Ron Howard Directing Beatles documentary
-
moptops:
graystoke:
moptops:
Fair points. But I'd have expected some teasers, updates, or leaks along the way. I suppose I'm not overly enthused owing to the content. We know the best footage. The bad stuff is really bad and it's reasonable to assume nothing Earth shattering has come to light. I hope for the best.
It'll be twenty second snippets of various live footage with a bunch of talking heads bleating on about how they changed their lives. Standard documentary fare. At best, they might put out a complete concert (Shea probably) as a bonus on the physical release.
Funnily enough in a PM to a question asked of me earlier today I used that very expression: "talking heads."
Just in time for Halloween too!!!
-
jl4761:
moptops:
graystoke:
moptops:
Fair points. But I'd have expected some teasers, updates, or leaks along the way. I suppose I'm not overly enthused owing to the content. We know the best footage. The bad stuff is really bad and it's reasonable to assume nothing Earth shattering has come to light. I hope for the best.
It'll be twenty second snippets of various live footage with a bunch of talking heads bleating on about how they changed their lives. Standard documentary fare. At best, they might put out a complete concert (Shea probably) as a bonus on the physical release.
Funnily enough in a PM to a question asked of me earlier today I used that very expression: "talking heads."
Just in time for Halloween too!!!
-
I'm not getting my hopes up. I have a feeling it will be another bland feel-good story without anything new or controversial. There is a lot of darker material that could be covered here but I doubt it will come out especially with this director and family involved.
-
JoeySmith:
I'm not getting my hopes up. I have a feeling it will be another bland feel-good story without anything new or controversial. There is a lot of darker material that could be covered here but I doubt it will come out especially with this director and family involved.
Yes my thoughts too.
-
You know, this movie isn't being made for people like us. Just like we're not like the crowds at Macca concerts (who can't wait to hear Hey Jude and take bathroom breaks when he plays something new), we're not like mass movie audiences either -- at least not when it comes to something Paul or Beatles-related. That said, with the access Howard seems to have, it's not impossible he might find some rare, forgotten footage dredged out of someone's basement. We'll see when it comes out. But you just can't expect a film like this to be made for folks on here who've seen/heard/done everything Paul-related.
-
moptops:
Bruce M.:
moptops:
After a trumpets blaring shout it from the mountain announcement this project really seems to have sputtered. I'm wondering what Opie Cunningham can do to really make this worthwhile? The Beatles mostly were ordinary live, usually badly filmed and recorded.
On what basis do you claim it's sputtered. There was publicity when the project was announced. Typically, the next time there's publicity around a movie is shortly before its release, not while it's being made and finished. By and large the only time there's press coverage of a movie that's in process is things are going wrong -- it's over budget, director and star are fighting, etc. The relative quiet is a positive sign.
Fair points. But I'd have expected some teasers, updates, or leaks along the way. I suppose I'm not overly enthused owing to the content. We know the best footage. The bad stuff is really bad and it's reasonable to assume nothing Earth shattering has come to light. I hope for the best.
There's both great performances and great footage of The Beatles live. The best has been available as bootlegs for decades. I'm looking forward to seeing it in pristine audio and video restoration. I believe it will bring to light how amazing The Beatles were as a live band. Obviously, anyone who thinks The Beatles were not a good live band does not know a thing about Beatlemania, or the reason they became a worldwide phenomenon. Yes, Ron Howard has his hands full, simply figuring what to leave out. This movie is gonna blow minds, and I can't wait to see it!
-
beatlesfanrandy:
moptops:
Bruce M.:
moptops:
After a trumpets blaring shout it from the mountain announcement this project really seems to have sputtered. I'm wondering what Opie Cunningham can do to really make this worthwhile? The Beatles mostly were ordinary live, usually badly filmed and recorded.
On what basis do you claim it's sputtered. There was publicity when the project was announced. Typically, the next time there's publicity around a movie is shortly before its release, not while it's being made and finished. By and large the only time there's press coverage of a movie that's in process is things are going wrong -- it's over budget, director and star are fighting, etc. The relative quiet is a positive sign.
Fair points. But I'd have expected some teasers, updates, or leaks along the way. I suppose I'm not overly enthused owing to the content. We know the best footage. The bad stuff is really bad and it's reasonable to assume nothing Earth shattering has come to light. I hope for the best.
There's both great performances and great footage of The Beatles live. The best has been available as bootlegs for decades. I'm looking forward to seeing it in pristine audio and video restoration. I believe it will bring to light how amazing The Beatles were as a live band. Obviously, anyone who thinks The Beatles were not a good live band does not know a thing about Beatlemania, or the reason they became a worldwide phenomenon. Yes, Ron Howard has his hands full, simply figuring what to leave out. This movie is gonna blow minds, and I can't wait to see it!
I've got all those boots too. I don't think The Beatles were an amazing live band at all. Beatlemania and worldwide phenomenon does not equal amazing live band. Do I therefore know nothing about Beatlemania? More importantly: - Did the film premiere at Cannes in May this year? Opie has said he has some Super 8 he can synch with sound.
-
moptops:
beatlesfanrandy:
moptops:
Bruce M.:
moptops:
After a trumpets blaring shout it from the mountain announcement this project really seems to have sputtered. I'm wondering what Opie Cunningham can do to really make this worthwhile? The Beatles mostly were ordinary live, usually badly filmed and recorded.
On what basis do you claim it's sputtered. There was publicity when the project was announced. Typically, the next time there's publicity around a movie is shortly before its release, not while it's being made and finished. By and large the only time there's press coverage of a movie that's in process is things are going wrong -- it's over budget, director and star are fighting, etc. The relative quiet is a positive sign.
Fair points. But I'd have expected some teasers, updates, or leaks along the way. I suppose I'm not overly enthused owing to the content. We know the best footage. The bad stuff is really bad and it's reasonable to assume nothing Earth shattering has come to light. I hope for the best.
There's both great performances and great footage of The Beatles live. The best has been available as bootlegs for decades. I'm looking forward to seeing it in pristine audio and video restoration. I believe it will bring to light how amazing The Beatles were as a live band. Obviously, anyone who thinks The Beatles were not a good live band does not know a thing about Beatlemania, or the reason they became a worldwide phenomenon. Yes, Ron Howard has his hands full, simply figuring what to leave out. This movie is gonna blow minds, and I can't wait to see it!
I've got all those boots too. I don't think The Beatles were an amazing live band at all. Beatlemania and worldwide phenomenon does not equal amazing live band. Do I therefore know nothing about Beatlemania? More importantly: - Did the film premiere at Cannes in May this year? Opie has said he has some Super 8 he can synch with sound.
You're entitiled to your opinion. I and many others will disagree. Watch the Ed Sullivan shows. They were completely live. No lip synch, no auto tune. If they were no good, Beatlemania would not have happened in America, and we would not still be talking about them today. There was nobody like them. Nobody.
-
That there was nobody like them is absolutely beyond dispute. However, by all accounts they were at their absolute best as a playing band in Liverpool and Hamburg. By the time Beatlemania was happening their live performances were increasingly lazy. For a variety of reasons, many beyond their control, the live concerts were usually sloppy, sometimes abysmal: rarely "amazing." And I can't blame them. As John said, "We became performing fleas." This is more than my opinion: film, video and audio recordings show this to be fact. There's a few good shows captured, but not many.
-
One thing to keep in mind is that The Beatles themselves couldn't even hear what they were playing live!!! When you have the screaming lungs of Beatlemania, the Beatles never had a chance. The technology was so primitive in the 1960's that it actually took Shea 65 for the technology to improve as we know today. John always said that the band's best was never recorded. I will always say that the Washington D.C. 11 February 1964 concert may very well be their best recorded performance ever although I feel confident that there are others. The Hollywood Bowl shows, from what was recorded were great, its just too bad that they were never recorded for prosperity purposes.
-
jl4761:
One thing to keep in mind is that The Beatles themselves couldn't even hear what they were playing live!!! When you have the screaming lungs of Beatlemania, the Beatles never had a chance. The technology was so primitive in the 1960's that it actually took Shea 65 for the technology to improve as we know today. John always said that the band's best was never recorded. I will always say that the Washington D.C. 11 February 1964 concert may very well be their best recorded performance ever although I feel confident that there are others. The Hollywood Bowl shows, from what was recorded were great, its just too bad that they were never recorded for prosperity purposes.
That was basically my point. I can't blame them but geez, even the very good shows suffered. The way they ZOOM through the Hollywood Bowl songs is dizzying. By 1966 kids were actually listening - but The Beatles weren't even bothered with rehearsals by that stage.
-
moptops:
jl4761:
One thing to keep in mind is that The Beatles themselves couldn't even hear what they were playing live!!! When you have the screaming lungs of Beatlemania, the Beatles never had a chance. The technology was so primitive in the 1960's that it actually took Shea 65 for the technology to improve as we know today. John always said that the band's best was never recorded. I will always say that the Washington D.C. 11 February 1964 concert may very well be their best recorded performance ever although I feel confident that there are others. The Hollywood Bowl shows, from what was recorded were great, its just too bad that they were never recorded for prosperity purposes.
That was basically my point. I can't blame them but geez, even the very good shows suffered. The way they ZOOM through the Hollywood Bowl songs is dizzying. By 1966 kids were actually listening - but The Beatles weren't even bothered with rehearsals by that stage.
As you said moptops, The Beatles didn't bother with rehearsals, they couldn't hear themselves live anyway let alone Beatlemania!!!
-
beatlesfanrandy:
You're entitiled to your opinion. I and many others will disagree. Watch the Ed Sullivan shows. They were completely live. No lip synch, no auto tune. If they were no good, Beatlemania would not have happened in America, and we would not still be talking about them today. There was nobody like them. Nobody.
I agree. Click on this and check out Twist and Shout live in Melbourne 1964.
-
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
You're entitiled to your opinion. I and many others will disagree. Watch the Ed Sullivan shows. They were completely live. No lip synch, no auto tune. If they were no good, Beatlemania would not have happened in America, and we would not still be talking about them today. There was nobody like them. Nobody.
I agree. Click on this and check out Twist and Shout live in Melbourne 1964.
Yes that's one of their best. I like the 64 and 65 Hollywood Bowl shows too.
-
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
You're entitiled to your opinion. I and many others will disagree. Watch the Ed Sullivan shows. They were completely live. No lip synch, no auto tune. If they were no good, Beatlemania would not have happened in America, and we would not still be talking about them today. There was nobody like them. Nobody.
I agree. Click on this and check out Twist and Shout live in Melbourne 1964.
Please let me point out something, I am not doubting the talent of The Beatles in any way!! The Beatles were great, in my opinion, I feel that they could have performed better live to their fullest potential had the primitive technology allowed them to. In my opinion, the Washington D.C. concert was GREAT!!! That was the RAW Beatles performing live with no soundboards, no feedback speakers with little Vox amplifiers!! They played great despite not being able to hear themselves at all!!! Same with Shea 65!! Vox built special custom made 100 Watt amplifiers for that concert, Beatlemania was louder than the P.A. system as well as the amplifiers!! The Beatles couldn't hear themselves at all!! And because of that, their performance suffered.
-
jl4761:
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
You're entitiled to your opinion. I and many others will disagree. Watch the Ed Sullivan shows. They were completely live. No lip synch, no auto tune. If they were no good, Beatlemania would not have happened in America, and we would not still be talking about them today. There was nobody like them. Nobody.
I agree. Click on this and check out Twist and Shout live in Melbourne 1964.
Please let me point out something, I am not doubting the talent of The Beatles in any way!! The Beatles were great, in my opinion, I feel that they could have performed better live to their fullest potential had the primitive technology allowed them to. In my opinion, the Washington D.C. concert was GREAT!!! That was the RAW Beatles performing live with no soundboards, no feedback speakers with little Vox amplifiers!! They played great despite not being able to hear themselves at all!!! Same with Shea 65!! Vox built special custom made 100 Watt amplifiers for that concert, Beatlemania was louder than the P.A. system as well as the amplifiers!! The Beatles couldn't hear themselves at all!! And because of that, their performance suffered.
I knew what you meant and agree. Just wanted to post an example of how good they were live.
-
Nancy R:
jl4761:
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
You're entitiled to your opinion. I and many others will disagree. Watch the Ed Sullivan shows. They were completely live. No lip synch, no auto tune. If they were no good, Beatlemania would not have happened in America, and we would not still be talking about them today. There was nobody like them. Nobody.
I agree. Click on this and check out Twist and Shout live in Melbourne 1964.
Please let me point out something, I am not doubting the talent of The Beatles in any way!! The Beatles were great, in my opinion, I feel that they could have performed better live to their fullest potential had the primitive technology allowed them to. In my opinion, the Washington D.C. concert was GREAT!!! That was the RAW Beatles performing live with no soundboards, no feedback speakers with little Vox amplifiers!! They played great despite not being able to hear themselves at all!!! Same with Shea 65!! Vox built special custom made 100 Watt amplifiers for that concert, Beatlemania was louder than the P.A. system as well as the amplifiers!! The Beatles couldn't hear themselves at all!! And because of that, their performance suffered.
I knew what you meant and agree. Just wanted to post an example of how good they were live.
I'm glad that you did Nancy, The Beatles did have some great moments!
-
The 1969 Rooftop Concert is a testament of how good the Beatles could sound live. Looks like they all plugged in, got comfortable, and then played a great set. Paul & John's voices were in top form. All of them could improvise with their instruments if they needed to. Its too bad we never really got a good look of that aspect of their career.
-
JoeySmith:
The 1969 Rooftop Concert is a testament of how good the Beatles could sound live. Looks like they all plugged in, got comfortable, and then played a great set. Paul & John's voices were in top form. All of them could improvise with their instruments if they needed to. Its too bad we never really got a good look of that aspect of their career.
Good points.
-
JoeySmith:
The 1969 Rooftop Concert is a testament of how good the Beatles could sound live. Looks like they all plugged in, got comfortable, and then played a great set. Paul & John's voices were in top form. All of them could improvise with their instruments if they needed to. Its too bad we never really got a good look of that aspect of their career.
That's very true JoeySmith, I couldn't have said it better myself. The rooftop concert was great in itself! Considering the fact that The Beatles quit touring in 1966, the 1969 rooftop concert proves as well as shows the potential of what The Beatles could have sounded like live had they stayed together longer. In my opinion, The Beatles would have improved tremendously which would result in them sounding great as time went on!! And with the improvement of the technology as time went by, in my opinion, the technology would have brought the best out of The Beatles had they stayed together.