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

Recommended Posts

I don't see it as a sexual issue at all.

TCM has always explained when films were edited/censored to be different than what they director had intended to be seen. The Big Sleep (1946) is one, This is just another example.

There are still many pre codes that had "code" endings slapped on to them so they could be shown during the code enforcement era.  I still would like to see those original endings !

I appreciate when TCM notes when a film has been mutilated, regardless of why.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

Yeah, you've got their number, Vautrin! Note how often Ben M. keeps repeating the mantra about how he's not surprised anymore about the young ages of some of the TCM fans!!! I guess not, since the programming of the Trangressing Chaste Minds hypnotic trance mode is daily supplying new addicts.

My bet is that if one slowed down those horrid wine commercials with Muller, there are a bunch of subliminals with images of penile objects suspended in the glass reflections of the wine bottles in close-up shots, doing many obscene things. Also just like Chanel did in that famous tv ad, the images overlap in ways that make objects appear to be animated and part of the homunculus in flagrante delicto. I think it's not much of a reach to figure out that the neck of a wine bottle is similar to what inspired the lyrics of the song, "Chantilly Lace" with its long necked goose tidbits. All these supposedly married wine couples on the ads [probably swingers] trying to find recruits for their product too, by making the wine for the film "Beach Blanket Bingo" appear innocent and how they coupled it with food, like a Pasta Primavera is an obvious seductive technique. If one is trying to get innocent teens to indulge in wine though, I think Muller may have to touch up his greying sideburns, because the Danny Thomas look never is attractive to young females or males for that matter.

Yep. Mank and Muller are subtly but still pretty obviously trolling for the little 'uns. Just because

they use adult language fools nobody. Mank even has that little pop up thing for the movie club.

Right. Soon they'll be co-hosting Little Rascals festivals at midnight in their basements. Parents,

get on YT and watch some of those old 1950s shorts about the weird guy riding around or sitting

on a park bench. Nothing much has changed, they've just moved from the park bench to

the TV studio. Sad. (In an emergency a quick application of black shoe polish will hide

that grey. Just sayin')

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Yep. Mank and Muller are subtly but still pretty obviously trolling for the little 'uns. Just because

they use adult language fools nobody. Mank even has that little pop up thing for the movie club.

Right. Soon they'll be co-hosting Little Rascals festivals at midnight in their basements. Parents,

get on YT and watch some of those old 1950s shorts about the weird guy riding around or sitting

on a park bench. Nothing much has changed, they've just moved from the park bench to

the TV studio. Sad. (In an emergency a quick application of black shoe polish will hide

that grey. Just sayin')

What with the capture of the Golden State serial killer, Mank and Muller might want to cool it, since they now can find you by locating your relatives online with a DNA sample.

Now the names Mank and Muller do sound a bit like the monikers for the Hillside Strangler team of Bianchi and Buono, but I digress. I think Mank probably has just been programmed in this ritualistic con, and would rather go eat at that Russo's restaurant, or whatever his name is, that they used to tout on the channel. Muller, on the other hand, does a bit resemble John Wayne Gacy, so if he starts wearing a clown uniform on the wine ads, look out. I will admit his purple prose writing style would attract teen girls who enjoy Harlequin Romance novels so he might have an in with them.

Thanks for acknowledging the scatalogical content hidden behind the boring exteriors of the participants in the wine ads, of Muller and Company.
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FilmSnob said:

I sometimes wish we could go back to the conservative old days of flapper girls in the 1920s.

No you don't cuz then we'd just be talking about Clara Bow meeting up with the entire UCLA football team and you know where that would end. Those flappers as drawn by John Held Junior were pretty loose girls and once they cropped and marcelled their hair, there was no stopping them with the bathtub gin drunk out of their shoes or their dancing like Joan Crawford, and you know she was in some of those blue movies also.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, CaveGirl said:

No you don't cuz then we'd just be talking about Clara Bow meeting up with the entire UCLA football team and you know where that would end. Those flappers as drawn by John Held Junior were pretty loose girls and once they cropped and marcelled their hair, there was no stopping them with the bathtub gin drunk out of their shoes or their dancing like Joan Crawford, and you know she was in some of those blue movies also.

Why did those girls need mad money?

Did they really  hide their prohibition liquor flask  in  their  stocking garter?

And what went on with the car rumble seat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

No you don't cuz then we'd just be talking about Clara Bow meeting up with the entire UCLA football team and you know where that would end. Those flappers as drawn by John Held Junior were pretty loose girls and once they cropped and marcelled their hair, there was no stopping them with the bathtub gin drunk out of their shoes or their dancing like Joan Crawford, and you know she was in some of those blue movies also.

Actually CG, your reference to this never to be substantiated rumor about Clara's supposed "o*r*g*i*e*s"(and most likely false...at least according to all the football players supposedly involved and questioned later in life about this) should have been to UCLA's crosstown rival, the USC football team.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 12:55 AM, Dargo said:

Actually CG, your reference to this never to be substantiated rumor about Clara's supposed "o*r*g*i*e*s"(and most likely false...at least according to all the football players supposedly involved and questioned later in life about this) should have been to UCLA's crosstown rival, the USC football team.

 

OMG! I am mortified to have confused the USC team with the UCLA team. Thanks, Dargo for catching that mistake.

Now which team was John Wayne on as I think the rumor got started because of him, maybe???
 

Don't know though if I can believe any testimony by football players due to much frontal lobe injuries on the playing field that we keep hearing about and in those days, they only wore the light helmets, am I right?

Enjoyed the clever insertion of "o*r*g*i*e*s" into your post!
 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

OMG! I am mortified to have confused the USC team with the UCLA team. Thanks, Dargo for catching that mistake.

Now which team was John Wayne on as I think the rumor got started because of him, maybe???
 

Don't know though if I can believe any testimony by football players due to much frontal lobe injuries on the playing field that we keep hearing about and in those days, they only wore the light helmets, am I right?

Enjoyed the clever insertion of "o*r*g*i*e*s" into your post!
 

USC.
Don't forget to wander over to the salacious rumor that I posted about Marion, Ward, John & Clyde, over in THE SWIMMER thread, as an example of how such salaciousness is so easily promulgated. ;):D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

It's been a few months since I've visited TCM Message Boards, but I did want to update my comments regarding the "sexual freedom" comments I posted back in May. As I had tried to indicate in my initial posting, I was addressing what is depicted on the film screen...not what goes on in actors' bedrooms in their real lives. I'm not concerned about which actor had an "affair" with whom in their personal lives. At the same time, the sex scene between Michael Douglas and Glenn Close in FATAL ATTRACTION was totally pornographic in nature. But it did serve one useful purpose. It demonstrated how contemporary film directors and screen writers delight in merging the porn genre with the mainstream film genre. It all clearly contributes to why minors are becoming pregnant at the age of twelve or fourteen in today's society. In their immature and underdeveloped minds, they naturally perceive such on screen behavior as the norm, and as "cool"...the thing to do if you are really "with it"...and if you truly want to "fit in" with your peers and be socially accepted. To try and contrast Katherine Hepburn's personal life involving Spencer Tracy (be it alleged or real) with the modern pornographic content of contemporary films such as FATAL ATTRACTION (1987) is ludicrous. One has nothing to do with the other. The images and messages we transplant into the minds of our youth through modern commercial films, on the other hand, is extremely important.    

The hypocrisy of modern Hollywood goes even further than that though. Hollywood liberals call for more national gun control laws, even as they continue to glamorize gun violence and killing on the screen. Afterall, just like graphic sex, gun violence on the screen makes for greater financial profits. The fact that young minds are subconsciously influenced by these images makes little difference to them. It's the financial bottom line that counts, isn't it. How much did this or that film gross? Like contemporary major league sports, or the TCM Wine Club, it's about business and profits...another way to generate greater revenue...and nothing more. 

As for me, I am hardly what could be termed a "prude." I have no problem with nude or topless beaches, nor with vacationing at nudist recreational resorts. I apply no moral litmus test to them. Families can frequently be found at such venues. Healthy social attitudes about the human body are fundamentally different in nature from sexual decadence. So I would hardly take offense at the Tarzan movies of the 1930's or 1940's. On the other hand, I have sufficiently high enough cognitive functioning to recognize modern code words as "sexual freedom" and the like for what they are. It's a way of subtly giving the finger to conservative sexual values, while attempting to further validate the pseudo-values that rose to prominence in the 1960's.  

One final point...Turner Classic Movies is clearly "experimenting" with bringing in various young women as introductory narrators to read the teleprompter at the beginning of various films shown on TCM. I suppose this is an attempt to draw in a younger viewing audience. There is a constant attempt to enlarge that financial bottom line. As for me, I still miss Bob Dorian, Nick Clooney and the original AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS channel of the 1980's and 1990's....now known as AMC. It was so pure in content...and quite devoid of commercialism. Many of us have been taken in by the mega financial profits mentality that is now symbolized by the CNN's and the MSNBC's of today. I suppose it was inevitable. But in the end, the important thing is to keep your distance, and maintain a healthy, cynical eye toward it all...and what it represents.                

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a few months since I've visited TCM Message Boards, but I did want to update my comments regarding the "sexual freedom" comments I posted back in May. As I had tried to indicate in my initial posting, I was addressing what is depicted on the film screen...not what goes on in actors' bedrooms in their real lives. I'm not concerned about which actor had an "affair" with whom in their personal lives. At the same time, the sex scene between Michael Douglas and Glenn Close in FATAL ATTRACTION was totally pornographic in nature. But it did serve one useful purpose. It demonstrated how contemporary film directors and screen writers delight in merging the porn genre with the mainstream film genre. It all clearly contributes to why minors are becoming pregnant at the age of twelve or fourteen in today's society. In their immature and underdeveloped minds, they naturally perceive such on screen behavior as the norm, and as "cool"...the thing to do if you are really "with it"...and if you truly want to "fit in" with your peers and be socially accepted. To try and contrast Katherine Hepburn's personal life involving Spencer Tracy (be it alleged or real) with the modern pornographic content of contemporary films such as FATAL ATTRACTION (1987) is ludicrous. One has nothing to do with the other. The images and messages we transplant into the minds of our youth through modern commercial films, on the other hand, is extremely important.    

The hypocrisy of modern Hollywood goes even further than that though. Hollywood liberals call for more national gun control laws, even as they continue to glamorize gun violence and killing on the screen. Afterall, just like graphic sex, gun violence on the screen makes for greater financial profits. The fact that young minds are subconsciously influenced by these images makes little difference to them. It's the financial bottom line that counts, isn't it. How much did this or that film gross? Like contemporary major league sports, or the TCM Wine Club, it's about business and profits...another way to generate greater revenue...and nothing more. 

As for me, I am hardly what could be termed a "prude." I have no problem with nude or topless beaches, nor with vacationing at nudist recreational resorts. I apply no moral litmus test to them. Families can frequently be found at such venues. Healthy social attitudes about the human body are fundamentally different in nature from sexual decadence. So I would hardly take offense at the Tarzan movies of the 1930's or 1940's. On the other hand, I have sufficiently high enough cognitive functioning to recognize modern code words as "sexual freedom" and the like for what they are. It's a way of subtly giving the finger to conservative sexual values, while attempting to further validate the pseudo-values that rose to prominence in the 1960's.  

One final point...Turner Classic Movies is clearly "experimenting" with bringing in various young women as introductory narrators to read the teleprompter at the beginning of various films shown on TCM. I suppose this is an attempt to draw in a younger viewing audience. There is a constant attempt to enlarge that financial bottom line. As for me, I still miss Bob Dorian, Nick Clooney and the original AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS channel of the 1980's and 1990's....now known as AMC. It was so pure in content...and quite devoid of commercialism. Many of us have been taken in by the mega financial profits mentality that is now symbolized by the CNN's and the MSNBC's of today. I suppose it was inevitable. But in the end, the important thing is to keep your distance, and maintain a healthy, cynical eye toward it all...and what it represents.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

Been a while since I've heard anyone use that glop....

But I clearly recall seeing a lady on the old MERV GRIFFIN talk show, back in the early '60's, talking about the teen pregnancy "epidemic" that had been going on(in her words) "for more than a decade".

Which means that years BEFORE there were ever "pornographic" elements in movies, TV shows and even MUSIC, teens everywhere were gravitating towards sexual activity and experimentation. Blaming it all on the movies and music is a concept that LONG ago has been proven to hold no water.

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Philip1749 said:

It's been a few months since I've visited TCM Message Boards, but I did want to update my comments regarding the "sexual freedom" comments I posted back in May. As I had tried to indicate in my initial posting, I was addressing what is depicted on the film screen...not what goes on in actors' bedrooms in their real lives. I'm not concerned about which actor had an "affair" with whom in their personal lives. At the same time, the sex scene between Michael Douglas and Glenn Close in FATAL ATTRACTION was totally pornographic in nature. But it did serve one useful purpose. It demonstrated how contemporary film directors and screen writers delight in merging the porn genre with the mainstream film genre. It all clearly contributes to why minors are becoming pregnant at the age of twelve or fourteen in today's society. In their immature and underdeveloped minds, they naturally perceive such on screen behavior as the norm, and as "cool"...the thing to do if you are really "with it"...and if you truly want to "fit in" with your peers and be socially accepted. To try and contrast Katherine Hepburn's personal life involving Spencer Tracy (be it alleged or real) with the modern pornographic content of contemporary films such as FATAL ATTRACTION (1987) is ludicrous. One has nothing to do with the other. The images and messages we transplant into the minds of our youth through modern commercial films, on the other hand, is extremely important.    

The hypocrisy of modern Hollywood goes even further than that though. Hollywood liberals call for more national gun control laws, even as they continue to glamorize gun violence and killing on the screen. Afterall, just like graphic sex, gun violence on the screen makes for greater financial profits. The fact that young minds are subconsciously influenced by these images makes little difference to them. It's the financial bottom line that counts, isn't it. How much did this or that film gross? Like contemporary major league sports, or the TCM Wine Club, it's about business and profits...another way to generate greater revenue...and nothing more. 

As for me, I am hardly what could be termed a "prude." I have no problem with nude or topless beaches, nor with vacationing at nudist recreational resorts. I apply no moral litmus test to them. Families can frequently be found at such venues. Healthy social attitudes about the human body are fundamentally different in nature from sexual decadence. So I would hardly take offense at the Tarzan movies of the 1930's or 1940's. On the other hand, I have sufficiently high enough cognitive functioning to recognize modern code words as "sexual freedom" and the like for what they are. It's a way of subtly giving the finger to conservative sexual values, while attempting to further validate the pseudo-values that rose to prominence in the 1960's.  

One final point...Turner Classic Movies is clearly "experimenting" with bringing in various young women as introductory narrators to read the teleprompter at the beginning of various films shown on TCM. I suppose this is an attempt to draw in a younger viewing audience. There is a constant attempt to enlarge that financial bottom line. As for me, I still miss Bob Dorian, Nick Clooney and the original AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS channel of the 1980's and 1990's....now known as AMC. It was so pure in content...and quite devoid of commercialism. Many of us have been taken in by the mega financial profits mentality that is now symbolized by the CNN's and the MSNBC's of today. I suppose it was inevitable. But in the end, the important thing is to keep your distance, and maintain a healthy, cynical eye toward it all...and what it represents.

 it represents capitalism. You got a problem with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip1749, several things:

Pornographic material has existed eons ago.  Dirty books, dirty pictures, etc. are as old as the human civilization.  

Kids today don't just watch Fatal Attraction or anything you object to in this thread.  They watch PORN ITSELF.  Anyone can get it on the Internet with little or no searching effort nowadays.

Rather than objecting to spreading liberal views by spreading anti-liberal views of your own, do the sensible thing and actually educate the young folks about what they see in pop culture in general with the knowledge that they are going to see it anyway whether you like it or not.  But of course you can't, since kids today probably understand today's pop culture better than you.  MOST PEOPLE probably do it better than you because you've shown you have very little understanding of it.

The kind of conservatism you espouse here is rooted in jealousy more than anything: if I can't have any fun, neither should anybody.  When kids watch more pop culture than you and know it more than you, you feel powerless so you try to take back the power with dumb, negative, sweeping dogma about how seeing sex on screen is bad.

Kids tomorrow will probably fix the problems in the world better than adults like you have done for the world today, I can guarantee you that.  Why not just let it go and believe the kids will fix everything?  That is something said by no old person ever, and that's just sad.  How old are you?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2018 at 4:30 AM, Philip1749 said:

The young, new narrator with the English accent featured on TCM hosted a showing of Tarzan films on Tuesday, May 9th. She referred to the censorship imposed on those films of the 1930's by the movie industry's certification board as a lack of "sexual freedom." Apparently the lead female character was required to wear clothing that was less skimpy than a bikini would be. Is this another example of TCM promoting a liberal position when it comes to traditional social attitudes about sex? It sometimes seems that TCM feels frequently compelled to promote what might be called younger-oriented attitudes about sexuality, perhaps in an attempt to gain a larger television audience of viewers under thirty...thus the need for using terms like "sexual freedom" on the air.  

Define: "traditional"

Define: "liberal"

Define: "sex"
 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DVDPhreak said:

Kids tomorrow will probably fix the problems in the world better than adults like you have done for the world today, I can guarantee you that.  Why not just let it go and believe the kids will fix everything?  That is something said by no old person ever, and that's just sad.  How old are you?

Young people ("kids") have been saying that since they first came out of the caves.  Unfortunately they become just like the "adults" people they complain about.  After all there was a new group of "kids" emerging every 20-30 years for thousands of years.  Incidentally, you have to be an adult to "fix" anything.

The answer is for all to work together to fix the problems and make the world better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

Define: "traditional"

Define: "liberal"

Define: "sex"
 

Hey CG! While you're at it, how about askin' Phillip here to define an "English accent"???

'Cause it seems he's likely to define an AUSSIE accent, and what the lovely IF somewhat nasally Alicia Malone has, as an ENGLISH one!

(...wouldn't ya say?!) ;)

LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

Pornography on the internet--

Land Sakes Alive!

What is this world coming to?

One of the things I learned from watching the TV series Rome, was how much pornographic graffiti was on the buildings there and other places.  It has been with us forever.

When you look at where the world is now and what mankind does and how it was almost the same 500, 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 years ago, makes you wonder if mankind ever really will improve very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sepiatone needs to stop name-calling without knowing someone personally. I'm hardly a "prude"...since I attend nude recreational resorts from time to time. I had no problem with the dress code for actors in the Tarzan movies of the 1930's. Loin cloths do NOT offend me. Nor do bikini's. I was simply pointing out that we need to be aware of code words that might convey a hidden agenda. TCM is a large revenue-oriented "brand" that seeks to enlarge its bottom line for those with financial interests in the corporation. While this is not immoral nor uncommon in our capitalist world, we need to bear in mind that much of the content of TCM (when not actually showing a movie) is profit-oriented. While having some liberal attitudes socially speaking, at the same time I recognize commercialism when I see it, and reject a good deal of it out of hand. Now does that make me a socialist? Hardly.    

I liked the old AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS channel of the 1980's and 1990's because it was pure and totally free of commercialism. I got to watch movies without all the frills and revenue-generating gimmickry of TCM. I don't need people "thinking" for me or telling me what to believe. I can do that for myself, thank you.

As for the young females now being showcased on TCM at the introduction of some of their featured movies, we might bear in mind that they are simply reading from a teleprompter. No great skill is required, other than good eyesight and the ability to read. Vasquez is gone, and now we have her replacement, a red head from Great Britain. It apparently is "try-out" season for young females at TCM. But why no males? Do only girls qualify for this opportunity? Again, sex appeal for the sake of revenue-generation....and more than a slight hint of over-commercialism.

Purist, non-commercialized movie channels like the original AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS (AMC) of the 1980's and 1990's became dinosaurs and quickly disappeared, and this because they weren't designed to generate huge mega-profits for the global corporations that control the entertainment and news media television channels of today. Only over-commercialization survives, it would seem...the law of the commercial, capitalist jungle. I'm grateful that TCM remains commercial advertising-free. Much of that " financial revenue" comes instead from my monthly cable television bill. I guess I can live with that.                       

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Philip1749 said:

we need to bear in mind that much of the content of TCM (when not actually showing a movie) is profit-oriented. While having some liberal attitudes socially speaking, at the same time I recognize commercialism when I see it, and reject a good deal of it out of hand. Now does that make me a socialist? Hardly.    

I liked the old AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS channel of the 1980's and 1990's because it was pure and totally free of commercialism. I got to watch movies without all the frills and revenue-generating gimmickry of TCM. 

As for the young females now being showcased on TCM at the introduction of some of their featured movies, we might bear in mind that they are simply reading from a teleprompter. No great skill is required, other than good eyesight and the ability to read. Vasquez is gone, and now we have her replacement, a red head from Great Britain. It apparently is "try-out" season for young females at TCM. But why no males? Do only girls qualify for this opportunity? Again, sex appeal for the sake of revenue-generation....and more than a slight hint of over-commercialism.

Purist, non-commercialized movie channels like the original AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS (AMC) of the 1980's and 1990's became dinosaurs and quickly disappeared, and this because they weren't designed to generate huge mega-profits for the global corporations that control the entertainment and news media television channels of today. Only over-commercialization survives, it would seem...the law of the commercial, capitalist jungle. I'm grateful that TCM remains commercial advertising-free. Much of that " financial revenue" comes instead from my monthly cable television bill. I guess I can live with that.                       

Without "commercialism," there is no TCM.  It's FREE!  Your "monthly cable television bill" is minuscule when compared to what you receive.  Also, TCM is not stand alone, but bundled and usually into one of the lowest cost packages.

As for the old AMC, I called AMC when they went commercial and rep. was quick to reply "Well we have to make money some how."  That is the truth.  Remember, you did not pay to watch it, other than maybe a very low cost cable charge bundled with many other commercial channels.

As for adding "young females," that is to correct the many years of pretty much not having any females, young or old.  It is called diversity, fairness and equal treatment.  Personally, as an old guy, I am somewhat tired of hearing old guys.  I do not see TCM adding "sex appeal" when choosing their announcers, just joining the 21st century.

You try introducing a movie LIVE in a studio knowing than millions will be watching you.  Heck, I get nervous addressing 3 or 4 people.  And everyone uses teleprompters.

Remember this if nothing else.  TCM is fighting for its very life as a network.  It probably needs more crass commercialism and must appeal to a broader audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 1:03 AM, Dargo said:

Hey CG! While you're at it, how about askin' Phillip here to define an "English accent"???

'Cause it seems he's likely to define an AUSSIE accent, and what the lovely IF somewhat nasally Alicia Malone has, as an ENGLISH one!

(...wouldn't ya say?!) ;)

LOL

Hey to you too, Darg!

I wouldn't dare but you could ask our little TCM friend, Eric to do his impression of his favorite actor, Eric Blore for Phillip, to give him a taste of the real thing.

For a fine English accent, Eric Bore...or Eric Blore [if he weren't buried in Forest Lawn] could muster up a good line reading I'm so sure.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

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