Not really, though that is its reputation. It's more of an underwhelming attempt at a [cinéma vérité] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin%C3%A9ma_v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9)-style documentary, supposed to be a "fly on the wall" sort of thing. It *does* contain a brief scene with Paul and George arguing. But otherwise, it's really just a mishmash of rehearsals, without any context, no voice-over, and no intertitles. It's basically just an hour of random rehearsals - "Oh, ok, so now the Beatles are rehearsing that song" - followed by an edit of the rooftop concert.
In other words, it's basically just a briefer, much less enjoyable version of Peter Jackson's doc. Not chaotic, just much more aimless and with no context. If you've seen PJ's doc, your reaction is probably going to be, "This feels like an unfocused collection of random outtakes."
Those who watched Get Back first will hopefully understand the frustration around the original Let it Be doc. Much of what was said from those involved was along the lines of "they were there so long and captured so much, why did they choose to include what they did while leaving out so much?"
I believe any up and coming editor could take Jackson and his team's remastered work in Get Back and edit it down to a 2 hour movie that is far more satisfying than Let it Be. Even just some of the choices of what to use and cut from the rooftop concert and the lead up to it are weird.
It was also produced at a time when The Beatles could put out a 30 minute documentary that was them just taking a shit and it would sell millions of copies.
Yeah, it won The Beatles an Oscar for 'Best Original Song Score' which is a category that was practically invented for the film. They kept it around for a little while longer and musicals tended to win it.
Ha! Reminds me of Joe Walsh in the Eagles documentary: "We could have farted and burped on that album and the record company would be like 'When can we have it?"
Yes, agreed. While the boringness is slightly forgivable - they didn't have the time or resources to catalog all the footage they had and decide what would be the most interesting (though they did make an attempt at this) - the editing just doesn't work. Few of the performances are complete. It just cuts abruptly to the next performance, usually with a couple lines of random dialogue in between that mean nothing.
The album, with the random quotes in between songs without context, does the same thing but it works much better there as a music album than as a film.
IIRC they threw this together to meet their requirement of a third theatrical movie starring them for their movie deal after Hard Days Night and Help. They were hoping that Yellow Submarine would count, but the studio insisted that it did not because it was animated, and they weren't even in it except for a brief live action cameo (no they did not do the voices)
EDIT: Just googled this and it is an urban legend. Yellow Submarine DID count, Let it Be is unrelated to that deal. Someone at Apple Records just suggested to the band that they film the sessions and they were like "yeah whatever." The idea was that they could use the footage in an elaborate concert, alongside a side documentary to be aired on TV. Later when George Harrison quit the band, he only rejoined on the condition that the concert idea be abandoned and they continue not playing live. They agreed, and salvaged the footage as a feature film.
You are correct. The person you responded to doesn't know what they're talking about. They don't voice the Lonely Hearts Club Band, except that the Beatles' musical recordings are used throughout the film.
I watched this probably 10 years ago (my uncle gave me a bootleg dvd of it) and as a big Beatles fan, I had to stop watching cause the scene of them fighting upset me so much.
From what I remember the rest of it wasn’t all that special? I think the Peter Jackson version is much better
CB is so interesting, and has never seen wide release. I think the Stones have control of it and doubt they’d show it now that they’re concentrated on legacy. Although that’s the legacy I want to know about.
That said, it also has no timeline or story path whatsoever. It’s just a jumbled mess of stitched together clips. With no subtitles leading you along, you have to be a super fan and know all the faces for it to be interesting. With the exception of a couple short titillating moments, I wonder if it’s less interesting to the general streaming audience.
I think the Rolling Stones sued the filmmaker to block distribution, and essentially won. I don't know if the settlement is still in effect (or even if this is an urban legend), but the film could only be shown once a year with the director in the room.
I’ve read several of the bio books and am quite sure the law suit is fact. I don’t know however if it’s still in effect. I assume it is, Apple+ wouldn’t buy it but I’m sure some small video distribution company would if it were available.
Yeah, I had a bootleg from eBay a long time ago. I remember one decent live number (maybe more?), the infamous roadie scene (which is why this will never get released), and a lot of talking in hotel rooms.
There’s one scene on a bus where a roadie pulls down a groupie’s pants, lifts her up, then buries his face in her crotch. Does not look entirely consensual. Which is probably why this will never officially be released.
The Stones sat on Rock and Roll Circus for decades. Jagger claimed it made him look old
(Which is ridiculous because he was 25 when it was made in 1968).
I heard the real reason was that The Who blew the Stones away in the film and they were embarrassed.
This is great for historical preservation purposes but I have to say, Jackson's doc eclipses this in just about every way. Far more in depth, far more artful, far more entertaining, far more revealing about the dynamic in the group, shows more of the good and more of the bad, etc.
It has a lot of footage Jackson didn't use (which was out of respect to Lindsay-Hogg) but as a film in its own right it's kind of listless.
I'm happy to have Let It Be basically so we have some more full length Beatles music videos in 4K. It felt like they made sure Get Back would not be like that at all.
Fun Fact: The Beatles won an Oscar for this film, for a now-defunct category called "Best Original Song Score." They did not attend the Oscars, however; Quincy Jones accepted the award on their behalf: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A9WPx1qNkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A9WPx1qNkY)
The best time to release this was two years ago with *Get Back,* because now we have that, it blows *Let It Be* out of the water. The film tries so hard to squeeze 55 hours into 90 minutes and it just fails, it's a disjointed mess of contextless scenes which the audience projected the band's break-up onto.
But as they say, the second best time is *now.* Beatles fans finally have their holy grail, the film's been out of print for 40 years, since Apple Films have been so afraid to show it again. It would be a great thing to celebrate if Peter Jackson didn't take all that footage and make a better, longer documentary out of it.
I do appreciate Peter's insistence of not having the miniseries step on the original - he always saw his as a companion piece, and now we're finally getting the other half.
MMT was released on Blu-Ray in 2015, and it's still available. It contains a "making of" doc and several other extras. The only lack of availability is that none of the streaming services have licensed it.
Knowing the Beatles' release style, I would assume that most of their films will now be let in and out of the "vault", and licensed to streamers for limited runs, but not all the films ever at the same time, to create a false sense of scarcity. LIB might stream on Disney+ for a couple years, then put back in the vault, only for MMT to be licensed for a couple years, then pulled back, followed by Yellow Submarine, etc. Though I have a hunch that a remastered re-release of the Anthology doc is likely in the works before dipping back into the MMT well.
>Though I have a hunch that a remastered re-release of the Anthology doc is likely in the works
And the anthology album too with a cleaned up version of Free as a Bird and Real Love.
In my opinion, vaulting would be a shame. The post-Eisner years of Disney have been way better for catalogue availability. For Apple Corp, the post-Jackson years have been similar. I think the companies' intention of making things available should align here.
Remake the 6 hrs of footage you didn’t use in Get Back….no one cares if the Beatles were fighting, we all know the history but we want to see
anything that’s new ….even their Solo careers there is money to be made…
When they first announced Jackson’s “Get Back,” I was unenthused. I’d always seen “Let It Be” described as a documentary of the breakup of The Beatles, and it just sounded like a bummer. Digitizing the video and cleaning it up didn’t sound like any “fix,” either. It was depressing subject matter, regardless of the video quality.
I was so glad I actually watched “Get Back.” They had a month-worth of film of The Beatles behind-the-scenes, creating some of rock’s greatest music. Yes, you saw the tension, and yes, you saw the seeds of the end being sown. But you also saw the four coolest guys on the planet doing what they do best and obviously having a blast doing it, much of the time. It was a delight, and we owe Jackson a debt of gratitude for “saving” this footage, not just from time, but from the perception it was all negative.
But I also came to appreciate Hogg’s position, too. He was supposed to be shooting a PR fluff piece. He wasn’t supposed to be documenting the beginning of the end of The Beatles. But as he filmed, it became obvious that’s what was happening. And Hogg could’ve buried it, and made “Let It Be” a triumphant story about the Fab Four growing up, or whatever. As Jackson proved, there was plenty of cool footage. But Hogg felt almost journalistic integrity to tell the “real” story as he saw it, not the sanitized PR story he easily could have made and sold.
In 1970, it would’ve been an act of dishonesty NOT to focus on the clearly impending breakup — it was actual “news” at the time. But here in the 2020s, it’s nice to see the 4 of them creating together and having fun. It almost feels like “news” today to learn they were still doing that by 1970.
That's quite generous to Michael Lindsay-Hogg's cut of the film. His film doesn't really focus on the breakup, either. The most it does is show a single scene lasting a couple minutes of George and Paul having a disagreement over what George should be playing during one rehearsal.
Other than that, it's basically just a random collection of rehearsals, followed by an edit of the rooftop concert.
It's not very good, and the reason why has a lot to do with MLH. As Peter Jackson's doc shows, MLH was told right at the beginning that any concert they were going to do in relation to the film would have to be performed in England. That was the one and only stipulation he was given. Yet, over and over again, he kept trying to convince them to do something extravagant overseas.
Ringo was never on board, and George's mood changed drastically over the first ten days of the proceedings, in large part because he was feeling pressured to do something he didn't want to do. (And for context, he was having marital problems at the time and his mother living in Liverpool was dying.) And this director kept trying to convince them they needed to do this thing overseas.
Eventually, George turned against the idea of a live show entirely, and was the last on board with the rooftop idea. But at the start of the rehearsals, he seemed to be looking forward to the show, since the assumption was that the concert would be quickly arranged at a local venue in London. MLH's insistence on something different soured George on the whole project, and MLH ended up with a much worse film than he intended to make, which was his own fault.
Potentially, though Lindsay-Hogg did say this:
"It is certainly brighter and livelier than what ended up on videotape. It looks now like it was intended to look in 1969 or 1970, although at my request, Peter did give it a more filmic look than “Get Back,” which had a slightly more modern and digital look."
So maybe the smeary AI upscale look will be minimal compared to Get Back.
Just release the full roof top concert already, not the one that flicks back and forth between scenes, voxpops and conversations but the full concert. Hell, give us two versions but at least give us the concert in full.
Oh boy, my dad is a fan of the beatles. When he was young, he was excited to see the beatles movie (Yellow submarine?) but was kinda dissapointed it was a cartoon movie.
This movie was never shown in my country, so may be he would like it.
"Restored by Peter Jackson's Team" so with all the film grain removed to make them look like wax and the colour's jacked up like a Pixar film. greaaaat.
we've seen how good the original footage looks on the 1+ Blu Ray, film grain on 50 year old **16MM FILM STOCK** exists, Jackson!!!! Just live with it!!!
He made one of the most disappointing trilogies of all time out of one beloved short adventure story, plus made a third version of King Kong, and that shitty Lovely Bones movie.
I swore my ex's mom (a beatles and McCartney fanatic) had a copy of this on DVD, but apparently it's only ever been released on VHS in the 80s briefly. So maybe she had a bootleg or something.
True! Yeah Let It Be is a movie instead of a 9 hour long series... and people are saying that compared to Get Back it kinda feels like bad outtakes of the footage, rather than the best material. But I guess there was so much material and Lindsay-Hogg had to put *something* together, and back then he also didn't have the advantage of using AI to clean up audio, isolate voices, etc, so he cobbled together what he could.
Will Peter Jackson also restore this one by removing all the film grain, like he did with "Get Back", making the entire thing look scrubbed and plastic with no fine detail? Ugh...
Did you know Paul McCartney repeatedly beat his crippled, one legged wife Heather Mills and his first wife Linda
https://beatle.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/paul-admits-wife-abuse-on-tape/
It’s singing in a soft high voice instead of louder chest voice. Think “in myyyyyyy life.” Messed up about the hitting. Sad that someone in the 60s that was so progressive in thought was still essentially a caveman in behavior.
He did, he also admitted it several times and apologized, he did this in a time way before ‘me too’ and a time in which abuse towards women wasn’t looked down upon in many places.
None of that excuses what he did or makes it… good, but the Reddit hate towards Lennon is unwarranted.
The lead singer of Aerosmith admitted to having sex with a juvenile after he learned about her age, never apologized.
Led Zeppelin physically assaulted women and have never apologized.
Bing Crosby was a drunk who beat his wife and children, never apologized.
I could go on, all I’m saying is that if repentance doesn’t matter, you’ll quickly run out of anybody to admire outside of Tom Hanks and Mr. Rodgers.
Redditors love to repeat stuff like this even if they themselves have only spent 5 minutes looking into it. I always liked the way George put it in this clip.
https://youtube.com/shorts/UVRfb2yiRPw?feature=shared
When that [little rush](https://www.theonion.com/man-always-gets-little-rush-out-of-telling-people-john-1819578998) doesn't do it for you anymore and you need a new kick.
Supposedly, he never beat Yoko. His wife beating days were with his first wife Cynthia, Yoko maintains that he never laid a hand on her. He does also reference this in the song "Getting Better", where Lennon sings:
> I used to be cruel to my woman
> I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved
> Man, I was mean but I'm changing my scene
> And I'm doing the best that I can
> In a 1980 interview in Playboy with John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Lennon, when asked about the song, said that the song's lyrics came personally from his own experience abusing women in relationships in the past. He states: "It is a diary form of writing. All that 'I used to be cruel to my woman / I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved' was me. I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically – any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace. Everything's the opposite. But I sincerely believe in love and peace. I am a violent man who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster."
Before White Album, the "Paul song" vs "John song" distinction was a lot less clear. They were legitimately partners before White Album, they had started to diverge around the beginning of the album era but they were still working together closely on almost everything up through Sgt Peppers. Most Paul songs have John's songwriting in them, and vice versa, up until those last few years where they stopped working together.
Paul McCartney repeatedly beat his one legged wife Heather Mills and his first wife Linda
https://beatle.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/paul-admits-wife-abuse-on-tape/
What are you getting at here? John was a horrible father to Julian and beat his wife, Ringo also beat his wife, not to mention the fact that George cheated on both of his wives multiple times. None of them are perfect people, and pretty much every rock star/group from the 60s and 70s has a very problematic past when viewed through the lens of current cultural and societal norms.
Jackson’s film was too long. The first half of Let It Be is pretty awkward, but finishing with a well-edited rooftop gig brings it round, and Get Back didn’t finish as succinctly: kept teasing a final performance but juddered into another song.
This is pure speculation. Heather Mills has lied repeatedly and consistently throughout her life and there is no reason to take this lie seriously, especially as she has a clear motive to lie in order to increase the divorce settlement.
John on the other hand has done it and admitted it.
> Heather Mills has outrageously alleged that Sir Paul McCartney used to beat up his first wife Linda - a claim that even her own supporters say puts a question mark against her honesty.
Maybe you should actually read the links you post.
I love cancel culture. One jilted ex is all it takes for you to say what she said as absolute fact. #believeallwomen
People like you make the internet a miserable place.
Is this the one that paints the recording sessions as chaotic? And would kind of be like an evil version of Peter Jackson's "Get Back" documentary?
Not really, though that is its reputation. It's more of an underwhelming attempt at a [cinéma vérité] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin%C3%A9ma_v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9)-style documentary, supposed to be a "fly on the wall" sort of thing. It *does* contain a brief scene with Paul and George arguing. But otherwise, it's really just a mishmash of rehearsals, without any context, no voice-over, and no intertitles. It's basically just an hour of random rehearsals - "Oh, ok, so now the Beatles are rehearsing that song" - followed by an edit of the rooftop concert. In other words, it's basically just a briefer, much less enjoyable version of Peter Jackson's doc. Not chaotic, just much more aimless and with no context. If you've seen PJ's doc, your reaction is probably going to be, "This feels like an unfocused collection of random outtakes."
Thanks for the clarification! I've seen Get Back but only heard about this older Let it be doc.
Those who watched Get Back first will hopefully understand the frustration around the original Let it Be doc. Much of what was said from those involved was along the lines of "they were there so long and captured so much, why did they choose to include what they did while leaving out so much?" I believe any up and coming editor could take Jackson and his team's remastered work in Get Back and edit it down to a 2 hour movie that is far more satisfying than Let it Be. Even just some of the choices of what to use and cut from the rooftop concert and the lead up to it are weird.
It was also produced at a time when The Beatles could put out a 30 minute documentary that was them just taking a shit and it would sell millions of copies.
Yeah, it won The Beatles an Oscar for 'Best Original Song Score' which is a category that was practically invented for the film. They kept it around for a little while longer and musicals tended to win it.
Has that even changed?
Ha! Reminds me of Joe Walsh in the Eagles documentary: "We could have farted and burped on that album and the record company would be like 'When can we have it?"
It's also incredibly boring and very horribly edited. There is that too.
Yes, agreed. While the boringness is slightly forgivable - they didn't have the time or resources to catalog all the footage they had and decide what would be the most interesting (though they did make an attempt at this) - the editing just doesn't work. Few of the performances are complete. It just cuts abruptly to the next performance, usually with a couple lines of random dialogue in between that mean nothing. The album, with the random quotes in between songs without context, does the same thing but it works much better there as a music album than as a film.
IIRC they threw this together to meet their requirement of a third theatrical movie starring them for their movie deal after Hard Days Night and Help. They were hoping that Yellow Submarine would count, but the studio insisted that it did not because it was animated, and they weren't even in it except for a brief live action cameo (no they did not do the voices) EDIT: Just googled this and it is an urban legend. Yellow Submarine DID count, Let it Be is unrelated to that deal. Someone at Apple Records just suggested to the band that they film the sessions and they were like "yeah whatever." The idea was that they could use the footage in an elaborate concert, alongside a side documentary to be aired on TV. Later when George Harrison quit the band, he only rejoined on the condition that the concert idea be abandoned and they continue not playing live. They agreed, and salvaged the footage as a feature film.
[удалено]
Is this [clip](https://youtu.be/SM8S4Y7FPMk?si=ja1kURZaN1VhcC8n) not from the end of the movie? I swear that's correct.
You are correct. The person you responded to doesn't know what they're talking about. They don't voice the Lonely Hearts Club Band, except that the Beatles' musical recordings are used throughout the film.
I watched this probably 10 years ago (my uncle gave me a bootleg dvd of it) and as a big Beatles fan, I had to stop watching cause the scene of them fighting upset me so much. From what I remember the rest of it wasn’t all that special? I think the Peter Jackson version is much better
[удалено]
Isn’t that exactly what he just said? Lol
What, you don’t like the smell of split hairs in the morning?
Fingers crossed Disney restores the Rolling Stones documentary “Cocksucker Blues” next!
CB is so interesting, and has never seen wide release. I think the Stones have control of it and doubt they’d show it now that they’re concentrated on legacy. Although that’s the legacy I want to know about. That said, it also has no timeline or story path whatsoever. It’s just a jumbled mess of stitched together clips. With no subtitles leading you along, you have to be a super fan and know all the faces for it to be interesting. With the exception of a couple short titillating moments, I wonder if it’s less interesting to the general streaming audience.
I think the Rolling Stones sued the filmmaker to block distribution, and essentially won. I don't know if the settlement is still in effect (or even if this is an urban legend), but the film could only be shown once a year with the director in the room.
I’ve read several of the bio books and am quite sure the law suit is fact. I don’t know however if it’s still in effect. I assume it is, Apple+ wouldn’t buy it but I’m sure some small video distribution company would if it were available.
Yeah, I had a bootleg from eBay a long time ago. I remember one decent live number (maybe more?), the infamous roadie scene (which is why this will never get released), and a lot of talking in hotel rooms.
We can get an official release of the song while we're at it!
I saw it at the Pacific Film Archives in the 80’s at UC Berkeley in the 80’s. As I recall there was practically a drunken/high orgy on their plane.
There’s one scene on a bus where a roadie pulls down a groupie’s pants, lifts her up, then buries his face in her crotch. Does not look entirely consensual. Which is probably why this will never officially be released.
The Stones sat on Rock and Roll Circus for decades. Jagger claimed it made him look old (Which is ridiculous because he was 25 when it was made in 1968). I heard the real reason was that The Who blew the Stones away in the film and they were embarrassed.
"Magical Mystery Tour" might eventually make it too.
Yeah, Disney the titans of wholesome family entertainment showing a movie with “cocksucker” in the title.
Joke’s over there, bud
This is great for historical preservation purposes but I have to say, Jackson's doc eclipses this in just about every way. Far more in depth, far more artful, far more entertaining, far more revealing about the dynamic in the group, shows more of the good and more of the bad, etc. It has a lot of footage Jackson didn't use (which was out of respect to Lindsay-Hogg) but as a film in its own right it's kind of listless.
I'm happy to have Let It Be basically so we have some more full length Beatles music videos in 4K. It felt like they made sure Get Back would not be like that at all.
Ah well that makes sense.. If you can do Get Back then you can remake Let It Be in the same high quality. This was basically inevitable.
Fun Fact: The Beatles won an Oscar for this film, for a now-defunct category called "Best Original Song Score." They did not attend the Oscars, however; Quincy Jones accepted the award on their behalf: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A9WPx1qNkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A9WPx1qNkY)
It won a Grammy, too, for Best Original Score, and Paul and Linda [accepted the award](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iBteqDAL7Q).
IIRC Quincy jones hated the Beatles as well didn’t he ?
He’s bordered on pushing a conspiracy theory that they were frauds using studio musicians and ghostwriters.
Yoko better not eat any of George’s god damn biscuits in this one
I just googled it and I can’t believe that was an actual altercation lol. Beatles mythology is truly fascinating.
Their mythology might be the wildest thing ever. Insane coincidences, chance meetings with the right people at the exact right time, etc etc
This will also serve as an interesting counter piece to The Beach Boys documentary coming out next month on Disney as well.
Aside from the brief Pet Sounds Sgt Peppers rivalry, these two bands had little to do with each other.
Hence why I made the connection.
The best time to release this was two years ago with *Get Back,* because now we have that, it blows *Let It Be* out of the water. The film tries so hard to squeeze 55 hours into 90 minutes and it just fails, it's a disjointed mess of contextless scenes which the audience projected the band's break-up onto. But as they say, the second best time is *now.* Beatles fans finally have their holy grail, the film's been out of print for 40 years, since Apple Films have been so afraid to show it again. It would be a great thing to celebrate if Peter Jackson didn't take all that footage and make a better, longer documentary out of it. I do appreciate Peter's insistence of not having the miniseries step on the original - he always saw his as a companion piece, and now we're finally getting the other half.
Carnival of Light is the real Beatles holy grail.
Turning 50+ hours into 90 minutes is the norm for documentaries. In fact, it's usually well over 100 hours of footage.
Idk it'll probably get people to watch Get Back again. I know I will after i watch this
I think releasing Let It Be first would have been a mistake, because then the impact of Get Back would have been reduced.
I saw it when it came out and it was awful except for the ending.
Yeah it’s honestly shit. Get Back is infinitely better.
It can only be a matter of time until "Magical Mystery Tour" comes out.
MMT was released on Blu-Ray in 2015, and it's still available. It contains a "making of" doc and several other extras. The only lack of availability is that none of the streaming services have licensed it. Knowing the Beatles' release style, I would assume that most of their films will now be let in and out of the "vault", and licensed to streamers for limited runs, but not all the films ever at the same time, to create a false sense of scarcity. LIB might stream on Disney+ for a couple years, then put back in the vault, only for MMT to be licensed for a couple years, then pulled back, followed by Yellow Submarine, etc. Though I have a hunch that a remastered re-release of the Anthology doc is likely in the works before dipping back into the MMT well.
tks for that info! Gear Fab!
>Though I have a hunch that a remastered re-release of the Anthology doc is likely in the works And the anthology album too with a cleaned up version of Free as a Bird and Real Love.
In my opinion, vaulting would be a shame. The post-Eisner years of Disney have been way better for catalogue availability. For Apple Corp, the post-Jackson years have been similar. I think the companies' intention of making things available should align here.
Isn't this kinda pointless now after Get Back?
I would really appreciate if they did this with their movie “Help!”
Remake the 6 hrs of footage you didn’t use in Get Back….no one cares if the Beatles were fighting, we all know the history but we want to see anything that’s new ….even their Solo careers there is money to be made…
When they first announced Jackson’s “Get Back,” I was unenthused. I’d always seen “Let It Be” described as a documentary of the breakup of The Beatles, and it just sounded like a bummer. Digitizing the video and cleaning it up didn’t sound like any “fix,” either. It was depressing subject matter, regardless of the video quality. I was so glad I actually watched “Get Back.” They had a month-worth of film of The Beatles behind-the-scenes, creating some of rock’s greatest music. Yes, you saw the tension, and yes, you saw the seeds of the end being sown. But you also saw the four coolest guys on the planet doing what they do best and obviously having a blast doing it, much of the time. It was a delight, and we owe Jackson a debt of gratitude for “saving” this footage, not just from time, but from the perception it was all negative. But I also came to appreciate Hogg’s position, too. He was supposed to be shooting a PR fluff piece. He wasn’t supposed to be documenting the beginning of the end of The Beatles. But as he filmed, it became obvious that’s what was happening. And Hogg could’ve buried it, and made “Let It Be” a triumphant story about the Fab Four growing up, or whatever. As Jackson proved, there was plenty of cool footage. But Hogg felt almost journalistic integrity to tell the “real” story as he saw it, not the sanitized PR story he easily could have made and sold. In 1970, it would’ve been an act of dishonesty NOT to focus on the clearly impending breakup — it was actual “news” at the time. But here in the 2020s, it’s nice to see the 4 of them creating together and having fun. It almost feels like “news” today to learn they were still doing that by 1970.
That's quite generous to Michael Lindsay-Hogg's cut of the film. His film doesn't really focus on the breakup, either. The most it does is show a single scene lasting a couple minutes of George and Paul having a disagreement over what George should be playing during one rehearsal. Other than that, it's basically just a random collection of rehearsals, followed by an edit of the rooftop concert. It's not very good, and the reason why has a lot to do with MLH. As Peter Jackson's doc shows, MLH was told right at the beginning that any concert they were going to do in relation to the film would have to be performed in England. That was the one and only stipulation he was given. Yet, over and over again, he kept trying to convince them to do something extravagant overseas. Ringo was never on board, and George's mood changed drastically over the first ten days of the proceedings, in large part because he was feeling pressured to do something he didn't want to do. (And for context, he was having marital problems at the time and his mother living in Liverpool was dying.) And this director kept trying to convince them they needed to do this thing overseas. Eventually, George turned against the idea of a live show entirely, and was the last on board with the rooftop idea. But at the start of the rehearsals, he seemed to be looking forward to the show, since the assumption was that the concert would be quickly arranged at a local venue in London. MLH's insistence on something different soured George on the whole project, and MLH ended up with a much worse film than he intended to make, which was his own fault.
Peter Jackson restored it? So everyone will have weird cartoon faces?
Potentially, though Lindsay-Hogg did say this: "It is certainly brighter and livelier than what ended up on videotape. It looks now like it was intended to look in 1969 or 1970, although at my request, Peter did give it a more filmic look than “Get Back,” which had a slightly more modern and digital look." So maybe the smeary AI upscale look will be minimal compared to Get Back.
Let it be: the no grain version
Just release the full roof top concert already, not the one that flicks back and forth between scenes, voxpops and conversations but the full concert. Hell, give us two versions but at least give us the concert in full.
So let me guess, it opens on four lads from Liverpool?
I don't think it covers nearly as much backstory as *Get Back*, if at all, if my memory serves.
Hopefully a bluray release afterwards.
It'd be great to have both the new restored audio and original old audio mix, among other extras on a disc.
Oh boy, my dad is a fan of the beatles. When he was young, he was excited to see the beatles movie (Yellow submarine?) but was kinda dissapointed it was a cartoon movie. This movie was never shown in my country, so may be he would like it.
"Restored by Peter Jackson's Team" so with all the film grain removed to make them look like wax and the colour's jacked up like a Pixar film. greaaaat. we've seen how good the original footage looks on the 1+ Blu Ray, film grain on 50 year old **16MM FILM STOCK** exists, Jackson!!!! Just live with it!!!
"Restoration", lol. Aka DNR'ed to shit like the last one.
[удалено]
He made one of the most disappointing trilogies of all time out of one beloved short adventure story, plus made a third version of King Kong, and that shitty Lovely Bones movie.
[удалено]
Talking about the bloated Hobbit cash grab
They’re talking about his other trilogy, the unneeded hobbit films
Probably afraid of getting called out on the union busting.
Awesome, can’t wait
I swore my ex's mom (a beatles and McCartney fanatic) had a copy of this on DVD, but apparently it's only ever been released on VHS in the 80s briefly. So maybe she had a bootleg or something.
The old compleat Beatles doc was also vhs only but I see dvd bootlegs from time to time.
Restoring old Beatles footage? Really? A man of your talents?
Isn't this just a longer version of Get Back?
Shorter
Right, that's what I meant. Kinda hard to be longer than 9 hours lol
True! Yeah Let It Be is a movie instead of a 9 hour long series... and people are saying that compared to Get Back it kinda feels like bad outtakes of the footage, rather than the best material. But I guess there was so much material and Lindsay-Hogg had to put *something* together, and back then he also didn't have the advantage of using AI to clean up audio, isolate voices, etc, so he cobbled together what he could.
Now can he please release The Naughty Years boxset!?
I’ve seen this. It’s awkward.
I've watched this in the theatres, and other than for archival purposes it is made redundant by Get Back
Hoping now more for a «Help» remaster! Important piece of film
Will Peter Jackson also restore this one by removing all the film grain, like he did with "Get Back", making the entire thing look scrubbed and plastic with no fine detail? Ugh...
restored? sounds like they couldn’t just *let it be*
Definitely very cool for historical reasons. R.I.P. to the internet archive upload. You was a real one.
Can't wait to see how shitty and fake everyone looks
I want Jackson to get back to making feature films. It's been too long.
Yeah he should get back to where he once belonged...
Let it Pee
Is it an actual restoration? Or a Peter Jackson “””restoration””” where they smear digital vaseline over the lens and make everything look like shit
Ugh, Jackson is cool but his other Beatles doc looks awful, afraid he will ruin the visuals for this one too :(
God I fucking hate john lennon
Did you know Paul McCartney repeatedly beat his crippled, one legged wife Heather Mills and his first wife Linda https://beatle.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/paul-admits-wife-abuse-on-tape/
[удалено]
Nice falsetto though
I’m not entirely sure what “falsetto” means but the Beatles definitely made some music that sounds good to me so I’m inclined to trust your analysis.
You should look up 'google' as well. Id recommend just using that next time if you don't know what something is. You'll love it.
It’s singing in a soft high voice instead of louder chest voice. Think “in myyyyyyy life.” Messed up about the hitting. Sad that someone in the 60s that was so progressive in thought was still essentially a caveman in behavior.
“Why won’t you leaaarrrnn…” 🎵
Thank you for the explanation.
No he didn't. He slapped her, once. Her words. Still bad, but saying he beat her is simply incorrect.
[удалено]
He did, he also admitted it several times and apologized, he did this in a time way before ‘me too’ and a time in which abuse towards women wasn’t looked down upon in many places. None of that excuses what he did or makes it… good, but the Reddit hate towards Lennon is unwarranted. The lead singer of Aerosmith admitted to having sex with a juvenile after he learned about her age, never apologized. Led Zeppelin physically assaulted women and have never apologized. Bing Crosby was a drunk who beat his wife and children, never apologized. I could go on, all I’m saying is that if repentance doesn’t matter, you’ll quickly run out of anybody to admire outside of Tom Hanks and Mr. Rodgers.
Redditors love to repeat stuff like this even if they themselves have only spent 5 minutes looking into it. I always liked the way George put it in this clip. https://youtube.com/shorts/UVRfb2yiRPw?feature=shared
[удалено]
When that [little rush](https://www.theonion.com/man-always-gets-little-rush-out-of-telling-people-john-1819578998) doesn't do it for you anymore and you need a new kick.
I'm sure plenty of people would beat Yoko if they could
Supposedly, he never beat Yoko. His wife beating days were with his first wife Cynthia, Yoko maintains that he never laid a hand on her. He does also reference this in the song "Getting Better", where Lennon sings: > I used to be cruel to my woman > I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved > Man, I was mean but I'm changing my scene > And I'm doing the best that I can
Getting Better is a Paul song
> In a 1980 interview in Playboy with John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Lennon, when asked about the song, said that the song's lyrics came personally from his own experience abusing women in relationships in the past. He states: "It is a diary form of writing. All that 'I used to be cruel to my woman / I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved' was me. I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically – any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace. Everything's the opposite. But I sincerely believe in love and peace. I am a violent man who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster."
Before White Album, the "Paul song" vs "John song" distinction was a lot less clear. They were legitimately partners before White Album, they had started to diverge around the beginning of the album era but they were still working together closely on almost everything up through Sgt Peppers. Most Paul songs have John's songwriting in them, and vice versa, up until those last few years where they stopped working together.
Wrong Beatle. Paul McCartney beat his one legged wife Heather Mills and Linda https://beatle.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/paul-admits-wife-abuse-on-tape/
Is this *Loss*?
Paul McCartney repeatedly beat his one legged wife Heather Mills and his first wife Linda https://beatle.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/paul-admits-wife-abuse-on-tape/
[удалено]
What are you getting at here? John was a horrible father to Julian and beat his wife, Ringo also beat his wife, not to mention the fact that George cheated on both of his wives multiple times. None of them are perfect people, and pretty much every rock star/group from the 60s and 70s has a very problematic past when viewed through the lens of current cultural and societal norms.
"one-legged" You forgot to hyphenate between the two words.
[удалено]
Ok
Jackson’s film was too long. The first half of Let It Be is pretty awkward, but finishing with a well-edited rooftop gig brings it round, and Get Back didn’t finish as succinctly: kept teasing a final performance but juddered into another song.
Not a film, episodes of a TV show.
[удалено]
This is pure speculation. Heather Mills has lied repeatedly and consistently throughout her life and there is no reason to take this lie seriously, especially as she has a clear motive to lie in order to increase the divorce settlement. John on the other hand has done it and admitted it.
Even your article says these claims were extremely unconvincing and the court case was basically laughed away. Heather is a sick woman.
> Heather Mills has outrageously alleged that Sir Paul McCartney used to beat up his first wife Linda - a claim that even her own supporters say puts a question mark against her honesty. Maybe you should actually read the links you post.
I love cancel culture. One jilted ex is all it takes for you to say what she said as absolute fact. #believeallwomen People like you make the internet a miserable place.
[удалено]
And this is relevant because!
[удалено]
Paul is a saint who gave George one of his mansions so he could be comfortable in his final days.