|
|
Post by girllikeabomb on Dec 26, 2020 5:28:32 GMT -5
If this unused footage was that good it should probably have made the first Let It Be documentary or The Beatles anthology (a project built on that sort of stuff). Not at all. For one thing, you could have five different directors make five quite different movies out of 56 hours of footage. Lindsay-Hogg saw it the way he did in 1969, in what was at times a tense and disintegrating atmosphere, and while under a lot of pressure from the various Beatles themselves, their management, Apple, etcetera. He chose a certain narrative, one that was even controversial then. 50 years later, an uber-fan like Jackson who grew up on their music (but wasn't part of those times) is going to come at it from a different angle entirely, with a ton of historical hindsight on his side (and the perspective of two deaths on top of that.) For another thing, Lindsay-Hogg was asked by management to cut some of the footage (particularly of John and Yoko), so it's not a case of all the best footage was used. Also, Jackson is using the digital restoration techniques he developed for They Shall Not Grow Old, so, good or bad, it won't be entirely the same-old. (I also don't believe anyone else has ever been given access to this footage, at least that is what has been said.) Apparently, they are also going to release a restored version of Lindsay-Hogg's original Let It Be alongside Jackson's Get Back, so people can contrast and compare if they want. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Dec 26, 2020 5:36:03 GMT -5
I really can’t get into old Macca. I tried McCartney 3 with hopes but nope. I stopped at chaos and creation in the backyard and have not enjoyed one of his albums since. His voice sound too old. I must say I agree with you but then again I heard this song first time today and he sounds great. Maybe he can when he wants and with a little help of his friends :-) He was at his best with Lennon, maybe he just needs someone. When he is recording at his home there is nobody to tell him that he sounds like an old man and that he can maybe give it another try. I don't know, maaaybeeee, my guess. |
|
|
|
Post by defmaybe00 on Dec 26, 2020 5:45:51 GMT -5
McCartney III tops the UK albums chart, giving Macca his first number one solo record in 31 years! First festive topper for the man since Beatles '1' in 2000 (my generations awakening to The Beatles). Was actually shocked that he had not had one in such a long time, but great to see him up there |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Dec 26, 2020 6:14:20 GMT -5
Is it time to make that Beatles album from 1971 using solo songs from 1970 and 1971? :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by underneaththesky on Dec 26, 2020 8:08:50 GMT -5
Is it time to make that Beatles album from 1971 using solo songs from 1970 and 1971? :-) already on you tube mate (think it has FOUR next beatles albums after the break up)  I'm in to do this. lets start with all first albums + stuff recorded with the old band (gonna take more time than switch around SOTSOG) |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Dec 26, 2020 10:40:31 GMT -5
Is it time to make that Beatles album from 1971 using solo songs from 1970 and 1971? :-) Ethan Hawke did this for the movie Boyhood. Used the “best” of the solo years. Disc 1: 1. Paul McCartney & Wings, "Band on the Run" 2. George Harrison, "My Sweet Lord" 3. John Lennon feat. The Flux Fiddlers & the Plastic Ono Band, "Jealous Guy" 4. Ringo Starr, "Photograph" 5. John Lennon, "How?" 6. Paul McCartney, "Every Night" 7. George Harrison, "Blow Away" 8. Paul McCartney, "Maybe I'm Amazed" 9. John Lennon, "Woman" 10.Paul McCartney & Wings, "Jet" 11. John Lennon, "Stand by Me" 12. Ringo Starr, "No No Song" 13. Paul McCartney, "Junk" 14. John Lennon, "Love" 15. Paul McCartney & Linda McCartney, "The Back Seat of My Car" 16. John Lennon, "Watching the Wheels" 17. John Lennon, "Mind Games" 18. Paul McCartney & Wings, "Bluebird" 19. John Lennon, "Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy)" 20. George Harrison, "What Is Life" Disc 2: 1. John Lennon, "God" 2. Wings, "Listen to What the Man Said" 3. John Lennon, "Crippled Inside" 4. Ringo Starr, "You're Sixteen You're Beautiful (And You're Mine)" 5. Paul McCartney & Wings, "Let Me Roll It" 6. John Lennon & The Plastic Ono Band, "Power to the People" 7. Paul McCartney, "Another Day" 8. George Harrison, "If Not For You (2001 Digital Remaster)" 9. John Lennon, "(Just Like) Starting Over" 10. Wings, "Let 'Em In" 11. John Lennon, "Mother" 12. Paul McCartney & Wings, "Helen Wheels" 13. John Lennon, "I Found Out" 14. Paul McCartney & Linda McCartney, "Uncle Albert / Admiral Halsey" 15. John Lennon, Yoko Ono & The Plastic Ono Band, "Instant Karma! (We All Shine On)" 15. George Harrison, "Not Guilty (2004 Digital Remaster)" 16. Paul McCartney & Linda McCartney, "Heart of the Country" 17. John Lennon, "Oh Yoko!" 18. Wings, "Mull of Kintyre" 19. Ringo Starr, "It Don't Come Easy" Disc 3: 1. John Lennon, "Grow Old With Me (2010 Remaster)" 2. Wings, "Silly Love Songs" 3. The Beatles, "Real Love" 4. Paul McCartney & Wings, "My Love" 5. John Lennon, "Oh My Love" 6. George Harrison, "Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth)" 7. Paul McCartney, "Pipes of Peace" 8. John Lennon, "Imagine" 9. Paul McCartney, "Here Today" 10. George Harrison, "All Things Must Pass" 11. Paul McCartney, "And I Love Her (Live on MTV Unplugged)" |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Dec 26, 2020 10:47:37 GMT -5
That is more like best of, not really an album that they would record in early 70s if they didn't broke up.
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Dec 26, 2020 16:32:12 GMT -5
It’s amazing how much Peter Jackson’s stock has fallen since the last Lord of The Rings film. He’s a punchline to so many bad CGI jokes, bad storytelling and weird ass projects. He’s like a modern day George Lucas. I don't get that sense at all.
His directing output has been somewhat thin on the ground post-Rings: just his King Kong remake, adaptations of The Lovely Bones and The Hobbit, and now these documentaries on World War One and The Beatles. But King Kong did pretty well at the box office and was greatly acclaimed by critics on release; The Lovely Bones did alright commercially too, although no one seemed to like it very much; The Hobbit absolutely raked it in and was pretty well liked by audiences (Rotten Tomatoes approval ratings for the films currently stand at 83%, 85%, and 74%, with corresponding IMDb scores of 7.8 for the first two and 7.4 for the third); and They Shall Not Grow Old, though only a limited release, seems to be admired by all who have seen it and already accepted into the canon of "important" films about the First World War.
I don't know what you mean by "weird ass projects," so I'll skip over that. I doubt that most people on the internet could tell me what constitutes good storytelling. Saying a film has been badly written is too easy; it requires no real critical faculties, just a sense that something isn't quite right, or else not to your liking. As for being a punchline to bad CGI jokes, I must have missed the jokes, but I think I know what you're saying. Yes, filming The Hobbit in high resolution, 48 frames-per-second, while at the same time making extensive use of CGI has largely been condemed as a fatal mistake on his part, with even the basic bitches at Saturday Night Live poking fun at "Peter Jackson's patented Shit-Vision" in a sketch from 2013. But with the recent remastering of Peter's twin Middle-earth trilogies, even the snarkiest of Hobbit haters have had to concede that the films are looking much better now.
Aside from directing, Peter produced District 9 and West of Memphis in the last ten years or so, both of which were critically acclaimed, and co-wrote and produced an adaptation of Mortal Engines for his friend Christian Rivers to direct. By all accounts, the Mortal Engines film didn't work. But I'd say the fact Universal handed over $100million+ to a first time director is proof that Peter Jackson's name still means something in Hollywood. As well as that, Steven Spielberg and his producers continue to wait for Peter to get round to making his Tintin sequel, despite the last one coming out nearly 10 years ago and being something of a minor hit. In the meantime, Spielberg's company Amblin has apparently snapped Peter up to work on a film that has still yet to be announced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Dec 26, 2020 18:54:51 GMT -5
It’s amazing how much Peter Jackson’s stock has fallen since the last Lord of The Rings film. He’s a punchline to so many bad CGI jokes, bad storytelling and weird ass projects. He’s like a modern day George Lucas. I don't get that sense at all.
His directing output has been somewhat thin on the ground post-Rings: just his King Kong remake, adaptations of The Lovely Bones and The Hobbit, and now these documentaries on World War One and The Beatles. But King Kong did pretty well at the box office and was greatly acclaimed by critics on release; The Lovely Bones did alright commercially too, although no one seemed to like it very much; The Hobbit absolutely raked it in and was pretty well liked by audiences (Rotten Tomatoes approval ratings for the films currently stand at 83%, 85%, and 74%, with corresponding IMDb scores of 7.8 for the first two and 7.4 for the third); and They Shall Not Grow Old, though only a limited release, seems to be admired by all who have seen it and already accepted into the canon of "important" films about the First World War.
I don't know what you mean by "weird ass projects," so I'll skip over that. I doubt that most people on the internet could tell me what constitutes good storytelling. Saying a film has been badly written is too easy; it requires no real critical faculties, just a sense that something isn't quite right, or else not to your liking. As for being a punchline to bad CGI jokes, I must have missed the jokes, but I think I know what you're saying. Yes, filming The Hobbit in high resolution, 48 frames-per-second, while at the same time making extensive use of CGI has largely been condemed as a fatal mistake on his part, with even the basic bitches at Saturday Night Live poking fun at "Peter Jackson's patented Shit-Vision" in a sketch from 2013. But with the recent remastering of Peter's twin Middle-earth trilogies, even the snarkiest of Hobbit haters have had to concede that the films are looking much better now. Aside from directing, Peter produced District 9 and West of Memphis in the last ten years or so, both of which were critically acclaimed, and co-wrote and produced an adaptation of Mortal Engines for his friend Christian Rivers to direct. By all accounts, the Mortal Engines film didn't work. But I'd say the fact Universal handed over $100million+ to a first time director is proof that Peter Jackson's name still means something in Hollywood. As well as that, Steven Spielberg and his producers continue to wait for Peter to get round to making his Tintin sequel, despite the last one coming out nearly 10 years ago and being something of a minor hit. In the meantime, Spielberg's company Amblin has apparently snapped Peter up to work on a film that has still yet to be announced.
Don't confuse box office results with how good a film is. Those Hobbit films were not very good, especially the last 2. King Kong and Lovely Bones were forgettable. His use of CGI was too much to take a period. George Lucas' rep was hurt by the prequels and yet all of them were massive massive massive box office hits. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 26, 2020 21:04:24 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of either Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, but I was dragged reluctantly to the cinema to see the first Hobbit film back in 2012. Not wishing to disappoint my companion in revealing that, at the time, I despised Lord of the Rings (although I don't love them, I now greatly appreciate the films) but I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed it.
It was light, humorous and family friendly. Had a lot of charm to it I felt and I like that it didn't take itself seriously. It's not a disaster in the way Phantom Menace is, or the Spielberg/Lucas collaborative royal fuck up with Indiana Jones 4.
They Shall Not Grow Old however is his finest work for me personally. Not just for its technology but the way that Jackson was able to humanise the men who were put to slaughter in the trenches. Rather than just being an ode to faceless men or reiterating statistics of death that is common place for Great War memorials and tributes, it eerily got us up close and personal to real lives of ordinary men. Nothing melodramatic, imperial or gallant in its approach, it's the humility and ordinariness of these men that hits me hard. Being up close and personal in that way, the thought of hell they ultimately went through compounds the horror. I wouldn't have another Hollywood director for this Beatles doc, he's genuinely the best and most tasteful individual for the job. There's still decency and heaps of credibility with Jackson.
As for Lucas? Well if he directed something like They Shall Not Grow Old, I really wouldn't be surprised if he digitally inserted Jar Jar Binks going over the top in Flanders Fields. That's the difference between the two men.
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Dec 28, 2020 11:17:39 GMT -5
I don't get that sense at all.
His directing output has been somewhat thin on the ground post-Rings: just his King Kong remake, adaptations of The Lovely Bones and The Hobbit, and now these documentaries on World War One and The Beatles. But King Kong did pretty well at the box office and was greatly acclaimed by critics on release; The Lovely Bones did alright commercially too, although no one seemed to like it very much; The Hobbit absolutely raked it in and was pretty well liked by audiences (Rotten Tomatoes approval ratings for the films currently stand at 83%, 85%, and 74%, with corresponding IMDb scores of 7.8 for the first two and 7.4 for the third); and They Shall Not Grow Old, though only a limited release, seems to be admired by all who have seen it and already accepted into the canon of "important" films about the First World War.
I don't know what you mean by "weird ass projects," so I'll skip over that. I doubt that most people on the internet could tell me what constitutes good storytelling. Saying a film has been badly written is too easy; it requires no real critical faculties, just a sense that something isn't quite right, or else not to your liking. As for being a punchline to bad CGI jokes, I must have missed the jokes, but I think I know what you're saying. Yes, filming The Hobbit in high resolution, 48 frames-per-second, while at the same time making extensive use of CGI has largely been condemed as a fatal mistake on his part, with even the basic bitches at Saturday Night Live poking fun at "Peter Jackson's patented Shit-Vision" in a sketch from 2013. But with the recent remastering of Peter's twin Middle-earth trilogies, even the snarkiest of Hobbit haters have had to concede that the films are looking much better now. Aside from directing, Peter produced District 9 and West of Memphis in the last ten years or so, both of which were critically acclaimed, and co-wrote and produced an adaptation of Mortal Engines for his friend Christian Rivers to direct. By all accounts, the Mortal Engines film didn't work. But I'd say the fact Universal handed over $100million+ to a first time director is proof that Peter Jackson's name still means something in Hollywood. As well as that, Steven Spielberg and his producers continue to wait for Peter to get round to making his Tintin sequel, despite the last one coming out nearly 10 years ago and being something of a minor hit. In the meantime, Spielberg's company Amblin has apparently snapped Peter up to work on a film that has still yet to be announced.
. Those Hobbit films were not very good, especially the last 2. King Kong and Lovely Bones were forgettable. His use of CGI was too much to take a period. George Lucas' rep was hurt by the prequels and yet all of them were massive massive massive box office hits. That's why I included the Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb aggregate scores for The Hobbit: to show how popular the films remain with audiences, regardless of the business they did at the time. (By comparison, the Star Wars prequels have 59%, 56%, and 66% approval from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes, with IMDb scores of 6.5 for Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, and 7.5 for Revenge of the Sith.)
In my opinion the Hobbit films are good. Very good in fact. I'm not alone in thinking this, and I suspect over time more people will come to the same conclusion. Particularly if you compare them with the blandly written, hammily acted, bone-headed, factory-produced blockbuster fare which was coming out around the same time and ever since. There's no legs to any of that Marvel stuff. You enjoy them a reasonable amount the first time, if you remember to leave your brain outside, but then when you come back for a repeat viewing you find you got it all the first time round. Because it's all surface.
The critics were overly harsh in their treatment of particularly the first Hobbit film An Unexpected Journey. They wanted another masterpiece like The Lord of the Rings after they'd got a bit too excited when Return of the King won all them Oscars ("The fact is [Peter Jackson] is the Orson Welles of fantasy cinema" - Mark Kermode, 2005). But The Hobbit was never that, and anyway Peter doesn't care for being seen as a serious filmmaker making serious and important films. He is the product of the quirky British cultural artefacts he was surrounded by as a child--Thunderbirds and Python, Doctor Who and The Beatles--mixed with Kiwi self-effacement, and a Spielbergian sense of cinema as entertainment first and foremost.
In time people will come to accept The Hobbit trilogy for what it is, rather than bemoaning what it isn't. There's much to value in it, if only people would look to see it. Great acting performaces, memorable dialogue (fancy that in a modern blockbuster!), colour and spectacle, silliness and pathos. And because Peter and his scriptwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens took care to reference what they'd done in Rings, there's a terrific continuity of storytelling between Hobbit and Rings which you just don't find in any other blockbuster franchise. Moments of drama and emotion in Rings actually play stronger now because of The Hobbit. Like when you see Bilbo after he's left The Shire and the Ring behind, and he's withered by age: that hits harder having spent eight hours with him as a young man. Same for that business in the Mines of Moria with Balin's tomb and Gandalf's encounter with the Balrog. And so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 28, 2020 14:59:16 GMT -5
Don't confuse box office results with how good a film is. Those Hobbit films were not very good, especially the last 2. King Kong and Lovely Bones were forgettable. His use of CGI was too much to take a period. George Lucas' rep was hurt by the prequels and yet all of them were massive massive massive box office hits. That's why I included the Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb aggregate scores for The Hobbit: for you to see how popular the films remain with audiences, regardless of the business they did at the time. (By comparison, the Star Wars prequels come in at 59%, 56%, and 66% approval from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes, with IMDb scores of 6.5 for Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, and 7.5 for Revenge of the Sith.)
In my opinion the Hobbit films are good. Very good in fact. I'm not alone in thinking this, and I suspect over time more people will come to the same conclusion. Particularly if you compare them with the blandly written, hammily acted, bone-headed, factory-produced blockbuster fare which was coming out around the same time and ever since. There's no legs to any of that Marvel stuff. You enjoy them a reasonable amount the first time, if you remember to leave your brain outside, but then when you come back for a repeat viewing you find you got it all the first time round. Because it's all surface.
The critics were overly harsh in their treatment of particularly the first Hobbit film An Unexpected Journey. They wanted another masterpiece like The Lord of the Rings after they'd got a bit too excited when Return of the King won all them Oscars ("The fact is [Peter Jackson] is the Orson Welles of fantasy cinema" - Mark Kermode, 2005). But The Hobbit was never that, and anyway Peter doesn't care for being seen as a serious filmmaker making serious and important films. He is the product of the quirky British cultural artefacts he was surrounded by as a child--Thunderbirds and Python, Doctor Who and The Beatles--mixed with Kiwi self-effacement, and a Spielbergian sense of cinema as entertainment first and foremost.
In time people will come to accept The Hobbit trilogy for what it is, rather than bemoaning what it isn't. There's much to value in it, if only people would look to see it. Great acting performaces, memorable dialogue (fancy that in a modern blockbuster!), colour and spectacle, silliness and pathos. And because Peter and his scriptwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens took care to reference what they'd done in Rings, there's a terrific continuity of storytelling between Hobbit and Rings which you just don't find in any other blockbuster franchise. Moments of drama and emotion in Rings actually play stronger now because of The Hobbit. Like when you see Bilbo after he's left The Shire and the Ring behind, and he's withered by age: that hits harder having spend eight hours with him as a young man. Same for that business in the Mines of Moria with Balin's tomb and Gandalf's encounter with the Balrog. And so on.
This is quite a contrast now you mention it. The Hobbit films feel like an age ago, primarily because it's a blockbuster that's not a superhero movie and you also see the care and attention and high level of detail put into it. It's not just one massive marketing exercise. In fact, it feels like the last blockbuster to not be a superhero movie. Marvel/superhero movies have contributed to the dumbing down of blockbusters - it's all crash, bang, wallop. They're just so dull and unoriginal, when are people going to get tired of this nonsense? |
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Dec 28, 2020 20:06:02 GMT -5
That's why I included the Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb aggregate scores for The Hobbit: for you to see how popular the films remain with audiences, regardless of the business they did at the time. (By comparison, the Star Wars prequels come in at 59%, 56%, and 66% approval from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes, with IMDb scores of 6.5 for Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, and 7.5 for Revenge of the Sith.)
In my opinion the Hobbit films are good. Very good in fact. I'm not alone in thinking this, and I suspect over time more people will come to the same conclusion. Particularly if you compare them with the blandly written, hammily acted, bone-headed, factory-produced blockbuster fare which was coming out around the same time and ever since. There's no legs to any of that Marvel stuff. You enjoy them a reasonable amount the first time, if you remember to leave your brain outside, but then when you come back for a repeat viewing you find you got it all the first time round. Because it's all surface.
The critics were overly harsh in their treatment of particularly the first Hobbit film An Unexpected Journey. They wanted another masterpiece like The Lord of the Rings after they'd got a bit too excited when Return of the King won all them Oscars ("The fact is [Peter Jackson] is the Orson Welles of fantasy cinema" - Mark Kermode, 2005). But The Hobbit was never that, and anyway Peter doesn't care for being seen as a serious filmmaker making serious and important films. He is the product of the quirky British cultural artefacts he was surrounded by as a child--Thunderbirds and Python, Doctor Who and The Beatles--mixed with Kiwi self-effacement, and a Spielbergian sense of cinema as entertainment first and foremost.
In time people will come to accept The Hobbit trilogy for what it is, rather than bemoaning what it isn't. There's much to value in it, if only people would look to see it. Great acting performaces, memorable dialogue (fancy that in a modern blockbuster!), colour and spectacle, silliness and pathos. And because Peter and his scriptwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens took care to reference what they'd done in Rings, there's a terrific continuity of storytelling between Hobbit and Rings which you just don't find in any other blockbuster franchise. Moments of drama and emotion in Rings actually play stronger now because of The Hobbit. Like when you see Bilbo after he's left The Shire and the Ring behind, and he's withered by age: that hits harder having spend eight hours with him as a young man. Same for that business in the Mines of Moria with Balin's tomb and Gandalf's encounter with the Balrog. And so on.
This is quite a contrast now you mention it. The Hobbit films feel like an age ago, primarily because it's a blockbuster that's not a superhero movie and you also see the care and attention and high level of detail put into it. It's not just one massive marketing exercise. In fact, it feels like the last blockbuster to not be a superhero movie. Marvel/superhero movies have contributed to the dumbing down of blockbusters - it's all crash, bang, wallop. They're just so dull and unoriginal, when are people going to get tired of this nonsense? The Hobbit trilogy came out between 2012 and 2014. 2012 was the year of the first Marvel Cinematic Universe "crossover" movie, in which the most bankable Marvel characters of that time were brought together to trade annoying wisecracks, and punch and kick at a faceless foe who was evil just because. (I haven't actually seen it, but I assume that's what happened). 2014 saw the release of Guardians of the Galaxy, with which Marvel was really seen to be asserting their dominance over the market by pumping money and star power into a film of one of their most obscure titles, and having that gamble (if you can call it that) pay off with great critical and commercial success.
So yeah. We were already well into the 2010s craze for superheroes on screen by the time the Hobbit trilogy made it to cinemas. That's why I thought it was relevant to mention its success at the box office (just short of $3billion) in opposition to Lennon2217's point about Peter Jackson's stock having fallen over the last fifteen years. It may have been more to do with Lord of the Rings's good name than Peter's, but whatever the reason people did keep coming back to see each new installment. When you think how crowded the market was with superhero films by then, and how quickly everyone became tired of Star Wars when Disney started pumping films out annually, perhaps The Hobbit was doing something right after all, despite what the critics said.
I'm not a Martin Scorsese fan particularly, but I have to agree with his comments on Marvel films. From my experience, verisimilitude is eroded away from the get-go by the incessant quipping; you can set your watch by the progression of the narrative; and then the smashy-bashy third act comes along and entirely removes the thing from any grounding in reality. Although I have enjoyed watching some Marvel films, I can never award them a score of more than about 7 out of 10, because there is never any dramatic tension for me, I'm always aware of the story mechanics at work, and I don't believe in any of the characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Dec 29, 2020 6:24:00 GMT -5
I enjoyed the first Hobbit film more than any Lord of the Rings ones. Don't really remember the second and didn't see the third. For what it's worth, I also think the book of The Hobbit is much better than Fellowship of the Ring, which is the only LOTR novel I could stomach before admitting defeat and realising that it's just not for me. Like matt says, there's a simple whimsy to The Hobbit that makes it a lot more fun than the LOTR series, for me. I also enjoyed King Kong. Might be nostalgia but I loved it as a kid and always have fun with the replays they do show quite often on telly. Plus, the PS2 game was fucking excellent. Spent hours with that growing up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2020 8:18:21 GMT -5
To stay in the spirit of the new film, a little match of the day. Which song do you prefer: Get Back or Don't Let Me Down ?
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Dec 29, 2020 8:27:09 GMT -5
To stay in the spirit of the new film, a little match of the day. Which song do you prefer: Get Back or Don't Let Me Down ? They're both great songs and fantastic recordings, but it has to be 'Get Back' for me. I can understand why Lennon would feel a bit hacked off by a song like 'Don't Let Me Down' being made a B-side, but I think they ultimately made the right choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Panic on Dec 29, 2020 10:39:12 GMT -5
I enjoyed the first Hobbit film more than any Lord of the Rings ones. Don't really remember the second and didn't see the third. For what it's worth, I also think the book of The Hobbit is much better than Fellowship of the Ring, which is the only LOTR novel I could stomach before admitting defeat and realising that it's just not for me. Like matt says, there's a simple whimsy to The Hobbit that makes it a lot more fun than the LOTR series, for me. I also enjoyed King Kong. Might be nostalgia but I loved it as a kid and always have fun with the replays they do show quite often on telly. Plus, the PS2 game was fucking excellent. Spent hours with that growing up. War of The Worlds is another big budget film from 2005 that gets a lot of flak, I really enjoyed both films then, and still do now. I turned 15 in September 2005. 2005 was a great year for Oasis, and in general! |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 29, 2020 19:59:12 GMT -5
To stay in the spirit of the new film, a little match of the day. Which song do you prefer: Get Back or Don't Let Me Down ? Great vocal from Lennon on Don't Let Me Down, but Get Back feels more complete. |
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Jan 7, 2021 8:38:41 GMT -5
To stay in the spirit of the new film, a little match of the day. Which song do you prefer: Get Back or Don't Let Me Down ? Get Back. |
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Jan 7, 2021 8:46:35 GMT -5
This will be epic. The Gallaghers will be demanding the full 50 or so hours. Oh wow. This is exciting. Thank you, Peter Jackson and your team! That certainly did put a smile on my face. Love that shot of John and Ringo walking out with arms round each other. As an aside, why do men—and I’m just as guilty of this as anyone—dress so blandly now? There’s not a shot of John, Paul, George, or Ringo in the video above where they don’t look absolutely fantastic. Different colours, textures, patterns... sigh I think especially George looked amazing. Love that colourful outfit with the ruffles and all! I am so looking forward to this. I don't think it'll be a marketing ploy. Younger fans are quite handy with the internet and are able to find things so quickly. If there's anything bad they'll find it in a heartbeat. The bit we've seen previously was quite negative at times, but remember that's only a tiny bit of the 56 hours. Plus it has been known that it wasn't all misère. It will always be coloured as every filmmaker looks at it from a different perspective with different ideas, but I just hope this will be informative, entertaining and will give us a good sense of what it was like. |
|
|
|
Post by MacaRonic on Jan 7, 2021 18:26:54 GMT -5
----------------------------------------
“A Doll’s House” (1970)
----------------------------------------
1. Mother
2. Maybe I’m Amazed
3. I Found Out
4. Hold On
5. My Sweet Lord
6. The Lovely Linda
7. Oo-You
8. Junk
9. Cold Turkey
10. Behind That Locked Door
11. Teddy Boy
12. Well Well Well
13. Love
14. Hot As Sun / Glasses
1. Instant Karma! (We All Shine On)
2. Every Night
3. Early 1970
4. Look At Me
5. Apple Scruffs
6. Working Class Hero
7. That Would Be Something
8. Momma Miss America
9. Isolation
10. If Not For You
11. Remember
12. Man We Was Lonely
13. God
14. Singalong Junk
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jan 7, 2021 22:51:17 GMT -5
COOKIE!
|
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Jan 11, 2021 3:07:24 GMT -5
Whats wrong with people that they dont understand that Beatles are the best band ever by far. Probably better than all other bands combined.
|
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Jan 11, 2021 3:28:09 GMT -5
What are some popular Beatles songs that you don't like?
I mean, don't like is maybe strong wrong but I don't enjoy listening to them as some people do. And find something, in most cases, cheesy about them
A Hard Day’s Night
Blackbird
Can’t Buy Me Love
Eleanor Rigby
Lady Madonna
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 11, 2021 5:07:52 GMT -5
What are some popular Beatles songs that you don't like? I mean, don't like is maybe strong wrong but I don't enjoy listening to them as some people do. And find something, in most cases, cheesy about them A Hard Day’s Night Blackbird Can’t Buy Me Love Eleanor Rigby Lady Madonna Can listen to them all but Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill is just putrid. Lennon should leave those kind of jolly japes to Macca with his breezy touch. Then again, we could be here all day debating about what songs should have gone on White Album instead - e.g. Child of Nature is better than Jealous Guy, Not Guilty from George should have been on there. Album needed a full throated Lennon vocal too so Revolution - single version - should have made it instead of the acoustic doo wop version. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5