• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Sam Bridges

Member
May 3, 2022
326
Nostalgia for Marilyn Monroe seems like some boomer shit. I wouldn't say it has any historical significance, so it's just a dress being used as a dress.

What does this have to do with boomers? Monroe wasn't just some random sex symbol from the 50s, she was instrumental in shifting the power dynamics of Hollywood in favor of actors rather than studios, who up until that point typically controlled actors with an iron fist, dictating which movies they appeared in, for how much, and could "discipline" actors who refused roles while under contract (and those contracts were horribly one-sided).

She founded her own production company in 1954, and that company is seen as a major milestone in the redefinition of Hollywood, a huge stepping stone on the way to giving actors control over their own careers; every actor working today owes a debt of gratitude to Marilyn.

She's also one of the most iconic film stars in history, considered by many film historians and institutes to be one of the greatest screen legends of all time, and she is presumed to be the most photographed person of the 20th century. She was a cultural phenomenon unlike anyone else in history up to that point and her influence remains to this day. Also, the performance for which she wore this dress is one that is indelibly linked to one of the most beloved and popular presidents ever.

I'm not even a huge fan of Monroe's (and definitely not a boomer, nostalgic or otherwise), but I know all these things because her influence on American culture has been so pervasive that it's hard to *not* know a good bit about her if you were born at any point in the 20th century. So, yeah, actually there's quite a bit of historical significance for both Monroe and this particular dress.
 

rras1994

Member
Nov 4, 2017
5,742
Like outbidding the Smithsonian for a dress with historical significance, letting someone borrow it to wear and then complaining when it gets damaged?
I don't think Rippley is complaining it got damaged? Like neither Kim Kardashian or Rippley give af about destroying the dress which is a major piece in fashion history, because they get what they want , publicity, ordinary people with no money are not able to be so careless and face no consequences.
 

Zeliard

Member
Jun 21, 2019
10,945
I'm actually a little surprised the dress itself doesn't have a wikipedia article but it is mentioned on the page about Marilyn's performance.
For reference if no one wants to do the digging:

- The performance was one of Monroe's last major public appearances before her death less than three months later on August 4, 1962
- The dress apparently transferred owners over the years; The dress sold in 1999 at an auction in New York City for over $1.26 million. Canadian billionaire Jim Pattison subsequently purchased the dress on November 17, 2016, at a Los Angeles auction for $4.8 million. Ripley Entertainment was the current owner of the dress when they lent it to Kim.
- Kardashian wore Monroe's original dress for approximately five minutes, only to walk up the runway and then changed into an exact replica to not cause any more unnecessary strain to the dress.
-Fashion designer Bob Mackie who originally sketched the dress said "I thought it was a big mistake.. [Marilyn] was a goddess. A crazy goddess, but a goddess. She was just fabulous. Nobody photographs like that. And it was done for her. It was designed for her. Nobody else should be seen in that dress."

Its unfortunate that the dress wasn't kept in a better museum system like one more dedicated to music/movies/television since its clear Ripley's had no care for it.

I never knew that famous performance was in such close proximity to her death.

Makes this even sleazier, and creepier.
 
OP
OP
SAINT_

SAINT_

Banned
Oct 4, 2020
460


My god the strap is hanging on for dear life. I still cannot believe this was allowed to happen.
 
Jun 17, 2019
2,182
you could try educating yourself, maybe?

She used her position to get Ella Fitzgerald her first gig that launched her career.
She was a gay ally long before it was cool or the term "ally" even meant what it means today.
activist for orphans/foster kids

its honestly rather insulting people saying Kim is even remotely on the same level as Marilyn.

Agreed with everything here, just one correction. Ella's was already in her career, Marilyn was able to help her get into the West Hollywood clubs. The owner of this one club already had invited black jazz singers to his place, Ertha Kitt for example, the problem was that Ella's wasn't seen as Sexy enough. Marilyn got buts in seems for a week Ella's kept them there for several after and was booked in other clubs of West Hollywood after.

And yes they were friends but couldn't get close because Ella's was upset by Marilyn's drug problem, but they held each other in extreme respect.

And you are correct in the other factors.
 

Plover

Member
Oct 27, 2017
455
Not only the dress, but she was given a clump of Marilyn's hair? Ew, she's not a relative! How did they even get her hair, how much do they have??
 

Zip

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,027
Dress was allowed to be used for an idiotic purpose, by someone who clearly has very different proportions and sizing. Whoever owns it shouldn't have allowed it to be used for what seems like a vanity use, Kim is terrible for agreeing to use it (I don't know to what extent it was her idea), and ignoring all that it should have been called off as soon as they realized they would have to try and squeeze Kim's ass like that just to try and stretch it over her.

Kim is up to stupid shit that wealthy people do, and the dress should be handed over to some organization that is capable of handling it properly.
 

squeakywheel

Member
Oct 29, 2017
6,080
I certainly don't like the Kardashians but whoever the owner is is at fault unless Kim gave assurances she won't try to wear it.
 

GamerJM

Member
Nov 8, 2017
15,628
Era: "lol who cares about some dress?"
Also Era: "muh game preservation!"

I don't get why this is surprising. This is a video game forum. Of course people are going to inherently care more about the artistic value of video games than dresses. If you go on a forum specifically for dress design or historically significant objects for American culture and start talking about the importance of archiving the ROM of a cancelled SNES game that was found on a 30 year old harddrive that was about to die, I imagine most people would not care nor understand the artistic importance of that. Both of these are relatively niche things, it's just that we happen to be posting on the very space where enthusiasts for game archival gathers.
 

nekkid

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
21,823
I don't get why this is surprising. This is a video game forum. Of course people are going to inherently care more about the artistic value of video games than dresses. If you go on a forum specifically for dress design or historically significant objects for American culture and start talking about the importance of archiving the ROM of a cancelled SNES game that was found on a 30 year old harddrive that was about to die, I imagine most people would not care nor understand the artistic importance of that. Both of these are relatively niche things, it's just that we happen to be posting on the very space where enthusiasts for game archival gathers.
And that case would be equally as dumb. "I don't care therefore it isn't art" is a stupid opinion wherever it's posted.
 

Sam Bridges

Member
May 3, 2022
326
I don't get why this is surprising. This is a video game forum. Of course people are going to inherently care more about the artistic value of video games than dresses. If you go on a forum specifically for dress design or historically significant objects for American culture and start talking about the importance of archiving the ROM of a cancelled SNES game that was found on a 30 year old harddrive that was about to die, I imagine most people would not care nor understand the artistic importance of that. Both of these are relatively niche things, it's just that we happen to be posting on the very space where enthusiasts for game archival gathers.

Isn't this more than just a video game forum, though? I just joined up like 6 weeks ago and I think I've looked in the gaming forum maybe once? This off topic forum seems to be bumpin, full of topics that have absolutely nothing to do with gaming. Point is, seems like there are lots of diverse interests here, not some laser focus on video games.
 

Sam Bridges

Member
May 3, 2022
326
How does these two even correlate?
-----
As for the thread, the people that lent her the dress is at fault. But let's not pretend something of value was even lost to begin with.

Both things are a part of history and both deserve to be properly preserved because history is important, is I guess how the two even correlate.

And while you're certainly not required to appreciate the historical significance of the dress, that doesn't mean it has none.
 

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
11,958
A dress that was crafted for 1.4 million is the 60s, and (previously) valued at around 10 million in today's money.

Nothing of value was lost.
 

Deleted member 27921

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,735
It could have been worse - whoever was wearing the dress could have been eating ribs. With extra sauce.

Now I kind of want to see the dress on an episode of Hot Ones.
 

Nephtis_

alt account
Banned
May 5, 2022
77
Both things are a part of history and both deserve to be properly preserved because history is important, is I guess how the two even correlate.

And while you're certainly not required to appreciate the historical significance of the dress, that doesn't mean it has none.
What's the significance of this particular dress as it pertains to history?
 

BaconHat

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,099
How does these two even correlate?
-----
As for the thread, the people that lent her the dress is at fault. But let's not pretend something of value was even lost to begin with.
Look at it this way, when people go and say that we need rom dumps of betas preserved by the public, having someone come in and say thats its stupid, that those were made as one and done to create the game and that no one should care since it wont have much significance to history other than to the original creators, there would be ppl pissed at that comment. If people can care about preserving the history of a video game, people can definitively care about preserving a iconic dress and its mark in history.
 

alr1ght

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,050



bKrNWPG.gif
 

RedMercury

Blue Venus
Member
Dec 24, 2017
17,655
What does this have to do with boomers? Monroe wasn't just some random sex symbol from the 50s, she was instrumental in shifting the power dynamics of Hollywood in favor of actors rather than studios, who up until that point typically controlled actors with an iron fist, dictating which movies they appeared in, for how much, and could "discipline" actors who refused roles while under contract (and those contracts were horribly one-sided).

She founded her own production company in 1954, and that company is seen as a major milestone in the redefinition of Hollywood, a huge stepping stone on the way to giving actors control over their own careers; every actor working today owes a debt of gratitude to Marilyn.

She's also one of the most iconic film stars in history, considered by many film historians and institutes to be one of the greatest screen legends of all time, and she is presumed to be the most photographed person of the 20th century. She was a cultural phenomenon unlike anyone else in history up to that point and her influence remains to this day. Also, the performance for which she wore this dress is one that is indelibly linked to one of the most beloved and popular presidents ever.

I'm not even a huge fan of Monroe's (and definitely not a boomer, nostalgic or otherwise), but I know all these things because her influence on American culture has been so pervasive that it's hard to *not* know a good bit about her if you were born at any point in the 20th century. So, yeah, actually there's quite a bit of historical significance for both Monroe and this particular dress.
This is all super interesting but to be fair, I do not think this is common knowledge at all like you make it out to be, though hey I could be wrong.
 

Nephtis_

alt account
Banned
May 5, 2022
77
Because that moment is historical and both Marilyn Monroe and JFK are historical figures?

Otherwise why would Kim want this dress in particular
JFK is a historical figure, Monroe was an actress and sex figure, not a historical at all.
I can see why that moment would be memorable (Monroe and JFK) but I don't see how it's anything more than that.
I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here too.
 

Deleted member 3542

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,889
This is all super interesting but to be fair, I do not think this is common knowledge at all like you make it out to be, though hey I could be wrong.

Look at this way. It's 2022 and if you say "Marilyn Monroe" to any person her image is in their head immediately. Just like Elvis or Mickey Mouse.

Now go out and say "Betty Grable" to any person, Grable being one of the biggest box-office draws of the 1940s into the 50s and also a pin-up and model that was arguably more successful than Monroe, most can't even picture her or name a single movie she was in other than "How to Marry a Millionaire" which is mostly famous because Monroe is in it.

People may not know details about Monroe, but they know her.
 

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
43,575
JFK is a historical figure, Monroe was an actress and sex figure, not a historical at all.
I can see why that moment would be memorable (Monroe and JFK) but I don't see how it's anything more than that.
I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here too.

One of the biggest Hollywood icons (maybe THE Hollywood face) isn't historical?
 
Oct 25, 2017
41,368
Miami, FL
I mean if people cared that much about the dress for which she clearly has a different figure for, why not remake the dress and not squeeze her in that one?

I don't understand.
 

boxter432

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
9,260
not going to give nepthis the red alert icon with a quote but lolololol what? I couldn't care less about the dress or the story but saying MM isn't a historical figure is something.
 

Kitsunebaby

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,661
Annapolis, Maryland
You know, as a costumer and seamstress you'd think I'd be more upset about this. But I just can't find it in me to care that much. The dress didn't belong to the public. It belonged to one eccentric entity who chose to rent it out for whatever reason.

Honestly, if you find yourself outraged about this but you've never once in your life thought about donating to historical costuming and fashion organizations/museums so they have the ability to outbid private collectors, maybe you don't actually care about the preservation of historical garments. Maybe you just really fucking hate the Kardashians.
 

slothrop

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Aug 28, 2019
3,877
USA
I am pro wearing the dress. I think there is more cultural value in this stunt than the dress sitting in some museum frankly.
 
Jun 17, 2019
2,182
I don't get why this is surprising. This is a video game forum. Of course people are going to inherently care more about the artistic value of video games than dresses. If you go on a forum specifically for dress design or historically significant objects for American culture and start talking about the importance of archiving the ROM of a cancelled SNES game that was found on a 30 year old harddrive that was about to die, I imagine most people would not care nor understand the artistic importance of that. Both of these are relatively niche things, it's just that we happen to be posting on the very space where enthusiasts for game archival gathers.

Here's the thing, historical dress archivist, most who are fairly young in age, like gen X and Millennial, would actually find the conservation of video games interesting. While they wouldn't be "OMG! that is SOOooo awesome!" they would certainly find it very much an important artifact for cultural reasons and understanding of what people did for fun, and it ties into their own business as game clothing designs are something that they would want to preserve as a means of connecting to the time period and what people were wearing as a means of identity (who they were, what they believed in, etc.) and they certainly would consider games art as they would certainly see the art work regarding games and other aspects of it. So yes, I do think they would be interested in what others had to say in archiving and protecting video games.

This is all super interesting but to be fair, I do not think this is common knowledge at all like you make it out to be, though hey I could be wrong.

Parts of it are not, but its getting more out there now as more people are able to create videos about her, her past, and what she did for Hollywood and women in Hollywood. It's still her face and the fact that she is seen as this sexual thing for a lot of men, the same way Mae West was seen as someone that is sexy, and in more modern times, someone like Pam Anderson, or Beyoncé could be seen as a sex symbol. A LOT of women that followed after her in Hollywood were told to make their hair blonde to be like her, and, along with several other actresses of the 1930s and 1940s, lead to the idea of the Blonde Bombshell.

So yeah her more serious stuff isn't as well known, but it's becoming more common knowledge as more people try to paint a better clearer picture of Norma Jean (Her real first name). I mean hell the song Candle in the wind by Elton John is how he looked up to her and discovered a lot of himself through her movies and then later through learning about her life. It's a tribute to her the person, not the sex icon.

JFK is a historical figure, Monroe was an actress and sex figure, not a historical at all.
I can see why that moment would be memorable (Monroe and JFK) but I don't see how it's anything more than that.
I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here too.

Monroe was more than that. While she was a sex symbol in many ways, she was also a good actress who had a keen sense of business, enough to follow in Mae West's footsteps to create her own company to make movies that could be used for herself and other actresses who were not getting strong dramatic parts. The issue with Marilyn was that she had to deal with a lot of personal shit, including a mother who was schizophrenic, and that she was worried it would be passed onto her.

For several reasons that moment is memorable: First it was a not planned moment, because no one out side of a few people knew what she was going to do on the night of JFK's birthday party.
Second, it was really the first time both Jackie Kennedy and Marilyn met face to face. Jackie had heard about the stories but this was the moment that confirmed it to her that her husband was sleeping with Monroe. So you have that factor in play her along with the scandal.
Third, it confirmed to the world that the President was having an affair with the star. Which might have been the tipping point that could have lead to her possible murder (still unknown factor if she committed suicide or not due to her connections to the Kennedy's and the damn mobs connection to them)
Fourth this was the dress she wore only a few months before her passing, it was really one of the few happy moments maybe before her death given the shit she had to deal with that came after thanks to Fox studios (fuck them for pressuring her when her doctors said she was sick and then spreading negative bullshit around because they were pissed at a director who wouldn't make a movie without her).

Look at this way. It's 2022 and if you say "Marilyn Monroe" to any person her image is in their head immediately. Just like Elvis or Mickey Mouse.

Now go out and say "Betty Grable" to any person, Grable being one of the biggest box-office draws of the 1940s into the 50s and also a pin-up and model that was arguably more successful than Monroe, most can't even picture her or name a single movie she was in other than "How to Marry a Millionaire" which is mostly famous because Monroe is in it.

People may not know details about Monroe, but they know her.

Yup! this is very true. Just went to the store the other week and they have her name on a clothing line. People know who she is. It's like people know who Madonna is or Lady Gaga.
 

sbenji

Member
Jul 25, 2019
1,879
On one hand it is a priceless — in the sense that it's value is not easily quantified — historical artifact. On the other hand it apparently had some price either the exposure or actual funds paid.

The actual damage does not appear to be so severe that the dress is ruined; it probably should not adorn living human beings again though.

The extremes that she pushed herself to in order to wear the dress sounds disturbing to me.
 
Jun 17, 2019
2,182
I mean if people cared that much about the dress for which she clearly has a different figure for, why not remake the dress and not squeeze her in that one?

I don't understand.

She did. Kim had an exact replica made to her skin tone and size. She just wanted to channel Marilyn and be in her body, or some weird ass bullshit she likes to spew when talking about her.

You know, as a costumer and seamstress you'd think I'd be more upset about this. But I just can't find it in me to care that much. The dress didn't belong to the public. It belonged to one eccentric entity who chose to rent it out for whatever reason.

Honestly, if you find yourself outraged about this but you've never once in your life thought about donating to historical costuming and fashion organizations/museums so they have the ability to outbid private collectors, maybe you don't actually care about the preservation of historical garments. Maybe you just really fucking hate the Kardashians.

I get your feelings, I really do. But it should have been in a proper museum, not a themed warehouse of things, because that's what Ripley's has always been. It's like Barnum's circus, only full of stuff that should be in better places.

Agreed, though I personally find myself outraged because I have donated to museums that preserve historical costumes and the like. And I would like to think that this might get people to realize that what we wear isn't just some random piece of cotton but a part of our historical make-up as a group, generation, what have you, and maybe, just maybe, it might get anyone that feels that outrage to not just donate, but maybe look into fashion history and garment so they learn about what's come before. Because god knows that this same mindset of "It's just a dress' is why we don't have a lot of older garments from the victorian and above era due to someone seeing a dress and going, "wow that would make a great costume for a party!" and totally wrecking it and then tossing it out.

I am pro wearing the dress. I think there is more cultural value in this stunt than the dress sitting in some museum frankly.

There is none. Honestly, I don't see many people knowing who the Kardashians are in the next decade or so. Their popularity is on the decline, due to the rise of younger and more well known people and actresses. Less people look to Kim and are looking to Selena Gomez, and Ariana Grande, and other international rising stars and influencers. So honestly there's less value in this stunt than you would think.
 
Jun 17, 2019
2,182
On one hand it is a priceless — in the sense that it's value is not easily quantified — historical artifact. On the other hand it apparently had some price either the exposure or actual funds paid.

The actual damage does not appear to be so severe that the dress is ruined; it probably should not adorn living human beings again though.

The extremes that she pushed herself to in order to wear the dress sounds disturbing to me.

It can be fixed, but it won't be the same. That's part of the issue here. It was in quasi perfect condition when Ripley's got it. Now they probably will need to conserve it, if they want to. Which is the whole problem with this in the first place, that they let it out of the case.

I agree, she had a replica of the dress, no one would fault her for wearing the replica. It's very disturbing that she would go to this. As I said, she has some weird obsession with Marilyn Monroe for some reason, and it's kind of scary what she was willing to do to get in that dress.