Disney/Zemeckis in talks to remake The Beatles'....

[J.M. Vargas]

...1968 animated flick "Yellow Submarine" with motion-captured CG graphics: http://weblogs.variety.com/bfdealmemo/2009/08/disney-zemeckis-board-yellow-submarine.html

The studio has been quietly brokering a complicated rights deal that would give Zemeckis access to 16 original Beatles songs for a movie he will direct in the performance-capture 3-D digital production format he employed for “A Christmas Carol.” Disney opens that film November 6, with Jim Carrey playing Scrooge as well as the three ghosts who haunt him in the Charles Dickens tale.

The hope is to have "Yellow Submarine" ready to premiere around the 2012 Summer Olympics, which begins July 27 in London.

Disney would not comment on the negotiations or the project. Zemeckis’s ImageMovers would produce.

******

Key to the deal is Zemeckis’ ability to use a treasure trove of classic Beatles tunes, from the title song to “All Together Now,” “Baby You’re a Rich Man,” “All You Need Is Love,” “When I’m 64,” “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” and “Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band.”

The deal has been months in the making with armies of lawyers and sources said that rights will encompass the future prospects of a Broadway stage musical -- much as Disney accomplished with “The Lion King,” a Cirque du Soleil stage production (“Love,” a production based on Beatles tunes, has been running for two years at The Mirage) and merchandise.

Don't care much for this (never liked either the "YS" song or movie) but it's interesting how Zemeckis really hasn't really let go of his "Forrest Gump"-fueled love for musical nostalgia. Then again, what young person that grew up in the 60's would?

[Dunnyman]

This will most likely be my last posting on these boards as I won't be allowed internet access after I murder this cretin. This goes too far. Let me guess, it'll be voiced by Americans, with horrifyingly sh*tty versions of the Beatles songs most likely performed by Miley Cyrus, Justin Timberlake and Clay Aikens, and it'll be on Burger King kiddie meals with a video game for Wii. Nope, can't be allowed, this calls for death of all participants to prevent it from ever happening. Then again, one can hope that George and John's ghosts drive them all into utter insanity to the point where they fling themselves off of cliffs.

[Andrew Forbes]

Anyone who doesn't want to read a raging anti-Beatles rant, skip this post.

I'd give real money for the abolition of Beatles music in public for the next 40 years. I get it, they were massively influential. And they are now massively overrated and overplayed. After suffering through endless replays of the Across the Universe at every f***ing record store I go into, I will now have to listen to more of the same for years to come. In this day and age, their music should come with a Surgeon General's warning on second hand air pollution.

Rant over.

[HGervais]

How can something be massively influential yet also massively overrated?
And has anyone here actually seen Yellow Submarine? I mean it isn't very good. If the complete vocal tracks still exist and were used, I can see where a new version could improve on the original film.

[the5thghostbuster]

(5thGhostbuster bangs head against wall over and over again)

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid....

[Andrew Forbes]

How can something be massively influential yet also massively overrated?

By being treated like the end all and be all of popular music, and superior to most everything that has come since. The Beatles laid the groundwork and had some seriously catchy tunes, but a lot of them are lyrically awful. The thing with being influential is that you are likely to be surpassed in depth and complexity by the music that follows. The more Beatles I hear, the less interesting it becomes. Unlike many historic classical and jazz artists, not to mention other pop musicians, I don't find layers revealing themselves as the music is replayed. It's impressive that they composed such memorable hooks and melodies, but there is a limit to the praise they deserve. I'm sick of them. I say this as someone who was once a Beatles fan, but was driven to dislike them by the degree to which they are played and practically deified.

[Steve T Power]

How can something be massively influential yet also massively overrated?

By being treated like the end all and be all of popular music, and superior to most everything that has come since. The Beatles laid the groundwork and had some seriously catchy tunes, but a lot of them are lyrically awful. The thing with being influential is that you are likely to be surpassed in depth and complexity by the music that follows. The more Beatles I hear, the less interesting it becomes. Unlike many historic classical and jazz artists, not to mention other pop musicians, I don't find layers revealing themselves as the music is replayed. It's impressive that they composed such memorable hooks and melodies, but there is a limit to the praise they deserve. I'm sick of them. I say this as someone who was once a Beatles fan, but was driven to dislike them by the degree to which they are played and practically deified.

Everything written above could also apply to Nirvana... just sayin'

[Dunnyman]

How can something be massively influential yet also massively overrated?

By being treated like the end all and be all of popular music, and superior to most everything that has come since. The Beatles laid the groundwork and had some seriously catchy tunes, but a lot of them are lyrically awful.

OK...blood pressure stable, not gonna even go there on the "lyrically awful", but superior to most everything that has come since? Yes. They are superior to most everything. My bro was trying to tell me how brilliant Garth Brooks was and I told him to let me know when 5000 people were lined up at midnight in the middle of a rainstorm to buy his outtakes 25 years after he releases his last record, as I experienced when Anthology Vol. 1 came out.
Heck, let's just run down some big name performers, hmmm...Nirvana, Oasis, Kanye, Beyonce, Celine Dion, etc, etc. yeah....they were all huge, and I will bet you any amount of money you care to name that no one will be out in the rain buying their outtakes. Yet, the Beatles, now almost 40 years after they quit recording, are still the biggest name in the business? Yeah, 13 albums in only 7 years will do that for you. Plus, show me a band, any band that showed the music growth the Beatles did from 64-66. Overrated? Hardly.

[cdouglas]

How can something be massively influential yet also massively overrated?

By being treated like the end all and be all of popular music, and superior to most everything that has come since. The Beatles laid the groundwork and had some seriously catchy tunes, but a lot of them are lyrically awful.

OK...blood pressure stable, not gonna even go there on the "lyrically awful", but superior to most everything that has come since? Yes. They are superior to most everything. My bro was trying to tell me how brilliant Garth Brooks was and I told him to let me know when 5000 people were lined up at midnight in the middle of a rainstorm to buy his outtakes 25 years after he releases his last record, as I experienced when Anthology Vol. 1 came out.
Heck, let's just run down some big name performers, hmmm...Nirvana, Oasis, Kanye, Beyonce, Celine Dion, etc, etc. yeah....they were all huge, and I will bet you any amount of money you care to name that no one will be out in the rain buying their outtakes. Yet, the Beatles, now almost 40 years after they quit recording, are still the biggest name in the business? Yeah, 13 albums in only 7 years will do that for you. Plus, show me a band, any band that showed the music growth the Beatles did from 64-66. Overrated? Hardly.

This man speaks the truth.

[Andrew Forbes]

OK...blood pressure stable, not gonna even go there on the "lyrically awful", but superior to most everything that has come since? Yes. They are superior to most everything. My bro was trying to tell me how brilliant Garth Brooks was and I told him to let me know when 5000 people were lined up at midnight in the middle of a rainstorm to buy his outtakes 25 years after he releases his last record, as I experienced when Anthology Vol. 1 came out.
Heck, let's just run down some big name performers, hmmm...Nirvana, Oasis, Kanye, Beyonce, Celine Dion, etc, etc. yeah....they were all huge, and I will bet you any amount of money you care to name that no one will be out in the rain buying their outtakes. Yet, the Beatles, now almost 40 years after they quit recording, are still the biggest name in the business? Yeah, 13 albums in only 7 years will do that for you. Plus, show me a band, any band that showed the music growth the Beatles did from 64-66. Overrated? Hardly.

You argue as if creative growth, prolific careers or high sales are indicators of quality. You're right, they are incredibly popular. It's almost like that's inherent in my point. How would you respond if I told you that 55 million Republicans can't be wrong? You'd probably have an aneurysm and post the lyrics to "Workin' on a Dream" in your dying moments. The Beatles better than Garth Brooks? Really? Better even than Celine Dion? Say it ain't so. And yet, my heart will go on, because there are numerous other bands that I find vastly more interesting and listenable than The Beatles. Broad treatises on peace, simplistic love songs and psychedelic word association don't intrigue me anymore. The bands I prefer undoubtedly stood on the shoulders of giants, but so did The Beatles. There are lots of artists who have demonstrated distinct musical voices, and the fact that they haven't been embraced by millions of screaming girls standing on the precipice of a monumental cultural shift doesn't tell me that they are any less compelling.

I can't refute any of your points, and I won't, because they are the core of my opinion. Good use of italics, though.

[Stubblecat]

I have to stay out of this thread. I must...

Okay, I'll just keep it short:

Everything we love abuot popular music (and even a lot of the things we hate) can be traced back to the Beatles. They will always be the most important band in the world.

Next month there will be a HUGE reminder of their influence and greatness. If you don't like 'em, prepare to plug your ears and turn off your TV.

[Dunnyman]

You argue as if creative growth, prolific careers or high sales are indicators of quality. You're right, they are incredibly popular.

I would say individually, those points are not indications of quality, but all together, plus massive critical respect, and they are pretty much surefire indications of quality.

And yet, my heart will go on, because there are numerous other bands that I find vastly more interesting and listenable than The Beatles.

And not a single one of them would have existed without the Beatles. To me, that's a point that gets overlooked way too often. Plus I guarantee that not a single one of them recorded their first, breakthrough record in a mere nine hours. They changed music forever in....nine hours.

The bands I prefer undoubtedly stood on the shoulders of giants, but so did The Beatles.

Um, whose shoulders would those be? Elvis? Chuck Berry? Buddy Holly? By the end of their second record they'd already eclipsed them. Elvis still has fame, but I doubt if 25 out of a hundred 25 year olds even know who Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly are. So that Buddy Holly Rock Band version? Not gonna happen. However, they are saying that Beatles Rock Band may be the biggest selling video game in history. Hmmph. Ruling an industry that didn't even start 'til they were all in their 40's? Overrated? My ass.

[Andrew Forbes]

Yes, they're massively popular and critically acclaimed. To an excessive degree. Music today wouldn't have existed without The Beatles. And The Beatles wouldn't have existed without Chuck Berry. And Chuck Berry wouldn't have existed without the blues. And the blues wouldn't have existed without slavery. And slavery ain't that great. The influence of a thing doesn't equate its quality, it simply arises from its qualities. That someone created something seminal does not mean that they will not be bettered. And regardless of how influential and popular The Beatles are, I still want to murder the next person who plays Hey Jude within my hearing range, because hearing it 20,000 times is more than enough.

[Stubblecat]

Sorry, there is no argument that you can make to validate your point. There is essentially close to 50 years worth of documented evidence to prove that the Beatles were the finest example of music and pop culture since the beginning of recorded sound.

That doesn't make your opinion without value though. If you don't like the Beatles, you don't like 'em. To this day, I will never understand the appeal of anything Elvis did after 1959. Or how millions of people suddenly think that Michael Jackson is the finest artist of the last 25 years. Or how whenever people compile lists of the best albums of all time, there always seem to be a crop of reallt recent crap records in the top 20. Or how anyone can like Jethro Tull.

[the5thghostbuster]

Or how anyone can like Jethro Tull.

Them's fightin' words! LONG LIVE THE TULL!!!

(Seriously though, I do love Jethro Tull)

[Stubblecat]

I was just foolin' anyway!

No, seriously: Jethro Tull suck.

Back to the original point of the thread: Nobody here will probably believe this, but my 4 and 6-year-old daughters count Yellow Submarine as one of their favourite movies. They ask for it specifically, they know the dialogue and they sing the songs. And I didn't even force it on them. They recognized the cover by comparing it to the CD, and already enjoyed the Beatles music, so they asked to watch it.

Here's what Yellow Submarine is: Crude, awkward, disjointed and rough.
But here what it also is: Trippy, colourful, witty and one of the best examples of psychedelia in film. It's loaded with great songs and fun dialogue, and (most importantly) it is perfectly of its time. Remaking it today would be pointless, because that film could only be made in 1969. To make it today would be irrelevant, as it has no place as a 'new' movie.

Note to Robert Zemeckis: If you want to do something CG, how about making a 'hard-R' CG Heavy Metal film? The magazine literally has decades worth of awesome stories. There must be a few you could adapt into a great film.

[Dunnyman]

Here's what Yellow Submarine is: Crude, awkward, disjointed and rough.
But here what it also is: Trippy, colourful, witty and one of the best examples of psychedelia in film. It's loaded with great songs and fun dialogue, and (most importantly) it is perfectly of its time. Remaking it today would be pointless, because that film could only be made in 1969. To make it today would be irrelevant, as it has no place as a 'new' movie.

Note to Robert Zemeckis: If you want to do something CG, how about making a 'hard-R' CG Heavy Metal film? The magazine literally has decades worth of awesome stories. There must be a few you could adapt into a great film.

Indeed. A modern, high tech Heavy Metal would be interesting especially if they push the boundaries. Not Zemeckis, he no longer has any vision or talent, so he'll just hack the beloved corpse of a wonderfully fun movie into some twisted pile of pigsh*t that no one would recognize because it's so incredibly horrible. It's ideas like this that actually make me look forward to a movie version of Laverne and Shirley or Welcome Back Kotter.
NO! I didn't mean it, please no, Hollywood no! Paging Selma Blair and Reese Witherspoon! Nooooo...auuuggghhhh......

[Dunnyman]

It's ideas like this that actually make me look forward to a movie version of Laverne and Shirley or Welcome Back Kotter.
NO! I didn't mean it, please no, Hollywood no! Paging Selma Blair and Reese Witherspoon! Nooooo...auuuggghhhh......

Oh dear god...no....I was only joking....

[jcankerhuxley]

I would agree with Mr. Gervais, the animation in Yellow Submarine is horrible by today's standards. It looks like cheap Terry Gilliam animation gone apesh*t with color.

Check it for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI5WsZ1HwS4

A revision of this may be rather interesting.

[tucco]

The movie Yellow Submarine is by far my least favorite Beatles project of any type, mostly due to the animation....something very dour looking about the illustrations.
Magical Mystery Tour may have been deemed a failure, but I'll take it anytime over Submarine.

[Stubblecat]

People listen... It was made in 1969. It's a relic of psychedila. It looks exactly the way it's supposed to look. You either like it or you don't, but it's certainly not meant to stand up next to Disney standards.

[J.M. Vargas]

Disney will shut down Zemeckis' IMD Studios in early 2011: http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/disney-closing-zemeckis-digital-studio-in-2011/.

“Bob and the entire IMD team successfully built a state of the art studio and produced an amazing film, A Christmas Carol, at a time when the dynamics of the industry are rapidly changing,” said Alan Bergman, President of The Walt Disney Studios. “But, given today’s economic realities, we need to find alternative ways to bring creative content to audiences and IMD no longer fits into our business model.”

The Studio is hoping to create a new long-term production deal with Zemeckis and his IMD partners, Jack Rapke and Steve Starkey, which will include the continued development of the Yellow Submarine project.

Guess "A Christmas Carol 3D" really spooked Disney about the chances of recouping its investment with another Zemeckis IMD project (after "Mars Needs Moms" wraps) given the enormous expenses.

[J.M. Vargas]

DISNEY OFFICIALLY KILLS ZEMECKIS' "YELLOW SUBMARINE" REMAKE PROJECT (though he is free to shop it around to other studios). The box office disaster that "Mars Needs Moms" turned out to be had a lot to do with this decision: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/movies/mars-needs-moms-and-paying-customers.html?_r=1&ref=movies.

[Jim_Thomas]

DISNEY OFFICIALLY KILLS ZEMECKIS' "YELLOW SUBMARINE" REMAKE PROJECT (though he is free to shop it around to other studios). The box office disaster that "Mars Needs Moms" turned out to be had a lot to do with this decision: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/movies/mars-needs-moms-and-paying-customers.html?_r=1&ref=movies.

and there was much rejoicing...

[Ptolemy]

I also love Jethro Tull