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

Recommended Posts

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?

 

I have no idea how her performance could possibly have impressed anyone (let alone the TPTB) at TCM.  There would not be this huge outcry of how bad she is by folks on these message boards if she was good at her job. No one has anything personal against the woman. It's her performance that everyone is commenting about. She's at best amateurish, at worst, completely out of her depth. This is, if you remember, the network that recently got rid of the announcer who had done the "coming up next" voiceovers for quite a while (which I miss.) I think economics has everything to do with this hire and 99% of the other decisions being made at TCM these days.  It's a shame because copping out of quality hosts only diminishes TCM.  I'm sure most of us would agree that we'd be happier with no host on Saturdays than an annoyingly amateurish host.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how her performance could possibly have impressed anyone (let alone the TPTB) at TCM.  There would not be this huge outcry of how bad she is by folks on these message boards if she was good at her job. No one has anything personal against the woman. It's her performance that everyone is commenting about. She's at best amateurish, at worst, completely out of her depth. This is, if you remember, the network that recently got rid of the announcer who had done the "coming up next" voiceovers for quite a while (which I miss.) I think economics has everything to do with this hire and 99% of the other decisions being made at TCM these days.  It's a shame because copping out of quality hosts only diminishes TCM.  I'm sure most of us would agree that we'd be happier with no host on Saturdays than an annoyingly amateurish host.

 

Personally I don't think hosts are necessary for all hours of programming. TCM already does without hosts from 2 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays and nobody complains about it. They're an extra, added benefit of watching the channel. Other sources of classic films, like the Encore channels, have no hosts at all. So I would just look at Tiffany as a nice extra...and if you don't need the extra, then go right to the movie and be glad it airs on TCM without any interruptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 We should all face such extreme pressure when starting a new job-- and see how it feels.

I never would have faced anything like what she's facing because I never would have had the gigantic ego required to put myself forward into a job  for which I was totally unqualified.  I worked in banking, started as a teller, after years of zero mistakes, worked up to loan officer, proved myself over and over, every step of the way, before moving up.  It wouldn't have dawned on me to walk into the bank and tell someone I wanted to start out in a top level, out-front job just because I absolutely loved banking, had tons of enthusiasm for it and wanted to make that my life's work.  If, for some odd reason, I had been given the job over people who had paid their dues and worked their way up and then didn't do it very well,  I think I should have expected criticism -- the same type of criticism we all get on our jobs. Most of us have had ruthless evaluations, why should she be an exception?  Save some of your sympathy for all the people working in small local affiliates who might have  actually deserved this chance and didn't get it.  Think how they feel.

 

  Last night she gave away too much of the plot of "Key Largo."

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I never would have faced anything like what she's facing because I never would have had the gigantic ego required to put myself forward into a job  for which I was totally unqualified.  I worked in banking, started as a teller, after years of zero mistakes, worked up to loan officer, proved myself over and over, every step of the way, before moving up.  It wouldn't have dawned on me to walk into the bank and tell someone I wanted to start out in a top level, out-front job just because I absolutely loved banking, had tons of enthusiasm for it and wanted to make that my life's work.  If, for some odd reason, I had been given the job over people who had paid their dues and worked their way up and then didn't do it very well,  I think I should have expected criticism -- the same type of criticism we all get on our jobs. Most of us have had ruthless evaluations, why should she be an exception?  Save some of your sympathy for all the people working in small local affiliates who might have  actually deserved this chance and didn't get it.  Think how they feel.

 

 

 

Amen!  

  • Like 1
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.

 

 

Well, honestly, some of us may have. We don't always reveal our true identities, do we? If you are, as your ID states, in a creative field, then you probably either experienced or witness, how pressured creative talents are. I certainly have and when it is extreme pressure for unjust reasons, I am always appalled. Sometimes, though, the extreme pressure is what ultimately motivates the recipient to become their best. I'm not saying Ms. Vasquez deserves extreme pressure, but it is incredibly naive to think it doesn't exist in showbiz (there are plenty of classic movies on TCM that tell that story). Likewise, she shouldn't be hired and then given free reign. And, I am not saying she is. I just feel that she is too uncomfortably, awkwardly amatuerish even for a fan turned pro.  I don't like it that TCM doesn't appear to be providing her with better support to develop her talent at this critical time. It is unkind to her and to some TCM fans. Pulling for the underdog, I hope she ends up wowing all existing TCM fans and attracts new fans. 

 

BTW, on another note, I would like to add that the bright orange dress and long earrings she wears in one of her promos is fabulous. Very classic, yet age appropriate and very flattering on her. It raises her credibility with me. (I greatly appreciate that she never sex it up too much. I don't want painted on clothing or too much skin). Her hair and make-up enhance and don't overpower (and they never seem to). She looks like a young, professional woman that is also a lady. Something we aren't often presented and it is a relief and wonderfully refreshing! It represents a level of professionalism that I do expect all of the time from her and the network. I am not suggesting she become a fashion icon, but her on-air image in that promo makes me want to watch her and listen to her. She also appears more comfortable in front of the camera and her delivery seems natural and spontaneous. Regardless that she pulled this look together on her own or with assistance, this is the Ms. Vasquez I want as host. 

 

Thanks

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how her performance could possibly have impressed anyone (let alone the TPTB) at TCM.  There would not be this huge outcry of how bad she is by folks on these message boards if she was good at her job. No one has anything personal against the woman. It's her performance that everyone is commenting about. She's at best amateurish, at worst, completely out of her depth. This is, if you remember, the network that recently got rid of the announcer who had done the "coming up next" voiceovers for quite a while (which I miss.) I think economics has everything to do with this hire and 99% of the other decisions being made at TCM these days.  It's a shame because copping out of quality hosts only diminishes TCM.  I'm sure most of us would agree that we'd be happier with no host on Saturdays than an annoyingly amateurish host.

 

Honestly, if there were no hosts at all at any time, it would not make a difference to me, but I'm not the sole viewership. It seems that TCM has locked itself into that position because now they need a face to go along with the ads for the tours, wines, cruises, monthly guide and whatever is next.

 

It's not just the amateurish host, there also seems to be a decline in the intros, more errors and while they could get past Robert Osborne in his later years, they were much better prior to that. I'm sure that given my history here, there are some that may think that I look for errors. To that I can only say that I only find them in my areas of expertise and as I don't claim to be the end-all about film, there is likely a bunch that go right by me.

 

But if economics must rule, getting rid of the hosts and the research staff is hardly the worst option. I'd rather the money be put into the programming and if they need to do so, they can always find talent for interview shows or retrospectives.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For heaven's sakes, you sound like Fra --

 

Like There's a crime against looking your own age.

 

I always get that from people that I don't look my age-- I have gotten that for about 20 years.

 

But the truth of the matter is that I look my age-- it's just that other people look older than their age.

 

Genetics, of course, plays A part, but it really has more to do with your lifestyle.

 

Anyway, the important thing is not how old you look, but how much you enjoy your life at whatever age you are.

 

C'est la Vie!

You're as young as you feel. I was mostly comparing Feinstein, who looks

younger than his age with Fierstein, who looks his age. In the photo on

his Wiki entry, he now has white hair and a beard and looks fairly distinguished.

They are only a couple of years apart. Now, anybody have a pic of Harvey

Firestone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I doubt, too, that her salary was the sole motivation for hiring her. Who's to say that she didn't have representation or advice during the hiring negotiations? I don't know her salary/contract package, so I don't know if they got her on the cheap or not. She initially was a fan pulled from the ranks, but the moment TCM and Ms. Vasquez began discussing her permanent employment was the moment (for me) when she became a professional. She was seeking and they were offering a professional position. I don't doubt that the future financial successes related to her position (for both TCM and Ms. Vasquez) will be main motivations for her continued employment. Her professionalism and popularity are also factors. She impressed TCM as a true fan, she has yet to prove the same as a true professional. She surely has a probationary period (which would have began in June?) before she begins her solid tenure. I imagine her contract with TCM addresses the harder edges of being a paid professional employed in the entertainment industry. I sincerely wish her the best because I am expecting her best. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of coming off as too "Pollyannaish" I will say, for those of you underwhelmed by the commentary that precedes and follows films on TCM - feel free to come to the message boards to discuss what YOU know and think and feel about the movies they show.

 

It never ceases to amaze and amuse me, the things I read and learn here.

 

There's absolutely no comparison between the "insight" (some of) the hosts provide and the insight and viewpoints that the boards (at their best) provide.

 

Now I'm off to crap daisies and skip through a dale with Hayley Mills....

  • Like 1
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. 

 

Most people on this very thread believe they could do a credible job hosting one day a week. And I'm sure the vast majority would gladly accept the opportunity to do so. Yet, when they hire a fan, its all complaining.

 

I am getting the idea its all about jealousy. That some wish they were the one chosen to present films thinking " I know better than she does !"  :angry: 

 

 

 

I never would have faced anything like what she's facing because I never would have had the gigantic ego required to put myself forward into a job  for which I was totally unqualified. 

 

 

Who says she put herself forward ? This happen in entertainment all the time. There are all sorts of stories about actresses being "discovered" going about their daily lives and given an opportunity to be a star.

 

I could just see her "Oh yes, I love movies and would like to have a career in film some day but, I have to turn down this offer to host on a national network because people will think I'm not qualified to do it." This has happened zero times ever.

 

I think Tiffany would be fine if she just stopped reading the teleprompter and adopt a more coversational tone. Learn something interesting about the movie you are introducing and share that with the viewers.

 

Oh sure, she has that choice. She can read whatever she likes :lol:

  • Like 1
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...