is what people do now.

 

I can only imagine the reaction if I were sitting across the table and said that I have to check the TCM Message Boards to see if I've gotten any new responses. :)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of sad that so many people seem to have antipathy towards Tiffany. We should all face such extreme pressure when starting a new job-- and see how it feels.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly she wasn't saying one had to go to a theater to see the type of film TCM shows.   The main reason should be obvious;    99% of the films shown in theaters are NOT the films shown on TCM.

 

What she was doing is what I stated;  That because these films are NOT shown in theaters there isn't the same type of social experience.    But using social media (like the example I provided),  one can have something similar to that theater experience.

 

To me she didn't position it incorrectly if one understands how social media has changed how people experience things and communicate about these experiences.     

 

I didn't say that 99% of the films shown in theaters are shown on TCM. I said that 99% of what TCM shows are movies made for theaters. There is a difference.

 

>>What she was doing is what I stated;<<

 

And I say that what she was doing is what I stated; We'll have to agree to disagree and chalk it up to personal interpretation. You're not bowing to my genius and I'm not bowing to yours. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that 99% of the films shown in theaters are shown on TCM. I said that 99% of what TCM shows are movies made for theaters. There is a difference.

 

>>What she was doing is what I stated;<<

 

And I say that what she was doing is what I stated; We'll have to agree to disagree and chalk it up to personal interpretation. You're not bowing to my genius and I'm not bowing to yours. ;)

 

I understood what you said.    But if one wants to see these 'old'  films they can't wait for a theater to show them.

 

Yea, we can agree to disagree,  but I still feel you created a straw man POV by misrepresenting her POV just so you could throw her under the bus (which is the overall intent of this entire thread). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood what you said.    But if one wants to see these 'old'  films they can't wait for a theater to show them.

 

Yea, we can agree to disagree,  but I still feel you created a straw man POV by misrepresenting her POV just so you could throw her under the bus (which is the overall intent of this entire thread). 

 

Actually when she first appeared, I was a defender in this forum. But you're entitled to be wrong, my pencils have erasers also.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD

I was looking for my old post - it was when she first introduced NAKED CITY or maybe the next time. I could not find that one, but I did find this one which you wrote, so it appears that we've both done a 180 on the subject.

 

What makes you think that Ms. Vasquez knows her stuff?    Based on what I have seen she is fairly ignorant when it comes to what was going on in previous decades and about the movies she was hosting.

 

My opinion is an informed one  based on what I saw.    What are you basing your opinion on?

 

http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/73924-who-is-the-young-host-that-presented-little-darlings-last-night/page-2&do=findComment&comment=1200259

 

EDITED ONCE AGAIN:

This is what I said around the same time as your comment:

 

You make a good point here and that is that using a non-pro should have mandated a genuine pro on the other side of the camera. I will admit that TCM makes some state-of-the-art promos, the monthly compilations of clips are excellent for the most part. If they were going to throw poor Tiffany Vasquez out into battle, they could have protected her to some degree. She has my sympathy and support in this matter.

 

 

http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/73829-did-i-hear-the-intro-to-these-three-correctly/&do=findComment&comment=1200328

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of sad that so many people seem to have antipathy towards Tiffany. We should all face such extreme pressure when starting a new job-- and see how it feels.

 

I think most of us realize that getting a competent new host was as simple as going to a casting agency in NY or LA and stating specific criteria to a casting director: "Want Female Minority, 20-30, able to host Saturday afternoon film segment on classic film network. Knowledge of vintage films desirable." TCM execs could then then have watched dozens upon dozens of auditions of professionals to identify someone who has experience and is actually comfortable speaking in front of a camera. Why should we, as viewers, be put through watching an "Earn As You Learn" neophyte?? It's totally absurd. I have no problem with the age, sex or ethnicity of the new host (and it seems clear that TCM was not interested in another white male host which is fine by me) but TCM is a television network which owes its viewers a level of professionalism which this woman does not have.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JamesJazzGuitar is exactly right but to go further she isn't talking about people's friends who live in the same neighborhood she is talking about using social media to share the experience of watching a film together with the overall TCM community which is much larger than this forum.

 

There is a very large group of people who live watch films on TCM and use Twitter to discuss those films. And no they aren't just "young people" but people of all ages and backgrounds. I know many are also prominent film bloggers and some of those people have formed lasting friendships and have even met at the TCM film fest.

 

While no it's not the same as seeing a movie in the darkened theater it's another way to have a shared group experience with film even if those people are not in the same State as you.

 

This entire thread is offensive. I follow Tiffany on Twitter and she is extremely intelligent and knowledgable about film. Sorry you don't like her introductions but I guess it's easy to judge and criticize on the Internet much harder to ignore a 5 minute introduction on a Saturday afternoon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of us realize that getting a competent new host was as simple as going to a casting agency in NY or LA and stating specific criteria to a casting director: "Want Female Minority, 20-30, able to host Saturday afternoon film segment on classic film network. Knowledge of vintage films desirable." TCM execs could then then have watched dozens upon dozens of auditions of professionals to identify someone who has experience and is actually comfortable speaking in front of a camera. Why should we, as viewers, be put through watching an "Earn As You Learn" neophyte?? It's totally absurd. I have no problem with the age, sex or ethnicity of the new host (and it seems clear that TCM was not interested in another white male host which is fine by me) but TCM is a television network which owes its viewers a level of professionalism which this woman does not have.  

 

I think people are not understanding how she was given this job. She was basically auditioning in 2014 with the Fan Programmers (probably several of the Fan Programmers were auditioning without realizing it)...and she stood out. Then later in the fall she returned to host a monthly spotlight. That was her second audition, if you will. She must have done well enough the second time she hosted on air, or else they wouldn't have said "yes, let's make her a permanent part of what we do."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of us realize that getting a competent new host was as simple as going to a casting agency in NY or LA and stating specific criteria to a casting director: "Want Female Minority, 20-30, able to host Saturday afternoon film segment on classic film network. Knowledge of vintage films desirable." TCM execs could then then have watched dozens upon dozens of auditions of professionals to identify someone who has experience and is actually comfortable speaking in front of a camera. Why should we, as viewers, be put through watching an "Earn As You Learn" neophyte?? It's totally absurd. I have no problem with the age, sex or ethnicity of the new host (and it seems clear that TCM was not interested in another white male host which is fine by me) but TCM is a television network which owes its viewers a level of professionalism which this woman does not have.  

 

I think TCM was going for something beyond just the younger demo, or ethnic diversity. Those both played a part, certainly, but choosing Tiffany also brings with it the notion that people like YOU the TCM viewer at home, could maybe one day be a host, too! See! She's just like you out there in the world, a viewer and lover of classic movies! This feeds into the celebrity culture that is also prevalent nowadays, where many people feel that celebrity in and of itself is a desirable pursuit. (The Paris Hilton/Kardashian family Effect) 

 

I don't rank Tiffany in with those "celeb-utantes". She has a lot more going for her than that. But the notion of being plucked up and put front-and-center before the cameras is another part of the demographic narrative.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't rank Tiffany in with those "celeb-utantes". She has a lot more going for her than that. But the notion of being plucked up and put front-and-center before the cameras is another part of the demographic narrative.

 

Perfectly stated. You and I joked awhile ago about what it would be like if Garry Shandling was still alive and did a spoof on TCM-- and yes, he'd include the Tiffany Girl and her storyline, because it is now part of this channel and its history...and Shandling would see the humor in all these people thinking Audrey Hepburn is the only acceptable Tiffany's Girl. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you might have a point but why rain on our parade? It feels so good to hate and it relieves back pain, gout, night blindness and makes cancer cells shrink. You should try it sometime. Or else, may I ask how do you bond with people?

 

Funny. But aren't there more positive ways to bond with people?

 

I sure hope Tiffany has a thick skin, or else she stays away from reading these kinds of threads.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny. But aren't there more positive ways to bond with people?

 

I sure hope Tiffany has a thick skin, or else she stays away from reading these kinds of threads.

 

You shouldn't have mentioned her skin.    This may lead to someone commenting on her shoes and feet and that is how the last thread got closed down!   :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are not understanding how she was given this job. She was basically auditioning in 2014 with the Fan Programmers (probably several of the Fan Programmers were auditioning without realizing it)...and she stood out. Then later in the fall she returned to host a monthly spotlight. That was her second audition, if you will. She must have done well enough the second time she hosted on air, or else they wouldn't have said "yes, let's make her a permanent part of what we do."

 

Come on.  Networks don't hire talent from the ranks of viewers.  This is like saying that a person who watched the Olympic coverage should be able to get a shot at hosting it next time around.  Give me a break.  Don't you think Robert Osbourne auditioned for his spot on TCM?  And Ben??  I don't think they were selected from the ranks of "fans" who sent in a tape.  And, speaking of the "monthly spotlight" she was terrible when she did that.  No, clearly this is all about economics.  Had TCM hired professional talent to host Saturdays (whether "famous" or unknown) they would have had to negotiate a rate of payment for the talent's services, pay agents, etc.  Ya know.  The way networks generally procure talent. TCM wanted to hire a rank amateur who had no representation so they could offer that person whatever low salary they wanted to pay. This had nothing to do with some:  "Oooh.  You, the fan can be a permanent host!" brainstorm.  It was all about getting the cheapest person they could and it shows. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think TCM was going for something beyond just the younger demo, or ethnic diversity. Those both played a part, certainly, but choosing Tiffany also brings with it the notion that people like YOU the TCM viewer at home, could maybe one day be a host, too! See! She's just like you out there in the world, a viewer and lover of classic movies! This feeds into the celebrity culture that is also prevalent nowadays, where many people feel that celebrity in and of itself is a desirable pursuit. (The Paris Hilton/Kardashian family Effect) 

 

I don't rank Tiffany in with those "celeb-utantes". She has a lot more going for her than that. But the notion of being plucked up and put front-and-center before the cameras is another part of the demographic narrative.

 

It's like a ginormous selfie

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't have mentioned her skin.    This may lead to someone commenting on her shoes and feet and that is how the last thread got closed down!  

 

Yes, surprisingly Anthony hasn't shown up. Must be other things going on in the cornfield today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on.  Networks don't hire talent from the ranks of viewers.  This is like saying that a person who watched the Olympic coverage should be able to get a shot at hosting it next time around.  Give me a break.  Don't you think Robert Osbourne auditioned for his spot on TCM?  And Ben??  I don't think they were selected from the ranks of "fans" who sent in a tape.  And, speaking of the "monthly spotlight" she was terrible when she did that.  No, clearly this is all about economics.  Had TCM hired professional talent to host Saturdays (whether "famous" or unknown) they would have had to negotiate a rate of payment for the talent's services, pay agents, etc.  Ya know.  The way networks generally procure talent. TCM wanted to hire a rank amateur who had no representation so they could offer that person whatever low salary they wanted to pay. This had nothing to do with some:  "Oooh.  You, the fan can be a permanent host!" brainstorm.  It was all about getting the cheapest person they could and it shows. 

 

I need to think about this latest comment of yours. I can see where she would not make as big a salary as the other two...but I'm not sure putting her into that position was solely motivated by financial issues. My understanding of the situation is she impressed the powers that be at TCM, and they decided to give her a chance. There doesn't have to be anything more to it than that, does there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...