The sound is very dry and artificial sounding, but Keith has NEVER played better solos.

EVER.

I mean, he was just so on top of his game during that tour. Really inspiring to hear him play that way. It's a shame that peak was so short-lived.

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
Gazza

Quote
lamemodem2

Quote
FirstTimeSeattle81
From what I recall, a lot of the close ups were done in a film studio- as post production.

I think they were shot in Turin with no audience present. I don't think they actually shot anything in a studio.

There was footage shot in the empty Wembley Stadium too, in the run up to the shows there that ended the tour. The band had no shows between 18th and 24th August.

Not sure if it ended up being used in the movie or not but I seem to recall that some of the behind the scenes footage which was shown on an ABC 'In Concert' special around the time of its release being shot at Wembley.

Is this not Wembley?

The version of Start Me Up is from the wembley 24.8.90 show. The way its edited, the backstage footage could be from anywhere.

What I meant was the behind the scenes footage that souldoggie refers to, which was used for a lot of close-up shots. They filmed some of it at Wembley earlier in the week as well as in Turin. They were supposed to play a 2nd show in Turin on 29th July but it was cancelled due to poor sales - so they used the empty stadium that day to do some filming

The blu-ray onna big screen with a hi-fi surround is the only way to go. And yes...Keith's fresh and sporadic solo's on that tour have not been matched since.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-28 01:57 by shadooby.

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
Slick

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I'm sure the Bluray looks pretty damned good on a big flatscreen.

ive seen it projected onto my 133" screen, video quality is ok, not great,

The bluray, not the DVD, correct?

yes, i dont watch dvds anymore. i could be wrong, but i do believe the picture is cropped from the original presentation to fit a 16x9 display.

Nope, not cropped...16:9.

The overall impression is artificial, fake, over the top. They should just have filmed a concert straight off. Other bands can get it right. Why do the Stones always make it so difficult for themselves?
Filming a rock concert isn't exactly rocket science.

Quote
shadooby
Nope, not cropped...16:9.

i dont think the imax presentation was 16x9., but then again i never saw it on its release,

[en.wikipedia.org]
A standard IMAX screen is 22 m × 16.1 m (72 ft × 52.8 ft), but can be significantly larger.

that is 1.36:1, not 1.78:1 (16x9)

I rather enjoyed it, the closest to seeing them live, with the sounds of the backstage hands right up to the crowd. Not to mention the band firing on all cylinders for the first time in 7 years.

Quote
Slick

Quote
shadooby
Nope, not cropped...16:9.

i dont think the imax presentation was 16x9., but then again i never saw it on its release,

[en.wikipedia.org]
A standard IMAX screen is 22 m × 16.1 m (72 ft × 52.8 ft), but can be significantly larger.

that is 1.36:1, not 1.78:1 (16x9)

Seriously dude, talk about cutting hairs, wow.

Quote
shadooby

Quote
Slick

Quote
shadooby
Nope, not cropped...16:9.

i dont think the imax presentation was 16x9., but then again i never saw it on its release,

[en.wikipedia.org]
A standard IMAX screen is 22 m × 16.1 m (72 ft × 52.8 ft), but can be significantly larger.

that is 1.36:1, not 1.78:1 (16x9)

Seriously dude, talk about cutting hairs, wow.

no, there is a big difference, see for yourself, 1.36:1 is pretty close to 1.33:1:

The Blu-ray is authentic 16:9 widescreen, not pillar box or 4:3 or fullscreen or stretch or cropped (for those trying to skip the bullshlt)...you're welcome.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-28 02:49 by shadooby.

Quote
shadooby
The Blu-ray is widescreen (for those trying to skip the bullshlt).

read and learn lol:

[www.dvdmg.com]
The Rolling Stones Live at the MAX appears in an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 on this Blu-ray Disc. That meant a moderate cropping of the more squarish IMAX dimensions, but the framing of the original footage allowed for a lot of headroom much of the time. While I’d have preferred to get the film in its original ratio, I didn’t think the cropping hurt it.

Quote
Slick

Quote
shadooby
The Blu-ray is widescreen (for those trying to skip the bullshlt).

read and learn lol:

[www.dvdmg.com]
The Rolling Stones Live at the MAX appears in an aspect ratio of 1.78:1 on this Blu-ray Disc. That meant a moderate cropping of the more squarish IMAX dimensions, but the framing of the original footage allowed for a lot of headroom much of the time. While I’d have preferred to get the film in its original ratio, I didn’t think the cropping hurt it.

You win...sleep well.

Quote
shadooby
The Blu-ray is authentic 16:9 widescreen, not pillar box or 4:3 or fullscreen or stretch or cropped (for those trying to skip the bullshlt)...you're welcome.

I think you need to work on your attitude and reading comprehension.

Quote
lamemodem2

Quote
shadooby
The Blu-ray is authentic 16:9 widescreen, not pillar box or 4:3 or fullscreen or stretch or cropped (for those trying to skip the bullshlt)...you're welcome.

I think you need to work on your attitude and reading comprehension.

You win...sleep well.

Quote
Stoneage
The overall impression is artificial, fake, over the top. They should just have filmed a concert straight off. Other bands can get it right. Why do the Stones always make it so difficult for themselves?
Filming a rock concert isn't exactly rocket science.

Theyd already released a couple of no-frills concert films by this point.

This was really innovative for its time, got quite a lot of publicity and it was good that they tried something fresh. On an IMAX screen - the only way to watch it - it was quite an amazing piece of work.

I don't recall any gripes in the press at the time about its lack of authenticity. It was only really when we saw the behind the scenes stuff that it took the shine off it somewhat.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Stoneage
The overall impression is artificial, fake, over the top. They should just have filmed a concert straight off. Other bands can get it right. Why do the Stones always make it so difficult for themselves?
Filming a rock concert isn't exactly rocket science.

Theyd already released a couple of no-frills concert films by this point.

This was really innovative for its time, got quite a lot of publicity and it was good that they tried something fresh. On an IMAX screen - the only way to watch it - it was quite an amazing piece of work.

I don't recall any gripes in the press at the time about its lack of authenticity. It was only really when we saw the behind the scenes stuff that it took the shine off it somewhat.

I agree, it was cool, and looked real!

Ronnie was DRUNK at the max

Quote
DiscoVolante
Ronnie was DRUNK at the max

What's new

Quote
Godxofxrock9

Quote
DiscoVolante
Ronnie was DRUNK at the max

What's new

I think the current '50 And Counting' tour is the first where Ronnie is totally sober throughout. There were no rehab stints or clean-up attempts required this time, thankfully.

I think it has one of the best version's of "It's only rock & roll".

Quote
Big Al
I think it's terrific. It was my introduction to the 'modern-era' Rolling Stones. I certainly had no idea that Keith could play with such ferocity. His soloing on Happy and Sympathy For The Devil are beyond impressive.

Bet you didn't know he could mime so well to repair footage, like his brilliant "playing" in the intro of Honky Tonk Women! Or that Mick's voice sounded the same when at the mic as well as six feet away from the mic, like he did in Ruby Tuesday!

At least they left the screwup in IORR.

Quote
lamemodem2

Quote
FirstTimeSeattle81
From what I recall, a lot of the close ups were done in a film studio- as post production.

I think they were shot in Turin with no audience present. I don't think they actually shot anything in a studio.

I thought it was Wembley! No matter - they used a bewtween shows day and night to do overdubs... or whatever you call it.

And after reading further down I see Gazza said something similar...

When they say Rinse & Repeat for shampoo does that mean use the entire bottle in one shower?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-29 00:12 by GasLightStreet.

The Bluray looks very clean on my Panasonic 65" VT50 plasma TV and it sounds good in 5.1.

Have to agree with whoever said it looks stiff and lacks the live feel though but there are not too many Stones shows available in 16:9 widescreen format so it is nice to have it.

Off topic I just got a copy of "Lets Spend the Night Together" on DVD which is 16:9 screen format and was pleasantly surprised how nice it on the big screen even though it is not HD. I have read it runs too fast and after watching it the other night I tend to agree but I did not find it too distracting.

It´s remarkable what the group is blind on the live performances they do when it comes to bringing out a live album f.ex. the takes they choose and doing overdub instead of record bunch of shows which they actually do and just find one that´s typical for them when they are at the best and put it out. Almost every good sounding boot from 1989 -90 is better than this film. And to accept miming few shots it´s something that i thought at least Keith would not do. And Jagger is horrible when he is acting Jagger instead of being jagger. I´ts so obvius those moment when jagger is miming because you just see it so clearly in his eyes and he´s so consious when there is camera filming. Keith is way better at this. At the Max got its moments but they were thinking more about the new format than they should have.

Playback aside, I don't think the format (Imax) enhanced the experience that much. For instance, I saw a couple of nature films at Cosmonova (a planetarium and Imax theatre in Stockholm)
and they were simply breathtaking. It felt like you were practically "in" the movie. The rock concert didn't do that trick for me.