“Stop Making Sense” is having a theatrical rerelease

You know, I just saw the new Hercule Poirot movie (hey, I'm a fan), and I had the same experience. I don't get out of the house much because I WFH, I have all these streaming services yet I spend most of my time just watching YouTube - I really enjoyed going to the theater and seeing a movie!

Having a discussion with my wife - why do we have all these streaming services? We should just drop them all and go out to the movies a couple times a month. It looks like that's what we're going to do. So yeah, you should be cautiously bullish.

+1 to Alamo Drafthouse, they have really good visuals, good sound, a strict no talking and no cell phone policy, and they show a lot of old films. They also serve beer and great milkshakes. Food is OK, could be better. But all around the best theatre experiences I've had.

If you live near an Alamo you're cinematically blessed :)

For the rest of us in (those in the US anyways) if you don't have a local Alamo equivalent look into Fathom Events: https://www.fathomevents.com/

They show classic or themed movies contracted out to local "standard" theaters.

On Oct 21 taking the fam to see Back To The Future. How many times do you get the opportunity to see that on the big screen?

I have shared similar sentiments with friends, but I think that the answer isn't a chain like Alamo, it's the independent theater. Every repertory event I've been to at an indie in the last year has been packed to the brim. These theaters can also show new independent or international films that might not get a showing in major theaters. Plus, a theater with one or two screens can focus specifically on that niche while everyone else dukes it out with the major studio stuff.

In ~1991 a co-worker and I were talking about the rise of home theater systems. He thought they'd mean the end of movie theaters. I thought that there's something special about seeing a movie together with others - 'a place, ceremony, lack of distraction, good AV' - that would keep them in business. I still think that :)

I have a decent home theater system and I bought '2001: A Space Odyssey' near the first time it came out on DVD... but I still went down to our local Alamo last month and watched it and was delighted to spend the money and the time.

The main problem with movies now is the price. For movie theaters to really do well, you need to make it possible for a group of suburban teenagers to buy tickets and snacks with whatever money they get from babysitting or lawn mowing or whatever suburban teenagers do for spending money.

Maybe your theater is the exception? Are you in a city? Here in central NJ, im seeing the same business as pre-pandemic. I have AMC monthly pass and so I see a lot of movies. Apart from blockbusters like Barbie or most superhero movies, the theaters are practically empty. Yes there are weird exceptions such as The Sound of Freedom but that was essentially a scam because many viewers were given free tickets by conservative organizations just to boost their numbers. But normally any non big blockbuster has a small handful of people or almost nothing. AMC is also still closing theaters in places like Charlotte NC which I would normally assume is a growth area.

Interesting that you go to the movies for the quality.

My home cinema setup is literately just a high end OLED TV from 2019 configured to my tastes. But even with just that as my basis of comparison, I can barely stand how bad the sound and image quality of the best movie theater is around my place.

The blurryness of normal cinema is something I have a personal distaste for. I appreciated the Hobbit because they genuinely had an improvement there. But still, any action sequence in a movie is a blurry mess. Speed Racer also did something well in that regard. I play games at 170Hz, I dislike having my vision downgraded by 80 years of age just to enjoy a movie. Of course, this is largely not the fault of the movie theater. Movies also look blurry on my TV, just less so due to settings. I just have more choice of high quality content at home.

But by far the worst offender is sound. It seems the only thing movie theaters are trying to achieve when it comes to sound is booming bass registering on sismographs on the opposite side of the planet. There's instant distortion whenever the scene is not quiet. Highs are just horrible in general. And movie composers and sound designers seem to know this as they use highs sparingly, resulting in often jarringly unrealistic sound. And everything sounding bombastic even when it doesn't make sense thematically.

He’s a little guy in a big suit. He doesn’t fit in this world

https://putthison.com/making-sense-of-david-byrnes-big-suit-...

One angle is that the big suit makes his head look small, which visually says "stop overthinking things", which is what "Stop Making Sense" means.

Virgil Cane's brother is rolling over in his grave. If I had to rank them then Stop Making Sense is number one, and it's not even that close. But the Last Waltz is definitely the second most iconic concert of all time. Although supposedly the other band members weren't too happy about how the band was presented, as though they were basically "the Robbie Robertson Group," with everyone else in the band being more of an afterthought.

> Not mentioning The Last Waltz is pretty unpardonable. But this IS a great movie, and so is that.

It's probably been 20 years since I've seen it, but isn't The Last Waltz a pretty straightforward recording of a concert? Stop Making Sense might seem like just a concert film, but I think the author's point is that it's quite unlike pretty much everything else in the category.

I saw David Byrne present Stop Making Sense at Metrograph here in NYC in 2017 and he gave a lot of insights on the making of it. One major one is that they filmed from a different camera angle on each of the three nights and put the concert together in post. So one night was from stage left, another night stage right, another straight on -- he didn't want you to see camera's in the background at all unless it was intentional (the article mentions it was filmed over three nights, but not this intentional framing).

He mentioned something about wanting the audience to see how the Talking Heads put together the band and a show over time, which is why he chose to build it up from that solo guitar moment up through Bernie Worrell (!) and the rest of the musicians walking on stage. He said he always had anxiety performing and would collapse back stage once it was over at first, but finally got comfortable with that front man role as time went on.

He also felt that Talking Heads were at the height of their powers (his words) and wanted to capture it, but couldn't get funding for a film and had to personally put up the money for it.

As for the "big suit", he said no one in the band knew it was happening and everyone sort of lost it when he walked on stage in it the first night.

Edit: One thing I forgot, Jonathan Demme gets mentioned all the time when talking about the film, but people forget that Jordan Cronenweth did the cinematography and had recently come off of doing Blade Runner.

sounds to me like you should find a better theater chain if available in your area. i know the smartphone thing is a bad experience, but i haven't had to endure someone on their phone in a theater since i started going to places that care. to me, the phone thing is just a meme on the internet as it hasn't been a thing for me personally in over a decade

I think a lot depends on your home situation.

If I sit down to watch a movie at home, I'm barraged by kids, a puppy, distractions, needing to pause a lot, people going in-and-out, other kinds of background noise, etc. Even if the theater isn't perfect (and luckily I live near several good ones) the simple lack of distraction at the movies is huge for me.

10 minutes of flashy product advertisements followed by a 15-minute bombardment of previews loaded with taiko drums and foghorns.

Thankfully my theater now uses reserved seats so I can wait outside during the assault.

On the other hand, I count myself lucky that in my small area they feature https://www.fathomevents.com/ which include classic re-runs or special musical events. Usually there are only a half dozen people in the theater with me for those.

Change your movie theater and the time that you go.

Matinee (afternoon) shows are sparsely populated and generally cheaper, especially during weekdays. There is a small movie theater in a strip mall outside of town that I sometimes take my kids to. It's clean, the seats are comfortable, and most people go there to actually watch movies not just hang out and gab with friends.

If they shows ads, I never see them because I don't walk into the theater until at least 5 minutes after show time. This is how I opt-out of the ads and previews. Once in a while I walk in while the last couple of previews are still running, or a minute or two after the movie has started. Doesn't bother me, the first few minutes of a movie are rarely pivotal to grokking the plot.

I always bring earplugs to theaters and concerts because I am sensitive to loud sounds (as in, actual physical pain) that everyone else finds perfectly tolerable. Sometimes I need the earplugs, sometimes I don't. When I need them, they don't diminish the audio quality at all, they just take the edge off.

And in retrospect, maybe it's a little weird that I have optimized my movie watching routine down to a science. (Especially since I don't actually go that often.)

All of those problems discouraged me from going to the movie theater but the issue that got me to quit going to movie theaters completely is increased volume without increased noise dampening. Thanks to the much advertised upgrades to the sound systems of the theaters you will hear your movie and the movie next to you. You'll hear the dialogue of your movie with a background of superhero explosions and revving car engines.

And no, there are no other movie theater chains available. And no, going to a matinee doesn't solve these problems. And there is no solution to these problems because they've become normalized so people will rush to defend them.

I'm exactly the opposite, I think they jumped the shark after this album .. ;)

Restoring a film will take a year or more. The size of this theatrical release might be related to the strikes (are we out of movies yet?) but the restoration was planned out years ago most likely.

Not sure about that. A teaser was released around 16/18 March which was two or so days before WGA and AMPTO negotiations started (according to Forbes).

It’s fun!: https://youtu.be/BwuQtdb4guo

It sounds odd to me, but I suppose "were called" is probably true in the sense that some did call them that, e.g. they are in the "new wave" compilation album.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wave_(compilation_album)

Yea The Ramones were punk

And don’t anyone tell me they were “proto-punk” that’s just ridiculous

They are New Wave the same way Jethro Tull is Heavy Metal.

1980, End of the Century, produced by Phil Spector, so un-punk rock it was safe to be given to children in Florida schools

Yes, punk was called new-wave in the late '70s. It was a reference to French cinema of the 1950s. "New Wave" didn't mean skinny ties and pink Trapper Keepers until the '80s. What you think of as New Wave was probably from the movement called "New Romantic." Think Duran-Duran.

Here's a radio ad for the Sex Pistols playing Dallas in January 1978. "The Sex Pistols bring the new wave to the Metroplex this Tuesday night at the Longhorn Ballroom."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBg-eKOO2E8

"Nobody knows I'm New Wave" - Kurt Cobain

None of those groups were New Wave. It was a synth-pop dance genre defined by the Human League, Gary Numan, Flock of Seagulls, The Normal, OMD, Ultravox, and Devo. The British press dubbed it New Wave as the inheritors of Disco, not rock. It was hated when it started charting, in the same way Disco was. People were just getting used to prog-rock and Pink Floyd imitators. The drum machines and synths made it worse. Punk was actually a descendent of NYC/LA youth movements, not the art rock diversions of NYC proto-rock. The Sex Pistols were mostly a marketing gimmick by Malcolm McClaren. But, people heard that album and started their own band. Punk as a movement came from the people inspired by the Pistols rather than the band itself. Nobody covered Sex Pistols songs.

The Talking Heads are a white funk rock group that appeal to 80s college kids. There was rarely any taste crossover into synth-pop, new wave or punk. More like Bob Marley, David Bowie, Tom Waits, REM, and Red Hot Chili Peppers. Most of the big Talking Heads fans I know stopped listening to new music after 1990.

New wave was never a good term. Hell, punk was a pointless genre too. There's just so many different brands and ideology.

What do Duran Duran have to do with the Talking Heads? Pretty close to nothing. I don't even see talking heads as much of a "punk band". Especially, in the mid-late eras, they seem more like a proto-jamband, but I'll admit I don't understand the style differences at a purely musical level.

Other "new wave" acts really look more like just punk bands. I don't understand how the ramones got classified as new wave... do they use synths? That's not THE distinguishing factor, but it makes it look more like new wave, vs. traditional punk.

... but maybe a punk band can use synths without crossing over into "new wave".

Danny Elfman and The Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo were called New Wave, too, as I recall.

I talked to a French Horn player who's actually played some of his stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenada_Schizophrana

coming to San Jose!

https://www.dannyelfman.com/upcoming-events

I highly recommend reading Simon Reynold's history of post-punk, "Rip It Up and Start Again." That book does a lot to break down the idea of discreet musical sub-genres in the late 70s and early 80s. There were individual scenes, for sure, but really there was just an explosion of creativity with that first wave of punk as more of a catalyst or a rallying cry.

I also have some very uninformed personal thoughts on the term "pre-punk" which I find really silly. All it really means is that the Sex Pistols weren't nearly as original as the mythmaking states, and a lot of other bands were playing in the same sandbox before and after. It's not like every punk and post-punk band after the Pistols was primarily influenced by their sound. It was their posture.

You can tell an alternate history of music that deemphasizes the Sex Pistols where there was a New Wave that started in the early 70s with the New York Dolls or the Stooges or something, and it includes the Ramones, the Modern Lovers, the Buzzcocks and a whole lot more. I'm not nearly knowledgable enough to really put the pieces together, beyond half-remembering this book I read several years ago. Still, it's fun to think about.

Having been of a record buying age at that time, I think "New Wave" was really more of a marketing term. Punk had a somewhat bad reputation at the time, 78 I would have been 14. New Wave was a way to get people to buy records that were not from big venue rock bands, i.e. Stones, Who, ELO, Kiss etc. The Police's first record was considered "punk" when I got it among my peers. Got me into more of the local LA punk bands, although I was listening the Dickies before the Police. I knew lots of people listened to Blondie, the Dickies, the Germs or Black Flag not so many. As I mentioned on the other thread I actually was at the Pantages for the talking heads show it was awesome!