Given some of the issues that led to the actors strike last year, I would imagine that something like this is very much on the table as we go further down the road with “improvements” to AI.
It is happening, no doubt.
The next step will be getting the rights to use the image and voice of an actor no longer with us (with the surviving relatives signing for enough money). Or with actors who have aged out of a role.
Right now, the way AI made use of previous Ford outtakes in the last Indy movie still left something to be desired, quality wise. But sooner rather than later, a new Connery Bond could happen, if EON is deciding to go that way.
I hope not.
Maybe we will be protected…
1 Like
1 Like
The current regime at EON wouldn’t, I don’t think. What looms on the horizon when Bond #7 is finished with the role, assuming that the current regime at EON actually does participate in the tenure of Bond #7, is anyone’s guess.
1 Like
I don’t quite understand the author’s intentions, except for putting his dislike for Mendes on display. I’m under the impression that he doesn’t see him as “Hollywood” enough and that any such movie can only be done by an American director (Scorcese as director for a Beatles biopic? I stopped taking this serious at that point)…
Having those films about a British band made by a British director makes perfect sense to me, and having all of them directed by the same director, too. This is one story, told from four different perspectives, so there should be consistent storytelling, not a mashup from four different directors with different visions and different ideas and different styles. I’m also convinced that this can only work if everything is shot in one go and four different movies will be cut from that material.
That said, I’m not too fond of the whole idea. Too often, I’ve been disappointed by biopics when I knew too much about the people they’re about and what really happened.
3 Likes
What an odd article. Why wouldn’t an award winning British director be good enough for the project? Why call it out in print even if you disagreed with it?
That being said, I’m surprised Peter Jackson didn’t do something like this.
2 Likes
I guess Gleiberman, who is not a fan of Mendes, questions the enterprise itself, and I agree with him. To make four separate films when one could have been enough, is risky. Have the first flop, what happens then? And Mendes indeed has not shown any particular interest in the Beatles so far. Doesn’t mean he will be the wrong choice. But it is peculiar.
Another question I am pondering: The Beatles are probably the most chronicled band there is. What can these films tell us what has not been regurgitated a million times?
Jackson‘s very long documentary on their last album was perfect. Nobody can top that.
1 Like
How to tackle this, bookend with Lennon/McCartney and put Harrison/Starr in the middle - or use them as buildup to the clash between John and Paul? How to go about the story when the surviving members likely will dispute certain aspects - while the dead have no say in the matter?
And indeed, one Beatles film by a celebrated director will surely attract audiences - but four films? No doubt the hardcore fanbase will pay to see them. But the general audience, the youngsters who don’t know the band, nor care for the tale? Is there really a demand for such a project?
Our generation - that’s Mendes’ generation as well as many executives in the business - tends to forget that 60s/70s pop culture is to today’s audiences an obscure echo from a distant past: at rare times amusing, even charming - but mostly just yesterday’s news.
3 Likes
I’m a Beatles fan but have mixed feelings about this. I’m not fond of biopics. I prefer reading books or watching the original footage, which gives true authenticity opposed to recreations which can’t help but put a different slant on things. Casting is going to be absolutely vital. Audience reception to the first will be too, if they really are committed to releasing three others. And even if the audience responds positively, will they come back time after time to see variations on the same story? I have doubts.
As a fan I do think there’s a point where a good thing can be milked to death. We know the story, how many times does it need to be told? The Beatles are there for people to discover if people want to explore them. But going overboard can turn people off and come off as somewhat embarrassing given as a young person you’re always talking about a band from over 50 years ago.
4 Likes
I’m a life long Beatles fan and it’s hard to imagine how I could possibly be any less interested in this entire proposition. Good luck to them, I guess, but if it pans out I’ll be shocked.
3 Likes
This sums up what every studio head who turned this project down will have reasoned. But the IP was just too tempting, I presume. Rather throw money at this than financing four original movies.
Indeed. So many documentaries already tell everything that can be told.
And again, the lesson is not learned. „Bohemian Rhapsody“ was a mega success because it told a streamlined version of a band, focusing on its front man‘s tragic life and ending on a success. An old band which, by the way, still rules the spotify streaming numbers.
Sure, the Elton John biopic was also a financial success - but far, far less so. Then the Whitney Houston biopic tanked horribly. The Bowie film did, too.
The Beatles might be a band who transcends generations, sure. But their history is not as scandalous as Freddie Mercury‘s, and the music is not as much part of today’s generation‘s playlists.
And how long will these films have to be in order to incorporate their rise to fame, their drug period and their breakup? Will every film tell the same story from the member‘s perspective and become tiresome?
Ridley Scott will direct a Bee Gees biopic. That might be interesting because the band, while still known, is not overdocumented and the late 60‘s and 70‘s are always a visually interesting period. For that alone, Scott is the right director. But I would not expect more than a middling success at best.
As for Mendes - if he can get Deakins again, the visuals will be elegant and cooly intellectual. But is that what The Beatles should feel like?
1 Like
Nothing can compete with something like the Get Back project overseen by Peter Jackson. Restored, unseen footage of the real four from inside the studio. Now that was exciting. But let’s see what happens with these movies. It’s certainly ambitious.
2 Likes
There is already a vast spectrum of films, their own work, documentaries, parodies like THE RUTLES and YESTERDAY; there’s BACKBEAT and Jackson’s GET BACK that really wowed fans. It’s hard to imagine what four piopics could add to this - especially when it’s supposed to do each of them justice.
And what about Brian Epstein, George Martin, Yoko Ono, Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe even? They all played their parts in the Beatles history as well as their own, yet they’d have to - at least to a point - occupy very different roles in these four films. I also struggle to see how the third, the fourth fallout scene would still interest people.
And where to end it? While the band existed only a decade its legacy over half a century is now almost as important as its actual run. Its members lead their own lives after 1970, lives that were, that are hugely overshadowed by the band to this day. Lennon would probably consider his life after the Beatles much more important than the time he spent with the band. Could any biopic do this justice by cutting out these parts?
Seriously I only see one way for this to capture audiences: tell one stringent tale in four parts, assign each of them one chapter. Which of course then will be a thankless task for the first two or three entries.
1 Like
I could kind of see this working, at least structurally. Film One is John, with all the drama that brings: deadbeat dad, dead mum, meeting Paul and then George, adventures in Hamburg, marrying Cin, losing Stu, the record deal and end with sacking Pete so Ringo shows up to complete the foursome.
Film Two…maybe…can retell some of that from Ringo’s POV on the periphery while playing in other bands until he signs on with the Fab Four and then we get in to the early days of international touring and the “mop tops” phase.
I haven’t decided where to to end that one but Film Three could shift to George as he starts to get more recognition for his songwriting chops and we enter into the more psychedelic era and the Maharishi phase and then maybe end with Brian’s death ("Is the band doomed? Tune in for Part 4).
Then the final film could focus on Paul’s efforts to hold it all together as a self-appointed substitute Brian, and include the formation of Apple, the whole “Mystery Tour” debacle, the efforts to keep the band working and then watching the whole thing falling apart. Lots of drama as the world makes him the villain of the piece, followed by a reclusive period on a Scottish farm as all three of the other lads go on to, at least for a while, greater success in their solo careers. Then career redemption with a new band, some degree of fence-mending and a few tantalizing hints of a possible reunion and then the final tragedy at the Dakotas. The Beatles are born with John in Part 1 and die with him at the end of Part 4 (not when they “break up,” but when it becomes impossible to reunite).
That is, I think you could argue different Beatles are “at the wheel” at different points and thus the logical point of focus: John to get things going, Ringo as the darling of the touring era (at least in the US), George as the spiritual one and then Paul as the taskmaster trying to delay the inevitable.
It took them years to live it all so in theory you could take 8 hours to tell it, if you did it well. On the other hand, putting my kids through 8 hours of “Get Back” nearly exhausted all their good will towards their old man, and if they’re any indication, the younger generation – or maybe viewers of any age who aren’t fanatical Beatle fans – are unlikely to see this all through. Meanwhile for those of us who do care, we’re most likely to spend the entire time sitting there thinking how wrong the casting is, or nit-picking the liberties taken or mistakes made with details.
Who knows, maybe they’ll surprise me and do a great job, and make billions. But it’s not animosity that puts me in the “no thanks” crowd, but utter lack of interest. That’s not a good omen considering all the time and funds I’ve willingly devoted to the Beatles in the past.
This is the project nobody asked for.
2 Likes
As a streaming show, it could work. As cinematic features, no matter whether they follow each other shortly (as Costner tries this year with his two „Horizon“ films) or year after year, the whole endeavor is a huge question mark.
1 Like
4 Likes
Now that is one impressive, effective and emotionally powerful trailer.
I want to see these films.
2 Likes
All in one year…
1 Like