I can fully understand why Halford didn't like it, but that's just one man's opinion, and his opinion is NOT a fact, just because he didn't like it dosen't automatically mean everyone else should ask themselves why. We all know the answer-the filmmakers tried to use his story without permission and portrayed him in a negative manner (and i'm sure he was pretty pissed at the film hinting at the reason for the band's break-up was his sexuality).
Are you for real?! Of course it's fact because he lived the life and his opinion is the movie is pure Hollywood imagination. Total fantasy, not a credible glimpse into the industry by any stretch. Ripper Owens hated it as well. The reason I bring them up is because they lived the life, and this film misrepresents that life/lifestyle, which is what we should be sick of in general.
Halford's opinion is more credible than the average Joe. C'mon. If you're sick, are you gonna see a doctor or a fan of the doctor.
Quote :
I don't see how the film was a "caricaturistic farce" or anything like that, it wasn't saying "80s metal is bad", to me it was saying that while the music was good, the musicians themselves were not always so nice people in reality, and that's the truth.
Not so true. The bigwigs, yes. The artists, no. There was a ton of camaraderie amongst artists in the 80's. There were also feuds and scandals and singers killing band members whilst driving drunk, but that's how family goes, especially the more eccentric families. Some were nice, some were introverted (which is a completely different thing than being rude), and some were rude, or assholes.
The movie's point was that 80's rock and metal was a synthetic cloak with nothing but the basic functions of sleaze and excess commanding the entrails. The protagonist was never true to himself because he indulged in a synthesized component of music. When he minimized his conceits to achieve a more 'organic' approach, a denouement was met. It's the basic formula of the coming-of-age concept, no different than a thousand other templates before it. Youth finds glory in destruction, grows up and yearns for cohesion after innocence is threatened. A growing awareness of wisdom deconstructs what was once familiar.
Again, even if nothing bad was said about the music, nothing good was shown either. So either you have a neutral movie, which you can't because you would eliminate conflict, or you have a movie optioning an unfair syntax.
It does not "misrepresent" the lifestyle, perhaps it's not accurate to the one that Priest themselves experienced, but certainly you can't call the portrayal in the film farfetched, I think it is a "credible" enough glimpse, it's just relatively tame in comparison to what bands like Guns N Roses went through. I didn't see the film saying anything about rock and metal being a "synthetic cloak" (whatever the hell that means)
I think it's ridiculous to say that one's opinion is automatically "more credible" then someone else's just cause they're a celebrity. Halford and Ripper lived the life and didn't think the film accurately represented it, which is understandable, but to me that dosen't anecessarily make their opinions any more "credible" then mine or anyone else's.
The "doctor" comparison is total nonsense, it's a doctor's job to save lives so of course you're going to want their opinion, but opinions in regards to entertainment are completely different and not even in the same ballpark, I think doctors would be insulted at such a comparison. I'm pretty sure there are some metal artists who actually did like the film, would that make them less credible then Halford or Ripper?
The artists may have been tight with each other, but that dosen't make their actions any less reprehensible(Vince Neil killing Razzle while drunk driving and basically getting off scot-free, sure he claimed to regret it, but then he got a DUI in Vegas 2 years back, so I wonder how much "regret" he really had)or make them look any better as individuals.
Holy shit, dude. You completely missed my point with the dr angle and did God-know-what-with it. My point is the Doctor is the professional, the fan is not, so obviously you are going to listen to the doctor. If you want to find out if a used car is legit for purchase, you're going to listen to a mechanic, not a fan of the car. Perhaps the fan may have some validity, but overall the professional who has experience is trustworthy and takes precedence. Rob Halford is an experienced professional. You are not. Your claims of the industry's lifestyle or anything related to such pale in comparison to his or other professionals who have worked the industry, especially considering his age and honesty. He lived it. You didn't. I trust him. I can't trust you, and it's not even anything personal. It's just that you're trusting a big-budget movie and a couple of books to solidify an opinion of what rock 'n roll is. That's bullshit. Tipton even called it a Hollywood fantasy. I'm sure more than a dozen other artists feel the same way.
Look. Has anyone here seen Almost Famous? THAT'S how you write a movie about rock 'n roll.
I enjoyed the movie, I enjoy the soundtrack. It's a movie, made in Hollywood. I don't really think about it on a deeper level than that. I don't watch movies for the "social commentary" angle, nor do I particularly care about it all that much. If I like a movie and the masses do not, nice, conversely, if I happen to enjoy a movie that does well, right on. If I don't like the movie then that is pretty much the end of the conversation.
I will say the Marky-Mark is one of my favorite actors, along side Cary Grant, Morgan Freeman, Tommy Lee Jones and a few others. They all, for the most part, choose good movies to be involved with.
Agreed, I don't think most people were expecting a realistic documentary from Rock Star or anything like that, just an entertaining film with a great soundtrack.
I love Wahlberg in pretty much anything, really looking forward to seeing him in 2 Guns with Denzel Washington with weekend.
It does look quite good. I would love to see Mark-Mark do some more stuff like the Departed tho, with Scorsese. That was a killer flick.
Honestly I didn't think Departed quite lived up to the hype, it had a nice collection of actors but as a whole I just didn't think it was quite as good as the film it was a remake of(Inferal Affairs)
[quote="but overall the professional who has experience is trustworthy
Trustworthy!! How many mechanics do you know dude? [/quote]Yes, and same with doctors, they're not all perfect, you'd be surprised at how many of them have dementia and are still doing operations
Hicks-I did not "miss the point" at all, you're point was flawed to begin with. Halford being a rock star does not automatically make his opinion of the film a fact nor does it mean every single metal fan has to agree with him. I don't give a rat's ass if you trust me or not(don't know where the hell that came from), I'm not asking you to take my word, i'm going by what I read in biographies like The Dirt, that stuff was not made up, so "trust' is not the issue here, I don't believe everything the film says obviously, but I doubt it's 100% inaccurate, it at least got a few things right. Not EVERY rock star lived the same life that Halford did, some had different experiences, some worse and some better. So again I say the film may not be accurate to what Halford himself experienced, but it's disingenous to say that no one experienced something at least kind of similar, I think that's what really bullshit.
I've seen Almost Famous and while I liked Kate Bosworth in it, the film as a whole didn't really live up the critical praise that was heaped upon it.
I know many mechanics that have saved my ass because I travel for work. As for the dementia doctors...you're pulling arguments out of your ass. Does Halford have dementia, part of the "imperfect" group...? You're not making sense.
So you trust The Dirt over Halford's opinion?
Trust is not an emotional flagging. You're taking it too personally.
Halford is part of an industry. He congregated with other icons and minors on hundreds of tours. What he has seen is similar to what Crue has seen.
Almost Famous was written and directed by a former rock journalist. It did no receive any complaints from a single musician from that era. It was also entertaining and insightful without creating some comic strip environment for stereotypes to populate. It showed rock stars for who they really are amidst all the decadence. That they are, in fact, human, complex, layered, and undeserving of being shoehorned.
Ebert even called Rock Star a morality play. From a classical standpoint, that's what it is. Morality plays are preachy. You can't avoid that. Rock Star is preachy.
Kate Hudson was in Almost Famous. Not Kate Bosworth.
What the hell is it with you and big budget films? Saying things like "I feel bad when they fail" is like saying you feel bad when McDonald's didn't sell they're 5,000,000 cheeseburger today or something.
I enjoyed the movie, I enjoy the soundtrack. It's a movie, made in Hollywood. I don't really think about it on a deeper level than that. I don't watch movies for the "social commentary" angle, nor do I particularly care about it all that much. If I like a movie and the masses do not, nice, conversely, if I happen to enjoy a movie that does well, right on. If I don't like the movie then that is pretty much the end of the conversation.
I will say the Marky-Mark is one of my favorite actors, along side Cary Grant, Morgan Freeman, Tommy Lee Jones and a few others. They all, for the most part, choose good movies to be involved with.
Agreed, I don't think most people were expecting a realistic documentary from Rock Star or anything like that, just an entertaining film with a great soundtrack.
I love Wahlberg in pretty much anything, really looking forward to seeing him in 2 Guns with Denzel Washington with weekend.
Exactly!! I'm on the Mark Wahlberg bandwagon.. The Departed, Four Brothers, Shooter, Ted, Italian Job, The Fighter, We Own the Night, Max Payne, The Other Guys, Fear, Boogie Nights, The Basketball Diaries, Contraband, Perfect Storm, I mean damnnnnnnnn...
The 80's was the decade that just did waaaaayyyy too much coke! This is reflected in just about everything about the decade.
Like people weren't even more coked up in the 70's.......... The entire disco movement was coke fueled... see the Behind The Music about Deep Purple and the suitcase of coke that followed them to every gig.... and Glenn Hughes saying "Wasn't everyone doing coke off stripper's bums in the 70's?"
I had a GREAT time in the 80's and never (and still haven't ever) even seen coke in real life.
Take a look at the following link and see all the salaries that have to be paid when making one of these films. Then think about the fact that's only a portion of the total production cost.
I know many mechanics that have saved my ass because I travel for work. As for the dementia doctors...you're pulling arguments out of your ass. Does Halford have dementia, part of the "imperfect" group...? You're not making sense.
So you trust The Dirt over Halford's opinion?
Trust is not an emotional flagging. You're taking it too personally.
Halford is part of an industry. He congregated with other icons and minors on hundreds of tours. What he has seen is similar to what Crue has seen.
Almost Famous was written and directed by a former rock journalist. It did no receive any complaints from a single musician from that era. It was also entertaining and insightful without creating some comic strip environment for stereotypes to populate. It showed rock stars for who they really are amidst all the decadence. That they are, in fact, human, complex, layered, and undeserving of being shoehorned.
Ebert even called Rock Star a morality play. From a classical standpoint, that's what it is. Morality plays are preachy. You can't avoid that. Rock Star is preachy.
Kate Hudson was in Almost Famous. Not Kate Bosworth.
What the hell is it with you and big budget films? Saying things like "I feel bad when they fail" is like saying you feel bad when McDonald's didn't sell they're 5,000,000 cheeseburger today or something.
Is anyone else gonna back me up here?
I'm the one pulling arguments out of my ass? now THAT'S hilarious:lol!: I have no clue what you're trying to say either. Sounds like you;re the one who's taking it too personally.
I don't know if I would say Priest had a similar lifestyle to the Crue, most of the controversy Priest received was over that one kid committing suicide with a casette of theirs in the tape deck(still can't believe it actually went to court), but you never heard about the band members constantly getting in trouble with the law or almost dying from an overdose.
Never said anything about trusting a book over Halford, don't know where you got that from.
So I like big budget films, so freaking what? Is it a crime for people to enjoy them? There's nothing wrong with feeling bad for a filmmaker not succeeding, once against you're comparison is ridiculous and nonsensical(McDonald's? seriously?). Besides, 57 million is not a big budget by any stretch of the imagination.
The film is not preachy nor is it a "morality play" or anything like that, I can understand not liking the film but I don't see how one would get that impression. I really don't care what Ebert said about the film, i've disagreed with his reviews many times and this is one of those times, I don't take his reviews as Gospel.
I couldn't care less about whether or not Almost Famous received any "complaints" that seems like nitpicking to me. I just didn't find the characters that compelling or interesting, but that's just me.
I always seem to get actors with the same first name mixed up:lol!:
Last edited by Vexer6 on Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Take a look at the following link and see all the salaries that have to be paid when making one of these films. Then think about the fact that's only a portion of the total production cost.
One of my favorite films of last year 'Ill Manors' had a budget of £100,000. I get that Hollywood is a different beast, but 'Rock Star' even looks cheap!
One of my favorite films of last year 'Ill Manors' had a budget of £100,000. I get that Hollywood is a different beast, but 'Rock Star' even looks cheap!
Mark Wahlberg alone probably cost them $10 million. (by 2008 Wahlberg was averaging $15 million per film).
The bigger the star, the bigger the salary. Robert Downey Jr. brought home $50 million for Iron Man 3, almost as much as the entire budget of Rock Star.
You know very little of Priest, then. They were just as amoral as Crue. Halford had a lover who did coke with him on a regular basis and later killed himself. It's a moving story that's worth reading. Halford also OD'd on a couple occasions. Alcohol and coke was in their veins. The whole deal with Dave Holland is still an enigma and so controversial the band refuses to talk about it. All this may not be as bloated as Crue's comic strip of laid waste, but they lived the life and saw it just as much as Crue did.
57 million is a moderate budget and a waste of money. If a filmmaker (and crew, OR the studio) fails because they did a poor job of crafting a decent to great movie, of course they get what they deserve. Besides, Herek got his paycheck, and so did Wahlberg, and it was about what I make in ten years. There's no one to feel sorry for.
Almost Famous is character-driven and Cameron Crowe is known for writing scripts that flush out truly realistic and relative three-dimensional characters. Rock Star is full of caricatures, lazy one-dimensional stock.
Book over Halford = The Dirt over Halford's word. You seem to praise the book, but Halford's opinion is taken with a grain of salt.
I was an English major for several years with a love of Tudor theater, where the morality play took shape. I described the formula earlier and don't like to repeat myself. The structure and characteristics of Rock Star meet the criteria for classification of morality play. I'm calling it what it is. Now, morality plays aren't bad things. I happen to love them...if they are constructed well. Rock Star is not. It just isn't. On a technical level, according to not only Ebert but hundreds of other critics, on an academic level, it is not well made. And it does misrepresent the industry.
You know very little of Priest, then. They were just as amoral as Crue. Halford had a lover who did coke with him on a regular basis and later killed himself. It's a moving story that's worth reading. Halford also OD'd on a couple occasions. Alcohol and coke was in their veins. The whole deal with Dave Holland is still an enigma and so controversial the band refuses to talk about it. All this may not be as bloated as Crue's comic strip of laid waste, but they lived the life and saw it just as much as Crue did.
57 million is a moderate budget and a waste of money. If a filmmaker (and crew, OR the studio) fails because they did a poor job of crafting a decent to great movie, of course they get what they deserve. Besides, Herek got his paycheck, and so did Wahlberg, and it was about what I make in ten years. There's no one to feel sorry for.
Almost Famous is character-driven and Cameron Crowe is known for writing scripts that flush out truly realistic and relative three-dimensional characters. Rock Star is full of caricatures, lazy one-dimensional stock.
Book over Halford = The Dirt over Halford's word. You seem to praise the book, but Halford's opinion is taken with a grain of salt.
I was an English major for several years with a love of Tudor theater, where the morality play took shape. I described the formula earlier and don't like to repeat myself. The structure and characteristics of Rock Star meet the criteria for classification of morality play. I'm calling it what it is. Now, morality plays aren't bad things. I happen to love them...if they are constructed well. Rock Star is not. It just isn't. On a technical level, according to not only Ebert but hundreds of other critics, on an academic level, it is not well made. And it does misrepresent the industry.
I'm...I'm done here.
I just watch a movie, if I look too deep into things, I won't enjoy it too much. The movie has such an ass kicking soundtrack with one of my favorite actors playing the lead role, that it couldn't fail in my eyes.
In other words I could careless about Priest when watching Rockstar. If the movie was marketed and promoted as being based on "true events" or "true story" than we have another story, but it isn't..
I mean I can sit here and say the cars in this movie were all 90's, as were the guitars, and some of the songs, but I watch to be entertained and I was highly entertained
You know very little of Priest, then. They were just as amoral as Crue. Halford had a lover who did coke with him on a regular basis and later killed himself. It's a moving story that's worth reading. Halford also OD'd on a couple occasions. Alcohol and coke was in their veins. The whole deal with Dave Holland is still an enigma and so controversial the band refuses to talk about it. All this may not be as bloated as Crue's comic strip of laid waste, but they lived the life and saw it just as much as Crue did.
57 million is a moderate budget and a waste of money. If a filmmaker (and crew, OR the studio) fails because they did a poor job of crafting a decent to great movie, of course they get what they deserve. Besides, Herek got his paycheck, and so did Wahlberg, and it was about what I make in ten years. There's no one to feel sorry for.
Almost Famous is character-driven and Cameron Crowe is known for writing scripts that flush out truly realistic and relative three-dimensional characters. Rock Star is full of caricatures, lazy one-dimensional stock.
Book over Halford = The Dirt over Halford's word. You seem to praise the book, but Halford's opinion is taken with a grain of salt.
I was an English major for several years with a love of Tudor theater, where the morality play took shape. I described the formula earlier and don't like to repeat myself. The structure and characteristics of Rock Star meet the criteria for classification of morality play. I'm calling it what it is. Now, morality plays aren't bad things. I happen to love them...if they are constructed well. Rock Star is not. It just isn't. On a technical level, according to not only Ebert but hundreds of other critics, on an academic level, it is not well made. And it does misrepresent the industry.
I'm...I'm done here.
Well like I said before, I know you're having a bad day, you're not going to change my mind about the film and i'm certainly not going to change yours, so i'm just gonna say we both have differing opinions and leave it at that.
You know very little of Priest, then. They were just as amoral as Crue. Halford had a lover who did coke with him on a regular basis and later killed himself. It's a moving story that's worth reading. Halford also OD'd on a couple occasions. Alcohol and coke was in their veins. The whole deal with Dave Holland is still an enigma and so controversial the band refuses to talk about it. All this may not be as bloated as Crue's comic strip of laid waste, but they lived the life and saw it just as much as Crue did.
57 million is a moderate budget and a waste of money. If a filmmaker (and crew, OR the studio) fails because they did a poor job of crafting a decent to great movie, of course they get what they deserve. Besides, Herek got his paycheck, and so did Wahlberg, and it was about what I make in ten years. There's no one to feel sorry for.
Almost Famous is character-driven and Cameron Crowe is known for writing scripts that flush out truly realistic and relative three-dimensional characters. Rock Star is full of caricatures, lazy one-dimensional stock.
Book over Halford = The Dirt over Halford's word. You seem to praise the book, but Halford's opinion is taken with a grain of salt.
I was an English major for several years with a love of Tudor theater, where the morality play took shape. I described the formula earlier and don't like to repeat myself. The structure and characteristics of Rock Star meet the criteria for classification of morality play. I'm calling it what it is. Now, morality plays aren't bad things. I happen to love them...if they are constructed well. Rock Star is not. It just isn't. On a technical level, according to not only Ebert but hundreds of other critics, on an academic level, it is not well made. And it does misrepresent the industry.
I'm...I'm done here.
I just watch a movie, if I look too deep into things, I won't enjoy it too much. The movie has such an ass kicking soundtrack with one of my favorite actors playing the lead role, that it couldn't fail in my eyes.
In other words I could careless about Priest when watching Rockstar. If the movie was marketed and promoted as being based on "true events" or "true story" than we have another story, but it isn't..
I mean I can sit here and say the cars in this movie were all 90's, as were the guitars, and some of the songs, but I watch to be entertained and I was highly entertained
Agreed, it matters little to me what they think of the film, same with all the film critics(BTW Rock Star actually has 52% on Rottentomatoes, which isn't great but it certainly isn't horrible either). But in all fairness if I were them and someone tried making a film based on my life without permission i'd be pretty pissed myself and probably wouldn't particularly enjoy the film.
I don't tend to overanalyze movies unless it's for a class as I just don't see the point, more often then not for me it just sucks all fun out of watching the film
Subject: Re: Rockstar Movie Soundtrack!! 
Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:01 pm
How many mechanics do you know dude? 
