Page 3 of 6

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:06 pm
by Mike Drew
I must say that seeing the movie has rekindled my desire to give the first 2 albums a spin :8):

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:41 pm
by Si
Mike Drew wrote:I must say that seeing the movie has rekindled my desire to give the first 2 albums a spin :8):
The early music did sound absolutely fantastic through the big sound system.

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:30 pm
by Baz
A_MichaelUK wrote:>how the hell can anyone make a film about Alice Cooper and not mention probably the best songwriter of them all.

As is often the case, I think some people here and elsewhere are starting to get a bit carried away this. I don't deny that the gentleman in question should have been referred to, even if he was not interviewed. However, as has been stated at least once and probably more than that, the documentary isn't about the band and believe it or not, it actually isn't even about the music. So whether someone was "probably the best songwriter of them all" or not, isn't the point.

It`s not a matter of getting carried away, but how can MB not get a mention when he was such a large part of Alice`s life. It`s like a movie being made about Mick Jagger and not mentioning Keith Richards .

>One thing, why did it end so early, has nothing happened in his life since 1986.

In dramatic terms, that was the point the directors wanted to the story at. I think I addressed that in an earlier post.
I would assume the directors consulted Alice on how far he wanted to take the story, but not mentioning the last 18 years seems a tad strange. Maybe there will be a Super Duper 2

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:39 pm
by steven_crayn
I'm quite happy to accept Shep didn't finance the film but that joke from one of the filmmakers about Shep not being happy about it going over budget would give a different impression. Not that it would matter if Shep did finance it as it was a great film even if Michael didn't get a mention, I gather there is no issue with Michael which I'm glad to hear and was something that though unfortunate shouldn't detract from a great film even though I know some people won't let it go.

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:01 pm
by Mr.Bluelegs
This comment isn't related to the movie (haven't seen it yet). Just an observation-How far would this band had gotten without Michael Bruce? His songwriting skills were a key factor in their success. Many other factors are obviously important as well, but Mike's talent for composing, along with Alice's lyrical brilliance, is monumental for their success. Debate Questions- Besides Alice, was Mike Bruce the most important band member in contributing to their success? Was he more important than Alice? :smack:

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:24 pm
by pitkin88
Giving this a theatrical release appears to have been a big mistake. The audience is just not there. Maybe you could have done it in London or NYC but beyond that you are just reaching. Straight to dvd would have been the sensible option.

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:39 pm
by Si
pitkin88 wrote:Giving this a theatrical release appears to have been a big mistake. The audience is just not there. Maybe you could have done it in London or NYC but beyond that you are just reaching. Straight to dvd would have been the sensible option.
As much as anything I would suggest that with the DVD release just a few weeks away and a cinema ticket being about the same as a DVD many just didn`t think it was value. Must admit I thought twice about it. It was £12 for ticket, £2 parking and £5 petrol to go. I could have saved £9 by just waiting, AND been able to watch it as much as I wished.
In the end I figured I really should go just so I understood what everyone was talking about today!

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:53 pm
by wind_up_toy
Commitment to the cause Si :)

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:11 pm
by A_MichaelUK
>I'm quite happy to accept Shep didn't finance the film but that joke from one of the filmmakers about Shep not being happy about it going over budget would give a different impression.

That may have been a reference to the fact that the documentary was originally going to be released before the end of 2012 as much as anything else.

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:15 pm
by A_MichaelUK
>Giving this a theatrical release appears to have been a big mistake.

It doesn't actually have "a theatrical release" - these screenings were 'one - off' events.

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:17 pm
by A_MichaelUK
>I would assume the directors consulted Alice on how far he wanted to take the story,

It wasn't a question of what "he wanted" - it was their project and that was their decision.

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:31 pm
by steven_crayn
it was great seeing it on the silver screen the big picture and sound you just can't capture at home

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:35 pm
by Mike Drew
"As much as anything I would suggest that with the DVD release just a few weeks away and a cinema ticket being about the same as a DVD many just didn`t think it was value. Must admit I thought twice about it. It was £12 for ticket, £2 parking and £5 petrol to go. I could have saved £9 by just waiting, AND been able to watch it as much as I wished.
In the end I figured I really should go just so I understood what everyone was talking about today!"


Not forgetting the Confectionery :grin:

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:47 pm
by steven_crayn
nice to see SickthingsUK get a mention in the credits and of course Andy Michael.

I hope the issue about Michael Bruce not getting a mention doesn't come to overshadow the film, as despite that oversight it was still one hell of a movie and made me proud to be a fan of the band and the solo artist.

I took my wife and even though she's not a massive fan (though been to several shows) she thought it was really good though thought the film should have ended with Poison with it being the second biggest hit under the Alice Cooper moniker.

Personally I think ending the film with the comeback in 86 was a good idea as too much emphasis is placed on Poison as a song from Alice Cooper as a solo artist that it can overshadow what he did before as a solo act and in the band. I'm not one of those that would dismiss Poison as Trash, it's a great song but its no School's Out which will always be the highlight of Alice Cooper, the band or solo artist.

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:01 pm
by Si
Mike Drew wrote:"As much as anything I would suggest that with the DVD release just a few weeks away and a cinema ticket being about the same as a DVD many just didn`t think it was value. Must admit I thought twice about it. It was £12 for ticket, £2 parking and £5 petrol to go. I could have saved £9 by just waiting, AND been able to watch it as much as I wished.
In the end I figured I really should go just so I understood what everyone was talking about today!"


Not forgetting the Confectionery :grin:
Oh I stopped falling for that one years ago haha

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:13 pm
by pitkin88
A_MichaelUK wrote:>Giving this a theatrical release appears to have been a big mistake.

It doesn't actually have "a theatrical release" - these screenings were 'one - off' events.
Well you are splitting hairs here. Either way it looks like it was not successful.

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:14 pm
by wind_up_toy
steven_crayn wrote:nice to see SickthingsUK get a mention in the credits and of course Andy Michael.

I hope the issue about Michael Bruce not getting a mention doesn't come to overshadow the film, as despite that oversight it was still one hell of a movie and made me proud to be a fan of the band and the solo artist.

I took my wife and even though she's not a massive fan (though been to several shows) she thought it was really good though thought the film should have ended with Poison with it being the second biggest hit under the Alice Cooper moniker.

Personally I think ending the film with the comeback in 86 was a good idea as too much emphasis is placed on Poison as a song from Alice Cooper as a solo artist that it can overshadow what he did before as a solo act and in the band. I'm not one of those that would dismiss Poison as Trash, it's a great song but its no School's Out which will always be the highlight of Alice Cooper, the band or solo artist.
A serious question, do you feel that's reason enough to cut out nearly 30 years of his career? Has the time since just been him living happily ever after?

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:20 pm
by pitkin88
steven_crayn wrote:nice to see SickthingsUK get a mention in the credits and of course Andy Michael.

I hope the issue about Michael Bruce not getting a mention doesn't come to overshadow the film, as despite that oversight it was still one hell of a movie and made me proud to be a fan of the band and the solo artist.

I took my wife and even though she's not a massive fan (though been to several shows) she thought it was really good though thought the film should have ended with Poison with it being the second biggest hit under the Alice Cooper moniker.

Personally I think ending the film with the comeback in 86 was a good idea as too much emphasis is placed on Poison as a song from Alice Cooper as a solo artist that it can overshadow what he did before as a solo act and in the band. I'm not one of those that would dismiss Poison as Trash, it's a great song but its no School's Out which will always be the highlight of Alice Cooper, the band or solo artist.

It was not an oversight. It's not like anyone could unintentionally forget about Michael. I don't know if the " we couldn't find him " comment was a joke, the truth or he didn't want to take part.

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:25 pm
by Si
wind_up_toy wrote: A serious question, do you feel that's reason enough to cut out nearly 30 years of his career? Has the time since just been him living happily ever after?
Well, bareing in mind it's a film about the man, not the music what could they really include in any detail that would interest the majority?
Sure, they could have gone to Trash and the real height of the comeback, but what else since. The RARHOF would be covered in about a minute tops, the Rock is worthy of mention, and golf I suppose but there isn`t much that really equals the highs and lows of the first 20 years in his life. They chose to go out on a high rather a "and since he's done lots of other stuff".
So basically I think yes, unless there is something we really know nothing about, it basically is "happy ever after".

Re: it really is Super Duper

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:32 pm
by A_MichaelUK
>Well you are splitting hairs here. Either way it looks like it was not successful.

I don't disagree but that's the risk the theaters took when they agreed to show the film (the same as with any film they agree to show). Again, because the film is primarily for viewing at home, this was seen as a way to promote that.