People, stop calling them 'Susan' and 'Bette' - Where Love Has Gone (1964) Discussion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ripshin 13 years ago

Do you not realize the irony of your response?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ripshin 13 years ago

Your skill in repartee would actually be more appealing to the double-wide crowd, I imagine.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ripshin 13 years ago

No, it still stands. You call somebody an idiot by saying "U R N Idiot" - I classify it as such.

reply

[–] Ripshin 13 years ago

Anyway, must head out. We can continue this chat later. The usage of celebrity names is a subject about which I am familiar. Having to deal with them on a regular basis as part of my job, well, it comes with the territory. Read HR or Variety (or any legit newspaper), and notice the standard. Trash news has introduced an unfortunate trend. (Elvis, Marilyn, etc. certainly started this rolling years ago, but it was rare, till recently.)

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ophelia4538 11 years ago

"Elvis" aside, I've noticed that women (in entertainment and outside of it) are far more likely to be referred to by their first names than men are. I find that disrespectful.

But to get back to your point, I'm also opposed to calling public figures by their first names. It implies a knowledge of, and emotional connection to, people we've never met; that's just not healthy.

reply

[–] Evcannon123 9 years ago

And if anyone would know the "double-wide crowd" it's "Ripshin"....Scrubbing the toilets of D-list stars must be horrendous!

reply

[–] Ripshin 9 years ago

Oh, sweetie, that's lame. And desperate. You can do much better…although, probably not.

reply

[–] Evcannon123 9 years ago

Oh troll, don't call me sweetie! Use my honorific. You moron. You can do better....although, probably not. #Loser

reply

[–] Ripshin 9 years ago

Toots, you're getting too involved. And use your own words.

reply

[–] EliotTempleton 9 years ago

Oh, you've been exposed to Ripshin, too? However, I thought his last gig was replacing the toilet paper in the honey-wagons at filming locations. Don't you just love his dictating the "industry standards," as if her were a Hollywood mover-and-shaker, anywhere but in his own mind?

reply

[–] mdtdbe 13 years ago

I have to agree. The false familiarity is quite annoying, and I think it may derive from the supermarket-tabloid covers. Given names scream off the page in giant type with nary a surname in sight, and I stand in the checkout line wondering, "Who the hell are they talking about?" It's a lonely feeling not knowing who it is I'm supposed to be scandalized by this week.

The old standard of good manners was that you referred to someone by his given name only if both you and the person you were speaking to were on a first-name basis with person referred to. Otherwise, it was surnames, with or without an honorific.

But, what do I know? "In olden days a glimpse of stocking..."

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] markedjuan 13 years ago

Yes, Hayward approved a lousy script and vetoed a rewrite. It's why the film was rubbish. Where Love has Gone is only remembered now because Bette Davis was in it.

reply

[–] ophelia4538 11 years ago

I agree.

reply

[–] phillindholm 10 years ago

I don't, but, as to the original post, both women are long gone, so it probably matters little to them what they are called.

reply

[–] philippe-61 7 years ago

Markedjuan..it is pathetic how you always grab a chance to put down Susan Hayward....wether you like it or not she was a major super star for a period of 20 years...she was a beauty and a great actress...and contrarily to what you expose left and right on the net she is NOT forgotten and has still a lot of fans....

She was "star of the month " as recentrly as september 2015 on TCM....

She is a legend even if you despise her, which comes over so cheap in all your messages about her.

Respect people who are fans of hers.You don't have to like ther but why put her down constantly!? it comes quite sick over....

She was one of the greatest Hollywood female stars from the mid 1940's to the late 1960's...with almost each of her movies being a box office smash between 1947 and 1967...with an unprecedented series of big hits during the whole 1950's.

She was and still is known the world over as one of the most legendary female stars of her generation.

You do not like her ,which is obvious:-)) but leave her fans love her. Thanks for not hameerng on her on each post you write.Try to write on the personalities you like ...instead!

I for one find Bette Davis over the top , one dimensional actress and on top of that a quite ugly face to look at on thescreen...Barbara Stanwyck was also not atractive to me.

Susan Hayward was the missing link between the actresses and the beauties, as Daryl Zanuck put it in 1952 ,year in which her movies grossed $12.500.000 for 20 century fox, an enormous amount of money then...Zanuck named her "My 12 million dollar baby"!

Hayward was loved and still is. Almost all her movies have been released on DVD the world over from Spain to Italy...France or the US.

reply

[–] butaneggbert 9 years ago

The track record for getting other people to behave on the internet the way you'd like them to is pretty dismal.

But go ahead and tilt at that particular windmill if you like.

reply

[–] Ripshin 9 years ago

I don't expect to control anyone. I just comment on the idiocy.

reply

[–] Evcannon123 9 years ago

If anyone knows idiocy it is you sweetie.

reply

[–] benGsboat 9 years ago

Could have sworn you were telling people what to do. "Stop calling them..." and "use the industry standard of..." seem more like demands than comments.

By the way: Mike, Joey, and Jane were also good in this film.

reply

[–] Ripshin 9 years ago

You're precious!

reply

[–] george-695-323782 8 years ago

Mike? You mean "Touch"?

reply

[–] benGsboat 8 years ago

Of course!

reply