Really?

[Hawkeye50]

Another showing of Meet Me in St. Louis? good movie but TCM shows it way too often. Bring back some Good Film Noire

[JamesJazGuitar]

Well St Louis is being shown related to Mary Astor being star of the month but yea, that movie is shown a lot. One reason is that the movie includes so many different actors. So if any of these actors have a tribute by TCM this movie is often one TCM will show.

 

June Alyson is star of the month in May. My guess is that TCM will show the movie yet again.

 

NOTE: I made a mistake and confused Little Women with Meet Me in Saint Louis. My only defense is that both movies were MGM movies and both star a lot of women (little and all grown up).

 

Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Mar 26, 2014 9:40 PM

[ginnyfan]

JJG said : June Alyson is star of the month in May. My guess is that TCM will show the movie yet again.

 

Now, now. That's not fair. They aren't showing it in May.

 

They are showing it again on April 14.

[JamesJazGuitar]

You didn't catch my big error; June Alyson isn't in Meet Me in Saint Louis. I confused Little Women (which does start both Astor and Alyson) with MMISL.

 

So is TCM showing Little Women again in May as part of Alyson's tribute?

 

PS: I was watching Little Women when I realized my mistake. I came here to fix it before anyone notice, but I see I was too late.

[FredCDobbs]

>June Alyson isn't in Meet Me in Saint Louis

 

She's not?? Well.... she should be!

 

Little Women is like the same family, about one or two generations earlier.

[ginnyfan]

Yes, on May 14.

 

I didn't recall Allyson in MMISL, but I thought it certainly was possible.

 

I guess I need to go back and watch it another dozen times or so to get it straight.

 

I must admit, though, that I did like it when used to show it late on Christmas Eve. I'd watch Wonderful Life then MMISL while wrapping gifts.

[JamesJazGuitar]

Well thanks for making me feel better about my mistake. The movies are very similar.

 

They both have Astor and O'brien but the other gals are different actresses (but they play similar roles).

[FredCDobbs]

>They both have Astor and O'brien but the other gals are different actresses (but they play similar roles).

 

I finally realized just last night how similar the characters are, both Judy Garland in one and June Allyson in the other. They sound alike and act alike and look alike.

 

*"It's from Papa! He says we are all moving to St. Louis after the War!"*

 

 

*The Little Women move to St Louis:*

 

 

*Papa sings with Marmee after the War. Jo watches from the stairs:*

 

[Dargo2]

Wait now! I certainly don't remember Garland ever sounding like a 3 pack-a-day smoker TOO?!!!

 

(...well, at least not in her younger days, anyway)

[mrroberts]

Don't you just like these thread titles ( *Really?* ) that you have to check out just to see what the poster is talking about?

[David_E]

They're showing "Meet Me in St. Louis again tonight (saluting the MGM studio).

When Ben Mankiewicz introduced the movie, he gave the time setting as right after the turn of the 19th century, not the 20th. Interesting intro in spite of the nitpick. He mentioned their having built the house's first floor in its entirety on a soundstage, rather than rooms as separate sets.
 

[JamesJazGuitar]

They're showing "Meet Me in St. Louis again tonight (saluting the MGM studio).

 

When Ben Mankiewicz introduced the movie, he gave the time setting as right after the turn of the 19th century, not the 20th. Interesting intro in spite of the nitpick. He mentioned their having built the house's first floor in its entirety on a soundstage, rather than rooms as separate sets.

 

 

I find that it is a fairly common error for people to think that the years of a century start with the first year related to that century;     e.g.  that the 20th century must start with the year 2000.    I know a lot of people that were confused on new year's eve in 1999 when I said the 21st century was about to begin  (ok they were rather drunk also).      I had to play the Kinks' song 20th Century Man to convince them!

[Dargo]

I find that it is a fairly common error for people to think that the years of a century start with the first year related to that century;     e.g.  that the 20th century must start with the year 2000.    I know a lot of people that were confused on new year's eve in 1999 when I said the 21st century was about to begin  (ok they were rather drunk also).      I had to play the Kinks' song 20th Century Man to convince them!

 

So James! Are you sayin' The Mankster was at that party????

 

(...I'll bet he still had that little goatee, didn't he?!)

[Tikisoo]

 TCM shows it way too often

New board....same ole complaints....

 

common error for people to think that the years of a century start with the first year related to that century

 

Yeah, I recently had to explain that to a kid: the first century was "one, two, three...to ten" and the second century started with 11-simple when you think of it that way.

[Arturo]

I find that it is a fairly common error for people to think that the years of a century start with the first year related to that century;     e.g.  that the 20th century must start with the year 2000.    I know a lot of people that were confused on new year's eve in 1999 when I said the 21st century was about to begin  (ok they were rather drunk also).      I had to play the Kinks' song 20th Century Man to convince them!

Or you could have played the.T. Rex classic "Twentieth Century Boy" in your attempt to convince them.

[Sepiatone]

Regardless.  The movie takes place JUST before the St. Louis World's Fair, in 1904.  Safely within the 20th century.  In fact, at the beginning of the movie, the fair was supposed to start in a few months.  So, STOP it now!

 

Sepiatone

[lzcutter]

They're showing "Meet Me in St. Louis again tonight (saluting the MGM studio).

 

When Ben Mankiewicz introduced the movie, he gave the time setting as right after the turn of the 19th century, not the 20th. Interesting intro in spite of the nitpick. He mentioned their having built the house's first floor in its entirety on a soundstage, rather than rooms as separate sets.

 

 

 

He was right. The story takes place in 1903/1904, two years after the 19th century gave way to the 20th, thus the turn of the 19th century.

 

Definition of "turn of the century": Turn of the century, in its broadest sense, refers to the transition from one century to another. The term is most often used to indicate a non-specific time period either before or after the beginning of a century. 

 

The turn of the 20th century happened as it gave way to the 21 century.

[David_E]

I've always understood a "turn of the century" to be given the number of the arriving century, and I think that if enough examples were found, that would be the most common use. For example, I entered "turn of the 20th century" into Amazon to see if a book might have that title, and this was the first to pop up: The Problem of the Color Line at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: The Essential Early Essays, by W.E.B. Du Bois, necessarily referring to 1900 rather than 2000.
 

[FredCDobbs]

I've always understood a "turn of the century" to be given the number of the arriving century, and I think that if enough examples were found, that would be the most common use. For example, I entered "turn of the 20th century" into Amazon to see if a book might have that title, and this was the first to pop up: The Problem of the Color Line at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: The Essential Early Essays, by W.E.B. Du Bois, necessarily referring to 1900 rather than 2000.

 

 

That's the way I've always heard it to be.

 

12:01 AM Jan 1, 1900 would have been the first minute of the turn of the 20th Century. I remember it being that way for at least 55 of my years during the 20th Century. I never heard anyone say "turn of the 19th Century", unless they were referring to Jan 1, 1800.

 

During those 55 years, I often heard of it as "before the turn of the century" (meaning the late 1800s) and after the turn of the century (meaning the early 1900s).

 

However, it is easy to get mixed up. And I'm sure that if you press the issue, we would see a long debate here.

[lzcutter]

I've always understood a "turn of the century" to be given the number of the arriving century, and I think that if enough examples were found, that would be the most common use. For example, I entered "turn of the 20th century" into Amazon to see if a book might have that title, and this was the first to pop up: The Problem of the Color Line at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: The Essential Early Essays, by W.E.B. Du Bois, necessarily referring to 1900 rather than 2000.

 

 

It may depend upon when you were born and the part of the country you lived in

 

I grew up a half century ago in the southwest where the term was used to describe the transition from one century to the next with the emphasis being the outgoing century turning into the new century.

 

The definition I used in my earlier post came from the Merrimac-Webster dictionary.

 

In the modern world today, you don't hear the term used as often as it was once and it could be that it has taken on a more colloquial meaning today.

[ValentineXavier]

I'm with you, Lynn. That's what I always found it to mean.

[Dargo]

That's the way I've always heard it to be.

 

12:01 AM Jan 1, 1900 would have been the first minute of the turn of the 20th Century. I remember it being that way for at least 55 of my years during the 20th Century. I never heard anyone say "turn of the 19th Century", unless they were referring to Jan 1, 1800.

 

During those 55 years, I often heard of it as "before the turn of the century" (meaning the late 1800s) and after the turn of the century (meaning the early 1900s).

 

However, it is easy to get mixed up. And I'm sure that if you press the issue, we would see a long debate here.

 

Sorry Fred, but you're a whole year off in this. Because the 1st Century AD began 12:01AM Jan 1. in the YEAR ONE AD(there was no "Year Zero AD"), and thus the completion of the 1st Century would have been 11:59PM Dec 31 of the year 100, and thus making the beginning of the 2nd Century (aka the "Turn of the 2nd Century) at one second after Midnight Jan 1, of the year 101.

 

And thus, taking this forward each and every "Turn of the Century", the 20th Century ACTUALLY began on Jan 1st, 1901, and this latest century, the 21st, actually began in the year 2001.

 

(...though don't feel too badly about this misconception of yours, as many many people have made and continue to make this mistake...though then again you probably WON'T feel too badly about this because I believe you still have me on your ignore function, and thus won't be able to read and understand how you've been under this misconception like so many others continue to be)

 

ROFL 

[darkblue]

there was no Year Zero AD

 

Right. That's the problem, logic-wise. Just as a baby who is one second old is in its first year of life, so too should one second after midnight on Jan. 1, 2000 have been the start of a new century.

 

But the historical calendar jumped from 1 B.C to 1 A.D. with no stop at a year 0, thus making the count illogical forever after.

[Kid Dabb]

Right. That's the problem, logic-wise. Just as a baby who is one second old is in its first year of life, so too should one second after midnight on Jan. 1, 2000 have been the start of a new century.

 

But the historical calendar jumped from 1 B.C to 1 A.D. with no stop at a year 0, thus making the count illogical forever after.

Yes. Very illogical. Historians drop Year Zero and Astronomers include it. I prefer to include Year Zero since any year ending in Zero marks the first year of that century - Century One.. not Year One.

 

This wiki will spin your head around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero

[David_E]

It may depend upon when you were born and the part of the country you lived in

 

I'm interested in the possible geographical difference. I was born in the northeastern United States, and have lived there most of my life, and that may be how I have my understanding of "turn of the century."

 

When me moved into the 21st century, I used to say "turn of the last century" to refer to the time beginning 1901 in order to be clear about which century, but perhaps even that might be understood by people from the western U.S. to refer to 2001. We may be saying that it's necessary to state an actual year be to clear, as in the W.E.B. Du Bois title, if there's the least bit of ambiguity about the actual century. I guess Ben Mankiewicz gets a pass on this. I don't know if he mentioned the year of the St. Louis World's Fair, but it wouldn't have been necessary.