Here's her Twitter post. Interestingly, she, or her social media team, cut out Mary and Flo from the picture. Accident? Or done to focus on Poitier? Or is she ashamed of the Supremes? Or does she still have hurt or angry feelings or grudges against Mary and Flo? Or does she think they don't matter compared to her and Poitier? It was a tacky thing to do.
https://twitter.com/DianaRoss/status...23730435026945
I don't think it was any of the above reasons. I like this picture of Diana & Sidney Poitier very much. It is just a simple and elegant photograph capturing two beautiful icons together, most probably a treasured memory for Diana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadinglove21
[QUOTE=Spreadinglove21;681618]Here's her Twitter post. Interestingly, she, or her social media team, cut out Mary and Flo from the picture. Accident? Or done to focus on Poitier? Or is she ashamed of the Supremes? Or does she still have hurt or angry feelings or grudges against Mary and Flo? Or does she think they don't matter compared to her and Poitier? It was a tacky thing to do.
https://twitter.com/DianaRoss/status...23730435026945[/QUOTE
I believe Diana’s statement was in tribute to Sidney Poitier and not a group testimony. Thus, it had nothing to do with Mary Wilson or Florence Ballard. I don’t understand how a tribute to an actor can become another opportunity to reflect on conflicts within the 60’s Supremes line up.
I don't think it was malicious on Diana Ross' part. I am guessing that she wanted to pay tribute to the late Sidney Poitier and wanted to show a picture of the two of them together. I looked myself to see if there was one besides the picture with the Supremes. I only found one where Cindy is next to him and the back of Diana's head as she is talking to him, so that wouldn't have worked. I think she wanted to show one of them together. I know I wouldn't have cropped out the other people, in this case the other Supremes Mary Wilson and Florence Ballard, but that is not me. I am sure it wasn't malicious, but it is not something I would have done. The tribute had nothing to do with the Supremes but it touches fans in a different way when they see them cropped out as if they don't matter viewing their history and internal issues. Like I said, I don't think it was malicious and Miss Ross wanted to show a picture of the two of them together and in order to do so she cropped out Mary and Flo. I wouldn't have done it, but it doesn't seem mean spirited because she was thinking of herself with him in the tribute.
Agree. Don't know why photo was cropped but it was inappropriate bordering on disrespectful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadinglove21
could've posted it this way:
....." this photo [uncropped] is of a fond memory of The Supremes sharing ...[?] ... etc. ... with Sidney back in the sixties" ....
The cropped version allowed one to see the shoes Ms. Ross was wearing; the uncropped version did not. Her shoes seem to have polka dot trim on the heels, mirroring the polka dots on her snood or hat. This proves that she was well-coordinated from head to toe.
perfect !! hilarious!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by benross
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIhS_cPX...jpg&name=large
lol!!! ----------------------------------------------^^^^----------
This cropped version has been floating around for years. It shows her shoes. This pic has always fascinated me because of the conservative but hip society matron look she’s copping. LOL. It may be the only version she has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadinglove21
I don’t think she hates The Supremes. She may hate Mary for making up lies for personal profit and public humiliation [[rather than just rely on the many truthful instances) and maybe Mary still hated her as well. The cover and text of Supreme Glamour could easily support that theory. I would find it hard to point a finger in one direction concerning these two. Either way, WGAF?
[QUOTE=JohnnyB;681635]The glassy-eyed Mary conspiracy theorists, much like the MAGA-ites, are always on the edge of their seats looking for a slight, a reason to shout, “see that?????” Which would be more understandable if they kept an eye peeled on both sides of the equation, but they never do. The Diana glassy-eyed are usually passive, defensive and, like their Mary counterparts, awash with adoration. All these years, SS/DD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadinglove21
I can confirm Mary did not want the photo used for the cover of Supreme Glamour for that exact reason. She even emailed Diana and told her it was not her choice and no way meant to slight her. Diana told Mary she appreciated it and understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMotownManiac
Authors don’t get the choice on what the cover of their books look like. Mary had one photo she begged the publishers to use. I had two other options. We both tried our damndest to get the cover changed. We didn’t have the power.
When and why would she ever be ashamed of the Supremes? I think the point of the post was to focus on her thoughts of Mr. Poitier and his family at this time, and she included herself. I've seen a lot of people do this, cutting out others to focus on themself with someone else. Would it have been nice for her to keep the photo intact and also share her memory of that day or the first time she met him? Absolutely. But me thinks you are reading way too much into this. Honestly, as much as I love Florence and Mary, my acknowledgment of the great that we lost with Mr. Poitier's passing wouldn't even allow me to notice their absence or ponder the whys and hows of it. This is a great lost and this kind of speculation is disrespectful, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadinglove21
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like this kind of stuff is still too soon. It hasn't even been a year yet. Can we have at least a little more room before we go back to casting aspersions on Mary?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMotownManiac
Quote:
Originally Posted by RanRan79
You’re right. That wasn’t my intention. Diana’s behavior, Mary’s rhetoric are legend now. I was saying maybe there was hate on either side, maybe there was love, both may have had their reasons if they wanted them, it’s been decades and decades. Both are no stranger to the scissor. It’s the chicken and the egg with these two. Both made relatively recent positive comments about the other, I’m happy with that. Mary and Flo are gone and most of us are on our way. Looking for hate with a microscope is, by now, just plain old.
I was wondering who was going to post this lol no surprise ,my good lord
I am a member of a Supremes Facebook group that states as its purpose to show love for all members of the Supremes; however, it allows and appears to welcome trash talk directed at Diana Ross. It should be renamed the "Mary Wilson/Florence Ballard Only" page. I anticipate this photo will show up there followed by hundreds of negative remarks about her.
"Either way, WGAF?"......sums up this whole thread to me!
But not about those shoes because those areQuote:
Originally Posted by jobucats
fantastic !!!
Lol!
Here's a link to image of Poitier, Cindy Birdsong and Diana Ross at the Copa.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/112308584429251419/
Granted that he would have been all wrong for a major role in Lady Sings the Blues, Mahogany or The Wiz, but was there ever any talk in the 70s or 80s of having the two appear in a film together? Also he started directing in the 70s--did he make any offers to her?
[QUOTE=TheMotownManiac;681740]Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
Well if that cropped picture has been out there for years, then that makes sense why she may have grabbed it. She could very well not even remember much about their meeting that day, who was there or what original picture looked like. Hopefully that's the case.
The recent Christmas picture of her and family in matching pajamas was for me a Mommy Dearest type moment. There's another scene in the movie where Joan breaks up with her boyfriend and the children notice the next day that the boyfriend has been cut out or X'd out of all pictures in the household so that was on my mind when I made the original post. In hindsight not at all tasteful, but I'm not afraid to wander into the realm of bad taste and needless speculation. If not me, someone else would.
Hopefully by this stage in her life Diana Ross is nowhere near like how Joan Crawford was portrayed/depicted in the book and film Mommy Dearest.
[QUOTE=Spreadinglove21;681853]by all accounts, Joan had quite a difficult time during childhood. It’s thought that the reason she had so many issues raising children was her rage and misunderstanding of her own childhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMotownManiac
Lots of things can cause folks to seek out negativity. Maybe their parents treated their siblings better, maybe they didn’t do well in school scholastically, maybe they weren’t popular or were the butt of bullying, sometimes unfortunate financial situations can bring out a green eyed monster, the perception of not being as physically attractive can cause a lot of trouble to one’s psyche be it real or imagined … could even be the last person being picked to play sports. What is a harmless light to one person can be a terrible day of reckoning for another and lead them to seek out negativity or evil and even the most banal situations. It’s helpful to seek out those thoughts work through them and get rid of them to get the dark clouds out of one’s mind. It’s a shame Joan didn’t have the ability to do that, but it’s very difficult climb in your way to the top and staying there and probably doesn’t leave much room for self improvement. Ultimately, negativity breeds more negativity and there are many who feel our current situation in the world has had its fill.