grudlian.

Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up because that's not going to be my pick.

It's not my pick but I would love of it were anyone else's. Maybe next round if we go a full round again. Spoiler: the entire thread would be me explaining why it's the best and shutting down all dissenters.

Josie And The Pussycats was on my very short list but I didn't feel the second half was enough of a musical.

If someone really wants to make an earnest attempt to get into Pink Floyd, I'd recommend A Saucerful Of Secrets, Meddle, Dark Side Of The Moon and Wish You Were Here. If you can't get into those albums, Pink Floyd isn't for you. You might find bits and pieces on other albums you like, but not much. The early albums are really experimental and often times failed experiments (except Piper At The Gates of Dawn but that's a weird outlier). The later albums are either too wordy at the expense of the music or musical but with diminishing returns. So far as progressive rock goes, Pink Floyd are probably the least nerdy. Or, the least nerdy notable band the average person has heard of. Most nerdy probably has to go to Rick Wakeman's live performances of King Arthur which was performed as an ice show. The animation is, in my mind, the highlight of the film. I may not necessarily like what it's portraying, but it's well done. And, ugh, the most in your face THEMES!!! were during the animation. In some ways, the movie is better and worse than the album. The album isn't always very clear in what's happening or why it's happening. The movie unfortunately clears up a lot of stuff but I'm not sure I needed to know the judge was a literal talking butthole. I still like the movie overall. The first half is decent if very heavyhanded on the montage since it's basically all montage. It's where the story is clearest. It's where Pink is the most sympathetic. It's where it's ideas are the most universal (or maybe just for English kids born in the 1930s and 40s). But as you said, I think there's an interesting story on children who lost their fathers to the war which lead to overprotective mothers and now suffering through English schools at the time and how that shaped a generation of kids (and maybe most particularly sensitive artistic children). It's the second half and really the fourth side of the album that really falls apart. I'm not sure how much of that is from the time constraints of the album format at the time though.

Speaking of movie connections, The Wall was directed by the directed by Alan Parker who directed the Musical Monday classic: Bugsy Malone.

No, I'll be picking something for sure. It may not be something originally from television. Im still debating between two things.

I'm strongly considering not picking a movie at all. Interpret that as you wish.

Pretty much all this. I get why The Wall is so big, but it teeters on the line of being listenable and being too Roger Waters. If this is too much, definitely don't listen to The Final Cut.

Basically, what Taylor Anne said. I assume you've listened to a few notable albums like Dark Side Of The Moon and aren't basing your opinion on just The Wall. They definitely have eras I like much more than others and long runs where their experiments were mostly unsuccessful. You definitely don't need to use drugs to appreciate them but out can definitely help (or hurt, depending on the circumstances).

By the way, I'm not sure why they didn't use nazi imagery. Or replaced it with hammers and changed the uniforms to black. Other than it looks less bad to purposefully make your stand-in character a literal nazi. But they used actual white supremacists for the scenes and the hammers have now been adopted by Hammerskin which is a white supremacist group in Texas. So, another reason to have left this as an album and not make a movie.

I think Pink comes across a bit more sympathetic on the album. At least until he becomes a pseudo nazi. The way it comes across to me, the first half of the album is largely just explaining why Pink shuts himself off from the world. Dead father, over protective mother, childhood illness, hated at school, etc. He's just not well developed emotionally. It's not necessarily a unique circumstance especially for English children of WWII. Maybe not likable personality but understandable. In the movie, he just feels awful. You can sympathize with the child but I want to tell the adult to get over it. I think one reason Waters hates the movie is that it's largely influenced by his own life (father killed in WWII, rock star, the sequence with the rat is literally from his childhood, etc.). Seeing that on screen and seeing people not like it, well, that's got to be hard.

If you are high or tripping or whatever, the movie means something, maaan! I have some more thoughts but am kind of busy at work and can't go into them now. For now, I'll just say the movie is flawed but not terrible. I get why people don't like it though.

We might actually get some Puerto Rican actors and actresses this time. I think it might be interesting if Spielberg were to film as actual stage presentation similar to Bergman's Magic Flute. I don't think that lends to Spielberg's visual strengths but I guess it would be the most interesting update he could do.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but its definitely plausible. I've never actually seen any of the Twilight movies. Just bits and pieces. One of the most consistent criticisms I see is that Bella is a vacant vessel for young, impressionable girls to put themselves into. I could see a director pushing that idea into their performances.

I think I worded it badly. Even in bad movies like Howling 2, Christopher Lee is still impressive. But in bad movies like Twilight, Pattinson and Stewart are bad. Lee was still professional even in crap he hated. Can we say the same for both Stewart and Pattinson? So, I think some of the blame for their performances in Twilight is on them. We can't say it's all the writers and directors.

I agree. But Christopher Lee was still good in Howling 2. So, is bad writing, directing, editing Pattinson's and Stewart's fault? Also, let me throw out Hugh Laurie as a possibility.

Robert Pattinson I know but if you look at his post Twilight work (Rover, Good Time, Cosmopolis), he's working to shed that image. Maybe in 5-10 years the public will recognize him as the legitimately good actor he is. Let's remember Christopher Lee didn't start getting famous until his mid 30s in the Hammer films. So, Pattinson has time to age into being respected actor formerly best known for playing vampires.

Don't feel bad. When Paul said we had to guess, I thought "Man, I'm never going to figure that out. I'm sure someone on the boards will just tell us." But then I thought about how I actually bought the DVD when they announced Freejack a couple months ago for a future episode. Well, at least no one else has to pay for it.

I really couldn't figure out how you knew this until I realized I must have put my birthday in when I created an account here.

I'll give you up to face value for up to one ticket.

I think it's awesome they are making very hard to find movies easier to see with vimeo. I hope that continues. Hmm. I don't particularly like following things on Facebook and I don't use Twitter. But I guess I can make an exception to try and get tickets.

SaraK, you did it! They're coming to Chicago! For the people who have been to live shows, how do they notify people when tickets go on sale? I want to make sure I get one.

Absolutely. I'm thinking of the time I watched Murder At 1600 and my dad made reference to it being a porno. There's one sex scene with no nudity. I think it lasts a few seconds.

I was uncomfortable during the one scene but I would have been uncomfortable even by myself. I was by myself when I saw Diary Of A Teenage Girl and it was still uncomfortable in parts. I checked my phone occasionally just too ease the awkwardness.

It was me, a 20 year old and her young sister. For a while, it was just me which felt super awkward watching Ferdinand.