PJ20 movie disappointment

titchinello

DewieCox wrote:

I was entertained by it enough, but it wasn't that great of a PJ documentary. I wasn't expecting any dirt on the drummer issue or Mike's drug problems or times when they didn't get along that well. I just think it was too much of a PJ infomercial. The most in depth they got was when talking about Andy Wood, when that realistically should've have gotten a passing mention.

I literally didn't feel like I learned a thing about the band. It seemed like they were trying to enhance their legacy more than anything.

Some cool bonus footage, though and the book did give more detail throughout their career.

I know what you mean, I enjoyed it well enough, but in the end felt like something was missing. hard to explain exactly what, it just seemed as though there was plenty of time going on about the first half of their career, and then realised time was running out and rushed through the second half. thats how it seemed to me.

vedderman

Oh yeah, and what's the deal with "Bee Girl" with the blank screen at the end of disc 3?

boyo79

red mos wrote:

IgotshitID wrote:

the singles party was halarious

I love how Stone was talking to Cameron Crowe while driving around Seattle, and Stone was like, Oh God, you have footage of that?" Then they show the footage. Love how Ed was pissed cause his monitors weren't working, and went and ripped the sound thing out of the wall. Turned out to be the lighting rig he destroyed, and he was like "why is it getting brighter in here?"

Great moment of the movie.

Do agree that more of the No Code/Yield/Binaural/Riot Act era could have been included. Seemed like they really skipped over No Code and Jack leaving/Matt joining.

benjs

rival. wrote:

UpSideDown wrote:

I came out dissappointed after watching PJ20......I have no issues with the picture quality (loved the early footage), but the documentary itself seemed like a poorly written essay. Dwelled a little too much on Mother Love Bone/Andy, blazed by years at a time, weak attempt (if you can even call it that) at explaining the drumming history, and like 10 minutes of straight footage from the Italy DVD as well......blah

spot on.

zero balance between eras, and they seemed to breeze right past the most "interesting" ones.

edit: i have no problems with the picture quality. hell... i LOVED touring band's feel and look and you can't get grainier than that.

I'm all for grain, what I'm not all for is those clusters of pixels all of one colour that you see when you watch a bootlegged copy of a film, especially in scenes with dark spots that are approaching true black.

Dirty Mosquito

I would be more than happy to take your Blu Ray off your hands if you are that unhappy with it. I wouldn't want you to feel cheated.

Let me know.

iOnlyownMymind

I didn't buy it. Watched it on PBS instead and it was enough for me. Couldn't believe they used footage from the Italy dvd. In 20 years of shows they couldn't make a movie with all new footage that was previously not officially released?

vedderman

Dirty Mosquito wrote:

I would be more than happy to take your Blu Ray off your hands if you are that unhappy with it. I wouldn't want you to feel cheated.

Let me know.

Sorry i don't have it anymore.

vedderman

iOnlyownMymind wrote:

I didn't buy it. Watched it on PBS instead and it was enough for me. Couldn't believe they used footage from the Italy dvd. In 20 years of shows they couldn't make a movie with all new footage that was previously not officially released?

I agree!

Spiritual_Chaos

1. The problem people are talking about when it comes to the video quality of the DVD/BD is not source related as in "the stuff was shot on video in the early 90s!". I think everyone gets that early stuff was shot on cheap consumer level equipment backstage.

It's about the encode/compression and/or not going back to the source in the professional stuff. The videos for thumbing my way (shot professionally and even on film I allways imagined? and the Immagine in cornice left overs should not look as bad as they do.

Its a hack job. The IIC DVD looks better than than the PJ20 BD. Someone messed up with the encode for the BD and DVD.

2. Touring Band does not have grain. Grain is something you find in film. In video you find noise. And it giving a special feel to Touring band is great - but it has nothing to with the pixelated, blocky and compressed look of PJ20.

3. The Pj20 documentary sometimes felt like something you could watch on a christian cable channel. And sometimes it felt interesting. But I don't think PJ has the legacy or has had the past to really warrant a great documentary. The ticketmaster-thing, Roskilde and the "rivalry" with the media and Nirvana is the only things to build it around to get a documentary for a general audience.

Average Joe don't care for 25minutes on how they worked out the songs for Binaural.

BUT -- I wished they could have gotten interviews with every band memeber about the making of every record. Cut that into 1hour cdocumentaries and put one in each special edition box set.

So, the TEN boxset could have had a documentary on DVD covering the album and all the songs - from the bands, managers, record company and critics point of view. Then the same for all the other albums. That way - the people who wanted themto dig into that could have gotten it.

vedderman

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

1. The problem people are talking about when it comes to the video quality of the DVD/BD is not source related as in "the stuff was shot on video in the early 90s!". I think everyone gets that early stuff was shot on cheap consumer level equipment backstage.

It's about the encode/compression and/or not going back to the source in the professional stuff. The videos for thumbing my way (shot professionally and even on film I allways imagined? and the Immagine in cornice left overs should not look as bad as they do.

Its a hack job. The IIC DVD looks better than than the PJ20 BD. Someone messed up with the encode for the BD and DVD.

2. Touring Band does not have grain. Grain is something you find in film. In video you find noise. And it giving a special feel to Touring band is great - but it has nothing to with the pixelated, blocky and compressed look of PJ20.

3. The Pj20 documentary sometimes felt like something you could watch on a christian cable channel. And sometimes it felt interesting. But I don't think PJ has the legacy or has had the past to really warrant a great documentary. The ticketmaster-thing, Roskilde and the "rivalry" with the media and Nirvana is the only things to build it around to get a documentary for a general audience.

Average Joe don't care for 25minutes on how they worked out the songs for Binaural.

BUT -- I wished they could have gotten interviews with every band memeber about the making of every record. Cut that into 1hour cdocumentaries and put one in each special edition box set.

So, the TEN boxset could have had a documentary on DVD covering the album and all the songs - from the bands, managers, record company and critics point of view. Then the same for all the other albums. That way - the people who wanted themto dig into that could have gotten it.

Well said! I agree.

Spiritual_Chaos

Sprunkn7

I liked the movie but not dealing with or discussing the "drummer" situation was a cop out.

Suck it up, tell the story and be a man like Dave Grohl...yeah, he said it......this is what I did even if it was shitty, this is what I felt and what I did. Respect for that.

magga1976