Proposed crowd funded documentary

[iefje]

If you want an example of why getting an established broadcaster - let's go with the Beeb - would take your ideas for a documentary and make an utter hash of it, look at the fairly recent Mike Oldfield documentary that was on BBC Four. It was an hour long, covered a reasonable amount of his early life (because it was all told via interviews with himself and his sister), spent a good chunk of time talking about Tubular Bells and the immediate aftermath of that, then covered the 20+ years encompassing his singles chart success, Tubular Bells sequels and move to Ibiza and into dance music in literally the blink of an eye, then spent the remaining 15 minutes talking about his appearance at the 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony. All of the footage was stuff that the BBC had rights to (studio live performance of TB, 2012 opening ceremony), or footage provided by himself. As a career retrospective it was woeful. It wasn't even that interesting an interview. That's what you'd get with the Beeb - minimal footage of non-BBC-held rights and huge swathes of (interesting) career glossed over.

A much better model would be for an established documentary maker to make it with private funding, with a view to selling worldwide broadcast, streaming and DVD rights. BUT...in order to do that they're going to want to tell the whole story. It has to be interesting enough to pull in the non-hardcore fans; it needs to be warts'n'all. So which ess-than-wholesome bits of The Shads story would you want them to focus on? Jet's drinking? Bruce's depression? John Rostill's death? Whatever acrimony went on around the split in 1990? Because "4 lads make it big in the charts for a few years, kickstart the careers of some guitar heroes, lose Eurovision and then release a bunch of covers albums" isn't going to spark the interest of many private investors or media outlets. I'm paraphrasing massively there, obviously, but without the "interesting" stuff there's not much of a story to tell. That's not to say that we wouldn't want to hear it, but that's why we're all on this site; it's everyone else that you need to sell it to to make it worth it. How successful was the Telstar movie? £22,343 opening weekend returns on a £1.25m budget, and that had some sex, drugs & rock'n'roll in it.

I think a documentary should be made like the book "The Story Of The Shadows", which covers the period 1958 to mid 1983 and the same way for the period mid 1983 to present. The book contains some very revealing, sometimes (in my opinion) 'controversial' content. Bruce's autobiography is sometimes even more revealing.
Some members of my family thought The Beatles always were a very clean-cut, well-behaved group, but the eight episode documentary series "The Beatles Anthology" and the more recent "Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years" tell other things as well and spark people's interest very much. It's a similar story with The Who, probably even more extreme.
If such a documentary/documentary series could be made about The Shadows, with the approval of all members/former members, maybe it will help to rise the popularity of the group to even further heights and will finally establish The Shadows' rightful place in the history of popular music.

[Fenderman]

Don't get me started on that Eight Days a Week documentry - what a wasted opportunity. Also, why oh why did they colourise some of the footage, it was fine in it's black and white form.
And for some odd reason they replaced the audio from the Manchester ABC 1963 with the Shea Stadium audio? I noticed this straight away. It would have been okay for casual fans but not more die hards like me.

[iefje]

Don't get me started on that Eight Days a Week documentry - what a wasted opportunity. Also, why oh why did they colourise some of the footage, it was fine in it's black and white form.
And for some odd reason they replaced the audio from the Manchester ABC 1963 with the Shea Stadium audio? I noticed this straight away. It would have been okay for casual fans but not more die hards like me.

I have this documentary on a deluxe double Blu-Ray edition. I also have the 'soundtrack' album "Live At The Hollywood Bowl" on both vinyl and CD. I noticed that the music on this album is used extensively in the documentary, sometimes even (as you mention) on existing true live recordings from television, by removing the original live audio track. It does look and sound powerful, but it's also very artificial. The filmmakers probably did this, because the recordings made at the Hollywood Bowl in 1964 and 1965 were the (only) best existing live document of the Beatlemania era and were recorded on 3-track, so more could be done with surround cinema sound.
Regarding the 'soundtrack' album, I also have a copy of the original LP from 1977 "The Beatles At The Hollywood Bowl", which sounds much more raw and true to the original shows. The 2016 extended editions are much more 'polished' and are only interesting for die hard fan, mainly because of the four bonus tracks.

[alewis41]

I'm afraid I don't see how any documentary would be enjoyable for the hard core fans on this site. You know we'd be unhappy about what got left out, what details they got wrong etc. The kind of film we would want would be a 6-10 episode series and what we would get would be a 60-90 minute overview. There simply is not sufficient interest from the general public to support the production of anything that we would find worthwhile. Like it or not the Shads are just not seen in the same light as bands like the Beatles or Stones.

Andrew

[drakula63]

...which is why such a documentary (or even feature film) would probably HAVE to concentrate on the early years - 1958-1963 - during the period in which they were at their most popular and influential.

And, again, whether aiming to sell it directly on DVD or to a broadcaster, you would have to decide who you were aiming it at - the real fans or the general public.

To go back to the Kittie documentary, these quotes from director Rob McCallum could equally apply to a Shadows doco...

I started watching a few music documentaries – then a lot of music documentaries. Then I watched a lot of “director’s cuts” and looked at what was included versus what was cut to make the theatrical cut, with the logic being that fans typically prefer director’s cuts. The research boiled down to set me on a path of length, meaning a longer cut which opposed the traditional 90 minute length preferred by distributors, and to include intimate footage that wasn’t flashy, but honest and revealing. This couldn’t be a two hour expose with intriguing sound bytes and memorable one-liners. A series of cleverly timed sound bytes was exactly the antithesis of what I wanted to show of a band and its members who’d tried to stay out of the spotlight and never reveal what was happening behind the scenes. Lastly, though never said, it was clear through the interviews that no one in the band ever had a forum in which to tell their story, those events, from their very distinct perspective and that was something I wanted to achieve and I hoped to do so by eliminating any presence of myself. No voice over was the first rule and minimal title cards that would be strictly factual to connect the dots IF needed at all. This was their ONE CHANCE to set the record straight and I don’t think that some outsider should come in and arrange a loose linear narrative that gets the audience from forming the band to current day in his or her own voice. Let the band tell the story, otherwise, what’s the point?


I think most people are fans of something, but might not label themselves a “fan.” You may consider yourself a collector, a researcher, or some other tag that speaks to the amount of knowledge and passion you have for a certain subject too, but I think one could argue all those are ways of speaking about your fanatic love for something. Between sports, music, movies, comics, software, phone manufacturers, automobiles, and so on, there’s no shortage of “things” that lend themselves to fandom, and often we find ourselves devoted to a particular brand. So given you might be a fan, let’s say you had the chance to be on the other side of the fence, how would you reward fans? What do fans like? What could a heavy metal band, specifically, give fans that other people might not appreciate, or at least “get” the way that fans get it. And I draw the distinction to mark a very obvious gap between those that are fans and those that are not; that’s a chasm of difference in most cases. Fans “just know” by proximity, dedication, observation, and passion, “things” that the casual observer would never get on first pass; or the actions which a band might take, say, or do will resonate more with fans because of a thoroughly understood knowledge. An enigmatic song title reference within an interview or something said on stage between songs would only resonate with fans, or at least resonate on a level that only fans might understand. So back to the base question, “what does a heavy metal band give to it’s fans as a thank you, say, in the form of a documentary?” I think the most obvious answer is access and transparency.


Doing research for this documentary, one of the first films I watched, and subsequently re-watched several times was “Back and Forth,” directed by James Moll, which chronicles the fifteen year history of the Foo Fighters. I’d say I’m an above average fan of the Foo Fighters, mainly because so many of my friends are die-hard fans. By association and proximity, I learned a lot, saw a lot of footage, and know about some of the more intricate details of the band, it’s members, and history. That said, I felt extremely disappointed by “Back and Forth.” I felt like I didn’t learn anything new, saw very little new footage that peeled back the curtain, and overall felt like there were a lot of key points in the band’s history that were under-discussed, or presented from limited perspectives that swept the potentially interesting aspects under the rug. I remember discussing the film with friends afterward and mentioning that our parents would’ve known almost everything that was in the documentary just by being in the same house as us,. It’s not like the filmmakers didn’t have access to the band members, but maybe there was pressure to present things in a certain way. It was clear that “Back and Forth” was intended to be for the super casual fan or those that had never heard of them except the odd song on the radio – which is fine. If that was the goal, they flawlessly achieved it and there could be a thousand reasons why they couldn’t release an expanded version. If it was never intended to be longer by design, it’s hard to invent that version too. Again, not hating on the film, just left me, as an above average fan, disappointed, yet something I’ve probably watched a dozen times which also speaks to the level of filmmaking within the film. Given my reaction to that film, and really a few other films I could mention, what would I want to see in the Kittie documentary if I was a “true fan?”



These comments certainly resonated with me and illustrate perfectly the choices, decisions and indeed 'problems' associated with making a documentary about a band.

[Clarry]

These people have been trying to complete this documentary about Surf Music for a few years now. As I recall, it is finished, edited and now on hold indefinitely...I'd like to know the reason because there are some surf "heavy-hitters" taking part in the "cast".

http://www.soundofthesurf.com/cast.html

[anniv 63]

Yes above documentary looks to be interesting and probably pretty
comprehensive too.
Maybe they have run into copyright problems, royalties etc , or some
awkward sod demanding a fortune for a cameo appearance!!!

Mike

[Fenderman]

Just a thought but we're coming up to the diamond anniverary so there's a very slim chance there might be some Shads related activity but will probably focus more on Cliff.
60 years, who would have thought it

[George Geddes]

I have just got round to watching the repeat of the Billy Fury documentary on BBC Four.

Mainly talking heads, plus some archive footage, photos and home movies. I probably didn't learn much I did not already know, so I wonder what hardcore Fury fans thought of it?

Back in the day when I was writing my wee books about the Shadows, I tried to write with myself in mind - what would I as a fan want to know about the band. But then I knew I was writng a small scale, limited publication run book. Funding, scripting and editing a full-scale documentary would be a different prospect... A modest, limited production which didn't use any copyright material would certainly be possible but to do the subject justice would cost a lot more.

George