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

TCM- What happened?


VikingHead2000
 Share

Recommended Posts

As for Vietnam movies on TCM, their most favorite is John Wayne's The Green Berets.  A farce of a movie.  It was produced by John Wayne primarily in support of the war effort.

For years I have posted about the lack of Vietnam War movies shown on Veterans Day and Memorial Day.  I think there are over a hundred movies made relative to war.  But TCM drags out the same old WW I and WW II "hero" movies.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ElCid said:

As for Vietnam movies on TCM, their most favorite is John Wayne's The Green Berets.  A farce of a movie.  It was produced by John Wayne primarily in support of the war effort.

For years I have posted about the lack of Vietnam War movies shown on Veterans Day and Memorial Day.  I think there are over a hundred movies made relative to war.  But TCM drags out the same old WW I and WW II "hero" movies.

I think you and I have talked about this before, but I think a big reason why there are less Vietnam or later set war films is due to what you allude to above, that TCM seems interested in mainly or only showing "hero" war films that lionize the soldiers without delving into anti-war sentiment, which so many of the later films do. Add that to the increased level of harder edge material in those films, be it language, graphic violence, or even sexual situations, plus the higher price to license and show those films (largely due to the music rights involved - a lot of Vietnam films have rock-heavy soundtracks by noted artists), and it becomes even more "troublesome" to the suits in the head office to schedule them.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something about former Defense Secretary ROBERT S. McNAMARA that's easy to forget:  He was an executive at the Ford Motor Company and was the "Father Of The FALCON", a car that was meant to be utilitarian, simple and cheap.  And also a car I've owned since 1989.   I like cheap, simple and functional basic automobiles.  My FALCON is so simple it cheers me up just looking at it reposing under the carport while it waits to go places and do stuff.    

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE GREEN BERETS (1968) might be the simplest 'Vietnam' movie I've ever seen.  Not much complexity in it as far as I can remember.  I've seen it twice.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mr. Gorman said:

Something about former Defense Secretary ROBERT S. McNAMARA that's easy to forget:  He was an executive at the Ford Motor Company and was the "Father Of The FALCON", a car that was meant to be utilitarian, simple and cheap.  And also a car I've owned since 1989.   I like cheap, simple and functional basic automobiles.  My FALCON is so simple it cheers me up just looking at it reposing under the carport while it waits to go places and do stuff.    

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE GREEN BERETS (1968) might be the simplest 'Vietnam' movie I've ever seen.  Not much complexity in it as far as I can remember.  I've seen it twice.  

He is also responsible for the four seat Thunderbirds.  While many prefer the two seat versions, the four seater was far more successful and was a great success for Ford for many years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mr. Gorman said:

Something about former Defense Secretary ROBERT S. McNAMARA that's easy to forget:  He was an executive at the Ford Motor Company and was the "Father Of The FALCON", a car that was meant to be utilitarian, simple and cheap.  And also a car I've owned since 1989.   I like cheap, simple and functional basic automobiles.  My FALCON is so simple it cheers me up just looking at it reposing under the carport while it waits to go places and do stuff.    

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE GREEN BERETS (1968) might be the simplest 'Vietnam' movie I've ever seen.  Not much complexity in it as far as I can remember.  I've seen it twice.  

 

1 hour ago, ElCid said:

He is also responsible for the four seat Thunderbirds.  While many prefer the two seat versions, the four seater was far more successful and was a great success for Ford for many years.

So basically here gentlemen, what you're sayin' is that McNamara should have stayed in the Detroit car biz and never should have moved to Washington D.C. 

AND if he had, then we might not have been drawn into that mess in Southeast Asia.

;)

Well okay! At the very LEAST anyway, he then wouldn't have had to write that book which was his mea culpa about his involvement in that mess just before he died, anyway.

(...btw Mr.G...first generation Falcon or second?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dargo said:

 

So basically here gentlemen, what you're sayin' is that McNamara should have stayed in the Detroit car biz and never should have moved to Washington D.C. 

AND if he had, then we might not have been drawn into that mess in Southeast Asia.

;)

Well okay! At the very LEAST anyway, he then wouldn't have had to write that book which was his mea culpa about his involvement in that mess just before he died, anyway.

(...btw Mr.G...first generation Falcon or second?)

Lots of blame to go around for the mess in Southeast Asia.   McNamara probably less than most.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Lots of blame to go around for the mess in Southeast Asia.   McNamara probably less than most.

True. I guess in his defense (as the Sec. of that Dept., ironically  ;) ) he was just goin' along to get along and was just prescribing to his president the policies his boss wanted to hear, huh. AND, doin' his level best to sell his boss's policies to the American people.

(...the gutless little yes-man)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dargo said:

True. I guess in his defense (as the Sec. of that Dept., ironically  ;) ) he was just goin' along to get along and was just prescribing to his president the policies his boss wanted to hear, huh.

(...the gutless little yes-man)

I think he was a management/technical kind of guy placed in the wrong position.  He tried to use mathematics and charts and graphs and so forth to plan for defense.  Doesn't work that way.  The he would have to listen to the politicians in the State Dept, CIA and elsewhere because they knew more than he did and were experts at manipulating information.  Add in the generals and admirals in the Pentagon, as well as life-time career civilians there, and he was really out of his depth probably.

The generals and admirals, DOS, CIA and others always say - give us more and we can win.  The French just laughed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ElCid said:

I think he was a management/technical kind of guy placed in the wrong position.  He tried to use mathematics and charts and graphs and so forth to plan for defense.  Doesn't work that way.  The he would have to listen to the politicians in the State Dept, CIA and elsewhere because they knew more than he did and were experts at manipulating information.  Add in the generals and admirals in the Pentagon, as well as life-time career civilians there, and he was really out of his depth probably.

The generals and admirals, DOS, CIA and others always say - give us more and we can win.  The French just laughed.

True again.

And thus he being perhaps yet another example of the ol' "Peter  Principle" (saaaay, when's the last time you heard THAT old phrase, HUH?!) which said "People rise to the level of their incompetence", and 'cause ol' Bob SHOULD have just STAYED in Detroit and run car companies instead of involving himself in the business of our country's national defense!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, and now WHAT was this  thread supposed to be about again HERE??? 

Oh yeah. Somethin' about why some people would in essence "Throw the baby out with the bathwater" (saaay, when's the last time you heard THIS old sayin' TOO???)  and decide or even contemplate the thought to "never watch TCM again" and JUST because they showed a movie in which a word was bleeped out of it!

(..well, THIS is what I THINK this thread was/is BASICALLY about anyway...OR in other words, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!!!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dargo said:

Okay, and now WHAT was this  thread supposed to be about again HERE??? 

Oh yeah. Somethin' about why some people would in essence "Throw the baby out with the bathwater" (saaay, when's the last time you heard THIS old sayin' TOO???)  and decide or even contemplate the thought to "never watch TCM again" and JUST because they showed a movie in which a word was bleeped out of it!

(..well, THIS is what I THINK this thread was/is BASICALLY about anyway...OR in other words, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!!!!)

If you go all the way back to post number one, it is about whether or not TCM is editing the movies they show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, throughout this entire thread it hasn't been established what exactly happened and why.

Someone asked earlier if TCM still claims they air movies unedited and commercial-free. The answer to that is yes. In TCM's rebranding of their logo in September, Ben Mankiewicz's explanation reassured viewers that unedited and commercial-free movies is still continuing.

I didn't watch the most recent broadcast of "The French Connection," but evidently Gene Hackman's character saying the "n-word" was somehow edited out. Has anybody heard how and why this happened?

Given the fact that William Friedkin was being interviewed about his movies on the night it was broadcast, I'd have to assume they wouldn't have aired an altered version of TFC without his say?

At any rate, I do find it concerning if an edited version of The French Connection eliminating the "n-word" was used on TCM.  It's not because I'm fond of the word, but like it or not, racism is an intrinsic part of the American experience and all of that has to be understood and grappled with. The channel makes it very clear they intend to air movies as they were originally shown and their only mandate is to put everything into context (which was what the "Re-framed" series was meant to do).

And it's not as if racial slurs are banned from the network. Just last night, I watched the documentary about Paul Robeson which aired in September that I recorded. It definitely contained a number of references to the "n-word," so TCM is not in the banning business, I can assure you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lambear1982 said:

Ok, throughout this entire thread it hasn't been established what exactly happened and why.

Someone asked earlier if TCM still claims they air movies unedited and commercial-free. The answer to that is yes. In TCM's rebranding of their logo in September, Ben Mankiewicz's explanation reassured viewers that unedited and commercial-free movies is still continuing.

I didn't watch the most recent broadcast of "The French Connection," but evidently Gene Hackman's character saying the "n-word" was somehow edited out. Has anybody heard how and why this happened?

Given the fact that William Friedkin was being interviewed about his movies on the night it was broadcast, I'd have to assume they wouldn't have aired an altered version of TFC without his say?

At any rate, I do find it concerning if an edited version of The French Connection eliminating the "n-word" was used on TCM.  It's not because I'm fond of the word, but like it or not, racism is an intrinsic part of the American experience and all of that has to be understood and grappled with. The channel makes it very clear they intend to air movies as they were originally shown and their only mandate is to put everything into context (which was what the "Re-framed" series was meant to do).

And it's not as if racial slurs are banned from the network. Just last night, I watched the documentary about Paul Robeson which aired in September that I recorded. It definitely contained a number of references to the "n-word," so TCM is not in the banning business, I can assure you.

My assumption is that when TCM leased the film the leaser provided the edited version that was shown.     So TCM did air an edited (altered) version without informing Friedkin since TCM didn't know they were given an edited version.   This type of mistake has happened before.

PS:  with regards to speculation and assumptions:   I see two very different positions here as it relates to TCM:

One is that TCM was clueless  (my POV).     The other is that TCM was deliberately deceiving:  management is caving to outside pressure,  asking for edited versions and knowingly showing these versions but without letting their viewers know that TCM's actions were deliberate.     For me this POV is too much like the Stone film JFK,   but maybe I'm just unwilling to view TCM in such a negative light.       

    

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DARGO:  It's a "second generation" FALCON that reposes in my carport.  A 1964 Standard Series 2-Door Sedan.  Complete with '170' CID engine, a 2-speed automatic (Ford-O-Matic) + a manual choke knob to get the fuel flowin'.   There is no power steering or power brakes.  They were available, but the older lady who bought the car new back in August 1964 didn't want them.  The brakes are the old-time single master cylinder hydraulic brakes.  I've never had them re-done with dual master cylinders . . . but I do keep them tuned up at all times.  That is probably the most important thing to do when one has an aging Falcon with its original braking system intact.  Keep the brakes tuned up and full of fluid!

It has ▬ bench ▬ seats and an old-time bare metal dashboard.  The horn is made of chrome and will not 'give'.  🦷 →  I know it won't give because I ate it back in 1994.  🦷

One thing I can honestly say about my '64 Falcon:  The road visibility is the *BEST* of any vehicle I've ever ridden in.  The 'blind spot' is miniscule compared to any other car or truck or SUV or 'Cross-Over Utility' vehicle.  You can see all around you; who's coming and who's going.  My #1 Most Important Feature for a car:  Can I see what the hell is going on around me?  👁️  You don't need a camera mounted on the car to see the road or to back up.  The rear window is so large and at 'ground-level' you can see what you need to see.  👁️ 

 Inside the car there are→ no ← 'Turn Signal' arrows on the dashboard; you have to memorize 'Turn Stalk Down = LEFT blinker signal' and 'Turn Stalk Up = RIGHT blinker signal'.   It is not wise to mix them up.   I reckon you're old enough, DARGO, to remember cars like this.  :)  (Say, does anyone remember the 1968 hit by British singer LEAPY LEE"Little Arrows"!  ↨). 

It does have a couple of 'Optional' (at the time) safety features:  Back-up lights mounted in the center of each taillight lens + a side-view mirror bolted on to the front door that's adjustable.  There are lap belts as well.  That's it . . . but some Falcons do not have back-up lights or front-door side-view mirrors.  The 1st owner of the Falcon paid a wee bit extra to obtain those functions.

I actually have fun counting the 'Safety Features' the FALCON does not have compared to cars built just 3-5 'model' years later.   😜  It's an impressive list.  → Compared to 2022-model year cars I don't think I could count that high . . . seems like carmakers and customers in the misty past weren't enamored of 'Safety Features' until the Federal Government stepped in circa 1965/66 with several highway safety mandates.  I remember reading Pres. Lyndon Johnson signed some kind of traffic safety bill in 1965.

Here are features standard in modern cars the FALCON does not have:

No air bags [no surprise there].

No padded dashboard

No orange blinking 'Hazard Flashers' [not mandatory until the 1967 model year; my '67 Lincoln had them].

No shoulder belts [not mandatory until the 1968 model year; my '67 Lincoln did *not* have them, but you could see where they would be if you bought the 'Option'].

No windshield defroster/defogger for the windshield or the large rear window -- IF you fancy 'defogging' these 2 windows you have to do it yourself.  So I do when the occasion calls for it.  I have a squeegee.

No head restraints on the front seatbacks.  [I think those were made mandatory in the 1969 or '70 model year for U.S. passenger cars].   I *think* these kind of head restraints were meant to minimize whiplash, but I'm not certain.

No lights on the side of the car -- some form of 'side light' on both sides of all U.S. passenger cars was mandatory by the 1968 model year.  My '67 Lincoln did not have any side lights, but the '68s did and forever onward.  1966 Lincoln Continentals did have side lights if I remember rightly, but they were not mandated by the Fed. Govt. yet. 

No shatter-proof safety glass.  The original windshield remains uncracked, thankfully. 

And on and on and on . . . I'm sure there's probably another two dozen things that are mandated for modern vehicles.

(P.S.  Couple of other things:  No overflow 'tank' for the radiator.  If the fluid get hot the car simply leaks coolant on the ground.   Also, the windshield wipers are shiny chrome.  I haven't seen a newer model car in decades with chrome windshield wipers.  I've not had any issues with them, however.  I'm just glad the wipers still work after 57 years . . . ).  

NOW BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr. Gorman said:

@DARGO:  It's a "second generation" FALCON that reposes in my carport.  A 1964 Standard Series 2-Door Sedan.  Complete with '170' CID engine, a 2-speed automatic (Ford-O-Matic) + a manual choke knob to get the fuel flowin'.   There is no power steering or power brakes.  They were available, but the older lady who bought the car new back in August 1964 didn't want them.  The brakes are the old-time single master cylinder hydraulic brakes.  I've never had them re-done with dual master cylinders . . . but I do keep them tuned up at all times.  That is probably the most important thing to do when one has an aging Falcon with its original braking system intact.  Keep the brakes tuned up and full of fluid!

It has ▬ bench ▬ seats and an old-time bare metal dashboard.  The horn is made of chrome and will not 'give'.  🦷 →  I know it won't give because I ate it back in 1994.  🦷

One thing I can honestly say about my '64 Falcon:  The road visibility is the *BEST* of any vehicle I've ever ridden in.  The 'blind spot' is miniscule compared to any other car or truck or SUV or 'Cross-Over Utility' vehicle.  You can see all around you; who's coming and who's going.  My #1 Most Important Feature for a car:  Can I see what the hell is going on around me?  👁️  You don't need a camera mounted on the car to see the road or to back up.  The rear window is so large and at 'ground-level' you can see what you need to see.  👁️ 

 Inside the car there are→ no ← 'Turn Signal' arrows on the dashboard; you have to memorize 'Turn Stalk Down = LEFT blinker signal' and 'Turn Stalk Up = RIGHT blinker signal'.   It is not wise to mix them up.   I reckon you're old enough, DARGO, to remember cars like this.  :)  (Say, does anyone remember the 1968 hit by British singer LEAPY LEE"Little Arrows"!  ↨). 

It does have a couple of 'Optional' (at the time) safety features:  Back-up lights mounted in the center of each taillight lens + a side-view mirror bolted on to the front door that's adjustable.  There are lap belts as well.  That's it . . . but some Falcons do not have back-up lights or front-door side-view mirrors.  The 1st owner of the Falcon paid a wee bit extra to obtain those functions.

I actually have fun counting the 'Safety Features' the FALCON does not have compared to cars built just 3-5 'model' years later.   😜  It's an impressive list.  → Compared to 2022-model year cars I don't think I could count that high . . . seems like carmakers and customers in the misty past weren't enamored of 'Safety Features' until the Federal Government stepped in circa 1965/66 with several highway safety mandates.  I remember reading Pres. Lyndon Johnson signed some kind of traffic safety bill in 1965.

Here are features standard in modern cars the FALCON does not have:

No air bags [no surprise there].

No padded dashboard

No orange blinking 'Hazard Flashers' [not mandatory until the 1967 model year; my '67 Lincoln had them].

No shoulder belts [not mandatory until the 1968 model year; my '67 Lincoln did *not* have them, but you could see where they would be if you bought the 'Option'].

No windshield defroster/defogger for the windshield or the large rear window -- IF you fancy 'defogging' these 2 windows you have to do it yourself.  So I do when the occasion calls for it.  I have a squeegee.

No head restraints on the front seatbacks.  [I think those were made mandatory in the 1969 or '70 model year for U.S. passenger cars].   I *think* these kind of head restraints were meant to minimize whiplash, but I'm not certain.

No lights on the side of the car -- some form of 'side light' on both sides of all U.S. passenger cars was mandatory by the 1968 model year.  My '67 Lincoln did not have any side lights, but the '68s did and forever onward.  1966 Lincoln Continentals did have side lights if I remember rightly, but they were not mandated by the Fed. Govt. yet. 

No shatter-proof safety glass.  The original windshield remains uncracked, thankfully. 

And on and on and on . . . I'm sure there's probably another two dozen things that are mandated for modern vehicles.

(P.S.  Couple of other things:  No overflow 'tank' for the radiator.  If the fluid get hot the car simply leaks coolant on the ground.   Also, the windshield wipers are shiny chrome.  I haven't seen a newer model car in decades with chrome windshield wipers.  I've not had any issues with them, however.  I'm just glad the wipers still work after 57 years . . . ).  

NOW BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING. 

Nice writeup here, Mr.G.

In fact, it was so detailed that I could almost envision it exactly as it sits in your carport, except for one thing.  You failed to mention its color.

And nope, can't say I ever remember hearing Leapy Lee and his recording. I guess none of the Top 40 DJ's on 93 KHJ Boss Radio in Los Angeles (who can be heard on DiCaprio's '66 Cadillac convertible's radio in the film Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood) ever played it during that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops.  The paint color is 'Turquoise' -- although it REALLY needs a new paint job.  I need to have it sanded down and re-painted.  Mechanically, however, it's ready to go go go.  Probably deserves a better owner . . . but the humble '64 is stuck with me.  🚗🚗

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2021 at 10:30 AM, sewhite2000 said:

So .... you WANT to hear white people saying that word?

 

On 11/14/2021 at 6:41 PM, sewhite2000 said:

I'm not a fan of censorship in general, but I don't mind 15 seconds of a 50-year-old movie in which a character casually espouses a couple of racial slurs being removed. And as other posters on here have already pointed out, you (and I) have no idea if the "hacks" at TCM are responsible for its omission, or if this is just the print they received. 

 

On 11/14/2021 at 6:51 PM, Oneeyeopen said:

Interesting post. I know the Movies Network censors their films, I hadn't noticed TCM doing it especially when West Side Story was on last week. All the deragatory names were called I believe when they sat down to discuss the rumble.

Tomorrow night, Swing Time is coming on, let's see if they take the number out where Fred Astaire is wearing Black Face as a tribute to Bill BoJangles Robinson. Shaft is coming on TCM Tuesday night, let's see if any of the language is censored here and during Superfly which comes on later.

You cannot say that TCM is not intentionally trying to make us woke, brainwashing is a better word. The blackface segment that plays over and over is a prime example. For the majority of those blackface segments there is no disrespect intended. We live in this society now of ultra liberals who have power and use it to control what they think is right and wrong in media. Just play the darn movie and shut up telling me how disgusting something is.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir_Rickster said:

 

 

You cannot say that TCM is not intentionally trying to make us woke, brainwashing is a better word. The blackface segment that plays over and over is a prime example. For the majority of those blackface segments there is no disrespect intended. We live in this society now of ultra liberals who have power and use it to control what they think is right and wrong in media. Just play the darn movie and shut up telling me how disgusting something is.

I grew up in a city where the local Lions Club had a minstrel show each where the performers (all white) wore black face except those who were supposed to be white.   I worked for a couple of them and knew most of them.

There is no doubt whatsoever that there was racism in the manner in which they portrayed Blacks.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the guys I knew were racist and supported suppression of blacks and black voting as well as segregation everywhere. 

The blackface segments were disrespectful whether intended or not.   They were quite likely intended to be disrespectful just as the portrayals of many blacks in movies of that period were disrespectful.

Your very post shows why it is important for TCM and other media to point out these things as being wrong and insulting and hopefully never to be repeated again. 

Society today in most states and even at the Federal level are where "conservatives" and Republicans have power and control, not liberals.  Regardless, ultra-liberals have NEVER had power and control in US and not in at least 45 of the 50 states. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2021 at 9:25 PM, Lambear1982 said:

Ok, throughout this entire thread it hasn't been established what exactly happened and why.

. . .

I didn't watch the most recent broadcast of "The French Connection," but evidently Gene Hackman's character saying the "n-word" was somehow edited out. Has anybody heard how and why this happened?

. . .

I had recorded the film that night mostly for the Intro/outro with William Friedkin. I had seen the film before, but really didn't remember the exchange, but grant you, I watched this many times from plain old TV, so the interchange between them was probably, unknowing to me, missing then too. Luckily, FXM was showing the film this morning (within my frame of reference to even recall or care, which fails me over days, hours, or sometimes even minutes these days), and I now know what the fuss is about. Since Friedkin didn't bring it up after, I'd say he didn't remember it or care, either.

As to why, it was probably spun up as it was handed over - in full trust and without review by staff involved. And, given other previous threads about carelessness, lack of full knowledge or even adequate background by the staff, it is believable that even a cursory review may have been made without catching the edit.

I don't subscribe to conspiracies where LACK of CARE is the prevailing motive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wbogacz said:

I had recorded the film that night mostly for the Intro/outro with William Friedkin. I had seen the film before, but really didn't remember the exchange, but grant you, I watched this many times from plain old TV, so the interchange between them was probably, unknowing to me, missing then too. Luckily, FXM was showing the film this morning (within my frame of reference to even recall or care, which fails me over days, hours, or sometimes even minutes these days), and I now know what the fuss is about. Since Friedkin didn't bring it up after, I'd say he didn't remember it or care, either.

As to why, it was probably spun up as it was handed over - in full trust and without review by staff involved. And, given other previous threads about carelessness, lack of full knowledge or even adequate background by the staff, it is believable that even a cursory review may have been made without catching the edit.

I don't subscribe to conspiracies where LACK of CARE is the prevailing motive.

Hanlon's Razor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2021 at 10:27 AM, Sir_Rickster said:

 

 

You cannot say that TCM is not intentionally trying to make us woke, brainwashing is a better word. The blackface segment that plays over and over is a prime example. For the majority of those blackface segments there is no disrespect intended. We live in this society now of ultra liberals who have power and use it to control what they think is right and wrong in media. Just play the darn movie and shut up telling me how disgusting something is.

It's far beyond a random occurrence at this point.  😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know about YOU guys here, but I was havin' a MUCH better time talkin' about CARS with Mr.G up there in this thing than I EVER did about these damn culture wars we're in today!

(...guess you could call ME an "uber-"or "ultra-" "gearhead" here, huh)  ;)

LOL

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...