4 movies about The Beatles directed by Sam Mendes are coming

Who was asking for this?

No, no, no. And no.

I’ll watch the Paul one. I’ll watch the John one but only if they leave out Yoko

I will probably miss the Ringo one unless it's a slapstick comedy.

I'll watch them. Not sure how much there is that's left to tell about the Beatles years, but if they focus on the post-Beatle years, it could be an interesting story on each as they'll differ.

George Harrison and Ringo Starr are the only ones that would remotely interest me.

R6 Those are the ones that will flop the hardest

Yoko is on speed dial to her lawyer.*

*Yoko, see Olivia de Havilland vs. Ryan Murphy

The big question is who will they get to play Cilla Black?

All you need is "Yellow Submarine."

The Beatles made a huge mistake when they were late to the streaming music game and lost an entire generation... maybe two. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the box office. Young people just do not care about The Beatles like Generation X and the Boomers do.

Closest indicator we have is the movie Yesterday from 2019. It made $156 million, which is peanuts for a project of the scale that Sam Mendes is doing here. You also have to consider that the generation that loved the Beatles is literally dying more and more as time goes on.

[quote]Will you be tuning in to each movie?

Fuck no. These are somehting that only mostly elderly people would watch.

I grew up believing one could be a Stones fan or a Beatles fan, but not both.

I won’t watch, but hope Terri Hemmert has a blast.

There are 5 Beatles movies out there: A Hard Days Night (1964), Help! (1965), Magical Mystery Tour (1967) Yellow Submarine (1968) and Let it Be (1970).

Also there was a Beatles animated series that aired on ITV (UK) ABC (USA) and ABC (Australia) from 9/25/1965 -10/21/1967.

Just restore and release those to theaters and streaming services.

I can't wait for this. I hope it'll be good.

Barry Keoghan IS Ringo Starr!

[quote]Barry Keoghan IS Ringo Starr!

Ugg. Another reason to skip these four movies.

I suppose they could make it even worse and cast Adam Driver as George Harrison.

At least Barry Keoghan isn't playing Paul .

But what about meeee

I think it is a really interesting idea to tell their story from the four individual points of view.

It could be terrible, or it might actually be really good.

I'm elderly. And I'm not going to watch. I've seen all the movies and cartoons and read a whole lot of books about them.

I have sufficient.

R15, Yellow Submarine sucks. Other than some very bad music and a short appearance at the end, it’s almost not a Beatles movie.

"A Hard Day's Night" has had a Criterion release. Wish they'd do that with "Help" also.

Let's see:

"Shit Paul Movie"

"Shit John Movie"

"Shit Ringo Movie"

"Ultra-Shit George Movie"

The Beatles’ star has plunged since the 1990s. The actual songwriting and musicianship is good, but the sound has dated in a way that bluesier, rockier groups of the 1960s hasn’t.

Oh, it’s a money grab for sure r25.

Legacy acts like Monty Python went the same way now that Eric Idle can’t get Spamalot stouts off the ground.

The pull of the Jackson film was that it was actual footage of the real guys.

Is there really an audience that wants to sit through 4 films of this? Seems like with a good script, multiple points of view could be achieved in one film.

I can resist this.

It’s as meaningful as making a One Direction film

And they’re notching up the deaths too

I don't believe the negative comments. Hell, yes, I'll be watching. This is The Beatles we're talking about. Legends.

Four?!

I thought Netflix was overdoing it with their runtimes…

I didn't read the article - I presume it's going through the events of the Beatles career through the lens of each one of them, so that's interesting.

They were before my time - they had some good and even great songs, but it always seemed to be Boomer hype fueled by teenage Boomer girls in the 60's.

I know they matured and their music changed a lot reflecting the psychedelic era and the 60s, but their pedestal position always seemed to be overblown and unwarranted.

Yes - it's heresy and my viewpoint is from someone who didn't live through the time.

The hype was of the "you had to be there" variety, like the French New Wave type of thing. That's why the music doesn't hold up as much.

The first big Boy Band who came along at the right time - young baby boomers were in their teens / pre-teens and had money to spend.

Paul Mescal IS... TBA!

Given the surviving members and the dead beatles families have given full rights and approval for music to the filmmakers I'm guessing these films are not going to have a lot of bite or say much we don't already know. They likely saw Rocketman and Elvis making good money and boosting the catalogues and wanted in.

the most interesting story from the beatles is when john's belligerence got stuart sutcliffe killed - and i think that was the end of any hope for his mental and emotional stability. he was reportedly suicidal and manic around the time of recording help, well before they got experimental or anything.

R31 listen to it in the context of other music at the time - a website like rym conveniently tracks release dates for all music. you can go back to the early days of please please me and that just blows everything else out of the water. their sound is bright and ferocious and actually really heavy and rough compared to other 'rock' at the time. their performances of songs like long tall sally, besame mucho, bad boy, matchbox, etc. in the early days are exploding with energy compared to the other fuddy duddy skiffle groups. paul sounds like a wildman on long tall sally. anna go to him, misery, mr moonlight, yes it is, all my loving, if i fell, and i love her, there are so many great tracks and performances from that era. they were known as 'the savage young beatles' in the club days because their sound was notably ferocious and rocking for that time. if you ask me the worst period of the beatles was the time after a hard days night and before revolver when they were trying to become a more original group but hadn't fully committed to what that meant for them yet. i never got into rubber soul that much, besides a few outstanding tracks like paperback writer and in my life.

[quote] you can go back to the early days of please please me and that just blows everything else out of the water. their sound is bright and ferocious and actually really heavy and rough compared to other 'rock' at the time.

Admittedly Please Please Me is a great rock song. It didn’t have that overproduced, glossy Martin sheen.

Paul's mixed review of "Backbeat" (1994):

One of my annoyances about the film Backbeat is that they've actually taken my rock 'n' rollness off me. They give John the song "Long Tall Sally" to sing and he never sang it in his life. But now it's set in cement. It's like the Buddy Holly and Glenn Miller stories. The Buddy Holly Story does not even mention Norman Petty, and The Glenn Miller Story is a sugarcoated version of his life. Now Backbeat has done the same thing to the story of the Beatles. I was quite taken, however, with Stephen Dorff's astonishing performance as Stu.

I have the dvd set The Beatles Anthology. I recommend it for The Shea Stadium concert alone. First ever stadium concert but the girls screaming competed with The Beatles singing. Hey, they were having fun.

Did you know that The Beatles concerts were only 30 minutes long? It's true.

Back in the 60s, the top acts on a bill typically only played 20 to 30 minutes.

Wasn't just the Beatles. It was every other group as well.

all these modern musician biopics are solely for the braindead.