For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Rockman
He spotted a penny down there on the ledge ....
hey I see a Penny there on the ledge, lemme go get it oops, I kicked it, now it in the Lane!
Quote
Irix
Question for those who saw the IMAX special screening event - was the rooftop-performance shown 'uninterrupted' (Beatles only) or was it the same cut as in the Disney docuseries with policemen and interviews ?
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Rockman
He spotted a penny down there on the ledge ....
hey I see a Penny there on the ledge, lemme go get it oops, I kicked it, now it in the Lane!
and then they broke into............ Penny Lane
Quote
Irix
The Beatles: Get Back - The Rooftop Performance will play exclusively in select Imax locations across the globe over the Feb. 11-13 weekend. The concert footage was digitally remastered with proprietary Imax technology. “Peter Jackson edited this together so that you can see the concert in its full glory,” says Imax Entertainment president Megan Colligan. “And the turnout shows the power of coming together in a theater even though it’s on Disney+.”
Hmm..."shutting down" and "pulling the plug" on the rooftop concert implies that The Beatles had more songs to perform. If they did all the songs they intended then saying he "pulled the plug" is rather disingenuous. Was the setlist longer? First I've heard of that. Imagine if they actually were supposed to play longer, like a bunch of their older tunes they've never performed live before or something, but this cop ruined it all.Quote
treaclefingers
Interview with the cop that shut it all down, with no regrets all these years later. Quite good:
[www.ctvnews.ca]
Quote
BoognishHmm..."shutting down" and "pulling the plug" on the rooftop concert implies that The Beatles had more songs to perform. If they did all the songs they intended then saying he "pulled the plug" is rather disingenuous. Was the setlist longer? First I've heard of that. Imagine if they actually were supposed to play longer, like a bunch of their older tunes they've never performed live before or something, but this cop ruined it all.Quote
treaclefingers
Interview with the cop that shut it all down, with no regrets all these years later. Quite good:
[www.ctvnews.ca]
Quote
BoognishHmm..."shutting down" and "pulling the plug" on the rooftop concert implies that The Beatles had more songs to perform. If they did all the songs they intended then saying he "pulled the plug" is rather disingenuous. Was the setlist longer? First I've heard of that. Imagine if they actually were supposed to play longer, like a bunch of their older tunes they've never performed live before or something, but this cop ruined it all.Quote
treaclefingers
Interview with the cop that shut it all down, with no regrets all these years later. Quite good:
[www.ctvnews.ca]
You're right. It's semantics. Cop who "pulled the plug" gets more clicks than "cop who patiently waited until The Beatles were done playing". Interesting story, indeed.Quote
treaclefingersQuote
BoognishHmm..."shutting down" and "pulling the plug" on the rooftop concert implies that The Beatles had more songs to perform. If they did all the songs they intended then saying he "pulled the plug" is rather disingenuous. Was the setlist longer? First I've heard of that. Imagine if they actually were supposed to play longer, like a bunch of their older tunes they've never performed live before or something, but this cop ruined it all.Quote
treaclefingers
Interview with the cop that shut it all down, with no regrets all these years later. Quite good:
[www.ctvnews.ca]
You're getting bogged in semantics boognish. Hey, that sounds funny, boognish bogged. Anyway...ATTEMPTED to pull the plug then. I'm not saying he thwarted the show from adding another 8 songs...just saying "here's the dood, 50 years later". An interesting story.
Quote
BoognishYou're right. It's semantics. Cop who "pulled the plug" gets more clicks than "cop who patiently waited until The Beatles were done playing". Interesting story, indeed.Quote
treaclefingersQuote
BoognishHmm..."shutting down" and "pulling the plug" on the rooftop concert implies that The Beatles had more songs to perform. If they did all the songs they intended then saying he "pulled the plug" is rather disingenuous. Was the setlist longer? First I've heard of that. Imagine if they actually were supposed to play longer, like a bunch of their older tunes they've never performed live before or something, but this cop ruined it all.Quote
treaclefingers
Interview with the cop that shut it all down, with no regrets all these years later. Quite good:
[www.ctvnews.ca]
You're getting bogged in semantics boognish. Hey, that sounds funny, boognish bogged. Anyway...ATTEMPTED to pull the plug then. I'm not saying he thwarted the show from adding another 8 songs...just saying "here's the dood, 50 years later". An interesting story.
Quote
Taylor1
I think the rooftop concert is mediocre at best. The visual and audio quality of this documentary is incredible, but there is nothing great or terribly revealing about the content. Mostly because John added little to the songs that were created.Idig a Pony and Don't Let Me Down are two of his weaker songs. Across the Universe and One After 909 are songs already recorded before these sessions . Their last album Abbey Road still has the Beatle magic
Quote
tatters
I wonder what I was doing on Thursday, January 30, 1969. Keeping in mind the 5-hour time differential, I was probably standing outside in the freezing cold, 3500 miles away in New York, waiting for a school bus.
Quote
CaptainCorella
And you asked for reactions to the IMAX screening. I went to one yesterday and I'll use my partner's description.... she was "overwhelmed" - as was I.
Quote
tattersQuote
CaptainCorella
And you asked for reactions to the IMAX screening. I went to one yesterday and I'll use my partner's description.... she was "overwhelmed" - as was I.
I'm saddened to report that I was decidedly underwhelmed. It could have been good. It certainly looked good. That a film shot on 16mm stock in 1969 could be blown up to the size of an IMAX screen more than 50 years later with no apparent loss of resolution, and without having an over-digitized, artificial look, is truly a remarkable technical achievement. It sounded good, too, though I wish it had been a little louder. You shouldn't just be able to hear an IMAX film, you should be able to feel it, too, in a bone jarring, teeth rattling sort of way, like, for example, The Rolling Stones at the Max film from the early 1990s, or even the trailer for the Top Gun sequel that preceded the showing of the Beatles film tonight.
But where they really botched this up was by insisting on a woke theatrical narrative in which we find that this is not really a film of a live Beatles performance; it's actually a film about the police wanting to stop a live Beatles performance, as if the audience is supposed to be sitting there biting their nails in suspense, wondering whether or not The Fabs will be permitted to play "Get Back" for a fourth time before the Blue Meanies put an end to the proceedings and make everyone sad. This could have been handled with a single, brief shot of the cops telling Mal Evans that England's most famous citizens will have to cease this senseless noise at their earliest convenience. Instead, they make the entire film about the cops, and through the incessant use of split screens, we're forced to divide our attention between the them, a group of individuals who couldn't be less interesting to look at and listen to if they tried, and the Beatles, four of the most interesting people to grace this earth in the 20th century. When the camera was on them, and only on them, this film wasn't just good, it was great.
Quote
MKjanQuote
tattersQuote
CaptainCorella
And you asked for reactions to the IMAX screening. I went to one yesterday and I'll use my partner's description.... she was "overwhelmed" - as was I.
I'm saddened to report that I was decidedly underwhelmed. It could have been good. It certainly looked good. That a film shot on 16mm stock in 1969 could be blown up to the size of an IMAX screen more than 50 years later with no apparent loss of resolution, and without having an over-digitized, artificial look, is truly a remarkable technical achievement. It sounded good, too, though I wish it had been a little louder. You shouldn't just be able to hear an IMAX film, you should be able to feel it, too, in a bone jarring, teeth rattling sort of way, like, for example, The Rolling Stones at the Max film from the early 1990s, or even the trailer for the Top Gun sequel that preceded the showing of the Beatles film tonight.
But where they really botched this up was by insisting on a woke theatrical narrative in which we find that this is not really a film of a live Beatles performance; it's actually a film about the police wanting to stop a live Beatles performance, as if the audience is supposed to be sitting there biting their nails in suspense, wondering whether or not The Fabs will be permitted to play "Get Back" for a fourth time before the Blue Meanies put an end to the proceedings and make everyone sad. This could have been handled with a single, brief shot of the cops telling Mal Evans that England's most famous citizens will have to cease this senseless noise at their earliest convenience. Instead, they make the entire film about the cops, and through the incessant use of split screens, we're forced to divide our attention between the them, a group of individuals who couldn't be less interesting to look at and listen to if they tried, and the Beatles, four of the most interesting people to grace this earth in the 20th century. When the camera was on them, and only on them, this film wasn't just good, it was great.
The truth: It's better to call the Beatles four of the most marketed people
of the 20th century. Having traveled the world over, with interests in many cultures and art forms,
the Beatles are rather boring, but the Rolling Stones are definitely on the interesting list.
Quote
CaptainCorellaQuote
tatters
I wonder what I was doing on Thursday, January 30, 1969. Keeping in mind the 5-hour time differential, I was probably standing outside in the freezing cold, 3500 miles away in New York, waiting for a school bus.
I was working in an office in London a couple of miles away from the event at an office just past the eastern edge of The City in Commercial Road.
I knew nothing at all about it until I left work and picked up an evening paper to read on the train home.
At the time I was working out my notice on my then job and 2 weeks later I started a fresh job in a location that would definitely have been within earshot. For those 1960's UK Pirate Radio nerds reading this (RIP Deltics), my new location was the former offices of Radio London in Curzon St (no longer studios, but office spaces).
And you asked for reactions to the IMAX screening. I went to one yesterday and I'll use my partner's description.... she was "overwhelmed" - as was I.
Quote
tattersQuote
MKjanQuote
tattersQuote
CaptainCorella
And you asked for reactions to the IMAX screening. I went to one yesterday and I'll use my partner's description.... she was "overwhelmed" - as was I.
I'm saddened to report that I was decidedly underwhelmed. It could have been good. It certainly looked good. That a film shot on 16mm stock in 1969 could be blown up to the size of an IMAX screen more than 50 years later with no apparent loss of resolution, and without having an over-digitized, artificial look, is truly a remarkable technical achievement. It sounded good, too, though I wish it had been a little louder. You shouldn't just be able to hear an IMAX film, you should be able to feel it, too, in a bone jarring, teeth rattling sort of way, like, for example, The Rolling Stones at the Max film from the early 1990s, or even the trailer for the Top Gun sequel that preceded the showing of the Beatles film tonight.
But where they really botched this up was by insisting on a woke theatrical narrative in which we find that this is not really a film of a live Beatles performance; it's actually a film about the police wanting to stop a live Beatles performance, as if the audience is supposed to be sitting there biting their nails in suspense, wondering whether or not The Fabs will be permitted to play "Get Back" for a fourth time before the Blue Meanies put an end to the proceedings and make everyone sad. This could have been handled with a single, brief shot of the cops telling Mal Evans that England's most famous citizens will have to cease this senseless noise at their earliest convenience. Instead, they make the entire film about the cops, and through the incessant use of split screens, we're forced to divide our attention between the them, a group of individuals who couldn't be less interesting to look at and listen to if they tried, and the Beatles, four of the most interesting people to grace this earth in the 20th century. When the camera was on them, and only on them, this film wasn't just good, it was great.
The truth: It's better to call the Beatles four of the most marketed people
of the 20th century. Having traveled the world over, with interests in many cultures and art forms,
the Beatles are rather boring, but the Rolling Stones are definitely on the interesting list.
Okay, I admit I'm sometimes prone to hyperbole, but I am sure you will agree, however, that Lennon and McCartney, at least, were both highly charismatic individuals.