they should unironically do that after they release these bc the beatles themselves would have and it could be a barbie style “yo *THIS* has actual artistic merit as satire???!” kinda situation
Excited for this, but at the same time I don’t have a good feeling about it. All are very complex people in a complex time. They should’ve just made a limited 10 episode series.
If each film is a solid 130-150 minutes each I think that’s enough room for each one’s journey and artistry to be explored. Plus you say you’d prefer a better product to an event but The Beatles were always both-they never picked one or the other. We’re talking about the greatest rock band of all time and arguably the most famous people of the 20th Century. They deserve to have a monumental cinematic event the likes of Avengers or Star Wars. To have a huge release slate for films that aren’t action/superhero blockbusters and instead contemplative, historical biopics is exactly what cinema needs right how and The Beatles are the best vehicle for that crusade.
I’m worried about the four biopic idea and how are they going to handle the skeletons in Lennon’s closet. I’m a Lennon fan and I think his shortcomings can and should be discussed with context and in a reasonable manner, but any mention of him on Twitter or Tik Tok devolves into a mob declaring he’s worse than Hitler.
I'm scared as well. As someone who recently read Cynthia Lennon's "John," I can now say with confidence that John was a complex man. He was robbed of the chance to reconnect with Julian (he literally just was before he died), and he struggled so much with his childhood. I've been in a lot of sociology/psychology classes (I'm planning on becoming a therapist one day), and it's clear to me that he WAS loving, but struggled to deal with conflict in a healthy way because healthy behavior was never modeled for him. "Hurt people hurt people" is a line that's annoying to always see but still rings true, especially for him.
No offense but I get annoyed when Cyns book us brought up as some kind of great authority on John. Number 1 ex wives by definition are a biased source because the relationship in question didn’t work out. Number 2 I’m not convinced Cyn knew John that well. They got together young, he was travelling with the Beatles for most of their relationship and she seemed like a genuinely clueless person telling Paul she wanted a “pipe and slippers guy” while married to John of all people. Plus she seemed to make a lot of bad choices in life related to men, finances and her various failed businesses that she conveniently blamed John for in terms of her being traumatised for the rest of her life that she divorced him in 1968. Finally she just wasn’t around where the action was in terms of recording, touring etc. I’m not sure she grasped the nuance of what was going on because she was a permanent outsider. The reality is that she and John got together as teenagers and would have been better off splitting up a couple years later as they had nothing in common.
Cynthia had every right to tell her story. It was not as if it was some grudge binge after a two month fling. John and Cyn were together for ten years and she was the mother of his child. John said in 1978 that if the Beatles had never happened he and Cyn would probably have made it. The Beatles massive fame also affected their wives, girlfriends and children.
I can understand your annoyance –– it does get brought up a lot, too.
Here are some quotes in the book that I had to write down, though. They were so poignant. Maybe you'll find it the same:
* Cynthia: “His childhood had been enormously difficult. His father had abandoned him (when he was 5). He was taken away from his mother by his aunt and brought up in a cold, austere home with little affection or comfort. Then, in his teens, the two loving figures in his life, his uncle and his mother, had both died.”
* “... Mimi was something of a snob; she was middle class with upper-class aspirations and one of her favorite words was ‘common.’ She used it to condemn most of John’s interests and friends…”
* “Music had been an important part of John’s relationship with his mother and when she died he used it to blot out the pain and anger he felt.”
* “John couldn’t stand conflict or confrontation and his reaction was invariably to escape.”
* “John was provoked to fury if another boy paid any attention to me, however innocent.”
* “...he could turn on me in an instant, belittling or berating me, shooting accusations, cutting remarks or acid wisecracks at me… He would push me away with some taunt, almost daring me to leave him…”
* “It struck me early on that John had developed his hard outer shell––the cynicism, cruel wit, aggression and possessiveness––to deal with his painful childhood and the deep insecurity that had resulted from it.”
I have to agree there. I think John's short story "No Flies on Frank" is uncomfortably revealing about what *he* felt about their relationship by '63 or '64.
That's debatable. Ringo was the actual definition of a wife beater, yes. But John had some pretty bad moments too. Abandoning Julian and almost killing May as some examples. Very complex people and I don't see how a movie could do them justice even if it only covered a portion of the beatles years.
Serious question, how big was the "john was a bad guy" belief and "ringo was an alcoholic abuser" statement in the 80s/90s ? Was it widely known before the internet? Did ringo having a failing career/losing popularity towards the end of the 70s have something to do with why we never really hear about his dark past? Like when ringo went back to touring in 1989 did people say things about how bad of a guy he was? Because he was pretty new to being sober at that point.
Those were virtually unknown in the 80s/90s. Celebrity journalism has always been around, but in general it requires access, and thus requires the writers keeping on the good side of the celebrities. You'd basically never see something like People magazine dive into the mud on something like that. Every so often you'd get an “unauthorized biography”, something like Hammer Of The Gods about Led Zeppelin, but it was hard to know how much to believe with that kind of stuff. Mainstream media basically wouldn’t touch stories like that unless something went to court — the journalistic standards of the day required a level of verification that would be hard to get outside of a legal proceeding. So these stories were generally underreported.
On the other hand, today's internet is a massive echo chamber, where everyone gets an equal megaphone, no verification is required, and social media algorithms bring the scandalous and salacious to the top. So we've done a complete 180. Now these stories are absolutely overreported. By which I mean that they drown out any sort of balanced take about the complexity of humanity.
I’m 55 and I never heard a bad word about Lennon before the internet and specifically that last decade or so since the rise of social media. I had heard about his “lost weekend” but that was it.
Ringo got to redeem himself as a an artist and as a family man raising and caring for the rest of his kids, John died before such an event. They aren’t Marvel characters, they’re not good or bad guys they’re human beings with complex energies.
Do we know if it’s just their time in the Beatles or including their solo careers? I kind of imagine it ending on a sour note with them breaking up no?
I don’t have insider knowledge but I suspect each film is probably going to focus primarily on the Beatles years from each Beatle’s individual perspective, with some dipping into their pre- and/or post-Beatles lives in the individual films as is relevant and dramatically interesting. If nothing else, that would be a good way to keep costs down across the board and give it a central anchoring framework.
I hope they focus in on one important aspect of each of their lives instead of trying to cover everything.
Not sure about the others but I think Paul's movie should mostly cover the time after The Beatles broke up when Paul was drinking a lot and his future seemed empty, with some flashbacks to the days when things were great. It could have a nice arc with Linda eventually managing to raise his spirits and inspire him to write 'Maybe I'm Amazed'.
I like to think of it like this: wouldn't you want to see 4 REALLY GOOD movies this year? Now make those films all interconnected, with a group that's rarely been covered on the blockbuster level, and about the most significant band in HISTORY. BOOM. It WILL sell.
It will be a refreshing re-take on media in general, as a lot of the big franchises (Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc.) are all going for a more TV-show format. There's no big movie franchises coming out (except for Dune: Part Two) + Marvel is out of the popular sphere, so FOUR BEATLES FILMS will definitely open eyes in this desert landscape.
>Marvel is out of the popular sphere
Are they though?! sure, their latest movie bombed (many reasons why) but the one before that made over $800M and they've made like $7B in the past 3 years.
Don't believe everything social media tells you.
I think it's really just a feeling I have. I mean, there really is no big hype around Marvel movies like there used to be. Me as well as countless other people I know have fallen out of it. Of course it will still make billions of dollars––it's owned by Disney, and advertised everywhere. But in the minds of our culture, it just isn't the same as it was 10 years ago, when with every Marvel movie came an encore of excitement and speculation.
There's a Simpson's episode where they show the same story a few different times, but each time from a different character's point of view, with some scenes inevitably shared.
If they get really clever with it I think this could be an incredible idea. I'm excited!
Im worried about casting. These four are famously difficult to find the right actors for. Musically competent, extremely charismatic, and parodied for countless years to the point honestly depictions can still feel like caricature.
You can fake the singing or even playing guita, but whoever they find for ringo needs to be able to drum at least.
Also worried about timelines, how tiring it will be seeing the same events 4 times in a row, etc. id prefer the films focus on specific time periods rather than depicting from cradle to grave like most music biopics.
Jumping off that, music biopics tend to follow the same formula, so if we did in fact get that formula 4 times in a row of the same events… just man that could really be bad.
If you like brian wilson check out love and mercy. Only music biopic I will defend with my whole chest and it would be great if some of these movies take a similar unorthodox approach.
Long time first generation Beatles fan here. Not sure this is going to land with other than Boomer fans, as every year we get further away from when the Beatles got their start on Ed Sullivan (in America). Wouldn't mind seeing a full-length biopic, but 4 seems a bit much.
I’d rather see 3 movies about the each of the eras of their existence. 4 movies from the view of each one seems too disjointed.
I don’t need to see 4 different perspectives of how the Ed Sullivan show went down.
However they show the 4 movies (back to back, sparsed) it's a big commitment for theaters, so it makes me think it'll be a limited release. Then maybe they're counting a fat check from a streamer for distribution rights, which will probably be how most people will watch it.
I am not so sure the general public will be that interested in four Beatles films. Diehard fans will no doubt watch in numbers. Very doubtful theatres will be packed. The Beatles are now historical figures and many of the world’s population have no interest or even know of the group. I think it is fair to say the Fab Four have been documented to near boredom!! Let’s enjoy the music and let today’s stars have the limelight.
Haven’t biopics already peaked? Can’t see a great number of people paying four times to watch the biopics! The Beatles are not a huge current act. Leave the biopic for Taylor Swift.
Biopics wax and wane. They'll go out of fashion for awhile, someone makes a good one and brings them back, then we may get some more good ones but mostly a wave of bad ones, people get tired of them and they go out of fashion and repeat cycle.
Would I go to the movies to see these four biopics? I mean... maybe. I would prefer some sort of incentive. A special poster or other souvenir, perhaps. Otherwise I'm thinking four Beatle-related documentaries would be perfect for a weekend streaming binge.
The Beatles Cinematic Universe. It's all leading up to the ultimate team-up movie- The Beatles: Beatlemania.
Beatles: Age of Yoko
Can't wait for the blue meanie post credits scene
they should unironically do that after they release these bc the beatles themselves would have and it could be a barbie style “yo *THIS* has actual artistic merit as satire???!” kinda situation
These "Beatles Cinematic Universe" jokes still going, huh?!
Excited for this, but at the same time I don’t have a good feeling about it. All are very complex people in a complex time. They should’ve just made a limited 10 episode series.
Nah. They want these to be an event
I'd rather a better final product than just "an event" lol.
And how would a tv show be a better product than a film?
I agree, I think this would have worked better
I agree, but I think you would need more than 10 episodes.
If each film is a solid 130-150 minutes each I think that’s enough room for each one’s journey and artistry to be explored. Plus you say you’d prefer a better product to an event but The Beatles were always both-they never picked one or the other. We’re talking about the greatest rock band of all time and arguably the most famous people of the 20th Century. They deserve to have a monumental cinematic event the likes of Avengers or Star Wars. To have a huge release slate for films that aren’t action/superhero blockbusters and instead contemplative, historical biopics is exactly what cinema needs right how and The Beatles are the best vehicle for that crusade.
Yep. Anymore TV series are so much better than movies. I'd rather watch a season of Fargo than pretty much any drama movie.
…what about the movie, Fargo?
Damnit I honestly knew someone was going to mention that 😸
I’m worried about the four biopic idea and how are they going to handle the skeletons in Lennon’s closet. I’m a Lennon fan and I think his shortcomings can and should be discussed with context and in a reasonable manner, but any mention of him on Twitter or Tik Tok devolves into a mob declaring he’s worse than Hitler.
I'm scared as well. As someone who recently read Cynthia Lennon's "John," I can now say with confidence that John was a complex man. He was robbed of the chance to reconnect with Julian (he literally just was before he died), and he struggled so much with his childhood. I've been in a lot of sociology/psychology classes (I'm planning on becoming a therapist one day), and it's clear to me that he WAS loving, but struggled to deal with conflict in a healthy way because healthy behavior was never modeled for him. "Hurt people hurt people" is a line that's annoying to always see but still rings true, especially for him.
No offense but I get annoyed when Cyns book us brought up as some kind of great authority on John. Number 1 ex wives by definition are a biased source because the relationship in question didn’t work out. Number 2 I’m not convinced Cyn knew John that well. They got together young, he was travelling with the Beatles for most of their relationship and she seemed like a genuinely clueless person telling Paul she wanted a “pipe and slippers guy” while married to John of all people. Plus she seemed to make a lot of bad choices in life related to men, finances and her various failed businesses that she conveniently blamed John for in terms of her being traumatised for the rest of her life that she divorced him in 1968. Finally she just wasn’t around where the action was in terms of recording, touring etc. I’m not sure she grasped the nuance of what was going on because she was a permanent outsider. The reality is that she and John got together as teenagers and would have been better off splitting up a couple years later as they had nothing in common.
Cynthia had every right to tell her story. It was not as if it was some grudge binge after a two month fling. John and Cyn were together for ten years and she was the mother of his child. John said in 1978 that if the Beatles had never happened he and Cyn would probably have made it. The Beatles massive fame also affected their wives, girlfriends and children.
I can understand your annoyance –– it does get brought up a lot, too. Here are some quotes in the book that I had to write down, though. They were so poignant. Maybe you'll find it the same: * Cynthia: “His childhood had been enormously difficult. His father had abandoned him (when he was 5). He was taken away from his mother by his aunt and brought up in a cold, austere home with little affection or comfort. Then, in his teens, the two loving figures in his life, his uncle and his mother, had both died.” * “... Mimi was something of a snob; she was middle class with upper-class aspirations and one of her favorite words was ‘common.’ She used it to condemn most of John’s interests and friends…” * “Music had been an important part of John’s relationship with his mother and when she died he used it to blot out the pain and anger he felt.” * “John couldn’t stand conflict or confrontation and his reaction was invariably to escape.” * “John was provoked to fury if another boy paid any attention to me, however innocent.” * “...he could turn on me in an instant, belittling or berating me, shooting accusations, cutting remarks or acid wisecracks at me… He would push me away with some taunt, almost daring me to leave him…” * “It struck me early on that John had developed his hard outer shell––the cynicism, cruel wit, aggression and possessiveness––to deal with his painful childhood and the deep insecurity that had resulted from it.”
I have to agree there. I think John's short story "No Flies on Frank" is uncomfortably revealing about what *he* felt about their relationship by '63 or '64.
What skeletons? Ringo was far worse than John
That's debatable. Ringo was the actual definition of a wife beater, yes. But John had some pretty bad moments too. Abandoning Julian and almost killing May as some examples. Very complex people and I don't see how a movie could do them justice even if it only covered a portion of the beatles years.
Ringo has benefited from having 43 years of longevity over John to improve his public image.
Serious question, how big was the "john was a bad guy" belief and "ringo was an alcoholic abuser" statement in the 80s/90s ? Was it widely known before the internet? Did ringo having a failing career/losing popularity towards the end of the 70s have something to do with why we never really hear about his dark past? Like when ringo went back to touring in 1989 did people say things about how bad of a guy he was? Because he was pretty new to being sober at that point.
Those were virtually unknown in the 80s/90s. Celebrity journalism has always been around, but in general it requires access, and thus requires the writers keeping on the good side of the celebrities. You'd basically never see something like People magazine dive into the mud on something like that. Every so often you'd get an “unauthorized biography”, something like Hammer Of The Gods about Led Zeppelin, but it was hard to know how much to believe with that kind of stuff. Mainstream media basically wouldn’t touch stories like that unless something went to court — the journalistic standards of the day required a level of verification that would be hard to get outside of a legal proceeding. So these stories were generally underreported. On the other hand, today's internet is a massive echo chamber, where everyone gets an equal megaphone, no verification is required, and social media algorithms bring the scandalous and salacious to the top. So we've done a complete 180. Now these stories are absolutely overreported. By which I mean that they drown out any sort of balanced take about the complexity of humanity.
Mainstream journalism changed their attitudes towards celebrities well before the internet. Philip Norman comes to mind.
I’m 55 and I never heard a bad word about Lennon before the internet and specifically that last decade or so since the rise of social media. I had heard about his “lost weekend” but that was it.
I think Ringo talked about his alcoholism and even showed up drunk in some of his interviews. I don't know if people knew about the abusive part.
Ringo fronted up to his appalling behaviour and did something about it by joining AA after he put his wife in hospital.
It’s probably hard to fulfill the “anonymous” part of that when you’re Ringo Starr.
If taken literally I suppose. The point being he did something about his destructive alcoholism.
Ringo's skeletons aren't as talked about as John's, probably because Ringo has the "puppy-dog" persona?
Ringo got to redeem himself as a an artist and as a family man raising and caring for the rest of his kids, John died before such an event. They aren’t Marvel characters, they’re not good or bad guys they’re human beings with complex energies.
I worry 4 films within a year will be a bit much for most people
Yeah, I think general audiences will tune out by the time we get to see Ringo starring in [*Caveman*.](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082146/)
I think that they will tune in again when we get to Ringo as Thomas The Tank engine.
Honestly? I want Ringo’s movie to have a “Thomas the Tank Engine” style framing device or something.
NOT ME THOUGH. THIS MOVIE IS FOR US, RIGHT GUYS??? right?? :(
Do we know if it’s just their time in the Beatles or including their solo careers? I kind of imagine it ending on a sour note with them breaking up no?
I don’t have insider knowledge but I suspect each film is probably going to focus primarily on the Beatles years from each Beatle’s individual perspective, with some dipping into their pre- and/or post-Beatles lives in the individual films as is relevant and dramatically interesting. If nothing else, that would be a good way to keep costs down across the board and give it a central anchoring framework.
I hope they focus in on one important aspect of each of their lives instead of trying to cover everything. Not sure about the others but I think Paul's movie should mostly cover the time after The Beatles broke up when Paul was drinking a lot and his future seemed empty, with some flashbacks to the days when things were great. It could have a nice arc with Linda eventually managing to raise his spirits and inspire him to write 'Maybe I'm Amazed'.
Someone will come to his/her senses and 3 of these 4 movies will not be made.
I’d love to see an exploration of their pre-fame days in a biopic. Like Beatles in ‘61.
Just keep releasing the Super Deluxe Editions. I’m not interested in crappy biopics.
I feel like the kevin Costner western will be a test if this can work out Because I see all four movies being released all during a single summer
I like to think of it like this: wouldn't you want to see 4 REALLY GOOD movies this year? Now make those films all interconnected, with a group that's rarely been covered on the blockbuster level, and about the most significant band in HISTORY. BOOM. It WILL sell. It will be a refreshing re-take on media in general, as a lot of the big franchises (Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc.) are all going for a more TV-show format. There's no big movie franchises coming out (except for Dune: Part Two) + Marvel is out of the popular sphere, so FOUR BEATLES FILMS will definitely open eyes in this desert landscape.
>Marvel is out of the popular sphere Are they though?! sure, their latest movie bombed (many reasons why) but the one before that made over $800M and they've made like $7B in the past 3 years. Don't believe everything social media tells you.
I think it's really just a feeling I have. I mean, there really is no big hype around Marvel movies like there used to be. Me as well as countless other people I know have fallen out of it. Of course it will still make billions of dollars––it's owned by Disney, and advertised everywhere. But in the minds of our culture, it just isn't the same as it was 10 years ago, when with every Marvel movie came an encore of excitement and speculation.
There's a Simpson's episode where they show the same story a few different times, but each time from a different character's point of view, with some scenes inevitably shared. If they get really clever with it I think this could be an incredible idea. I'm excited!
I hear Rashomon was inspired by the Simpsons
Im worried about casting. These four are famously difficult to find the right actors for. Musically competent, extremely charismatic, and parodied for countless years to the point honestly depictions can still feel like caricature. You can fake the singing or even playing guita, but whoever they find for ringo needs to be able to drum at least. Also worried about timelines, how tiring it will be seeing the same events 4 times in a row, etc. id prefer the films focus on specific time periods rather than depicting from cradle to grave like most music biopics. Jumping off that, music biopics tend to follow the same formula, so if we did in fact get that formula 4 times in a row of the same events… just man that could really be bad. If you like brian wilson check out love and mercy. Only music biopic I will defend with my whole chest and it would be great if some of these movies take a similar unorthodox approach.
In the end these movies are art. They’re not history or fact. They will be some writers’ and one director’s version. Getting upset at art is dumb.
Long time first generation Beatles fan here. Not sure this is going to land with other than Boomer fans, as every year we get further away from when the Beatles got their start on Ed Sullivan (in America). Wouldn't mind seeing a full-length biopic, but 4 seems a bit much.
I’d rather see 3 movies about the each of the eras of their existence. 4 movies from the view of each one seems too disjointed. I don’t need to see 4 different perspectives of how the Ed Sullivan show went down.
I've never seen an even remotely watchable Beatles bio-pic... Maybe this one will be different, but I doubt it.
Two of us is pretty good
One or two 10-episode seasons on HBO would’ve been 👌
Greed of course
However they show the 4 movies (back to back, sparsed) it's a big commitment for theaters, so it makes me think it'll be a limited release. Then maybe they're counting a fat check from a streamer for distribution rights, which will probably be how most people will watch it.
I think it’ll be the way they looked at the band, we’ll be watching the same movies with 4 different sets of eyes?
I don't care as long as featherboy doesnt play Paul again.
I am not so sure the general public will be that interested in four Beatles films. Diehard fans will no doubt watch in numbers. Very doubtful theatres will be packed. The Beatles are now historical figures and many of the world’s population have no interest or even know of the group. I think it is fair to say the Fab Four have been documented to near boredom!! Let’s enjoy the music and let today’s stars have the limelight.
Haven’t biopics already peaked? Can’t see a great number of people paying four times to watch the biopics! The Beatles are not a huge current act. Leave the biopic for Taylor Swift.
Biopics wax and wane. They'll go out of fashion for awhile, someone makes a good one and brings them back, then we may get some more good ones but mostly a wave of bad ones, people get tired of them and they go out of fashion and repeat cycle.
[удалено]
this is going to be awful
Would I go to the movies to see these four biopics? I mean... maybe. I would prefer some sort of incentive. A special poster or other souvenir, perhaps. Otherwise I'm thinking four Beatle-related documentaries would be perfect for a weekend streaming binge.
My incentive is seeing the Beatles on a theater screen, something that doesn't happen often