Michael Lindsay-Hogg's 'Let It Be' is coming!

[MarkRJones1970]

They also took measures to eliminate or considerably lower any vocals that didn’t match the footage..I noticed it on the Twickenham I’ve Got a Feeling

I noticed that too. At one point, during an early 'Two Of Us', you could hear a harmony from John but you could see him and he wasn't singing! That one line of harmony has now been silenced.

[Rickenbacker325]

They also took measures to eliminate or considerably lower any vocals that didn’t match the footage..I noticed it on the Twickenham I’ve Got a Feeling

I noticed that too. At one point, during an early 'Two Of Us', you could hear a harmony from John but you could see him and he wasn't singing! That one line of harmony has now been silenced.

Pay attention to the 1st Don’t Let Me Down just after Paul’s piano thing…I’m calling shenanigans on that one

[Wogew]

I wonder why they removed Les Parott and Paul Bond?

Not removed totally, they are in the end credits.

[Caton4]

Several of the old prints have differences in the opening credits as well, so variants of Let it Be isn't news at all.

Also, re: your other post, this isn't a "reconstruction", it literally is a restored, clean version (at least visually - regardless of your opinion on the methods used).

Apple has a 16mm negative cut of Let it Be which they've used as a basis for all the versions out there. That explains the differences in transitions, text, etc., and why Peter Jackson's team had to generate frames to transition between footage used in Let it Be and the outtakes in Get Back (since you lose a frame or two on each side when physically cutting film).
[/quote]

hello !
Could you expand this concept?
thank you so much !
C4

[ledzepfilm]

For example, the new intro for the 2024 version is clearly not a "restored clean version" (and full frame) from the film we knew and from Apple's 16mm negative cut, its a "reconstruction" of a familiar film but with some modifications, one of them, the shoot of the drum head logo, now facing front and still frame, contrary to the original (slight side view and camera shaking) and with clear differences in the logo's font (specially "THE" and the spaces between the rest of the letters, like "TH" and "TL" so its a digital modification made by Jackson's team trying to match Take 1 of this opening scene which has the drum head logo more centered, facing directly to the camera); in this case, we have differences in the footage. That and the fact that we knew Peter Jackson used outtake footage that they cleaned up to make this new version.
Or re you going to tell me that Apple's 16mm negative of the original film has two opening scenes , one with the drum head logo facing to the camera, no shaking and the other, the drum head logo is leaning to the side and camera shaking?

Man, that's just not true at all. Look at this comparison of the shadows around the "s" in Beatles. You'll find that every print of Let it Be is consistent with each other, but NOT with Take 1.



Also, using the laser disc for any comparisons is insanely disingenuous. This is what the opening shot looks like on the German Print:



Rather than the skewed version you posted:

[A-Caceres]

Not sure if it's the original 1970 promo film, or an original edit with exclusive footage. Should premiere tomorrow.

[harrylime]

Man, that's just not true at all. Look at this comparison of the shadows around the "s" in Beatles. You'll find that every print of Let it Be is consistent with each other, but NOT with Take 1.

Also, using the laser disc for any comparisons is insanely disingenuous. This is what the opening shot looks like on the German Print:

Rather than the skewed version you posted:

Indeed, care should be taken when comparing versions as *most* of the released LIB's are mangled in some way or another.

[mikec]

For example, the new intro for the 2024 version is clearly not a "restored clean version" (and full frame) from the film we knew and from Apple's 16mm negative cut, its a "reconstruction" of a familiar film but with some modifications, one of them, the shoot of the drum head logo, now facing front and still frame, contrary to the original (slight side view and camera shaking) and with clear differences in the logo's font (specially "THE" and the spaces between the rest of the letters, like "TH" and "TL" so its a digital modification made by Jackson's team trying to match Take 1 of this opening scene which has the drum head logo more centered, facing directly to the camera); in this case, we have differences in the footage. That and the fact that we knew Peter Jackson used outtake footage that they cleaned up to make this new version.
Or re you going to tell me that Apple's 16mm negative of the original film has two opening scenes , one with the drum head logo facing to the camera, no shaking and the other, the drum head logo is leaning to the side and camera shaking?

Man, that's just not true at all. Look at this comparison of the shadows around the "s" in Beatles. You'll find that every print of Let it Be is consistent with each other, but NOT with Take 1.



Also, using the laser disc for any comparisons is insanely disingenuous. This is what the opening shot looks like on the German Print:



Rather than the skewed version you posted:

You're absolutely right, it's all about perspectives. The "Big Picture" (German print) and the Laser Disc versions (and maybe others like the Japanese print, I didn't had the time to check that one), has the drum head logo leaning slightly to the side (the Laser Disk even more), and Furmanek's 1992 version is the one closest to the 2024 version.



However, the fonts doesn't change the fact that Peter did altered the original opening. Now the Drum head logo is frozen until Mal arrives, you can't see the shadows of the plastic moving and the camera also moving anymore; the black curtain transition between Twickenham and Apple is gone (so this means there's no transition in the original 16mm print that Apple has? I really doubt it because Furmanek's does has it and he did that using the original 16mm print and Jackson's version runs longer than any other -you can check German's print, 1992, Laser, etc, all are the very same-, the bit from where a black curtain appears after "I Me Mine", when Yoko puts her right hand removing the hair from his face while her left arm grabs John's shoulder and after that goes lower to the waist; while in the original film on ANY of the available old versions, the scene vanish with the black curtains after she grabs her hair and left arm on John's shoulder; we can't see her left arm grabbing John's waist, so, any explanation for this particular issue please?. Always wanting to have more knowledge from you guys)

[ledzepfilm]

However, the fonts doesn't change the fact that Peter did altered the original opening. Now the Drum head logo is frozen until Mal arrives, you can't see the shadows of the plastic moving and the camera also moving anymore; the black curtain transition between Twickenham and Apple is gone (so this means there's no transition in the original 16mm print that Apple has? I really doubt it because Furmanek's does has it and he did that using the original 16mm print and Jackson's version runs longer than any other -you can check German's print, 1992, Laser, etc, all are the very same-, the bit from where a black curtain appears after "I Me Mine", when Yoko puts her right hand removing the hair from his face while her left arm grabs John's shoulder and after that goes lower to the waist; while in the original film on ANY of the available old versions, the scene vanish with the black curtains after she grabs her hair and left arm on John's shoulder; we can't see her left arm grabbing John's waist, so, any explanation for this particular issue please?. Always wanting to have more knowledge from you guys)

1) The intro - I don't see anything suggesting it's a freeze frame. A lot of older low quality prints/copies generally have a lot of jittering, so you're probably thinking of that.
2) The black curtain wipes - Apple clearly has a 16mm "negative" cut of Let it Be (backed up by the soundandvision article), which explains why there are differences in the text intros, transitions, and extra frames at the end of Rooftop. There are even differences in the opening credits text between the German Print/1970 edit and the text in the 1992 restoration (2024 is closer to the 1992 restoration than the German Print).

[harrylime]

Or simpler put (correct me if I’m wrong), there was the original tv cut and the subsequent movie transfer/cut made from it. The German print shows the movie cut, the home video shows a cropped-for-tv abomination of the movie cut, and Furmanek shows the original tv cut. Then for comparing the new restoration it only makes sense to use the Furmanek.