For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
GazzaQuote
DreamerQuote
JustinQuote
Lien
Thursday 18 October 2012
From 6.15pm BST
Running time: 150 minutes (approximately)
Oh hell yeah. Some "insider" a few months ago said that he knew someone working on the film and said it was going to be 90 minutes, at the most. Good to know that this will have enough time to tell a huge chunk of the band's history. This shall be gooood...
No. Running time 150 minutes is not correct.
It's 118 minutes...
Yep. 150 minutes has been mentioned as the running time of the movie premiere event, including the red carpet bit, etc.
Quote
His Majesty
Must keep expectations low
Quote
DreamerQuote
GazzaQuote
DreamerQuote
JustinQuote
Lien
Thursday 18 October 2012
From 6.15pm BST
Running time: 150 minutes (approximately)
Oh hell yeah. Some "insider" a few months ago said that he knew someone working on the film and said it was going to be 90 minutes, at the most. Good to know that this will have enough time to tell a huge chunk of the band's history. This shall be gooood...
No. Running time 150 minutes is not correct.
It's 118 minutes...
Yep. 150 minutes has been mentioned as the running time of the movie premiere event, including the red carpet bit, etc.
I'm afraid that's not the 100% complete information that is available right now. That's just the info on rollingstones.com which says "The film will be broadcast live by satellite to cinemas from the London Film Festival on Thursday 18 October and include live coverage from the red carpet before the film screening begins."
But the other official info is this:
Production Information
Delivered by satellites Intelsat 905 and 1002
Running time 165 minutes (TBC)
So let's hope that means an extra 15 minutes of interviews with the guys on and around the red carpet!
Or something else...
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
hbwriter
outside that telling, split second '73 cut in the blue jumpsuit - have we not seen every second thus far?
Quote
hbwriterQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
hbwriter
outside that telling, split second '73 cut in the blue jumpsuit - have we not seen every second thus far?
Looked like Frankfurt 09/30/73, but from a different angle than the Street Fighting Man clip we are familiar with
Quote
His Majesty
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Quote
Gazza
Ten years of the Beatles > Anthology > 8 discs > 11 and a half hours
Fifty years of the Rolling Stones > Crossfire Hurricane > 1 movie > 2 hours
Quote
DoxaQuote
His Majesty
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
A good advice.
I think the problem with two-plus hour document film is basically the same as making a 'greatest hits' collection for two disks. The story or the song list is pretty much fixed, and it is hard to find a new, interesting angle. They seem to hype over 'never-before-seen' material, and even new perspectives, but in the end those (if they really exist) need to be fitted to the already written story, emphazising some key moments in band's history. Will the key member have anything to add what they alraedy have said in many interviews, books, etc? Pretty hard to imagine that they dare to step too much out of the already written history (though I hope they do). The target audience, however, will not be the hardcore fan base, but a bigger one. This is not going to be an archive releaase.
I think the real challenge - at least from a fan's point of view - is to beat 25 X 5, which I think pretty much nails the 'official story' of the Stones. Surely they do that technologcally - and I guess with a bigger budget - but will it essentially add something to it? Is adding some recent studio jamming a similar function as that of the new studio tracks in GRRR! to make it more current and updated, and thereby more interesting?
But putting 50 years to 2 plus hours sounds a helluva project (I would say: a mission impossible). Was 25 X 5 some three hours or so?
I might sound skeptical, but I really hope that I will be positively surprised.
- Doxa
Quote
DreamerQuote
DoxaQuote
His Majesty
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low Must keep expectations low
A good advice.
I think the problem with two-plus hour document film is basically the same as making a 'greatest hits' collection for two disks. The story or the song list is pretty much fixed, and it is hard to find a new, interesting angle. They seem to hype over 'never-before-seen' material, and even new perspectives, but in the end those (if they really exist) need to be fitted to the already written story, emphazising some key moments in band's history. Will the key member have anything to add what they alraedy have said in many interviews, books, etc? Pretty hard to imagine that they dare to step too much out of the already written history (though I hope they do). The target audience, however, will not be the hardcore fan base, but a bigger one. This is not going to be an archive releaase.
I think the real challenge - at least from a fan's point of view - is to beat 25 X 5, which I think pretty much nails the 'official story' of the Stones. Surely they do that technologcally - and I guess with a bigger budget - but will it essentially add something to it? Is adding some recent studio jamming a similar function as that of the new studio tracks in GRRR! to make it more current and updated, and thereby more interesting?
But putting 50 years to 2 plus hours sounds a helluva project (I would say: a mission impossible). Was 25 X 5 some three hours or so?
I might sound skeptical, but I really hope that I will be positively surprised.
- Doxa
25 X 5 was 128 minutes. Crossfire Hurricane is 2 (hours) minus (2 minutes): 118 minutes.
No, I don't think you're skeptical but a realist. It's not for us but for the market. They want to sell Grrr and want to make sure they sell enough tickets for the shows that will come.
So it will probably not have a ten minute in depth conversation with MT about the difference between their sound before, during and after the best guitar player in the RS.
In a way it's sad that they have a different truth to tell nowadays. Let's hope the new truth, the tour, will give us a chance to see them in a very good shape.
Quote
Gazza
25 x 5 was something like 105-107 minutes in its televised form, and about 130 minutes when released as a home video.
I can see the dilemma here. Theres all this talk of hours and hours of interviews done for the project and 80-90% of the footage being previously unseen (which I assume just means previously not commercially released) - so there's no way they can do that justice in a 2 hour movie.
I expect lots of tantalisingly excellent but ultimately frustratingly brief clips of songs.
I'm sure it'll be enjoyable though, but to get some perspective :
Ten years of the Beatles > Anthology > 8 discs > 11 and a half hours
Fifty years of the Rolling Stones > Crossfire Hurricane > 1 movie > 2 hours
Quote
Blueranger
This is going to be a story about the worlds longest living rock band. It can be done at 2 hours but also at 10, if they would.
I would personally be very satisfied, if they did an Anthology like documentary a la The Beatles. But it is also worth mentioning, that The Stones carrer is a lot different than The Beatles, plus they are still functioning as a group, which closes a lot of doors regarding inside information about buissness, contracts and so on.
The Beatles could talk openly about everything (though some issues were not), because they decased as a group many years ago. The Rolling Stones are still running. That's the difference.
Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Well they have to check the market, and they've probably found that there's no audience for a 20 episode documentary like The Beatles did with their Anthology. Also, it has always seemed to me like there's quite a bit of behind the scenes info/stories that The Stones don't want out.... ever. Who can blame them? The world is so stuck-up right now, and has been for quite a few years now. That alone leads me to think that while Crossfire Hurricane will offer up some new views on familiar topics, it will be the story we've heard before. I'm certainly looking forward to it, and I'm sure it will be more than just "enjoyable".
And by the way: Just because The Beatles did something, doesn't mean The Stones should follow suit..... Right?
Quote
CousinC
Yeah, Let it bleed was really good. The Doro guys had done some Stones docus (+ videos) before. Mostly very good stuff.