Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

Cinco DeNio

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2260

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    87

Posts posted by Cinco DeNio

  1. Posted

    32 minutes ago, grudlian. said:

    I watched both versions and that inexplicable two part episode of Head Of The Class where they performed the play. I really liked all versions of this.

    I really wish I could have been there when they came up with the idea of writing a musical based on an b movie. I can only imagine someone being really high like "what a great idea!" and escalating beyond their control until it was done.

    You made me go searching.  From an NYU Teacher's Guide I found this.

    Quote

    In the early 1980s when this musical was written and produced, clothes were colorful and tight, but wallets were tighter. The wealthy got wealthier and the poor and downtrodden got poorer. In an effort to escape their bleak existence, the lower classes had two options: revel in their life of squalor and disappear into drug addiction, or dream of a time when life was simpler and it wasn't so difficult to get by.  For some, this was a time of street fashion and punk music; for others, it was a time for a resurgence of music from times gone by. The creators of this musical (Howard Ashman and Alan Menken - composers of the music to several popular animated Disney films including The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast) wanted to reflect this convergence of culture in a parody of a 1950s Roger Corman Sci­fi B­Movie (featuring a then­unknown Jack Nicholson). To illuminate the "horrors", they included music that was heavily influenced by 1960s girl groups like The Chiffons, The Ronettes, and The Crystals (the main Doo-­Wop girls are named for them). The result is a terrifyingly funny take on what could happen to those who step outside of their comfort zones and dare to dream.

    • Like 5

  6. Posted

    3 hours ago, JammerLea said:

    Ahahaha! All the ninja turtles gifs! You know me well!

    clickityclack.gif.4023c31524e58ffdf89b3cd762cb8ca7.gif

    I hope you all have been well during this time. I had a bit of a rough week last week, so hopefully this week will be better and perfect for watching a musical.

    After doing extensive research by asking my roommate for ideas I have decided to go with a classic!

      Reveal hidden contents

    littleshopofhorrors.jpg.fb6a73493f9bd412569bc95ea4fc9afe.jpg

    I have not seen this film in a good while, so it should be fun to revisit. If you want some real torture though, I guess you could watch the original Roger Corman version, but it's not a musical.

     

    15ae355f1d2957cf352089435375.gif

    • Like 3

  8. Posted

    On a separate separate note, I would like to ask people's views on soundtracks.  One reason the movie 1776 works is the cast had already performed the roles for several years and had time to explore.  Supposedly William Daniels (as John Adams) was quite bombastic early in the stage run.  As time went on he was able to find the humanity and subtlety.  Yet listening to the Broadway soundtrack (I admit I haven't), created early in the run, those qualities wouldn't necessarily come through.

    I think it's the same with Hamilton.  I received the CD soundtrack for my birthday a few weeks ago (a present from my cats) and have been interested in the differences with the Disney+ movie.  I would love to buy a soundtrack made from the movie.  Thoughts?

    • Like 3

  10. Posted

    17 hours ago, Quasar Sniffer said:

    So I've been thinking more about this film, especially in light of the "Talking Heads To My Talking Heads" podcast. In the podcast, Scott and Scott do talk about how a lot of the songs on Fear Of Music were written in a jam session with the band and Brian Eno, and here, we've discussed about whether or not David Byrne was the driving force in the band or whether those jam sessions were where the magic came about. My take on it is, especially in light of the different versions of events created by distance and memory, is that... maybe it's both? 

    U2 have written a lot of their songs, even entire albums, in similar jam sessions, but retained the "all songs written by U2" practice in all credit and publishing, which has undoubtedly helped them stay together as a band for over four decades. Talking Heads jam sessions were, I'm sure, incredibly collaborative, but I don't know what would have happened if David Byrne wasn't there. From his perspective, it probably does seem like he was the main songwriter contributor, while everyone else felt like it was equal contribution from the band members... which is why that U2 strategy is such a good idea in the long term. And honestly, I do think he was the unquestionable musical genius of the band, and that might have made him difficult to deal with personally, especially because he seems like he was on the autism spectrum at a time when that wasn't understood nearly as well as it is now. 

    So even if everyone was present for the songwriting and jam sessions, it was David Byrne who enabled those amazing songs to come out. Sometimes when you are throwing in all these different ingredients together, you need an emulsifier to make things come together in a final way, to be cohesive. It seems like he was that ingredient, and without him, it Just wouldn't have worked. Obviously, it would be different if any ingredient was left out, and it would have been nice if he was more generous in giving songwriting credit (or not done straight up dick move things like telling a reporter the band had broken up before he'd actually told the band), but I think Talking Heads owe their magic to David Byrne.

    tl;dr Without David Byrne you get the Tom Tom Club.

    • Like 2

  14. Posted

    Here's a Rolling Stone article with Chris Frantz from 2014.

    rs-162630-142765984.jpg?resize=1800,1200

     

    Quote

    When did the idea that the band would be introduced individually come about?
    That was all decided on before the tour began. It’s a little bit of a revision of what really happened in real life. I think what David would like to convey is that it began with David Byrne and then he invited Tina to join the band and then he invited Chris and then he invited Jerry and then he invited Steve Scales and so on, but it wasn’t like that. What really happened was Tina, David and I moved to New York with the idea that we might start a band. I convinced David that it was a good idea. I asked Tina to join the band. I asked Jerry Harrison to join the band. So it’s a little bit of a revision, but it works really well as a narrative for the movie.

     

    • Like 3

  15. Posted

    I have watched this in parts several times this week, and realized several things.

    1) I was wrong in commenting on the audience.  I see and hear enough to know they are there but I do love the focus on the band.

    2) Intermission happens after "Life During Wartime" (During wartime we all jog together!)  I finally noticed that pretty much everyone changes outfits, not just Tina Weymouth.  Not sure why that wasn't obvious to me before to me.

    OtvQtM9.gif?noredirect

    3) It's after the intermission that the movie loses the energy for me.  In the first part it was raw energy, a band having fun. Once the video screens started flashing random words, then they turn out the lights and put a lamp on the stage, I started to tune out.  The backup singer/dancers disappeared for a bit.  For me they were a large part of the fun, interacting with the band.

     

    • Like 2

  16. Posted

    6 hours ago, Cinco DeNio said:

    I don't understand that either.  I was also curious about "consistency" (whatever the movie term is to make sure things are the same on each new take).  At one point early on Tina Weymouth loses her long pants (shortly after Slippery People - where everyone jogs on stage).  I thought it was an odd costume choice then I'm like "Duh.  They filmed four concerts.  People aren't going to wear the exact same outfits every night." but the pants stayed off for the rest of the time that I watched.  It also seemed like she was wearing some sort of patterned leggings.  I saw shadows but then some shadows moved with her legs.  I know it's an odd thing to obsess over.  It's just I didn't notice anyone else doing any clothing changes (except for David's big business suit of course).

    gif4-7.gif

    This is what I'm talking about.

    Now you see them

    BD%20and%20Tina_000000.jpg?itok=XZ6hwAe_

    Now you don't (but look at the pattern)

    tina-weymouth.jpg

    She definitely is more active

    tina-weymouth-stop-making-sense.gif

    • Like 3

  18. Posted

    10 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    I don't think those two things are incompatible, are they?

    1. Audience reactions can be out-of-sync to what's on screen (granted, I don't know if this is true)
    2. Having an audience helps lift a band's performance

    I re-read the review and I slightly mis-spoke about the audience.  Ebert's review mentions he was glad there were no (or few) shots of the audience during the concert since the audience's actions were often out of sync with what the band was performing.  In other words, since they couldn't have a camera always filming the audience, the cameramen would have to get "pick up" shots of the audience.  Those shots would be taken during a later song so it's not a true depiction of the audience's response to the specific song the band is performing.  I can agree with the rationale to leave the audience shots out of it.  My issue is with the sound of the crowd.  It would have been nice to hear more of them, singing or clapping at the end of a song.

    • Like 3

  19. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    I read on Wikipedia that on the soundtrack the songs are out of order so you don’t get that build up of adding another bad member on every song—which is a bizarre choice to me.

    I don't understand that either.  I was also curious about "consistency" (whatever the movie term is to make sure things are the same on each new take).  At one point early on Tina Weymouth loses her long pants (shortly after Slippery People - where everyone jogs on stage).  I thought it was an odd costume choice then I'm like "Duh.  They filmed four concerts.  People aren't going to wear the exact same outfits every night." but the pants stayed off for the rest of the time that I watched.  It also seemed like she was wearing some sort of patterned leggings.  I saw shadows but then some shadows moved with her legs.  I know it's an odd thing to obsess over.  It's just I didn't notice anyone else doing any clothing changes (except for David's big business suit of course).

    gif4-7.gif

    • Like 3

  20. Posted

    Overall I admit this isn't the movie for me. I made it less than an hour (maybe even before Burning Down the House) the first time.  Last night I watched it again from just after Psycho Killer onward and stopped at an hour, a song or so after the Tom Tom Club song.  (I vaguely remember The Tom Tom Club on the 80's radio but not the song they sang in the movie.)  I do appreciate the lyrics being "grounded", by that I mean, they jump all over but still tell a story.  I have never understood how Bono can write songs that sounds like a random phrase generator wrote them.  Having the subtitles really helped a lot in letting me enjoy the songs.

    Carnival, the wheels fly and the colours spin through alcohol.
    Red wine that punctures the skin.
    Face to face in a dry and waterless place.

    (From the song The Unforgettable Fire)

    https://www.u2.com/music/lyrics/144

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    15 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Here's an almost entirely different live TH experience... I probably love it even more than Stop Making Sense. The camera is right on stage and the crowd is going wild and it feels rawer to me.

     

    I was reading reviews and one thing made me scratch my head.  It needs a little set up.  Roger Ebert's review mentions how the cameras focused on the band since the audience reactions would be out of sync with what's on screen.  Another review mentions that the band only wanted actual concerts to be filmed, and not to do any studio work since the band would lose the audience energy.  It doesn't make sense to me. (I guess the band stopped making sense.)  The film works because it ignores the audience but the Talking Heads wanted the movie done this way because they wanted the audience to be there?

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    I think what makes it feel so large is how it starts out so intimately—just adding one band member at a time. It makes it all larger than life.

    That impressed me.  For me that feeling of space started by seeing just how large the physical stage was before everything was added in.  Whenever I go to a concert I'm seeing the finished product so I have nothing to compare to.  Seeing how they filled up the space, but it was still small enough for David to run behind the band, was cool.  I like that they spread the band out side-to-side instead of front to back.  David jumping back over the middle of the stage to come out front again was neat.  The entire stage wasn't built to showcase the builders' skills, it was done to showcase the band.

    • Like 3

  25. Posted

    Trying this again since my original post is chopped up (for want of a close quote tag).

    Apologies for not participating in my own choice. Now that things are getting back to usual (never normal), I do have some things I'd like to mention.

    1) The whole first exchange (Sit Down, John; then Piddle, Twiddle, and Resolve) had me hooked. I had never seen such open snark in a historical movie. The initial debates between Adams and Dickinson were the same kinds of points I had wondered about. When I saw the movie for the first time I was living in or near the Philadelphia area and had been to Independence Hall several times. Figured it was time to see what the movie was like.

     

    2) When I get depressed the last exchange between John and Abigail Adams always helps me. John complains he fears there is nothing left but the discontentment. Abigail replies

    Quote

    Oh, John. Can you really know so little about yourself?  And can you think so little of me to think I'd marry the kind of man you described?


    That response always makes my eyes well up. There are people I consider to be great, accomplished, persistent, admirable people. They seem to think I'm OK so why can't I?

     

    3) Ben Franklin throughout is a hoot. "Oh, Stephen, I only wish King George felt like my big toe all over." (Since Frankin suffered from gout.)  I was surprised to learn John Adams' comment about being left out of the history books is reasonably accurate.

    Quote

    The real John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790, "The History of our Revolution will be one continued lye [sic] from one end to the other. The essence of the whole will be that Dr. Franklin’s electric rod smote the earth and out sprang General Washington. Then Franklin electrified him... and thence forward those two conducted all the Policy, Negotiations, Legislations, and War."
    https://www.postwhistle.com/tag/john-adams-quotes/


    4) The distortions of people of honor are distressing, particularly James Wilson of Pennsylvania. James Wilson was a very honorable fellow who had indeed served with distinction as a judge. I can forgive changing the story to come down to a tie but turning Judge Wilson into a fop who, until the crucial moment, served solely as John Dickinson's lap dog, does Judge Wilson a grave disservice. Franklin makes an offhand comment about Judge Wilson having served before but then makes it sound like Wilson can't think for himself because Independence is "a new idea, you clot!"

    • Like 1
×