The Boys in the Band to premiere on Netflix, Wed. 9/30- Page 4

[darreyl102]

Posted: 10/1/20 at 7:44pm

nealb1 said: "Jordan, yes I could sign up for it. I would want to watch it on my television set. Not my computer. I'm old fashioned that way. Ha, ha."

You are aware you can watch Netflix On your TV, right? The same with hulu, Disney plus, YouTube and pretty much any other app. You don't need a computer. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/1/20 at 7:48pm

A little secret: no stage show is ever "better" on film. Something created to inhabit a stage, with human eyes, ears, and throats sharing the space, is magical. No amount of CGI or sound effects can replicate that. So when we watch a film (and we had better get used to it for a while longer), we need to (IMO) suppress the comparison and let it live on its own.

I liked seeing it in the theatre more but I liked this a lot. The film filled in a lot, for better or worse, and I could at least live in the apartment in the film; more than I can say of the stage play.

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 10/1/20 at 8:07pm

You are aware you can watch Netflix On your TV, right? The same with hulu, Disney plus, YouTube and pretty much any other app. You don't need a computer.

 

Depends on how old the TV is. Remember he said he is old fashioned..not all TV's are current.

[darreyl102]

Posted: 10/1/20 at 8:30pm

Joviedamian said: "You are aware you can watch Netflix On your TV, right? The same with hulu, Disney plus, YouTube and pretty much any other app. You don't need a computer.



Depends on how old the TV is. Remember he said he is old fashioned..not all TV's are current."

Most (I stress most) have adapters you can buy, that's what I had to do with my old box TV with the built-in VCR. Lolzz (anybody remember when they made those? Bulky as hell, but there's something nostalgic about it that makes me hold on to it. Haha) 

Updated On: 10/1/20 at 08:30 PM

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/1/20 at 8:31pm

HogansHero said: "Alittle secret: no stage show is ever "better" on film. Something created to inhabit a stage, with human eyes, ears, and throats sharing the space, is magical. No amount of CGI or sound effects can replicate that. So when we watch a film (and we had better get used to it for a while longer), we need to (IMO) suppress the comparison and let it live on its own.

I liked seeing it in the theatre more but I liked this a lot. The film filled in a lot, for better or worse, and I could at least live in the apartment in the film; more than I can say of the stage play."

Not so little secret: "better" in such discussions is a highly subjective term that renders the rest of your arguments moot.

Tried to watch it after commenting earlier, but the direct yet inept steals from the Friedkin, and yet another movie fetishizing what it sounds like to play music on a record player (the amped up sound of needle hitting vinyl, the loud crackle and pop of dust in the grooves--we really didn't hear these things so emphatically back then because we weren't paying attention to/adoring them as part of the music listening experience; they were just there) made me turn the damn thing off before I even got to the first line of dialogue from the play. Also, for a work that even presents a title card saying it's 1968, the production design was obsessive in creating an early-to-mid-70's aesthetic. Did they employ a production designer frustrated at not getting to work on Boogie Nights?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/1/20 at 9:07pm

nealb1, I watch Netflix on my TV. I don't have my own Netflix account (we use my roommate's), so I've never watched anything from Netflix on a computer. We have a Roku plugged into a flatscreen non-smart TV. It's fine.

[raddersons]

Posted: 10/1/20 at 11:12pm

Just watched this and enjoyed it. Didn't catch it on Broadway.

What's the deal with Jim Parsons? Why was he just mad Sheldon?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/1/20 at 11:36pm

joevitus said: "Not so little secret: "better" in such discussions is a highly subjective term that renders the rest of your arguments moot."

I can't imagine anyone reading what I wrote would think it was offered as anything but highly subjective opinion. The presence of the quotation marks would telegraph that even if you missed that fact otherwise. You did not watch the show, and you commented only on some meaningless style points. That's fine too, but it takes you out of any substantive convo.

 

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/1/20 at 11:37pm

joevitus said: "HogansHero said: "Alittle secret: no stage show is ever "better" on film. Something created to inhabit a stage, with human eyes, ears, and throats sharing the space, is magical. No amount of CGI or sound effects can replicate that. So when we watch a film (and we had better get used to it for a while longer), we need to (IMO) suppress the comparison and let it live on its own.

I liked seeing it in the theatre more but I liked this a lot. The film filled in a lot, for better or worse, and I could at least live in the apartment in the film; more than I can say of the stage play."

Not so little secret: "better" in such discussions is a highlysubjective term thatrendersthe rest of your arguments moot.

Tried to watch it after commenting earlier, but the direct yet inept steals from the Friedkin, and yet another movie fetishizingwhat it soundslike to play music on a record player (the amped upsoundof needle hitting vinyl, the loudcrackle and pop of dustin the grooves--we really didn't hear these things so emphatically back then becausewe weren't paying attention to/adoring them as part of the music listeningexperience; they were just there)made me turn the damn thing off before I even got to the first line of dialogue from the play. Also, for a work that even presentsa title card saying it's 1968, the production design was obsessive in creating an early-to-mid-70's aesthetic. Did theyemploy aproduction designer frustrated at not getting to work onBoogie Nights?"

 

Speak for yourself on the needle hitting the vinyl and loud crackle. WE were aware of it in my circle.

 

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 8:32am

raddersons said: "Just watched this and enjoyed it. Didn't catch it on Broadway.

What's the deal with Jim Parsons? Why was he just mad Sheldon?"

He’s kind of a one-trick pony when it comes to characterization. He was the same thing in “Hollywood” on Netflix. 

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 9:14am

GiantsInTheSky2 said: "raddersons said: "Just watched this and enjoyed it. Didn't catch it on Broadway.

What's the deal with Jim Parsons? Why was he just mad Sheldon?"

He’s kind of a one-trick pony when it comes to characterization. He was the same thing in “Hollywood” on Netflix."

Sadly, Jim Parsons' persona will forever leak into all his work so since he first came to everyone's attention with his 4-time Emmy Award winning Sheldon Cooper from THE BIG BANG THEORY, all of his roles will be extensions of this character: the line readings, the vocal inflictions, the body language, etc.   Even his work on Broadway was flavored with Sheldon Cooper-isms.   

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 10:13am

many of our most beloved actors have personas that leak into their portrayals. When we like the actor, that's a good thing; when we don't, it's bad. It's not sad. it's normal. I love Rylance, I hate Lane, but they are both two of the leakiest actors I can think of. It is beyond silly to pretend otherwise. 

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 10:20am

HogansHero said: "many of our most beloved actors have personas that leak into their portrayals. When we like the actor, that's a good thing; when we don't, it's bad. It's not sad. it's normal. I love Rylance, I hate Lane, but they are both two of the leakiest actors I can think of. It is beyond silly to pretend otherwise."

Totally accurate. I love Jessica Lange and think she is a marvelous actress. My friend doesn't like her and says her mannerisms are the same in every performance (touching her neck, her face, her head) and it drives him bananas. I am ware of that and it doesn't impact my view of her performances. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 11:51am

uncageg said: "joevitus said: "HogansHero said: "Alittle secret: no stage show is ever "better" on film. Something created to inhabit a stage, with human eyes, ears, and throats sharing the space, is magical. No amount of CGI or sound effects can replicate that. So when we watch a film (and we had better get used to it for a while longer), we need to (IMO) suppress the comparison and let it live on its own.

I liked seeing it in the theatre more but I liked this a lot. The film filled in a lot, for better or worse, and I could at least live in the apartment in the film; more than I can say of the stage play."

Not so little secret: "better" in such discussions is a highlysubjective term thatrendersthe rest of your arguments moot.

Tried to watch it after commenting earlier, but the direct yet inept steals from the Friedkin, and yet another movie fetishizingwhat it soundslike to play music on a record player (the amped upsoundof needle hitting vinyl, the loudcrackle and pop of dustin the grooves--we really didn't hear these things so emphatically back then becausewe weren't paying attention to/adoring them as part of the music listeningexperience; they were just there)made me turn the damn thing off before I even got to the first line of dialogue from the play. Also, for a work that even presentsa title card saying it's 1968, the production design was obsessive in creating an early-to-mid-70's aesthetic. Did theyemploy aproduction designer frustrated at not getting to work onBoogie Nights?"



Speak for yourself on the needle hitting the vinyl and loud crackle. WE were aware of it in my circle.

"

You must have had your speakers blaring. Played at normal decibels the sound of a needle hitting the grooves was nowhere near as loud as it is now presented when movies want to be retro. 

Updated On: 10/2/20 at 11:51 AM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 12:40pm

joevitus said: "You must have had your speakers blaring. Played at normal decibels the sound of a needle hitting the grooves was nowhere near as loud as it is now presented when movies want to be retro."

I think the silliness of your point has been laid bare, but let's entertain it a bit more. 

1. Are you suggesting that the speakers in the apartment were NOT blaring?

2. Who defines "normal"?

3. Did all record players deliver the same sound as if mimicking a digital recording?

I have no problem with you hating everything you encountered during your brief visit to the world of this film, or with your decision to shut it off as a result. But you persist in demonstrating your lack of bona fides in this discussion. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 12:47pm

Nothing suggests the volume is blaring. It doesn't blare on the soundtrack. It sounds at average volume. And you just didn't hear either the needle hitting the vinyl or the cracks and pops so loudly on record players. That's just something all movies now play up for the retro feel. It's artificial.

But, of course, this is only "silly" if you take it as my one and only criticism. It was three poorly executed continuous choices throughout the opening montage that made me bail. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 1:05pm

joevitus said: "But, of course, this is only "silly" if you take it as my one and only criticism. It was three poorly executed continuous choices throughout the opening montage that made me bail."

This thread is a discussion of a film, not a montage. You can't judge a book by its cover, and you can't discuss a film based on your aversion to some stylistic choices in its opening montage. You can make a personal decision not to watch further, but otherwise what you say is nonsense in this thread. 

"I am afraid of heights, so I turned off The Sound of Music halfway through its opening montage." "I don't like rap so I turned off Hamilton during its opening montage." See? Nonsense.

If you don't watch something, that's all well and good, but you haven't earned the right to opine on it. 

[ArtMan]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 1:35pm

I have not seen the Netflix film, but have seen the original film many times.  Can someone detail the friction between Donald and Harold that is now being presented.  Unless I have missed something watching the original film, I never saw any indication of this.  In fact, Donald comes across very sympathetic towards Harold when Michael throws his barbs.  Someone also posted earlier, that Harold is "overall hostile".  I don't see this at all in any of Harold's interactions with anyone else.  He is of course, hostile to Michael, but only after Michael comes for him first.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 2:18pm

HogansHero said: "joevitus said: "But, of course, this is only "silly" if you take it as my one and only criticism. It was three poorly executed continuous choices throughout the opening montage that made me bail."

This threadis a discussion of a film, not a montage. You can't judge a book by its cover, and you can't discuss a film based on your aversion to some stylistic choices in its opening montage. You can make a personal decision not to watch further, but otherwise what you say is nonsense in this thread.

"I am afraid of heights, so I turned off The Sound of Music halfway through its opening montage." "I don't like rap so I turned off Hamilton during its opening montage." See? Nonsense.

If you don't watch something, that's all well and good, but you haven't earned the right to opine on it."

I want to marry you HogansHero - I also want you as my legal counsel. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 3:39pm

It's a little known fact that everyone has a  right to opine on anything whenever they want, and if the opening of something is rap enough to make me stop watching that is what I shall say. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 3:41pm

HogansHero said: "joevitus said: "But, of course, this is only "silly" if you take it as my one and only criticism. It was three poorly executed continuous choices throughout the opening montage that made me bail."

This threadis a discussion of a film, not a montage. You can't judge a book by its cover, and you can't discuss a film based on your aversion to some stylistic choices in its opening montage. You can make a personal decision not to watch further, but otherwise what you say is nonsense in this thread.

"I am afraid of heights, so I turned off The Sound of Music halfway through its opening montage." "I don't like rap so I turned off Hamilton during its opening montage." See? Nonsense.

If you don't watch something, that's all well and good, but you haven't earned the right to opine on it."

The montage is part of the film, I'll comment as I see fit. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 3:45pm

ArtMan said: "I have not seen the Netflix film, but have seen the original film many times. Can someone detail the friction between Donald and Harold that is now being presented. Unless I have missed something watching the original film, I never saw any indication of this. In fact, Donald comes across very sympathetic towards Harold when Michael throws his barbs. Someone also posted earlier, that Harold is "overall hostile". I don't see this at all in any of Harold's interactions with anyone else. He is of course, hostile to Michael, but only after Michael comes for him first."

Odd my comment on this disappeared. It's there on the recording of the original off-Broadway cast, and that's the first time I've ever noticed it, too. Thinking back, I do remember the last exchange of dialogue between the two is still in the film, but either that interaction is rendered less acidically in the earlier lines or was eliminted in the script and/or editing. Hearing it on the cast recording surprised me, but it does make sense, considering why Donald is there (Michael's friend, not Harold) and maybe is our first clue to how Michael's behavior will develop over the course of the evening: he's started out inviting a friend over that the guest of honor doesn't like.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 4:22pm

Thanks for the info.  I had read some years back that Harold and Michael possibly had a past relationship, which ended when Michael cheated on him.  When Harold says "in affairs of the heart, there are no rules", then looks over at Michael, that could support this theory.  Maybe there is animosity, because Harold thinks Donald and Michael are in a relationship of some kind.  Again, I don't find Harold to be hostile, but will stand his ground when provoked.  "I know this game very well.......I'm the only one who can play this game better than you."

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 4:24pm

@joe of course you have that right; the key word, however, is "earned." 

@carlos the first would cause a problem, the second we'll talk lol

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/2/20 at 5:41pm

joevitus said: "uncageg said: "Speak for yourself on the needle hitting the vinyl and loud crackle. WE were aware of it in my circle."

You must have had your speakers blaring. Played at normal decibels the sound of a needle hitting thegrooves was nowhere near as loud asit is now presentedwhen movies want to be retro."

Nope. Not blaring. And had no problem with the opening. I like it when they do that. Evokes a sense of nostalgia,