Of all the theater shows in 02-03, why was the Olympia in Paris chosen as the show to put on 4 Flicks?

I assume they taped all theater shows. Did they decide that, of all the theater shows, that it was the best?

Or was it a preconceived decision and that therefore they brought in a larger and better film crew or were the crews all the same at the theater shows?

Anyway, fire away.


plexman



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-14 05:44 by timbernardis.

They definitely brought a bigger video crew than for the other club shows.
We knew the show was filmed long before it took place.

But you are right, they have footage of all their club shows (at least 2 cams)

Since the arena and Stadium shows have video crews for the screens, they must have stored some of them, if not all.

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

I guess that they record the sound of every show, as this is no big problem these days. Even a lot of smaller bands are doing this.
The video might be recorded of every bigger bigger. Again no big deal, if you already have cameras for the big screens.

I can't recall any video equipment or technicians in the Circus in Stockholm. At least not visible. Perhaps from the back. Surely no one was upfront, neighter at the Circus nor at the Astoria.

Well, it definively sounds more coherent and 'sexy' on the DVD box to include shows at New York, London and Paris than New York, London and, say, Stockholm... even though the show wasn't the best of the theatre shows, they seemingly had decided beforehand to film that one properly (as noted here). Unfortunately the band is not anymore so concerned about the quality of the performances. For example, the Beacon shows for Scorcese's film diodn't capture th band on their "recent" peak at all (Mick had problems with his throat etc) but seemingly it is more important them to just get the job done than radical changes in the plans. The quality aspect does not come first in deciding these matters (I think they are simply pragmatic - and cynical - here: only the hardcore fans would recognize - or know - the difference in quality, for the rest it would be all the same... if thinking so, I can't critisize them actually...)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-14 12:33 by Doxa.

I think production & preperation is so big and difficult it is not easy to change plans. An artist has to deliver then, no matter what.

Quote
KeithDaMan
I think production & preperation is so big and difficult it is not easy to change plans. An artist has to deliver then, no matter what.

Yeah, it is has been a long road from the days of ROCK&ROLL CIRCUS...

- Doxa

Quote
KeithDaMan
I think production & preperation is so big and difficult it is not easy to change plans. An artist has to deliver then, no matter what.

Yeah, it is has been a long road from the days of ROCK&ROLL CIRCUS or MARQUEE '71...

- Doxa

Olympia is notorious, isn't it? And not only for French people. Like Royal Albert Hall or MSG and so on. I live in Greece and I've heard of Olympia or MSG so many times.

Would be great if they released all of the club shows. Maybe make a nice boxset out of it. I agree that the Paris L'Olympia is famous and grabs more attention. Suppose the Circus Krone in Munich doesn't sound appealing.

Quote
Kirk
Olympia is notorious, isn't it? And not only for French people. Like Royal Albert Hall or MSG and so on. I live in Greece and I've heard of Olympia or MSG so many times.

Yes it is. Every big artist has taken that stage.

"Yes it is. Every big artist has taken that stage"

But in a way it's a semi rip-off. When Universal bought the venue in the 2000's they basically torn it apart before rebuilding it. The general plan was to "push" back the stage farther by 15-20 meters, toward the back of the venue. As a consequence where the stage is now positioned was the place where the backstage was.

That means that when you attend a show there as a paying audience member you're basically standing exactly where Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix John Lennon performed... No need to invade the stage to get that feeling! ><



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-14 16:06 by dcba.

If the Olympia had remained the way it was, it would probably have closed down as it is now much safer and convenient for the artists.

The logistics for filming at the Olympia was much more limited than the one (cinema) at the Beacon. But still it is quite heavy and also there are lots of contractual issues to be solved in order to film a concert - that's probably why they didn't professionally film each theatre show.

I wonder why they chose the Olympia. But MSG and London definitely had to be part of the trilogy, and maybe the Olympia is the most notorious theatre in Europe outside London?

I was lucky enough to see them in Krone and Olympia. The atmosphere, volume, heat, feel and everything around the Circus makes this my best Stones concert ever. I think it's hugely 'underrated' by critics. Sometimes it feels like the forgotten 2003 club show.

It will never be forgotten by those who were there. To me it was the best Stones concert I have ever seen and I have seen them 64 times in 13 different countries, Like someone else here used to put it - Circus Krone - was the "mother of all Stones shows"!

I don't know how many times i've watched the Olympia DVD..but it would have to be right up there.I just find it so enjoyable to watch especially when Mick does Dance Part 1..actually I might just watch it again tonight..yea'..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-15 02:17 by colonial.

Quote
Doxa
Well, it definively sounds more coherent and 'sexy' on the DVD box to include shows at New York, London and Paris than New York, London and, say, Stockholm... even though the show wasn't the best of the theatre shows, they seemingly had decided beforehand to film that one properly (as noted here). Unfortunately the band is not anymore so concerned about the quality of the performances. For example, the Beacon shows for Scorcese's film diodn't capture th band on their "recent" peak at all (Mick had problems with his throat etc) but seemingly it is more important them to just get the job done than radical changes in the plans. The quality aspect does not come first in deciding these matters (I think they are simply pragmatic - and cynical - here: only the hardcore fans would recognize - or know - the difference in quality, for the rest it would be all the same... if thinking so, I can't critisize them actually...)

- Doxa

Think your right Doxa............and don't forget Amsterdam

__________________________

Quote
dcba
"Yes it is. Every big artist has taken that stage"

But in a way it's a semi rip-off. When Universal bought the venue in the 2000's they basically torn it apart before rebuilding it. The general plan was to "push" back the stage farther by 15-20 meters, toward the back of the venue. As a consequence where the stage is now positioned was the place where the backstage was.

That means that when you attend a show there as a paying audience member you're basically standing exactly where Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix John Lennon performed... No need to invade the stage to get that feeling! ><

It could be worse; think of all those Beatles fanatics who queue up to visit "The Cavern"...

Quote
KeithDaMan
I was lucky enough to see them in Krone and Olympia. The atmosphere, volume, heat, feel and everything around the Circus makes this my best Stones concert ever. I think it's hugely 'underrated' by critics. Sometimes it feels like the forgotten 2003 club show.

Circus Krone will never be forgotten by me. My best Stones gig EVER!!!!!!

John Nicholls

What was great with the Olympia being filmed was the extended set list.