Will they ever make a movie about the Rolling Stones? Will it be as good as the trailers suggest for Bohemian Rhapsody, coming out in about two weeks?

If they do, what will the story arc be?

We all know how it has to start, at a train station in 1962. But how and where does it end? I know where I would like for it to end. It should be the Steel Wheels Atlantic City gig. I believe that gig was a "bonus gig" tacked on at the end of the Steel Wheels tour. I think that would make for a nice and satisfying ending.

I would like to see a movie in the "Lawrence of Arabia" class, at least three hours or more. If done right, it could be really really good.

I would like for it to start off with the Older (modern) Stones about to go onstage but suddenly as they enter stage its 1969 MSG Jumpin Jack Flash and then flashback to the train station, exactly as you say from there ending with Steel Wheels tour.

They’ll try it for a money grab at some point and a bunch of dumbass,s will buy into it but it will be fvckng horrible.
The Doors movie was a joke and The Queen movie is gonna be an even worse joke.
You couldn’t even cast someone as Chuck Leavell properly let alone one of The Stones.
Can you imagine some of our hardcore Keith fans buying an actor playing Keith,it’s laughable,they always play the ROCKSTAR and never get the deep,smart and thoughtful, not to mention talented people the rock and roll legends were (and are).
That trailer for the Queen movie was a huge eye roll for me, they showed Merc doing some idiotic 90s grunge move where he jumped into the audience and they were holding him up like he was Eddie Vedder.
Freddie Mercury didn’t fvckng dive into the audience.
In these sad timid little politically correct times they would never have the balls to even scratch the surface of the decadence and debauchery that occurred in the Rock and Roll era.
If they opened the movie with Merc and a mountain of Coke doing three guys in his dressing room I might begin to take them seriously,

The Dartford train station is not where it should start because that is not where the Rolling Stones story starts.

Regardless, no film could ever be made about the stones with them as the main characters without it being totally cringe inducing. They and the band dynamics are just too odd and wonky to really capture.

…..who'd play Stu ???????? ……



ROCKMAN

I absolutely hate films based on rock bands. They all go for the shallow thrills; always have the same story line. The better band films are fictional.
And yes Lem - I saw the trailer for the Queen movie and that was exactly what I caught too: Freddie never dived.

So re a band film, I have to admit I would rather see 'A Star is Born'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-18 11:53 by Palace Revolution 2000.

I doubt if (in most of us) lifetimes if a Stones biopic will ever be made. The various Copyright holders of recorded and written music seem to have difficulty in agreeing on Archival releases so how could they ever manage a film?

Biopics, in my opinion are usually a disappointment. There are exceptions: Richard Attenborough's Gandhi was very very good. But then you are talking about a very full life, at all levels. Rock Stars? Well, drink, drugs,sex, money...blah blah...so boring.

An honourable exception was the movie based on John Lennon's early life...'Nowhere Boy'. Excellent casting, with a heartfelt storyline. I think even Himself would have liked it.
By contrast, The movie 'Stoned' (Brian Jones) was dreadful!

Quote
Rockman
…..who'd play Stu ???????? ……

Jay Leno?
Hugh Grant?

Quote
Rockman
…..who'd play Stu ???????? ……

John C Reilly

Probably too old to portray him now, but has musical chops to add to his acting skills..
(saw him play a festival with his band... pretty good

Not much interested in a bio pic, but if they did one with a big budget and an A-list cast, I could see it. The ending hasn't been written yet though

With their length of history I think we're talking mini-series at least.



"I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon."

It would need to be a series - there is no way you could meaningfully pack 56 years of history into a two hour film.

Aye, but it's only the first 10 years or so that really matter.

Quote
john lomax
It would need to be a series - there is no way you could meaningfully pack 56 years of history into a two hour film.

Something with the longevity of Coronation Street!

Which come to think of it (with the exception of The Queen) is the only iconic British institution that has been going longer than the Stones.

"I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon."

Being completely obsessed with the Stones, I can't imagine watching such a film without some degree of "but they didn't do this" "but they didn't do that", etc.....though at the base level, there damn well better be an Ian Stewart, which is more than "Crossfire Hurricane" can say. Still urks me that he factors nowhere in that doc.

Quote
floodonthepage
Being completely obsessed with the Stones, I can't imagine watching such a film without some degree of "but they didn't do this" "but they didn't do that", etc.....though at the base level, there damn well better be an Ian Stewart, which is more than "Crossfire Hurricane" can say. Still urks me that he factors nowhere in that doc.

Good call and the problem with biopics is you spend half the time thinking oh he doesn't really look like him or sound like him etc. Half the time the actor just ends up like a parody of the person he's portraying.

Phoenix as Johnny Cash in I Walk The Line was an exception.

Quote
ROLLINGSTONE

Quote
john lomax
It would need to be a series - there is no way you could meaningfully pack 56 years of history into a two hour film.

Something with the longevity of Coronation Street!

Which come to think of it (with the exception of The Queen) is the only iconic British institution that has been going longer than the Stones.

DESERT ISLAND DISCS
DAVID ATTENBOROUGH
THE ARCHERS
SIR CLIFF RICHARD

With so much great footage already recorded of the real deal I think a Hollywood type film would be awful.. However I'd be interested in seeing Ken Burns put together one of his multi-episode docudramas



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-19 00:47 by snoopy2.

if they ever did a movie about the history of the band, the question is what to leave out. how do you condense 56 years into 2 or 3 hours. it would be a challenge and most of us would be up for it, but would it be any good, i hope so.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
ROLLINGSTONE

Quote
john lomax
It would need to be a series - there is no way you could meaningfully pack 56 years of history into a two hour film.

Something with the longevity of Coronation Street!

Which come to think of it (with the exception of The Queen) is the only iconic British institution that has been going longer than the Stones.

DESERT ISLAND DISCS
DAVID ATTENBOROUGH
THE ARCHERS
SIR CLIFF RICHARD

Well... apart from them..... I feel a Life Of Brian moment coming on.

Might be more interesting making a movie about a specific episode in The Stones' history. Something with the gravity of Nowhere Boy.

To make a full panoramic bio would be pointless other than have a novelty value. What would we learn? It's already out there.

"I'll be in my basement room with a needle and a spoon."

I have once seen a little fragment of a movie made about Brian Jones. It's the part where Jagger, Richards and Charlie Watts visit Brian to tell him he's out. I still remember the line "hey cock, you're out" said by "Richards". I am pretty sure he actually never said such thing and they just copied that out of some interview with Richards.
It was cringeworthy. The actor doing Jagger was the most convincing, and Brian wasn't too bad, but the others were terrible.
On the other hand, in principle it must be possible to make a convincing movie about existing famous people. The English series "The Crown" does a very convincing job with the royal family.