For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
tatters
It sucks that they've cancelled the theatrical release of Get Back.
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+.
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
Quote
Rockman
Here Cums The Son ....
Quote
Big Al
I, for one, would enjoy viewing the original film. Why can’t they remaster and spruce-up the original?
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] .
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
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.