>>so that seemed like a logical extension.
>
>i was just talkin' music in general
>
>
>>I'm familiar to the point of near-exhaustion with Dylan or
>The
>>Stones, nonetheless I enjoyed this special & the PBS'
>Scorsese
>>one on Dylan because both were done well.
>>
>>Why beef about them existing, it's not like they're taking a
>>slot that would have gone to a younger act if either hadn't
>>been made.
>>
>>I'd love to see lots of folks get the full-scale
>feature-film
>>documentary treatment.
>
>that's really all i'm saying, with it implied that the same
>effort and financing could have been put forth to document
>artists that haven't been covered so in depth already.
>
>
>>I mean your thought was what Rappaport tried to give Tribe
>>this treatment & fucked it up horribly because he's a
>limited
>>actor turned amateur filmmaker.
>
>it definitely could have been better. if scorsese is making
>these dylan dylan dylan dylan and dylan and stones pics, what
>if spike lee had made the tribe pic? or something. i
>appreciate the attempt at least.
>

It was pretty terribly done if I'm being honest, I saw it in the theater & own it but have probably watched it in full three times tops compared to countless times for a good music doc or concert film.

Rappaport fucked that all up thinking that nonsensical 'spat' was worth more than it was.

No one cared & in the end it just came off embarrassing.

Keith & Mick have fucked each others girls, Keith has written in print about his 'tiny todger' & called him a faggot, they've come to blows on several occasions as have other band members & Mick has griped about having to basically deal with Keith in a ten-year-period of zombie-state during the 70's due to his heroin habit but the filmmaker doesn't rely on any of that to spin the band's historical narrative meanwhile Michael Rappaport basically made a 90-minute film about Phife's addicition to sweets & Q-Tip's lack of understanding of it.

Horrible decision by an amateur filmmaker & supposed fan. I seriously could have made a better movie with a camera phone & some clip-licensing.

As for Spike not doing it that's more on Spike (though honestly I'm not even sure Spike is a Tribe fan, he might have made a great one on PE but they've spent the past 20 years desecrating their own legacy really so I'm sure he's now not interested in doing so).

But Spike is a great documentarian, I'd be cool with seeing him make a good one on a musical act based on 4 Little Girls, When The Levees Broke, The Original Kings Of Comedy & Jim Brown: All American while giving him a pass for the misfire that is Kobe Doin Work.

Not even Spike could make a day-in-the-life of an unlikable psychopath on the job in a regular-season NBA game captivating.
>
>>I'm sure that Cameron Crowe Pearl Jam one was boring as shit
>>as well because frankly from a personality standpoint the
>band
>>is.
>
>i still need to see pearl jam 20. this is the kind of thing i
>am talking about, however. it doesn't always have to be a
>classic rocker getting the deluxe treatment.
>
I still need to see it too but let's be honest, there's probably a reason neither of us hurried to catch it and that's my point: there's not a lot of acts that lend themselves as well to that kind of treatment.

Those Wilco & Radiohead docs were *boring as fuck*.

Just painfully dull.

I thought Jigga's 'Fade To Black' was strong, might be one of the few on more recent acts that has been because along with the career narrative it had an angle & an event to piggyback sorta like 'The Last Waltz' did.

On the rock or singer-songrwriter front the best music-related doc of the past decade or so is probably 'The Devil & Daniel Johnston' but not due to the actual music made by its subject.

>
>>Pearl Jam's war with Ticketmaster or Phife being mad Tip
>>thinks he's a fat jealous runt are just not as interesting
>>onscreen as the debacle at Altamont, Hyde Park two days
>after
>>Jones died, the steps of Washington with MLK or the mad
>folks
>>at Newport Folk Festival.
>>
>>*shrug*
>
>but why must the same stories be told over and over? if more
>artists were getting similar documentary treatment i wouldn't
>complain, but it's just dull as a music and movie fan for the
>same few people to get covered even if no documentary on them
>is the same as the last or the next.

Again I can understand subject fatigue (tho really all it requires is just to skip it like I did Shine A Light) but I'm happy for this special & Marty's PBS Dylan one existing.

The 'Marley' doc was a bit choppy but still worthwhile as well.

If younger filmmakers want to cover more recent acts with similar treatments & gravitas, I welcome it but it's a bit tougher because very few acts currently in their prime are going to lend themselves to that the way Dylan, Marley, The Stones do for a plethora of reasons.