I've been on Sup Forums for six years and have never seen this masterpice being discussed. What the fuck...

i've been on Sup Forums for six years and have never seen this masterpice being discussed. What the fuck?! This is one of the highest point of western animation, especially in the in the surrealsim department. It's made by one of the greatest music bands of all time and has unique art style specifically designed to be the opposite of Disney. How come I never see this in the top 10 animated movies lists?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Wabo2xXTyHQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_(Beatles_album)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's shit and boring.

Get the fuck off our board, dad.

I'm a 29 year old Russian NEET, who saw this movie for the first time first time about a year ago. It was among the best experiences of my life and I can't comprehend how it's not in a must watch list of any cartoon enthusiast.

>This is one of the highest point of western animation
I'll give agree on the surrealism, but the quality is highly inconsistent. It's an important piece of culture, for sure, but as far as animation goes it's... sub-par. Really, the movie only exists as a flimsy excuse to string a bunch of songs together, and at that point, you may as well just listen to the album. And this is coming from a kid who was a fucking Beatles/Yellow Submarine junkie in the late '90s when Yellow Submarine saw a resurgence in re-releases and merchandise. I still have a totally bitchin' ceramic Yellow Submarine lava lamp my mom got me for Christmas 18 years ago.

Anyway, thanks for reminding me of this movie. Definitely going to watch it next weekend for a nostalgia trip.

An amazing movie to watch when tripping, but other than that it’s just average.

As much as I like this movie, I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. The aesthetics are nice but the animation, the story, and even the soundtrack are all pretty mediocre. Also I'm pretty sure that it was made as an easy way for The Beatles to get out of their contract with the film studio that made it

reminder that this movie was a fucking flop at the box office and pretty much killed every chance of a non Disney animated movie for years

>Also I'm pretty sure that it was made as an easy way for The Beatles to get out of their contract with the film studio that made it
Seems about right, since they didn't even do their own voices, and only actually appeared for 45 seconds in that lazy bit at the end where you can tell they barely rehearsed their lines.

Allegedly they only did that cameo at the end because they changed their mind and wanted to be in after all, but it was too late to do anything else.

So what was the contract then? That there had to be a Beatles movie, but they didn't have to actually be involved with it in any way other than to have their music in it?

>According to the special features section of the Yellow Submarine DVD, Peter Batten provided the voice of George for the first half of the film. Batten was discovered to be a deserter from the British Army of the Rhine in Germany and was arrested during recording. His part was completed by Paul Angelis, who played the voice of Ringo and other parts in the film.

Because the Beatles are hot garbage.

>The Beatles make a live-action cameo appearance in the final scene, which was filmed on 25 January 1968, shortly before the band's trip to India. This was to fulfill their contractual obligation of actually appearing in the film. The cameo was originally intended to feature a post-production psychedelic background and effects, but because of time and budget constraints, a blank, black background remained in the final film.

>The Beatles were not enthusiastic about participating in a new motion picture, having been dissatisfied with their second feature film, Help! (1965), directed by Richard Lester. They saw an animated film as a favourable way to complete their commitment to United Artists for a third film, however. Many have assumed that a cartoon did not satisfy the contract, but Let It Be (1970) was not connected to the original three-picture deal the Beatles made with United Artists.[10]

>The Beatles make a live-action cameo appearance in the final scene, which was filmed on 25 January 1968, shortly before the band's trip to India. This was to fulfill their contractual obligation of actually appearing in the film. The cameo was originally intended to feature a post-production psychedelic background and effects, but because of time and budget constraints, a blank, black background remained in the final film. While Starr and McCartney still looked the same as their animated counterparts, Lennon and Harrison's physical appearances had changed by the time the cameo was shot. Both were clean-shaven, and Lennon had begun to grow his hair longer with accompanying mutton chop sideburns.

You know, most people I know who hate the Beatles have never actually heard an album of theirs all the way through.

Have you?

i started a thread about like three or so weeks ago
This movie was much better than I remembered it, altogether great film

a drug fueled mess is more accurate.

and the Beatles are mediocre at best. they just managed to find that pop Rock niche early on and at a time when there was almost no competition because record labels monopolized everything,
therefore they are only liked by nostalgia fags, retro hipsters, and people dumb enough to think that the first group to do something must have been the best at it

I've heard enough of their music. Biggest factor is that anyone that covers their music has 10 times their musical talent

Can't talk about music here.

This is a blue board

Sure is hipster in here. "Yesterday" is a fucking brilliant song, and one of the greatest pop songs of the 20th century. Anyone who tries to deny this is full of shit.

It is, but the Beatles are shit and anyone that covers it invalidates any reason to listen to their version of it

Is it hipster to hate the Beatles? Hell, I remember when I was in middle school in the late '90s, everyone thought I was a hipster for liking them.

I got into them because my mom had been a big fan and I was always hearing their music. As I got older, I got tired of them, but going back, a lot of their later stuff is pretty fucking stellar and groundbreaking.

...

You don't listen to rock

Naw they're awsome, my second favorite band.
Best part about this movie was the Beatles journeying through the diffrent seas. I'm a sucker for bizarre visuals and those parts of the film are jam packed with them.

The visuals and the jokes were the best parts.

People that listen to rock have better taste

Same. I like the idea of the "seas" as not places with water, but just weird dimensions with their own rules, and the submarine is some kind of trans-dimensional vessel capable of traveling through them.

It is now. In the 70s they were icons. In the 80s and 90s, it was cool to hate them because your parents liked them and your parents are lame. Now we've hit the point where the I Hate My Parents backlash has faded and the Beatles are commonly held as incredibly talented (except for RIngo) and probably the most influential band in Rock'n'Roll.
At this point "the Beatles are hot garbage" is an opinion held mainly by people who don't like popular things and want to be seen as clever, unique individualists who speak out against the received wisdom. IE, fucking hipsters.

it took you 6 years to decide to make a topic about it? lmao

Read the thread, he just now watched it for the first time and was baffled by the fact that Sup Forums never said a word about it before.

>(except for RIngo)
I recognize that he's not a particularly impressive drummer, but I love it when he sings. Octopus's Garden, Don't Pass Me By and A Little Help from my Friends are all great stuff. He's not even the greatest singer, but his voice is pleasant to listen to.

10/10 best stoner flick to watch with your normie friends

>i've been on Sup Forums for six years and have never seen this masterpice being discussed
To be fair it is on some of the "Sup Forums's recommended movies" lists that get shared every now and then (so I'm guessing you are one of those anons who DON'T autistically watch everything that is recommended to you in a pathetic attempt at chasing the high of discovering fun and new animated media). Glad you liked it, weird that other anons seem to think it's overrated.

>dude acid lmao
>also fuck u John

So do I, I personally think Ringo's underrated. I was just stating the common perception of the Beatles that I get from everyone these days.

If you ask me, people wouldn't talk nearly so much shit about Ringo if he were in any other band. His drumming tends to be simple, yeah, but there's an artistry in simplicity applied well. Ringo's not flashy, and so he seems less talented because the guys he's standing next to shine so brightly.

So the answer is no lol

Your opinion is invalid.

fake news

Yeah, okay, I'd rather not waste my time listening to more of their music when there's better shit out there and they won't be getting any better

lol what makes you think you have any sort of good reason to act as snobby as you are right now?

You're like people on Sup Forums who shit on games that they've never even played.

All style no substance. Good for music enthusiasts, not film enthusiasts.

Ringo is a solid drummer, even if he's not Neil Peart or anything. By all accounts, he was a fucking metronome both in studio and live, and he played exactly what the songs needed. Sure, he never had any iconic grooves like Roseanna, but there's also not a single song where he played something that didn't fit. He was a rock and roll drummer, and one of the best around at the time. He could sit in the pocket keeping things driving and let Paul take up space with his basslines.

Hell, as far as instrumentals go, none of the Beatles really belong on any all-time lists, other than maybe Paul influencing so much about early bass playing. George was great, but nothing like Clapton or Page or Hendrix or any of the other guitar gods of the era. And Paul was actually a better guitarist than John, but Lennon had just bought a new guitar, so Paul had to play bass. They were all plenty good for the music they were playing, though. The real talent was in the songwriting and production.

Because I don't have to listen to a whole album when I've heard enough of their songs already. I've heard their top songs. Their smaller shit isn't going to change my opinion

Holy shit, you've got to be joking. That's literally a lower level way of thinking.

Jesus Christ, I never even use the word "pleb" but that's literally what you are. And to think that you're trying to be all snobby and superior too.

If food tastes like shit after the first bite I'm not gonna keep eating it. You can waste your time listening to every piece of their shitty music as you want mate, not everyone wants to invest their time in something that trashy.

Not him, but not argument. What were you thinking when making that post? What did it add? It's just "pleb"

If you know nothing about the thing you're criticizing than your criticisms are immediately invalid.

You're gonna have to try a little harder to be taken seriously, user.

Getting high in my friend's car listening to them and pink floyd was a highlight of my college life. It's a shame people can get so wrapped up in identity politics and age-posturing that you end up missing out on some great music. Fuck man, it's ridiculous to me that people could so flippantly disregard one of the biggest influences on music like anons in this thread but I guess this is the place for degenerates.

>plz stop calling my shitty music shit
>you haven't listened to my shitty music as much as I have
I've definitely lived long enough to know you're a dumbass

>place for degenerates
>while unironically going "DUDE WEED"
Fuck off degenerate.

simpsons did it first
youtube.com/watch?v=Wabo2xXTyHQ

You clearly haven't lived long enough to think that your arguments are valid, user.

It's so simple: listen to actual albums. Listen to Sgt. Peppers, Revolver and Abbey Road all the way through. If you still think they're shit, then so be it. At least you gave them a chance.

Right now though, you're getting all defensive because I'm pointing out your lack of credentials in being snobby lol

Look, I absolutely love the Beatles. But if someone has listened to a sampling of their music - let's say they've heard majority of the songs on Beatles 1 - and they don't like it, why should they continue listening?

>Listen to three albums of a band you don't like because I said so
You're fucking retarded, user. You're accusing him of being a snob, yet you're being a gatekeeping piece of shit yourself.

Easy, I called user a pleb because he thinks he has the credentials to act all snobby and superior when clearly he doesn't.

It is more like, you took a bite of food you did not like, but upon being offered several new, different dishes you have decided that you don't like food anymore

>credentials
And what are YOUR credentials, user?

Who says how much music is "enough"? He listened to them already. Since when are you authorised to give out credentials?

Listen to me carefully:

If I listen to a few songs from a band, and I don't like them, I refrain from calling them shit. I will at LEAST listen to an album or two before I make an opinion. At least there's effort put into it.

It's not my fault that he's lazy and wants to be snobby with no effort put into it.

the amount of effort it takes to sit down and listen to music is less than nothing. Why are y'all so afraid of new experiences?

Superior Beatles film.

people who go on Sup Forums are no better than filthy stoners.

Different user here. I've listened to all of their albums. Sgt. Pepper is the only truly great one, Magical Mystery Tour is pretty good, everything else is mediocre overall with a few good tracks here and there. I have no idea why they got as popular as they did, based on their early material.

>waste your time listening to shit you don't like
I've already listened to enough of their shit. It won't suddenly get better because it's a different song. I happen to have decent tastes.

It's not rocket science lol

The main medium that a band expresses itself is an album. If someone vehemently hates a band without even sitting down and listening to ONE album from them, then they don't deserve to have their opinions taken seriously.

True but it isn't animated

Different user, I've listened to all their music. None of it was compelling. I can see why people think their music is bad

>man my music taste is so good. I can't even listen to a whole album!

that's you right now

>I happen to have decent tastes.

You've shown no evidence of it in this thread so far.

See? These anons put effort into creating a valid opinion of a band.

It's not a hard thing to do.

>Fuck off degenerate.
Besides a love of cartoons and capeshit, that's why we are here you fucking mongoloid

>we're here because of weed
Kill yourself.

>I happen to have decent tastes.
It's okay user, everyone here thinks you are super cool and wants to be your friend now, we really admire the compliment you paid yourself and definitely believe you.

Wait for your testicles drop and come back with some taste. (or just go back to Sup Forums, I'm sure you're just parroting what they say to themselves anyway)

As one of the anons you're quoting I believe you are being a massive cunt about this.

we are here because of degeneracy*
you twit

I am definitely not being a cunt about this. Sounds to me like I'm just putting all of you out of your comfort zones.

>"Listening to an album is soooo haaaaaarrrd!!!!!!"

I don't get the alt right hipster mindset of finding all people who smoke weed degenerates, when it's totally 100% acceptable to be a functioning alcoholic and posting about it.

The Sup Forums hivemind makes 0 sense. I'm not going to judge someone for putting any substance they want into their bodies, who gives a fuck?

Wife BEATles

>I'm not going to judge someone for putting any substance they want into their bodies
Okay? Good for you. I'm going to keep calling them out for being obnoxious, bringing it up as much as they can out of nowhere, calling anything zany or creative "something that must have done on drugs xD" and generally acting brain dead.

>all of you
Nice assumptions, asshole. I rarely listen to music is any way other than full albums. That said, it wasn't til pretty late in the game that the Beatles actually utilized albums as anything other than a collection of singles and fillers, so if the user who started all this has heard the single material and determined he doesn't like it, I have a hard time seeing how listening to the bad tracks in addition to the good tracks is going to change his mind.

Face it, not everyone likes what you like, and there's nothing you can do about it.

>i've been on Sup Forums for six years and have never seen this masterpice being discussed. What the fuck?!

Sup Forums only discusses Batman and whenever some white male hero is replaced with a black or a woman (or a black woman). That, and superhero movies, and waifu threads.

If you've been here for six years then you should've known this.

I love the Beatles. I have listened to all their shit. I often play the white album on my commute. You you are gaping cunt for how you are dealing with anons whose only crime is shit taste.

What is this nonsense of needing to listen to every song to pass judgment? I can get wanting a representative sample size but what you demand as an entry to the conversation is just excessive.

>I am definitely not being a cunt about this
> Sounds to me like I'm just putting all of you out of your comfort zones.
These two sentences should not exist together

Do you know how many albums I've turned off after 15 minutes?

If the first 3 songs of an album are shit, why the hell would I spend the next half hour of my life continuing with it? Not every record was made for me.

>bitchin’
>late 90s

Want to know how I know you are from Reddit

>bringing it up as much as they can out of nowhere
Except you did exactly this.

this user wasn't talking about weed, and he's right, we're all degenerates on Sup Forums.

this guy casually mentioned it and you flipped your shit.

No one mentioned it "out of nowhere" the Beatles and Pink Floyd are associated with hippies and drug use.

You're totally missing the point of what I'm saying, user.

I literally do not care of you don't like the Beatles, or any band for that matter. But if you think that a few songs are representative of their body of work, then you just aren't a very critical thinker and your opinions aren't valid.

Now, for the Beatles in particular, I do have a bias for them. I love them. However, I don't like everything they've did. I think their early albums are trash to be quite honest. They didn't start becoming a fully fleshed out album oriented band until Rubber Soul in my opinion. Even their best albums like the White Album contain a lot of filler that I just think is shit.

See what I did there? I had a fleshed out opinion. There are well-regarded artists that I don't really care for as well, but I've at least LISTENED to a few of their albums before claiming with confidence that I don't think they're that great.

Listening to an album is NOT EVEN HARD.

Jesus, maybe I shouldn't be arguing about this with people on fucking Sup Forums of all places.

>But if you think that a few songs are representative of their body of work, then you just aren't a very critical thinker and your opinions aren't valid.
Get the fuck off your high horse.

Take a look at the listing for Beatles 1, an album that would undoubtedly give you a representation of their body of work, even if it's missing some of the more out there things they did on Revolver/White Album.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_(Beatles_album)

The first 8 tracks are all from their Beatlemania days. Literally any one of them is going to be a good indicator on whether you're into the idea of the rest. Side two is from the Help/Rubber Soul era, which from Day Tripper to Paperback Writer to Eleanor Rigby is going to give you a pretty decent view of their style at the time. The same for side 3 and side 4.

You could sample 10 random songs off that greatest hits collection and get a real solid idea on how you feel about the Beatles.

No one said it's hard. It's still time spent doing something you don't want to. Why the hell should I force myself to keep listening if I'm not a fan of the songs they chose to lead the album?

This. The first user's post wasn't even about weed specifically, it was about Pink Floyd, and added that he had smoked weed that time, and then the other user lost it and went full pancakes.png over what was merely a passing mention of weed. It's ridiculous, you're ridiculous, user. Cut it out.

The Beatles 1 is nothing. It's a butchered compilation for people who barely listen to music at all. Their actual albums contain so much more conceptual material than a compilation ever could. Like I said, listening to three, THREE albums by them: Sgt. Pepper's, Revolver, and Abbey Road, would be enough for them to fully recognize the Beatles as more than band of "single compilations."

and guess what? If you still don't like them after that, that's okay. Like I said, at least you gave them a shot.


You can listen to an album doing fucking anything. Reading a book, playing a video game, driving in your car. Christ ANYTHING.

There is literally actually almost no effort in doing it and it's unbelievable to me that people just think it's such a 'feat' to listen to an album.

I get your point, user. Taking a song out of the context of an album can change how it appears.

But asking somebody to listen to three albums worth of stuff he doesn't like before he's allowed to say he doesn't like it is really too much. I'd suggest maybe he sit back, listen to Sgt. Pepper's, and if at the end he still doesn't like or at least respect them, oh well.
But I doubt anything's going to change his mind at this point.

>Really, the movie only exists as a flimsy excuse to string a bunch of songs together

That's my problem with Across The Universe, too. It's distractingly inorganic.

Sup Forums doesn't discuss things it likes.

>listen to an album while reading a book
Wow you really are retarded.

Again, no one is saying it takes a lot of effort. But you know what I could do instead of listening to an album I already know I won't like? I could listen to an album I know I DO like.

>you need to spend at least 2 hours doing a thing you don't like before I will allow you to say you don't like it

Some of the music choices are actually really fantastic and serve the story well. But then the other half the time it's just songs thrown in for no reason other than to make another Beatles reference.

>The Beatles 1 is nothing. It's a butchered compilation for people who barely listen to music at all
>this level of gatekeeping

Beatles 1 has just as much continuity as Sgt Pepper's, which you're touting as some full experience for a Beatles record. It's the loosest concept record of all time, not even half the songs fit in with the concept. Other than the White Album, it's probably the most obvious example of John, George, and Paul each doing their own thing on the record, with the styles being all over the place.

It's just the attitude of shitting on a band/genre/THING while knowing absolutely nothing about it that pisses me off. Like I said, it literally feels like critical thinking at the absolute lowest level to me. It's like when people say they hate all rap and country or whatever.

The fact that people have the audacity to act all snobby while literally knowing so little of what they're criticizing is fucking ridiculous to me, which is what the user in this thread did.

Yes? Listening to music while reading a book isn't all that hard. Maybe music with lyrics can be kind of hard to focus on while reading a book, but you know there's plenty of other instances where you could listen to 1 or 2 albums with no trouble at all.

Think about things you spend 2+ hours doing in dead silence, user. You could literally listen to 10 albums in the time you browse the internet in your leisure time. Not saying you HAVE to, but it's something I find myself doing all the time.

Indeed.