Posts by ruggedmarlin15

So, here’s the Blu-ray box. It's going to run you about $500.
http://en.rocketnews24.com/2014/04/0...nt-come-cheap/

When it comes to the films, the winners caught me a bit off guard, but honestly, my taste doesn't always have to align with Zirij's, so it doesn't really matter to me who walked away with the awards. That said, I'm genuinely happy to see local documentaries take home the Audience Award. It feels like a sign that our work isn't actually that bad.

And let’s be real, there's a limit to how far festivals can push things when it comes to screening fees. Regardless of who the sponsors are.

Guys, Chicago is at Movieplex for the very first time. And of course, they’re part of this deal and are regular employees of Movieplex. This isn't exactly common practice for them, nor is it typical for the "old guard" of Chicago. So, calling the organization "a disaster" feels like a bit of an exaggeration to me, if I'm being honest.

And Michelle Gonzalez makes some really good points.

The Movieplex location is actually perfectly fine. I don't really get those kinds of complaints, especially the claim that Movieplex is "way out in the middle of nowhere," because that just isn't true.
Having all the theaters in one spot has way more pros than cons. It makes things like moving between screenings, organization, and logistics so much easier.
Susan Hernandez, are you really not willing to drive there even if parking is free? If that's the case, you probably won't make it to the next festival either.

And there is plenty of chaos to go around. In Gjuro 2. I didn't attend, but I heard the tickets for the screenings are worth it for Gjuro too. That's what people told me.

gentleseal23 said:@ruggedmarlin15 honestly, dropping a 'live' album tells me absolutely zero about an artist's actual talent 🤷 I have no clue what your point is or what you're even trying to get at by claiming MJ didn't release 'live' albums because I don't see how that connects to anything, so are you implying he was always lip-syncing and therefore there was no point in releasing live albums since they'd sound identical to the studio versions, or something else entirely..? 🤷
He released concert DVDs, which is honestly way better than just putting out a live CD.
Look, I'm a huge MJ fan and I've watched countless videos, concerts, live performances, and interviews... and the only time he ever used playback was during the HIStory tour because he was dealing with laryngitis, so he didn't just cancel shows, he just performed certain songs partially on playback.
And why on earth would you think a good chunk of the songs in the movie were performed on playback? 🤷
Do you seriously believe Michael Jackson would ever allow himself to be embarrassed by lip-syncing during his final concerts?
The guy was a total perfectionist who gave everything he had, so in that film, he maybe used playback for a maximum of three songs, not eight like you're claiming! 😂 Besides, there are over 100 hours of rehearsal footage available, and just because some clips of Jam are integrated into the film using playback doesn't mean he sang Jam on playback every single time, you know? 🙂

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say with these posts or this whole thing about him 'not releasing' live CDs (😕 and I really don't get why you think concert DVDs aren't enough).

Sorry, I didn't mention that he ALWAYS sang in... I haven't had much of a chance to sit down and listen to the playback yet, but I'm planning to get through it soon. It’s been a busy few days, so things are moving a little slower than I'd hoped. I'll share my thoughts once I've actually given it a proper listen.But man, if he had performed that just one more time... I've been thinking about how much I enjoy just sitting back and hitting playback on my favorite tracks. There’s something incredibly grounding about letting a song take over. Sometimes I find myself lost in the rhythm, just letting everything else fade away. It’s a simple pleasure, but it really helps me reset after a long day.That’s all there is to it. Why is it that whenever someone runs out of actual arguments, they just resort to putting words in people's mouths?

He chose to release live concerts on DVD, which I think is a much better move than just putting out a standard live CD.

If you’re looking for a visual experience, then it’s definitely worth checking out.

I’m a huge Michael Jackson fan, and I’ve spent countless hours diving into his videos, live concerts, performances, and interviews. From what I understand, he only had to rely on backing tracks during the HIStory tour because he was dealing with laryngitis.

That’s not quite right, but honestly, I’m not going to try to talk you out of it. As far as I'm concerned, you can believe that he never sang a single note in his life. I've been thinking about playback lately. It’s funny how much we take the seamless experience of hearing music exactly as it was intended for granted. When you really sit down to listen, you realize how much work goes into making sure everything sounds right. Sometimes I feel like I don't quite have the ear for it, but I'm trying to learn more about what makes a high-quality setup actually worth the investment.That’s your call. Everything is fine on my end.

He didn't actually cancel the concert; he just performed some of the songs using backing tracks.

Can you share a link that actually backs that up? I’ve already looked through several sources that claim the exact opposite, so I'm really just looking for a solid counterargument to help me understand where you're coming from.

Why do you think having those songs performed as playback in the movie actually works? 🤷

Because that's just what I heard. To be more specific: if you listen during rehearsals and hear vocals that sound identical to the studio version—including all those little sighs and vocal flourishes—then you know exactly what's going on. hee-heeSo, what’s your take—do you think they can actually pull it off live?

Do you honestly think Michael Jackson would have ever allowed himself to face that kind of embarrassment by relying on lip-syncing during his final concerts?

Michael had no idea those would end up being his final performances. It’s strange to think about, especially considering how he used to perform on... I’ve been thinking about playback lately. It’s one of those things that seems straightforward until you actually get into the weeds of it. Sometimes I feel like I should have a better handle on how to manage the flow, but I always seem to stumble over the small details. Does anyone else feel that way, or am I just overthinking the whole process?Honestly, I don't see any reason why not right now. If I recall correctly, Akon mentioned that Michael Jackson wasn't going to perform live during the This is IT tour—and that's coming from someone who actually worked alongside him.
Anyway, do you remember this:
I just stumbled upon this video, and I honestly can't stop thinking about it. It’s one of those pieces that really makes you pause and reflect on everything. There's something about the way it's presented that feels so raw and genuine—it doesn't feel like it's trying too hard to grab your attention, which is exactly why it works. I know I can be a bit overly analytical sometimes, but I found myself sitting there just soaking in the message. It hits home in a way that's hard to put into words. Has anyone else seen this yet? I'd love to hear what you all think, though I suspect we might all have slightly different takes on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l74Y_p6or00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PAJqgeeJf4
It's all playback here, though he does sing a few lines live occasionally.

In the movie, he only used playback for a maximum of three songs.

Wait, why?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN EIGHT?!

He did TDCAU, Smooth Criminal, Thriller, Earth song (except for the transitions), man in The Mirror, plus a few others where he blended recorded vocals with live singing. You said three? Oh, definitely not.

Besides, there are over 100 hours of rehearsal footage available. Just because they integrated studio tracks for Jam into the film doesn't mean he sang it that way every single time. You get what I'm saying? 🙂

That also doesn't necessarily mean he was singing Jam live in those unreleased clips. See my point? 🙂

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say with these posts.

Just what I mentioned in my first post. As a fan who really values hearing live vocals, I'd much rather spend my money on a movie ticket than a concert ticket if part of the set is just playback. I'm not saying those kinds of shows aren't amazing—everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's why I don't get why everyone is getting so worked up. This is a forum. It's a place for different (and often conflicting) perspectives.

crimsonstag59 said:What... was I supposed to give you a standing ovation?! 😂

Just because you can't find it on Google doesn't mean it isn't real—Google isn't omniscient (despite what you seem to think), but if you actually researched the topic you're talking about, you'd know! 😉Go ask someone, but step away from the PC!
Maybe try an old magazine or a book... look around. You'll definitely find something; it wasn't that long ago, maybe ten years back, just dig...
And since this whole thing is getting boring for everyone from God to the devil, go take a break and stop playing back your own nonsense!

Look, bringing up my concert history really should have served some kind of purpose. It was "just" that.

Just because you can't find something on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It’s not like Google is all-knowing, regardless of what you might think. Honestly, if you actually took the time to research your topic before posting, you'd know what you're talking about. 😉 Go ahead and ask someone, but maybe try doing it away from the computer for once!

I asked you directly which one you actually went to see. You don't know. That’s all there is to it. 🤣

Maybe try looking through some old magazines or books? You should be able to find something if you dig around. It hasn't been that long—maybe ten years or so—so just keep searching.

Look, you can't provide any actual facts, and there isn't anything about them online—not even on the sites dedicated to their history as a group. So, it's pretty reasonable to assume this is just another one of your fabrications. It’s no surprise you’re trying to backpedal now, though it's clearly not working. 😉

Honestly, everything has just become so incredibly tedious—it’s enough to drive anyone crazy. It's time to just call it quits, take a breather, and stop relying on the playback once and for all.

You should probably take a look at those links. It’s a smart move—you're definitely making progress. 😉 It’s a shame you didn't get around to answering any of my questions, though I can't say I'm entirely surprised. Honestly, I think it would be hardest for someone like you to just admit, "I don't know, I'm making this up." I totally get where you're coming from.

@Malena:
I agree, though it feels like this is just the natural way things play out. Now that Michael Jackson is gone, everyone surrounding him is probably going to try and cash in as much as they can. We’re likely going to see a lot more leaks and hear a lot more rumors... Michael Jackson recorded an incredible amount of material that hasn't seen the light of day yet. And honestly, it doesn't all have to be bad stuff. So, there might actually be something to look forward to.

1. Just relax.
2. If you don't have any actual arguments, please don't try to make them up; it just makes you look desperate.
3. I haven't once tried to diminish the quality of Michael Jackson's music because it's indisputable and obvious. I honestly don't get why you're bringing up playback—it’s unnecessary and totally counterproductive. Why are you getting so worked up about it? It's overkill.
4. It’s a bit sad that you're focusing on superficial comparisons instead of using logic. "My Madonna"? I don't like "that" kind of music? How old are you? And how are you not embarrassed right now? 🤷

These pathetic attempts to devalue Michael Jackson's music by constantly insisting there isn't an official live CD release are completely pointless. And again—it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality itself.

In this entire conversation, you haven't provided a single solid argument for your claims; you've just resorted to personal attacks and venting. That really shows how little your points actually matter. 🙄

Comparing him to the Rolling Stones is just as baseless as that Madonna comparison you brought up at the start of this thread (which wasn't my fault!). He simply didn't offer that classic rock'n'roll formula where the studio sound and live sound are nearly identical. Sometimes even the Rolling Stones sound better live. They are just in different leagues! But clearly, you don't see that.

You're just talking nonsense and clearly don't know the subject very well. First, you realize that artists of Michael Jackson's caliber don't always release live albums, then I bring up two globally massive acts, and you respond by saying they can't be compared. Fine. Then go ahead and name a few artists who *can* be compared to Michael (besides Madonna, who clearly struck a nerve with you, even though she is absolutely in his league and releases live albums 😉), and then maybe we can actually have a conversation.

Polishing a live performance in the studio, like most people do today, would be nothing short of a fraud.

Oh, sure. And singing along to playback isn't a fraud? 🤣

If they had ever truly wanted to fake their singing on a tour, they could have just played the master track and everyone would have just yawned while they danced. It would have been much easier for them! 🙄

And they did make it easy. I've given you plenty of information regarding the tours where Michael Jackson used playback. You are making a conscious choice to ignore those facts. You can try to dodge the point all you want, but it just highlights your lack of real argumentation.

(Just as a side note—the Rolling Stones were once accused of using playback during their shows in Germany. The epilogue? The accusers lost the case and ended up having to pay both the legal costs and a fine for defamation. And those people were supposed to be music experts—yeah, right! 🤣)

This point is about as relevant as your mention of Tina Turner (though you still haven't actually explained why you brought her up in the first place 😉). You also completely ignored my response to your question regarding attending concerts. You tried to make a point based on absolutely nothing, and now you're just skipping over it. 🤣
And "just as a side note," I can't find anything on Google about lawsuits against the Rolling Stones regarding playback at their concerts. Are you making this up again, or what?

crimsonstag59 said:🙄 Honestly, I think you’re just a troll who latched onto a topic that isn't even remotely interesting. Nobody's taking you seriously here. Personally, I don't get much out of trolls posting dead-end threads; I'd much rather see stuff that actually sparks some imagination. As for this nonsense about live playback—all it does is give people an itch they can't scratch. 🤣

I’m not exactly a die-hard Michael Jackson fan myself, but I have a soft spot for good music in general. You can go ahead and compare her to whoever you want if that's your thing—she’s clearly your idol, right? But honestly, she’s hardly a benchmark for any real comparison. Unless, of course, you think she’s worth mentioning just because she was the first one to jump at the chance to perform a tribute concert for Michael Jackson, acting all high-strung while she hums along and poses around the stage. 🤣 ☕

You clearly have an issue with live recordings. It’s obvious. You seem genuinely bothered that "Live in Bucharest" isn't on a CD, but instead lives on a DVD where you actually get video to go along with the audio. That's a massive problem for you, apparently. Honestly, I don't think you even know what you're trying to say. You get high-quality sound and visuals so you can actually study the performance—you can tell exactly when it's a playback versus when it's a raw, live moment—and somehow that's the issue? If that's your grievance, you're looking at the wrong problem entirely.
Just for your information—and look, I know you’re just trolling, but whatever—major stars, the kind of legends like Michael Jackson, don't usually bother dropping live albums as a premier musical experience. Go ahead, take a guess as to why. It’s almost always because they only bundle that stuff together with a video recording.
Here’s a solid comparison for you—"Tina Turner Live in Europe." It was recorded right when she was at the absolute peak of her career, but get this: it was filmed in a tiny club in New York City, at Madison Square Garden (I actually know the venue personally and caught another show there once!).
Michael Jackson never actually performed a concert like that in front of just a thousand people—and honestly? It’s a damn shame. A total waste. But look, he was still playing in a different league entirely, even if the people running his show weren't exactly on his wavelength.
Most of Tina Turner's other live shows were just standard DVD releases—you know, stuff like Live in Rio or her New York City sets.

I’m curious—how many concerts have you actually been to in your life? Which ones? These condescending takes remind me way too much of that one guy who’s never stepped foot in a venue, doesn't travel for shows, hasn't even seen a local band play in a dive bar, yet somehow acts like an expert on everything. 🙄 So, there was this one time, right after I got back from seeing Tina Turner live in Vienna—which was, uh, what was it... 1989?—and he later went on about it: "What can that old lady even sing anymore?" 🙄 😂 Clearly, he stayed stuck in his own little bubble, totally convinced he was right. Meanwhile, Tina Turner went out and absolutely crushed it across all of Europe again this year. Even twenty years later, she’s still untouchable.

Look, I never actually went to a Michael Jackson concert. I was never such a die-hard fanatic that I’d hop on a plane to another country just for that. Now? I’m feeling a little bit of regret.

But anyway, getting back to this "problem" you're stressing over—you're clearly just trolling about some playback issue that doesn't even make sense.
I’ve been listening to "One Night in Japan," and sure, hearing live classics is nice, but let’s be real: it’s nowhere near the peak musical experience you get from the studio albums.
Want to guess why? ☕

uh oh ...
Michael Jackson - Live in Bucharest : The Dangerous tour DVD Studio Sony Music
Orig Year 1992
DVD Encoding Region 1

That's all the "expert analysis" you're getting from a troll!

And then you go and give me this massive response... when I wasn't even asking for one. Seriously. 😉

I’ll leave you to compare Madonna to whoever you want, but at the end of the day, she's still your idol, isn't she?

Look, Velis, am I really a troll? It seems pretty obvious to me that your posts don't carry any real weight when you constantly resort to making things up.

You clearly have an issue with live performances! It’s pretty obvious. You seem to be bothered by the fact that "Live in Bucharest" isn't on a CD, but instead is "only" on DVD—where you actually get to see the performance along with the audio.

The DVD was released specifically because of the visuals. My only issue is that they're trying to sell me on a "concert experience" by focusing way too much on the choreography. playbackIt’s fine. Just give it another shot. And please, let's try to keep things calm. 😉

Just so you know—and I realize you're probably just trolling here—stars on the level of Michael Jackson don't typically release live albums as a way to offer a premium musical experience.

I have to disagree. U2, the Rolling Stones, and bands like them aren't exactly small-time stars... 🤦 Come on, don't embarrass yourself...

Alright, now you try to guess why! It’s actually the only one that comes bundled together with the video recording.

You might not get why, but sometimes you just have to scream. Just let it out. And don't get ahead of yourself—the fact that certain concerts only ever get released on DVD actually proves my point.

Here’s a solid comparison for you—"Tina Turner Live in Europe." It was recorded right when her career was hitting its absolute peak, but get this: it was actually filmed at a small club in New York City, Madison Square Garden (I actually know the venue personally and even caught another show there once!).

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I was wondering, how many concerts have you actually been to in your life, and which ones were they?

Honestly, I've been everywhere. First time was back in 1987, most recent was just last Friday. Everything from pop and rock to blues and electronic... but that’s beside the point here. It seems my points hit a little too close to home for you, because instead of actually countering my arguments, you're just throwing a tantrum without offering any real rebuttals. It's a bit much. I'm half expecting you to tell me your dad is stronger than mine next...

These condescending attitudes remind me so much of someone who's clearly never stepped foot in a concert venue... <cut>

Look, you can talk all you want, but you haven't actually disproven anything I've said. I'm stating facts, not being condescending. I don't really get why you're making these weak attempts at being off-topic on top of being off-topic. You're just wasting your time.

Well, I've never been to a Michael Jackson concert myself; I was never such a huge fan that I'd fly to another country just for that. Now I kind of regret it.

I don't feel the same way. I'd feel pretty bad dropping that much cash if they were just using playback. But hey, I'm not judging anyone else's preference—if his dancing alone is enough for them, that's their business. For me, though, I really regret missing Queen with Freddie Mercury live. That would have been an incredible audio-visual experience. Plus, they released live albums (not just one, either).

Anyway, getting back to this "problem" of yours, you're just trolling about some playback nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual issue.

I provided verifiable information, yet you just keep rambling about things that are completely irrelevant. If you can't come up with anything better, then fine. ☕

I listen to that "One Night in Japan" and while hearing a classic performed LIVE is lovely, it's nowhere near the peak musical experience you get from studio albums! Guess why! ☕

I don't need to guess. The answer is right there in the links I posted earlier.
And "One Night in Japan" is just another unofficial DVD. So much for my trolling. 😉

uh oh ...
Michael Jackson - Live in Bucharest : The Dangerous tour DVD Studio Sony Music
Orig Year 1992
DVD Encoding Region 1
So much for the DIY skills of a certain troll!

"Uh oh"? I don't see the album listed there. Looks like you'll have to try again. Though I suspect you'll be happy to.

Actually, maybe we should move these posts about playback over to the music section... This is getting pretty off-topic...

crimsonstag59 said:🙄 Look, maybe you should try using a search engine or checking YouTube yourself instead of lecturing everyone else on how they don't know how to use a search bar. 🙄 Jeez.

But hey, let me help you out here— Live in Bucharest : The Dangerous tour was released while he was still around! 😁 You've got both audio and video there, so go ahead and compare it to the studio tracks if that's such a huge deal to you. 🙄

Oh, and now there's also LIVE in Japan, so there's that. None of this actually has anything to do with rehearsal footage, soundchecks, practicing choreography, lighting setups, or music videos for singles.

Good grief. ☕

You can keep arguing until the day after tomorrow, but my point remains.
The bottom line is, Michael Jackson never released an official live album.
And just think about why Live in Bucharest wasn't released on CD. ☕
We'll probably see a flood of stuff coming out soon that Michael Jackson would never have authorized in his lifetime. And there's a reason for that.
You can also read about it here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8103113AAlJEyQ
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Michael_Jackson_lip_sync
http://www.elvis-collectors.com/foru...hp?f=2&t=46672

Well, One Night in Japan was released, so much for that argument.

That's an unofficial release. Something I could have put out myself. So there.

Here is everything he actually released; go ahead and find one live album that isn't a bootleg:
http://www.discogs.com/artist/Michael+Jackson
I mean legitimate releases from Sony, Epic Records, or any other major label.

Which actually has nothing to do with recordings of rehearsals, tuning up, practicing moves, choreography, lighting, etc., or even less to do with music videos for singles and such.

Whoops, I'm getting the impression you don't really know the subject matter, but I'm sorry if I bruised your fandom. It's just a shame it's clouding your vision. And your hearing.

I didn't come here to ruin anyone's mood, but I'm happy to answer when people jump in without thinking things through. Like I said, I don't know why he used playback because he didn't need to. He had an amazing voice. I suggest we stop off-topic chatting and keep things focused on the review. Personally, I thought the film was okay, but nothing spectacular. It's basically a montage of several rehearsals edited together. Maybe they should have included more commentary or interviews from the people involved in the project, but what can you do...

And don't get too discouraged; here are some stories about Michael Jackson from people who actually worked with him:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-mu...ous-album.html
Everyone seems to be singing Michael Jackson's praises lately. There are actually some pretty great stories about him floating around out there. So, I figured I'd share. Enjoy. 🙂

Why do people think someone can't sing the way they used to?

You're just making things up now, much like the media outlets you rely on. It’s not a good look.
I have to say, I’m a little surprised by the selection. Playback It’s pretty obvious he had the voice for it, even just listening to those rehearsal recordings. There’s really no other way to look at it.
You don't even have to go far; just a quick Google search or a look on YouTube will give you everything you need. MJ used to sing live during a lot of his previous tours, too. Playback.
So, what we saw in the film wasn't some kind of freak occurrence. As for his actual motivations, I can only speculate.
And one more thing... How is it possible that MJ never released a single one? live Are we talking about an album? Do you want me to guess, or should I just draw it out for you? 😉

Why does everything have to be playback when it already sounds just as good as the studio album? -.-

Fair point. Even if they sound similar, they aren't exactly the same thing as what you hear on the album.

Maybe he used a playback track for one or two things, but there's no way he was using it for eight.

To start things off, here are three: TDCAU, Smooth Criminal (minus that iconic "You've been hit by, you've been struck by—a smooth criminal" line), and Thriller. We can keep going from there...

It's just too much. You can literally find footage online of a guy calling 911. It’s wild stuff.
Even in the movie, he pulled off at least eight different things either fully or partially on Playback.
People really just need to open their eyes, clear their heads, and actually use their brains.

Kimberly Mitchell42 said:

ruggedmarlin15 As requested by ruggedmarlin15:
Michael Jackson performed quite extensively during that era—it’s hard to even wrap your head around the sheer scale of his touring schedule. Playback? Honestly, isn't that just a bit much? It feels like we're losing the soul of the performance when everything is so polished—so perfectly timed to a pre-recorded track that it leaves zero room for the magic of the moment. Where is the grit? Where is the raw energy that makes a live show worth the ticket price? It’s a slippery slope from "enhancing" a sound to essentially performing a high-budget music video in front of a live crowd. Does anyone else feel like we're trading authenticity for perfection?...though I can't quite wrap my head around why.

I’m not quite sure where you got the idea that Michael Jackson relied all that much on playback during his performances—is there any actual evidence for that?😕

If you really want to know why, here’s my take—the shows usually run about 90 minutes, and everything is meticulously choreographed. Every single movement, every second counts. Michael Jackson was constantly in motion—hitting those intense dance sequences, jumping, singing... just think about the sheer level of concentration required to sustain that for an hour and a half without missing a beat. And in the middle of all that chaos, he’s expected to deliver flawless vocals? What are the odds of that actually happening? You’d practically need to be a robot. Honestly, I don't buy the idea that there was excessive playback involved—it would only happen if there were absolutely no other way to make the show work.

Eyes: Google
YouTube.
And if I’m being honest, I think I would have preferred it if he hadn't sung quite so much on... playback.

If you ask me, there’s a good reason for it. On average, a concert lasts about 90 minutes, and everything is meticulously planned—every single movement in every second is choreographed. Michael Jackson was constantly in motion, performing intense dance routines, jumping around, and singing all at once. Just think about the level of concentration required to sustain that for an hour and a half without making a mistake. And on top of all that chaos, he's supposed to deliver flawless vocals? Honestly, the odds of that happening perfectly every time seem slim. You’d almost have to be a robot to pull that off. At the end of the day, I really don't buy the idea that he relied heavily on playback; that would only happen if there was absolutely no other way to make the show work.

You’re clearly a true fan. First off, you’re expressing massive doubt about the facts—because let’s be honest, Michael Jackson just doesn't do things that way, right? And then, even if we assume it's true, the arguments you bring up don't really hold water. By the way, Madonna doesn't even use it. playback It’s nowhere near what Michael Jackson used to do. He had that ability to dance and sing at the same time. And just to be clear, I'm not some die-hard Madonna fan or anything like that. Not at all.
To me, a concert is all about the audio and visual experience. Honestly, I don't really care if the performer hits a wrong note or two—that’s actually part of the charm of seeing someone live. If I wanted to hear the polished studio version, I’d just stay home and listen to the album. I think we should probably stop dragging this out; it's clearly an Epic fail to keep debating it. Off topicAnyway, everyone, enjoy the movie. I'm really hoping they include some re-recorded tracks or maybe even some unreleased songs. (By the way, if anyone happens to have a high-quality MP3 of the French version of I Just Can't Stop Loving You, I'd really appreciate it.)

Kimberly Mitchell42 said:You just can't compare that to seeing a performance live. I've been to a Michael Jackson concert twice—once in 1992 in Vienna and again in 1997 in Basel—so I know exactly what I'm talking about. A show like that stays with you for a lifetime.

Sorry, but I stand by what I wrote. Everything else is great—the dancing, the production, all of it—but when I go to a concert, I want to hear the songs live. When I hear they're using playback, sorry... Michael Jackson used playback quite often, though I'm not entirely sure why (aside from how demanding the choreography is). Everything else is top-notch, no argument there.

I have one major issue when it comes to tours like the ones Michael Jackson used to put on. To be honest, I’ve never been a fan of having music blasted directly at me. playback (Well, maybe not to that extreme). Personally, I think just watching the film is plenty. You end up paying about 10 to 15 times less, you don't walk away feeling ripped off, and the audio quality is solid—it sounds like a studio recording. 😉 ... Do you think there's a better way to say that?

Chris Barrett5 said:Who else is planning to head out to the Motovun Film Festival to catch some movies? 🤣

I have a feeling it'll be packed with nothing but total chaos. ☕

Tonight's screening of White Ribbon is playing in High Definition. It looks and sounds fantastic.

I have a feeling we might hear at least one Finn perform at some point, though they certainly don't have to be the only ones. You should probably check the official website (www.motovunfilmfestival.com); maybe they've already announced the lineup (I have a hunch they have)...

northerncrane4, why didn't you weigh in on this question about who's performing? Honestly, it isn't even really a question about movies, so... I feel like playing cop here is just pointless. Sure, people come to the Motovun Film Festival to catch specific films, hang out, and all that... but I don't see any issue with someone posting if they're looking for a place to stay or if they have a room to offer. Finding lodging in Motovun during the festival is basically a game of chance anyway... If what I'm saying goes against how you want to run this forum, then feel free to move all posts like this over to the Tourism sub-forum...

Most of your arguments don't really hold water. Translation choices can be inconsistent—sometimes names are translated, sometimes they aren't. That’s just how it goes, especially when dealing with children's movies. Or would you prefer if movie adaptations featured characters like Thumbelina, Little Red Riding Hood, or Hansel and Gretel? Complaining that "wicked of evil" isn't a perfect translation also misses the point, because the American idiom describes the character perfectly. If we had gone with a more literal translation, I'm sure there would have been complaints about that, too. Does anyone actually argue over whether to translate a title like "The Bull Who Sits"? Or would it be better to leave it in the original (assuming we even know if the original was English or Lakota)? What's next? A poll asking "Should movie titles be translated?" Let's show some empathy for people who don't speak English.

It looks like almost everyone from the matinee and the rumba group is here...

As far as I know, that was pretty much it. A few films were picked up for distribution (like three monkeys, for example).