Tell Me :
Talk
I don't think that they've cancelled the theatrical release - it's just premiering on Disney+.
“The Beatles: Get Back ... to debut exclusively on Disney+ " -- TheBeatles.com.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-18 16:00 by Irix.
The film's been expanded to six hours. They're not gonna release a 6-hour film theatrically. It's possible they might also be working on a two-hour version, just especially for movie theaters, but I haven't read anything that indicates that's the case.
Yep - and maybe they'll release an 2-hour-version on DVD/BR too (= Cinema version), plus several Deluxe-, Extended- or Director's-Cut-Editions (like with The Lord of the Rings or other movies) ....
I believe I can at least add a little:
First recording session We love you is May 17th - 21st according to [www.nzentgraf.de]
So Paul and John can easy have come across something related to We love you before All you need is love took off. I would even say it will have been hard for them not to. But I guess there was a lot about love going on that summer - I am too young to have noticed. I can remember artists smoking hash several places (and sufficient so I noticed)
Agreed. The author says "I’m not prejudging “The Beatles: Get Back.” I, of course, hope that it presents a revelatory vision of the Beatles." Totally belies the title of his article. I'm optimistic and look forward to seeing this eventually.
Peter Jackson has definitely said that his film will change the public perception of these sessions as being miserable arguing break up sessions, and the original "Let It Be" film likewise, into something more enjoyable and pleasing.
Whilst - having a good copy of the original that I rewatched not so long ago I don't totally agree with the perception of it as being 100% gloom and doom - I do accept that an uplifting end to The Beatles would be a nice thing.
We should all be grateful that he managed to cut down the original 56 hours to as few as 6! Perhaps the other 50 will be extras on the super-massive BluRay Extended edition to mark the 100th Anniversary of John & Paul meeting (that's 2057 for anyone who is counting.)
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
By that time, with the invention of time travel, we'll be able to revisit the meeting in 1957.
LOL
"A fully restored version of the original Let It Be film will be made available at a later date" -- [SuperDeluxeEdition.com] .
Thanks
Do it.
I'd love to know if you think, like I do, that it's not quite the massive gloom doom disaster movie that many people think it is.... Or if you do think it's a disaster movie.
(Plus the rooftop concert is always a joy to behold).
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
I remember reading a review when the film was first released that said something like, "Paul is on an ego trip, and everyone else is just along for the ride." I think that's probably how Paul sees it, and why he's been so reluctant to have it re-released, because he thinks it makes him look like an ass hole. I don't see it that way. I think he comes off rather well. He's the only member of the group who still seems to give a shit at this point, the one who's desperately trying to hold it all together. He's also at the absolute peak of his artistic creativity, and carries himself with the kind of self-assured, dare I say swagger that one usually associates with the Rolling Stones. In stark contrast, Lennon appears nearly indifferent to everything going on around him, and it's because of this abdication of John's, his resignation from his role as band leader, that for all intents and purposes, Paul McCartney is the Beatles in Let It Be.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-28 19:15 by tatters.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: June 18, 2021 15:45
Quote
tatters
It sucks that they've cancelled the theatrical release of Get Back.
I don't think that they've cancelled the theatrical release - it's just premiering on Disney+.
“The Beatles: Get Back ... to debut exclusively on Disney+ " -- TheBeatles.com.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-18 16:00 by Irix.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: June 18, 2021 16:30
Quote
IrixQuote
tatters
It sucks that they've cancelled the theatrical release of Get Back.
I don't think that they've cancelled the theatrical release - it's just premiering on Disney+.
The film's been expanded to six hours. They're not gonna release a 6-hour film theatrically. It's possible they might also be working on a two-hour version, just especially for movie theaters, but I haven't read anything that indicates that's the case.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
coffeepotman
()
Date: June 18, 2021 16:32
I was looking forward to seeing it on the big screen in theaters
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: June 18, 2021 17:05
Quote
tatters
They're not gonna release a 6-hour film theatrically. It's possible they might also be working on a two-hour version
Yep - and maybe they'll release an 2-hour-version on DVD/BR too (= Cinema version), plus several Deluxe-, Extended- or Director's-Cut-Editions (like with The Lord of the Rings or other movies) ....
Re: Mick, Keith and A Day In The Life
Posted by:
Steen G
()
Date: June 18, 2021 20:18
Quote
CaptainCorellaQuote
Steen GQuote
SonofHarlemShuffler
I believe the programme was called Our World and the Beatles performed All You Need Is Love. Mick and Keith were there for sure.
If that show, and that song, then:
RS had begun "We love you" and was recording parts in the beginning of June with Paul and John present. After that they began working on a song "All you need is love" that they used in that particular show. And the rest is history
Interesting.
Sources of following. Elliot 3rd edition, and Lewisohn's Complete Recording Sessions and his Complete Beatles Chronicle, and Barry Miles' Beatles Day By Day. All dates 1967.
June 3 First We Love You date.
June 14 First All You Need is Love
June 19 Second All You Need is Love
June 21 Third All You Need is Love
June 21 Second We Love You
June 23 Fourth Third All You Need is Love
June 24 Fifth Third All You Need is Love
June 25 Sixth (broadcast) Third All You Need is Love
June 26 Seventh (remix/overdubs) Third All You Need is Love
July 2 Third We Love You
July 19 Fourth We Love You
Whilst it's well known that the two bands had good relations and implicitly liaised on all sorts of stuff, IMHO it's a very long bow to imply that 'All You Need is Love' was derived in any way shape or form from anything The Stones did for 'We Love You'.
Lennon & McCartney would simply have been too busy. Only two Stones' sessions precede the recording of The Beatles' song. Yes, they may have been at the June 3 session, but totally unlikely to have been at the one on June 21.
Can you cite a (reliable) source that says that John & Paul were at any of the "We Love You Sessions" before June 23rd. Miles' book has nothing for those dates, yet it DOES mention other sessions by other artists that they did attend in that period.
(Worth noting as a total aside is that June 4th 1967 is the date of Jimi Hendrix's Savill Theatre show which he opened with Sgt. Pepper - the album only having been released in the UK 2 days prior.)
I believe I can at least add a little:
First recording session We love you is May 17th - 21st according to [www.nzentgraf.de]
So Paul and John can easy have come across something related to We love you before All you need is love took off. I would even say it will have been hard for them not to. But I guess there was a lot about love going on that summer - I am too young to have noticed. I can remember artists smoking hash several places (and sufficient so I noticed)
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Sighunt
()
Date: June 22, 2021 21:39
‘The Beatles: Get Back’ Is Now a Six-Hour Mini-Series. So Why Does It Feel Like More Might Be Less? (Column)
My feelings exactly!
[ca.finance.yahoo.com]
My feelings exactly!
[ca.finance.yahoo.com]
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: June 23, 2021 01:58
I say the more the merrier, though it would have been nice to see a feature length movie in a theater as was originally planned.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
bleedingman
()
Date: June 23, 2021 03:18
Quote
Hairball
I say the more the merrier, though it would have been nice to see a feature length movie in a theater as was originally planned.
Agreed. The author says "I’m not prejudging “The Beatles: Get Back.” I, of course, hope that it presents a revelatory vision of the Beatles." Totally belies the title of his article. I'm optimistic and look forward to seeing this eventually.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: June 23, 2021 08:03
Quote
bleedingmanQuote
Hairball
I say the more the merrier, though it would have been nice to see a feature length movie in a theater as was originally planned.
Agreed. The author says "I’m not prejudging “The Beatles: Get Back.” I, of course, hope that it presents a revelatory vision of the Beatles." Totally belies the title of his article. I'm optimistic and look forward to seeing this eventually.
Peter Jackson has definitely said that his film will change the public perception of these sessions as being miserable arguing break up sessions, and the original "Let It Be" film likewise, into something more enjoyable and pleasing.
Whilst - having a good copy of the original that I rewatched not so long ago I don't totally agree with the perception of it as being 100% gloom and doom - I do accept that an uplifting end to The Beatles would be a nice thing.
We should all be grateful that he managed to cut down the original 56 hours to as few as 6! Perhaps the other 50 will be extras on the super-massive BluRay Extended edition to mark the 100th Anniversary of John & Paul meeting (that's 2057 for anyone who is counting.)
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 23, 2021 14:48
Quote
CaptainCorellaQuote
bleedingmanQuote
Hairball
I say the more the merrier, though it would have been nice to see a feature length movie in a theater as was originally planned.
Agreed. The author says "I’m not prejudging “The Beatles: Get Back.” I, of course, hope that it presents a revelatory vision of the Beatles." Totally belies the title of his article. I'm optimistic and look forward to seeing this eventually.
Peter Jackson has definitely said that his film will change the public perception of these sessions as being miserable arguing break up sessions, and the original "Let It Be" film likewise, into something more enjoyable and pleasing.
Whilst - having a good copy of the original that I rewatched not so long ago I don't totally agree with the perception of it as being 100% gloom and doom - I do accept that an uplifting end to The Beatles would be a nice thing.
We should all be grateful that he managed to cut down the original 56 hours to as few as 6! Perhaps the other 50 will be extras on the super-massive BluRay Extended edition to mark the 100th Anniversary of John & Paul meeting (that's 2057 for anyone who is counting.)
By that time, with the invention of time travel, we'll be able to revisit the meeting in 1957.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: June 26, 2021 04:40
Ringo Starr’s Battle With Ring O Sex Toy Company Reaches Climax
Why can’t we all live less litigiously in that yellow submarine?
Ringo Starr has dropped a lawsuit against a company that sells cock rings under the “Ring O” brand name.
Previously, the 80-year-old Beatles drummer argued that the Ring O trademark was too similar to his professional stage name and might damage his reputation, according to the BBC.
In 2019, Starr’s legal team argued that consumers might believe the “Yellow Submarine” singer’s newest venture is selling sex toys, “and this is an association that Opposer [Starr] does not want,” according to NME.com.
But Starr has now withdrawn his complaint after reaching an agreement with the manufacturers.
The settlement between Starr (real name, Richard Starkey) and Pacific Holdings and Momentum Management requires them to ”avoid any activity likely to lead to confusion” in connection with the toys and the rock legend, according to the Metro newspaper.
That means the “Ring O” name can only be used on adult sex toys and desensitizing sprays, and that there must must be a space between the “Ring” and “O” in branding.
In addition, the company can’t make any innuendo connecting the Beatle with the sex toys ? so no sex puns based on Starr’s hits, like “It Don’t Come Easy.”
[www.huffpost.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-26 04:40 by MisterDDDD.
Why can’t we all live less litigiously in that yellow submarine?
Ringo Starr has dropped a lawsuit against a company that sells cock rings under the “Ring O” brand name.
Previously, the 80-year-old Beatles drummer argued that the Ring O trademark was too similar to his professional stage name and might damage his reputation, according to the BBC.
In 2019, Starr’s legal team argued that consumers might believe the “Yellow Submarine” singer’s newest venture is selling sex toys, “and this is an association that Opposer [Starr] does not want,” according to NME.com.
But Starr has now withdrawn his complaint after reaching an agreement with the manufacturers.
The settlement between Starr (real name, Richard Starkey) and Pacific Holdings and Momentum Management requires them to ”avoid any activity likely to lead to confusion” in connection with the toys and the rock legend, according to the Metro newspaper.
That means the “Ring O” name can only be used on adult sex toys and desensitizing sprays, and that there must must be a space between the “Ring” and “O” in branding.
In addition, the company can’t make any innuendo connecting the Beatle with the sex toys ? so no sex puns based on Starr’s hits, like “It Don’t Come Easy.”
[www.huffpost.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-26 04:40 by MisterDDDD.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
jbwelda
()
Date: June 26, 2021 05:17
I Want To Hold Your Gland
jb
jb
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 27, 2021 00:40
C*n't Buy Me Love
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: June 27, 2021 00:43
Here Cums The Son ....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
terraplane
()
Date: June 27, 2021 00:48
Octopussy's Garden
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: June 27, 2021 01:23
Norwegian "Wood".
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
jbwelda
()
Date: June 27, 2021 02:37
She Loathes You
jb
jb
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 27, 2021 17:48
I Wanna Hold Your Man
-John Lennon himself came up with that one
-John Lennon himself came up with that one
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
bitusa2012
()
Date: June 27, 2021 17:59
Come Together
Rod
Rod
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 27, 2021 18:24
Quote
Rockman
Here Cums The Son ....
LOL
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: June 27, 2021 18:46
As big a Beatles fan as I am, I’m one of millions, I am sure, whose too young to have seen the original Let it Be film. I, for one, would enjoy viewing the original film. Why can’t they remaster and spruce-up the original? Yes, I’m sure it’s ugly in places, yet it’s their history and is an important part of it. I keep reading how McCartney thinks it portrays them in a poor and a not-very-positive light. Whilst this may be the case, he must surely know those wanting to view the film are already ‘dyed in the wool’ fans. I can take the unpleasantness, myself. In fact, it’s fascinating: their breakup is very interesting. Plus, let’s not forget they did then go in to record Abbey Road.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: June 27, 2021 21:35
Quote
Big Al
I, for one, would enjoy viewing the original film. Why can’t they remaster and spruce-up the original?
"A fully restored version of the original Let It Be film will be made available at a later date" -- [SuperDeluxeEdition.com] .
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
jbwelda
()
Date: June 27, 2021 23:41
that would be a great, possibly essential, counterpoint to this new version of Beatle life as we know it. I am looking forward to revisiting the original as well as seeing the new version, I have a VHS of Let It Be somewhere and have been thinking about digging it out to watch again.
jb
jb
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Big Al
()
Date: June 28, 2021 06:25
Quote
IrixQuote
Big Al
I, for one, would enjoy viewing the original film. Why can’t they remaster and spruce-up the original?
"A fully restored version of the original Let It Be film will be made available at a later date" -- [SuperDeluxeEdition.com] .
Thanks
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: June 28, 2021 09:52
Quote
jbwelda
that would be a great, possibly essential, counterpoint to this new version of Beatle life as we know it. I am looking forward to revisiting the original as well as seeing the new version, I have a VHS of Let It Be somewhere and have been thinking about digging it out to watch again.
jb
Do it.
I'd love to know if you think, like I do, that it's not quite the massive gloom doom disaster movie that many people think it is.... Or if you do think it's a disaster movie.
(Plus the rooftop concert is always a joy to behold).
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
frankotero
()
Date: June 28, 2021 13:50
Always felt the negative vibes but was a little overblown. I remember I was looking forward to seeing the big drama when I first saw this film as a teenager. By the end I thought the whole thing was quite boring, minus the rooftop performance of course. Anyway I’ve never watched the movie all the way through again. Looking forward to seeing it redone. Certainly there was some hard feelings between them, but I think we can survive not knowing the details. Guess I grew up.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: June 28, 2021 13:52
Quote
Big Al
As big a Beatles fan as I am, I’m one of millions, I am sure, whose too young to have seen the original Let it Be film. I, for one, would enjoy viewing the original film. Why can’t they remaster and spruce-up the original? Yes, I’m sure it’s ugly in places, yet it’s their history and is an important part of it. I keep reading how McCartney thinks it portrays them in a poor and a not-very-positive light. Whilst this may be the case, he must surely know those wanting to view the film are already ‘dyed in the wool’ fans. I can take the unpleasantness, myself. In fact, it’s fascinating: their breakup is very interesting. Plus, let’s not forget they did then go in to record Abbey Road.
I remember reading a review when the film was first released that said something like, "Paul is on an ego trip, and everyone else is just along for the ride." I think that's probably how Paul sees it, and why he's been so reluctant to have it re-released, because he thinks it makes him look like an ass hole. I don't see it that way. I think he comes off rather well. He's the only member of the group who still seems to give a shit at this point, the one who's desperately trying to hold it all together. He's also at the absolute peak of his artistic creativity, and carries himself with the kind of self-assured, dare I say swagger that one usually associates with the Rolling Stones. In stark contrast, Lennon appears nearly indifferent to everything going on around him, and it's because of this abdication of John's, his resignation from his role as band leader, that for all intents and purposes, Paul McCartney is the Beatles in Let It Be.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-06-28 19:15 by tatters.
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: June 28, 2021 17:48
It's been years since I've watched it, but I don't remember it being quite as negative as it's now portrayed to be.
All I can recall is a squabble between George and Paul over a guitar solo or something, and George comes off as a bit whiny about it all saying something like "then play it yourself"
Again, been years since I've watched it, so there might be more negativity than I can fully remember....maybe there's the weird Yoko vibe going on also...?
I have the vhs and a dvd boot copy in storage somewhere, so might have to start rummaging for it.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
All I can recall is a squabble between George and Paul over a guitar solo or something, and George comes off as a bit whiny about it all saying something like "then play it yourself"
Again, been years since I've watched it, so there might be more negativity than I can fully remember....maybe there's the weird Yoko vibe going on also...?
I have the vhs and a dvd boot copy in storage somewhere, so might have to start rummaging for it.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
jbwelda
()
Date: June 28, 2021 18:45
To me it was all about the boredom of day to day "creation" in the studio. I also agree that Paul was the only one who gave a crap at that point; Lennon had gone off to looney Yoko land and was so drugged up with either heroin or LSD or both that he was basically a vege at that point, George seemed totally alienated and Ringo read comic books in between takes. It was only later that I gave in to the notion that at that point the Beatles were really Paul's game and rather than him being an @#$%&, as I thought at the time, he was actually the Beatles redemption. I gained a lot of respect for Paul as the years went by but at the time I thought he was an egomaniac. That is really the point I would like to watch the original movie again to see if he still came off like that to me with all that has happened since.
I thought the rooftop "concert" was just another over-controlled bunch of show business the Beatles had become known for. Not bad performance wise, but isolated from the world up there on the top story of their little world away from any real audience.
jb
I thought the rooftop "concert" was just another over-controlled bunch of show business the Beatles had become known for. Not bad performance wise, but isolated from the world up there on the top story of their little world away from any real audience.
jb
Re: Beatles vs Stones - and other Beatles stuff
Posted by:
triceratops
()
Date: June 28, 2021 19:01
For what its worth, and it ain't much... I never listened to the Beatles. They were a bore. Their muzak did nothing for me. I always favored, liked and followed the Stones.
Back in the day/1960s these were favorites too:
Yardbirds---- saw once when Jimmy Page was their lone guitarist. Beck was gonzo. They did play a version of "dazed and confused" w Jimmy using a violin bow on his guitar.
Animals.
I saw Eric Burdon and his fine band at The Channel in Beantown in 1983. He put on a great show that was Animals equivalent
_______
Changing The Channel: How Boston Mob Took Control Of ...
[gangsterreport.com]...
Apr 30, 2018 · Scott Burnstein. -. April 30, 2018. 0. Nearly three decades ago, the Booras brothers owned The Channel, a rock, punk and new wave music venue in the Fort Point …
Estimated Reading Time: 5 mins
Back in the day/1960s these were favorites too:
Yardbirds---- saw once when Jimmy Page was their lone guitarist. Beck was gonzo. They did play a version of "dazed and confused" w Jimmy using a violin bow on his guitar.
Animals.
I saw Eric Burdon and his fine band at The Channel in Beantown in 1983. He put on a great show that was Animals equivalent
_______
Changing The Channel: How Boston Mob Took Control Of ...
[gangsterreport.com]...
Apr 30, 2018 · Scott Burnstein. -. April 30, 2018. 0. Nearly three decades ago, the Booras brothers owned The Channel, a rock, punk and new wave music venue in the Fort Point …
Estimated Reading Time: 5 mins
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
chpoutre , deardoctor , dishevelmentblues , doubledoor , Doxa , ds1984 , fedecarp , Fitzcaraldo , hockenheim95 , hot stuff , jmd , mickv , petewasbristol , swaff , Taylor1 , Topi , usetobesampeg
Guests:
1518
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10