Bohemian Rhapsody is all about Queens music and lifestyle. The film has shown how the band has formed and how they recorded music and all. Anyways.
Now why cant a director producer male a film of ROLLING STONES, depicting the lives of Mick and Keith, how their musical interest has grown,how they formed the band, the first contract and live show,their lifestyle and of cause recording sessions of albums till date. And at last a live show of any recent concert.

Nah.
Biopics are best left for when people are done with their career.

Even then, not something I would ever be much interested in.
Regardless of the actors, budget etc., no one could ever really capture them.

...And, giving the nature of what you're actually saying, why not add an "?" to the thread title...?

Plus: please get rid of those capital letters...
this ain't the army.

To answer your question: no, not interested either.
I'm with MisterDDD on this.

Newsflash:
The Rolling Stones are touring this spring.

Go to that.

My toes are curling at the very thought.


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

the post indicates that pftw04 thought the Queen film was cool. I havent seen it. maybe a tribute to tolerance, from what I hear, acceptance..

a similar film on the Stones obviously wouldnt get made, not for a long time, and if it did, it would have to be a multi-episode project that would stream on something like Netflix.. and Jagger would want control..

no, cant see it happening

"Formed in 1962 by the late guitarist and blues aficionado Brian Jones, The Rolling Stones first stable line-up included Jones plus; Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and pianist Ian Stewart. This line-up stayed in place (albeit with Stewart only continuing as a touring member from 1963) until the departure of Brian in 1969, a month before his tragic death. This period found the Stones initially covering blues and rock 'n' roll tunes, before Jagger and Richards assumed the role of truly majestic songwriters. The band s progression musically and culturally during this period was nothing short of astonishing with the final album Jones played on, Beggars Banquet (save for his contributions to two cuts on its follow up), remaining for many the finest Stones album ever. By the time of Brian s death, former Blues breaker Mick Taylor had joined the group as second guitarist, and he stayed til late 1974, bookending an era which saw the release of three of the Stones most acclaimed records, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street, all featuring the unique and acclaimed guitar work of Taylor. Mick s departure opened the door for Ronnie Wood to join in his place, since when, as far as guitarists go, that was it, and remains so til this very day. This 3 video set tells the story of the Stones from their inception, through each era of their existence, focusing on the contributions of the Four Guitar Gods who have dominated the Stones music. Each of the films here marks a different era by its associated guitarist, with one constant factor, the contributions of Keith Richards, who requires no separate story book, and no introduction, controlling as he does and always has done, the musical trajectory of the world's best Rock 'n' Roll band." - [www.CinemaParadiso.co.uk]


Out from early December 2018: [www.jpc.de] , [CDON.eu] , [www.HMV.co.jp] , [www.Amazon.com] .

Quote
pftw04
Bohemian Rhapsody is all about Queens music and lifestyle. The film has shown how the band has formed and how they recorded music and all. Anyways.
Now why cant a director producer male a film of ROLLING STONES, depicting the lives of Mick and Keith, how their musical interest has grown,how they formed the band, the first contract and live show,their lifestyle and of cause recording sessions of albums till date. And at last a live show of any recent concert.

How they formed the band? This is why this film can never be made. They didn't form the band. Brian Jones formed the band.

Quote
ovalvox

Quote
pftw04
Bohemian Rhapsody is all about Queens music and lifestyle. The film has shown how the band has formed and how they recorded music and all. Anyways.
Now why cant a director producer male a film of ROLLING STONES, depicting the lives of Mick and Keith, how their musical interest has grown,how they formed the band, the first contract and live show,their lifestyle and of cause recording sessions of albums till date. And at last a live show of any recent concert.

How they formed the band? This is why this film can never be made. They didn't form the band. Brian Jones formed the band.

Brian Jones in a letter to fan dated April 4, 1963:
"Dear Doreen, Many thanks for your letter and for the great interest you have shown in the band. It is very gratifying that you should be so willing to help us to the extent you are doing so. Some information:- Formation & History. The band is really an amalgamation of two bands. The one being one I formed about a year ago, & the other being a group run by Mick & Keith in S.E. London. I was introduced to Keith & we decided to pool our resources, so with Stu from my band, and Mick from Keith's we became the nucleus of the 'Stones".

[entertainment.ha.com]


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

Quote
Irix



"Formed in 1962 by the late guitarist and blues aficionado Brian Jones, The Rolling Stones first stable line-up included Jones plus; Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and pianist Ian Stewart. This line-up stayed in place (albeit with Stewart only continuing as a touring member from 1963) until the departure of Brian in 1969, a month before his tragic death. This period found the Stones initially covering blues and rock 'n' roll tunes, before Jagger and Richards assumed the role of truly majestic songwriters. The band s progression musically and culturally during this period was nothing short of astonishing with the final album Jones played on, Beggars Banquet (save for his contributions to two cuts on its follow up), remaining for many the finest Stones album ever. By the time of Brian s death, former Blues breaker Mick Taylor had joined the group as second guitarist, and he stayed til late 1974, bookending an era which saw the release of three of the Stones most acclaimed records, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street, all featuring the unique and acclaimed guitar work of Taylor. Mick s departure opened the door for Ronnie Wood to join in his place, since when, as far as guitarists go, that was it, and remains so til this very day. This 3 video set tells the story of the Stones from their inception, through each era of their existence, focusing on the contributions of the Four Guitar Gods who have dominated the Stones music. Each of the films here marks a different era by its associated guitarist, with one constant factor, the contributions of Keith Richards, who requires no separate story book, and no introduction, controlling as he does and always has done, the musical trajectory of the world's best Rock 'n' Roll band." - [www.CinemaParadiso.co.uk]


Out early December 2018: [www.jpc.de] , [CDON.eu] , [www.HMV.co.jp] .

Thanks for this info. I just pre ordered mine on Amazon. All legendary guitarists and no Mick. A nice bonus. Lol. A nice Christmas present to myself. This should make up for the On Air DVD of previously unreleased footage that we never got.

Who'll play Freddie Sessler ?????



ROCKMAN

I was never into Biographical films from stars of the last 70 years, we already know so much about them that you can make your own bio/movie in our head.............it was fun watching an oldie such as Billy Holiday bio by Diana Ross...but no Freddy Mercury or Mick Jagger or David Bowie I know them to well ,.........

__________________________

Keith drug arrest in the mid 60s really showed what was inside of him. He was fighting traditional values, and as such was a threat to society. What later became just party and booze was stripped to the bone in the 60s as sheer rebellion.

No actor could do a good Jagger, he's uncopyable

Quote
Erik_Snow
No actor could do a good Jagger, he's uncopyable

You're dead right. And that would be just one of the stumbling blocks. Keith is just as uncopyable. I bet some people think it would be easy. Johnny Depp wasn't all that bad.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
Erik_Snow
No actor could do a good Jagger, he's uncopyable

You're dead right. And that would be just one of the stumbling blocks. Keith is just as uncopyable. I bet some people think it would be easy. Johnny Depp wasn't all that bad.

Actually, I think the two actors who played Mick and Keith in British TV's 'Stella Street' were quite good. Of course it was all done for laughs, sending them up (as were all the celebs in the series).

Quote
noughties
Keith drug arrest in the mid 60s really showed what was inside of him. He was fighting traditional values, and as such was a threat to society. What later became just party and booze was stripped to the bone in the 60s as sheer rebellion.

I seemed to hit a bit off the mark.

Harry Styles could have pulled off a young Jagger. Look, it's ridiculous. A film would be b.s., especially if Jagger controlled everything. They have a hard enough time agreeing on who the hell formed the band. And none of the focus would be on Bill or Charlie, who are just as important to the story and chemistry of the band as anyone else.

The Stones story is so difficult to tell. You really have some extraordinary people. Brian Jones is a very difficult person to explain, at least realistically and not as a golden martyr as he's been portrayed. I just want the reality. I want to hear Bill's unheard interviews from Crossfire Hurricane. (Hope Mick didn't have them burned).

Movies are good for certain figures. Queen's history isn't that well known, so maybe this will give them a deserved new audience. Now the Buddy Holly movie with Gary Busey seems a bit ridiculous. But it revived Buddy's stature and a whole new generation, me included started learning more about this great artist.

Maybe when we're all gone some great director will give us a Stones movie that will excite an audience fifty years in the future. But now it's totally unnecessary.

I saw the movie Bohemian Rhapsody a couple of weeks ago and this morning I also saw the Rocketman teaser about Elton John's bio pic?

Why not one about the Stones? It seems to me that after 56 years, someone must have thought about making one.

What do you think?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-12-03 19:18 by daniel t.

Recently discussed here: [iorr.org] .