Let it Be on Disney+

[happytheman]

Anyone watch this? Is it "cleaned" up? I still have the original I downloaded years ago. Curious what if any changes Peter Jackson made to it.

[SteveSly]

Anyone watch this? Is it "cleaned" up? I still have the original I downloaded years ago. Curious what if any changes Peter Jackson made to it.

I never saw the original film. Having watched the entire 8 hour Peter Jackson film, is there any reason to also watch this one?

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

It is cleaned up and looks and sounds fantastic. Jackson did not change anything, the content is that of the original film. Funnily, it is so short (82 minutes) that it almost seems like a Get Back trailer!
Much less of a 'downer' than l recall. I had not seen it since 1976.
It does include the 3-song set they did live in the studio of Two Of Us, Let It Be, and The Long And Winding Road (where they have dressed nicely and play through all 3 songs). I don't believe these are included in their entirety in Get Back.
Worth watching if only for that.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

As a criticism l would add that the direction is completely amateurish, the film completely lacks a narrative. It does not establish where they are (Twickenham), why they are there (to rehearse for a live performance), why they are suddenly somewhere else (Apple Studios), why Billy Preston is suddenly there, how they end up on the roof, etc.
The popular opinion is that this was never re-released because it is a sad portrait of The Beatles disintegrating. Maybe it was really because it was just a bad piece of filmmaking?
If you were not up on your Beatles history, or had not seen Get Back, you would have no bloody idea what is going on.

[ronmac]

Anyone watch this? Is it "cleaned" up? I still have the original I downloaded years ago. Curious what if any changes Peter Jackson made to it.

I never saw the original film. Having watched the entire 8 hour Peter Jackson film, is there any reason to also watch this one?

Sure.

It does include the 3-song set they did live in the studio of Two Of Us, Let It Be, and The Long And Winding Road (where they have dressed nicely and play through all 3 songs). I don't believe these are included in their entirety in Get Back.
Worth watching if only for that.

^^THIS!

Yes, the session from the day after the rooftop was suspiciously missing from "Get Back," which had us all expecting the movie release. And there was really very little overlap, aside from the rooftop performance.

The popular opinion is that this was never re-released because it is a sad portrait of The Beatles disintegrating.

Yes, The Beatles themselves held up the rerelease all these years.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

Yes, The Beatles themselves held up the rerelease all these years.

Yes that is completely true, and Ringo's opinion of it has not changed.

[Mister Triscuits]

I haven’t seen the Disney version yet, but I’ve heard that it brightens up the gloomy lighting of the original.

[ronmac]

As a criticism l would add that the direction is completely amateurish, the film completely lacks a narrative. It does not establish where they are (Twickenham), why they are there (to rehearse for a live performance), why they are suddenly somewhere else (Apple Studios), why Billy Preston is suddenly there, how they end up on the roof, etc.
The popular opinion is that this was never re-released because it is a sad portrait of The Beatles disintegrating. Maybe it was really because it was just a bad piece of filmmaking?
If you were not up on your Beatles history, or had not seen Get Back, you would have no bloody idea what is going on.

Keep in mind that the whole idea was to capture the magic happening on film. They wanted to get The Beatles in the studio "to see what would happen." Unfortunately, as the critics said, nothing did.

I'm not suggesting it's good filmmaking. I agree it needed some narrative.

[Trane]

As a criticism l would add that the direction is completely amateurish, the film completely lacks a narrative. It does not establish where they are (Twickenham), why they are there (to rehearse for a live performance), why they are suddenly somewhere else (Apple Studios), why Billy Preston is suddenly there, how they end up on the roof, etc.
The popular opinion is that this was never re-released because it is a sad portrait of The Beatles disintegrating. Maybe it was really because it was just a bad piece of filmmaking?
If you were not up on your Beatles history, or had not seen Get Back, you would have no bloody idea what is going on.

I'm still waiting for my buddy to remember to lend me his Get Back package, but I have no qualms for not understanding the LIB context, though I'm sure Get Back will add much to LIB.

I haven’t seen the Disney version yet, but I’ve heard that it brightens up the gloomy lighting of the original.

I'd say that the crowds inside the movie house had a very lousy attitude towards LIB, including hissing as soon as Yoko was on the screen (I saw the film twice in the late 70's midnight Friday seances in local theatres).
True enough the film is not really satisfying in terms of explaining the context, but outside the others spectators' attitudes, I didn't see LIB as "depressing".

Keep in mind that the whole idea was to capture the magic happening on film. They wanted to get The Beatles in the studio "to see what would happen." Unfortunately, as the critics said, nothing did.

much like Magical Mystery Tour, really!!

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

Keep in mind that the whole idea was to capture the magic happening on film. They wanted to get The Beatles in the studio "to see what would happen." Unfortunately, as the critics said, nothing did.
I'm not suggesting it's good filmmaking. I agree it needed some narrative.

Lindsey-Hogg did have the brief that he was filming the band rehearsing songs for a film or TV special culminating in a live concert at the end. It is not necessary now, but before the film was released he could have merely added captions to the beginning and in transitional scenes, like "The band decides to resume rehearsals in their own studio at Savile Row", and "Having abandoned the idea of a special live concert, they decide to do an impromptu concert on the roof at Savile Row", etc.
Again, we don't need them now since we have a the historical perspective but at the time l think that was something that should have been added to give it some kind of narrative structure.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

I haven’t seen the Disney version yet, but I’ve heard that it brightens up the gloomy lighting of the original.

The main reason the original release looked so lousy was because it was shot in 16mm and subsequently blown up to 35mm to show in theaters, giving it that dark, grainy quality. This new version retains its 'filmic' quality and looks terrific.
It really is worth watching on its own merits.

[ronmac]

much like Magical Mystery Tour, really!!

Their first sign of fallibility. The fact that it was broadcast in B&W didn't help matters.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

Actually l think it would be great if Peter Jackson turned his hand to restoring Magical Mystery Tour. I have it on an old VHS release that was made from a terrible print of the film, complete with pops and scratches in the film and shoddy audio. I would think McCartney would be agreeable to that.

[Mister Triscuits]

Actually l think it would be great if Peter Jackson turned his hand to restoring Magical Mystery Tour. I have it on an old VHS release that was made from a terrible print of the film, complete with pops and scratches in the film and shoddy audio. I would think McCartney would be agreeable to that.

As long as he takes the censorship bar out of the striptease scene.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

As long as he takes the censorship bar out of the striptease scene.

Yes! Surely he would...?