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

Lew Ayres on TCM today!


TopBilled
 Share

Recommended Posts

Forgive me, and with the greatest respect, I have to say that I think this is a ludicrous thread!

All of John Steinbeck's threads usually are, but he is The Golden Boy around here, so he is tolerated.

 

Such an inflammatory title, isn't it? Why are you offering up an apology, Swithin, and respect? Don't bother.

 

As to Lew's movies, they are enjoyable fluff, aren't they? With the exception of him as an insurance salesman, that is. NO wife of mine is going to work. Bye, Lew, see you at your next movie Fingers at the Window.

 

Which got me to thinking. I know for a fact this attitude on the part of macho he men misogynists was the law in the 1940s and 1950s - when exactly did it come to an end? Was it 1968? WAS it that late?

 

So sad. SO many intelligent women had to give up a career simply because they HAD to have a husband and their emasculated men suffered from inferiority complexes so massive that they had to be the head of the household and the king of the castle. 

 

Kudos to those women who found secure men willing to let them be both wife and working women or those even braver to give up the wonderful joys of servitude to a man and live a carefree single life and enjoy the benefits of a career. Even MORE kudos to those who had the foresight to have both career and single motherhood. Good riddance to the 1940s in terms of subjugation of women.

 

On one hand I'd have liked to live in 1935, on the other I wouldn't have lasted a minute. :D

 

Oh, and thank you Lew for your personal opinions. Long may you wave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of John Steinbeck's threads usually are, but he is The Golden Boy around here, so he is tolerated.

 

Such an inflammatory title, isn't it? Why are you offering up an apology, Swithin, and respect? Don't bother.

 

Well, I don't like to be disagreeable without couching it a bit.

 

The thing is, a thread about Lew Ayres' movies is certainly relevant, but it has been pre-bombed by the explosive thread title and OP comments.  He started another thread recently -- the one about stars' breakout performances -- which was assured a less-than-serious approach because it began with a lengthy preamble about the OP's childhood and special-ness. So, two potentially interesting threads were destined to become inflammatory and unproductive from the start. 

 

Why would one do that? What can be the motivation for presenting potentially interesting subjects that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The thing is, a thread about Lew Ayres' movies is certainly relevant, but it has been pre-bombed by the explosive thread title and OP comments.  He started another thread recently -- the one about stars' breakout performances -- which was assured a less-than-serious approach because it began with a lengthy preamble about the OP's childhood and special-ness. So, two potentially interesting threads were destined to become inflammatory and unproductive from the start. 

 

Why would one do that? What can be the motivation for presenting potentially interesting subjects that way?

Because the thread title has to compel potential readers to look inside and peruse the contents. A thread that simply said 'Lew Ayres (yawn) films on TCM (yawn again) today' would die after two replies and about 50 views. 

 

But this thread is going to reach 1,000 views by nightfall. I know what I'm doing! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the thread title has to compel potential readers to look inside and peruse the contents. A thread that simply said 'Lew Ayres (yawn) films on TCM (yawn again) today' would die after two replies and about 50 views. 

 

But this thread is going to reach 1,000 views by nightfall. I know what I'm doing! LOL

Are thread counts the most meaningful metrics around here? What do they prove, apart from the fact that people may be more interested in politics than movies? Are you saying that you prefer the National Enquirer and similar publications to more serious newspapers, because higher circulation means quality? And especially if the sensational nature of the thread title actually leads to responses which actually work against discussion of the films.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the thread title has to compel potential readers to look inside and peruse the contents. A thread that simply said 'Lew Ayres (yawn) films on TCM (yawn again) today' would die after two replies and about 50 views. 

 

But this thread is going to reach 1,000 views by nightfall. I know what I'm doing! LOL

With all due respect, why do you keep posting your photo? It's distracting.  and does not encourage posters to visit the threads.The last time you did that, posters requested that you remove it and you did. Why is it back again? Wouldn't a photo (if you want to post one)of an actor, actress, director,etc. that's known, be more appropriate for a website about classic films? You might want to reconsider. This is meant as a helpful suggestion

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, why do you keep posting your photo? It's distracting.  and does not encourage posters to visit the threads.The last time you did that, posters requested that you remove it and you did. Why is it back again? Wouldn't a photo (if you want to post one)of an actor, actress, director,etc. that's known, be more appropriate for a website about classic films? You might want to reconsider. This is meant as a helpful suggestion

Ego.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't like to be disagreeable without couching it a bit.

 

The thing is, a thread about Lew Ayres' movies is certainly relevant, but it has been pre-bombed by the explosive thread title and OP comments.  He started another thread recently -- the one about stars' breakout performances -- which was assured a less-than-serious approach because it began with a lengthy preamble about the OP's childhood and special-ness. So, two potentially interesting threads were destined to become inflammatory and unproductive from the start. 

 

Why would one do that? What can be the motivation for presenting potentially interesting subjects that way?

Trouble maker.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are thread counts the most meaningful metrics around here? 

Thread counts do matter as long as they are included in this web design. So I will continue to reference them. I know some posters do not like seeing thread views (make of that what you will). In my humble opinion, people who do not like to see thread views shown can take that grievance up with the web designers or find a message board where that is not an issue for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that you prefer the National Enquirer and similar publications to more serious newspapers, because higher circulation means quality? And especially if the sensational nature of the thread title actually leads to responses which actually work against discussion of the films.

Interesting observation, Swithin, and an entirely appropriate one, too, in this case (among others with the thread titles written by TB). Views seem to mean far more than meaningful discussion to this poster (especially one bragging about the number of views he believes this thread will receive by day's end).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, why do you keep posting your photo? It's distracting.  and does not encourage posters to visit the threads.The last time you did that, posters requested that you remove it and you did. Why is it back again? Wouldn't a photo (if you want to post one)of an actor, actress, director,etc. that's known, be more appropriate for a website about classic films? You might want to reconsider. This is meant as a helpful suggestion

I think you are somewhat confused. I have never done anything that other posters have requested of me. I find it strange that you would even worry about my photo. 

 

If you want to know why I stopped using my photo for awhile and am now using it again (and why I will probably stop using it again and then re-use it again), I guess you could always ask nicely. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a level head is going to have to prevail!

 

Lew Ayres was a fairly good actor.  He was in one of my long time favorites( "All Quiet On The Western Front"), and the star of one of the more successful film "franchises"( The Kildare Movies).

 

What's ludicrous is the belief that people with brains would dislike an actor or actress because of their personal political beliefs.  Now, I DO know there are people who DO, but note:  I was recently, in this thread, referring to "people with brains".

 

I cannot give positive testament to anyone who would dismiss the efforts or abilities of anyone in any particular field due to what or how they think of feel about subject matter that's totally unrelated to their profession.

 

Like, I DON'T CARE that John Wayne was a hawk when it came to HIS opinion regarding war.

 

OR if Ayres was a DOVE!

 

OR what Jane Fonda was thinking when she visited Hanoi( I DO however, still think it was "good intentions gone wrong")

 

I DON'T CARE what Ted Nugent thinks about Obama.  He's STILL a stellar guitarist.

 

And I DON'T CARE that Cat Stevens changed his name to whatever--- FOR whatever, I STILL play his old recordings.

 

I suppose I could go on, but if y'all don't get the point by NOW, then you ARE hopelss!

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting observation, Swithin, and an entirely appropriate one, too, in this case (among others with the thread titles written by TB). Views seem to mean far more than meaningful discussion to this poster (especially one bragging about the number of views he believes this thread will receive by day's end).

Of course. Ego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Views seem to mean far more than meaningful discussion to this poster...

I don't think so, Tom. They're definitely an important measure of how HOT a thread is (so is staying on page one).

 

But if my posts were all style and flash and no substance, I would have run out of things to say a long time ago. There are a lot of strong posts with classic film-related information embedded in my 13,000 plus posts. I think I have managed to present relevant material and do it in iconic ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a level head is going to have to prevail!

 

Lew Ayres was a fairly good actor.  He was in one of my long time favorites( "All Quiet On The Western Front"), and the star of one of the more successful film "franchises"( The Kildare Movies).

 

What's ludicrous is the belief that people with brains would dislike an actor or actress because of their personal political beliefs.  Now, I DO know there are people who DO, but note:  I was recently, in this thread, referring to "people with brains".

 

I cannot give positive testament to anyone who would dismiss the efforts or abilities of anyone in any particular field due to what or how they think of feel about subject matter that's totally unrelated to their profession.

 

Like, I DON'T CARE that John Wayne was a hawk when it came to HIS opinion regarding war.

 

OR if Ayres was a DOVE!

 

OR what Jane Fonda was thinking when she visited Hanoi( I DO however, still think it was "good intentions gone wrong")

 

I DON'T CARE what Ted Nugent thinks about Obama.  He's STILL a stellar guitarist.

 

And I DON'T CARE that Cat Stevens changed his name to whatever--- FOR whatever, I STILL play his old recordings.

 

I suppose I could go on, but if y'all don't get the point by NOW, then you ARE hopelss!

 

 

Sepiatone

Actually Sepiatone, I understand disliking an actor for his views or actions off the screen. And, I have a brain.

 

However, Truman Capote's inflammatory thread title is at issue. The politics of Lew  Ayres has nothing to do with making the viewer anti-TCM, even IF the viewer is against the actor.

 

Hence the thread creator, egoist that he is, is only interested in creating trouble.

 

SO/SO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. Ego.

The above poster keeps repeating that I have an ego, without examining her own. She also made a bitter remark about me being a John Steinbeck type poster because I am so prolific. Is it any wonder others come along and call her a sourpuss?  I know, I know, she has me and half the human population on Ignore. Yet she keeps coming on to threads I have created and jumping into the fray.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...