Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Ebert writes about John Wayne

84 views
Skip to first unread message

Bill Anderson

unread,
May 28, 2012, 12:11:34 AM5/28/12
to
And it's a good article.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/05/john_wayne_shall_we_gather_at_.html

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

Wull

unread,
May 28, 2012, 8:39:31 AM5/28/12
to

"Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lL6dndTYdL9rZ1_S...@giganews.com...
Here's one big warm fuzzy Bill for posting that article.

Wull


notbob

unread,
May 28, 2012, 8:58:01 AM5/28/12
to
On 2012-05-28, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And it's a good article.
>
> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/05/john_wayne_shall_we_gather_at_.html

Yes, it is.

For a long time after reading his interview in Playboy where he
appeared to belittle Native American Indians, I was real anti-Wayne.
But eventually, I realized one can enjoy and even respect an
entertainer as just that, without letting their character or politics
enter into it. It was then that I really began enjoying The Duke.
Over the years, after following his career and realizing the truth of
many of Ebert's observations, I really came to love this old American
icon. His movies sometimes bordered on brilliant, as did True Grit, a
movie I still watch quite often. Movies are now so pointless and
insipid, a good ol' Duke actioner is the only cure.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

moviePig

unread,
May 28, 2012, 9:13:48 AM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 12:11 am, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And it's a good article.
>
> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/05/john_wayne_shall_we_gather_at...

Wayne retrospectives seem always to underline for me how movie stars
seem to be a thing of the past, and to make me wonder why.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

Howard Brazee

unread,
May 28, 2012, 9:19:34 AM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 06:13:48 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>On May 28, 12:11 am, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And it's a good article.
>>
>> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/05/john_wayne_shall_we_gather_at...
>
>Wayne retrospectives seem always to underline for me how movie stars
>seem to be a thing of the past, and to make me wonder why.


One element is in the fact that people don't make as many movies now.
Another is how we see so many stars in our living rooms, bedrooms, and
phones.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

Mack A. Damia

unread,
May 28, 2012, 9:26:22 AM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 06:13:48 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>On May 28, 12:11 am, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And it's a good article.
>>
>> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/05/john_wayne_shall_we_gather_at...
>
>Wayne retrospectives seem always to underline for me how movie stars
>seem to be a thing of the past, and to make me wonder why.

Because the past is a thing of the past, and all of mankind's
endeavors eventually gravitate towards mediocrity.
--


calvin

unread,
May 28, 2012, 9:24:03 AM5/28/12
to
Never been much pro-Wayne or anti-Wayne, with one exception,
his Ethan Edwards in 'The Searchers'. Actor, character, and
movie amount to inseparable greatness.

calvin

unread,
May 28, 2012, 9:58:34 AM5/28/12
to
Slimy AMPAS blocked the video in Ebert's article of Wayne
getting his Oscar. But the pricks haven't blocked it on
YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qQhODwivLU

trotsky

unread,
May 28, 2012, 10:50:59 AM5/28/12
to
On 5/28/12 8:13 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On May 28, 12:11 am, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And it's a good article.
>>
>> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/05/john_wayne_shall_we_gather_at...
>
> Wayne retrospectives seem always to underline for me how movie stars
> seem to be a thing of the past, and to make me wonder why.


Because in the days of "movie stars" there were only a handful of movie
studios and hence only a handful of stars. Nowadays we have major
studios, independents, films from Korea and what not, so the number of
people appearing in movies has risen exponentially. Moreover, with
paparazzi constantly snapping pictures of stars scratching their butts
and girls not wearing any panties, they don't seem nearly as larger than
life as they used to.

Tom

unread,
May 28, 2012, 11:21:09 AM5/28/12
to
It could be overuse of the term or its casual application...

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/28/153615173/nfl-players-learn-the-drills-to-take-on-tinseltown

"That's not what these guys want to do. But most of them are not
interested in becoming movie stars; they're team players."

Tom

tomcervo

unread,
May 28, 2012, 10:47:32 AM5/28/12
to
Most testosterone ever captured on film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjZ6ztcm4LY

( like the fact that there's no fake cocking of Strode's Winchester to
make a point already made by his glare)

calvin

unread,
May 28, 2012, 11:47:08 AM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 10:47 am, tomcervo <paradisfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most testosterone ever captured on film:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjZ6ztcm4LY
> ...

No wonder the feminists don't like men.

trotsky

unread,
May 28, 2012, 12:11:56 PM5/28/12
to
When did they say that you misogynist bastard?

gtr

unread,
May 28, 2012, 12:18:52 PM5/28/12
to
On 2012-05-28 04:11:34 +0000, Bill Anderson said:

> And it's a good article.
>
> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/05/john_wayne_shall_we_gather_at_.html

I can't say I've ever seen a movie he was in that I didn't dislike.
That would be at least 4 or 5. I can't imagine reading a whole article
about him.

gtr

unread,
May 28, 2012, 4:12:35 PM5/28/12
to
On 2012-05-28 16:11:56 +0000, trotsky said:

>> No wonder the feminists don't like men.
>
> When did they say that you misogynist bastard?

Never. Republicans invent descriptions of non-Republicans. Reality
isn't really a component of the logic.

reilloc

unread,
May 28, 2012, 4:30:00 PM5/28/12
to
On 5/28/2012 8:13 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On May 28, 12:11 am, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And it's a good article.
>>
>> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/05/john_wayne_shall_we_gather_at...
>
> Wayne retrospectives seem always to underline for me how movie stars
> seem to be a thing of the past, and to make me wonder why.

Movie stars haven't changed, you have.

LNC

trotsky

unread,
May 28, 2012, 6:02:08 PM5/28/12
to
I guess we're lucky he didn't stoop to the Druggie Limbaugh term
"feminazi". Disgusting.

Alan Illeman

unread,
May 28, 2012, 6:17:26 PM5/28/12
to
Bill Anderson wrote:
> And it's a good article.
>
> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/05/john_wayne_shall_we_gather_at_.html

It's a wonderful article - thanks!

moviePig

unread,
May 28, 2012, 6:00:17 PM5/28/12
to
Must be my pictures that got small.

Joan in GB-W

unread,
May 28, 2012, 7:11:40 PM5/28/12
to

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:rNydnZG-FNNJDV7S...@mchsi.com...
Oh, so true. Back in the 50s-60s there were a few movie star magazines out
monthly (Modern Screen comes to mind). We loved them and drooled over the
pictures and stories on a monthly basis. Now we have a non--stop barrage of
People, etc, magazines, ad infinitum TV coverage of every wink, nuisance,
divorce, or what have you the "stars" do. Most of the people featured will
never make the pinnacle of stardom that our friends from the past did, but
they are certainly getting more publicity than most of the oldies did.

trotsky

unread,
May 28, 2012, 8:30:33 PM5/28/12
to
Hell, even relatively good actors like Mel Gibson and Alec Baldwin seem
like total jerkoffs when their private lives are exposed. And are
fellow Scientologists John Travolta and Tom Cruise gay? Why should I
know or care?

I think another factor is the kind of movies these people make. Tom
Cruise first breakout movie was "Risky Business", a teen sex comedy that
war really pretty good, but not something you'd look at and see a "movie
star" in the traditional sense. Compare and contrast this to the resumé
of Errol Flynn, for example:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001224/

Tom

unread,
May 28, 2012, 8:43:22 PM5/28/12
to
My feminist wife, who likes men just fine, thanks you for paying your
Windstream bill on time and putting food on our table, clothes on our
backs and a very, very nice roof over our heads.

Tom

Tom

unread,
May 28, 2012, 8:46:23 PM5/28/12
to
calvin seems to think only women can be feminists...

Has he even met a woman?

Tom


trotsky

unread,
May 28, 2012, 10:05:38 PM5/28/12
to
His fondness for male actors may have precluded it.

The Loan Arranger

unread,
May 29, 2012, 12:20:50 PM5/29/12
to


"Tom" wrote in message
news:22d5c484-b743-4737...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, if you count inflatable love dolls!



Tom

unread,
May 29, 2012, 2:17:34 PM5/29/12
to
Only if it's made of pure, virgin vinyl.

Tom

moviePig

unread,
May 29, 2012, 1:35:51 PM5/29/12
to
Wow... they're *inflatable*!?
0 new messages