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

"...Time for a refresh?"


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, overeasy said:

I simple thought.  That has nothing to do with Spence and Hepburn. But thanks for the distraction, TB.

The TCM logo. 

I wonder how nice it would have been if they'd just stayed with the original logotype?  Would that have hurt anyone? Would that have driven away potential viewers?

No.  It would not.  The original logo had a soul and a sense of time and place the that new logo lacks, in extremis.  The new logo can hardly be called a logo.  It's just weak typeface that spells out the networks name. As others have noted, it really ain't gonna sell many t-shirts or mugs.

The strong, smart brands know enough to make incremental changes to their typography, unless it is hopelessly outdated. Many of them have learned that staying with an archetype turns out to be the best practice, as typefaces and logos often come around and become "cool" again. And they have a power that transcends fads.  Think Perrier. Coke. Alfa Romeo, CBS.  Meanwhile, the less enlightened create new logos (think Dodge, Pepsi, Kia) that are meaningless, but succeed to ensuring that "the emperors new clothes" stays on many people tongues.

I will really miss the original logo.  And believe me, it was "outdated" when it began.  It was not au courant when TCM launched, but was intended to imbue a "classic movie" sense to the network, while still being simple and elegant.  Something the new logo fails to do.

I couldn't have put it better myself.  This has absolutely NOTHING to do with younger vs older people (let's not confuse the issues here).  It is strictly about the original logo design which had character, versus the newer logo which is nothing interesting in comparison.  Just anyone's typical average business-commercial graphics.  Big mistake.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, lydecker said:

If the rumor that they are moving all of the production from Atlanta to LA is true,  that has the potential to be very good news for viewers.  Perhaps if it is easier for current-day directors, producers, actors, authors, etc. to find their way to the TCM studios, they will appear on a more regular basis.  I have a feeling that budget and time constraints (not to mention the inconvenience of getting on a plane and flying to Atlanta)  kept a whole lot of people we would have loved to hear from away.  For a long time the directors and stars of the 1980's - 1990's films have been underrepresented on TCM.  If they are shooting everything in LA now, we may see a renaissance of interviewees and guest programmers.  

That very well may be a plus for having more frequent guests. But I see the move from Atlanta to LA a negative.... 

Los Angeles/Hollywood is already a full working hub for talent & crew. Atlanta needs media jobs, Los Angeles does not. I think the move is only going to make production costs rise, resulting in dwindling content.

Toronto & Vancouver North are excellent film/media hubs, as well as Vancouver South (if you must stay in the US) providing top-notch talent/crew for far less cost than LA/HW. Enough big movies are filmed in those west coast cities, providing easy travel for special appearances, if that's really the goal.

 But how wonderful the music industry was making records in Detroit, Nashville as well as NYC & California. I really liked that TCM was an Atlanta (& sometimes NYC) Production, keeping themselves unique.

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

That very well may be a plus for having more frequent guests. But I see the move from Atlanta to LA a negative.... 

Los Angeles/Hollywood is already a full working hub for talent & crew. Atlanta needs media jobs, Los Angeles does not. I think the move is only going to make production costs rise, resulting in dwindling content.

Toronto & Vancouver North are excellent film/media hubs, as well as Vancouver South (if you must stay in the US) providing top-notch talent/crew for far less cost than LA/HW. Enough big movies are filmed in those west coast cities, providing easy travel for special appearances, if that's really the goal.

 But how wonderful the music industry was making records in Detroit, Nashville as well as NYC & California. I really liked that TCM was an Atlanta (& sometimes NYC) Production, keeping themselves unique.

Can't argue with the fact that having production in ATL was unique and created jobs, but that's not TCM's role in life.  And while, yes, production costs are lower in some alt-Hollywood hubs, that's mostly to do with film incentives and the US vs CAN dollar.  When you own a studio, as Warner's does, you have the  built-in infrastructure, so that line item is already lower than it would be for an independent who had to come onto the lot and rent a stage.

And while actors and directors do indeed work out of town a lot, that would cause all sorts of scheduling conflicts that wouldn't exist if you could just say, "We'll send a limo to pick you up and bring you to Burbank."

I understand the allure of shooting in a city like ATL, but since the hosts all (apparently) reside on the west coast, this just make sense....

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

I am under 40 and there is a large population of others under 40 on social media (other than this message board) that are big fans of Classic film. 

While I understand what is being said here, I don’t think it’s fair that those that are younger than the assumed demographic don’t deserve any sort of consideration.  Not that older demographics shouldn’t be considered either, but TCM should be for everyone. 

Agree but there aren't enough of them. I get why TCM is trying to attract them, but they won't with new graphics and couches.

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

You really believe Hepburn and Tracy were just "pals"?    That they never had a sexual relationship?      I admit I'm getting my info from Wiki,  and that can be a flawed source but according to them:

"In Hollywood, however, the intimate nature of the Tracy-Hepburn partnership was an open secret".   

In addition Tracy had affairs with Young,  Bergman and Crawford (that were confirmed by the 3).

My understanding of Hepburn was that she was bisexual.    

As for Ben's comment:  I don't think he was trying to provide any "context" but just being snarky as it relates to the myth MGM's  PR department used to imply Tracy was a devout Catholic.          While I find humor when I hear anyone say Tracy was a devout Catholic,  I don't see why a TCM host needs to be snarky about that myth.   I.e. my preference is that such comments  are not made.

 

 

 

 

 

He was devout enough not to get a divorce, or his wife wouldn't give him one. That was a no-no with Catholics back then. You couldn't receive the sacraments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, overeasy said:

I simple thought.  That has nothing to do with Spence and Hepburn. But thanks for the distraction, TB.

The TCM logo. 

I wonder how nice it would have been if they'd just stayed with the original logotype?  Would that have hurt anyone? Would that have driven away potential viewers?

No.  It would not.  The original logo had a soul and a sense of time and place the that new logo lacks, in extremis.  The new logo can hardly be called a logo.  It's just weak typeface that spells out the networks name. As others have noted, it really ain't gonna sell many t-shirts or mugs.

The strong, smart brands know enough to make incremental changes to their typography, unless it is hopelessly outdated. Many of them have learned that staying with an archetype turns out to be the best practice, as typefaces and logos often come around and become "cool" again. And they have a power that transcends fads.  Think Perrier. Coke. Alfa Romeo, CBS.  Meanwhile, the less enlightened create new logos (think Dodge, Pepsi, Kia) that are meaningless, but succeed to ensuring that "the emperors new clothes" stays on many people tongues.

I will really miss the original logo.  And believe me, it was "outdated" when it began.  It was not au courant when TCM launched, but was intended to imbue a "classic movie" sense to the network, while still being simple and elegant.  Something the new logo fails to do.

Agreed.  I find the loss of the TCM logo, to put it mildly (or not so mildly) a true tragedy. Smart retailers know that an iconic logo is something you don't throw away.  (See:  Coca-Cola, Levis, Kelloggs, Johnson & Johnson, Heinz, etc., etc.)  Change the sets, change the on-air graphics and music but, there was no reason to lose this wonderful logo.  However, I am sure (having worked in TV production, advertising and marketing) that much of the decision-making which went into tossing the logo was because the powers that be thought it "looked old" which would defeat their mandate to GET YOUNGER VIEWERS.  I really don't think potential viewers (younger or older) make their viewing choices based on logos!  

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

That very well may be a plus for having more frequent guests. But I see the move from Atlanta to LA a negative.... 

Los Angeles/Hollywood is already a full working hub for talent & crew. Atlanta needs media jobs, Los Angeles does not. I think the move is only going to make production costs rise, resulting in dwindling content.

Toronto & Vancouver North are excellent film/media hubs, as well as Vancouver South (if you must stay in the US) providing top-notch talent/crew for far less cost than LA/HW. Enough big movies are filmed in those west coast cities, providing easy travel for special appearances, if that's really the goal.

 But how wonderful the music industry was making records in Detroit, Nashville as well as NYC & California. I really liked that TCM was an Atlanta (& sometimes NYC) Production, keeping themselves unique.

Georgia and other southern states are significant players in the motion picture industry.   If you watch credits all the way to the end you often see a GA peach with a thank you to the GA film commission.  As for having to have both interviewer and interviewee in same physical location, that shipped sailed a long time ago.  

There may be other advantages to TCM moving to LA as far as production goes though.  Of course, TCM was headquartered in Atlanta because that is where Ted Turner lived and was the HQ for his TV networks. 

CNN (also founded by Turner) HQ is still located in Atlanta, as is The Weather Channel HQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just noticed that when I scroll all the way to top and place the pointer between Message Boards and search box, I get a pop-up about honoring Kyle  Kersten.  Isn't it time to let that go.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

I am under 40 and there is a large population of others under 40 on social media (other than this message board) that are big fans of Classic film. 

While I understand what is being said here, I don’t think it’s fair that those that are younger than the assumed demographic don’t deserve any sort of consideration.  Not that older demographics shouldn’t be considered either, but TCM should be for everyone. 

I totally agree that TCM is for everyone.  I wish I knew a lot of under 40's who appreciate classic movies but, sad to say, I do not.  I've tried countless times to convert folks to the joys of watching black/white movies from the 1920's - 1950's and invariably they look at me as though I am deranged. (I am, but that's another topic for another time.) My point is that in making graphic decisions, it's clear that the current regime feels that the original logo/graphics/slogan were a turn-off to under 40's and that to attract them they need to destroy "the old" and promote how "with it" TCM can be.  They may think "cosmetics" matter when making viewing choices but, no matter what age you are, content is what counts.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2021 at 7:06 PM, TopBilled said:

I suppose a comment like this is meant to provide "context" to viewers but it also promotes false information. False stories created by publicists and perpetuated by gossip columnist for decades. Katharine Hepburn's life partner was Phyllis Wilbourn for more than 30 years. Not Spencer Tracy.

Hepburn and Tracy were costars and pals. That is all.

After a good spate of head and chin scratching at this most unexpected entry and some research I have to disagree with the statement "Hepburn and Tracy were costars and pals. That is all." In the documentary "All About Me" made in 1993 Hepburn talks a great deal about her relationship with Spence and says that she is happy that she can finally come clean. That the actual Mrs. Tracy liked being Mrs. Tracy and did not want a divorce and that Kate agreed not to talk about their relationship until after Mrs. Tracy had died. I can't believe that she would take such an opportunity to tell a bunch of lies about her 25 year love affair with Spencer Tracy. Why make this documentary at all if she just intended to do more covering up about her private life? She doesn't owe anybody an explanation of her behavior. 

I had never heard of Phyllis Wilbourn, so I researched her. She was an interesting lady. Now I don't know if this website is the least bit credible:

http://www.elisarolle.com/queerplaces/pqrst/Phyllis Wilbourn.html

But, the above site talks in detail about Wilbourn's early life. She was from a genteel  family that had lost its fortune, and though she had training as a nurse, her family pedigree oddly demanded that she seek a career in which she did not wear a uniform! Apparently that was looked down upon?  Thus she did secretarial work and became secretary and long time companion to actress Constance Collier. Collier had been married but lost her husband in the 1918 flu pandemic. Her relationship with Wilbourn began in the 20s, probably was initially sexual, but with Collier being a diabetic her increasingly frail health turned the relationship into that of close friends. Did you know Collier was the first person in Europe to ever be treated with insulin? So, after Collier's death in the 1950s,  Wilbourn went to work for Hepburn. Did they have a relationship? Possibly. But the preponderance of evidence says that Spence and Kate were truly lovers, regardless of what other relationships they had outside of their own.  Below is an article written at the time of Hepburn's death in 2003 that mentions Wilbourn.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-11-et-tawa11-story.html

 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say that the new logo reads TOM to me.  The middle letter comes across as an O with a little crack in it.  But that may just be 64-year-old eyeballs which can only read so far down the optometrist's eye chart.  

What puzzles me is the decision-making that went into this logo change.  If, for over a quarter of a century TCM could only attract a certain older demographic, is there something just inherently niche-ish about classic movies that you can push them on people only so far?  You still have to accept that the product you're trying to sell is what it is.  Dizzying, swirling, bright graphics can't get around that.  I have a 28-year-old son who grew up watching all the classic movies because his mother and I love them.  He understands them and appreciates them (So does his wife, by the way!), but doesn't turn on TCM as the habit we had formed when he was growing up.  And I know that flashcard information about what's coming up on the channel isn't going to change that.

Maybe, (and perhaps this is in the offing for some time later) TCM could come up with a real movie series for teens or young adults that looks at more contemporary films and could draw the audience to the all that came before.  Though I would be reluctant to trust the corporate people at the network, why not find some real average young people to talk about the movies they see.  Our church had a series of family movie nights over the past year, and it was fascinating to hear the observations of school-age kids amidst some grown-up discussion.

So with all the latest vibe-y, what the "Cool Kids" are watching, approach to its audience, I wonder if someone in the boardroom just said, "Scrap the 'Let's Movie' and go with 'Let's Groovy!'"

Brian

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lydecker said:

I totally agree that TCM is for everyone.  I wish I knew a lot of under 40's who appreciate classic movies but, sad to say, I do not.  I've tried countless times to convert folks to the joys of watching black/white movies from the 1920's - 1950's and invariably they look at me as though I am deranged. (I am, but that's another topic for another time.) My point is that in making graphic decisions, it's clear that the current regime feels that the original logo/graphics/slogan were a turn-off to under 40's and that to attract them they need to destroy "the old" and promote how "with it" TCM can be.  They may think "cosmetics" matter when making viewing choices but, no matter what age you are, content is what counts.

 

Mr. Lydecker,

I post from time-to- time on another board that's sports oriented (men and women) and dominated by younger participants. There is an off topic forum.  A thread was made "your favorite top 5 classic male actors". I would say 90 to 95 percent of the posts were for male actors from the eighties and up era's. I only hold this out as an anecdotal example but truly believe there is truth to it. Tom Hanks was mentioned a lot.  John Wayne was mentioned the most for the era I would call classic. Some of them did know of the Duke. Have never seen one that mentions Gary Cooper or James Stewart.

Put me in the camp that the vast majority of the under 40's generation does not spend most of its movie time viewing 1920's - 1950's classic movies. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The demographic of the people I transport down to and back from the Phoenix airport from here in the Sedona area with this little part-time shuttle driving gig that I've had in my retirement years for about 8 years now does tend to skew to the Boomer generation. I bring this point up because whenever I steer the conversations held inside the van I'm driving to the subject of Movies, I've noticed that the vast majority of my passengers say they seldom watch TCM and/or have only a limited interest in or knowledge of movies, and be those movies defined as "classic" or not.

During these conversations (and of which I always attempt to initiate because it makes the two hour drive each way seem a hell of a lot shorter in duration for me...oh, and of course also because I love the sound of my own voice...I DO have a rich, mellifluous and resonant voice, ya know ;) ) whenever I mention my favorite films of all time and after asking what films might be my passengers' favorites, more times than not these passengers might only vaguely recall once watching the movies I've mentioned and which could not in any way be described as "esoteric". Nope, we're talking about movies such as Academy Award winning films like The Best Years of Our Lives, The Apartment, and Casablanca. However and once again though, my passengers are most likely to only recognize the titles of these films at best but have little knowledge of their actual content.

(...and so I guess with my point here being that the general public, and yes, even those old enough to have perhaps acquired a taste for classic films and who are not adverse to watching a movie that wasn't filmed in color, is still pretty much a relatively small demographic)

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

The demographic of the people I transport down to and back from the Phoenix airport from here in the Sedona area with this little part-time shuttle driving gig that I've had in my retirement years for about 8 years now does tend to skew to the Boomer generation. I bring this point up because whenever I steer the conversations held inside the van I'm driving to the subject of Movies, I've noticed that the vast majority of my passengers say they seldom watch TCM and/or have only a limited interest in or knowledge of movies, and be those movies defined as "classic" or not.

During these conversations (and of which I always attempt to initiate because it makes the two hour drive each way seem a hell of a lot shorter in duration for me...oh, and of course also because I love the sound of my own voice...I DO have a rich, mellifluous and resonant voice, ya know ;) ) whenever I mention my favorite films of all time and after asking what films might be my passengers' favorites, more times than not these passengers might only vaguely recall once watching the movies I've mentioned and which could not in any way be described as "esoteric". Nope, we're talking about movies such as Academy Award winning films like The Best Years of Our Lives, The Apartment, and Casablanca. However and once again though, my passengers are most likely to only recognize the titles of these films at best but have little knowledge of their actual content.

(...and so I guess with my point here being that the general public, and yes, even those old enough to have perhaps acquired a taste for classic films and who are not adverse to watching a movie that wasn't filmed in color, is still pretty much a relatively small demographic)

My mother who grew up during the "Golden Age" when they were making those movies wont watch them. Am sure she's seen a lot of them. She won't watch B&W films on tv. Not sure what her reasoning is for the colored ones. She'd rather watch junk network series (yet she complains there's nothing on tv).

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately we will all learn to live with this.  But, changing the sets and the logos and so forth will NOT attract younger viewers.  These will be seen by people already coming to TCM.  Nor will it keep them at TCM if they happen to visit.

I also fear, as some have mentioned elsewhere, that this forum is doomed.  Whenever a TCM host mentions contact us or discuss this movie, they NEVER mention this site.   You have to go to tcm.com, click on the menu icon and scroll down to TCM Message Boards (not forums or discussions).  Forget how I found out about it.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Ultimately we will all learn to live with this.  But, changing the sets and the logos and so forth will NOT attract younger viewers.  These will be seen by people already coming to TCM.  Nor will it keep them at TCM if they happen to visit.

I also fear, as some have mentioned elsewhere, that this forum is doomed.  Whenever a TCM host mentions contact us or discuss this movie, they NEVER mention this site.   You have to go to tcm.com, click on the menu icon and scroll down to TCM Message Boards (not forums or discussions).  Forget how I found out about it.

 

WAIT! Are you tellin' me here Cid that ALL those thousands and thousands of witty posts of mine that I've contributed to these boards all these many years will ONE DAY be lost to posterity TOO???!!!

Say it ain't so, Joe...err, I mean CID!

(...yeah, actually, I know what you're sayin' here...I've been wonderin' when that day might come to pass too lately)

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

After a good spate of head and chin scratching at this most unexpected entry and some research I have to disagree with the statement "Hepburn and Tracy were costars and pals. That is all." In the documentary "All About Me" made in 1993 Hepburn talks a great deal about her relationship with Spence and says that she is happy that she can finally come clean. That the actual Mrs. Tracy liked being Mrs. Tracy and did not want a divorce and that Kate agreed not to talk about their relationship until after Mrs. Tracy had died. I can't believe that she would take such an opportunity to tell a bunch of lies about her 25 year love affair with Spencer Tracy. Why make this documentary at all if she just intended to do more covering up about her private life? She doesn't owe anybody an explanation of her behavior. 

I had never heard of Phyllis Wilbourn, so I researched her. She was an interesting lady. Now I don't know if this website is the least bit credible:

http://www.elisarolle.com/queerplaces/pqrst/Phyllis Wilbourn.html

But, the above site talks in detail about Wilbourn's early life. She was from a gentile family that had lost its fortune, and though she had training as a nurse, her family pedigree oddly demanded that she seek a career in which she did not wear a uniform! Apparently that was looked down upon?  Thus she did secretarial work and became secretary and long time companion to actress Constance Collier. Collier had been married but lost her husband in the 1918 flu pandemic. Her relationship with Wilbourn began in the 20s, probably was initially sexual, but with Collier being a diabetic her increasingly frail health turned the relationship into that of close friends. Did you know Collier was the first person in Europe to ever be treated with insulin? So, after Collier's death in the 1950s,  Wilbourn went to work for Hepburn. Did they have a relationship? Possibly. But the preponderance of evidence says that Spence and Kate were truly lovers, regardless of what other relationships they had outside of their own.  Below is an article written at the time of Hepburn's death in 2003 that mentions Wilbourn.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-11-et-tawa11-story.html

 

I found the chin and head scratching remark disrespectful. I expected some fans would want her to be heterosexual and to continue believing she was Tracy's lover because it plays into a hetero-normal and romanticized/ideal notion of the two. Katharine Hepburn was a lesbian and it's a disservice to Phyllis Wilbourn to downplay their relationship. My view.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dargo said:

WAIT! Are you tellin' me here Cid that ALL those thousands and thousands of witty posts of mine that I've contributed to these boards all these many years will ONE DAY be lost to posterity TOO???!!!

Say it ain't so, Joe...err, I mean CID!

(...yeah, actually, I know what you're sayin' here...I've been wonderin' when that day might come to pass too lately)

Heaven forbid! They should be preserved for posterity!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Hibi said:

Heaven forbid! They should be preserved for posterity!

 

33 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Yes, EXACTLY!!! ;)

 

"Hello, TCM?  This is the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.  It has come to our attention that your station's website message board contains in it, a surfeit of sardonic musings and information by one who goes by the screen name "Dargo".   We would like to entreat upon you to save these posts of wisdom and humor and allow us to catalog and preserve said posts for future generations."!  😉

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

I found the chin and head scratching remark disrespectful. I expected some fans would want her to be heterosexual and to continue believing she was Tracy's lover because it plays into a hetero-normal and romanticized/ideal notion of the two. Katharine Hepburn was a lesbian and it's a disservice to Phyllis Wilbourn to downplay their relationship. My view.

The head and chin scratching  remark was meant to denote my confusion at you being so sure that something was NOT true (Kate and Spence being a romantic couple) that Kate Hepburn, late in life, when she had no reason to lie, said categorically WAS true. Were there other relationships with women? She never said. Maybe or maybe not. I don't care what Kate Hepburn was or was not in her personal life.  It was her business. And I think I treated Ms. WIlbourn very respectfully in my post. TB, I was confounded regarding your original post on this matter and I am confounded regarding your reply to me.  You are JUST SO SURE of something that you can have no more knowledge of than I do. 

And my apologies to everybody else for derailing this thread. But I couldn't let this comment go unaddressed. 

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

I've tried countless times to convert folks to the joys of watching black/white movies from the 1920's - 1950's and invariably they look at me as though I am deranged. (I am, but that's another topic for another time.)

As well they should.

Why do you feel compelled to "convert folks to the joys of watching black/white [sic] movies from the 1920's - 1950's"?

Movies -- with the possible exclusion of documentaries --  are entertainment. They are recreational diversions, not essential requirements needed for one's existence and survival.

IMO, trying to "convert" (force) someone to do . . . well, anything . . . is a guaranteed, sure-fire way to obliterate the joy from doing the thing -- making it a dreary chore instead of a pleasure and delight.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eucalpytus P. Millstone said:

As well they should.

Why do you feel compelled to "convert folks to the joys of watching black/white [sic] movies from the 1920's - 1950's"?

Movies -- with the possible exclusion of documentaries --  are entertainment. They are recreational diversions, not essential requirements needed for one's existence and survival.

IMO, trying to "convert" (force) someone to do . . . well, anything . . . is a guaranteed, sure-fire way to obliterate the joy from doing the thing -- making it a dreary chore instead of a pleasure and delight.

I think you are playing with semantics here.  I often "suggest" that someone might like to try a black/white movie from the era mentioned because I think someone would enjoy it.   I'm sure the reason many of us love "old" black/white movies is because it was suggested to us by parents, grandparents, friends, etc. that we try a certain film.  Dreary chore, indeed!

  • Like 1
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...