RafaelS 06.01.2015 13:27 |
The situation is totally ludicrous. 13 years after GVHII and nothing about the Innuendo videos. Someone has some infos as if there's a project for a DVD/Blu Ray of promo videos, Behind the Scenes, Making of, interviews (a lot from the Innuendo time haven't been seen to this day) here or somewhere else? I'm asking myself at 35 if I will see something about the Innuendo videos before I die. Seriously. Do Queen Productions have a website? If I write to Brian May will he answer? |
Kuijpy 06.01.2015 13:39 |
I am 25 and asking myself the same question... |
user1 06.01.2015 14:05 |
Biggest joke is the message: "Click here to buy the DVD with this video at the Official Queen Store!" towards the end of the video link |
cmi 06.01.2015 14:43 |
Of course there will be no GVHIII as it was project for EMI abandoned in the end. All hopes for Blu-Ray/DVD complete (1973-2014) video collection in the future. |
Ghostwithasmile is BACK! 06.01.2015 14:57 |
I can build this for you if you like |
RafaelS 06.01.2015 15:08 |
Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote: I can build this for you if you likeI know someone could do a unofficial stuff, but instead of focusing on making compilations of compilations, Brian and Roger should focus on the Innuendo period in the future. Do they want to leave it all to rest (Linkin Park, lol) because of Freddie's illness at the time? I don't understand and never will do. |
RafaelS 06.01.2015 15:11 |
user1 wrote: Biggest joke is the message: "Click here to buy the DVD with this video at the Official Queen Store!" towards the end of the video linkYeah, I went to see it, totally ridiculous. |
tempusfugit 06.01.2015 15:21 |
This one is rather good. |
user1 06.01.2015 15:36 |
Please no stuff from the "Queen+" cover band on a Queen DVD, even if it's not an official one... (George Michaels part of the Freddie tribute is of course no Queen+ performance) |
Ozz 06.01.2015 15:57 |
I'm all for a reissue of Greatest Flix II , with the GHDVDII Videos in their proper aspect ratio, plus the innuendo ones we haven't got yet |
Mr.QueenFan 06.01.2015 18:08 |
Ghostwithasmile is BACK! wrote: I can build this for you if you likeWhat do you have in mind? |
RafaelS 06.01.2015 18:21 |
user1 wrote: Please no stuff from the "Queen+" cover band on a Queen DVD, even if it's not an official one... (George Michaels part of the Freddie tribute is of course no Queen+ performance)Exactly, seeing Another one Bites the Dust with Wyclef Jean & shit from the Cosmos Sucks ain't no Queen to me. |
matt z 06.01.2015 23:23 |
Said it before. They missed the boat on a DELUXE INNUENDO release in 2011 ... It would have even been proper for an anniversary. Disc one: original album (possibly remastered/remixed) Disc two: demos and b sides Disc 3 documentary; classic albums like (archival footage, behind the scenes production stills and progressive WIP states of INNUENDO/TATDOOL etc with the promotional videos as well as Hollywood records salutes etc. At 1991-2011 it would have been a proper 20th with a fantastic album Maybe reproduce some of the promotional items with it. |
Day dop 07.01.2015 00:57 |
It's a bummer. I'm Going Slightly Mad and Innuendo are a couple of my favourite Queen vids. |
Wijnand 07.01.2015 02:55 |
Well, if they missed it in 2011, they can do it in 2016... 25 years... :-) |
Supersonic_Man89 07.01.2015 05:28 |
Think there are plans for a blu ray release with all the videos and outtakes etc. It's an idea Rhys Thomas has always been a fan of and i personally think it makes perfect sense rather than releasing a greatest hits 3 dvd, with only 3 or 4 genuine 'hits'. |
RafaelS 07.01.2015 10:43 |
cmi wrote: Of course there will be no GVHIII as it was project for EMI abandoned in the end. All hopes for Blu-Ray/DVD complete (1973-2014) video collection in the future.I would go to 1973-1997 at max. After, it's my opinion, it's not Queen. It's two guys from Queen performing with other singers. |
user1 07.01.2015 11:18 |
Full Ack. It would be sad if Queen Fans had to support the "Queen+" cover band when all they want is a complete Queen Video Collection in decent quality. |
winterspelt 07.01.2015 12:23 |
RafaelSomma wrote: I would go to 1973-1997 at max. After, it's my opinion, it's not Queen. It's two guys from Queen performing with other singers.Agreed. Specially because, AFAIK, they never recorded any video with Paul and havent recorded anything with Adam. If they want to add something outside Freddie, I think a little bit of the Tribute would be cool, but I would not expect something outside STL with George Michael. If they want to add something from Q+ I think they should release it as a separate package or give the choice to buy the whole Queen and Queen + stuff (for those of us who enjoy both parts of the history) or split in different eras for those who are only interested in a specific era. |
RafaelS 07.01.2015 14:58 |
winterspelt wrote:Like you say the STL and TATDOOL sung by George Michael at the Tribute would be okay to be put in, No-One But you (last John's video)...but I don't want the following stuff to be shove down my throat since it doesn't interest me at all. My two cents.RafaelSomma wrote: I would go to 1973-1997 at max. After, it's my opinion, it's not Queen. It's two guys from Queen performing with other singers.Agreed. Specially because, AFAIK, they never recorded any video with Paul and havent recorded anything with Adam. If they want to add something outside Freddie, I think a little bit of the Tribute would be cool, but I would not expect something outside STL with George Michael. If they want to add something from Q+ I think they should release it as a separate package or give the choice to buy the whole Queen and Queen + stuff (for those of us who enjoy both parts of the history) or split in different eras for those who are only interested in a specific era. |
matt z 07.01.2015 15:57 |
I'll take the snotty fan ism up a notch and say. ... If they release any QUEEN + and solo Brian/Freddie material on a forthcoming dvd/blu-ray like it's original VHS counterpart, then we MUST receive THE BIGGLES "there's no turning back" fully remastered in 5.1!!!! (Just kidding) A complete retrospective would have the MIH art videos as well then eh? I only liked YDFM off of that one. |
LucasDiego 07.01.2015 16:30 |
The better way is doing the video collection Disc 1: 73-80 Disc 2: 81-89 Disc 3: 91-99 Disc 4: Alternative versions, documentaries, etc |
winterspelt 07.01.2015 21:48 |
RafaelSomma wrote:It should cover from the earliest material available (with or without John, if such thing exist) to No One But You and the Q+EJ performance of SMGO which is the last performance with John.winterspelt wrote: Agreed. Specially because, AFAIK, they never recorded any video with Paul and havent recorded anything with Adam. If they want to add something outside Freddie, I think a little bit of the Tribute would be cool, but I would not expect something outside STL with George Michael. If they want to add something from Q+ I think they should release it as a separate package or give the choice to buy the whole Queen and Queen + stuff (for those of us who enjoy both parts of the history) or split in different eras for those who are only interested in a specific era.Like you say the STL and TATDOOL sung by George Michael at the Tribute would be okay to be put in, No-One But you (last John's video)...but I don't want the following stuff to be shove down my throat since it doesn't interest me at all. My two cents. I like when people who disagree in many topics (like Q+AL) agree in other topics, such like this! I just hope someone at QP is reading and taking note! |
user1 08.01.2015 02:02 |
Queen & Elton John, please ;) The performance has nothing to do with "Queen+" (=cover band including only Brian and Roger with various mostly crappy "artists" as freddie imitators/replacements) |
matt z 08.01.2015 07:52 |
user1 wrote: Queen & Elton John, please ;) The performance has nothing to do with "Queen+" (=cover band including only Brian and Roger with various mostly crappy "artists" as freddie imitators/replacements)^ et al... Yeah they're in an unprecedented limbo as far as after works are concerned. AC/DC'S Bon Scott vs Brian Johnson period is far more substantiated. The WHO minus Moon and Enwistle came after several years then a decade. They were role players in the fanatical scheme of things and not the singers (not discounting Johns great work) it only makes sense that fans would be so divisive along those lines. The only other band to do it successfully actually catered and PANDERED to their eastern ties: JOURNEY. ... somewhat similarly. .. that one curly haired dude did a good job (I don't like the band enough to go look at that dvd right now and find the singer) and that one short Asian dude they've got now does it well enough. People have to make a living. These rockers have got to get laid. If they don't have something current NOBODY (under 30 like most attractive women) JUST PLAIN WOULDN'T BELIEVE IT! !! Gotta hand it to them. Still getting laid in their 60's by people they won't know tomorrow. Just like the Stones. Ah well. That said. The show is lacking, but Oddly enough Lambert attracts many. Maybe THAT'S part of the reason for carrying on? Who's to judge em? If you don't enjoy going to "work" when you don't need to why do it at all? Cynical Bastard at 5am; Me. They now have a history of recording with OTHERS less than stellar but for what it's worth, you've gotten to listen to Brian rail some lines on Tony Iommi 's albums and some FOO FIGHTERS etc Enjoy it if you want to But from my experience... The pacing is all wrong, they're old (* it happens) so if you wanna go, Go. If you don't then don't. I don't, however see them including further efforts in a cumulative PRODUCT anymore unless it's the remnants of this Q+AL tour live in Australia or something. It's really. .. REALLY too much to ask for. ... THIS ISN'T MOTORHEAD after all... it's QUEEN.. And the music is far more delicate to be dealt with If you don't like it, TRY to find a substantially talented band that's current to "worship"... you guys heard TCR.... what exactly do you EXPECT from subsequent outings? Nobody can touch Freddie. It's proven. You can't create that kind of natural flow. The band was organic from their youth. Can't rag on the blokes for having another go at it. |
malicedoom 08.01.2015 09:48 |
Hey, the picture of Greatest Video Hits 3 that tempusfugit posted... is that out there somewhere? I know not officially but as a bootleg that someone put together? Or is it just an incredibly well-done 'wish'??? Looks damn good. |
winterspelt 08.01.2015 10:07 |
user1 wrote: Queen & Elton John, please ;) The performance has nothing to do with "Queen+" (=cover band including only Brian and Roger with various mostly crappy "artists" as freddie imitators/replacements)It is Queen+ Elton John, it's the official name of the collaboration. Semantics aside, the "cover band" argument always sounds wrong in my opinion. Under that definition, Queen (Brian, Roger, Freddie and John) are a cover band of the previous encarnation(s) of Queen. In the same way, how can someone call him/herself purist when John was not the first or second (or third) bassist? (but that's another story) As for the imitators performing with Queen/Queen+, besides Marc Martel, who else is a Freddie imitator? Adam? Paul? Both of them did tours with the band, none of them is an impersonator. Or are you considering the one song/time performers as replacements? Jessie J, Tom Chaplin, Seal, Five etc just played once with them so they were never considered replacements and none of them were impersonators. |
user1 08.01.2015 10:33 |
winterspelt wrote:It is Queen+ Elton John, it's the official name of the collaboration.Actually it was only called Queen+ Elton John on GHIII to build a bridge to the Army of crappy Artists Roger and Brian worked together as "Queen+". The Freddie Tribute and Under Pressure were also originally not called Queen+, Therefore I don't regard these performances as "Queen+" (which is Roger and Brians new band name of her cover band), no matter how they call these collabos nowadays. winterspelt wrote:Semantics aside, the "cover band" argument always sounds wrong in my opinion.The cover band argument is totally right. Or how would you call similar bands like Riders On the Storm/Doors of the 21st Century or Creedence Clearwater Revisited (cover bands from members of The Doors and Creedence Clearwater Revival)? Just have a look at their setlist. Only covers from a certain band called Queen. link winterspelt wrote:As for the imitators performing with Queen/Queen+, besides Marc Martel, who else is a Freddie imitator? Adam? Paul? Both of them did tours with the band, none of them is an impersonator. Or are you considering the one song/time performers as replacements? Jessie J, Tom Chaplin, Seal, Five etc just played once with them so they were never considered replacements and none of them were impersonators.I called them imitators/replacements to underline the gap in artistic quality between a former band called Queen and the "new singers". |
Jedi Knight 08.01.2015 12:07 |
malicedoom wrote: Hey, the picture of Greatest Video Hits 3 that tempusfugit posted... is that out there somewhere? I know not officially but as a bootleg that someone put together? Or is it just an incredibly well-done 'wish'??? Looks damn good.Actually I did that double DVD about five years ago. It's still online somewhere. Over the years I've felt dissatisfied with it. I think it was a mistake to include "Queen +" videos (Robbie Williams, Paul Rodgers, Five, etc), so I decided to do it again but only with Queen material, with the exception of some Greatest Flix III video (taken from a DVD copy of the Laserdisc) relegated to the bonus disc. |
winterspelt 08.01.2015 13:12 |
user1 wrote: The cover band argument is totally right. Or how would you call similar bands like Riders On the Storm/Doors of the 21st Century or Creedence Clearwater Revisited (cover bands from members of The Doors and Creedence Clearwater Revival)? Just have a look at their setlist. Only covers from a certain band called Queen. linkSetlist.fm can be edited by everybody, pretty much like Wikipedia, but at least in wikipedia some editors try to remain neutral, something that doesnt happen in setlist.fm. In fact I know one or two persons who were editing the Queen setlist adding the "Queen Cover" at the end of the set. Now, Creedence Clearwater Revisited (not Revival, as "Revival" is the original band) is another story. John Fogerty was THE leader of the band, the one who wrote the hits, singer, frontman, Creedence was 95% Fogerty, 10% (or less) Cliford and Cook. When they became jealous of Fogerty's success and filled a lawsuit trying to get money from Fogerty's songs. Queen members were very prolific writers and all of them wrote hits. Creedence Clearwater Revival and Creedence Clearwater Revisited may share some members, but its not the same as Queen. I dont have opinion about the Doors/Raiders band as I never liked their music and I dont know anything about them, but you may have a valid point. I hope someone with knowledge about them could add some info. user1 wrote: I called them imitators/replacements to underline the gap in artistic quality between a former band called Queen and the "new singers".Oh, I got your point! Imitator may not be the right word but I got your point. I could provide an opinion about it (and agree to a certain extent with you) but I think it would be very, very offtopic, lol |
cmsdrums 08.01.2015 13:29 |
Whitesnake, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath.....all have/had tonnes of 'cover/tribute' bands going out under the original band name..... (runs for cover...!) |
matt z 08.01.2015 23:27 |
cmsdrums wrote: Whitesnake, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath.....all have/had tonnes of 'cover/tribute' bands going out under the original band name..... (runs for cover...!)Not so. EVERY incarnation of the band that's played onstage EXCEPTING Black Sabbath + Rob Halford had recorded a NEW album of music with the group. Just to nuisance fans let's adopt the typically used referencing of Deep Purple. .. Q+ AL is now Q3 |
Ale Solan 09.01.2015 09:00 |
RafaelSomma wrote: The situation is totally ludicrous. 13 years after GVHII and nothing about the Innuendo videos. Someone has some infos as if there's a project for a DVD/Blu Ray of promo videos, Behind the Scenes, Making of, interviews (a lot from the Innuendo time haven't been seen to this day) here or somewhere else? I'm asking myself at 35 if I will see something about the Innuendo videos before I die. Seriously. Do Queen Productions have a website? If I write to Brian May will he answer?The Innuendo Videos were officially released 18 years ago, here: http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=328672 link |
katman 09.01.2015 11:01 |
Really good quality LD rips of Flix I, II and III are also floating around 'out there' - not too difficult to find. |
Ale Solan 09.01.2015 14:42 |
katman wrote: Really good quality LD rips of Flix I, II and III are also floating around 'out there' - not too difficult to find.Greatest Flix I & II (DVD, not LD rip) as above are available at facebook. Greatest Flix III (decent LD rip) is available at rutracker. |
KevoM 12.01.2015 07:17 |
Ozz wrote: I'm all for a reissue of Greatest Flix II , with the GHDVDII Videos in their proper aspect ratio, plus the innuendo ones we haven't got yetAnd GHDVDI which was an even bigger aspect ratio mess than 2! What on earth were they thinking of the time?! |
cmsdrums 12.01.2015 11:49 |
KevoM wrote:Indeed - and it even more surprising when Brian is so heavily into the technical side of everything; certainly from an audio point of view anyway but perhaps his video knowledge (based on this and the awful washed out colours on Montreal) is not quite as up to speed.Ozz wrote: I'm all for a reissue of Greatest Flix II , with the GHDVDII Videos in their proper aspect ratio, plus the innuendo ones we haven't got yetAnd GHDVDI which was an even bigger aspect ratio mess than 2! What on earth were they thinking of the time?! |
beemack74 15.01.2015 11:56 |
I thankfully kept my old VHS copies of Box Of Flix and Flix 3...I copied them onto DVD with my Dvd/ VHS combo machine and the pic/sound quality is rather good considering. So if a GVH 3 is ever released, I'll only purchase if it's got something new and spectacular filmed between 1973 and 1991. The Queen+/ Lambert/Wycliffe/5ive things etc don't interest me in the slightest. |
tomchristie22 15.01.2015 16:26 |
That cropping on GVH was just shocking. If a viewer wants to crop or stretch the image into widescreen for themselves (for some reason...), let them, but give us the choice to see the full image. |
katman 16.01.2015 12:37 |
The cropping is an issue, but A Kind Of Magic on GVH2 is worse again - it's actually 14:9 presented as 16:9, and I'd love to meet the person who made that decision ... |