http://festival.sundance.org/2009/film_eve...n_youre_strange

Tom DeCillo on WYS
Can't say I was impressed. Yes he wants to focus on the 'truth' but it seems he wants to focus mainly on the sensationalist 'truth' hence his analogy of the history stained with flecks of vomit as Jim was puking on the front row.
The Doors History is not as vomit stained as the Myth would have us believe as how else was the wonderful music and lyric conceived.
I fear the worst even though DeCillo himself told me on his blog he had 'made a genuine attempt to capture their power, musicianship, intensity and originality of The Doors'.
In other words Doors form on Venice beach link up with two blokes from meditation centre write songs become big get drunk get arrested and die in a bathtub. Lets hope that the movie is not that and there is not a headlong rush from the early days to the more sensational aspects of Jim Morrison.
Lets hope the film remembers that the most interesting part of The Doors History occurred before 1969 and some gig in Miami.


Link to Ray interview about When You're Strange
Interesting Ray interview about the movie. He even gets a plug in for his awful LHM movie.
Bit of petulance near the end of course and the news that ROTS no longer exist and are now the Manzarek-Krieger Band and are gonna make a new album of Doorslike music.
And also at the end Ray reveals his new book project and musical project with his son.
Not a fan of the bloke but it's a cool 15 minutes of Rayness.

I don't know if I brought this up here, but this whole thing begs the question when will fans get to see this? Or even people to begat a new generation of fans? Not many of us can make it up to Sundance (although because of the economy tickets & lodgings were still available as of last weekend) to see the movie. The best case sceanario is the movie is FUCKING GREAT! and that distributors are all over it and it will get major support & to a lot of screens but don't really count on it. Even features films that get great reviews don't necessarily get picked up or picked up right away. I think the best case is that it will get a small run at art houses & then picked up for DVD by winter 09? But in this day & age of internet marketing why isn't this movie being released on DVD right away or immediately after Sundance? It is possible to do this I know who have made their own movies & marketed them to some financial success & are doing so at this minute. So, why aren't The Doors doing this? I know the first law of LA/Hollywood is use other peoples money but The Doors have a whole fan network setup that takes out most of the risk, hell you have people over on the LL buying a $15.00 poster signed by John, Ray, & Robby for $200.00!

I'm not sure how things (obviously many don't) get picked up after Sundance. I mean something of this nature dedicated to a band with a large following has to eventually get out there. I'll be catching a screening of this so hopefully I'll have good things to say about it on here. Flecks of vomit? What the hell?

That interview with Ray was great! I don't know what it is but whenever he talks..I feel sleepy

That's great?

I kind of thought you'd probably be able to get to see it.

How about going in there with a video camera ala Seinfeld bootlegging episode!

I missed that episode...but I'm about as sneaky as a bull in a china shop. Just ask my wife. I think I'll pass.

RU gonna be a VIP at the screening? Get a seat next to Ray
Tom D reckons that he has plans for the film to be released in cinemas.
I am hoping for a London screening as I will pop down and check it out with HolySha66.
I doubt it will make Stockton somehow.
I agree with Jim C that the DVD shud be released quickly with plenty of extras such as a good commentary about the background of the documentary as well as the missed out talking heads interviews.

And I cannot resist this point about Ray's interview regarding the album he plans with the remains of ROTS.
If he had done this in 2003 with ian astbury he mite have had a chance of getting a good number of Doors and Cult fans on board. Hell even I mite have bought a copy but now with this new bloke I doubt he will interest even many of his own supporters with it let alone someone to finance an album release.
A missed opportunity caused by Ray's egotistical desire to revisit past glories.
Pity as I wanted to hear a studio version of cops talk.

Sunday, January 18, 2009
When You're Sting
The premiere of the new Doors documentary, "When You're Strange," brought out the musical stars Saturday night.

The three surviving members of the Doors showed up: Ray Manzarek, Robby Krieger and John Densmore. I was surprised all three came, because it's no secret that Densmore has a strong dislike for the other two for what he claims is capitalizing on the Doors' success by launching a group called The Doors of the 21st Century with a new lead singer. Densmore has refused to participate in that group or any other attempts to have a "reunion."

So it was no surprise that Densmore stayed on one end of the red carpet while the other two were on the other side, according to a Salt Lake Tribune photographer who was there. (I arrived at the theater and was told there was no red carpet, so I didn't see the photo section, but I saw them walk into the theater.) Manzarek and Kreiger walked in together. Densmore walked into the theater way after the other two.

One of the more pleasant surprises was that Sting and his wife Trudie came for the premiere. He was apparently doing an homage to Rober Redford by having a very "Jeremiah Johnson"-esque beard. He is also very brown-haired. I always thought he was blond.

Another pleasant surprise was the arrival of Perry Farrell, the legendary lead singer of Jane's Addiction and Porno for Pyros. I followed him stealthily into the theater's cafe, where he and his attractive significant other purchased a king-size Kit Kat and he bought an orange-tangerine Sobe Lifewater, the kind that is also called "Immunity" because it has acerola extract and rosehips. (Check out my fine investigative reporting.)

The same Trib photographer told me that he didn't know who Farrell was initially. When the photographer asked Farrell for his name, the singer politely offered it and said something to the effect of, "It's hard to recognize me without a dress."

In what I called my Method-style of reporting, I bought the same drink he did, for $3.50. I tried it out, and it was pretty gross. At least I got some acerola. Whatever that is. If I get sick within the next few days, I'm blaming that dang Sobe lizard.

The premiere was at Temple Har Shalom, and it didn't cease to amaze me that Sundance has taken over a temple. At least the premiere was after sundown on Saturday.
Sundance News Blog

All Three Amigos turned up for the premiere which was a surprise. Ray and Robby played Roadhouse Blues and ROTS at a festival bash which was pretty neat but John was absent.

BTW I do think it time this utter horsehit was removed from all the official forums once and for all as the foolish antics of the three really insult our intelligence when WE find ourselves held to account by three people who have taken infantile behaviour to a new level.
http://forum.johndensmore.com/index.php?showtopic=328
I find it sad that the movie rates hardly a mention on the Sundance blog and is overshadowed by three idiots who behave like two year olds and cannot even stand near each other when promoting their own documentary.
Better they had ALL stayed at home as the movie can do without promotion like that.


BTW2 Sting has been dying his hair as our newspapers were recently at a loss for some decent news to put in so had pictures of Sting's grey hair and whiskas which miraculously dissapeared later when he was at some posh event.
So he is not blond or brown more of a mangy grey

No real surprises there Alex. I would however like to hear about the film itself.. the content.. not from a critic.. but from a fan. I believe Jim is seeing it on Tuesday.. so I am really looking forward to his review.

The bloggers actually don't get into the movies, they just sort of drift around the edges. There's a video here of R&R playing, if you care. I think there's a press screening this afternoon at 2:30, right? So proper reviews from the film press tomorrow.

http://blogs.sltrib.com/sundance/ (Scroll down past the photo of the kid with the little dog!)

A couple of press reviews - largely favorable. http://messageboard.thedoors.com/showthread.php?t=21151

'The short reaction to When You're Strange is (a) it's a much more perceptive dive into the legend of the Doors than Oliver Stone's film was, ( it's in love with Doors music (which I feel is a very good thing); & it has a good amount of heretofore unseen footage of Morrison and the band; but (d) it's stymied time and again by DeCillo's trite narration. And I mean "give me a fucking break" trite.'

It's early days yet but that was hardly a glowing endorsement.
And of course it's a much more perceptive dive into the legend of the Doors than Oliver Stone's film as it's a historical documentary whereas Stone made a popcorn movie.

That comment about the narration was from one reviewer only. And he's known for being cranky. He wanted someone half-drunk to narrate it. No thanks. Otherwise, as pointed out here, he actually did like the film. Narration is fixable, and Tom already said that he might load an actor in, but for the time being, his narration would have to do.

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/01/su...re-strange.html


The other guy liked it and gave it 3.5 stars out of 4. Let's try and accentuate the positive, A! -

How can WE do this when we have three pillocks who will not even stand on the same bit of carpet dragging the film into the gutter with their infantile behaviour at it's bloody premiere.

You sure do have quite a way with words Alex. I do agree with you in context however. I think we'd all be real happy to accentuate the positive.. if there was something positive to accentuate........

Well, as far as the behavior of the three pillocks, can't salvage much there. Maybe there's still mutual restraining orders in place - rumor had it that this was the case at one time.

I was thinking more about the movie review.

Exactly Dianne hopefully we will get a decent idea from a few fans such as Jim when he sees it.
Documentaries may well look good but that does not mean they are definitive or at all accurate.
I don't think Tom regards his film as in any way definitive and we will see how accuarate as the fan reviews come in but hopefully he can give a good perspective of the band and deal with some History rather than just focussing on Jim got drunk and fell over.


I do honestly believe that when events such as this (the Hollywood Star was another example) come around the three of them should be forced to do some sort of community service such as picking up litter in urban gang ghettos to keep them away as all they do is bum the event out.

The problem with lawsuits is that they tend to leave a very nasty hangover, even when you win. Hopefully time will eradicate some of the bitterness, but I won't be holding my breath. Maybe it'll be more civil at the press screening today. Maybe.

Reviews:

http://boxoffice.com/reviews/2009/01/when-youre-strange.php

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-the-...-you-re-strange

Oh dear
That seems like a couple of Doors fans reviewing there.
Looks like Tom went down the same road as Granada TV back in 1968.
The Doors were a rock band and it would have been nice to hear of the History of that rock band rather than the history of the 1960s.
I will of course reserve final judgement till I see the film but it looks based on the links Jim posted that we can look forward to Oliver Stones The Doors II.
It's a shame as the 90 minute film format would only work if accompanied by a killer commentary.....looks like Tom was not up to the task. Perhaps a 4 part documentary with 1 hour segments would have served better.
Not looking good is it folks and as the guy below says 'The Doors For Dummies' which is a worry I had about this project from day one.


Sundance Review: When You're Strange
Posted Jan 19th 2009 10:02AM by Scott Weinberg
The sad irony of the new Doors documentary When You're Strange is this: While it'll almost definitely appeal to old-school fans of the legendary band, it's that precise fan-base that'll probably finish with the flick and think ... yeah, but I knew all that stuff already. Informationally speaking, there's next to nothing here that a loyal Doors fan doesn't already know, which in a way makes When You're Strange come off as little more than a glorified DVD supplement.

The big selling point of the film is that When You're Strange contains a ton of archival video footage that's never been seen before. And if you're a serious fan of this excellent band, then of course you'll want to see the scratchy old clips of Jim Morrison, Ray Manzarek, Robby Krieger, and John Densmore as they ascend the ladder of rock stardom. So while this recently-unearthed material may prove to be a gold mine for the fans, the documentary is also saddled with a generally flat voice-over narrative that doesn't add much to the final product. If the selling point of this documentary is this previously-unseen video footage (and it is), then just lose the Cliff's Notes narration and simply chart the band's trajectory using only the videos and the music.

If anything, the endless voice-over nuggets just gave me more respect for the research that Oliver Stone did when he made his Doors movie back in 1991. In other words, I'm just a casual fan of The Doors, but even I knew most of the trivial tidbits that are offered within When You're Strange. Written and directed by Tom DiCillo (a fine filmmaker* who, in my opinion, should probably stick to the narrative projects), When You're Strange was clearly a labor of love for the filmmaker (and his team deserves high praise for tracking down all this old footage), but one can't help but wish he'd been a little more "experimental" on this project.

The scratchy old footage of The Doors playing gigs and hanging around backstage is pretty fascinating all by itself, but the images are often upstaged by DiCillo's over-reliance on lecture-style narration. The film is also completely lacking in the "retrospective" department, as you'll find not one "talking head" interview in When You're Strange. And really, I'd much rather hear anecdotes from Ray Manzarek or some journalists than from a disembodied voice that speaks over the top of some really solid rock songs. Sure, a bunch of interviews could be just as basic as a voice-over track, but at least you'd be getting some different shades from some pertinent people.

A relative disappointment but (yes) still recommended to the hardcore Doors fanatics, When You're Strange is jam-packed with cool video clips that you've never seen before -- and of course the documentary is knee-deep in great Doors tunes -- but the voice-over "Doors for Dummies" narration track sucks a whole lot of spontaneity out of the film. Frankly I think you could just yank the narration straight out of the movie, telling the story in only songs and pictures, and When You're Strange would be a much better film. Especially for those old-school Doors fans who don't really need a refresher course.

It seems this voice-over is killing the movie. Let alone other critics have said that they would have liked an interview or two, i.e. the Admiral, etc.

Now, that's ironic.

From Billboard last month.
As first tipped here in May, the Doors documentary "When You're Strange" will premiere Jan. 17 at the Sundance Film Festival.
Written and directed by Tom DiCillo, "Strange" utilizes a wealth of previously unseen footage to chart the band's beginnings at UCLA's film school through to frontman Jim Morrison's mysterious death in 1971.
Describing the movie to Billboard earlier this year, Doors keyboardist Ray Manzarek said it was "the anti-Oliver Stone," in reference to the 1991 film "The Doors." "This will be the true story of the Doors."
Rhino will release a soundtrack to "When You're Strange" next summer.

Now after reading the first reviews what Ray says does not seem to be the case at all and this documentary seems to have been undone by the commentary which by early accounts is dull and trite revealing nothing other than basic facts that have been dealt with in countless radio shows and TV docs before.
Tom DiCillo may indeed have the wrong voice for his commentary but such things can easily be rectified as long as that commentary sounds fresh and gives an insight into this great band. But this does not seem the case either.









The last comments the most damning as that basically says its a rehash of Stones commercial version of The Doors story. I for one applaud DeCillo for resisiting the contemporary Talking Head interviews as we would have just gotten the usual crap from the Three Amigos and we have heard that too often. But given that he had some incredible footage from the period of The Doors it needed an equally incredible narrative to sell that footage.
Telling the Story of The Doors as a really great 60s rock band not some MTV T Shirt vision of what people today 'think' rock bands are. I want to hear about my bands rise from Venice Beach 1965 to 1967 not all the usual sensationalist bullshit from March 1st 1969 onwards. This is a thought provoking band and arguably America's most important rock band and as such the narration should at the very least be thoughtful and incisive in it's analysis and delve deeply into the History of this great musical group.



I remember reading a book by Dylan Jones in 1991 which was released on the back of The Doors movie and it was the worst book I have ever read on The Doors full of the most simplistic and banal explanations for why The Doors were The Doors. I hope I am wrong but it looks like Tom just made the movie of Dark Star by Dylan Jones. Considering how long this has been in the offing and the amount of access Tom had to The Doors world I for one will find that severly dissapointing if it is indeed the case.

I want to see this movie very much but will not watch it through rose tinted spectacles and cannot help but be influenced by the early reviews which have pretty much placed it as the Matrix BMR disc is to the 80s bootleg simply a slight upgrade to the Stone movie.
Once again not at all what we have been sold by The Doors this last year or so.
It makes one wonder if the Three Amigos had not been suing and hating each other and had looked upon this as a labour of love that involved themselves in a substantial way we might have gotten something near to the real story. When you think of it the narration could have been shared by a celebrity fan such as Patti Smith (that would have been interesting) and the three Doors themselves as all it needed was a really kick ass narrative. Another opportunity seemingly lost by allowing Tom too much leeway with his interpretation as it seems as if he came to the same conclusions as Olly did
Well meaning amateurs have told this story before and failed miserably so Tom is in good company and I will not attack him for his effort although it's sad that once again we are promised so much and so it seems once more delivered so little.
It needed The Doors themselves and fans involved to make a documentary like this as well as what seems obvious more than a 90 minute popcorn documentary.

Am looking 4wd to what our host Jim has to say about it.

9 minute interview with Ray and Robby and Tom, and a couple of minutes from the movie. I don't think this thing is going to be as bad as we are being led to think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v319aHuzt2Q

"When You're Strange"

by Jim Southwick


In writing this review, I had to determine my basis as I related to The Doors. I hate the term "hard-core"
fan because to me, it conjures up images of fanaticism and narrow focus. I prefer the term "major" Doors
fan. There are a lot of us "major" Doors fans out there - hence a movie such as this is going to be a priority
for a first time viewing. Whether we want to see it again or tell others to see it can be a different story.
I think I can safely say Oliver Stone's movie is a "no recommend" from most major Doors fans. I must
admit however, that prior to seeing "When You're Strange" - I thought I might be in for more of this
regurgitated sensationalism so prevalent in Stone's movie. Word on the street is it's the only thing that sells.
I specifically avoided reading reviews from the prior 2 days of screening as I wanted to really try to look at
this thing objectively as I could.
One of the most important things to me is how a movie starts. Maybe it's because I have sat through too
many "snoozers" that waited too long for their moments of brilliance. On the flip side, I have sat through
movies with starting brilliance that became "snoozers". "When You're Strange" is neither. It is different
from the beginning. From a Doors fan perspective, the first thing you are struck with is the clarity and
brilliance of footage so many of us have seen in varying contexts. Scenes and images that were once a dull
backdrop of a song or story are now being presented in a vibrant movie style. The concept of using this
footage for the beginning soundtrack that rolls is completely unexpected and from a point of creativity - I
thought brilliant. So the story begins:
For the next 90 minutes you are treated to not just the story of The Doors but the story of a turbulent time
in America. I was struck by the irony of sitting in a theater watching images of a time of dwindling hope (as
realism overtook idealism) while an inauguration was occurring of what can only be described as a moment
of beginning hope unlike anything I have experienced. I think it gave an extra element of relevancy.
In the case of The Doors story (intertwined in an era's story) we are treated to a perspective beyond
sensational red meat. Without giving it away - there is a scene with Jim that really struck me as to his
innocence, his playfulness, and his humanness. There are many surprise scenes such as this...and to be
honest - there are of scenes and talk of the sensational. However, they are told without being burdensome.
Without trying to anchor onto a myth and within the context of the overall story.
Another important aspect of this movie is we finally get some decent billing on the musicians that were as
much a part of The Doors as the vocalist. Jim is certainly a focal point of the movie just as he was in The
Doors, but it retains the perspective (including a generous amount of footage of the other 3) that it isn't just
a movie about Morrison.
Overall, I felt the movie was a success. I felt it was a success in its concept and in its execution. Sure it
has it flaws. Timelines are not always completely accurate and may juxtapose. Keen eyed Doors fans will
spot some confabulations as they relate to the images - and there will be times where you may feel there is
too much focus or lack of, as relating to The Doors story. I chalked that up, not as a fault by the director
but simply an issue of what was available to present. Regardless, because of DiCillo's decision to
continually rely on footage only of an era, you are left with a profound sense of it. You are able to often
make your own interpretations instead of having to rely on recycled piece meal - sometimes of dubious
accuracy. It's something of a relief to anyone who has followed this band. Futhermore, when the 90
minutes was up, I wasn't beat up - I wasn't drained and I felt the substance of the movie could actually be
appreciated. Finally, it seemed a story was being told and not fabricated.
When You're Strange ends with a resounding familiar starting drum beat and a confirmation of what Jim
had once intoned. A factor of many factors that fortunately continues to separate the Doors from so many
bands yesterday and today.

Hmmmm...reading these other reviews - The narration was fine. I didn't even address it in my review because I didn't really pay attention to it for the fact it did what it was supposed to do (tell the story). What did these people want, phone sex?

Hey Jim, you shouldn't be afraid of divulging too much. While I got the idea you liked it, but a little detail is won't hurt (we know what's going to happen!) Might even help.

Here's an interview that includes clips http://www.sundancechannel.com/festival/

Seems some dynamic editing & the footage does look crystal clear.

They really cleaned it up Jim. The editing must have been a bitch but it really worked. I don't want to be the one to go into details (I'm sure all of it should be getting out there soon). It was just nice to finally watch something where I didn't say "that sucked" or "same ole shit". For the most part, seriously, it was refreshing.

Let's try this again, I was kicked out the 1st time I tried to post.

Refreshing will be refreshing. From the clip I saw it seemed to be an energetic combination of images, sound & editing to put make a powerful emotional response. But The Doors & the powers that be REALLY need to get an excerpt up on their site &/or on Youtube the excitement & word of mouth generated might be enough to get a distributor as long as they can hear some buzz.

& in the clip Tom DiCillo said he insisted on the name When You're Strange, hmmm, I thought there was a contest for a fan to pick a name.

How does Tom link HWY into the film? He keeps mentioning it as a kind of basis for the doc.

A 'fan' did pick the name, but he was kicked off the board for extremely negative behavior long before the name was selected. So it goes. Tom does acknowledge on his blog that there were many, many title ideas submitted and he has threatened to provide a list of them all. Of course, they did say that they had reviewed lyrics, titles, poetry, etc., and were at that time unable to find something suitable. Then - tada! - they go back to a lyric.

Jim - there is interest in the music of course. What was your opinion on that? Rhino has announced they will release a soundtrack this summer (provided the place isn't closed down by then - they just laid 450 people off at Warner Bros. today).

There is nothing really new there in the way of music from what we probably all have. It's really about footage, the way the footage (and images) are put together, the telling of the story, and the editing of the soundtrack to the footage.

That's what most of us hardcore (the ones who embrace the term ) are looking forward to.
Gotta hit you up for at least a couple details..
Was there really much footage other than Feast of Friends and HWY footage, besides historical footage?
They say there were 'home movies', do you recall anything about that, or anything from Miami?

Hey Jim,
Yeah a good amount did come for HWY and FOF, but new is new...and even old feels new when it is presented in restored glory. For example, everyone is familiar with the footage of Jim being walked through the huge crowd and a girl reaching in and grabbing him around the neck and planting a kiss on him. However, the picture becomes more complete when you also get to see the other 3 individually trying to work their way through the same crowd as well. That's "refreshing". I mean, throughout the film, you get a real sense of the frustrations and triumphs of the guys in this band. Damn, I sound like a movie trailer here.
Without going into a lot of detail (because it's probably not my place) - yeah home movie footage of Jim. Not a whole lot but what appears to be some unseen footage of Miami.

It is the basis. It revolves around it to create a little bit of mystique. I think where you guys will be surprised from a fan perspective (after all, that's how I was watching it) is how a new sound track links up to it.

Sorry to put you in the position of being the first.
How sure re you about Miami?
I can see them using footage from one of the other chaotic concerts to simulate it but as yet I haven't seen specific mention of what it consists of.
Here are some photos: http://www.radioismoaning.com/Photographs/...?g2_itemId=1671

It's tough to be sure about anything when you are re-calling from a one time view (and I purposely didn't take notes so I could immerse myelf into the film). You obviously have a lot of images, but I do recall what appeared to be some footage shot from behind. It's not a huge focus and it's presented within the context of the whole story.

Ah, I feel like they used some FoF footage to substitute.
There probably would have been a big to-do about it, because it wouldn't be too easy to get.
One last question (I promise): was there any footage identified as being taken in Paris?
Thanks.

Sorry man, nothing really new there I recall. Don't let that be a downer...again...it tries not to be a complete focus on Morrison and when it does - it's doing it from a perspective the dude was a human...not a mythological creature.

Oh I know, I'm kind of trying to kill a lot of the speculation about all the stuff people want to be in there.
Until someone comes out and tells us what is and isn't in it, it's a lot harder for people like me to explain to people with their head in the clouds or focused solely on Jim (usually that goes hand in hand with not really knowing anything about the concerts, etc.) that the band probably didn't go out of their way to get stuff like that.

I think what the people who reviewed WYS and were less than impressed are getting at mate is that the story has been 'told' ad nauseum via TV and radio but never really told from the Historical perspective simply the mythical and sensational perspective.
As this is meant to be to quote Ray "the true story of the Doors" by the band themselves one would expect an intelligent and thoughtful narrative to accompany the footage.
It's a given that the footage would be superb quality but does the narrative do it justice mate?
E Channel, MTV and VH1 have 'told' the story in thier documentary efforts as have various radio programmes which many of us have seen and heard but did Tom DiCillo nail "the true story of the Doors" or did he just go down the well worn path and tell the same tale as all the rest?
It's not as if the story cannot be found as Greg Shaw did some great research and produced a wealth of new info in DOTR and Frank Lisciandro did a similar job for his books discovering loads of new and interesting stuff.
If it's a pile of shit I will still buy a copy just to see the footage in all it's glory but Doors fans, or major Doors fans or hardcore Doors fans or whatever are expecting something special here.
Is something special delivered mate or is it just a Steven Spielberg type smoke and mirrors job with a crap script, bullshit acting and some nice dinosaurs to keep the kids happy?


Pity that none of the Jim Pam footage from the Euro trip in 71 was not used but it's an unrecognisable Jim so probably would 'scare the straights' if that was used
Maybe now FOF and HWY will get a release on DVD I have met plenty of people who know Rainer Modderman and have seen his version of the films and have heard how amazing those versions are and I am sure The Doors et al have better versions.
Would be ideal material for DVD extras to WYS but of course the buck needs to be made from them so that won't be happening.

First off, the content of the narration (or the person doing it) is not "locked" so debate on this is probably a good thing. Here is the way I saw it from a spectator and Doors fan - obviously I was most taken by the footage and the storyline/audio tracking (editing - whatever you want to call it) with the footage. This is totally aside from Tom's narration. In reading these reviews...they act like Tom was blabbering constantly (or just took a few breaks on some songs). It wasn't like that and it wasn't distracting and in your face.
As for the content you bring up Alex. You have to realize I'm speculating here - but I suspect one goal was to get some footage out there that we haven't seen before. Because that footage isn't completely linear...and by that I mean there is more of it from this period...less of it (or devoid of it) from that period, etc, etc....the narration has to sort of follow that line and work the story in. I mean it would be tough to dedicate narration to Jim's love of Paris, the poets he admired there, his view of the city and how it related to him when you have little footage from there and a bunch from FOF. If you did that...people would be screaming...you dumb ass...you wasted 20 minutes of shots of a city (not even in America - hello, this is an American band) telling a story when you had a treasure trove of incredible stuff from 68-69 you could have put up. Don't get me wrong...I think The Doors story was worked in linear as best as possible in the confines...and to me, it felt like The Doors story...not Jim's story. Was the narration any great treasure trove of information to a big time Doors fan...no not really. There is certainly some interesting commentary and even analysis that can make you think. It was (as you say) thoughtful and did what it needed to do to appeal to more than 50 people. Yeah, there were things in there where I say.....who gives a shit...I've heard that a million times before (for example: like the Mojo Risen anagram), but overall it was trying to tell the story of The Doors from a different perspective than they had a singer...and the singer was out of control...and got arrested...and died (although that too is part of the story...and indeed it is in there). Great scoop and info for diehard Doors fans...I would have to say no. I think your "something special" is going to get back more to the visual and a more balanced view on the other 3. Whew, that was novel.
Also...and I kinda alluded to it in the last paragraph of my review...John Densmore fans will automatically feel a desire to hoot and hollar on Tom's last sentence. Apparently there were quite a few in this theater. I'm not giving it away, so don't ask me.

So what was that then? Only kidding Sounds intriguing



So at least we have dispelled the story Tom was blabbering inanely throughout the film. That would have been a pain. Obviously some of the footage will speak for itself and it's good that the footage is central to the film but dissapointing that the real story of The Doors looks once more untold.
So much for Ray's endorsement.
Not that I was surprised. It's a shame as the film IS passed off as the Doors answer to the Stone movie which it clearly isn't from what you say. They could easily have gotten the footage out there by releasing a FOF DVD with lots of additional footage. This was meant to be a documentary on America's greatest band and for me to even waste a nanosecond of the 90 minutes telling us about the Mojo Risen anagram was a nanosecond wasted.
I am not gonna pick on Tom but it does seem as if once again it's a lost opportunity.
I am still looking 4wd to seeing the film but then I looked 4wd to the Stone movie as well and did not expect any great shakes from that either.

You lucky dog Jim as it must have been cool to see the movie at Sundance. Did you see anyone famous?
My best hope is a London showing and I will pop along to that if I can.
If not hopefully a DVD will appear sooner rather than later.
A soundtrack album interests me about as much as a ticket for the dorks but I guess the $$ have to be made so I imagine we will see that first.

Let's see, I went to breakfast with John...he's famous right?
I saw "paparazzi" circling various people but honestly I had more interest in worrying about where to take a leak when I was out on the streets! Every place you tried to get into was making us purchase a membership (you see, you can't get a drink in Utah unless you have a membership to that bar or you go to an establishment that serves food and you HAVE to buy food). No porta potty's either...too low class man. I finally went up to a door man and slipped him a few bucks and he lead me back to the pisser!

How's it going man? Hey Jim did you see any footage from jim in UCLA ? or any new footage from concerts?

Is John pretty happy with the movie?