The video for the song "The View", taken from the album Lulu by Lou Reed & Metallica and directed by Darren Aronofsky, is now available for viewing below.






In Metallica news, there are new additions to the 2012 Summer Tour, with two more new dates in Norway and Denmark. The first show will be in Oslo at Vallehovin on May 23rd, and the second show in Horsens at "The Prison" (a former state prison) on June 6th. It will be the first time Metallica plays at this venue.

New shows added:

May 23rd, 2012 - Vallehovin - Oslo, Norway
June 6th, 2012 - "The Prison" - Horsens, Denmark

[Also thanks to kual21 for sending in this news!]



Source: loureedmetallica.com
Band profile: Metallica
 
Posted: 04.12.2011 by JD



Comments

‹‹ Back to the News Pages: [1] 2
Comments: 78  
Users visited: 381  
Search this topic:  


Malaghost - 04.12.2011 at 11:33  
I am the table directed by Aronofsky, where is this world going to?
K†ulu - 04.12.2011 at 12:08  
I have not listened to much of the album, but I like this song, and I like the video. Although it is nothing special in a way - just black and white video, but looks good and professional.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 12:10  
A pretentious untalented douche bag directing the video for the most pretentious and useless album of the year? Heh, a perfect match.
malaikat - 04.12.2011 at 12:21  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 12:10

A pretentious untalented douche bag directing the video for the most pretentious and useless album of the year? Heh, a perfect match.


Aronofsky in no way is not pretentious, and if he is, he at least makes something valuable at the end. LULU, on the other hand...

Btw, I could have directed this video. They called Aronofsky for this?


The really sad part: Lou at the end shouting "Bravo", "Encore" and "That was brilliant".
!J.O.O.E.! - 04.12.2011 at 12:23  
Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:21


Aronofsky in no way is not pretentious, and if he is, he at least makes something valuable at the end. LULU, on the other hand...


Exactly right, I concur. This was wasted on him.
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 12:26  
A couple of things here: Firstly, I usually hate edited versions of songs that are cut down for singles/videos. But in this case, it benefits the song greatly. Without THAT riff repeating through over half of the song, it doesn't sound anywhere near as monotonous as the album version. Lou Reed still sounds awful, but at least it's tolerable when his parts are shortened considerably. Although still, the only really decent part of the song is the final riff passage after all the vocals have finished.

Secondly, the director did something right, as until now, I had never laughed out loud at the "I am the table!" part, but seeing James sing it in this video was genuinely hilarious.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 12:27  
Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:21

Btw, I could have directed this video. They called Aronofsky for this?


I guess they're trying to pull every trick they possibly can to get people interested in this album, because we all know that the music in this video will not do that. But drop a famous (and VERY pretentious) director's name to it and it might just lure in some art house kids, who will claim this obscure garbage is "artsy" and "different" and "deep". I don't hate Aronofsky that much really, but you gotta admit that if he was willing to direct the video for this crap, then he is a douche bag. He cannot possibly think the song is good, but he teamed up with them anyway.
malaikat - 04.12.2011 at 12:31  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 12:27

Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:21

Btw, I could have directed this video. They called Aronofsky for this?


I guess they're trying to pull every trick they possibly can to get people interested in this album, because we all know that the music in this video will not do that. But drop a famous (and VERY pretentious) director's name to it and it might just lure in some art house kids, who will claim this obscure garbage is "artsy" and "different" and "deep". I don't hate Aronofsky that much really, but you gotta admit that if he was willing to direct the video for this crap, then he is a douche bag. He cannot possibly think the song is good, but he teamed up with them anyway.


Yes, I agree that Lutallica are trying to salvage this train wreck by calling an established "artsy" director who is very popular at the moment - jost so they can toss around with his name.

But, why are you blaming Aronofsky? What, according to you, his reaction should be: "No, god sirs, your music is crap and I shall not direct your video"? He is a director. He directs stuff for money. Lutallica offered him money. So he directed. End of story.
!J.O.O.E.! - 04.12.2011 at 12:34  
All Hollywood directors must be "douches" and "pretentious" then because you can bet your life they're in it for the money, as if directing this piece of crap null and voids everything else in their career.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 12:43  
Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:31

But, why are you blaming Aronofsky? What, according to you, his reaction should be: "No, god sirs, your music is crap and I shall not direct your video"?


Yes actually. I do believe that influential people should not help popularize a piece of garbage just because they will get paid for it.

Being in it for the money is fine by me, but there is a big difference between accepting money for directing something good or at least decent and between accepting money for directing something you know damn well is utterly awful.
malaikat - 04.12.2011 at 12:45  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 12:43

Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:31

But, why are you blaming Aronofsky? What, according to you, his reaction should be: "No, god sirs, your music is crap and I shall not direct your video"?


Yes actually. I do believe that influential people should not help popularize a piece of garbage just because they will get paid for it.


Good for you, but the world doesn't work that way. Only a fool / rather naive idealist can blame Aronofsky for this.

Dude simply did his job which he was paid for - and I take satisfaction in the fact that he did quite half-assed job with this video.

EDIT: what !J.O.O.E! said.
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 12:48  
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.12.2011 at 12:34

All Hollywood directors must be "douches" and "pretentious" then because you can bet your life they're in it for the money, as if directing this piece of crap null and voids everything else in their career.


Peter Jackson or George Lucas must be incredibily douchbags as well.
Seriously, the logic is awful.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 12:49  
Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:45

Good for you, but the world doesn't work that way. Only a fool / rather naive idealist can blame Aronofsky for this.


Only a fool can blame Aronofsky for doing something that he willingly did...

What?
!J.O.O.E.! - 04.12.2011 at 12:52  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 12:48


Peter Jackson or George Lucas must be incredibily douchbags as well (see what I did there?).
Seriously the logic is awful.

Every self righteous twit seems to assume that anyone in the world of media production, be it music of the non super-obscure type, film or otherwise, doesn't have money on their mind. Aside from the most fringe experimental directors and some of the exilic, diasporic etc. directors who are probably more concerned with message than money, you can be sure that everyone wants to see the glow of the dollar/euro/etc. sign.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 12:54  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 12:48

Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.12.2011 at 12:34

All Hollywood directors must be "douches" and "pretentious" then because you can bet your life they're in it for the money, as if directing this piece of crap null and voids everything else in their career.


Peter Jackson or George Lucas must be incredibily douchbags as well (see what I did there?).


Only if you cannot differentiate between getting paid and then doing a poor job and between getting payed for deliberately endorsing a bad work of art.
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 12:56  
Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:45
he did quite half-assed job with this video.


He maked the song almost sound ok... that should count for something!
malaikat - 04.12.2011 at 12:57  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 12:49

Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:45

Good for you, but the world doesn't work that way. Only a fool / rather naive idealist can blame Aronofsky for this.


Only a fool can blame Aronofsky for doing something that he willingly did...

What?


Yes. You blame him because he did his job. Which is to direct stuff. That's how the industry works. He gets money. He directs. Simple as that. +, Metallica is still big, so he gets his share of media coverage. Do you think he would be one of the most sought - after directors in Hollywod right now if he just said after "The Requiem" and "The Fountain": "A film about professional wrestlers? With Mickey Rourke? Surely you jest, gentlemen, I have my artistic principles".

Give me one valid reason why he should have, acording to you, refuse this job.
!J.O.O.E.! - 04.12.2011 at 12:57  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 12:54


Only if you cannot differentiate between getting paid and then doing a poor job and between getting payed for deliberately endorsing a bad work of art.

Neither of which is below the average human's purview.
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 12:58  
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.12.2011 at 12:52
Aside from the most fringe experimental directors and some of the exilic, diasporic etc...


Not to even mention those guys almost never break the news or anything...
malaikat - 04.12.2011 at 12:58  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 12:56

Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:45
he did quite half-assed job with this video.


He maked the song almost sound ok... that should count for something!


Yeah, I blame the fact that he shortened the song, as Angelic said. That riff is just ungodly (not in a good way) :/


EDIT: Lucas is a douche.
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 13:00  
Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:57
Give me one valid reason why he should have, acording to you, refuse this job.


OMG it's because he's promoting bad stuff!

Lols, like if these guys need more promotion... Get real. I mean, the guys just needed a video, that's it. There's nothing deeper on that matter.
!J.O.O.E.! - 04.12.2011 at 13:00  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 12:58


Not to even mention those guys almost never break the news or anything...

Nope, their styles are often so far out of the comfort zone of people who only feed on the Hollywood output it's of no interest to them. Only at Film festivals do they ever break through, and then to a limited and more specialist audience.
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 13:01  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 12:56
He maked the song almost sound ok... that should count for something!


My thoughts exactly! It's still far from great, but at least the song sounded bearable and close to being half decent in that form... maybe he should have directed the album! lol
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 13:02  
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.12.2011 at 13:00

and then to a limited and more specialist audience.


Exactly
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 13:03  
Written by Angelic Storm on 04.12.2011 at 13:01
maybe he should have directed the album! lol


Hhahahahahahhaha +1 Nice one.
malaikat - 04.12.2011 at 13:04  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 13:00

Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:57
Give me one valid reason why he should have, acording to you, refuse this job.


OMG it's because he's promoting bad stuff!

Lols, like if these guys need more promotion... Get real. I mean, the guys just needed a video, that's it. There's nothing deeper on that matter.


I think that's about it, really. Plus, they probably went like this:

"OK we have a pretentious artsy album that no one likes. How can we promote it so they, you know, like it?"
"How about hiring an art-house director who is, in return, popular in the mainstream to do our video?"
"Splendid idea!"

etc. etc.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 13:06  
Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:57

Give me one valid reason why he should have, acording to you, refuse this job.


I have explained my views adequately. And considering that you said (rightfully so) that he is one of the most sought after directors, we all know he would not have bankrupt himself by giving the finger to the guys who are giving a finger to all of their fans with this album. I rest my case.
Kenos - 04.12.2011 at 13:08  
Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:21

*every single word he's uttered*


+1.
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 13:08  
^Again: having the idea that hollywood directors aren't there for the money either... Lols.
The Shape 1973 - 04.12.2011 at 13:08  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 12:48

Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.12.2011 at 12:34

All Hollywood directors must be "douches" and "pretentious" then because you can bet your life they're in it for the money, as if directing this piece of crap null and voids everything else in their career.


Peter Jackson or George Lucas must be incredibily douchbags as well.
Seriously, the logic is awful.

Getting George Lucas to do it would have been great. They could have had Jar Jar Binks sat on a singing table.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 13:11  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 13:08

^Again: having the idea that hollywood directors aren't there for the money either... Lols.


Stop putting words in my mouth, it's kind of gross.
malaikat - 04.12.2011 at 13:12  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 13:06

Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 12:57

Give me one valid reason why he should have, acording to you, refuse this job.


I have explained my views adequately. And considering that you said (rightfully so) that he is one of the most sought after directors, we all know he would not have bankrupt himself by giving the finger to the guys who are giving a finger to all of their fans with this album. I rest my case.


Again, nice idealistic thinking, but that's not how the world works. You think Aronofsky gives a damn what would some Metallica fanboy think? No. He gets the money, he does the job. End of story.

Is it wrong? No, because he didn't do a Nazi-supportive video, he did a video for a rock song. Simple as that. Promoting "bad art" (purely subjective cathegory, even though I too hate LULU) is still promoting art.
And, once more: it's not Aronofsky's job to be a music critic, his job is to direct stuff.
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 13:12  
Written by The Shape 1973 on 04.12.2011 at 13:08

Getting George Lucas to do it would have been great. They could have had Jar Jar Binks sat on a singing table.


Having Jar Jar Binks miming James singing I am the table would have been classic.

Honestly, I've never even heard of this director, but for making a terrible song actually appear to be somewhere resembling something decent, deserves much praise I think.
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 13:17  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 13:11

Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 13:08

^Again: having the idea that hollywood directors aren't there for the money either... Lols.

Stop putting words in my mouth, it's kind of gross.


Because that's the kind of bullshit you are implying.
You are saying that the director had enough money to say "fuck off" to the band. Well, Aronofsky just thought "hey! more money!" and did it right away. Every known director would have done the same thing. The idea of a director saying "fuck off, your song is awful" is a cute one indeed but it doesn't work that way.
vezzy - 04.12.2011 at 13:18  
"Bravo! Encore! That was brilliant!" is officially my new catch phrase when denouncing someone. Beats "Cool story bro" and all sorts of other mundane phrases.
Valentin B - 04.12.2011 at 13:18  
At least they had the decency to cut the overly boring parts like they did with the video for St. Anger. now it sounds decent, not bad in my opinion actually. now if someone could do the same thing with the rest of the album...
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 13:18  
Written by malaikat on 04.12.2011 at 13:12

Again, nice idealistic thinking, but that's not how the world works.


That's not an argument, ya know. And BTW, Leonard Nimoy turned down a role in Star Trek: Generations, because the script sucked. I just remembered that. His an inspiration to all of us silly idealistic thinkers.
Angelic Storm - 04.12.2011 at 13:20  
Also, has anyone stopped to think of the possibility that the director actually LIKES the song? Just because the popular consensus is that the album sucks, doesn't mean that everyone is going to view it that way. Seeing as it's unknown to the general public what Darren Aronofsky thinks of "The View", nobody should be claiming to speak on his behalf when it comes to his opinion on the music. Maybe he does see it as good art.

@Valentin: Agreed, the song sounds greatly improved in it's edited form.
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 13:22  
Quote:
His an inspiration to all of us silly idealistic thinkers.

Just for the record Ernil: There's absolutely nothing wrong in saying "fuck off" to the band, I would encourage that tbh. But there's nothing wrong in doing it either.
!J.O.O.E.! - 04.12.2011 at 13:23  
Ernilthingy is also implying that every director of praiseworthy origin should only produce that which is regarded as quality or "high culture" merchandise and ignore the twinkle of the dollar sign. I don't quite see why he should fall under a different set of values than everyone else. There's something to be said for artistic irony for a director of excellent cinema purposefully taking on something which is abjectly regarded as shit right across the board. That's too much of a grey area for Ernilwhatsit though.

Fact is this video = High pay, small impact. It won't affect Arofonsky in any way other that his bank account.
!J.O.O.E.! - 04.12.2011 at 13:24  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 13:18


That's not an argument, ya know. And BTW, Leonard Nimoy turned down a role in Star Trek: Generations, because the script sucked. I just remembered that. His an inspiration to all of us silly idealistic thinkers.

Yet later appeared in the super-popular-expensive, Disney-remake "Star Trek" looking like a drag queen. Go figure.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 13:26  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 13:17

Because that's the kind of bullshit you are implying.


Nope, I wasn't implying that at all. So let me explain once again: there is a big difference between a director doing one of the following:

1) Accepting money for directing something that has potential and turns out either good or bad. All Hollywood directors do this and I have never denied this, sorry.
2) Accepting money for deliberately endorsing something awful like getting paid for directing a film based on a script that they know is awful, producing a film that they know is going to be awful (Spielberg+Transformers) etc.

What Aronofsky has done by directing this video falls into the second category. And I don't like it.

Quote:

You are saying that the director had enough money to say "fuck off" to the band. Well, Aronofsky just thought "hey! more money!" and did it right away. Every known director would have done the same thing. The idea of a director saying "fuck off, your song is awful" is a cute one indeed but it doesn't work that way.


Leonard Nimoy. The man, the great man who destroys this cop out of an excuse.
!J.O.O.E.! - 04.12.2011 at 13:38  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 13:26


Leonard Nimoy. The man, the great man who destroys this cop out of an excuse.

I'll say again, assuming you don't have me blocked, the fact Nimoy gave himself up for the Star Trek production destroyed his reputation. Generations was little more than a feature length episode of The Next Generation (that's why it was so good) whereas Star Trek was an ill-advised, revisionist attempt at recreating the Star Trek universe for the audience that found the Star Trek franchise too complicated to engage with. And Nimoy looked fucking ridiculous in it and did it because Abrams offered him a pay cheque bigger than Praxis (pre-explosion of course).
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 13:50  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 13:26
Leonard Nimoy. The man, the great man who destroys this cop out of an excuse.


Just an exception to my eyes, I said it before and I can say it again.
There's nothing wrong with the ideal of saying "fuck off" to a bad song, script, whatever.... I would encourage that. But I'm also not going to think less of those who just want to do some job because they like doing it.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 13:52  
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.12.2011 at 13:38

I'll say again, assuming you don't have me blocked, the fact Nimoy gave himself up for the Star Trek production kinda killed his reputation.




I know. According to me, he had a choice like Aronofsky had a choice, that is my point. According to everyone else - including yourself -, the world simply doesn't work any other way. So YOU should not have a problem with Nimoy.

Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.12.2011 at 13:38

Generations was little more than a feature length episode of The Next Generation (that's why it was so good) whereas Star Trek was an ill-advised, revisionist attempt at recreating the Star Trek universe for the audience that found the Star Trek franchise too complicated to engage with. And Nimoy looked fucking ridiculous in it and did it because Abrams offered him a pay cheque bigger than Praxis (pre-explosion of course).


I will not discuss Star Trek movies here, but take a look at this and get back to me on the movie thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h06WKYFYdlo
!J.O.O.E.! - 04.12.2011 at 13:58  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 13:52



I know. According to me, he had a choice like Aronofsky had a choice, that is my point. According to everyone else - including yourself -, the world simply doesn't work any other way. So YOU should not have a problem with Nimoy.

I will not discuss Star Trek movies here, but take a look at this and get back to me on the movie thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h06WKYFYdlo

I don't have a problem with it, I was simply using it to highlight the flaw in your statement. I don't care if Nimoy dresses up in ballet outfit and advertises anal lubricant. He's human (despite the prevailing theories) and can do whatever he wants. If he endorses bad films it doesn't affect his history.

As much as I'd love to watch armchair reviewers prattle on with their own sense of self grandeur I do actually have an exam tomorrow and have a number of film theorist and analyst journals and articles to absorb. I suspect I'll derive more from that than Youtube clips.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 13:58  
Written by Mr. Doctor on 04.12.2011 at 13:50

Just an exception to my eyes, I said it before and I can say it again.
There's nothing wrong with the ideal of saying "fuck off" to a bad song, script, whatever.... I would encourage that.


And so would I. Except I would go a bit further and also discourage the opposite of saying no to awfulness by criticizing such decisions. Good conversation though, for a Sunday morning/afternoon.
ErnilEnNaur - 04.12.2011 at 14:02  
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 04.12.2011 at 13:58

I don't have a problem with it, I was simply using it to highlight the flaw in your statement.


There was no flaw in my statement. I never said Nimoy never accepted a bad role for good money, I merely said that he was proof that such a decision was possible.
Mr. Doctor - 04.12.2011 at 14:03  
Written by Guest on 04.12.2011 at 13:58
Good conversation though, for a Sunday morning/afternoon.

Not bad indeed... We never brought up our mothers, that should count for something!
I don't know if this is the case but there are some directors or songwritters that just enjoy doing everything they get the chance to do, like a child enjoying a game so dumb by the outsider's perspective. Some people just enjoy doing their work despite finding the result shitty or not. Just being there can be nice for someone in those fields and I see it as a healthy behaviour.
Kub - 04.12.2011 at 14:04  
Written by Angelic Storm on 04.12.2011 at 13:20

Also, has anyone stopped to think of the possibility that the director actually LIKES the song? Just because the popular consensus is that the album sucks, doesn't mean that everyone is going to view it that way.


Ahh, the voice of reason. Outside the metal world this album is not actually regarded as piece of shit, and the reviews are varied. Basically, you guys are most probably not the targeted audience of this one.

I like how Lou is incorporated into this video, and the song is cool, but the ending (encore! bravo!) is just clean douchebaggery.

Advertise on Metal Storm
Pages: [1] 2


Login or register to post here.



Similar topics

Forum Topic Similarity Started
News Metallica & Lou Reed - New Song Online 10.5 26.09.2011 by enumaelis
News Metallica & Lou Reed - Thirty-Second Song Sample Online 9 19.09.2011 by malaikat
News Metallica - Video Of 'The Other New Song' Posted Online 9 22.08.2006 by
News Metallica - New Video Online 9 02.09.2008 by Vermin
News Metallica - New Video Online 9 09.12.2008 by BloodTears



Hits total: 3921 | This month: 32