Netflix recommendations

[nagapie]

I don't really like Wham by the way. Not by any stretch of the imagination. . . But this was engaging and looked beautiful. It's just it was textbook excellence. Flawlessly cut pre existing audio interviews and Incredibly creative dynamic edited archive footage and stills.
Next time I have to edit a music doc, I'm watching this again first.

I don't really like Wham. And usually I don't watch any of your recommendations as they're for genres I'm disinterested in. Interesting that you mention how it looks, that's not generally something I care about in a documentary, I'm all about the story, so wonder if we'll have crossover taste here.

 

[BigMoaner]

Watch Bad Surgeon, it’s fricking WILD!

True crime and absolutely captivating/horrifying. Ignore the shite title. How it didn’t go more viral I don’t know.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I haven't seen this, but might look out for it now.

I know you're an expert, but sometimes I think even us non-professionals* can watch something and appreciate the craftsmanship in beautiful editing/filmmaking.

Of course, just because I make telly doesn't mean I can enjoy the final product any more or less. To be honest all that generally switches off when I'm watching. It's usually only when something really is jarring that my work brain kicks in. Or maybe when something is frustratingly almost good.
The Wham doc stood out though. Even top film makers tend to go for interview, voice over, fill in the blanks with archive.
The Wham doc tells an engaging and thoughtfully well paced story. I think it was also 100% active interviews and footage and no VO (something i generally favor, but almost always get pushed back on) which gave it a very unique feel. Like a time capsule a real document of events of the time. (A documentary if you will. )

I've probably built it up too much. Maybe I am too aware of the struggle it would have been to collate (and budget for) all that archive. .

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I don't really like Wham. And usually I don't watch any of your recommendations as they're for genres I'm disinterested in. Interesting that you mention how it looks

It's more about how it uses music an archive stills very creatively, but to also pace the 'story'. It's not just wallpaper over the cracks.
I think what sets this doc apart in some ways is that it's paced and presented more like a story (even if it doesn't look that way). It's not a set of interviews and info dumps with semi appropriate GV covering jump cuts and voice over.

As I've said previously, I've probably built it up too much now. I've only seen it once, and that was in two sittings. Maybe I focused on it more because it's a stand out example of excellence in something I sometimes do in my job.

 

[krtek a houby]

The Wham doc is very well made and whether you like the band or not, it's worth a watch. Imho.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Of course, just because I make telly doesn't mean I can enjoy the final product any more or less. To be honest all that generally switches off when I'm watching. It's usually only when something really is jarring that my work brain kicks in. Or maybe when something is frustratingly almost good.
The Wham doc stood out though. Even top film makers tend to go for interview, voice over, fill in the blanks with archive.
The Wham doc tells an engaging and thoughtfully well paced story. I think it was also 100% active interviews and footage and no VO (something i generally favor, but almost always get pushed back on) which gave it a very unique feel. Like a time capsule a real document of events of the time. (A documentary if you will. )

I've probably built it up too much. Maybe I am too aware of the struggle it would have been to collate (and budget for) all that archive. .

Yeah, too true, the usual convention is current interviews interspersed with archive footage and use of judicious cutting with 'noddies' and B roll to cover up/smooth over the edits.

 

[krtek a houby]

In fact, would say it made me appreciate the band; as was more a fan of George's solo career.