The Beatles: Get Back

Yeah. It seems like most people I know have finished it except me!

9.4/10 on IMDB! Which is pretty remarkable for an 8 hour movie.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

I think he meant that Paul says it not John, a mistake with the subtitles.

Ah. Not a mistake with subtitles, the audio is synched to Lennon's lips in the shot, but it may have actually been Paul. It's a muttered response, and underneath some of the more annoying Yoko wailing in the background, which even annoyed John enough to scream back in response.


But I did notice a lot of "flown in" dialogue, because a lot of the recorded audio was recorded while the cameras weren't rolling, and Jackson wanted to incorporate these clips somehow. I'm not sure if Jackson was confused or simply decided that this particular scene offered the best synch with the audio in question.

No, I noticed sometimes the dialogue doesn't quite match up with what we're seeing but I'm not worried about that.
It does sting me a bit to see George not looking like he ever gets any due. It's funny that Ringo just kinda hangs back and smokes cigarettes and waits most of the time.

Well, "Something" is pretty universally embraced, as it should be, and the band puts a lot of work into "I Me Mine" and "For You Blue". What the film doesn't show though is that a number of his initial songs were ignored, like "Hear Me Lord", "Isn't It a Pity", "Let It Down", but there's an interesting clip discussing the extent to which the other Beatles rejected "All Things Must Pass". There's a few really good takes of the latter, and McCartney arranged some really good backing vocals and bass playing for it.





This is my favorite take of it, but obviously still in bootleg quality.

One of my favorite Beatles tunes (for literally 35 years) has been "Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight", so getting to hear that one forming is real nice for me.

I finished it.. Found all parts online on a streaming site - not sure if it's allowed on here, so I won't post the link.


It's odd how EVERYONE complains about the acoustics, which is one of the most important things when it comes to recording, but they don't ditch the idea until George temporarily quits the band....



It was real cool to hear John talk about this band he really likes named "Fleetwood Mac"

Yes, very British.

Agree. If this weren’t The Beatles, I would have zero interest.

It was August 15, 1965, to be exact. My late SIL, who was from Queens, was at this concert. She told me she didn’t hear a single thing from the concert since the girl in front of her screamed throughout the entire concert. Which was only 20 minutes long.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Well, it was broadcast on television in 1966.

I find it remarkable that it's most viewed between people in their 30s (30-44), since over 44 could be 54, 64, 74, 84, especially considering the age group of those in 1969.

Theory/Conclusion -- music and movies were just better then, and the stats don't lie

That must be based on the info of the subscribers? Because how would they know which members of a household (or their friends/relatives with the password) actually watched it?

I just finished watching this today. That's the first time I saw the whole rooftop concert.

A huge matter was made back in the day about how Beatlemania took the world as though it were some sort of luck of the draw or as though it was the radio airplay that thrust the Beatles into the stratosphere but not much was ever said about how there were a string of big budget movies simultaeously playing in theatres. The Beatles had a huge backing and they got the whole ten star royal treatment and support to ensure that Beatlemania was a success. On a corporate level there was probably nothing like it before. They certainly werent some random success riding solely on the popularity of their radio hits catching on, they had the whole kit and kaboodle.

Same.

What are you talking about? I think you may have gotten your hands on some faulty information

I am talking about how back when I was a teen and the Anthology series was being pushed hard on TV, magazines and on the album racks at dept. stores. Everything was Beatlemania this, Beatlemania that. The way the history was presented was like the Beatles were this small band that broke big and all that but not much light was made of their critical film support that ultimately pushed their success over the top. I am willing to bet that those films had a greater impact on their noteriety and sales than their records

You mean the Anthology series that came out in the.....90s?


The success of the Beatles happened a few years before this.


Fun fact: sometimes stuff happens before we happen to become personally aware of those things. The reason there was an anthology series in the first place was because they had already mattered for thirty years. A success absolutely born from their singles and their albums.

Yes, precisely. My point is that with all the Anthology hype, their 1964 US stadium shows and radio chartings are what the historians were pushing and little was mentioned of the movies they made, but looking back it appears as though the movies were more critical to their success than the other things I was inundated about through media. I'm saying these historical views on the importance of particular things could be inaccurate. I think their movies were downplayed in the historians view of things.

But then again I am going on memory here and the rehype of Beatlemania coincided with Oasis hitting the charts back in grungeland days. Thats an equal amount of time between now and then and then and Beatlemania.

But what are you even basing this statement on? You claim that history could be inaccurate but....why? It isn't something that tracks when you look at any documentation of the band, or testimonials of the time, or even the Anthology series you said influenced your opinion on them. I'm legit baffled where this is coming from, especially when you seemed as if you were surprised more people weren't as up to date on this supposed theory as you are.


The movies are definitely an ingredient for why they had influence. And they are all very good movies on their own. But even the movies were essentially designed as vehicles to get more music to their fans. The movies exist because the music made a space for them to have a reason to exist.


And you are also ignoring the critical fact that their first movie Hard Days Night came after Beatlemania took hold. It is based on the phenomenon their music created. It wasn't speculative. It had already happened


Even when we are looking through a modern lens, today's generation (if they know anything about the Beatles at all) has to do with the music. The movies are at best an after thought to their legacy.

The Beatles were famous precisely because of their music, and the movies were made afterward. I think the Beatlemania years were the best years of their lives.