Here is another excerpt from my book so far, and in this one, I make a brief reference to Natalie. I wonder if she would agree with me if she were still here today.

I know other former Hollywood actresses such as Jane Withers ("Bright Eyes"), Sybil Jason ("The Little Princess"), Pat Priest ("The Munsters"), Karolyn Grimes ("It's a Wonderful Life"), Cammie King ("Gone with the Wind"), Kathy Garver ("Family Affair"), the girl from "Land of the Lost," Kathy Coleman, and Lana Wood ("The Searchers") have all personally told me they do agree with me on the following matter:


Chapter 6: The Child Stars



If it’s true that every generation must have its own heroes, then what about those special ones that come along so rarely in the existence of humanity? If no one else has the gall to ask the question, then let me be the one. Is there no room in our children’s lives today for heroes of the past such as a George Washington, a Francis Marion, a Harriet Tubman, a Helen Keller, a Sgt. Alvin York, an Oskar Schindler, an Audie Murphy, a Martin Luther King Jr., or even a dimpled little Hollywood legend, turned public servant, named Shirley Temple? Parents today say that children today aren’t interested in films like those that Shirley Temple, Jackie Coogan, Jackie Cooper, Jane Withers, Sybil Jason, Roddy McDowall, Natalie Wood, Elizabeth Taylor, Hayley Mills, and other notable child stars performed in. Well, that’s a lot of nonsense. I’ve proven that theory wrong by allowing children of today to view my DVDs of family films of the past, and I’m telling you, they all loved them. The latest film I loaned out to a friend of mine for her daughter was National Velvet, starring Mickey Rooney and Elizabeth Taylor. Her daughter loved it, and so previously did my twelve-year-old niece!

Nobody is suggesting replacing all the children’s films of today with the old ones, but all those child-starring films of the past that brought regular kids of the past so much joy and happiness, can still do that for today’s generation. It might help a great deal, however, to colorize the films in order to compete with more modern media that the children of today are accustomed to. The films of Shirley Temple and others all taught kids good morals and behavior, in addition to entertaining them. Do we not want that for our children still today? Yes, there are other, more modern media methods of showing our kids today what is right and wrong, and there is nothing wrong with using them, also, but Temple-like films can only enhance a child’s early years. From them, they gain happiness and self-worth – something very important, yet often neglected to be given in adequate amounts by today’s busy parents. If you don’t think those films of the past we’re referring to here can make a difference in a child’s life, go back and read what I told you about my own childhood in Chapter 1. It wasn’t a “70s thing” to watch Shirley Temple. I’d have been just as content to have watched Batman if he had made me feel the same as Shirley Temple did. But he didn’t, and Batman isn’t today, either, nor are many of today’s choices by parents with regard to children’s programming. No, quite often the opposite is true.

What we are finding today are films or television programs supposedly targeted at children, yet with either outright profanity, or subliminal messages such as the act of homosexuality being accepted as a normal practice, which should be taught – pro or con – in the HOME OR PLACE OF WORSHIP, AND NOT VIA CHILDREN’S MEDIA! I can’t stress that last point enough, and I hope you’ll agree with me, no matter which side of the issue you’re on. What’s to be debated next through our children’s programming, abortion? I’d love to go on with this discussion, but that’s for another book. My point is that children’s films of the past, with its great performers such as Shirley Temple, were and still are harmless and very much politically correct, with perhaps, a few exceptions such as race relations or women’s rights. In fairness to them, they could only go by the laws of which their society was based on whether real or fictional in a particular picture, and unfortunately, they didn’t always hit the bull’s-eye. But, I don’t believe the film producers of those days were out to change the minds of children, or influence them really. They only wanted to entertain them, and their parents, as well. By the way, you might recall in Chapter 1 reading about children’s programming leaders like Fred Rogers, Bob Keeshan, and LeVar Burton being disturbed with the way that genre had turned. So, I am not alone in my opinion, even though two of the three men mentioned above are gone. I’m quite sure there are many more.

...

People look at me! Comment on me!!

Get over yourself.

Obviously, you like the attention more than I do. You post just as much here, and never have anything important to say other than the same old thing: that R.J. is not repsonsible for her death.

Can't you say anything else? Is your i.q. that low?

Then I guess you haven't been reading very closely.

Well, since you felt the need to post under this title, what about it? Would she have?

Personally, I think she already had soured on newer films of her time, as compared to her early days of acting. Certainly, she would not have found by 1981 a family film that compared well to "Miracle on 34th Street."

Write your own book.....

Oh, I get it, by you answering this, you would be giving credibility to my book. I see...well, writing my own book is exactly what I am doing. Whose do you think I am writing?

This was only a discussion, but like I said before: you are stuck on only one subject here, and that's defending R.J. You've shown little to nothing else in this forum.

You've said that you had other discussions some time ago about Natalie, but I haven't seen 'em. So, anyway, why are you still here if you're done discussing her? Doesn't make sense to me.

When did I say I was done discussing Natalie? And yes, I have discussed her plenty on this board over the last few years. I've been here longer than you, Reverend. I just don't log in any longer for the same reasons that others also don't log in. And now I'm kinda diggin' the Anonymous Jerk title, so I doubt I'll log in ever again. For most people, it's what is typed that matters, not who typed it.

"Diggin'" went out in the 60s, old man!

And I'm not a "reverend" just because I express my faith.

p.s. By you being stuck on one subject (R.J. being blameless), you have shown you're done discussing anything else here about Natalie.

It's hard not to respond when that seems to be the only topic around here lately