................ WATCH....inc James Fox and bent shelves




























ROCKMAN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-07 11:04 by Rockman.

Great! Thanks for posting

Thanks, Rockman.
I hadn't seen that even though it's been up since November 2010

I thought Johnny Depp was going to star as Keith in the movie.

But I guess the real thing is better.

Depp was directing a documentary not starring in a film.

When was this film released?

thanks, had seen it already onthe bbc.
Great docu.
bye
jeroen

Great, Rockman!

This is a documentary about the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact. Richards exploits all this to promote his own side project not the Stones.

I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.

Quote
proudmary
This is a documentary about the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact. Richards exploits all this to promote his own side project not the Stones.

I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.

pack it in allready!

Thanks for posting Rockman.

Great stuff, esp 6/6 SAYS IT ALL, just listen to Bobby keys...

Quote
proudmary
I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.

And you know this from where ? Any links ?

Quote
seitan

Quote
proudmary
I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.

And you know this from where ? Any links ?

Just press proudmarys username. 100s of quotes of herself saying so.

Thanks for posting; Rockman - will have a look at these clips

Quote
seitan

Quote
proudmary
I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.

And you know this from where ? Any links ?

She's just making sure poor Keith sells a few more copies of Life.

Quote
open-g

Quote
proudmary
This is a documentary about the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact. Richards exploits all this to promote his own side project not the Stones.

I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.

pack it in allready!

She's packed all she can into that tiny todger g.

Says he loves Mick.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
seitan

Quote
proudmary
I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.

And you know this from where ? Any links ?

Just press proudmarys username. 100s of quotes of herself saying so.

Erik - I saw this movie for the first time and posted about it for the first time. This is discussion board and this is my opinion - so why such aggression? Some people like A Bigger Bang album others call it a pile of crap. I don't remember I said to somebody : "Shut up, who cares what do you think, you sicko"

seitan - I think that talk about his privates was not a big surprise for Jagger since this has happened in the past.
while the use of the the Stones history and legacy for the promotion of his(Richard's) own solo project - it happens for the first time.
it's only a guess on my part - I don't have any links

Yes, I know it is a taboo subject. If we do not remember and do not talk about it - it does not actually happen in reality.
I grew up in the Soviet Union - I know all about remaking history by silence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-08 00:19 by proudmary.

Did Depp even ask Jagger to participate? If not, WTF?

Thanks for sharing!

[www.reverbnation.com]

Quote
proudmary
Erik - I saw this movie for the first time and posted about it for the first time. This is discussion board and this is my opinion - so why such aggression?

No agression here
I was thinking about your entire post:

This is a documentary about the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact. Richards exploits all this to promote his own side project not the Stones.
I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.


....when I answered seitan.

There must be 100 - or maybe 1000 posts of yours which goes like this

"Keith exploits.....selfpromotion......Micks genitals" - with different phrasings between those words.

When one has read something often enough, or when one has even *written* something often enough, like you have.....one might just take it for a fact - that's why I said to seitan you are your own source for this "Keith PR / Micks penis" statements - which should be quite an honour for you.

In other words, you don't need a source for anything connected to dissing Keith's book or saying it's all PR and bitterness, or do you need any excuse for bringing up Micks genitals in discussions here. As you are an authority on this - and a good enough authority for....your own posts, at least.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-08 00:56 by Erik_Snow.

I'm watching this right....about halfway through. Failing to see any 'self-promotion on side projects' on KR's part so far.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
proudmary
Erik - I saw this movie for the first time and posted about it for the first time. This is discussion board and this is my opinion - so why such aggression?

No agression here
I was thinking about your entire post:

This is a documentary about the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact. Richards exploits all this to promote his own side project not the Stones.
I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.




In other words, you don't need a source for anything connected to dissing Keith's book or saying it's all PR and bitterness, or do you need any excuse for bringing up Micks genitals in discussions here. As you are an authority on this - and a good enough authority for....your own posts, at least.

Uhh. I think Keith brought it up first...
I mean, if you're going to accuse someone of having an innordinate and consistent preoccupation with Mick's genitals, it should be Keith.
The man has been talking about it for decades.

As for the documentary, judging from the source, Depp, and its title, its more likely to be a love-fest to one Keef, rather than about 'the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact.'

I could be wrong, but that's my strong hunch.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-08 01:16 by stupidguy2.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
proudmary
Erik - I saw this movie for the first time and posted about it for the first time. This is discussion board and this is my opinion - so why such aggression?

No agression here
I was thinking about your entire post:

This is a documentary about the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact. Richards exploits all this to promote his own side project not the Stones.
I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.


....when I answered seitan.

There must be 100 - or maybe 1000 posts of yours which goes like this

"Keith exploits.....selfpromotion......Micks genitals" - with different phrasings between those words.

When one has read something often enough, or when one has even *written* something often enough, like you have.....one might just take it for a fact - that's why I said to seitan you are your own source for this "Keith PR / Micks penis" statements - which should be quite an honour for you.

In other words, you don't need a source for anything connected to dissing Keith's book or saying it's all PR and bitterness, or do you need any excuse for bringing up Micks genitals in discussions here. As you are an authority on this - and a good enough authority for....your own posts, at least.

I have sources, and because you've read all my posts you know them.
All we here more or less have our agendas - and you, too. You often repeat the same thoughts and don't care about the sources or what others think. You think so, and that's enough.
So let others have their opinions - even if you do not like them.
I'm talking about Jagger's genitals less than Keith Richards or you about how you hate all what Stones done after 89.
In addition you always tell people what suits them most - to someone it will be piss in his pants, for me it's honor to deal with male penises...
Please, let's stop here.

Please, let's stop here.


.......YES YES great idea...lets enjoy the day .....



ROCKMAN

I belong to the group that didn't really like A BIGGER BANG and didn't enjoy reading LIFE. That said, I don't think Keith can appear on a UK TV documentary series for the purpose of promoting his autobiography without the liberal use of Stones footage. It would be a bit difficult to discuss his career without focusing on the 95% of it that the general public cares about.

A couple of folks here seem to be mistaking Johnny Depp's work-in-progress documentary, HAPPY for the UK television documentary Rockman kindly posted. They are not the same thing. At this stage, we don't even know if Depp's documentary will ever be completed or released or if so, in what form.

No, Mick Jagger does not appear on the UK TV documentary to promote LIFE. I wouldn't expect him to do so. One, he is a far bigger celebrity than Keith so he doesn't need to support Keith in any fashion. Two, Keith's story cannot be separated from Mick's so he's already a part of any discussion or archival content.

It all seems like a non-issue to me. The TV documentary was much more enjoyable than the recycled magazine interviews and tabloid quotes that made up far too much of LIFE for my taste. Sadly, that is largely the state of celebrity bio's these days. Anyone with a background in journalism and access to Google could produce nearly the same quality of work if you're just looking to rehash what has already appeared in print elsewhere.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
proudmary
Erik - I saw this movie for the first time and posted about it for the first time. This is discussion board and this is my opinion - so why such aggression?

No agression here
I was thinking about your entire post:

This is a documentary about the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact. Richards exploits all this to promote his own side project not the Stones.
I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.




In other words, you don't need a source for anything connected to dissing Keith's book or saying it's all PR and bitterness, or do you need any excuse for bringing up Micks genitals in discussions here. As you are an authority on this - and a good enough authority for....your own posts, at least.

Uhh. I think Keith brought it up first...
I mean, if you're going to accuse someone of having an innordinate and consistent preoccupation with Mick's genitals, it should be Keith.
The man has been talking about it for decades.

As for the documentary, judging from the source, Depp, and its title, its more likely to be a love-fest to one Keef, rather than about 'the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact.'

I could be wrong, but that's my strong hunch.

first off all thanks - you're right, of couse
second - it's a BBC documentary about the Stones, no relation to Depp. and this is the history of the Stones to promote Richards book

treaclefingers - I do not remember who it was - Ronnie or may be Mick - said that they do not talk about the Stones when they advertise solo projects. it's their rule. That's why Jagger made Being Mick to promote his album and not the movie about the Stones and his singing and perfoming with them

Great!!!

Quote
proudmary
This is a documentary about the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact. Richards exploits all this to promote his own side project not the Stones.

I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.

This is not a documentary about the Stones, their history and their cultural impact.
It is a documentary about Keith Richards:




"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
proudmary

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
proudmary
Erik - I saw this movie for the first time and posted about it for the first time. This is discussion board and this is my opinion - so why such aggression?

No agression here
I was thinking about your entire post:

This is a documentary about the Stones, their history, legacy and cultural impact. Richards exploits all this to promote his own side project not the Stones.
I think this PR move by Richards has caused more objection from Mick than an interview with Times about his genitals.


....when I answered seitan.

There must be 100 - or maybe 1000 posts of yours which goes like this

"Keith exploits.....selfpromotion......Micks genitals" - with different phrasings between those words.

When one has read something often enough, or when one has even *written* something often enough, like you have.....one might just take it for a fact - that's why I said to seitan you are your own source for this "Keith PR / Micks penis" statements - which should be quite an honour for you.

In other words, you don't need a source for anything connected to dissing Keith's book or saying it's all PR and bitterness, or do you need any excuse for bringing up Micks genitals in discussions here. As you are an authority on this - and a good enough authority for....your own posts, at least.

I have sources, and because you've read all my posts you know them.
All we here more or less have our agendas - and you, too. You often repeat the same thoughts and don't care about the sources or what others think. You think so, and that's enough.
So let others have their opinions - even if you do not like them.
I'm talking about Jagger's genitals less than Keith Richards or you about how you hate all what Stones done after 89.
In addition you always tell people what suits them most - to someone it will be piss in his pants, for me it's honor to deal with male penises...
Please, let's stop here.

Which source told you the Solomon Burke song Mick was going to sing at the Grammy's? You were so sure!!