Here's what's going on in the world of entertainment today:
I can see Disney's thought process now...
"A thing of beauty! DESTROY IT FOREVER!!!!"
I do not remember the '60s–born too late. But I don't HAVE to remember the '60s, when Hollywood "creative" crams it down our throat as often as they do. It's like I've lived it. Over and over again.
Some of us look forward to the future and embrace new concepts, no matter how old we are.
Hey there GG 206045 Allin:
Very nice air tight smug observation, you might be sixty some day and I
hope you have something to hold on to.
Erica: RC is correct. The Beatles did nothing for this film except the brief live action cameo at the end. Their involvement beyond this was zero. Yellow Submarine itself appeared on the 1966 album Revolver. So, ironically, to all those complaining about Hollywood rehashing old material, this movie did just that in '68.
The music was all rehash of tracks from albums and singles the band had already released (to the best of my knowledge). This was actually worse that Magical Mystery Tour, where they did write at least a couple new songs, even though that was a "made-for-tv" movie.
Remake? How? Are they going to use the same script and just re-animate the entire movie in 3-D? Use the same songs? Would they recreate the same "hall of doors" comedy schtick in 3-D and was already tired in 1969? Do they realize that Yellow Submarine had a certain visual style ( in addition to tinted photos) that simply does not translate to 3-D?
Why don't they remake Fantasia in 3-D and see how well that works?
Any attempt at a remake will have to start from scratch, which means a complete and total re-imagining of the visuals. That means current trends with 45-year old music. So what's next...you know what's next, they will re-record all the sond with contemporary artists. Meaning....say hello to Miley Siris or a new crop of Disney Teen Pop-Tarts yelling out lyrics and sounding like some amusement park review.
The vision will be disrespected.
The music will be disrespected.
The psychodelic trip and love/war will be turned into a simple journey home for smart-mouthed kids who sing old songs that have absolutely no relevancy to modern kids' lives.
What does "Nowhere Man" mean to a 12-year old?
How about "Only A Northern Song" ?
I don’t believe, though, they were against it.
I recently read their bio by Bob Spitzer (not claiming this is the definitive work.. just saying).. and his claim is that when they heard they were going to be made into cartoon characters, they were dead set against it. That may have been an initial reaction and once they saw a loophole in the UA deal (as you stated) perhaps they decided "what the hell".
It's a shame Hollywood doesn't explore the myriad other amazing stories available rather than remaking perfectly good movies all the time (much less sequels to very bad ones).
How about other than the music, the voice-overs, the story line, the MOVIE…the Beatles had nothing to do with it?
The Beatles DIDN"T DO the voice overs, dear. They had NOTHING TO DO with the story line. The music was not done for the movie it was songs already recorded. They had very little involvement in this movie.
A good soundtrack? Yeah, as long as the likes of puff duddy are not involved. Or Hootie. Or Dave Matthews Bland. Or Sheryl Crow. Or Beyonce. Or any other blight on modern music, for that matter.
Couldn't agree more!!
To GG 206045 Allin:
On behalf of "pathetic boomers" I would like to point out that we're not trying to idealize or make up the past, and we certainly don't want to live there, we just want a little basic recall. If you can remember the 60s, you weren't really there . . .
Having said that, though: I can't remember when mainstream Hollywood last had an original idea. All they do is remakes, retakes, retreads, and endless sequels derived from comic books, video games, and TV shows that were cancelled for good reason.
Andy...."other than the music the Beatles had nothing to do with it"? How about other than the music, the voice-overs, the story line, the MOVIE...the Beatles had nothing to do with it?
How can they remake Yellow Submarine without the characters that made it great? There are only two of them left! I love the original Yellow Submarine and don't want to see it ruined!
At first I thought....why would you have to remake Yellow Submarine???? It's a classic!!!
But then I thought about it. That movie has been inaccessable to a couple generations...my kids think the movie is horrible (the music i good, but the story is really boring). When I rewatched it with them, I kinda agreed. I wanted to fast forward a couple sections.
Now, imagine a re-imagining of this film using motion capture and 3D. How psycadelic could that look? And with motion capture, the characters will look like real humans...so imagine classic 1967 or 1968 era Beatles "acting" in this new film? It could open this amazing music to a whole new generation. As long as they can secure the rights to the Beatles' music and use their likenesses, I can't see how this could be a bad thing.
Are there NO original ideas in Hollywood? Why spend so much time and money remaking the past. How about we look to the future? Enough already! Get an imagination!
Back in the 80's Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles. I wonder if this is just another way to pump more money into his estate.
RC: You're right, the Beatles had little to do with this movie. I don't believe, though, they were against it. They were actually hoping this film would fill out their contract with United Artists to make 3 movies (A Hard Day's Night and Help being the first 2). UA sued claiming their paltry bit at the end hardly constituted making it a "Beatles" movie. The music, esp. the title track were already 2 years old in 1968. The Beatles lost in court. They hoped making a movie about the Get Back project (what became Let It Be when Phil Specter "finished" it) would finally kill the movie issue. In the end, United Artists had to accept fate. The Beatles broke up.
By the way, if you're a "britcom" fan and have watched "Keeping Up Appearances" on a PBS station, the actor who plays Onslow, Geoffrey Hughes, is the actor who played the voice of Paul in the movie.
The current crop of writers can't write their way out of a paper bag, With the exception of a very few movies written, produced, directed and depicted, they are for the most part garbage to fill up the cineplexes with the mindless who are willing and able to shell out the money and are not satisfied unless their senses are being assaulted.
I liked Yellow Submarine. Thought it is great. Fun movie to watch. Every time I see an obese person all I can think of is a Blue Meanie with the mouths in the stomach. So funny! An old supervisor acted just like the head Meanie. Her motto was: The beatings will continue until morale improves. She practiced it often.
... I think he should remake "Magical Mystery Tour" =D
And by the way, it was NOT a Beatles product. They had nothing to do with this movie at all save for the music and the cameo at the end. The Beatles had nothing to do with the project, the script, the idea, the voices.. anything at all in Yellow Submarine. Fact is when they first heard it was happening they were dead set against it. But after seeing it, they changed their minds and thought it was pretty cool.
Why not? I mean, Adam Sandler keeps making horrible movies, how many more pieces of crap will Eddie Murphy put out...? I am willing to see what they do with this.. could be good, or not. But since the vast majority of stuff being made these days is garbage, at least you know this movie will have a great soundtrack.
A Yellow Submarine remake is a completely absurd idea. Even though The Beatles only appeared in the last few minutes it was a Beatles product and infused by their creative spirit. It's almost as absurd as remaking Hard Day's Night or Help! These films exist as part of The Beatles' creative efforts and really have no reason to exist without them. Gone With the Wind or The Wizard of Oz were based on previously existing literary works so there at least might be a slight justification for remaking those although they too would probably be absurd. I have wondered, however, about The Wizard of Oz remade as a straight drama, without all those songs...(tongue only slightly in cheek).
Question – will the remake use the original animation but just doctor it into 3-D, or will it actually be a full remake? If it's just massaging the original animation into a 3-D format, it might not be so bad.
All I can say is ew. Why?
There are two ways to think of this...one is to see it as almost blasphemous as Bubba apparently does...the other is that it is a way to introduce the young people to the Beatles music. Assuming they will use the actual music and not have a bunch of people covering it...that would be horrible.
Why remake Yellow Submarine? For what it is, and supposed to be, it is perfect already.
The original Yellow Submarine cartoon was horrible. I love the Beatles, but that movie is painful. The voice acting was terrible and the story made no sense. Other than the music, the Beatles had nothing to do with it, so what's the big deal about remaking it?
Can we please stop dredging up every little nugget of pop culture that the '60s ever spat out? We've spent more time and money recreating these supposed halcyon days ... what a waste. Just a bunch of pathetic boomers who see the future passing them by so they're compelled to live in an idealized, made-up past.
This is why terrorists hate us.
Yellow Submarine was appropriate for its time. It was a psychedelic adventure that was directed at a small target audience. it was not meant for mass appeal. Just because you didn't appreciate it, doesn't make it the worst movie ever.
Go ahead! There still many things that can be done with the Beatles, they are part of our culture, they could be art, paintings, books, movies and more movies!
Good God, is there nothing too low for these Hollywood creeps? A remake of Yellow Submarine would be like a rewrite of the Bible.......
Remaking YELLOW SUBMARINE would be like remaking THE WIZARD OF OZ. It may rival "Sgt Pepper" for Worst Movie Ever. Just go ahead and put Paula Abdul and Tony Danza in it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 7,777 other followers