Jump to content

Vincent Vega

Banned
  • Posts

    11,699
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vincent Vega

  1. Just because Steven could play ok on Down on The Farm doesn't mean that he wasn't as fucked up as the band has claimed, or that they exaggerated his level of fucked upness. A guy can be out of his mind but still remember how to play a tune...

    For example, Jimmy Page was totally out of it on heroin during Led Zeppelin's 1977 American tour--Still played, albeit sloppily.

    Or Keith Richards during the band's tours in the mid-late 70s. He was zonked out of his mind on Heroin, but still played.

    Or Brian Jones at the Rock N' Roll Circus in 1968. By late 1968 he was pretty much burnt out, similar to how Steven was in 1990, totally out of it...But he still played the most beautiful slide guitar parts at that show on No Expectations.

    The fact is, if Steven WASN'T as messed up as has been claimed, he would NOT have been kicked out, and he wouldn't have spent the last 20-something years trying to clean up. This was one of the few decisions that wasn't led by Axl. This was one of the few departures from GN'R that was a totally united, group decision and probably was the best decision both for the band's productivity and for Steven's health.

    If Steven had been kept in the band for the UYI tour, who knows when the records would've been finished if the recording of CW is any indication, and in all likelihood Steven would've been found dead in some hotel room in some country on the tour.

  2. It's kinda telling though that he was fired from the band less than half a year later. Good riddance. Matt Sorum was 10x better.

    Also Adler is a fucking liar. He didn't know how to play Civil War? There's a demo of the song with him on it from around 89!

  3. What do you feel Axl's greatest strength was and is?

    Some lead singers are better known as frontmen rather than vocalists (Mick Jagger is a better frontman and lyricist than he is a singer). Others are known as songwriters and vocalists, but necessarily not frontmen (think John Lennon or Elton John), others are known for their skills as a frontman and their singing (think Robert Plant or Freddie Mercury). Some known for their abilities as a frontman and singer, but not their songwriting (think Elvis).

    Where did Axl fall in the old days, and where does he fall now?

  4. In a 2000 interview with Rolling Stone, Axl summarized the demise of the old band by using an adage: "Never buy a car with your friends." That in Old GN'R, everyone wanted their hands on the wheel and because of this, the car drove off a cliff, metaphorically.

    But now he has new "friends" handling the wheel with him in Guns--With Team Brazil going from simply being his moral/emotional support to actually being in charge of him and running his business affairs as his management. I mean has he forgotten his own standpoint--never buy a car with your friends? Never buy a car with your pseudo-Mother, either.

  5. Why not, it worked in Dusk Til Dawn, another reason why the Vega Bros wouldn't be worth it, he's kinda used that motif already. What you're saying makes no sense really Miser, contrast is kinda what character chemistry is based on.

    It's not about the characters...It's more I can't see John Travolta and Michael Madsen having good chemistry as actors the way Travolta did with Samuel L. Jackson.

  6. so...is this the bitch who supplied axl the magic crystals?

    I think that was more Yoda'a doing.

    Correct.

    Yoda and her husband were the psychics.

    This one was the head shrinker.

    My question is, when exactly did Axl fall in with these people? We know it was in or before '91 cause Yoda and her lot are thanked in t he UYI booklets...But was he into this stuff as far back as the beginning of the band?

  7. Has the fanbase yet gotten the hint that the management, at best do not care at all about the fans or what the fans want, and at worst view the fanbase with contempt, as the enemy?

    FIxed.

    The "management" and "the band" are interchangeable, since "the management" also happens to be Axl's mom and happens to run Axl's life, and Axl runs the band. Whenever Beta speaks, she's speaking what Axl feels and is representing him not only as his manager, but as his Mother and his life organizer. That's been her role since at least 2001.

  8. Has the fanbase yet gotten the hint that GN'R, it's members and management, at best do not care at all about the fans or what the fans want, and at worst view the fanbase with contempt, as the enemy?

    Let's consider a few things we've gotten in just the last month alone:

    Beta's alleged texting stating: "I'm glad everyone is happy with stolen material. Well, I guess that's it. We don't need to put anything out now. Everyone took the fun of everything. MSL and co will pay for what they did"

    The band essentially dismissing 5 simple questions the fanbase had put together about the future of the band?

    Beta dismissing Manets' (who is a big fan and supporter of Axl and New GNR, the farthest from a hater) hope GN'R would go to the studio soon by saying: "complaints, complaints, complaints."

    Chris Pitman's recent interview where he said: "Just like Guns. We don't care, you know? We'll go out and play songs that people know, but we're not knocking ourselves out to release new music. There's no need to, now. It's not the time or place."

    Let's also consider:

    The consistent excuses that "life [got] in the way" of the band even recording a single song together since 2009--FOUR years ago?

    Axl saying a new record at some point was a "definite maybe"?

    Del coming out the other day in an interview and saying that Axl will put out material when he wants to and feels it's ready?

    Have we not gotten the message? It's two fold, from the band and it's camp to us, basically they're saying:

    1) Fuck you (or as Del James put it, "suck my dick")

    2) Don't expect new material for a good long time.

    Del in his interview blasted those who leaked the recent leaks as thieves, crooks.....But in the same interview, he talked about how he didn't pay taxes to the IRS because he never thought he'd live long enough to have to pay taxes, and so he partied it up and spent every penny he had without paying taxes until he was locked up. Isn't that just as crooked? And in the mind of a leaker, and in the mind of someone who listens to leaks, might they not be leaking/listening because maybe in their mind they feel they'll never live to see GN'R officially release another song/album, so they might as well just hear it any way they can?
    How many ways do the band and members of it's inner circle have to say they're not on our side?

    If this band doesn't give a fuck about us, or even about putting out a new song, why should we give a fuck about them?

    • Like 1
  9. It sounds great on paper, but...Were Vic Vega and Vincent Vega believable as brothers? I mean, in a cinematic sense...Michael Madsen and John Travolta are VERY different actors and I don't know if they would've had any chemistry on screen as a duo in the way Travolta did with Jackson. I mean, Vic Vega is a sociopathic, sadistic, stone cold killer. Vincent Vega is an affable, likable, cool hitman. They're just two very different kinds of characters, so I don't know if it even would've worked just in a chemistry level.

    It's like adding Joe Pesci's character in Goodfellas as a member of The Corleone Family...Just doesn't add up in terms of dynamics.

    imagen_noticia_hermanosvega.jpg

    Vega-Brothers-Michael-Madsen-and-John-Tr

  10. T1 all the way, T2 is just a cynical marketing thing, a re-imagining of the original when someone realised that, hang on, this storyline had a Transformers type appeal for a more little boys type audience, if only we'd thought of this before! T1 is fuckin' grim, just like it should be, the Terminator is relentless and unforgiving and as i said previously Michael Biehn plays a blinder, just absolutely brilliant, his fuckin' lack of patience and gruff exterior, that quality he lent the character of looking like he's really fuckin' been through the mill with it.

    But most importantly i think is when you watch T1 and they do the scenes in the now, in the 80s, it actually like...makes the reality of the world actually look pretty fuckin' grim and harsh. Also the fact that they are human and they are being a chased by a Terminator it kinda like...you can identify with that cuz we're human, as opposed to the second one there's almost a certain comfort there that Arnies there and with them...but when it's just Sarah and Kyle you're like "AHHHHHHHHH!!! RUN!!!!! RUN YOU FUCKERS!!!!" You just feel yourself pulling for them even more. Also...when you watch the first one the first time, you kinda don't know that they're gonna make it, it's not clear that good is gonna triumph over evil, gives it that edge of your seat quality, by the end you can almost feel their fatigue with them, it just really puts you in there with them...whereas you kinda know they are gonna survive in T2, it's just kinda Disney...cuz no films gonna end with the death of a 13 yr old and his Mum.

    T1 is filmed cinematically...T2 is like a music video. T1 just nails that Tech Noir thing...so much of it takes place at night too, there's a horrible loneliness to it.

    Yes!!! In T1 it's just Kyle and Sarah against a machine of death, alone. No one, not even a whole station of cops, can protect them. In T2, there's Arnie, there's Sarah who is now an action babe, and Bart Simpson and it is like a music video. It's so fucking commercial.

  11. I find it a bit odd yes, especially considering the character is absolutely and totally devoid of any substance and is basically just a contrived (in the literal sense of the word) image of cool invented by a movie geek in his late 30s. I mean, it's sad to want to be any like, film or TV character but at least certain characters have infinite facets and sides and substance to them that evoke an image of complete human being, Vincent Vega (the Pulp Fiction character) is basically just cartoon-cool. Brilliant, amazing even for the film that he was in but as something to emulate? I'm not sure how one would go about it. It's just Tarantino writing a character with John Travolta in mind so he can make him the kind of cool that he was in all his wet dreams and not what he ended up being with Look Whoose Talking etc.

    Actually the character was written with Michael Madsen in mind. It was written exactly for him. But Madsen turned him down, choosing to do some other film that turned out to be a gigantic flop. So then after Madsen rejected him, Tarantino turned to Travolta. The whole thing that the character was made for Travolta is just a bit of mythology.

    And you know one theory for certain over the other because...?

    Michael Madsen said so?

    "Tarantino cast Travolta in Pulp Fiction only because Michael Madsen, who had a major role—Vic Vega—in Reservoir Dogs (1992), chose to appear in Kevin Costner's Wyatt Earp instead. Madsen has since expressed regret over his decision."

  12. I'm not even going to bother reading this thread, but come on, seriously? T1 does not hold up at all. Perhaps you like the story better, but the special effects are just terrible. The only thing T1 has going for it is Arnie's line, "I'll be back."

    There were at least six or seven "holy shit" moments in T2; can't say I ever experience one of them in T1.

    T1 = No cheesy one liners. "HASTA LA VIESTA, BABY". No live action Bart Simpson. No goody two shoes Terminator who is all "kinder and gentler".

    T1 is one man and woman facing off a literal, relentless killing machine. In T2, it's machine vs. machine. There's no sense of urgency.

    Special effects don't make a movie. The tone, pacing, setting, story and characters do, and T1 is much more urgent, has a more intense feel, isn't just another big goofy Arnold summer action movie. And it's more original. T2 is basically a high budget remake of T1 with some tweaks.

  13. I find it a bit odd yes, especially considering the character is absolutely and totally devoid of any substance and is basically just a contrived (in the literal sense of the word) image of cool invented by a movie geek in his late 30s. I mean, it's sad to want to be any like, film or TV character but at least certain characters have infinite facets and sides and substance to them that evoke an image of complete human being, Vincent Vega (the Pulp Fiction character) is basically just cartoon-cool. Brilliant, amazing even for the film that he was in but as something to emulate? I'm not sure how one would go about it. It's just Tarantino writing a character with John Travolta in mind so he can make him the kind of cool that he was in all his wet dreams and not what he ended up being with Look Whoose Talking etc.

    Actually the character was written with Michael Madsen in mind. It was written exactly for him. But Madsen turned him down, choosing to do some other film that turned out to be a gigantic flop. So then after Madsen rejected him, Tarantino turned to Travolta. The whole thing that the character was made for Travolta is just a bit of mythology.

  14. What are your opinions on "Ain't Goin Down"? It was a song first written in the AFD era, then demoed during the UYI era but passed over, and it was still being worked on and retooled by the band as late as 1994 with consideration for release (according to Gilby; it was the last song he worked on as a member of GN'R). They even rerecorded it and released it for the 1994 GN'R Pinball pinball machine. You can tell it's a re-record because Axl's vocals are def not '85-'91 era:

    What's your feelings on the song?

    And how do you think Ain't Goin Down compares with Goin Down? Which is the better song?

    So was this released before or after Sympathy for the Devil? I never knew the pinball machine was done in '94 -- I thought it was around 1990.

    It's a decent Slashy riff-rawker. Could have fit in well on the Illusions. It also represents Axl's vocals at their most distinctive, almost bordering on self-parody I guess...

    I think before. There's a Slash interview from '93 or '94 mentioning the pinball machine coming out not too far away. Gilby was fired in June 1994, Sympathy was recorded around October 1994 and released in December...He once responded to a tweet I made, saying that Ain't Goin Down was the last song he worked on as a member of GN'R, it was being reworked by the TSI era lineup.

    I do think it should've been released even as just a B-Side to say one of the TSI singles. It'd have been nice if GN'R's last single was an original song.

  15. What are your opinions on "Ain't Goin Down"? It was a song first written in the AFD era, then demoed during the UYI era but passed over, and it was still being worked on and retooled by the band as late as 1994 with consideration for release (according to Gilby; it was the last song he worked on as a member of GN'R). They even rerecorded it and released it for the 1994 GN'R Pinball pinball machine. You can tell it's a re-record because Axl's vocals are def not '85-'91 era:

    What's your feelings on the song?

    And how do you think Ain't Goin Down compares with Goin Down? Which is the better song?

  16. because there's a lot of metalheads who are very much into the image aspect of heavy metal, and one of the pioneering bands had cut off their locks...and also, this coincided with a poorly-received album. it was a one-two combo and people were just like, who are these guys pretending to be metallica?

    Which leads me into:

    Do you (and others here) feel the reception to Load was justified?

    If we view it as say just an album, not specifically a Metallica album, how would you guys say it ranks?

    Okay, not terrible but nothing special. Take the best songs from Load and Reload and you get a good album, instead we have two albums with a handful of greatsongs and lots of filler.

    And it was not just them cutting their hair, they started wearing eyeliner, nail varnish and completely changed the way they dressed.

    That sounds familiar.

    And the second part of your post, that truly does sound like selling out. You don't just up and change everything about who you are, especially a whole band. That does sound like an utterly corporate, calculated move. It'd be very gay if GN'R had stuck together in the '90s and changed everything, from the way they wore their hair to the way they dressed. Not very "Rock N' Roll."

×
×
  • Create New...