Channeling Sup Forums for a minute. Should a Beatles biopic ever be made? I mean like a serious, legit biopic, chronicling from about 1960-1970, and maybe their solo work till now. IMHO it should be cut into two parts, split at 1966.
Is this a terrible idea or the greatest idea ever?
I like the idea in theory, but they would never make one that didn't 100% buy into the Beatles myth, and too many people would be displeased with whatever they did end up with.
Beatles myth?
>the beatles were the greatest most innovative rock band ever who invented everything including rock and roll itself *walks out of the room singing "I Want To Hold Your Hand"*
as opposed to
>the beatles were pretty solid pop songwriters and tunesmiths who did a lot of interesting things in the studio and had a keen ear for incorporating a lot of diverse influences into their music
I think this was the point le garlic pedo man was trying to make in his pasta, albeit in a needlessly contrarian and butthurt way.
They're also my favorite band, FWIW.
second one, should definitely be made objectively with the facts, i.e. john lennon was a complete asshole. Idk how you can find anyone to be objective and unbiased with the fucking biggest band in history though
I want this for no other reason than for vapid dipshit "artistic" girls to stop posting shit on Facebook as if Lennon was the most profound philosopher of peace and love to ever walk the fucking earth
That's what I'm trying to get at.
I love the Beatles, but I want to see a biopic that treats them like mortals, not Gods.
I want to see John making fun of retards and George hating the fame. I don't want the sanitized "Beatlemania" version.
Sadly, I don't think they'd ever let someone get away with that.
No, the Beatles Anthology is probably the best thing you could hope for.
There's always something wrong with biopics, be it inaccuracy of the topic at hand or bad casting decisions that make it impossible to picture them as a certain character (see: John Cusack as Brian Wilson).
you don't think paul, ringo, yoko and olivia are old and mature enough to let the truth be told?
It's Apple/EMI that I'm concerned about.
And for the record, Paul would never make fun of himself, nor would Yoko let the sacred Lennon cow come under scrutiny.
I know one of them prevented the release of the Let it Be film a few years back because it didn't portray the Beatles in a "positive light" so it wouldn't surprise me.
see: straight outta compton
not perfect but pretty damn close, imagine that but with more truth, and obviously paul and ringo are way older than dre and cube so they might be alright with the truth finally coming out on screen
make fun isn't the same as just telling the cold hard facts. and you don't have to portray john as a fucking monster, just tell the truth, that we was a human being. If yoko really gave a shit about him and not his image/her image and money, she'd let the truth be told. imo that's the greatest honor there is.
What about Julian and Sean?
The distinct impression that I've gotten is that Paul buys into the image and myth far too much, and Yoko has put far too much effort into deifying John to let them put his darker side under too much scrutiny.
and what would that truth be? having lennon beat his wife on screen and make sexist comments throughout the film?
>smacking cynthia around
>beating up the reporter who implied he was gay with epstein
>making fun of retards on stage
>making fun of epstein's sexuality
>emotionally abusing julian
maybe not blow it out of proportion, just that he was a person who did shitty things like everyone does. don't paint him as a saint like dre in straight outta compton, but not as the devil either
any evidence of him hitting yoko?
No, I believe he stopped hitting girls altogether after the reporter incident.
that theory that he killed stuart
When I went to NYC and went to Central Park it fucking blew my mind that there were all these people standing around the imagine thing, singing and leaving flowers and praying like it was a fucking holy shrine or something.