Originally Posted By mawnck I missed this one last month. And I sort of wish I had continued to miss it. Ignorance was bliss. <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007485.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2562" target="_blank">http://www.variety.com/article...nid=2562</a> >>Disney and Robert Zemeckis are looking to catch the wave of Beatlemania, floating a new 3-D "Yellow Submarine" for the bigscreen, with merchandising in tow and prospects for spinning off both a Broadway musical and a Cirque du Soleil stage production. Disney hopes to have the film ready to premiere around the 2012 Summer Olympics.<< >>Key to the deal is Zemeckis’ access to 16 classic Beatles tunes<< >>Zemeckis plans to use the 3-D performance-capture format he utilized on the upcoming "A Christmas Carol,"<< More blue meanies at the link.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I swear to God, if the Jonas Brothers are cast in this movie in any way shape or form I will literally hurt someone.....
Originally Posted By mawnck Disney legend Robin Williams as Jeromy Hillary Boob, PhD. And of course Tom Hanks as Old Fred.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>>Zemeckis plans to use the 3-D performance-capture format he utilized on the upcoming "A Christmas Carol,"<<> Which I hope is a lot better than what they used in Polar Express. Especially if they make YS. If they gave the Blue Meanies those creepy "dead eyes," okay. If they give them to the Beatles, I'll have to start re-examining my lapsed faith in "Paul is dead."
Originally Posted By mele Seems weird to remake a movie when it's rare for people to voluntarily watch the original.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Seems weird to remake a movie when it's rare for people to voluntarily watch the original.<< ??? The film was a big success, spawned tons of merchandising (which continues), and is considered by most animation eggheads as THE film that broke animation out of its kiddie ghetto. And Ward Kimball recommended it.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Submarine" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y...ubmarine</a>_(film) 7.1 out of 10 isn't too bad....
Originally Posted By mele I know the film was successful and that people love it. But I don't really know anyone who really actually ever wants to watch it. IMO, it's one of those movies that people buy because they think they need to have it but never actually get around to watching it. (It might be different for older generations.) I'm so tired of all of the remakes lately. It's getting really out of hand. It's depressing to think that the entertainment industry mainly seems to be focusing on rehashing old ideas instead of creating new ones.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But I don't really know anyone who really actually ever wants to watch it. > Do ya' know me? I love this film and watched it about 9 months ago just because I felt like it.
Originally Posted By mele I'll add you to my spreadsheet of people I know vs. people I don't know who watch it. ;-) But the question remains...will you watch the remake?
Originally Posted By basil fan Nah. It's Tough to Be a Bird <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/tough.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ugh.html</a>
Originally Posted By Bellella I LOVE the Beatles and I LOVE Yellow Submarine. I'm planning to buy the original on DVD. It'll be interesting to see a new take on this movie, as long as they stick to the original storyline and keep all the songs. And by the way, I think the Jonas Brothers are absolutely ADORABLE!!!
Originally Posted By Ursula Why make this? Is the first one broken or something? Do they need to look at this to change their mind?: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078239/" target="_blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078239/</a>
Originally Posted By BrnardM This smacks of being a dream project for Zemekis or something. That's the only reason I can think of to justify such a remake. The original is such a time capsule that I just can't see a straight remake working at all. It would just seem anachronistic now. Julie Taymore recently payed tribute to the Beatles and I appreciate her effort more than what Zemekis is trying to do.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>The film was a big success, spawned tons of merchandising (which continues), and is considered by most animation eggheads as THE film that broke animation out of its kiddie ghetto.<<< Yes, but when will anyone understand that the movie was a success because it WAS the Beatles. I am the older generation and I have no desire to see a remake. It could never be the same. Why not? IT'S NOT THE BEATLES! Anyone remember when they tried to make Sgt. Peppers into a movie. OMG, it was awful. What was worse was the young generation started making the statement that the music was better than the original Beatles arrangements. That the movie captured the "Real" meaning that the Beatles were trying to convey. I am hard pressed to see how it could be better expressed then by the people that created it and knew exactly what it meant. OK, enough anger display. All I can say is I hope it never happens, not now, not ever. NEVER!!!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Why not? IT'S NOT THE BEATLES!<< Wellllll, technically, neither was the original. The Beatles' entire participation in that film consisted of (1) providing a few songs, which were rejects from their LPs, and (2) the brief live appearance at the end of the film. They had nothing to do with the writing, or the look of the film, or even the voices. In fact, they were trying to distance themselves from it as much as possible, since it was the same studio that did the dreadful Beatles TV show. They were as surprised as anybody that the filmmakers were actually working like crazy to make the flick something special. >>All I can say is I hope it never happens, not now, not ever. NEVER!!!<< On that, we agree 1000000%. Unfortunately, the closest thing I can think of to the Sgt. Pepper movie in recent times is Mamma Mia, and it made truckloads of money. At least the Pepper soundtrack used people who could sing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What was worse was the young generation started making the statement that the music was better than the original Beatles arrangements.> Really? Other than besotted Bee Gees or Frampton fans, I don't remember anyone saying that, and can't imagine it. The critical consensus at the time was that they were god-awful remakes that hewed way too closely to the originals. If you're going to just ape the originals, what's the point? (See also: Psycho remake). The one song that worked was EWF doing "Got to Get You Into My Life" - specifically because they made it something different. <That the movie captured the "Real" meaning that the Beatles were trying to convey.> I don't remember anyone saying that either. Certainly the critics savaged the movie and rightly so. And the audience I saw it with laughed at it almost non-stop. When Frampton put the coffin on his shoulder and they broke into "Boy, you're gonna carry that weight a long time" the place exploded with unintended guffaws. It pretty much ended Frampton's career, and knocked the Bee Gees down a peg or two as well. So if there's any lesson to be learned here, it's that if this is done, it shouldn't just ape the original, a la the Bee Gee's versions of Beatles songs or something like the Psycho remake. If they actually try to do something different with it, it could work (or it could fail). If they hew too closely to the original, it will almost certainly fail. It says Zemeckis has access to 16 Beatles songs. Other than the title tune and probably "All You Need is Love" I hope they use DIFFERENT songs than the ones they used in the original. We've seen Lucy in the Sky illustrated (wonderfully) in the original - why not use another song? Songs like LITS and Eleanor Rigby had nothing to do with the plot; they were just an excuse for some cool animation. So why not use different songs we haven't seen animated before? There's a start for making it different right there.
