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

"...Time for a refresh?"


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, SansFin said:

I must wonder how many people here have not in the last twenty-five years painted their living room and purchased new drapes. 

I was going to have my friends design new drapes for me, but you wouldn't believe the amount of backstabbing and insanity it led to.

  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new logo is definitely a misstep for TCM. As has been mentioned here, you don't fix what isn't broken. One suspects this new logo is supposed to appeal to a younger demographic. It is possible they used a focus group of under thirty year-olds and asked them which logo they liked best. Coming from years of experience in logo design, I have to say the new TCM logo is rather poor. Its animated "C" is unclear what it wants to tell us.  Without animation the "C" seems out of place and leaves the logo somehow unbalanced not to mention telling us nothing about what it represents. Its stripped down san-serif type loses any connection with classic film and it's boring to boot. Tis a sad day for TCM and for logo design in general.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

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

I don't get what Tracy saw in Robert Young or Ingmar Bergman, and even more so Broderick Crawford.

  • Haha 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 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 . . .

I merely quoted what you originally wrote.

Trying to convert someone is a whole lot more forceful and dogmatic than making a suggestion to him or her.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kate had other relationships with men before she started screwing Tracy. Hard to believe those were

all done to hide her supposed lesbianism. I have tried to convince younger folks to wear spats, but it's just

not taking. 

  • Haha 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 agree. Conversion sounds like forcing a religion on someone, which often leads to a backlash.

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

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. 

There is a confused button you could have clicked on my earlier post. You seemed to go out of your way to be dramatic (scratching various body parts) to demean a post you disagreed with...I would never do that to you, because I am not disrespectful towards you in that way. I was surprised, quite frankly, at how you indicated your difference of opinion as it seemed, well, tacky.

And I felt like you went searching online for "evidence" to disprove what I said, not at all open to the fact that Hepburn was into women. I found that disrespectful to the LGBTQ+ readers on this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I agree. Conversion sounds like forcing a religion on someone, which often leads to a backlash.

Oh, please.  It was (clearly) a poor word choice.  Haven't you ever tried to tell people who had never seen a black/white movie to give it a try.  I would bet you have.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lydecker said:

Oh, please.  It was (clearly) a poor word choice.  Haven't you ever tried to tell people who had never seen a black/white movie to give it a try.  I would bet you have.  

Not as conversion. I might mention a film or an actor I enjoyed. I am not going to suggest they should also like that film or actor too. They might have different likes and dislikes. Also they may be perfectly content NOT watching any classic films ever. I don't need to push anything on anyone else. And neither do you.

***

Incidentally, this reminds me of a friend I have. She is really into modern films, usually ones with muscular action stars. She will start to go off on Movie X or Hunky Actor X...and I will very nicely interrupt her and say "oh I have never seen that, I don't know who that is, I don't watch those kinds of films." And she gets the hint that she is not going to be able to push her brand of movie entertainment on me. And out of respect, I don't push my brand of favorite movie entertainment on her. Now if she were to ever ask me, "is there a Cary Grant film you recommend?" then of course I would say TO CATCH A THIEF. 

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

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!

Let's not parse Lydecker's comments too closely.  What they were saying was simply that, all of us, at one time or another, may try to get people to TRY a classic movie.  I know I do, and with the best intentions.  It's not coercion or proselytizing like a Christian missionary, it's usually just a friendly "Hey, have you ever seen?" sort of thing.

At the start of the Covid lockdown last year,  I sent an email to some people I work with.  I'm the oldest one in the group, but we work in a creative endeavor and I thought they might now have the time to, at least, give a classic film a try.  I suggested films like Laura and Sunset Blvd., so nothing esoteric.  To this day, none of them have tried even one.

I think what leads to me to SMH is that there is this treasure trove of outstanding entertainment -- and they are missing out on so, so much!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Not as conversion. I might mention a film or an actor I enjoyed. I am not going to suggest they should also like that film or actor too. They might have different likes and dislikes. Also they may be perfectly content NOT watching any classic films ever. I don't need to push anything on anyone else. And neither do you.

***

Incidentally, this reminds me of a friend I have. She is really into modern films, usually ones with muscular action stars. She will start to go off on Movie X or Hunky Actor X...and I will very nicely interrupt her and say "oh I have never seen that, I don't know who that is, I don't watch those kinds of films." And she gets the hint that she is not going to be able to push her brand of movie entertainment on me. And out of respect, I don't push my brand of favorite movie entertainment on her. Now if she were to ever ask me, "is there a Cary Grant film you recommend?" then of course I would say TO CATCH A THIEF. 

Seriously?  Not Notorious?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fedya said:

I don't get what Tracy saw in Robert Young or Ingmar Bergman, and even more so Broderick Crawford.

It appears Kate Hepburn didn't see much he those guy either!

 

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

Seriously?  Not Notorious?

As for To Catch a Thief verses Notorious as it relates to recommending a Cary Grant film:

TCAT is a more "balanced" film in that it has good blend of romance,  comedy,  action,  and a fairly solid plot.

Notorious is a more serious film.    In addition Grant isn't very likeable in Notorious (in some scenes he is anything but), while Grant is very charming in TCAT.

Thus if I was to recommend a Grant film to a gal it wouldn't be Notorious but instead a film where he was more charming and  likeable.

(but if asked  which film was the better film,  my opinion is  Notorious).      I hope this  makes sense. 

 

 

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

And the conjecture about Hepburn and Tracy's sex life has what to do with TCM's "refresh?"

The hosts could use Hepburn's rumored sexual proclivities (and those of Tracy, if you believe the late Scotty Bowers) as a lead-in to discussion of the realities of being nonheterosexual in studio-era Hollywood, and how that played out in the press and on the screen? (TCM: Please, don't.)

Never mind that Hepburn has been a dykon since her film debut; and trying to apply the current language of sexual identity and practices to people who lived 60 or 80 years ago is potentially problematic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Polly of the Precodes said:

The hosts could use Hepburn's rumored sexual proclivities (and those of Tracy, if you believe the late Scotty Bowers) as a lead-in to discussion of the realities of being nonheterosexual in studio-era Hollywood, and how that played out in the press and on the screen? (TCM: Please, don't.)

Never mind that Hepburn has been a dykon since her film debut; and trying to apply the current language of sexual identity and practices to people who lived 60 or 80 years is potentially problematic.

Is dykon similar in meaning to drag king?

She's certainly a drag king in SYLVIA SCARLETT (1935).

Screen Shot 2021-09-03 at 3.53.56 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, overeasy said:

Let's not parse Lydecker's comments too closely.  What they were saying was simply that, all of us, at one time or another, may try to get people to TRY a classic movie.  I know I do, and with the best intentions.  It's not coercion or proselytizing like a Christian missionary, it's usually just a friendly "Hey, have you ever seen?" sort of thing.

At the start of the Covid lockdown last year,  I sent an email to some people I work with.  I'm the oldest one in the group, but we work in a creative endeavor and I thought they might now have the time to, at least, give a classic film a try.  I suggested films like Laura and Sunset Blvd., so nothing esoteric.  To this day, none of them have tried even one.

I think what leads to me to SMH is that there is this treasure trove of outstanding entertainment -- and they are missing out on so, so much!

Man, if there's anything that "triggers" me more than people trying to convert someone or make a suggestion to someone, it's people explaining other people's comments.

I don't have any problem understanding Lydecker's comments -- both of them. But whether Lydecker wants to convert people to black & white movies or merely suggest "classic films" to people, my reaction is:

Why?

I don't get why some folks who like something want others -- or everyone -- to like what they like. Why isn't enough that you like something? And if you are the only person who likes something, why does it bother you?

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

Man, if there's anything that "triggers" me more than people trying to convert someone or make a suggestion to someone, it's people explaining other people's comments.

I don't have any problem understanding Lydecker's comments -- both of them. But whether Lydecker wants to convert people to black & white movies or merely suggest "classic films" to people, my reaction is:

Why?

I don't get why some folks who like something want others -- or everyone -- to like what they like. Why isn't enough that you like something? And if you are the only person who likes something, why does it bother you?

Because people who behave this way feel self-important, that they know what is best for everyone...so they try to transfer this on to others. They have little respect for the choices of others, choices that may not be in alignment with their own. 

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

I think what leads to me to SMH is that there is this treasure trove of outstanding entertainment -- and they are missing out on so, so much!

Right, but in my experience with millennials, less so with X'ers, there is a suspicion about the world that preceded them. They consider the times leading to their birthday to be dark ages filled with all kinds of mean and nasty things. (Racism, sexism, bigotry, Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia - they heard it all day in school.) 

For the most part they are tolerant of boomer co-workers, who are most likely in positions of authority over them, but there is an underlying hostility - and it doesn't help matters when boomers complain about millennials always being on their phones and listening to crappy music. 

I seriously question if it is possible for anyone born in this century, or the last decade or so of the twentieth, to find anything to appreciate in America's past, including it's movies. Especially it's movies. 

Other side of the coin: Ask yourself, over 40 people, how much of the current culture are you consuming? Can you name a song recorded in the last year or two? One that you truly enjoy? How many newly released movies have you seen? What are your favorite tv shows that are currently in production? If those questions give you trouble, do you think you are missing out on anything? 

Point: The more open you are to current cultural trends, the more receptive younger people will be to your recommendations. Just be ready to hear complaints about what was once acceptable, and be prepared to give them a hearing. They're not just looking for things to be offended about. They sincerely find much of it distasteful.

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...