|
|
Post by andymorris on Nov 26, 2021 14:58:40 GMT -5
End of part 2. A bit long in the middle i'd say, but the Part 3 should be very, very insteresting. It's Paul, the other three would clearly have taken the year off, or ten. But Paul couldn't stop, he just loved being the man. Crazy how Paul ran it all, we all knew it, but not to that extent. He was THE BOSS. And all the workers quit. First Ringo during White album sessions. Then George during Get Back and finally John at the end of Abbey Road sessions. Those 3 all worked on each other’s solo albums. None of them worked on Pauls. Very telling. Yeah he’s clearly a bit much during those sessions but then again without his will to do something, no sgt pepper, no white album, no abbey road. Somebody had to drive the car or the Beatles wouldn’t be what they became. The others career went slowly downhill after the Beatles, Wings was about the best solo of the four in the long run. Lennon and Harrison released a couple of good records just after the Beatles because the energy was still there. Let’s not forget he was only 27. We all think of them as old grown up guys, but they were kids when they broke up. Kids. They didn’t know what to be outside of the band, macca especially. Amazing how Macca doesn’t understand why the other three don’t want to work all the time. Like he has no fuckin clue his fellow Beatles can be different. And He’s still doing it at nearly 80. |
|
|
|
Post by girllikeabomb on Nov 26, 2021 16:00:08 GMT -5
Amazing how Macca doesn’t understand why the other three don’t want to work all the time. Like he has no fuckin clue his fellow Beatles can be different. And He’s still doing it at nearly 80. Creatively driven people ... fantastic to have in the world but generally a tremendous challenge to live or work with! (John was driven too, though, in his way, but the John here is often high as Mr. Kite and in a writing lull. But when he and Macca vibe together it still lights up the sky, doesn't it?) |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 26, 2021 17:23:05 GMT -5
This is shit and boring, someone has to say it. Wow, you see them work and create. Yes, that is the footage that exists. I am talking about PJ's work here. He did nothing special at all. Plus, video and audio are also nothing special. Everybody can remaster old videos today, I have seen much much better work. All that is good about this has nothing to do with PJ and production team. If you are Beatles fan, this can never be bad but like I said, everything that is good about this doesn't have anything to do with PJ. This could be so much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 26, 2021 17:30:13 GMT -5
This is shit and boring, someone has to say it. Wow, you see them work and create. Yes, that is the footage that exists. I am talking about PJ's work here. He did nothing special at all. Plus, video and audio are also nothing special. Everybody can remaster old videos today, I have seen much much better work. All that is good about this has nothing to do with PJ and production team. If you are Beatles fan, this can never be bad but like I said, everything that is good about this doesn't have anything to do with PJ. This could be so much better. I've not seen it yet, because I don't have a damn Disney subscription. But this kind of take is what I feared and expected. I was originally looking forward to this being in theatres and I still have this nagging feeling it is a subject matter that doesn't need to be stretched over 8 hours and should have easily been contained in one 2 hour sitting in a cinema. |
|
|
|
Post by girllikeabomb on Nov 26, 2021 20:45:53 GMT -5
This is shit and boring, someone has to say it. Wow, you see them work and create. Yes, that is the footage that exists. I am talking about PJ's work here. He did nothing special at all. Plus, video and audio are also nothing special. Everybody can remaster old videos today, I have seen much much better work. All that is good about this has nothing to do with PJ and production team. If you are Beatles fan, this can never be bad but like I said, everything that is good about this doesn't have anything to do with PJ. This could be so much better. That's just factually wrong. You can absolutely despise it, no worries, but to say he didn’t do anything special just won' t fly. Creating story structure and pristine sound and vision out of 60 hours of 50 year-old raw footage is something one in a million can do. I can’t do it, you can’t do it, and darned well most of Hollywood can’t do it, I promise you. Peter Jackson can do it. Certainly one can quibble as to whether the cut is overly detailed, whether it should have been 8 hours or 5 hours (though he clearly could not have told the story he wanted to tell in 2 hours).. But the amount of work he put into this was beyond colossal. You truly must have no idea. (There were actual technological developments, using machine learning, made to handle the sound but sure ... it's nothing special.) And it’s not for everyone, for certain. I can see casual audiences finding it too much and too slow – it’s certainly not paced like a millennial blockbuster (another reason, along with the fact that it's mainly four men talking in a room that it was far better suited as a TV show—it would die in a theatre whereas it is intimate on a TV). Like anything at all, whether it's boring depends on the person. It's thrilling if you’re fascinated by the creative process … and I think compelling for those who really love the Beatles and have dreamed of being a fly on the wall at a crucial juncture in their friendship. But it's not like you don't know what happened ... so that's not the story Jackson decided to tell. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 27, 2021 0:58:34 GMT -5
This is shit and boring, someone has to say it. Wow, you see them work and create. Yes, that is the footage that exists. I am talking about PJ's work here. He did nothing special at all. Plus, video and audio are also nothing special. Everybody can remaster old videos today, I have seen much much better work. All that is good about this has nothing to do with PJ and production team. If you are Beatles fan, this can never be bad but like I said, everything that is good about this doesn't have anything to do with PJ. This could be so much better. What exactly do you want Jackson to do differently? What are you missing from your enjoyment? Jackson was brought on to comb through 60+ hours of footage and 150 hours of audio. That is a massive massive task. I like that he isn’t manipulating anything that much. He’s letting the band tell the story of these sessions via their own words and music. Jackson isn’t using 99% of the first “Let It Be” documentary out of respect to those filmmakers. It’s all new angles, takes and performances. You have to remember, they decided to rehearse at a film studio stage which isn’t ideal for capturing or making music. It’s always gonna sound one way given the technology of the times. These sessions have been polished many many times by Spector, Johns, McCartney, Martin. All got basically the same results. Michael Lindsey-Hoggs film was DOA because The Beatles in the editing process a year later vetoed so much material. Basically anything that made them look bad and bitchy. A two hour movie didn’t scratch the surface of what really happened in January 1969. He was at the mercy of the band. Jackson doesn’t have that problem in 2021. He’s putting out how it originally should have been made. We are better for having it than not having it. |
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Nov 27, 2021 2:44:20 GMT -5
This is not for everybody, true. I'd say Part 2 could have been edited to 2h30 maybe. but i don't think a 2 hour documentary would have been enough.
But the first episode was nearly perfect. You can clearly understand the balance of power, their personalities, why George suddenly quit and the annoyance of executives around them putting too much pressure, while still smiling and pretending everything is alright.
It's a also a great document for musician who have been in bands. I literally saw myself and my band mate many times, when you try to work out a song and it doesn't work, or when it instantly work, like magic. The process of it all is fascinating to watch but yeah, if you don't like spending hours in a studio trying to find the right sound for a guitar or making the right demo, it might be a bit boring. especially Part 2.
This is the kind of documentary i wish Liam made.
I don't think i have seen any of Peter Jackson movies, but he really managed to present each Beatle as they really are (at that particular time). And for that, it's a piece of history.
|
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 27, 2021 3:27:51 GMT -5
This is shit and boring, someone has to say it. Wow, you see them work and create. Yes, that is the footage that exists. I am talking about PJ's work here. He did nothing special at all. Plus, video and audio are also nothing special. Everybody can remaster old videos today, I have seen much much better work. All that is good about this has nothing to do with PJ and production team. If you are Beatles fan, this can never be bad but like I said, everything that is good about this doesn't have anything to do with PJ. This could be so much better. What exactly do you want Jackson to do differently? Why should I know that? He is the one who should know that and have an idea. Yes, work, work, work, well done. We all knew before we seen this show that this needed lot of work. But work and art are two different things. You see McCartney composing Get Back on his bass guitar. Wow. Fucking wow. But that is the footage that exists not PJ's work. Is this honestly good tv show, imagine that you never heard of the Beatles? Thank him for giving us footage that we've never seen but that is the only quality about this. And hard work which I don't give a shit about to be honest when it comes to art. There are many hard working guitarists for example who are still shit. What I need from guitarist is to create riff like riff from In My Life. I don't see strong idea behind this project, I don't see much creativity. Would I still watch it? Yes. Would I still be like a little girl while I am watching some parts? Yes. But that's because I am fan of The Beatles, it has nothing to do with quality of the show. |
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Nov 27, 2021 3:39:21 GMT -5
I think the idea for Peter Jackson was 1. Marketing 2. have someone who isn't from the Beatles to "direct it" and not deliver a biased movie 3. Get a guy who can tell a story with the right cameras angles, the right shots, eg an experienced filmmaker.
But it could have been anybody in that field.
|
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 27, 2021 3:57:39 GMT -5
I have part two downloaded and I will watch it probably today or tomorrow but I didn't wake up today excited to watch it. That's what great tv shows do to me, I can't wait to find time to watch new episode. And I am big Beatles fan. That's all have to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Nov 27, 2021 4:13:53 GMT -5
I might not be able to watch part 3 today, what torrent site do you use oasisserbia ? Is it confirmed that it will vanish from disney + tonight ? |
|
|
|
Post by girllikeabomb on Nov 27, 2021 4:57:54 GMT -5
I think the idea for Peter Jackson was 1. Marketing 2. have someone who isn't from the Beatles to "direct it" and not deliver a biased movie 3. Get a guy who can tell a story with the right cameras angles, the right shots, eg an experienced filmmaker. But it could have been anybody in that field. Your other post before this was better.  I'm trying hard just to be amused by people talking shit about stuff they really don't know anything about. But nah, not “anybody In the field” could have done it. Do you know the world monomania? A good one! To create something like this you need to be a complete monomaniac. They are vanishingly rare in the world. And even rarer is a monomaniac with a great sense of storytelling, immense experience working with the cutting-edge of film technology, and an unabashed, life-long fan’s love of The Beatles. There were probably a handful of people who might have had that combination (and each would have done something a little different with the same footage) but only one who was hankering to take the time (and years off his life) to do it. As for whose idea it was to use Peter Jackson ... it was Peter Jackson's. Marketing doesn't make those decisions -- they figure out how to sell what the filmmaker creates. Sorry to ruin your cynical POV, but that is how it works ... |
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Nov 27, 2021 5:06:04 GMT -5
Watched part 2 for the most part yesterday. Fell asleep during it LOL. Don't know what I missed or how long I actually missed, but I woke up when they were discussing the trip to the Maharishi. Still have about half an hour to go.
This shit sure is long.
Just some thoughts so far:
- The "and then there were two" part was very heartbreaking and prophetic.
- Moving to the Apple studios was a good move. Their energy is so different.
- Love Billy Preston. Such a smiley guy!
- Michael Lindsay-Hogg sucks. So many times I wanted him to shut up. With his 2000 Arabs and torch lights. Geez STFU man.
- The flowerpot conversation is fascinating. The whole conversation was actually about half an hour, would love to hear the whole thing some time.
- Shame there isn't any footage of the George and John fight that contributed to George leaving
- There was still some cutting. Here it appears that Yoko barely speaks, but we know from bootlegs and other footage that that wasn't the case.
- Glyn Johns' outfits. That's all.
- John seems much more involved in part 2. This was his heroine period and it shows. Looking very unhealthu and disinterested.
- Love Linda
- Love Ringo
|
|
|
|
Post by girllikeabomb on Nov 27, 2021 5:13:52 GMT -5
- Glyn Johns' outfits. That's all. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Nov 27, 2021 5:25:47 GMT -5
I think the idea for Peter Jackson was 1. Marketing 2. have someone who isn't from the Beatles to "direct it" and not deliver a biased movie 3. Get a guy who can tell a story with the right cameras angles, the right shots, eg an experienced filmmaker. But it could have been anybody in that field. Your other post before this was better. I'm trying hard just to be amused by people talking shit about stuff they really don't know anything about. But nah, not “anybody In the field” could have done it. Do you know the world monomania? A good one! To create something like this you need to be a complete monomaniac. They are vanishingly rare in the world. And even rarer is a monomaniac with a great sense of storytelling, immense experience working with the cutting-edge of film technology, and an unabashed, life-long fan’s love of The Beatles. There were probably a handful of people who might have had that combination (and each would have done something a little different with the same footage) but only one who was hankering to take the time (and years off his life) to do it. As for whose idea it was to use Peter Jackson ... it was Peter Jackson's. Marketing doesn't make those decisions -- they figure out how to sell what the filmmaker creates. Sorry to ruin your cynical POV, but that is how it works ... When am i talking shit ? I'm just saying for the non specialist like i am, it doesn't make a difference who is making it. Maybe you see it, I'm just saying i wouldn't see any difference, if say, Michael Bay made the cut. I'm actually saying i'm completely ignorant about it all actually. I'm not a movie afficionado, my field is more the music.  Point 2 and point 3 are actually saying that it needed a great filmmaker to do it though. Point 1 is probably accurate, sorry if i dont live in an idealistic world. They promoted the movie based on Jackson's name more than anything. It was a selling point, and an important one. There's nothing cynical about it. It's a product that needed to be sold. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 27, 2021 5:39:23 GMT -5
It is geeky project for geeks. It is how majority of the kid today sees Beatles anyway. The Beatles were as fucking modern as you could be. They were pushing forward, moving boundaries. Peter said that he saw fun part of it, creative part of it... It is still boring movie for people who looks like Peter Jackson.
They were modern band, with positive, happy songs or experimental or sad and philosopical songs but still great enough and progressive.
Peter was talking about how he saw that side of them and that it wasn't all black as in Let It Be movie.
A Hard Day's Night and Help! were fun, Magical Mystery Tour was shit but it still was fun in some weird way and captured their spirit of the time, similar thing with Yellow Submarine but better.
It was always that thing with Let It Be, the movie and the album, it never really represented what Beatles were. And I believe that was and that should be an idea of this movie. That was at least what PJ was talking about few months ago when we saw first trailers.
Few months after Let It Be session, they recorded Abbey Road, one of the best albums of all time and one very bright and optimistic album.
We all know that those Let It Be recording sessions were not the best time for all of them but it was just one phase in their career as The Beatles. And I thought, and that's all Peter was saying, that it wasn't all that bad, that there is another side to it.
But we didn't get that. Not enough. I don't think that he should revisit the history but if recordings were boring, long and painful, maybe then production of the movie shouldn't be.
It is dusty, old, boring, geeky movie about dusty, old, boring, geeky band. The only problem is that it isn't true spirit of The Beatles, even in those times there are happy moments.
Let It Be album doesn't fit with their discography, Let It Be movie doesn't fit their filmography. I believe that he had great chance to fix that.
He took all those footage, chose something else that wasn't seen in Let It Be. Ok, it is professionally done but there is nothing genius or inspiring about it. It doesn't represent what Beatles were.
Basically we got what we expected. But The Beatles wasn't that. They would play C chord then Am then F and when everyone expected G chord, we would get something completely unexpected and brilliant.
Peter Jackson with this movie is just playing C-Am-F-G for 8 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 27, 2021 5:55:10 GMT -5
I might not be able to watch part 3 today, what torrent site do you use oasisserbia ? Is it confirmed that it will vanish from disney + tonight ? I don't know if we are allowed here to write about torrent sites xD But the most famous and the biggest one has part one and two, no need for further complications xD |
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Nov 27, 2021 6:04:21 GMT -5
I might not be able to watch part 3 today, what torrent site do you use oasisserbia ? Is it confirmed that it will vanish from disney + tonight ? I don't know if we are allowed here to write about torrent sites xD But the most famous and the biggest one has part one and two, no need for further complications xD gotcha, thanx  |
|
|
|
Post by girllikeabomb on Nov 27, 2021 6:14:31 GMT -5
Your other post before this was better. I'm trying hard just to be amused by people talking shit about stuff they really don't know anything about. But nah, not “anybody In the field” could have done it. Do you know the world monomania? A good one! To create something like this you need to be a complete monomaniac. They are vanishingly rare in the world. And even rarer is a monomaniac with a great sense of storytelling, immense experience working with the cutting-edge of film technology, and an unabashed, life-long fan’s love of The Beatles. There were probably a handful of people who might have had that combination (and each would have done something a little different with the same footage) but only one who was hankering to take the time (and years off his life) to do it. As for whose idea it was to use Peter Jackson ... it was Peter Jackson's. Marketing doesn't make those decisions -- they figure out how to sell what the filmmaker creates. Sorry to ruin your cynical POV, but that is how it works ... When am i talking shit ? I'm just saying for the non specialist like i am, it doesn't make a difference who is making it. Maybe you see it, I'm just saying i wouldn't see any difference, if say, Michael Bay made the cut. I'm actually saying i'm completely ignorant about it all actually. I'm not a movie afficionado, my field is more the music. Point 2 and point 3 are actually saying that it needed a great filmmaker to do it though. Point 1 is probably accurate, sorry if i dont live in an idealistic world. They promoted the movie based on Jackson's name more than anything. It was a selling point, and an important one. There's nothing cynical about it. It's a product that needed to be sold. I dunno what else to say. Your Point 1 is not accurate -- it's not even in dispute. They promoted the movie with Jackson's name long after he had already decided he wanted to make the film. Not vice versa. Marketing doesn't make those decisions. Jackson was shown some of the original Lindsay-Hogg footage when he was in London and asked if he could have a go at making a film. Meetings ensued and it was a good fit. This is how movies get made. Marketing comes along later and decides how best to sell it. They don't go "ooooh, we can sell this long-ass show only if Peter Jackson directs it" and he magically appears and makes an epically long-ass show. I'm just telling you. If you don't want to take it from me (and granted you don't know me from Adam) then do some research on your own. But otherwise you're just making stuff up. I imagine if I kept calling a guitar a violin it would annoy you, too. I'll try to ignore it, tho. |
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Nov 27, 2021 6:58:13 GMT -5
Why so serious bomb I’m just saying it reached to me as « Peter Jackson telling the whole truth about the infamous Beatles get back disatrous sessions » and that it would set history straight.
That’s how they marketed it for people like me who didn’t follow closely who did what, who reached first 😟 and who are not into Hollywood news 24/7.
not saying it was a big evil plan but they saw an opportunity to sell it as « big director tells the Beatles how they really were » There is nothing wrong with that, at all, it’s clever and entertaining as I said before. But it was a selling point. To add credibility to the project, rather than have an anonymous guy make the cut.
There is always a selling point. 8 hours of Beatles rehearsing without a selling point wouldn’t reach a broad audience. It helps that way that it’s a big director.
I’m sorry if you don’t understand my point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2021 7:42:44 GMT -5
I have watched all the episodes now and absolutely loved it. I'm happy that they made it for the fans, and didn't shorten it for the casual viewers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 27, 2021 8:16:28 GMT -5
What exactly do you want Jackson to do differently? Why should I know that? He is the one who should know that and have an idea. Yes, work, work, work, well done. We all knew before we seen this show that this needed lot of work. But work and art are two different things. You see McCartney composing Get Back on his bass guitar. Wow. Fucking wow. But that is the footage that exists not PJ's work. Is this honestly good tv show, imagine that you never heard of the Beatles? Thank him for giving us footage that we've never seen but that is the only quality about this. And hard work which I don't give a shit about to be honest when it comes to art. There are many hard working guitarists for example who are still shit. What I need from guitarist is to create riff like riff from In My Life. I don't see strong idea behind this project, I don't see much creativity. Would I still watch it? Yes. Would I still be like a little girl while I am watching some parts? Yes. But that's because I am fan of The Beatles, it has nothing to do with quality of the show. Who is claiming otherwise? Jackson is merely going through the archives not only for The Beatles but us fans. He’s not claiming to be making some new piece of art. He’s just putting together how the Beatles actually were in January 1969. The good, the bad and the ugly. Because all 3 are present. Lindsey-Hogg used less than 3% of total film shot. Most of the best stuff he wanted to include the Beatles vetoed. If you ever saw the original film you would know the legend of those sessions don’t match what we saw on screen. This is a more complete work. Think of Jackson more of a remix or arranger. Like a hip hop artists pulling samples. They aren’t creating the art from scratch but putting it together in an interesting/entertaining way. It’s amazing to see Paul casually come up with the main idea of “Get Back” jamming on the bass or see Lindsey-Hogg and Ringo having a heart to heart on the side while Paul is just sitting at the piano playing what would become Let It Be the song. Amazing stuff. But yeah, should have stayed in a box, unorganized in the Apple basement. Not sure how if someone likes The Beatles you would dump on this project. It’s not about Jackson. It’s about The Beatles bro. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 27, 2021 9:13:45 GMT -5
Why should I know that? He is the one who should know that and have an idea. Yes, work, work, work, well done. We all knew before we seen this show that this needed lot of work. But work and art are two different things. You see McCartney composing Get Back on his bass guitar. Wow. Fucking wow. But that is the footage that exists not PJ's work. Is this honestly good tv show, imagine that you never heard of the Beatles? Thank him for giving us footage that we've never seen but that is the only quality about this. And hard work which I don't give a shit about to be honest when it comes to art. There are many hard working guitarists for example who are still shit. What I need from guitarist is to create riff like riff from In My Life. I don't see strong idea behind this project, I don't see much creativity. Would I still watch it? Yes. Would I still be like a little girl while I am watching some parts? Yes. But that's because I am fan of The Beatles, it has nothing to do with quality of the show. Who is claiming otherwise? Jackson is merely going through the archives not only for The Beatles but us fans. He’s not claiming to be making some new piece of art. He’s just putting together how the Beatles actually were in January 1969. The good, the bad and the ugly. Because all 3 are present. Lindsey-Hogg used less than 3% of total film shot. Most of the best stuff he wanted to include the Beatles vetoed. If you ever saw the original film you would know the legend of those sessions don’t match what we saw on screen. This is a more complete work. Think of Jackson more of a remix or arranger. Like a hip hop artists pulling samples. They aren’t creating the art from scratch but putting it together in an interesting/entertaining way. It’s amazing to see Paul casually come up with the main idea of “Get Back” jamming on the bass or see Lindsey-Hogg and Ringo having a heart to heart on the side while Paul is just sitting at the piano playing what would become Let It Be the song. Amazing stuff. But yeah, should have stayed in a box, unorganized in the Apple basement. Not sure how if someone likes The Beatles you would dump on this project. It’s not about Jackson. It’s about The Beatles bro. It's like Let It Be album. Is it really bad album? It is just bad album for Beatles standards it would be the best album for 99% of the bands. Peter Jackson is making documentary about The Beatles, I expect more. People are falling asleep while watching it, you can read it here. He has footage of Paul creating Get Back out of nothing and he puts that in the movie. Wow, he is real genius. Also there is footage of Paul creating Let It Be and playing it probably for the first time. Out of 100 directors, how many wouldn't put that in the movie? Everyone would. It's like Be Here Now. There is no producer that would say that is good produced album. So you like Oasis and their sounds and Liam's singing and Noel's songs, does that mean that every song should be 10 minutes long? Just so you can have more material. PJ couldn't do much wrong with the opportunity that he got. You find Paul's clip of creating Get Back and we are all screaming watching that, he didn't even have to remaster it. But does that have universal quality? Movies are art and he is movie director, so yes, he is an artist and his job is to create art. There are many documentaries that are art. And art is not only some shit like Paris Texas movie. What was his job, to please hardcore Beatles fans? Is that what artist should do, please the audience? And what is anyway hardcore Beatles fan? Nerd who is watching 8 hours of this boring shit ten times a week? I see myself as a big fan of The Beatles but they represent something else to me. I don't think that art or anything about The Beatles should be boring. It should be inspiring, exciting and so on. But that's my opinion, this could be better, that's all. Not great, not terrible, 3/5. Missed opportunity if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 27, 2021 9:44:34 GMT -5
Who is claiming otherwise? Jackson is merely going through the archives not only for The Beatles but us fans. He’s not claiming to be making some new piece of art. He’s just putting together how the Beatles actually were in January 1969. The good, the bad and the ugly. Because all 3 are present. Lindsey-Hogg used less than 3% of total film shot. Most of the best stuff he wanted to include the Beatles vetoed. If you ever saw the original film you would know the legend of those sessions don’t match what we saw on screen. This is a more complete work. Think of Jackson more of a remix or arranger. Like a hip hop artists pulling samples. They aren’t creating the art from scratch but putting it together in an interesting/entertaining way. It’s amazing to see Paul casually come up with the main idea of “Get Back” jamming on the bass or see Lindsey-Hogg and Ringo having a heart to heart on the side while Paul is just sitting at the piano playing what would become Let It Be the song. Amazing stuff. But yeah, should have stayed in a box, unorganized in the Apple basement. Not sure how if someone likes The Beatles you would dump on this project. It’s not about Jackson. It’s about The Beatles bro. It's like Let It Be album. Is it really bad album? It is just bad album for Beatles standards it would be the best album for 99% of the bands. Peter Jackson is making documentary about The Beatles, I expect more. People are falling asleep while watching it, you can read it here. He has footage of Paul creating Get Back out of nothing and he puts that in the movie. Wow, he is real genius. Also there is footage of Paul creating Let It Be and playing it probably for the first time. Out of 100 directors, how many wouldn't put that in the movie? Everyone would. It's like Be Here Now. There is no producer that would say that is good produced album. So you like Oasis and their sounds and Liam's singing and Noel's songs, does that mean that every song should be 10 minutes long? Just so you can have more material. PJ couldn't do much wrong with the opportunity that he got. You find Paul's clip of creating Get Back and we are all screaming watching that, he didn't even have to remaster it. But does that have universal quality? Movies are art and he is movie director, so yes, he is an artist and his job is to create art. There are many documentaries that are art. And art is not only some shit like Paris Texas movie. What was his job, to please hardcore Beatles fans? Is that what artist should do, please the audience? And what is anyway hardcore Beatles fan? Nerd who is watching 8 hours of this boring shit ten times a week? I see myself as a big fan of The Beatles but they represent something else to me. I don't think that art or anything about The Beatles should be boring. It should be inspiring, exciting and so on. But that's my opinion, this could be better, that's all. Not great, not terrible, 3/5. Missed opportunity if you ask me. A missed opportunity? For what? What is your vision on how those 60 hours of footage and 150 hours of audio should have been handled? Did Peter Jackson wrong you in another life? Why so Much focus on him? He’s not bragging. He’s not boasting about anything. He’s putting together a film that looks inside the Let It Be sessions. It’s fascinating. Who cares if it’s long? We already have the 2 hour doc. Talk about boring!!!! This is there if people wanna watch it and so far they are. By the droves. Just sit back, relax and enjoy it. It’s not like we got more untapped Beatles stuff coming. This is likely the end of any biggies. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 27, 2021 10:38:42 GMT -5
Turn off your mind, relax...
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5