Tell Me :
Talk
well,, they missed a lot. what a disaster. didnot like it at all, except for the brian parts.
So, no Stones biopic, because it will be shite.
Jeroen
good points.
the tension and creative process of Keith and Mick, their working relationship, friendship and how it changed over the years could be a focus, but this would be really hard to put over in a movie..
still I think it would have a lot of appeal
Don't forget Mick biting the tip of his tongue off playing soccer, which as all true fans know greatly affected his singing style.
Let's hope this doesn't apply to the James Brown biopic.
But he has written a great and very concise book with STONE ALONE. What I appreciate about this book is the feeling that it transforms, the atmosphere of the early tours (and how boring it could be). But as it is not very spectacular it gets frequently overlooked. And every book is the author's POV. Anyway, Keith's book to me appears more biased and less fact-orientated than Bill's.
The early years up till Altamont could be great stuff for a biopic, especially the difficult relationship of Mick, Keith & Brian. And it could show how much the band needed two rather unspectacular members (but great musicians) like Charlie and Bill (and of course, Stu). Therefore,it would be entirely wrong to concentrate on Mick & Keith.
from the Stones, there's so much video material available (or not) that it
already doesn't seem worth the trouble searching for lookalikes.
well..
its just a discussion, stonesrule..kinda interested in why you 'hate threads like this'?
yes there have been awful biopics but there are good ones too..
Coal Miner's Daughter
Ray
and now Get On Up
just to name a few.
a Stones one is probably not gonna happen anytime soon..
or he thinks (rightly so) that video material after 1982 (1989-on) has already been presented numerous times in concise formats.
plus, would you please consider how grotesque it would come to see a bunch of actors portraying the '90s and '00s Stones,
while the '10s Stones are still pretty much alive and kicking, ready to be compared with the guys playing their part in a movie?
talk about a "surrogate band"
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: August 1, 2014 17:23
so ..thoughts? a film like 'Get On Up', which spans several decades? or a focus on the early struggles and eventual success, with much of the sixties, but little of other decades?
should a Stones biopic even be made? or no, since there are so many characters, episodes, to depict, that too much would be left out?
should a Stones biopic even be made? or no, since there are so many characters, episodes, to depict, that too much would be left out?
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
Bastion
()
Date: August 1, 2014 17:49
I'd prefer a follow up to Crossfire Hurricane covering everything they missed.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: August 1, 2014 17:57
Quote
Bastion
I'd prefer a follow up to Crossfire Hurricane covering everything they missed.
well,, they missed a lot. what a disaster. didnot like it at all, except for the brian parts.
So, no Stones biopic, because it will be shite.
Jeroen
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
mailexile67
()
Date: August 1, 2014 18:03
25x5 - Crossfire Hurricane: 10-0 !!!!
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 1, 2014 18:07
you'd need to do a mini-series on television to do justice to 50 years.
So, if it's a movie (not a documentary) then focussing on a particular period would be most interesting. ie start of the band to Satisfaction...the TSMR period, with the drug busts up to Brian's death....the 'exile period', leaving England, setting up their label, recording Exile....the 'comeback period' starting with Keith's bust in Toronto, Some Girls, the SNL period.
Less interesting except to huge fans would be stuff that happened after the 80's...Undercover through the solo albums and WWIII up to Steel Wheels would be interesting.
So, if it's a movie (not a documentary) then focussing on a particular period would be most interesting. ie start of the band to Satisfaction...the TSMR period, with the drug busts up to Brian's death....the 'exile period', leaving England, setting up their label, recording Exile....the 'comeback period' starting with Keith's bust in Toronto, Some Girls, the SNL period.
Less interesting except to huge fans would be stuff that happened after the 80's...Undercover through the solo albums and WWIII up to Steel Wheels would be interesting.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
OzHeavyThrobber
()
Date: August 1, 2014 18:13
I agree with Bastion re Xfire doco.
As a side dish remark though I liked the five decade unauthorised DVD doco in principle but it was very average as they're not interviewed and has none of their music but the idea of two hours each decade is a sound idea. Maybe three hours each for 60s and 70s and one hour each for naughties and tens.
I don't like group biopics as a rule as they're to hard to encompass. One person like Mozart, J Brown, Dylan, R Charles often work IMO tho. Not that I've seen Get On Up yet of course.
Wyman would have to be in on any Stones biopic. He and Jagger would do a great job of it together perhaps. The meat of the matter re their career was up until Bill was still with them. Since he's gone only three albums and lots of massive jaunts of touring. When they were no longer rebels or threatening.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-01 18:16 by OzHeavyThrobber.
As a side dish remark though I liked the five decade unauthorised DVD doco in principle but it was very average as they're not interviewed and has none of their music but the idea of two hours each decade is a sound idea. Maybe three hours each for 60s and 70s and one hour each for naughties and tens.
I don't like group biopics as a rule as they're to hard to encompass. One person like Mozart, J Brown, Dylan, R Charles often work IMO tho. Not that I've seen Get On Up yet of course.
Wyman would have to be in on any Stones biopic. He and Jagger would do a great job of it together perhaps. The meat of the matter re their career was up until Bill was still with them. Since he's gone only three albums and lots of massive jaunts of touring. When they were no longer rebels or threatening.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-01 18:16 by OzHeavyThrobber.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: August 1, 2014 18:25
It doesn't seem necessary. They have at least two authorized videographies. Buddy Holly & Richie Valens were two people the average person knew little about. The Ray Charles movie, and now James Brown, introduced him to a new audience. The Stones, well, what's left of them, are still out there.
I would think an actual 90 minute to two hour movie wouldn't do them justice. And it would probably focus on Mick, Mick, Mick. I try and back off and see how a general audience would like a movie like this, but I can't.
I had hoped for more of a Beatles Anthology approach with the Stones. Each member is interesting and brought something unique to the table. I don't think the character of Bill Wyman would get much to say in a movie biopic. Plus, Mick controls too much when it comes to the Stones. We may never see a great Stones documentary spanning the complete history of the group until after Mick and the rest of us are gone.
I would think an actual 90 minute to two hour movie wouldn't do them justice. And it would probably focus on Mick, Mick, Mick. I try and back off and see how a general audience would like a movie like this, but I can't.
I had hoped for more of a Beatles Anthology approach with the Stones. Each member is interesting and brought something unique to the table. I don't think the character of Bill Wyman would get much to say in a movie biopic. Plus, Mick controls too much when it comes to the Stones. We may never see a great Stones documentary spanning the complete history of the group until after Mick and the rest of us are gone.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
OzHeavyThrobber
()
Date: August 1, 2014 18:28
Yeah a Beatles type anthology would have been superb.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: August 1, 2014 19:03
Quote
24FPS
It doesn't seem necessary. They have at least two authorized videographies. Buddy Holly & Richie Valens were two people the average person knew little about. The Ray Charles movie, and now James Brown, introduced him to a new audience. The Stones, well, what's left of them, are still out there.
I would think an actual 90 minute to two hour movie wouldn't do them justice. And it would probably focus on Mick, Mick, Mick. I try and back off and see how a general audience would like a movie like this, but I can't.
I had hoped for more of a Beatles Anthology approach with the Stones. Each member is interesting and brought something unique to the table. I don't think the character of Bill Wyman would get much to say in a movie biopic. Plus, Mick controls too much when it comes to the Stones. We may never see a great Stones documentary spanning the complete history of the group until after Mick and the rest of us are gone.
good points.
the tension and creative process of Keith and Mick, their working relationship, friendship and how it changed over the years could be a focus, but this would be really hard to put over in a movie..
still I think it would have a lot of appeal
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
Turning To Gold
()
Date: August 1, 2014 19:17
I actually think it would be kinda fun, for someone to do a Stones mini-series or made-for-cable biopic, in the vein of "Dewey Cox," Velvet Goldmine, or Mark Wahlberg's "Rock Star" movie -- do something that was completely and utterly WRONG but handled all the Stones legends and myths as if they were facts -- ie the Mars Bar incident, Swiss blood transfusions, the disgustingness of the Edith Grove period, the Toronto drug busts, Charlie dressed to the nines punching Mick out, Keith snorting his dad's ashes, etc. etc. It would be fun to OFFICIALLY have a go at their history the complete WRONG way, just to take the p-ss out of some of the old cliche stories that have been forever making the rounds. Have Jack Black make a cameo, playing Allen Klein, stuff like that. It would be fun to see young actors playing Mick and Keith, and actors who were counter-cultural icons of the '60s and '70s playing the roles of "establishment" old people who were attacking the Stones back in the 1960s, playing it with irony. That's why Dan Ackroyd is so good in his role in the James Brown biopic as the manager -- he is old enough to remember, he was a young man back then but now he can play the part of the older generation, to show what really happened.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
blivet
()
Date: August 1, 2014 20:45
Quote
Turning To Gold
I actually think it would be kinda fun, for someone to do a Stones mini-series or made-for-cable biopic, in the vein of "Dewey Cox," Velvet Goldmine, or Mark Wahlberg's "Rock Star" movie -- do something that was completely and utterly WRONG but handled all the Stones legends and myths as if they were facts -- ie the Mars Bar incident, Swiss blood transfusions, the disgustingness of the Edith Grove period, the Toronto drug busts, Charlie dressed to the nines punching Mick out, Keith snorting his dad's ashes, etc. etc.
Don't forget Mick biting the tip of his tongue off playing soccer, which as all true fans know greatly affected his singing style.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
Rollin92
()
Date: August 1, 2014 23:07
No, because you can bet your last quid that Bill would be airbrushed out or the character of Bill would get hardly any screen time.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 2, 2014 02:04
The casting alone would be a blast. But it would be impossible to get right.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: August 2, 2014 02:13
....maybe sometime in the distant future .....
ROCKMAN
ROCKMAN
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: August 2, 2014 06:47
STONED turned out pretty terrible. We don't need another Rolling Stones sitcom. A real definitive documentary would be cool but I imagine that will come when they announce that it is over. That is coming relatively soon I would expect.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: August 2, 2014 17:32
Impossible to make one about their entire career, but they could do one about the early days on Edith Grove, or maybe one that focuses on the events of 1969.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: August 3, 2014 21:41
should a Stones biopic be made?
Most definately not !
....because, like most other music biopics ever made, [and regardless of who made or was in it] it would be a bunch of tacky and factually incorrect drivel.
Most definately not !
....because, like most other music biopics ever made, [and regardless of who made or was in it] it would be a bunch of tacky and factually incorrect drivel.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: August 3, 2014 23:57
Thank you Spud...You said it all.
Hate threads like this.
Hate threads like this.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: August 4, 2014 00:12
Quote
Spud
should a Stones biopic be made?
Most definately not !
....because, like most other music biopics ever made, [and regardless of who made or was in it] it would be a bunch of tacky and factually incorrect drivel.
Let's hope this doesn't apply to the James Brown biopic.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
saltoftheearth
()
Date: August 4, 2014 10:11
Quote
OzHeavyThrobber
Wyman would have to be in on any Stones biopic. He and Jagger would do a great job of it together perhaps. The meat of the matter re their career was up until Bill was still with them. Since he's gone only three albums and lots of massive jaunts of touring. When they were no longer rebels or threatening.
But he has written a great and very concise book with STONE ALONE. What I appreciate about this book is the feeling that it transforms, the atmosphere of the early tours (and how boring it could be). But as it is not very spectacular it gets frequently overlooked. And every book is the author's POV. Anyway, Keith's book to me appears more biased and less fact-orientated than Bill's.
The early years up till Altamont could be great stuff for a biopic, especially the difficult relationship of Mick, Keith & Brian. And it could show how much the band needed two rather unspectacular members (but great musicians) like Charlie and Bill (and of course, Stu). Therefore,it would be entirely wrong to concentrate on Mick & Keith.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: August 4, 2014 11:14
<<Wyman would have to be in on any Stones biopic. He and Jagger would do a great job of it together perhaps.>>
Didn't Mick cancel the writing of his autobiography because Bill refused to loan him his warehouse of archives and clippings for research?
Besides, a biopic is not like a documentary--it's a dramatization, with lots of material based on behind-the-scenes personal life subject matter. Since Charlie and Mick have yet to write their autobiographies, and prefer not to shed light on this aspect of their lives, I doubt that Mick especially would ever consider contributing to such a project.
Besides, documentaries do a fine enough job, by providing a collage of all the performances and music you'd want to see and hear. Which is preferable to settling for the Fauxling Stones--that is, actors--portraying a dramatization of the real thing.
Watching a Stones biopic would be like going to a club to see a Stones tribute band--it still leaves you wanting the real thing, which the documentary format ably provides.
Didn't Mick cancel the writing of his autobiography because Bill refused to loan him his warehouse of archives and clippings for research?
Besides, a biopic is not like a documentary--it's a dramatization, with lots of material based on behind-the-scenes personal life subject matter. Since Charlie and Mick have yet to write their autobiographies, and prefer not to shed light on this aspect of their lives, I doubt that Mick especially would ever consider contributing to such a project.
Besides, documentaries do a fine enough job, by providing a collage of all the performances and music you'd want to see and hear. Which is preferable to settling for the Fauxling Stones--that is, actors--portraying a dramatization of the real thing.
Watching a Stones biopic would be like going to a club to see a Stones tribute band--it still leaves you wanting the real thing, which the documentary format ably provides.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: August 4, 2014 13:08
i would beg to differ. even if they decide to stop touring, they're never gonna come out and say that.Quote
flacnvinyl
A real definitive documentary would be cool but I imagine that will come when they announce that it is over. That is coming relatively soon I would expect.
i very much doubt that Charlie sits around in his pastime thinking of how he still has to write that darn autobiography.Quote
stonehearted
Since Charlie and Mick have yet to write their autobiographies, and prefer not to shed light on this aspect of their lives, I doubt that Mick especially would ever consider contributing to such a project.
amen. a JB biopic makes sense because cameras weren't just rolling back then.Quote
stonehearted
Watching a Stones biopic would be like going to a club to see a Stones tribute band--it still leaves you wanting the real thing, which the documentary format ably provides.
from the Stones, there's so much video material available (or not) that it
already doesn't seem worth the trouble searching for lookalikes.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
duke richardson
()
Date: August 4, 2014 16:12
Quote
stonesrule
Thank you Spud...You said it all.
Hate threads like this.
well..
its just a discussion, stonesrule..kinda interested in why you 'hate threads like this'?
yes there have been awful biopics but there are good ones too..
Coal Miner's Daughter
Ray
and now Get On Up
just to name a few.
a Stones one is probably not gonna happen anytime soon..
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: August 4, 2014 16:51
The problem, as I see it, is that any movie would have to climax with Altamont, the climatic moment of the Stones career, and the show that forever cemented their "legendary" status. If you were to condense the Stones entire career into two hours, Altamont, and indeed all of the 1960s, would fill only the first 16 minutes, so you could really only do a movie that covers, at most, the years 1962-1969, and I'm not sure how any re-creation of Altamont could ever be as spine-tingling as seeing the real thing in Gimme Shelter.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-04 17:03 by tatters.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-04 17:03 by tatters.
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
Lynd8
()
Date: August 8, 2014 21:58
I thought same thing -
Quote
duke richardson
so ..thoughts? a film like 'Get On Up', which spans several decades? or a focus on the early struggles and eventual success, with much of the sixties, but little of other decades?
should a Stones biopic even be made? or no, since there are so many characters, episodes, to depict, that too much would be left out?
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
J.J.Flash
()
Date: August 9, 2014 05:00
well it would prob end in 82. I thought Crossfire Hurricane would be different. Never been as disappointed in a stones production. Looks like as far as they are concerned their career ended in 82!
Re: should a Stones biopic be made?
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: August 10, 2014 21:56
more like: as far as Mick's concerned, the hollywoodworthy part of their career ended in 1982.Quote
J.J.Flash
well it would prob end in 82. I thought Crossfire Hurricane would be different. Never been as disappointed in a stones production. Looks like as far as they are concerned their career ended in 82!
or he thinks (rightly so) that video material after 1982 (1989-on) has already been presented numerous times in concise formats.
plus, would you please consider how grotesque it would come to see a bunch of actors portraying the '90s and '00s Stones,
while the '10s Stones are still pretty much alive and kicking, ready to be compared with the guys playing their part in a movie?
talk about a "surrogate band"
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
ade , bitusa2012 , BlueLands , BlueTurns2Grey , Doxa , eduardoacdc , Green Lady , gtx8834 , IsakSun , JMoisica , JordyLicks96 , josepi , mosthigh , Musicwinn , NeddieFlanders , niki , Paddy , peoplewitheyes , Peterdv , Rambler62 , riffhard1860 , RockingLonestar , Spud , spunky , StonyRoad , THE DON , wolundamo , wupperstein
Guests:
1878
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10