Mötley Crüe is awful. They weren't talented and were a sub-par hair band that some people cared about in the 80's. According to the plot on IMDb, it just sounds like a band doing debaucherous (I love that word) stuff brought to us by the director of "Jackass".
shareJust watch it before you make any assumptions.
shareMötley Crüe is awful.
Never been a fan of them, but surely a movie about a crap band in itself can be entertaining? It does not follow that you need to like the music.
shareI can go along with that. I was just agreeing about how crappy they were.
shareIt could work in a Spinal Tap kind of way. Although Spinal Tap was more talented.
shareBeing made because obviously many people DON'T think they're awful.
shareI do not think that's the reason such movies are made.
Surely bands have to have an interesting and eventful career, ups and downs, peaks and troughs, tragedies, scandals disasters etc for such movies to be entertaining.
I don't see what they've done that any other band hasn't done. This guys are all assholes too. I'd rather a see a more respected band get the opportunity for a biopic.
shareThey were fat old farts a couple years ago and still sold out almost every date on their final tour. I'd say they're pretty damn respected. But if you think they suck, stop wasting so much time talking about them. They have people talking about them 40 years after they began so that's something.
shareI'm not a diehard fan of Mötley Crüe, but they were easily in the top three of hair bands from the 80s, along with GnR (you pick the third one). They weren't progressive musicians, but that was part of their appeal, and they knew how to write a variety of great songs with hooks, like "Live Wire," "Take Me to the Top," "Merry-Go-Round," "Looks that Kill," "Too Young to Fall in Love," "Knock 'Em Dead, Kid," "Shout at the Devil," "Save Our Souls," "Wild Side," "Flush," "Let Us Prey," etc.
shareGuns N' Roses weren't a hair band. They were way beyond the hair metal scene. They just got big around the same time unfortunately, so they're lumped in with bands like Poison, Whitesnake, etc.
They were WAY bigger and WAY better than the hair metal bands.
They were more influenced by The Rolling Stones and Aerosmith, and even some older punk rock bands.
They were NOT Bon Jovi.
Yes they were an 80's hair band, aka glam metal. Your issue is that you think "80's hair band" is a completely negative statement. It's not. Glam metal was the result of the foundation set by bands like Aerosmith and the Stones. Some 80's hair bands kept a good amount of grit -- like Crue and W.A.S.P. -- while others went too far in the effeminate direction, like Poison, which isn't to say Poison didn't have anything good to offer. Most were somewhere in between, e.g. Ratt, Whitesnake and Cinderella. Even Judas Priest seriously flirted with glam metal; their TURBO album is arguably one of the best representations of the genre. Accept also strongly experimented with it, as verified by a few songs on METAL HEART and RUSSIAN ROULETTE, not to mention their failed disc EAT THE HEAT. UDO flirts with glam too -- especially early on -- but they're more properly designated as an all-around kick axx metal band.
They were NOT Bon Jovi.
No...they weren't. I don't mind hair metal at all, but Guns was not a hair metal band. Have a good day.
shareThey most definitely were (are). The issue here is that you don't seem to grasp the wide scope of hair/glam metal. It's simply a tag for 80's hard rock/metal bands that had pop appeal and typically acquired a flair for glam fashion to one degree or another inspired by 70's glam bands (e.g. David Bowie, Freddie Mercury, Sweet and even Aerosmith to some measure). Did GnR's brand of rock/metal have commercial appeal? Did they have big hair? Some make-up? Glam-ish accoutrements? Was their heyday in the 80s? These questions are rhetorical because the answers are obvious. Check out their videos for "Sweet Child O' Mine" and "Welcome to the Jungle" for all the proof needed.
For further evidence scroll down to the section Second wave (1986–1991) in this article on glam/hair metal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glam_metal
That said, I agree that GnR were unique and had that special 'something' which set them apart from the pack. But so did Motley Crue in a different way. That's why I refer to them as the cream of the crop of 80's hair rock/metal.
GNR were hard rock, not hair metal or glam rock
shareYes, they were a hard rock band with big hair from the 80s, which is what hair metal (aka glam metal) is.
Now go view their 80's video for "Welcome to the Jungle" and tell me they weren't a 80's hair band.
you're on your own for this one, bro,
it'll be lonely up on that hill
I'm not alone. The above link includes GnR in the hair metal genre.
I get it, you're a fan of the band and view them as unique. Besides, it's not necessary to pigeonhole any band. I agree.
But, at the end of the day, their origins are in 80's hair metal, just as Faster Pussycat, Sea Hags and Bride, all of which have similarities.
Google some old metal edge magazine photos of GnR from the 80s and tell me again they weren’t a glam rock band lol
shareBy that token Pantera was a glam band as well. Pantera started out with the glam clothes to get recognized because that was the way to get noticed in the 80's. Just because there a few pictures with GN'R wearing glam stuff doesn't make them a glam band. I'm curious...do you consider Ozzy a glam band? Aerosmith? Van Halen? I'm sure you could find pictures of everyone in the 80's in publicity shots wearing glam gear, but there is a hell of a lot of difference if you see them in a few pictures in a magazine from their live attire. Slash always had the leather jacket and top hat, Duff McKagan was in a punk rock band, Izzy Stradlin was a sleazy looking street dude. Bands like Poison, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue...they wore makeup and looked like women as part of their stage getup. GN'R may have done that a few times early on, but they were not a hair metal glam band. You'll never convince me of that. They are lumped in with lesser bands because of their era. They are more Stones and early Aerosmith than Ratt, Poison, or Bon Jovi.
I was a fan of all mentioned bands in the 80s. No I didn’t consider Ozzy glam rock. Van Halen? Maybe a little. AC/DC, Metallica, megadeath? Absolutely not. GnR, while maybe not as extremely glam like Poison or Crew, but definitely were at least for awhile. I’m not trying to disrespect GnR, thats just my opinion of them
shareNo worries. To each their own. I enjoy the debate.
shareAwful, yes. But... at least they were better than Skid Row, Poison and Bon Jovi. This is being made probably because of today's annoying cult of the 80s.
shareI think they jumped on the Hollywood bandwagon with the late slew of rock biopics like A Star Is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody. And those movies can eat their hearts out, The Dirt was much better in my opinion.
shareMaybe in a way those helped push getting the movie made, but they've been trying to make this for AT LEAST 10 years.
shareI agree they are better. But really it's just the lesser of two evils, or in this case, 4 evils.
shareMötley Crüe has sold more than 41 million records worldwide, including 25 million albums in the United States, making them one of the best-selling bands of all time. Yeah you’re a real intelligent person. Just because they don’t play that disgusting rap doesn’t mean people don’t like them.
share"Dr. Feelgood" is one of my favorite guitar riffs ever. So badass!
"Wild Side" and "Kickstart My Heart" are also just top notch Rock N' Roll.
I like Motley Crue, I've seen them twice, and even if they weren't one of my favorite bands, the people on this post saying they suck don't know a damn thing. Crue was a huge band, wrote some killer hard rock music, and they were still selling out arenas not too long ago.
You must be one of those people that think that because there are 15 Fast and the Furious movies, that means they're good movies because people keep going to see it. Keep in mind, Netflix gave Adam Sandler a five film deal.
Also I'm a rocker. I hate rap.
But of course! People who love rock despise Motley Crue. Or at least consider some of their tracks a guilty pleasure (as I do).
shareYou said nobody wants this and no one likes Motley Crue which people clearly do.
shareCrue was an awesome band
I still listen to their music every week
[deleted]
Just because there is crap music nowadays, that doesn't mean mediocre bands from the past get a pass. And I never said I had such a great taste in music. I only said Mötley Crüe was awful.
share