Quote
Bitch2
I wish Stones would focus more on music at their prime, i.e. 70's and early 80's. Or hire someone to do it rather than this Scorcese old man who probably is not even an average fan. .

You're obviously hugely familiar with him then..


This 'old man'is about eight months older than Mick Jagger and yeah, you're right, he's not even an average fan. His use of their music in almost every film he's ever made would suggest he has no appreciation of their place in 20th century culture whatsoever....

>> Show me one post where someone said they thought the film was ruined for them <<

thanks Gazza my dear - since he's probably referring to me:
i've stated outright that the cuts are jarring and they detract from the film.
i hope people who are forewarned will find them less jarring than i/we did.
i've also - like everyone else who's seen it and posted about it - stated over and over
that there are lots and lots of say-hallelujah moments in the movie.
if people want to discuss those instead ... let's do it!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 17:16 by with sssoul.

maybe the gallant open-g (who saw it twice) remembers more of the "extra" numbers listed at the end of the film?
i remember Only Found Out Yesterday (which is Keith's piece from Pirates III), a couple of classical pieces;
a few blues titles i'm not familiar with; and a bunch of Stones tunes that weren't in the film:
Paint It Black and Fool to Cry, for example, which were also on the lists waved around in the first 15 minutes
as numbers they were considering for inclusion ... one of which was entitled "medium known" - that was amusing :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 16:13 by with sssoul.

There ya go...'Paint it Black - not a warhorse - OFFICIAL'

Did they have a list called 'warhorses' too? That would be pretty funny.

smile: sorry if i was unclear: in the first 15 minutes a number of song lists are waved around;
Paint It Black was on the list entitled something like "Marty's Picks". so was Out of Time.
i don't recall which ones were on the "medium known" list - it was just shown for a second-and-a-half

(and ... wasn't "warhorses" originally the Stones' term? i know Chuck L now calls them "icon numbers" or something like that.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 15:27 by with sssoul.

Wasn't it Keith who used the term Warhorses for the first time ever, in an interview just before the Licks tour started? If I recall correctly he said something like: "when a tour starts we get the old warhorses from the stable to conquer the world". So in my opinion any song can be a warhorse if this was the context in which the phrase was used.

But back to topic: It seems like a long shot to me that they gave credits for songs just for being mentioned on a list...

'Out of Time' , eh?

Thats interesting. It was also the song that finished top of that poll of songs we (unsuccessfully) lobbied for them to play last summer. A song which, incredibly, they've never performed live. Good to see Marty was paying attention too.

Keep gnawing away..we'll get there yet.

i guess we live and thrive on Stones minutiae, but this one does not get me going.The nature of the banter itself may be worthy of study.

gazza, i think this is where we could use one of your "-ologists" to study this particular phenomena and the mind-sets and mentalities behind it.


p

more than 40.000 views for this thread
Still life around this band.

>> Out of Time, eh? Thats interesting. It was also the song that finished top of that poll <<

yeah i thought you'd find that intriguing!
(and i do hope i'm not misremembering things - i'm only 99% sure that one was on "Marty's list" )

>> It seems like a long shot to me that they gave credits for songs just for being mentioned on a list ... <<

i agree; it also doesn't seem likely that they simply neglected to edit the credits after the set list was finalized.
as has already been mentioned, one of the main "running jokes" in the first 15 minutes or so of the film
is that Scorsese keeps tearing out his hair in desperate need of the set list, which the Stones keep not providing,
so i suppose there's an off chance they left all the candidates listed at the end as a sort of continuation of that joke,
but that seems like it would be an awfully obscure form of humour.
i prefer to hope for about three disks' worth of outtakes, bonus material, rehearsal footage, etc. :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 16:11 by with sssoul.

"Quote:
ablett
I can't beleive how irate you lot are getting over a film you haven't even seen?

Almost as absurd as being enthusiastic and raving about a film you havent seen?"

Does Gazza typing in bold mean he's upset?

Going a tad OTT aint we Gaz?

I haven't raved about the film at all. All I'm saying is calm down and wait til YOU'VE actually watched it.....

It could be a joke, yes, to mention all possible songs they might have been doing in the credits. As I happen to believe the credits are written when the movie is almost finished, I don't think this is a matter of "forgetting to edit" the credits after the movie was done. And I don't want to spoil the expectations of the DVD with extra's, but I do not really see the point of giving credits in the main movie for something that might be seen on a future DVD.

Something completely different now. I was looking over this thread again and noticed the editing out of watermarks on pictures. Now, we have been discussing copyrights in the past on this board (copyright discussion. How about the ethics of removing watermarks from pictures? I don't want to be more catholic than the pope here, but it somehow just does not feel right to "steal" the photographers work.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 16:49 by marcovandereijk.

the gallant Adi Tyler is *very* good about crediting photographers when that's possible.
i wish more people would do that - posting photos without bothering to give the photographers' names is
(to me) a lot more reprehensible than removing a watermark that everyone's seen a few posts prior anyway.
which only proves there are various viewpoints on this issue, whether or not one is more Jewish than Maimonides ...
but if you want (and if this is the best thread to discuss it!), i'll help Adi put the watermarks back on those shots. :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 17:03 by with sssoul.

Quote
ablett

All I'm saying is calm down and wait til YOU'VE actually watched it.....

yeah yeah thats a good idea for a change! and lets keep in mind that the day the message board went green is over, so cool down everybody, I say cool down, lets sit down and relax, we can get it together!

"Does Gazza typing in bold mean he's upset?"

getting upset is part of the usual Gazza show when someone does not fully agree with him, so thats nothing new, but typing in bold is an escalation level never reached before, at least not to my notice.

Gazza,

its not "exaggarated bollocks", all Ive said is that the whole Connection thing is getting blown way out of any reasonable proportions so that one gets the impression that the movie is ruined for some.

>And remember that Martin Scorsese isn't some bearded twat, but rather a filmmaker who wants to get a point across in his films.

>>Yeah, but what IS his point?

I don't know. As I said: I haven't seen the film yet. I just know that I haven't seen a film made by Martin Scorsese that didn't want to get a point across. I mean: It could have been Michael Bay that did the instructing (No points whatsoever in his films) and I would have understood your grief.



> If anyone should make a study of Mick Jagger's movements (Which is a great perspective for a Stones film)

>>is it?

It is. Mate, do you really mean to tell me that you don't like this? I thought, of any people, you'd appreciate this. I can't understand what your grief is.



>wouldn't you prefer it to be Scorsese rather than a frickin' yoga instructor? I certainly would!

>>No, because Scorsese is a movie director, not some pseudo-sociologist. If i want to watch some wanky perspective like that, then stick it on some late night arty documentary on BBC2, not a concert movie.

Well... Not too fond of pseudo-socieologists are we?
If you watch de Niro acting, you see a study of his movements in the way he is filmed. There's a point in filming him from a certain angle in a certain scene (BTW: The way Al Pacino is filmed in the first Godfather movie is awesome in this respect). Mick Jagger is no actor (Though he thinks he is from time to time). He is the front man in a band. And to get Mick filmed from certain angles in certain songs has a point. This is Scorsese's way of jamming (Every move had to be catched when it was done. No re-takes).
Jagger's movements is Rock Class 101. This man, with his pelvis thrusts and his almost spastic dancing, has been tightly knitted together with the music The Stones have produced over the years. The sex aspect in the music, which is undenieably there, is channeled into Jagger's movements. Making a study of his movements should help us understand the music better. The swing, the groove and the hardness that is in the music is catched through Jagger more than anyone else in the band. And it is in this charactaristic that the study of Jagger's movements is VERY interesting..... To me anyway.



>I was actually hoping for a Stones concert film with some perspective, rather than the usual we-need-to-show-everybody-an-equal-amount-of-time (Case in point: The Voodoo Lounge concert DVD, the Bridges To Babylon concert DVD, Four Flicks and The Biggest Bang - Not that these flicks are bad at all, but one could wish for some sort of artistic stand point, rather than the usual focusing on the entire band and the event that is a Rolling Stones concert).

>>Dont think anyone's suggesting the whole band needs 'equal time'. Thats somewhat implausible and silly.

It probably is a bit silly, but you understand my point right? Almost all concerts filmed are just cameras filming what's happening, and doesn't seem to want to go anywhere (Except for films like Gimme Shelter and Ladies & Gentlemen. But it seems to happen accidentally there. Probably also because the Stones' where exceptionally strong in everything they did around that time).



>I also think that the Connection cuts are OK. It's not like Scorsese sat around and butchered it on purpose to get some fans pissed off.

>>Then explain what his reasons ARE - because I for one cant see how this adds to a film. Its the reason why watching any music documentary on MTV, Vh1 and the like has become an exercise in futility. Relentless jump-cuts, edits and songs being hacked to bits which make them unwatchable and an endurance test. For feck's sake, what is seriously to be lost from having an interview followed by a complete performance of the song, rather than chop it into the middle of the thing, and hack it beyond recognition? We're talking about adding two minutes to the running time of the film here.

Maybe Scorsese WANTS this segment to jump at you, and that could be the reason why he did it. It sure seems to be working if that's the case. Don't think of it as Connection is in the film, but rather that Connection is the music playing during a segment of an interview (Happens in The Beatles Anthology too and works great there). The problem is that we can't help being fanboy-ish when watching Stones films. Every time a song starts we think: "Oh Connection. Great." and then go on to think that we're going to get the whole complete song. Of course this is not always the case. If I was to get upset about this, I should also get upset about watching a YouTube video of a great performance that turns out not to be complete.
I don't bitch about what I don't get (What would be the point???), but I rather look at what I actually did get. I'm not hanging on for dear life to every bit of song I get either.



> I have faith in Scorsese having a point in doing this. He is, after all, the greatest director of all time.

>>Thats a purely subjective remark and even if he is, it doesnt make him infallible.Just because he made 'Raging Bull' it doesnt equate with making the perfect concert movie.

For sure. You are right. Being a great movie director doesn't make him a great concert film maker. But I do expect more of this than I did with any other concert film. I wonder why?
And BTW: I found Raging Bull to be quite dull (except for the part: "If you don't quit messing with the food I'm gonna stab you with this knife" - Joe Pesci to one of his sons at the dinner table).



>Maybe we have to be careful to be too fanboy-ish when watching this. I don't think it's made with Stones fans in mind in particular (Cue: Catwalk babes in the FOS area). I think Marty made this to please his own artistic vision, rather than pleasing fans. And that's the way it should be in my honest opinion. If I wanted to see a concert film, which artistic goal was to please fans, I'd go see the Austin concert from The Biggest Bang or the Olympia concert from Four Flicks. This probably isn't the same and that's the main reason I can't wait to see it.

>>Maybe, but who on earth is going to pay money to sit in a cinema to see a concert film of a band they dont like? Of course its meant to be aimed towards fans of the Stones (to varying degrees of obsessiveness). You dont throw millions of quid at a movie production if you dont think its going to have an audience. I mean, I'd watch a film with Brando or DeNiro in it because their mere presence provides some interest even if the film doesnt sound like its much good, but i'd never watch a concert movie by an artist whose music I didnt like to begin with.

You say that you'd watch a film with Brando or de Niro because of their mere presence. I can totally understand that. I love that too. And in the same breath I must say that I will go watch this film because of the mere presence of The Stones and Marty. If that doesn't provide interest, what will?
And you know as well as I do that as long as it says "The Rolling Stones" on the bill there will always be an audience (With varying degrees of obsessiveness).



>Also we could very well get Connection on the soundtrack right? So it would be there instead of in the film, but we'll have it nonetheless. No worries.

>>The soundtrack is incidental. The film is the whole point of the entire venture, not some accompanying CD.[/quote]

I'd bet both me butt-cheeks that the soundtrack was planned as soon as the deal with Marty was settled. You know that the Stones can be good at cashing in on these kinds of things.

JumpingKentFlash

Tired of the Connection issue. It's a done deal so lets accept it and move on.
One last question about the sound. I heard some complaints about the mix( certain instruments turned way up when on screen kind of like they did with AT THE MAX)
Is the sound at least clean though( as previously stated I always found the sound on LETS SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER very muddy and quite disappointing compared to the live Hampton pay per view for the 1981 tour. Any insights? I take it the sound is probably more closer to AT THE MA very clear sounding yet a little annoying when the focus in on certain instruments)

>> Is the sound at least clean though <<

leaving aside the sometimes uneven mix and the glitches with the cinema sound system when i saw it
i thought the sound ranged from fine to mighty mighty fine. i hope open-g will say more.

Quote
alimente
all Ive said is that the whole Connection thing is getting blown way out of any reasonable proportions so that one gets the impression that the movie is ruined for some.

Well it didn't ruin the movie for me.
but it is one of the reasons why we rated the movie at 8,5 points out of 10, like Pauly noted in his review.
we sat together, had a drink, some food and discussed the movie afterwards and actually agreed on that.

Maybe a 24 page thread is the reason you get the impression of "blown outta proportion"^^

The movie is great, it rocks, you must see it, you must have it!
there are some minor flaws in it, but I won't tell you about them.

Is that the kinda review and talk you wish about SAL?

Re: the Sound.
I don't trust the cinemas.
I had 2 totally different expierences, which is quite normal in two separate rooms.
my advice would be - try to get a seat on axis with the beam and 3/4 away from the screen. then it's only hope that the cinema knows what they're doing and don't blow a fuse or amp. have the compressors and limiters set to work resonably - if at all.

for trusted sound analytics I'll wait 'till I can watch and listen to it on my equipment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 18:00 by open-g.

ablett
I can't beleive how irate you lot are getting over a film you haven't even seen?

Almost as absurd as being enthusiastic and raving about a film you havent seen?"

Does Gazza typing in bold mean he's upset?


No..just as theres so many quotes to pick through, If I was upset I'D BE BLOODY SHOUTING!

Going a tad OTT aint we Gaz?

I haven't raved about the film at all.


I was generalising. Lots of people ARE raving about it without seeing it. No one that I'm aware of (despite some allegations to the contrary on here) who have dared to express reservations about a couple of edits have actually said they didnt enjoy it or wont enjoy it



All I'm saying is calm down and wait til YOU'VE actually watched it.....
..and I'm saying I'll probably love it despite its faults (the main one for me is the hired bimbos issue, not an edit of one song)- . As will you. Now who's going OTT?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 18:52 by Gazza.

Quote
alimente
yeah yeah thats a good idea for a change! and lets keep in mind that the day the message board went green is over, so cool down everybody, I say cool down, lets sit down and relax, we can get it together!

"Does Gazza typing in bold mean he's upset?"

getting upset is part of the usual Gazza show when someone does not fully agree with him, so thats nothing new, but typing in bold is an escalation level never reached before, at least not to my notice.

More exaggeration for the sake of being dramatic. I typed in bold because any reply gets lost in all the various quotes I was replying to and its easier to follow...like it is here. Simple.Some people arent using quotation properly so it becomes a nightmare to follow. If you think I'd get 'upset' by a difference of opinion on a message board about music with someone I dont even know, you're delusional. Upset with Ablett? Be serious. We disagree all the time but he knows its all in good fun.

Quote
alimente
Gazza,

its not "exaggarated bollocks", all Ive said is that the whole Connection thing is getting blown way out of any reasonable proportions so that one gets the impression that the movie is ruined for some.

You may get that impression, mate. I think most dont. Its quite evidently a minor issue to those who have seen it and for those of us who havent, well its something worthy of discussion because we HAVENT seen the film and have little else regarding the movie to comment on. If youre taking that as an interpretation that someone is saying the film is 'ruined' then thats your prerogative. I havent seen anyone state that its the case.

Just wait til the bloody thing actually comes out and we ALL see it. If you think things are being overanalysed now, then you'll run away screaming when everyone posts their 'opinion' then!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 19:38 by Gazza.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
>And remember that Martin Scorsese isn't some bearded twat, but rather a filmmaker who wants to get a point across in his films.

>>Yeah, but what IS his point?

I don't know. As I said: I haven't seen the film yet. I just know that I haven't seen a film made by Martin Scorsese that didn't want to get a point across. I mean: It could have been Michael Bay that did the instructing (No points whatsoever in his films) and I would have understood your grief.

I'm sure he has an 'angle' and no doubt overall it'll work out fine, I just dont see the 'point' in this particular one. Thats all


> If anyone should make a study of Mick Jagger's movements (Which is a great perspective for a Stones film)

>>is it?

It is. Mate, do you really mean to tell me that you don't like this? I thought, of any people, you'd appreciate this. I can't understand what your grief is.

Not for a Stones concert film, no. Personally, I'd prefer the main focus to be on the music, strange as it may seem...and I get the impression that overall thats what it is.



>wouldn't you prefer it to be Scorsese rather than a frickin' yoga instructor? I certainly would!

>>No, because Scorsese is a movie director, not some pseudo-sociologist. If i want to watch some wanky perspective like that, then stick it on some late night arty documentary on BBC2, not a concert movie.

Well... Not too fond of pseudo-socieologists are we?

I've no issue with them. Theres a time and a place for everything. A concert film isnt it. Not to the degree youre suggesting anyway. Cant imagine thats what too many people would be wanting to see either.


If you watch de Niro acting, you see a study of his movements in the way he is filmed. There's a point in filming him from a certain angle in a certain scene (BTW: The way Al Pacino is filmed in the first Godfather movie is awesome in this respect). Mick Jagger is no actor (Though he thinks he is from time to time). He is the front man in a band. And to get Mick filmed from certain angles in certain songs has a point. This is Scorsese's way of jamming (Every move had to be catched when it was done. No re-takes).
Jagger's movements is Rock Class 101. This man, with his pelvis thrusts and his almost spastic dancing, has been tightly knitted together with the music The Stones have produced over the years. The sex aspect in the music, which is undenieably there, is channeled into Jagger's movements. Making a study of his movements should help us understand the music better. The swing, the groove and the hardness that is in the music is catched through Jagger more than anyone else in the band. And it is in this charactaristic that the study of Jagger's movements is VERY interesting..... To me anyway.

Well, thats a good point, but again, whilst I'd find a Tv documentary on that interesting, I dont think it warrants too much time in a movie I'd be paying money to go and see. Besides, performing as Jagger does (or any musician) is more about spontaneity than something as choreographed and rehearsed as acting. The two disciplines are very different.


>I was actually hoping for a Stones concert film with some perspective, rather than the usual we-need-to-show-everybody-an-equal-amount-of-time (Case in point: The Voodoo Lounge concert DVD, the Bridges To Babylon concert DVD, Four Flicks and The Biggest Bang - Not that these flicks are bad at all, but one could wish for some sort of artistic stand point, rather than the usual focusing on the entire band and the event that is a Rolling Stones concert).

>>Dont think anyone's suggesting the whole band needs 'equal time'. Thats somewhat implausible and silly.

It probably is a bit silly, but you understand my point right? Almost all concerts filmed are just cameras filming what's happening, and doesn't seem to want to go anywhere (Except for films like Gimme Shelter and Ladies & Gentlemen. But it seems to happen accidentally there. Probably also because the Stones' where exceptionally strong in everything they did around that time).

Oh, I agree with that. It has to be more than just a concert movie, but as a fan of the band I dont think it needs to be as extreme as the "Mick Jagger Show" as some seem to suggest it may be.


>I also think that the Connection cuts are OK. It's not like Scorsese sat around and butchered it on purpose to get some fans pissed off.

>>Then explain what his reasons ARE - because I for one cant see how this adds to a film. Its the reason why watching any music documentary on MTV, Vh1 and the like has become an exercise in futility. Relentless jump-cuts, edits and songs being hacked to bits which make them unwatchable and an endurance test. For feck's sake, what is seriously to be lost from having an interview followed by a complete performance of the song, rather than chop it into the middle of the thing, and hack it beyond recognition? We're talking about adding two minutes to the running time of the film here.

Maybe Scorsese WANTS this segment to jump at you, and that could be the reason why he did it. It sure seems to be working if that's the case. Don't think of it as Connection is in the film, but rather that Connection is the music playing during a segment of an interview (Happens in The Beatles Anthology too and works great there). The problem is that we can't help being fanboy-ish when watching Stones films. Every time a song starts we think: "Oh Connection. Great." and then go on to think that we're going to get the whole complete song. Of course this is not always the case. If I was to get upset about this, I should also get upset about watching a YouTube video of a great performance that turns out not to be complete.
I don't bitch about what I don't get (What would be the point???), but I rather look at what I actually did get. I'm not hanging on for dear life to every bit of song I get either.

Well, I dont think its a case of being fanboy-ish. I think we've just become accustomed to accepting mediocrity in music documentary and sloppy editing. Not that I'm putting Scorsese in the same boat as some MTV director. I just dont see the point - in a concert film - of editing songs when you have plenty of room to include the whole thing. The same applies to live albums. Does anyone prefer hearing Stones songs on live albums have two or three minutes chopped out of them? I dont think so. I'm a fan of the Stones music. Its natural to want to hear full songs instead of bits of songs.If the song doesnt work for the purposes of the film, then the solution is simple for me - dont include it at all or replace it with something else.

>Also we could very well get Connection on the soundtrack right? So it would be there instead of in the film, but we'll have it nonetheless. No worries.

>>The soundtrack is incidental. The film is the whole point of the entire venture, not some accompanying CD.

I'd bet both me butt-cheeks that the soundtrack was planned as soon as the deal with Marty was settled. You know that the Stones can be good at cashing in on these kinds of things. [/quote]

I think your arse is safe.....!

Now Gaz, can you imagine the anarchy if we all typed in bold to make our selves heard.....


Someone would think you wanted to be a 'Grasshopper' or something......

"Ahhh Grasshopper!"

(significance probably lost on anyone under 40..)

"Grasshopper is slang for Copper (policeman)"

Whatever it is , Schillid - it ain't loading

okay so let me try my old routine of asking for lessons in how to appreciate things better -
i do have a jaundiced eye when it come to cinema so ... do any of you Major Scorsese Fans feel like outlining
what sorts of greatness you expect his direction to bring to a Stones concert film?
(go easy, please! because so far Kent's observations are - sorry! - having like the opposite effect.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-02-13 20:22 by with sssoul.

Quote
ablett
Now Gaz, can you imagine the anarchy if we all typed in bold to make our selves heard.
Someone would think you wanted to be a 'Grasshopper' or something......

Quote
ablett
"Grasshopper is slang for Copper (policeman)"

Oh, I'd no idea. Ya learn something new every day...

well, as a great man once said "You gotta stand up for the cats in blue! If you didn't have rules, you'd have.. freakin' anarchy! "

[snltranscripts.jt.org]

[www.scorsesefilms.com]