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

This Program Contains Outdated Cultural Depictions


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

I used to have MOVIES before I went back to Direct, always thought it was pretty good. 

You're preaching to the choir though on this type of editing though. I've posted before about the cut on Three Days of the Condor. The word "homosexual" is removed. It's not used in any derogatory way at all, but someone thought it needed to go. 

 

2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I really like the movies MOVIES shows since they focus on studios that TCM doesn't (Warner, MGM, RKO).     Thus MOVIES has those fine 20th Century Fox noirs,  films from Columbia studios and others like United  Artist.     So while I don't like the editing or the commercials,   I still end up watching MOVIES.

Thursday is noir in the evening,  and Sundays is almost all noir films.        

You two DO know that the "Movies!" channel has an exclamation point at the end of its name, don't ya?!!

(...take it from a guy who always likes to use a whole lot of those suckers!!!)  ;)

LOL

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Leighcat said:

Which points to the very lack of effectiveness. They already know.

It's a pose. Virtue signaling. Pre-emptive but yeah. They're saying, "Please don't call us and b!tch out our phone reps. We know these are white actors playing native Americans but what are we gonna do? The boomers love this crap. Don't worry. They'll be dead soon."

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

It's a pose. Virtue signaling. Pre-emptive but yeah. They're saying, "Please don't call us and b!tch out our phone reps. We know these are white actors playing native Americans but what are we gonna do? The boomers love this crap. Don't worry. They'll be dead soon."

LOL

YEP!

(...and in fact, I can feel my arteries hardening as I sit at this keyboard this evening!)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

Of course. We date Ginger but we marry Mary Ann.

Anita Loos wrote Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, and followed it up with But Gentlemen Marry Brunettes.  (Both were, of course, turned into movies in the 1950s.)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I really like the movies MOVIES shows since they focus on studios that TCM doesn't (Warner, MGM, RKO).     Thus MOVIES has those fine 20th Century Fox noirs,  films from Columbia studios and others like United  Artist.     So while I don't like the editing or the commercials,   I still end up watching MOVIES.

Thursday is noir in the evening,  and Sundays is almost all noir films.        

We no longer have Movies! network available in our area.  That is one of the problems with the local TV stations and their other channels.  They keep dropping networks and substituting others.

It used to be on one of the channels on Spectrum, but then was dropped for something else the local station wanted to broadcast.  The Movies! site shows it still available OTA, but none of my OTA sets will pick it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Dargo said:

Yep, and kind'a like how one of the then new television networks at the time, Fox, didn't yet have a ratings winner on their schedule UNTIL and AFTER all the uproad created by the Religious Right about their 'Married ...with Children' sitcom came about, and which then in turn caused a big increase in its ratings.

(...yep, know exactly what ya mean here, CI)

Everyone said that the Fox network would never work and that it would go off the air quickly. Ironically, it was the stink over Married with Children, The Simpsons, and Shannon Doherty's loss of virginity episode on Beverly Hills 90210 that really gave them their start and kept them on the air and in business. Talk about irony...... :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CinemaInternational said:

Everyone said that the Fox network would never work and that it would go off the air quickly. Ironically, it was the stink over Married with Children, The Simpsons, and Shannon Doherty's loss of virginity episode on Beverly Hills 90210 that really gave them their start and kept them on the air and in business. Talk about irony...... :rolleyes:

It was the contemporary "Banned in Boston."

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

Everyone said that the Fox network would never work and that it would go off the air quickly. Ironically, it was the stink over Married with Children, The Simpsons, and Shannon Doherty's loss of virginity episode on Beverly Hills 90210 that really gave them their start and kept them on the air and in business. Talk about irony...... :rolleyes:

What occurred with Married with Children etc..  was the first time I became aware of a cancel-culture type of activity backfiring and instead of getting shows canceled made them major hits.        And yes folks I meant to say cancel-culture;  this isn't something that progressive just invented in the last few years,  but instead has been going on since the beginning of time:   public pressure to ensure conformity to norms. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

What occurred with Married with Children etc..  was the first time I became aware of a cancel-culture type of activity backfiring and instead of getting shows canceled made them major hits.        And yes folks I meant to say cancel-culture;  this isn't something that progressive just invented in the last few years,  but instead has been going on since the beginning of time:   public pressure to ensure conformity to norms. 

Can't disagree more. Cancel culture goes hand in hand with the concept of political correctness. It is the inevitable result of political correctness. If a thought or a statement can be said to be correct politically, it follows that any opposing thought must be incorrect, politically. From there it's a very short walk from simply being incorrect to being hateful, and not simply wrong but evil. Once you have cast your opponent's beliefs as evil, it is very easy to say they must be punished for voicing their thoughts and holding their opinion. 

Liberals used to say, if you don't like it, change the channel. Progressives now say, if you don't like it, smash a brick over their head. (I miss liberals.)

Mores are elastic. Dogma is strict.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LuckyDan said:

Can't disagree more. Cancel culture goes hand in hand with the concept of political correctness. It is the inevitable result of political correctness. If a thought or a statement can be said to be correct politically, it follows that any opposing thought must be incorrect, politically. From there it's a very short walk from simply being incorrect to being hateful, and not simply wrong but evil. Once you have cast your opponents beliefs as evil, it is very easy to say they must be punished for avoiding their thoughts and holding their opinion. 

Liberals used to say, if you don't like it, change the channel. Progressives now say, if you don't like it, smash a brick over their head. (I miss liberals.)

Mores are elastic. Dogma is strict.

Yea,  I know we disagree on this topic.   Political correctness has also existed since mankind began and formed political systems.    

Take your example of dogma:  what side of the political spectrum was mainly the one pushing dogmatic ideals,   and conformity to these ideals over the centuries?     

You know the answer but I guess you will continue to pretend you don't.      I do agree that in the USA progressive (which I'm not, since I'm a libertarian)  today are more dogmatic and trying to ensure conformity to their dogmatic ideals than conservatives.      Maybe a lot more.     That is because they have the political power to do so.    

I reject such thinking from both sides of the political spectrum.      I.e. let people be what they want to be,  and think what they wish to think,  as long as they are not harming others.     I would hope that is a concept most people would  agree with but it appears the vast majority of people do not.     Oh well,   I just play more guitar and ignore them. 

 

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

Yea,  I know we disagree on this topic.   Political correctness has also existed since mankind began and formed political systems.    

Take your example of dogma:  what side of the political spectrum was mainly the one pushing dogmatic ideals,   and conformity to these ideals over the centuries?     

You know the answer but I guess you will continue to pretend you don't.      I do agree that in the USA progressive (which I'm not, since I'm a libertarian)  today are more dogmatic and trying to ensure conformity to their dogmatic ideals than conservatives.      Maybe a lot more.     That is because they have the political power to do so.    

I reject such thinking from both sides of the political spectrum.      I.e. let people be what they want to be,  and think what they wish to think,  as long as they are not harming others.     I would hope that is a concept most people would  agree with but it appears the vast majority of people do not.     Oh well,   I just play more guitar and ignore them. 

 

Insulting as hell, and surprising. When have I ever disagreed in bad faith here with you or anyone else?

I assume you are referring to the church but I honestly don't know. It's your argument. Complete it. 

I would ask that you consider the Bolsheviks, the Marxists, the Fascists, and the Nazis in your survey of dogmatic idealists. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ElCid said:

We no longer have Movies! network available in our area.  That is one of the problems with the local TV stations and their other channels.  They keep dropping networks and substituting others.

It used to be on one of the channels on Spectrum, but then was dropped for something else the local station wanted to broadcast.  The Movies! site shows it still available OTA, but none of my OTA sets will pick it up.

I had never noticed the Movies! channel until its mention here. Checked my cable -- I have it. But in looking at the listings, I don't see anything terribly unusual. Some good movies, but nothing unusual, at least not in the last couple of days. For example, Father of the Bride is on tomorrow morning; Doctor Zhivago is on at 5pm, followed by The Yearling; then the 1952 Monkey Business in the wee hours. What's so special? The way a few of you were carrying on, I thought they must be showing Peter Ibbetson!

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I had never noticed the Movies! channel until its mention here. Checked my cable -- I have it. But in looking at the listings, I don't see anything terribly unusual. Some good movies, but nothing unusual, at least not in the last couple of days. For example, Father of the Bride is on tomorrow morning; Doctor Zhivago is on at 5pm, followed by The Yearling; then the 1952 Monkey Business in the wee hours. What's so special? The way a few of you were carrying on, I thought they must be showing Peter Ibbetson!

Yep, pretty much true here, Swithin. Over the years I too have noticed that the vast majority of that channel's offerings are also occasionally shown on TCM as well. Good point!

Plus, those films are sometimes not "unedited" and the channel is not "commercial free" to boot.

Now, I DO occasionally watch a film that they broadcast, but they most often tend to be films of which I'm already familiar and such as your above mentioned examples.

(...still though, I've always considered that channel a "plus" and in regard to it now days being a rarity in showing these old classics films)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

Liberals used to say, if you don't like it, change the channel. Progressives now say, if you don't like it, smash a brick over their head.

 

My God, this is stupid.

 

Also, if you don't like it, change the channel, or, maybe, fast forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, noticed there's THIS too...............

‘Forget the Alamo’ Unravels a Texas History Made of Myths, or Rather, Lies

Three Texan authors build on a long tradition of dissent from patriotic accounts of Texas history in a new book on the racism baked into our story of the Alamo.

 

".......the authors of Forget the Alamo argue that the entire Texas Revolt—“which wasn’t really a revolt at all”—had more to do with protecting slavery from Mexico’s abolitionist government. As they explain it, and as Chicano writers, activists, and communities have long agreed, the events that occurred at the Alamo have been mythologized and used to demonize Mexicans in Texas history and obscure the role of slavery.

Taking a comprehensive look at how the mythos of the Alamo has been molded, Burrough, Tomlinson, and Stanford paint a picture of American slaveholders’ racism as it made its way into Texas. In their stories of these early days, they peel back the facade of the holy trinity of Alamo figures: Jim Bowie, William Barret Travis, and Davy Crockett. All three died at the Alamo and their surnames are memorialized on schools, streets, buildings, and even entire counties.

They pull no punches describing Bowie as a “murderer, slaver, and con man;” Travis as “a pompous, racist agitator;” and Crockett as a “self-promoting old fool.” ................

https://www.texasobserver.org/forget-the-alamo-unravels-a-texas-history-made-of-myths-or-rather-lies/?fbclid=IwAR1IwOKyArudCy_jX5pqYz89U4kG_-V-a1YWSAuYFpXn4aVtFc3Xi2KdC7s

<_<

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mr6666 said:

BTW, noticed there's THIS too...............

‘Forget the Alamo’ Unravels a Texas History Made of Myths, or Rather, Lies

Three Texan authors build on a long tradition of dissent from patriotic accounts of Texas history in a new book on the racism baked into our story of the Alamo.

 

".......the authors of Forget the Alamo argue that the entire Texas Revolt—“which wasn’t really a revolt at all”—had more to do with protecting slavery from Mexico’s abolitionist government. As they explain it, and as Chicano writers, activists, and communities have long agreed, the events that occurred at the Alamo have been mythologized and used to demonize Mexicans in Texas history and obscure the role of slavery.

Taking a comprehensive look at how the mythos of the Alamo has been molded, Burrough, Tomlinson, and Stanford paint a picture of American slaveholders’ racism as it made its way into Texas. In their stories of these early days, they peel back the facade of the holy trinity of Alamo figures: Jim Bowie, William Barret Travis, and Davy Crockett. All three died at the Alamo and their surnames are memorialized on schools, streets, buildings, and even entire counties.

They pull no punches describing Bowie as a “murderer, slaver, and con man;” Travis as “a pompous, racist agitator;” and Crockett as a “self-promoting old fool.” ................

https://www.texasobserver.org/forget-the-alamo-unravels-a-texas-history-made-of-myths-or-rather-lies/?fbclid=IwAR1IwOKyArudCy_jX5pqYz89U4kG_-V-a1YWSAuYFpXn4aVtFc3Xi2KdC7s

<_<

Considering that the 1960 movie John Wayne directed and starred in was about this battle, isn't it ironic that the point of the above article (though actually an argument against  it) was also very memorably and concisely included in another movie the guy starred in just a couple of years later...

974852dd29768447fff8d91ee25bf2ec.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

What occurred with Married with Children etc..  was the first time I became aware of a cancel-culture type of activity backfiring and instead of getting shows canceled made them major hits.        And yes folks I meant to say cancel-culture;  this isn't something that progressive just invented in the last few years,  but instead has been going on since the beginning of time:   public pressure to ensure conformity to norms. 

So, does DAN think THESE guys weren't putting pressure on anyone to conform to some perceived "norms"?   And remember, these guys weren't liberals or "progressives".(as defined by modern day addle brained millennials)   And their "culture" was one that cancelled many a person and thing.

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

So, does DAN think THESE guys weren't putting pressure on anyone to conform to some perceived "norms"?   And remember, these guys weren't liberals or "progressives".(as defined by modern day addle brained millennials)   And their "culture" was one that cancelled many a person and thing.

Sepiatone

Well sure Sepia, these guys were also participating in a "cancel culture" manner too back then.

But you have to remember here that these guys were just tryin' to "keep us from becomin' like those godless Commie Ruskies over there", and you know what they say about there bein' no limits when it comes to the defense of freedom, don't ya?! 

Just ask any ol' archconservative you might know. They'll tell ya!

(...of course though, they'd never think of NOR tell ya that they ever thought of THIS sort'a thing as being any sort'a "cancel culture" thing, ya know)  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, you guys DO know that this whole "cancel culture" thing almost ALWAYS goes hand-in-hand with being a freakin' political ideologue, don't ya?!!! And, regardless with which side of that spectrum this type self-identifies.

YOU know, one of the two most dangerous damn types in the world, along with those freakin' religious fanatics out there!

(...yeah, okay sure...I knew the enlightened assembled around here would know all this...just checkin', that's all) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the problem most people have with the Hollywood Blacklist isn't that it existed, but that it was anti-communists doing the blacklisting  Blacklist the "right" group of people and they'd be fine with it.

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

It seems the problem most people have with the Hollywood Blacklist isn't that it existed, but that it was anti-communists doing the blacklisting  Blacklist the "right" group of people and they'd be fine with it.

baseball_player_photo-673x1024.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mr6666 said:

BTW, noticed there's THIS too...............

‘Forget the Alamo’ Unravels a Texas History Made of Myths, or Rather, Lies

Three Texan authors build on a long tradition of dissent from patriotic accounts of Texas history in a new book on the racism baked into our story of the Alamo.

 

".......the authors of Forget the Alamo argue that the entire Texas Revolt—“which wasn’t really a revolt at all”—had more to do with protecting slavery from Mexico’s abolitionist government. As they explain it, and as Chicano writers, activists, and communities have long agreed, the events that occurred at the Alamo have been mythologized and used to demonize Mexicans in Texas history and obscure the role of slavery.

Taking a comprehensive look at how the mythos of the Alamo has been molded, Burrough, Tomlinson, and Stanford paint a picture of American slaveholders’ racism as it made its way into Texas. In their stories of these early days, they peel back the facade of the holy trinity of Alamo figures: Jim Bowie, William Barret Travis, and Davy Crockett. All three died at the Alamo and their surnames are memorialized on schools, streets, buildings, and even entire counties.

They pull no punches describing Bowie as a “murderer, slaver, and con man;” Travis as “a pompous, racist agitator;” and Crockett as a “self-promoting old fool.” ................

https://www.texasobserver.org/forget-the-alamo-unravels-a-texas-history-made-of-myths-or-rather-lies/?fbclid=IwAR1IwOKyArudCy_jX5pqYz89U4kG_-V-a1YWSAuYFpXn4aVtFc3Xi2KdC7s

<_<

After all, Texas was quick to join the Confederacy in 1861 even though it would not have been militarily or economically threatened by remaining with the Union.

Would not surprise me that hidden in their hearts and minds, the white settlers who came to Texas intended all along to "rebel" against Mexico and join the United States.  

When it comes to reparations, the US should cede all of Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona and the other states that were stolen from Mexico back to Mexico.  Not only would this be fair, but it would also solve the US border crisis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ElCid said:

After all, Texas was quick to join the Confederacy in 1861 even though it would not have been militarily or economically threatened by remaining with the Union.

Would not surprise me that hidden in their hearts and minds, the white settlers who came to Texas intended all along to "rebel" against Mexico and join the United States.  

When it comes to reparations, the US should cede all of Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona and the other states that were stolen from Mexico back to Mexico.  Not only would this be fair, but it would also solve the US border crisis.

Ah, but then again and on the OTHER hand here Cid, you DO know that one of the primary reasons for this "border crisis", is what the United States has DONE with those aforementioned states since they were "stolen" for Mexico and the subsequent economic booms which took place within each of them over the years, and in stark contrast to the economy of Mexico, don't ya?!

NOT that the notion of "money is the end-all and be-all of everything in the world" you understand, BUT  I seriously doubt the standard of living in those states would be nearly to the level that it presently is IF Mexico had retained them.

In other words, why do you think so many good hard working people from south of the border attempt flee their own country and enter our country?

And nope, I'm not bein' some jingoistic flag-waver here. Just lookin' at the facts here, that's all.

(...and btw and regarding Mr.Sixes' posting of the "Forget the Alamo" link...this was nothing new to me and have known of this take on Texas history for years now, and from the very first have thought it a very plausible and fair-minded view of what really was most likely the underlying cause for those Texas boys down there seeking their independence from Mexico...uh-huh, the idea that those boys down there wanted their "freedom" and so they could enslave others to do their work for them, and as it was done in the then soon to come southern Confederacy)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fedya said:

It seems the problem most people have with the Hollywood Blacklist isn't that it existed, but that it was anti-communists doing the blacklisting  Blacklist the "right" group of people and they'd be fine with it.

More specifically it was producers doing the blacklisting. Not Joe McCarthy. But yes, it's not like the reds were really open minded about hiring.

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...