BEFORE YOU COMMENT!! Just know that I consider this my WORST video and that watching this after two year makes me cringe! I stand behind the fact that this movie was a wasted opportunity and not good but my nit-picks are a little extreme. I set this up like it was going to be a proper vide essay and end up doing a lazy, middling roast of every scene. Very CinemaSins which is not what I’d go for these days. If this is your introduction to my channel, just know that I make better stuff now!
Sorry. I'm a little late to the party. I SO wanted to love this movie. I found the premise intriguing. I love the Beatles. What could go wrong? So SO much. I agree with your assessment on every single point. I would add though, that it felt like a ten-book series that somehow had to be condensed into a thousand-word article. There were so many little bits that could have been expanded to help this movie make any sense at all. I feel like a lot of it was decided by committee. Or someone saying, "Gee, we don't have time for that thread. Just end it with a not-quite-funny line and let's move on." I did, however, absolutely love that John was alive and well and living his best life. Great video. Great channel. Glad I found it : )
I appreciate your reflection, and I came to comments to basically say the same thing. It's so overly negative. You're watching a film where the literal premise is "What if only one guy remembered the Beatles" and you spend 5 minutes complaining about how implausible everything is. I'll definitely check out some of your other stuff.
I loved this video and there were nit picks in here which I hadn't noticed when I watched the movie. You pinpointed the same reasons I thought the movie wasted its opportunities, but you were also very kind and respectful to the cast and crew and original creator of this movie. Not CinemaSins at all!
I so wanted an end of credits scene where Paul and Ringo, playing themselves as they are now, running a small vinyl shop in Liverpool as if the whole Beatles thing had never happened and they were friends regardless of the band.
Nah What would’ve happened was: Paul knocks up Dot Rhone and they have a child, they marry, he settles down and gets a normal job, going to school on the side. He eventually becomes an English teacher and has a perfectly ordinary but pleasant life, he still loves playing music, and like his father before him has a small band as a hobby and plays the piano during family gatherings Ringo Starr goes on to have a moderately successful career with the hurricanes before jumping between bands and eventually becoming a coveted session musician George Harrison becomes an electrician who later becomes part of the Hare Krishna movement John Lennon is able to have a better relationship with his mother, he later bounces between several jobs, writing stories for the local newspaper on the side, he eventually finds a nice woman and raises a family
@@flamingpi2245 in my opinion Paul would have been the only one who would be a successful musician outside of the context of The Beatles. He is just that good and driven.
I believe in his conversation with John, there is a line that implies that the Beatles still existed, but they just never reached any level of success as a band. I have to say, the alternate reality and sci-fi aspect of the movies was way more of an interesting aspect than the love story, and even after it kinda has me hooked just for that. Like why only him and those 2 other people? What caused it? Did this timeline's version of him get transferred to a world WITH the Beatles? Does cocaine or any other drugs exist if nobody seems to think he's asking for drugs when he asks for "coke," and cigarettes don't exist?
@Dylan Sevey at the time in the film where they have that convo, the "incident" erasing the Beatles hadn't yet happened. So that could have been their original past. What of it? Consider it a time travel paradox or something, if you like.
@@buddyneher9359 Once the "incident" occurred, it should have erased the fact that he sang wonderwall in high school. It means she never fell in love with him, yet somehow, everything is exactly the same after the "incident". Excellent point by Dylan
Just wanted to point out that Revolution 9 was on one of the sticky notes posted on Jack's wall, implying that Jack actually intended to recreate the Beatles' 8 1/2 minute avant-garde collage of sounds entirely from memory
@@beatlecristian Can you imagine transcribing all the chords? From memory?!?!?!? I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that’d take years upon years to do unless your music theory & ear is absolutely world class, and you’d still be left with a rather bland, something-missing, not-quite-right version of the songs. Don’t get me started on how hard the basslines would be to remember
@@matthewvaughan8192 The guy who did arrangements for the Beatlemania musical had to transcribe everything by ear, including the outro to "All you need is Love", and even they would probably struggle with Revolution 9 lol. Also yes, Beatlemania the musical was a thing. It's worth looking into actually. The channel Wait in the Wings has a pretty in depth video on it.
Clever ! Change one word and solve the problem. "We" even sounds pretty close to "She." So now all of us old farts that got our puberty entangled with The Beatles still can sing this song without coming across as pervos.
The twist I anticipated but never emerged was that Ed Sheeran also became famous from stealing lost music that were lost. That would have been a great twist
The commentary channel Pretty Much It made a humorous suggestion that the movie should have had Sheeran be the only other person who remembered the Beatles and he and the main character get in a race to release the most Beatles music before the other one does.
I got hit in a crosswalk by a car in high school, people said something similar, I picked up my backpack,shook it off and went to school instead of the hospital.
The way this movie portrays the music industry is basically the way I thought the music industry worked when I was thirteen. It really makes it come across that the film is trying to indulge the fantasies of young people dreaming of fame, while the original concept was about how capricious, unfair, and artificial the machinery of fame actually is.
Is it though? Or is the original screen play a self indulgent bit of ego stroking. He's basically saying it's all luck, and that even if he wrote great stories like Star Wars etc. it doesn't assure success. In other words he thinks his drivel is on par with Star Wars but he just hasn't been "lucky". "No one understands my genius". I think the original story says more about the dented fragile ego of the writer than it does about the actual industry. I can also imagine why he was unhappy that it was changed to reflect that great material will always be recognized, regardless of the source. It basically now says that the reason you haven't produced the next "Star Wars" is that your writing isn't good enough, and has NOTHING to do with luck.
@@richardwickens2923but the original author is 100% correct. Becoming famous is almost entirely luck based. It’s an extremely saturated industry that puts people through the wringer, and if a single doesn’t get as much traction as the executives want? They’ll churn you out and give your song to the next person. The Beatles, for instance, did make good music. They have thoughtful lyrics, solid musicianship, etc. but you know how many people have the EXACT same qualities, but will never get recognized? Image plays a large part. The “vibes,” surrounding you can be integral to your career. The Beatles were a group of young guys making music for teenagers in a very counter-culture heavy era. They were creative with album titles and covers, did projects outside of the music to bring more people TO the music, etc. even their actions in the real world show that just having great music might not be enough.
@@chrishansen8119the elephant in the room being that the Beatles probably wouldn't hit as big in America if their skin color or ethnicity was different. Besides that the Beatles story itself is already messy. Breaking up after only 8 years and becoming the biggest musicians in the west only in their 20s. Johns relationships, domestic abuse, and death at the hands of a fan. Their albums being burned because they dared to say they were more popular than Jesus. Their sanity even being questioned because of their transition from clean cut boys and a teenybopper image to hippie rakes.
There’s actually a short film with Ian Hart as an older John if he quit The Beatles in 1963 and I honestly feel like that’s way closer to how John would have ended up.
@@thomaspappalardo7589 I disagree. I think Yesterday gets it right. I think even if the Beatles happened, he'd probably be a happy old man, disconnected from the world, for the most part, and doing his art.
@@danjlp9155 John never would have had a happy life: His inability to have a work ethic, his acerbic tongue, and his resentment of authority would have had him bouncing from menial job to menial job like his father.
@@thomaspappalardo7589 yeah, but that is a story where the beatles yes happened but john left, in yesterday the beatles did not happened at all. the short film is more like the real story of pete best but with john in his place, with the fame of the beatles chasing him wherever he go
YES! This film absolutely pissed me off! The weirdest thing I thought was that Richard Curtis seemingly believes the music industry hasn't changed since 2005... for example, when Jack first records the Beatles songs he doesn't release them on UA-cam like any aspiring songwriter would today... he burns them to CD and hands them out at a shop! Then later in the film he is discovered by Sheeran not online (as would be realistic today) but on LOCAL TELEVISION! And to cap the whole mess off, the grand conclusion of the film is that Jack releases all the music onto the internet so people can illegally download it for free! Does Richard Curtis still think Limewire is a popular way to consume music!?
You know what? I hadn't even thought of that. I'd been mourning the missed opportunity to at least explore creative processes in the studio, but yours is a great observation that takes this further. The over-the-top boardroom scene is clearly designed to poke fun at the industry, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. Richard Curtis doesn't even understand the industry that he's poking fun at. The one time this film consciously tries to make comment, it misses. Sigh...
This is such a good point! Jacks’s entire rise in the music industry is rooted in such an old fashioned, tropey-way apart from vague social media montages which only highlight how out of touch film-makers are. Cheers David!
I couldn't get past how the bus would lose power during a power outage. Do English buses run on something other than fuel or batteries? And to use solar flares as the cause? "A wizard did it" makes more sense. I still don't know what to make of the meeting with John at the end. Does he meet Yoko if he isn't famous. Does he make it into his late 70s simply because he isn't a Beatle. Of course, with cigarettes never having been invented ...
@@dougdrazga4461 It wasn't a power outage. It was more akin to an EMP event. Anything that uses electricity shut down, and a modern bus would certainly be affected I believe, if all its electrics stopped working.
I feel like no one ever points out how the other two people who remember the beatles try to "gotcha question" Jack at the album press conference as to seem like they want to expose what he's done, but then after the performance meet him backstage to thank him for what he's done???
I think nobody points it out because there are so many flaws with the movie that they focus on other stuff. That scene was so weird. Of course it was done to create tension, but it makes no sense at all. I have a couple of theories about it lol: 1. Maybe they did it so they could get his attention so when they asked to talk to him back stage he would accept because he’s worried about them exposing him 2. They actually didn’t say anything at all, but just raised the Yellow Submarine and he hallucinated the comments the same way he had the dream about James Corden’s scene. I guess I’m just trying to justify the nonsense while procrastinating working 😂
Thank you!! I thought that finally, something logical was going to happen in this movie. Nope! Why even have this scene? But then the larger question becomes, Why even have this movie? Ugh.
That’s right! A thief and a fraud is rewarded by two characters who somehow, like him, have access to an alternate universe and history. A blackmail subplot would have made sense, but an imagined euphoria generated by Beatles music apparently caused these characters to feel grateful to the main character for bringing this music back. Yes, this movie is a fantasy, but there never was a pretty pink cloud of joy that made lovers of Beatles music believe that the world was much affected by the music. Of course music was forever influenced by them, but the world continues much as it always has, with all of its beauty and ugliness and us humans are still stumbling along, trying to make sense of it while allowing for a bit of fun.
It is obvious Jack is IMAGINING those gotcha questions. It's a clever bit of misdirection to convey the guilt Jack is feeling over 'stealing' the Beatle's songs and becoming hyper-famous in the process, way beyond what his natural talent would take him.
You raise a good point. At least the writers and director could have drawn some inspiration from "Back to the Futures" use of countless little twists and ironies caused by the time difference and alternate reality, some of them you might not catch on your first viewing. Doing so would have made YESTERDAY more clever, funny, and entertaining.
The Beatles did not exist in a vacuum. Without the Beatles, the current musical landscape would be absolutely unrecognizable. So many bands were directly influenced and/or inspired by the Beatles. So many more artists were inspired by those bands, and so on. Eliminating the Beatles from history would have had a domino effect, the repercussions of which would still be evident today.
yes!! like Nirvana for instance, they pretty much set up the landscape for 90's rock music. Kurt Cobain was undoubtedly directly influenced by the beatles, he even said so himself. And that's just one example out of so many
Talking about badly written roles for women, what really grated for me about Ellie in the Liverpool Station scene was that she gets angry at him for making her wait 15 years without expressing his feelings for her. Er...what was she doing all that time? The film portrays her as a wet blanket who devotes her life to fawning over him and his career, and waiting all that time for him to say or do anything romantic.
@@CATLANCER they're both emotionally constipated, but its weird how she has a go at him for all the things she's guilty of. They're both to blame. But since he's the protagonist we can kinda forget that as he has a story and music career going on, whereas her character exists solely to follow him around and be won.
@@phatmanlovescake 🤭 you understand that there is this thing called film discussion where people have whole conversations about film construction and character motivations? While still knowing its a fictional film. The video talked about Ellie being a badly written female character and that's what my original comment was on.
There's a Japanese manga, "Boku wa Beatles", about a Japanese Beatles cover band who fall back in time and compete with the Beatles in the 60s. It's far more interesting than this.
@Sonny the Duck I mean- there's a manga called Shiori Experience where Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain have to help this girl become a musical legend before her 28th birthday otherwise she's going to die. So anime Beatles doesn't sound too out there 💀
i love the theory that ed sherran is in this so much is because this is his story. he's from an alternative universe where a wildly sucessuful band made a series of math titled albums in the 60s
@Nicefisher aside from the fact that the scope of music in general wouldn't be the same as today, im also pretty sure that people wouldnt be as socially conscious as they would in this day and age. racism, sexism, and homophobia would probably be widespread, if it werent for them, and the political landscape would drastically change as well.
It's also improbable there wouldn't have been a different band named The Beatles or even The Beetles. Naming a band is very hard, because everything is taken. Beat - being synonymous with music - surely would have been incorporated into something close to 'Beatles'.
One thing that really bothered me about this film is the dishonesty in the marketing. They knew what they were doing when they included that "dream scene" with Paul and Ringo. I was SO excited to see some sort of exploration of how the real Beatles react and challenge Jack, as he profits off their songs (which presumably they had still written, but for some interesting reason were never successful with). The trailers framed that confrontation as a major plot point, and instead we got NO external conflict about Jack stealing these songs. He grows successful and becomes a star with exactly 0 challenges. He remembers every song perfectly and somehow executes his rise to flame flawlessly. Imagine how interesting this movie would be if Jack struggled to make the songs work and had to constantly weave a more complicated string of lies to hide the truth. Even within the movie, Jack's fear of being found out and the constant hints that he's being tracked down by a small group of people who know the truth go nowhere. They just say "thank you for recording the songs" and move on, with no conflict or anger or anything resembling the kind of story we all expected. Instead we get a shockingly boring romcom that wouldn't have stood on its own or have been watched by anyone if it hadn't been attached to the Beatles. The only thing that convinced me to keep watching was the SMALL possibility of a Paul and Ringo cameo, which they shadily tried to imply. And that really upsets me. For a movie that claims to care so much about the Beatles, they sure had no problem manipulating fans into watching an awful romance film under the guise of being a true exploration and subversion of the band's history and legacy. Would be really interested to hear your thoughts on this aspect of the movie.
yeah That would have made the movie much more interesting if. the Beatles were haunting Jack...or jack was channeling the Beatles...or ...I don't know so many options.
I think Ed Sheeran’s hurt puppy act, after realising Jack was far better than he was, was SO arrogant. I don’t think he played a humble guy in this film at all, and like another commenter said, he sticks out in any TV or film he features in, he does have a weird ‘aura’ like they said. Not a fan. Edit: I’ll be honest, I only like this film for the John Lennon sequence, but even that could’ve been far more poignant than it was made to seem. It was in the wrong hands and badly executed, as you said.
i always thought he was a villain in this movie? like he is not a nice character at all... but the awkward humour sort of confuses things. Even the love interest is unlikable and cruel to jack, but it's glossed over?
no lmfao. the point of that scene was that jack feels, talks, behaves like the exact same guy. except now, singing these nice beatles songs, he has everything he thinks he ever wanted. and the conclusion of that is that he makes a nice, humble, actually genuinely talented person just feel like a dickhead, gets people to vaccuosly clap while he has a lost confused look on his face. even the line 'someone better shag him now while you can' (not exact). shows how isolating fame becomes. like why? why would no one be able to get with him and have a relationship with him or be friendly with ihim. even though it sounds like a joke it just shows how this life just pushes you onto a pedestal, and another way of phrasing that is that it pushes you into a shadowy corner with people staring and clapping and just treating you differently. every part of every scene in this, one of the best movies ever made, other than framing and colour etc, has these type of comments.
The Beatles wrote so many insanely good songs in such a short time that when I watched Yesterday I did question whether maybe this really happened to John and Paul and a bunch of legendary musicians suddenly vanished from all our consciousnesses except those two 😂
In their famoya interview in the 1970s (after the band broke up) they agreed that their separate songwriting efforts pushed each other. Paraphrasing, "If he came in with something and it was really good, I'd go home and try to top that and come in the next day with something even better." By competing they pressed each other to do better work than if they had each been solo.
You have to buy into the fact that Ed Sheeran is "this generation"s Lennon/McCartney for the movie to work. That, alone, is so completely insane that most people can't even begin to get on board.
Ed is a good musician, and quite talented but man the Beatles created new music genres, changed the whole industry. There’s no one who’s this generations Lennon/McCartney, and there probably never will be. It’s impossible to do what they did in this day and age and I wish the movie had explored that
It was so strange because it wasn't like Ed had to be that. His role could've been the guy that gets the main guy into the industry. He didn't have to be some weird god
@@annesilva3542 the beetle’s did not create a new style or genre of music. They’re earlier career was covers of black blues and rock and roll artist like chuck berry. The rest of the beetles career was creative and had its gems but let’s not Mystify them as If they didn’t just popularize styles of r&b and jazz elements.
My problem with this film is that the majority of the film is spent exploring the main guys guilt for stealing Beatles songs which is so unenjoyable to watch. I would have loved it if he as a character was utterly shameless and had no guilt about stealing the songs, and maybe the conflict of the film comes instead from him fighting against the few people who remember the Beatles who want to expose him during his climb to the top. This movie really lacked joy for me.
Here’s a list of things directly caused by the Beatles’ influence on society/pop culture: - Musical: Indian folk music in pop, innovative recording techniques such as reversed guitar solos, the album as a concept, the artist singing his own material, first stadium concerts, first 100w guitar amps, music videos as a promotion tool, massive influence on artists that came after… (comment if you come up with more/better examples) - Sociopolitical: Overtly protesting against segregation and advocating for civil rights in the US, popularisation of certain niche mens fashion/hairstyle/mannerisms, visibility of psychedelics as a creative tool, spreading of eastern philosophy in the west, giving a cohesive format to baby boomers identity. Economic: giving birth to the modern live music industry as we know it today, showing the financial incentives of the LP against the single, inspiring the creations of boy bands that used them as a template… Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Imagine then the consequences of all the things above stated never happening.
One good example of a musical change would have to be the lack of The Beatles' influence on artists who ended up inspiring other artists in turn, whole genres even. The Beach Boys, Queen, The Byrds, and Nirvana are the first bands I think of who had elements of their sound directly taken from The Beatles, and from that alone that's like over half of alternative and indie music gone or warped beyond recognition.
Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention released the first concept album in 1966 which inspired the Beatles to create Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
@@dieter2889 I always thought Sgt Peppers was directly inspired by Pet Sounds, which in turn was also heavily influenced by Rubber Soul. Never heard any member of the band mention Frank Zappa in that regard, tbh. Do you have any link to interviews/excerpts where it is mentioned?
The film really annoyed me in some very specific ways, most of which you picked up on! I'd say the real tragedy of not sticking with the original premise is how much better the John Lennon scene would've hit. Here, John being alive is simply another facet of an already confused timeline where stuff is randomly gone and, as you say, nothing is actually worse. But in the original premise, you could have the low point where Jack realises he's not going to succeed even with the Beatles' music, that he is ultimately always a failure... but then he discovers John. Who cares if this miracle doesn't grant him success? It's saved John Lennon's life. There's your human cost, there's your bittersweet ending, that would help Jack see the bright side and carry on playing the Beatles music because it makes him happy, not because it makes his successful.
I was gonna say “always look on the bright side of life” but given that in Yesterday’s universe the Beatles don’t exist, Monty Python may not have existed either. I mean the Pythons were hugely inspired by the Beatles, and Life of Brian in large part only got made due to George Harrison funding the production! So if the Beatles don’t exist, the Pythons might not exist either or at least not in the form we’d recognise perhaps! This concept of a world without the Beatles had so much going for it and yet it is completely wasted and turned into a Richard Curtis romcom 😡🤬🤣😂 And the Rutles certainly wouldn’t have existed if the Fab Four didn’t! 😂🤣😂
@@arghjayem Would've been funny if The Rutles were the "replacement" for The Beatles in a universe without The Beatles. Like, instead of being inspired by The Beatles; in this universe they *WERE* The Beatles!
That's such a good point. I think the film, even going with Curtis's version, could've explored this ethical question more. I'm sure a lot of Beatles fans wonder if it'd be worth it if the Beatles never existed but John got to live.
Yesterday: "a man lies and cheats his way into the music industry, while treating everyone around him like garbage... he finally tells the truth and is rewarded with a girlfriend" What a heartwarming tale.
@@jacob8949 dude is a solid performer he just doesn’t look the part and let’s be honest any sane person would take the opportunity he had. I just don’t think that was smart for him to throw away for a romance
@@Linfindores probably wouldn’t, no. I don’t have the charisma suited for pop music like they did. I’m more into other types of music, which would likely still exist if they hadn’t
@@Cannon_The_Guy Charisma is just another word for confidence even the biggest rockstars faked it and were nervous as hell. And even if the same music still existed today it wouldn’t be the same because every artists were influenced by the Beatles so would’ve been much different probably worse.
No Beatles = no Monkees = Davy Jones (David Thomas Jones) doesn't become famous. So does David Robert Jones still feel the need to change his last name to Bowie?
this is supposed to be a beatles tribute movie but having practically all of the music industry remain exactly the same undermines their importance to not only music but just general culture,, it's like they're saying "these guys weren't particularly special as people or performers, anyone could have done it because yEsTerDAy iS gOoD soNg!"
It should be noted that there was a possibility that they could have opened the universe up more in the terms of people remembering certain things that others don't with the alternate ending, where the fiance is the one that remembers Harry Potter, while Jack doesn't. It was a great ending idea, I don't know why they chose the ending we see here.
No mention of the bizarre choice to change the ending. They’d originally shot Lily James being the only one who remembers Harry Potter. A much better punchline! Oh well! Good video!
This would've worked so well as a Netflix series It would give so much time to develop the impact of no beatles in the music industry. They could have artists inspired by The Beatles but they have different band names and different genres, I feel series could've worked so well! The movie just feels like an elongated music video
the places they can go dammit: impact on music industry, their solo records, what is appropriate and what is not, all the lawsuits with come together and my sweet lord,... argh.
Imagine if in this alternate universe the full effects of such a change were realized Names change Haircuts change Cultural zeitgeists shift Almost the entire body of popular music from the 60s onward is radically different (just imagine a 60s with the pacemakers as a top British band for the early 60s and a moderately less experimental but perhaps more stable and consistent beach boys leading the charge, with the psychedelic genre being much more niche) Some people never were born Some major events in history never happened The butterfly effect in full swing
The Beatles changed my whole life when I was 7 years old with my 5 year old sister.In 1967 we got to take part in the TV film Magical Mystery Tour for 2 days from the 23rd to the 24th of September 1967 -55 years ago. Today we have one of the largest Magical Mystery Tour Collections on the planet
I agree totally with this. There was something about the idea of the people who also remembered Beatles but couldn't sing that really moved me, and of course the Lennon scene had me in tears. That made me really moved by the movie even though I recognise a lot of flaws in it and see a lot of ways it could be better.
I just mentioned that to my son. It was meant to be a fictional feel good film not a fact-checked opus. I just rewatched it the other night. It is a fantasy, not to be taken seriously or as rock gospel. I love the McCartney album review on this channel-I thought it was genius. Can't we have a little Beatles influenced fantasy in a plague ridden world?
My thoughts as to why Ed Sheeran is in this movie so prominently. The movie suggests that it not be just Jack's lack of good songs that is holding him back, it's looks and charisma. But then here is dorky Ed Sheeran, who despite all odds, is an international pop star. He's there to show you that it is possible to be famous even if you aren't conventially attractive.
@@womp47 I've often said barely anyone is ugly, most people are just normal-looking or could clean up nice if they wanted to, but Ed Sheeran is legit ugly. I highly doubt you are worse off than him.
This was probably one of the first movies that I was genuinely critical of. I remember going all cinema sins on it while leaving the theater and thinking “man, why does this guy make so many obscure and specific pop culture references”
Does anyone ever wonder what would've happened if John had decided to live with his father in Australia when he was 5? Surely the Beatles would've never happened and it's scary how it all came down to the decision of a 5 year old.
They could've started the movie like that. A 5 year old John flipping a coin creating two different timelines. Of course they'd have to come up with a way where jack would unknowingly switch timelines.
@@bobotten9085 John could have grown up to be Two Face the Batman villain who always decides things with the flip of a coin and Paul could have grown up to be the Riddler, leaving clues in songs as to whether or not if he's dead or which bank he's going to rob.
Really surprised that the climax of this movie isn’t centered around everybody in the world suddenly remembering The Beatles and him looking like a huge fraud all of the sudden. I guess I just assumed that would be what happens.
So you didn't realize that he was going to be stuck in an alternate reality forever? It's not 'Remembering' he literally went into a fucking alternate reality which he now can't escape from, the Beatles were never formed in that universe
The Beatles were a great band with a classic catalog that is the envy of practically every musician. However, they had a hell of a lot more than just that, they had the whole package. They were 4 cherubic young lads with great looks and truckloads of charisma bopping around the stage having the time of their lives, you can't help but have a good time watching their early performances, it's infectious. You can't bottle that and give their songs to just anyone and expect them to achieve the same results, that's madness. I'm glad I didn't watch this movie, the preview was preposterous enough to warn me away from what would otherwise be right up my alley.
You should have watched the movie. You'd see just how even a chubby, unattractive man with mediocre talent could STILL make the Beatle's songs come to life because they were THAT GOOD. Yeah, the movie is fluff, but it remains enjoyable and the ending with John is precious.
As a 13 year old when this came out, my mind was racing when I heard about it, having only seen clips of the trialer I thought Ed sheeran was going to be just some guy because pop music as we know didn’t exist, and I think that if i at age 13 could grasp the impact the Beatles had on music and the world, then the writers of the this film were just truly lazy in not conveying that at all.
@@kidnamedfinger2502 quite a bit changes in those 3 years at least in the uk, yk drinking and sex and all that. but yh my point still stands regardless of how old i am now
@@kidnamedfinger2502 but it's true, there's plenty of difference between 13 and 16. Growth is much faster than say between 32 and 35. It's roughly a fifth of their age, so it makes sense that they see themselves change a lot
Also it's wild that they mention James Taylor in this movie since he notoriously got his big break with the help of Paul Mccartney and was the first non-British act to sign onto Apple Records.
Jack should have looked for all 4 of them (with no Ciggies, George is still alive) and explained to them what happened because in the Time Space Continuum, the Lads still wrote and preformed these songs on another dimension and/or parallel universe…. They still would have had their vague musical memories to re-learn the songs from Jack…. And, a whole new Mania for the Beatles would exist…. What happened to Yoko, Linda, Hey Jude, etc is for someone else to figure out!!
I don’t get the modern angst about the opening of “I Saw Her Standing There”. The song is past tense. It could be a memory of the singer meeting his high school sweetheart who he is still with.
@@thecage2580 I was just going to say the same. It's true that times have changed but also a lot of the fuss is from Americans who are used to an older age of consent and seemingly can't conceive of somewhere in the world being different. (Just don't mention Jerry Lee Lewis or Chuck Berry!)
There is a 2006 french film called Jean-Philippe with a very similar scenario. In this movie, the hero has an accident and wake up in a world where Johnny Halliday (a very famous french singer) is not famous. So he founds the unknown Johnny, played by the real Johnny Halliday, and try to convince him to become a singer. I wonder if the scenarist of Yesterday knows this movie.
I really enjoy The Beatles’ music, but this movie feels like the embodiment of every annoying belief and cliché related to Beatles worshippers, including the deluded notion that their songs would still be similarly beloved and successful if it had been dropped in a completely different social context by a completely different person
I was so unbelievably bored by his covers that it's not even funny. And The Long and Winding Road is a great song, but if one guy on piano played it to me without having ever heard it, there's no way I would immediately praise it as "one of the greatest songs ever" like Ed Sheeran does in this film. Like come on, that song is so beloved in large part because it was the universally-adored Beatles performing it as one of their final songs as a group. The way this movie presents things, Paul McCartney could've banged out the whole Beatles discography in an afternoon on acoustic guitar and still would've sold millions and millions of records.
Missing another key element too: George Martin. The Beatles did wite good music and lyrics, but not for a second do I believe they would've been as popular as they were if it wasn't for George Martin.
Agree, and the one thing I didn’t like about this review is the other annoying belief that without the Beatles various bands “wouldn’t exist” as if the Beatles were the only band or artist doing similar things or experimenting at the time. You had the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, the Doors, Buddy Holly, Elvis, the Hollies, I could go on. The Beatles were a huge part and almost certainly the spearhead in changing the musical landscape, but it’s just disrespectful to the other artists of the time (including the hundreds of bands in Liverpool and Birmingham etc in the 60s who played live but maybe never recorded but will still have influenced people including the Beatles) to say that without them everything would be completely different. Also side note. If the Beatles and Oasis both never existed I reckon you’d sell far more records recording Oasis tracks than Beatles tracks. You can argue that the Beatles walked so Oasis can run all you like, but it’s still Oasis that are running. When Jack has his realisation “I know the tracks are solid, it’s me that’s the problem” my response was actually hmmm maybe the tracks aren’t actually as solid as you think they are without the cultural phenomenon that the Beatles have been presented to you in. That’s the REAL missed opportunity IMO, are the Beatles songs actually incredible or are they just so culturally significant to Jack from his perspective of living in that world, for people outside that cultural reference point would they ever get it?
I would have made a movie about the Beatles breaking up in 1960 after George Paul and Pete got deported from Hamburg, and the lads all going their separate ways and living normal life. Then in 1970 (they year they actually broke up), John and Paul happen to bump into each other and catch up on old times, they talk about what songs they've been listening to (the music scene is still pretty much what it was in 1962-63 with a few advances). They go to John's home where they find Cynthia and Julian, who John stayed with in this timeline. John and Paul go into the music room and reminisce over some old originals they wrote together and start jamming on one, Love Me Do.
"Missed opportunity" is the phrase that comes to mind for this movie. It's not an awful movie, but it ignores everything that made the concept so interesting. Alternate realities absolutely hinge on cause and effect, and this movie never even hints at it. The John visit is my favorite scene as well, but even then, he didn't ask the questions I wanted to know... like: Does the name Paul McCartney ring a bell? No idea why the Beatles didn't form...did he never meet Paul? Did he meet him but Paul couldn't make it to The Quarrymen practice? Not even a hint as to why The world changed. And you're right, the differences that go back over 100 years with no explanation. If this film gave us more answers, or even more interesting questions with hints peppered throughout the film, that could have been something, but no, just non-sequitur random differences that don't add up to anything. And yeah, it's hard to believe this was directed by one of film's greatest directors! Did the studio meddle and screw it up? In such capable hands, how did this end up such a disappointment??
Yes, I just saw it on Netflix for the first time. I can't stop going over all the things they could have done which easily could have turned this mediocre film into a classic heartfelt fantasy/comedy like Groundhog Day or Ghost Busters.
@@j.d.waterhouse4197 absolutely! And the worst part is that now the idea is wasted. It's just too specific so nobody will ever run with the same concept and give us the movie we would have wanted to see! That's what bugs me the most. I don't begrudge a great director making a mediocre film; I begrudge that he totally through away a great concept that can probably never be done right!
@@kevdmiller Yes, it was a fairly mediocre film, but not bad enough that someone would be willing to remake it...very unfortunate for us Beatles fans!
I'd say it was likely a little bit of studio interference (they'd push for Ed Sheeran to be a "big role" because "he's the in thing, that'll draw in the 14-22 demographic that we need") and likely they would have been the ones to cut Ana de Armas when they realised she was more likeable entirely accidentally because nobody had focused on Lily James and just hoped some early witty dialogue would set them up well...except most of the early dialogue has to go into setting up the Beatles and then the pointless "friends" and the accident... It's just confused. But really if you look at Richard Curtis' biggest films they are all self written projects, largely based on his own life or close friends according to interviews, they've taken years to write he says and they are crucially romantic comedy, nothing else. This is trying to be a music biopic, time travel/parallel universe....romantic comedy. And it really wants to mythologize the world of writing songs, which we already do too much, the whole plot is about how special one person is for coming up with one or two songs but it never really impacts the plot itself, its like the plot happens despite the accident and the love story is forgotten about in favour of showing the pop star lifestyle just so "we can see what he has to choose between" when it comes to the big final moment. Crucially Richard Curtis usually writes AND directs his own films but this was partly a Danny Boyle film, another influence, however good at film making, likely (knowing Danny's style) trying to pull it in a darker edgier, realist, grounded direction towards criticising the music industry just adding a further complication and detracting from the plot. I think the best comparison is "About Time" (2013) which I actually consider to be Richard Curtis' finest film. That was also a very complicated premise, it was a time travel romantic comedy, but crucially didn't over stress any of the explanation because it doesn't matter, the gimmick is just the hook for us to explore the concept and MOST CRUCIALLY it actually explored time travel in a way that I think was new and more interesting than even Back to the Future had, the film has a great central moral message that even leaves the audience not feeling like they missed out because they didn't get a time travelling DeLorean. Everything that "About Time" gets right "Yesterday" gets wrong. It's also just not that funny... 😂 Like it is really short of jokes, I wonder how many jokes Richard wrote that Danny Boyle either didn't film or some producer cut out to give more screen time to James Corden "because we need that recognised brand integration and he'll shout the film out at prime time West Coast if he's in it on his actual show" but unless I ever get to meet Richard Curtis (and get stuck with him in an elevator for a few hours) I doubt we'll ever know 😂
This movie fails its premise so profoundly. Imagine if Jack wakes up to find himself in a sort of endless 50’s modern landscape. Music is still crooners and one hit wonders. Concept albums have never been a thing. Guitars are relegated to the background. The Cold War never ended, the 60’s never truly began, and the entire world’s development was stunted and stagnated without that cultural lynchpin. Jack’s introducing of the Beatles’ music would thus become a way to start the clock back up on human development and consciousness. That would be a far more interesting film, and would actually prove the Beatles were necessary. Either that or the original idea, where even having the Beatles’ catalog can’t save him from obscurity. But not what they made.
And as an indian man his idea would get stolen just like elvis stole from chuck berry and cilla black stole from dionne warwick. That would be so much more interesting. Him going through that as a modern brown man and the fact that the songs arent really his either. Could potentially be very funny.
@@The1starberry Most performers in those days did covers almost all of the time, very few wrote even one of their own songs and almost any popular song was covered multiple times within weeks. In that context., describing this as "stealing" seems somewhat over the top. Oh, and Dionne Warwick's songs covered by Cilla Black were created by the not noticeably black Burt Bacharach.
@@johnnhoj6749 I hear you about Dionne, that was a bad example. However many black artists had the records they wrote stolen not covered. The list would go on all day from the rock n roll era alone. They were never compensated or credited. I wasn't talking about covers.
@@johnnhoj6749 Your little history lesson was rude considering you don't know me or what I know about music history. The black rocknroll musicians that inspired bands like The Beatles and Rolling stones (by their own admission) wrote their own music and lyrics, thats who I was refering to! We were offering ideas of more interesting storylines not criticising strangers on youtube!
An issue for me is that, despite how much I love The Beatles, the idea that their sound would be "totally fresh" in 2019 in a universe that is basically unchanged musically, is ridiculous. A lot of The Beatles' songs still hold up extremely well today ofc, but since we're keeping every band except Oasis, we're also keeping all the bands (most of them, tbf) who were somehow influenced by them. Like Radiohead, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Black Sabbath, U2 etc, as well as all the bands and artists they in turn inspired. In that universe, what The Beatles did will surely be pretty damn outdated by now. A song like I Saw Her Standing There probably wouldn't do that well simply because...music clearly moved on from that sound a long time ago, with or without The Beatles. You could probably still do very well as an artist just stealing Beatles songs, but you absolutely wouldn't be considered new, fresh and totally unheard of.
Really the entire British Invasion of the 60s was due to the Beatles. Bands like the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, the Turtles, the Who, eventually Led Zeppelin and Electric Light Orchestra wouldn't have been as huge without the Beatles kicking open the door and leading them through. The Beach Boys and Motown would've probably filled the void.
IT might be fresh, if there was no Beatles influence on music and music had taken a completely different tangent. I doubt it would have, it just would have been bereft of the Beatles genius, and pushing the edge further, and so many others might not have been influenced and made music similar. Perhaps without the Beatles the things they championed and pushed forward might have been delayed in the changes to music, culture, and influence that they had by 8 to ten years.
possibly. but how could music move on from something that never happened in the first place. The Beatles songs would be new and fresh in 2019 because of that.
I simply reject your premise outright. B/c we have a different definition of ‘timeless’ and CLEARLY listen (on the regs) to a completely different band who just so HAPPEN to have stolen the greatest band of all time’s name and found their way into your selection. I say all that to say this…The Beatles are not ONLY still as fresh as day 1, FRESHER EVEN, seeing as beyond their first 2-3 albums, they literally lifted off the “conventional-genre-foundations” and created a whole new category of creation musically! They took an existing artistic medium (music), through their charisma, creativity, decision-making, parity (between John and Paul mostly of course), senses of humor, NEXT-Level-producer, and ultimately a brave and experimental writing commitment, the likes of which seem damn-near “spoiled-brat-rich-time-wasting-ignorant-esque” feel to it in hindsight, they created music that is STILL heretofore not labeled other than just “Beatles Music”. All of Abbey Road and Sgt. pepper and Revolver and Rubber Soul and The White Album ,AT LEAST, are all 100% still beyond fresh today. You’re opinion seems to be the world’s first incorrect one…kind of legendary trailblazing YOU’RE doing with this new kind of “opinion”…lol!
I love this review - totally agree! A film about the ramifications of realising it's not just talent/good material that you need to be successful but a whooollle load of other things to fall in line would have been SO MUCH MORE INTERESTING. To be fair to Ed Sheeran, I think his character was meant to be hateable (like a send up of himself) but also can Ed Sheeren stop appearing in everything, please?! I was nervous about the John part of the movie as I felt like it had the potential to go so wrong but it was actually the best, most touching, bittersweet part! Good work, Elliot :)
The Rolling Stones would most likely have remained an unsigned blues cover band if it weren't for The Beatles. Aside from their first single being a Beatles song, it was George Harrison who recommended them to Decca. And even if another label had signed them, they most likely would have never started writing their own songs. And James Taylors first album was on Apple Records.
Beyond the terrible covers, what annoyed me the most is how incoherent the track list on his album would be. How do you blend such a range of maturity and styles? Imagine getting Within on Without You right after I Saw Her Standing
That's a great point! It's odd that they blended early and late-period Beatles songs on the same album. That suggests the writer didn't know anything about their music (even though he must have.)
That’s another thing that pestered me. It wasn’t just the songs that made the Beatles popular, it was the albums. This goes back to the “it takes more than beatles songs to be like the Beatles” argument but yeah just so many aspects of this movie were cheap.
the Lennon scene is fine as it is, but it would've been perfect if when jack knocked on the door, George Harrison was in the kitchen making tea. like even through this mixed-up timeline, the two of them still knew each other, just as coworkers or something non-musical. we got so much john and paul love in the movie that it felt like George and Ringo got gipped.
Would make more sense if Lennon somehow teamed up with McCartney as a co-worker - or as a business partner. Perhaps initiated a community of painting artists helping other artists to succeed. And called it "Come Together" or "With a Little Help From My Friends" - or something.
Would’ve loved to have seen a scene where some old man approaches Jack after a show and tells him he really enjoyed his music, possibly after Jack plays “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” and Jack says “Thank you….?” The old man shakes Jack’s hand and says “George”
I want this movie to be remade with the original premise but in the end Jack reunites the 4 Beatles who have never met and pulls them from the jobs they would have been doing had they not been the Beatles Maybe the Beatles didn’t exist because John went down to Australia with his father which was one of the options he was presented with as a child so the film could be a bit like “Mr. Nobody” as it examines what our choices can lead to The film could be called “Tomorrow Never Knows” which always seemed like a more appropriate title than “Yesterday”
One thing I didn't like was that there was no payoff for Jack's struggle with Eleanor Rigby! Also no George either or hidden cameos from Ringo and/or Paul in the crowds or something. Did love the John Lennon scene though, that was super cute! I was also surprised that Jack didn't ask the other two people that knew of The Beatles for help with songs he was struggling to remember the lyrics to. Even if they couldn't sing they could've had it that the two remember lyrics or rhythms more clearly that Jack just couldn't fully piece together. If I were him I would've been over the moon to find more people that could help me with those songs! Also saw Revolution 9 on a sticky note in Jack's room during the movie.. Wonder how that turned out XD
Hint: Ellie is probably Eleanor Rigby. Check out this interpretation from a "Ryan." "The movie was under appreciated because people misinterpreted the story. The movie is about Ellie, not Jack. Ellie is the persona of Eleanor Rigby (as revealed in this last montage where her wedding gown silhouette matches Jack’s previous vision of Eleanor Rigby). Like the song, Ellie “lives in a dream” and imagines what could have happened if Jack survived the cycling accident and became the star she always believed he could be. Since Jack barely had any decent songs of his own, she imagines him originating the catalog of the greatest rock band of all time, reaching super stardom, and ultimately saving her from the doldrums of lonely suburban single life. Like Eleanor Rigby, Ellie’s imaginary daughter “waits at the window” of their home shown here."
This is a good critique. The Eleanor Rigby didnt exactly payoff. Also, he is critiquing that maybe he should have uploaded to UA-cam where YT might not have existed
I’m sorry I’ve never got the opportunity to say this- no shade on Lily James, but that woman plays the same character in every role. Even in this film she has the quaint, romantic, lofty demeanour of an Austen protagonist or any other female character in a period drama. I see potential in her as an actress- but darling please get out of Regency era England.
Rachel Darby That’s what I was concerned with. Like I really hope she pulls it off. Because think- Elizabeth Bennet is so vastly different from Pamela Anderson. I don’t know how it could work well if shes still Elizabeth trapped in the body of Pamela Anderson. All we can do is hope- because the woman has so much potential.
James was such a blank audience POV character in _Darkest Hour._ Her role in _Baby Driver_ was much more interesting in a rising-tide-lifts-all-boats way.
I bawled my eyes out at seeing that John Lennon was alive. It was truly my FAVORITE part of this movie. I wish we would have seen where the other 3 would have been had they not been Beatles. Wouldn't it have been fun if instead of cashing in on the songs, the main character tried to get them back together (even in their late 70's) and tried to get THEM to be the Beatles they were meant to be? And upon the world hearing the actual Beatles play for the first time, it snapped him back into the previous world where they did exist? While I didn't mind Yesterday, I agree with you there were so many missed opportunities here. I would have loved to see what a world without the Beatles would have looked like. The Coke, cigarettes and Harry Potter things were just out of place. What if as he played the songs more and more people started to "snap out of it" and started remembering them? I just can't deal that had there been no Beatles that life would look the same as it did in the film.
You really articulate why I was frustrated with this film. There has been an enormous amount written about the impact of The Beatles on both Popular music and culture as a whole over the past 60 years . As you say it was not just the songs but the musicianship, production and presentation of their music. Their impact had significant social implications too. Whether we would actually have acts like Radiohead and Coldplay (and indeed Ed Sheeran ) but for how the Beatles impacted popular music, particularly here in UK. Jack Barth's original script does sound like it addressed this issue far more . Even the title 'Cover version' explores that Jack can never hope to replicate what the Beatles achieved with their music and can only vaguely reproduce it. I sincerely Jack Barth got a good renumeration for his script. Ironically a film which is supposed to celebrate the Beatles oddly ends up downplaying their impact by how little things are altered by their absence
I feel like something worth noting that the filmmakers completely forget about is how many "Beatles" songs were created or released as solo material. Like even if Jack somehow recreated every single Beatles song from memory (including all of the singles, and somehow Tomorrow Never Knows and Revolution 9) this alternate universe would still be without songs like Imagine, Maybe I'm Amazed, All Things Must Pass, Isn't it a Pity, Band on the Run, etc.
Beatles songs are more universally loved (especially after that pandemic version of "Imagine"), so it makes sense he'd start there and not move on right away. The movie also makes it quite explicit that he also has the whole Oasis discography to select from. If Jack had a long life, it would be easy to introduce all the songs he remembered. There are so many potential facets that the film could have been far longer if they were all addressed, and maybe they didn't want to address them with throwaway lines, although I would have appreciated Ellie letting Jack know what song he played for her instead of "Wonderwall."
You're not wrong. I didn't know I needed this video until UA-cam suggested it. I think that's what happens in the movie. You don't know you need the Beatles until you listen to their music. And I think that when the old lady says something about the world being worse, I relate it to our interior world. For example, when I find myself in times of trouble, I listen "In my life" and everything changes. Beatles are the most similar I can find to family, I don't know if I was clear enough. I tried my best writing this comment in english. By the way, I learnt a lot of this language through Beatles songs (plus: I'm a spanish teacher 😅). Thanks for this video 😍
I have this conspiracy theory about Ed Sheeran's insistence on being in this movie. What if (hear me out on this) *this exact same premise happened to Ed Sheeran irl* Like, he comes from a world where a very popular band existed, but doesn't in this reality, so he "stole" a bunch of their stuff and passed it as his own music. Think about it, he's just a normal guy, with not many great singing qualities, who got popular out of nowhere with songs he wrote by himself (and wrote for other artists too). So this movie is a way for Ed Sheeran to subtly confess this. Anyways, great video bro.
I remember being really excited about this film, great concept. Then I saw it and was so disappointed at its missed opportunity. I groaned about it to friends and family, but was met with surprise that I hated on it so much. I forgot all about it until I came across your video. Thank you for making me feel not so alone. It was so disappointing, and you hit the nail right on the head.
ok but like what’s the point of having cigarettes not exist in the movie but not have George scene in there? i’d like to see how they woudlve done a scene with an 70 something year old George, like the least they could’ve done was add him in that Paul and Ringo scene
So, my thoughts. Sir Walter Raleigh never makes it back to England to introduce tobacco. Much lower demand so southern American colonies aren't as successful, Coca Cola isn't invented. Blah blah, either both mother's don't die or only one of them, so John & Paul never bond.
The idea of some of the greatest music/art/books/movies being overlooked and swept under a rug because of the "wrong person" creating them is so true. I don't know how many obscure artists I've found that are 100 times better than the mainstream shit that I've found. There's also the counter to this concept of someone with connections, money, marketing, etc, releasing the absolute worst music ever but being hyper successful. I think everyone can think of at least one or two musicians who confuse us because their music is awful, but they're popular anyways.
4:00 - she doesn't put her life or passions on the line, she continues to teach, and even when he's booked by Ed Sheeran for the Russia concert she turns down the opportunity to go with him. I think she sees a friend with a passion and wants to support him, even when he doesn't believe in himself.
Yes, she's in love with him, he can't see it, and the only thing that she can do to keep him in her life is to support his musical ambitions and hope that one day he'll wake up to her.
@@kartvelo I disagree that she's only supporting his musical career to keep him in her life, I think she just genuinely believes in him and loves him enough to support him - and that also means staying optimistic on his behalf when he's down on his luck!
The biggest missed opportunity of this film, to me, is the notion that even Lennon might have simply quit music without the success of the Beatles. This could have been used to mirror Jack's struggles from the beginning of the film and comment on how even the best of us can struggle, doubt themselves, and even quit when faced with setbacks. That its important to perceiver if you believe in your art would have been a hell of a conclusion.
I get where she was coming from in terms of not wanting to let Jack give up. She fell head over heels in love with *her idea of what Jack was* and she will not let reality get in the way of Jack *becoming* her idea of the man she wants to be in love with. I honestly think it would have been a cool concept to have Lily turn out to be the reason the world was so deeply changed -- that she'd had some kind of Lathe of Heaven/Franklin Richards/Anthony (the Twilight Zone kid who sends people 'to the cornfield' with his mind) moment. And in that moment her mind had reached out and changed the world into one where Jack would be able to be poured into the hole she left by reaching back and breaking up the Beatles before they could become a famous band. I can almost understand her not getting together with him in such a circumstance, too: if she were subconsciously shaping this altered world, and she was afraid of losing him (which has got to be why she has manager/friend-zoned herself for over a decade), then of course she creates a world where she has obstacles to getting together with him. Because her drive wasn't for the world to be one where she gets to be with Jack, it's for the world to be one where Jack becomes what she envisions him as being -- and that person isn't one she thinks she'll end up getting together with, it's one she'll end up mooning over from the sideline, exactly like she's been doing all along.
The scene where he declares that the songs were written by the Beatles is funny to me. Like none of the Beatles members seems to have any recollection just imagine how confused they’d be.
When he was 5 years old, John had to choose between staying in Liverpool with his mother Julia, or emigrating to New Zealand with his merchant seaman father Alfred. In Yesterday, apparently John chose his father, became a seaman himself, and never formed the band. Paul probably was friends with George but neither ever met Ringo, so it would have been a complete shock to them to be credited as the authors of all of Jack's songs.
@@RustyViewer why would that make people think he was some kind of nutter? Everyone already believes he wrote the songs himself. Why would he lie about not writing them? And why would it be unbelievable? People have secret ghost writers all the time
Heard a behind the scenes tidbit that they scripted George and Ringo being old buddies at a bar and Paul walking his dogs So again- Ringo and George get shafted LOL
You forgot to mention the scene when he look for his record collection trying to find Beatles Albums and he does not find anyone, but he took "Hunky Dory" from Bowie, so definitely the song "Life on Mars?" was not influenced by Lennon, not to mention the entire Bowie career, so the Beatles did not existed but the white thin duke did and apparently his songs were the same. this is a simplistic approach to a great concept or idea. thanks for this video! this is the review i was waiting for!!!
Yeah! Either the Beatles historically never formed so the face of popular music and the entire timeline is changed a’ la butterfly effect Or Beatles stuff just magically disappears and people just forget them but nothing else actually changes so you just have a bunch of blank records and posters and two very confused old men
I really appreciate your analysis of the missed opportunities here. I’ll ask, the nature of the Hollywood beast is to cater to the more general romcom movie audience, I’ll be it with plenty of Beatles love. I saw this video roughly when you posted it, and it kept me from seeing the movie until tonight when I was just in the mood for it. It was interesting enough and the songs alone brought tears. And I agree that the scene with 78-year-old John Lennon. That was a beautiful scene. Anyway, I just turned 65 and I’m still a kid waiting to retire so I can play guitar and wrap my own songs without my job getting in the way. Thank you so much for your thoughtful video… Videos. Especially your epic video on all of George’s albums. You’re the best.
I had so much expectation in this movie especially as it seemingly tackled a unique alternative historical effect on the Beatles’ non existence. I was so excited to see this to the point my mom and dad accompanied me to the theater, and they set up a double date with my uncle and aunt. Once I realized while watching the film that what we were all expecting wasn’t going to happen and that it was just going to be a romcom, I cringed, especially on the hotel room kissing scene, like I was thrown off the experience of the movie and I felt embarrassed that I dragged my parents, uncle and aunt to this type of movie that doesn’t even fit their taste anymore.
The Beatles are used as Checkov's Band in the Firebird series of books by Claudia Gray. The series explores the Multiverse and the fact that the Beatles sometimes don't exist becomes very important for the main character personally. These books go HARD into the multiverse theory and the series happens to be one of my favorites. It doesn't specifically explore what things would be like without the Beatles, but the fact that it's hinted on definitely makes me mind race and made me very excited initially for his movie.
Thank you for the recommendation!! I've been on a big reading slump recently, and I've needed something just like this. I'd recommmend "Plastic Jesus" by Poppy Z. Brite. It's not about alternate universes, but an excellent heart wrenching McLennon story with the serial numbers filed off.
Being a songwriter and a music producer (not successful but passionately for decades), I too felt that this movie was a let-down. I liked it, but it failed to explore the premise. I too loved the John Lennon scene best to the extent that it made me cry. Just think of the songs we've been deprived of by the the loss of him or Freddie Mercury. Or Prince or Bob Marley for that matter. Being also a Depeche fan, this movie made me feel very - VERY - privileged. It's such a blessing that they're still around after 40+ years, with a new album and a new world tour on the horizon. In fact, I do dread a world without any Depeche Mode in it. It will happen one day, and it will break my heart. Yesterday shouldn't have been a romcom. It completely missed the mark by trying to be. Although depicting the music industry for the evil arseholery it's always been, these people are not actually the problem. The problem are flat-rates. The highway-men over at Spotify. That's the problem. And maybe an inevitable one at that, given the rise of the internet. The Beatles opened up our minds. Showed us - in just six short years - what is possible. They even wrote a song - on the Revolver album? - that was mimicked by "Setting Sun" by the Chemical Brothers. They had a message of positivity. John Lennon was all about emancipation from the status quo, about hope, about inner empowerment. That's what they stood for. To go above and beyond. In every conceivable way. And this movie boils it all down to how much money you could possibly make off their music. It's a travesty!
You really nailed this! I had no idea the original screenplay actually tackled the core premise so differently. Like you said, this would have been SO much more interesting and probably more in line with reality. No, some random dude would not be able to achieve stardom with loose memories of Beatles songs in a world that suddenly lost them. Especially if he did not also take the time to remember the specifics of the vocal arrangements, guitar/ bass/ percussion parts, and production decisions made in addition to the lyrics and chords. You put it very well that the impressive songwriting is just a small part of what made the Beatles a success, but a few things that came to mind that you didn't explicitly name are: -The energy, cohesion, and instrumental skill the Beatles developed from their grueling early days performing in Hamburg and Liverpool. The protagonist in the movie doesn't seem to have earned anything like that. - The direction and assistance of George Martin and the rest of the talented producers/engineers who made their records and helped them innovate in the studio. This movie's versions of the songs (like a lot of Beatles covers) lose pretty much all of the vitality and depth of the originals and somehow make them sound very bland. -The fact that there were four of them! Four Beatles, not just one guy! The Beatles were a group act and presented four different whimsical, funny, lovable personas that played off each other perfectly. A person can't exactly generate that same kind of dynamic within their own belly. Anyway, you make great videos and I enjoy your thoughtful takes on all the weird Beatles stuff people keep making. This was my favorite of yours so far.
"I saw her standing there" is from the early period, when John, the oldest, was only in his early twenties and George, the youngest, was about 18...them talking like that about a 17 year old girl was basically age-appropriate for the time Then, there's this 30 year old talking about a 17 year old girl in a modern context. You're right, yikes
A man of any age can write a song about a high school sweetheart he had, and that's not pedo. What's got into you people thinking that songs have to be about events that happened at the singer's current age?
@@stevenpoe640 the film doesn't address it at all so i don't think it's a far cry to say how odd that is that jack wouldn't think "hmm maybe i as a 30 year old should not change the lyric"
@@iggykad There is no reason to change the lyric. Even 90-year-old Tony Bennet could sing a song about his teenage sweetheart from long ago. Songs do not have to represent an experience from the recent past. Why is this so hard to understand?
Why in the hell would you assume it's talking about the modern context? After all, it doesn't say "She is just 17," but rather "she WAS just 17." You people are all crazy. Songs can be about the distant past, or even about a fictional character other than the singer. Did David Bowie fly on a spaceship? Was he Major Tom? You guys are a real trip.
its being looked at incorrectly. it is from the early days of Rock And Roll where song were often written specifically for their teenage audience and songs like that are written from the perspective of a teenager. thus Ringo Starrs cover of the wonderful Johnny Burnette song "You're Sixteen". it isn't creepy time have just changed and so has the understanding of why a grown man is seemingly singing about teenage girls. it is from the perspective of a teenage boy in love.
I agree completely and also feel there's a lot more they could have explored in the film: - Would some of the songs be considered controversial today, which ones and why? How would people react to that? - More profound effects on a person's mental health of stealing someone else's life work. Potential identity crisis? Claims of divine inspiration? Losing touch with reality? - How has the music changed over the years without them? Exploring fun new genres or maybe being a few decades behind? - If they wanted it to be a love letter to the Beatles they could have also analyzed the music, harmonies, lyrics, and the main character's struggle to put it all together. It's a great opportunity to sit and think about the whole creation process... I mean, the potential of this film is so frustrating.
@@futuramayeah yeah I know that. I saw the last where he reviewed Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, and I was asking to see a full length video for it, rather than just a 7 minute segment in a full length video.
I really appreciate you pointed out the "frizzy hair" thing :D I have frizzy hair and when I saw that scene in the theatre I was like "What the hell are you talking about??"
Just found your video. I felt exactly the same about how you felt about this film. Touched by the John Lennon part, and felt the movie missed out on a great opportunity to be something special. I feel like the John scene should have been a series of four. Sticking with the original premise that despite having these songs he isn't a star. I think it could have really said something about art and the nature of it. But I feel it would have been interesting to have the main character meet with all the Beatles in an attempt to turn his songs into successes. Imagine the real Paul and Ringo speaking with him. Could have been so great. Instead it just sort of phoned in the idea and his love story was just got a groan from me. A bold idea with a painfully flat execution.
The antidote to YESTERDAY is Peter Jackson's GET BACK. It proves that the Fab Four's most important component was their chemistry. Dude had nobody. It got me a bit pissed at the film right there in the theater.
Me: After all these years. I watched every Beatles biopic so you don't have to The best (and worst) Beatles tribute films The missed opportunity of Yesterday Me: Finally, I have them all.
My wife and I saw it with her friend and her friend's husband. Her friend applauded at the Downton Abbey trailer, and she was the only person in the theater to do so. Her husband fell asleep and then suddenly woke up and shouted, "Coke and cigarettes! COKE AND CIGARETTES!" If not for those two incidents, I would have no memory of this awful movie.
i don't think the beatles would've been that successful today lol. the film should've explored the concept and differences between the music industry nowadays and before
BEFORE YOU COMMENT!! Just know that I consider this my WORST video and that watching this after two year makes me cringe! I stand behind the fact that this movie was a wasted opportunity and not good but my nit-picks are a little extreme.
I set this up like it was going to be a proper vide essay and end up doing a lazy, middling roast of every scene. Very CinemaSins which is not what I’d go for these days.
If this is your introduction to my channel, just know that I make better stuff now!
Yep, you could say this video was a missed opportunity.
Sorry. I'm a little late to the party. I SO wanted to love this movie. I found the premise intriguing. I love the Beatles. What could go wrong? So SO much. I agree with your assessment on every single point. I would add though, that it felt like a ten-book series that somehow had to be condensed into a thousand-word article. There were so many little bits that could have been expanded to help this movie make any sense at all. I feel like a lot of it was decided by committee. Or someone saying, "Gee, we don't have time for that thread. Just end it with a not-quite-funny line and let's move on." I did, however, absolutely love that John was alive and well and living his best life. Great video. Great channel. Glad I found it : )
I appreciate your reflection, and I came to comments to basically say the same thing. It's so overly negative. You're watching a film where the literal premise is "What if only one guy remembered the Beatles" and you spend 5 minutes complaining about how implausible everything is. I'll definitely check out some of your other stuff.
I loved this video and there were nit picks in here which I hadn't noticed when I watched the movie. You pinpointed the same reasons I thought the movie wasted its opportunities, but you were also very kind and respectful to the cast and crew and original creator of this movie. Not CinemaSins at all!
I was about to rag in you. Fortunately saw your pinned txt. Yeah a light hearted movie. Fun.
I so wanted an end of credits scene where Paul and Ringo, playing themselves as they are now, running a small vinyl shop in Liverpool as if the whole Beatles thing had never happened and they were friends regardless of the band.
Nah
What would’ve happened was:
Paul knocks up Dot Rhone and they have a child, they marry, he settles down and gets a normal job, going to school on the side. He eventually becomes an English teacher and has a perfectly ordinary but pleasant life, he still loves playing music, and like his father before him has a small band as a hobby and plays the piano during family gatherings
Ringo Starr goes on to have a moderately successful career with the hurricanes before jumping between bands and eventually becoming a coveted session musician
George Harrison becomes an electrician who later becomes part of the Hare Krishna movement
John Lennon is able to have a better relationship with his mother, he later bounces between several jobs, writing stories for the local newspaper on the side, he eventually finds a nice woman and raises a family
@@flamingpi2245 in my opinion Paul would have been the only one who would be a successful musician outside of the context of The Beatles. He is just that good and driven.
@@xuyunfeng4903
Still
If he never joined the quarrymen and got that initial push he wouldn’t have started with the music beyond a hobby
@@flamingpi2245 ugh
I believe in his conversation with John, there is a line that implies that the Beatles still existed, but they just never reached any level of success as a band.
I have to say, the alternate reality and sci-fi aspect of the movies was way more of an interesting aspect than the love story, and even after it kinda has me hooked just for that.
Like why only him and those 2 other people? What caused it?
Did this timeline's version of him get transferred to a world WITH the Beatles?
Does cocaine or any other drugs exist if nobody seems to think he's asking for drugs when he asks for "coke," and cigarettes don't exist?
So, Ellie fell in love with Jack because he sang “Wonderwall” in high school…and then still loves him in a world where Oasis doesn’t exist…😐
@Dylan Sevey at the time in the film where they have that convo, the "incident" erasing the Beatles hadn't yet happened. So that could have been their original past. What of it? Consider it a time travel paradox or something, if you like.
@@buddyneher9359 Once the "incident" occurred, it should have erased the fact that he sang wonderwall in high school. It means she never fell in love with him, yet somehow, everything is exactly the same after the "incident". Excellent point by Dylan
I think that it must have been a blur song in this world.
Logic is hard
@@MrTCHOSS Shit point. She obviously just loves him for a different reason
Honestly, Ed Sheeran having his own song as his ringtone was a legit laugh out loud moment for me
YES
Why?
@@karlydoc Probably a joke on the egocentric tendencies of celebrities.
it made me think out loud
whose ad cher.n???
Just wanted to point out that Revolution 9 was on one of the sticky notes posted on Jack's wall, implying that Jack actually intended to recreate the Beatles' 8 1/2 minute avant-garde collage of sounds entirely from memory
As much as I love the Beatles, I couldn’t recreate or remember all of their songs.
@@beatlecristian Can you imagine transcribing all the chords? From memory?!?!?!? I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that’d take years upon years to do unless your music theory & ear is absolutely world class, and you’d still be left with a rather bland, something-missing, not-quite-right version of the songs. Don’t get me started on how hard the basslines would be to remember
@@matthewvaughan8192 The guy who did arrangements for the Beatlemania musical had to transcribe everything by ear, including the outro to "All you need is Love", and even they would probably struggle with Revolution 9 lol.
Also yes, Beatlemania the musical was a thing. It's worth looking into actually. The channel Wait in the Wings has a pretty in depth video on it.
He should have done You Know My Name, Look Up The Number.
I mean it's pretty easy
*random bullshit*
*random bullshit*
numbah nine numbah nine
*random bullshit*
all he had to do was change "she was just 17" to "we were just 17" and the song would have been fine
Clever !
Change one word and solve the problem. "We" even sounds pretty close to "She."
So now all of us old farts that got our puberty entangled with The Beatles
still can sing this song without coming across as pervos.
I've said this since the movie came out! Finally someone who sees it too. One word change was all it would've taken.
Song still is fine just as it is. Having said that though, I like your version very much too!
Ooh...smart! Yes!!
Brilliant
The twist I anticipated but never emerged was that Ed Sheeran also became famous from stealing lost music that were lost. That would have been a great twist
The commentary channel Pretty Much It made a humorous suggestion that the movie should have had Sheeran be the only other person who remembered the Beatles and he and the main character get in a race to release the most Beatles music before the other one does.
Both that twist and Jack's disillusionment to fame vs. message could've made this a little better
I know laughed at it, but saying “you alright?” To someone who you’ve just seen get hit by a bus, is the most naturally British thing ever.
I got hit in a crosswalk by a car in high school, people said something similar, I picked up my backpack,shook it off and went to school instead of the hospital.
"Oi, a bit rude to stab me through the chest with a knoife, innit?"
“Just a bit chuffed is all, carry on then, good sir” tips imaginary hat 🎩
I'll just walk it off
Yeah this is an accurate thing
Ed Sheeran always feels out-of-place whenever I see him on screen, he has some kind of aura
he's scary
A menacing aura
When he was in GOT, there was something so off that I wondered if he was green-screened in.
@@thomaspappalardo7589 Ed Sheeran lives on another plane of existence.
Ginger people dont have souls bro thats why
The way this movie portrays the music industry is basically the way I thought the music industry worked when I was thirteen. It really makes it come across that the film is trying to indulge the fantasies of young people dreaming of fame, while the original concept was about how capricious, unfair, and artificial the machinery of fame actually is.
Is it though? Or is the original screen play a self indulgent bit of ego stroking. He's basically saying it's all luck, and that even if he wrote great stories like Star Wars etc. it doesn't assure success. In other words he thinks his drivel is on par with Star Wars but he just hasn't been "lucky".
"No one understands my genius".
I think the original story says more about the dented fragile ego of the writer than it does about the actual industry. I can also imagine why he was unhappy that it was changed to reflect that great material will always be recognized, regardless of the source. It basically now says that the reason you haven't produced the next "Star Wars" is that your writing isn't good enough, and has NOTHING to do with luck.
@@richardwickens2923but the original author is 100% correct.
Becoming famous is almost entirely luck based. It’s an extremely saturated industry that puts people through the wringer, and if a single doesn’t get as much traction as the executives want? They’ll churn you out and give your song to the next person.
The Beatles, for instance, did make good music. They have thoughtful lyrics, solid musicianship, etc. but you know how many people have the EXACT same qualities, but will never get recognized?
Image plays a large part. The “vibes,” surrounding you can be integral to your career. The Beatles were a group of young guys making music for teenagers in a very counter-culture heavy era. They were creative with album titles and covers, did projects outside of the music to bring more people TO the music, etc. even their actions in the real world show that just having great music might not be enough.
@@chrishansen8119the elephant in the room being that the Beatles probably wouldn't hit as big in America if their skin color or ethnicity was different.
Besides that the Beatles story itself is already messy. Breaking up after only 8 years and becoming the biggest musicians in the west only in their 20s. Johns relationships, domestic abuse, and death at the hands of a fan.
Their albums being burned because they dared to say they were more popular than Jesus. Their sanity even being questioned because of their transition from clean cut boys and a teenybopper image to hippie rakes.
It seems like it would have been self-important self-pitying to try to claim that the Beatles songs wouldn't be able to succeed now.
Also John ending up a happy old painter who did everything he wanted is so wholesome and very fitting for him
There’s actually a short film with Ian Hart as an older John if he quit The Beatles in 1963 and I honestly feel like that’s way closer to how John would have ended up.
@@thomaspappalardo7589 I disagree. I think Yesterday gets it right. I think even if the Beatles happened, he'd probably be a happy old man, disconnected from the world, for the most part, and doing his art.
@@danjlp9155 John never would have had a happy life: His inability to have a work ethic, his acerbic tongue, and his resentment of authority would have had him bouncing from menial job to menial job like his father.
@@danjlp9155 And he would have abandoned Cynthia and Julian like his dad - which he also did in our timeline.
@@thomaspappalardo7589 yeah, but that is a story where the beatles yes happened but john left, in yesterday the beatles did not happened at all. the short film is more like the real story of pete best but with john in his place, with the fame of the beatles chasing him wherever he go
YES! This film absolutely pissed me off! The weirdest thing I thought was that Richard Curtis seemingly believes the music industry hasn't changed since 2005... for example, when Jack first records the Beatles songs he doesn't release them on UA-cam like any aspiring songwriter would today... he burns them to CD and hands them out at a shop! Then later in the film he is discovered by Sheeran not online (as would be realistic today) but on LOCAL TELEVISION! And to cap the whole mess off, the grand conclusion of the film is that Jack releases all the music onto the internet so people can illegally download it for free! Does Richard Curtis still think Limewire is a popular way to consume music!?
You know what? I hadn't even thought of that. I'd been mourning the missed opportunity to at least explore creative processes in the studio, but yours is a great observation that takes this further. The over-the-top boardroom scene is clearly designed to poke fun at the industry, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. Richard Curtis doesn't even understand the industry that he's poking fun at. The one time this film consciously tries to make comment, it misses. Sigh...
This is such a good point!
Jacks’s entire rise in the music industry is rooted in such an old fashioned, tropey-way apart from vague social media montages which only highlight how out of touch film-makers are.
Cheers David!
It do be like that
I couldn't get past how the bus would lose power during a power outage. Do English buses run on something other than fuel or batteries? And to use solar flares as the cause? "A wizard did it" makes more sense. I still don't know what to make of the meeting with John at the end. Does he meet Yoko if he isn't famous. Does he make it into his late 70s simply because he isn't a Beatle. Of course, with cigarettes never having been invented ...
@@dougdrazga4461 It wasn't a power outage. It was more akin to an EMP event. Anything that uses electricity shut down, and a modern bus would certainly be affected I believe, if all its electrics stopped working.
I feel like no one ever points out how the other two people who remember the beatles try to "gotcha question" Jack at the album press conference as to seem like they want to expose what he's done, but then after the performance meet him backstage to thank him for what he's done???
I think nobody points it out because there are so many flaws with the movie that they focus on other stuff. That scene was so weird. Of course it was done to create tension, but it makes no sense at all. I have a couple of theories about it lol:
1. Maybe they did it so they could get his attention so when they asked to talk to him back stage he would accept because he’s worried about them exposing him
2. They actually didn’t say anything at all, but just raised the Yellow Submarine and he hallucinated the comments the same way he had the dream about James Corden’s scene.
I guess I’m just trying to justify the nonsense while procrastinating working 😂
Thank you!! I thought that finally, something logical was going to happen in this movie. Nope! Why even have this scene? But then the larger question becomes, Why even have this movie? Ugh.
That’s right! A thief and a fraud is rewarded by two characters who somehow, like him, have access to an alternate universe and history. A blackmail subplot would have made sense, but an imagined euphoria generated by Beatles music apparently caused these characters to feel grateful to the main character for bringing this music back.
Yes, this movie is a fantasy, but there never was a pretty pink cloud of joy that made lovers of Beatles music believe that the world was much affected by the music. Of course music was forever influenced by them, but the world continues much as it always has, with all of its beauty and ugliness and us humans are still stumbling along, trying to make sense of it while allowing for a bit of fun.
It is obvious Jack is IMAGINING those gotcha questions. It's a clever bit of misdirection to convey the guilt Jack is feeling over 'stealing' the Beatle's songs and becoming hyper-famous in the process, way beyond what his natural talent would take him.
I think they were just trying to get his attention. Asking questions that would mean a lot to him but sound like nothing to everyone else.
I wish Robert Zemeckis had made “Yesterday”. He would’ve done a great job of exploring the cultural implications of the Beatles never existing.
it would be a different movie. This is this movie.
@@BrendanJSmith Exactly what I was thinking. It seems Cricket just threw some random words together.
You raise a good point. At least the writers and director could have drawn some inspiration from "Back to the Futures" use of countless little twists and ironies caused by the time difference and alternate reality, some of them you might not catch on your first viewing. Doing so would have made YESTERDAY more clever, funny, and entertaining.
Zemeckis actually tried to do one of his all-digital film projects as a remake of Yellow Submarine. Can you imagine?
No left wing filmmaker can as they are unable to acknowledge cultural implications without the assumption of universalism.
The Beatles did not exist in a vacuum. Without the Beatles, the current musical landscape would be absolutely unrecognizable. So many bands were directly influenced and/or inspired by the Beatles. So many more artists were inspired by those bands, and so on. Eliminating the Beatles from history would have had a domino effect, the repercussions of which would still be evident today.
yes!! like Nirvana for instance, they pretty much set up the landscape for 90's rock music. Kurt Cobain was undoubtedly directly influenced by the beatles, he even said so himself. And that's just one example out of so many
Yeah, I would be like a butterfly effect for music.
Without B rock music as such would wane about mid 60s and succumb into orchestral pop which was about to happen.
Without The Beatles there’s no lead bass 🤣 that changes essentially all rock music thereafter
The Rolling stones would be a cover band if it weren't for the Beatles. Not slagging them off but they wouldn't be writing their own songs.
Talking about badly written roles for women, what really grated for me about Ellie in the Liverpool Station scene was that she gets angry at him for making her wait 15 years without expressing his feelings for her. Er...what was she doing all that time? The film portrays her as a wet blanket who devotes her life to fawning over him and his career, and waiting all that time for him to say or do anything romantic.
Yeah maybe having a 15-year bizarre friendzoned relationship isn’t the greatest inspiration for an artist.
Love does funny things 🤷
@@CATLANCER they're both emotionally constipated, but its weird how she has a go at him for all the things she's guilty of. They're both to blame. But since he's the protagonist we can kinda forget that as he has a story and music career going on, whereas her character exists solely to follow him around and be won.
It's a movie not real life lol
@@phatmanlovescake 🤭 you understand that there is this thing called film discussion where people have whole conversations about film construction and character motivations? While still knowing its a fictional film. The video talked about Ellie being a badly written female character and that's what my original comment was on.
There's a Japanese manga, "Boku wa Beatles", about a Japanese Beatles cover band who fall back in time and compete with the Beatles in the 60s. It's far more interesting than this.
@Nicefisher there's a fan translation in English up to somewhere in the 40s
@Sonny the Duck idr if it’s Japanese but there is a graphic comic on the early Beatles and Brian Epstein
oooo very cool
@Sonny the Duck I mean- there's a manga called Shiori Experience where Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain have to help this girl become a musical legend before her 28th birthday otherwise she's going to die. So anime Beatles doesn't sound too out there 💀
I wish I could find it to watch, if for no other reason than to cleanse my palate of Yesterday
“If Hey Jude was a band” is the best description of Coldplay
hit the nail on the head with that one
But i like Coldplay and hate Hey Jude....
@@NostalgiNorden well we’re polar opposites then.
Coldplay is Radiohead if they only cared about making pop hits.
@@rodroller6634 So, basically a non-progressive Radiohead.
i love the theory that ed sherran is in this so much is because this is his story. he's from an alternative universe where a wildly sucessuful band made a series of math titled albums in the 60s
This whole movie is just an Ed Sheeran humblebrag. "I'm not the greatest musician in the world when the Beatles are a thing... But besides them..."
Apparently another singer (I can't remember who) was going to be in it, and I think it would have been an humblebrag all the same.
@@simosa5842 Chris Martin from coldplay
Lmao
Well I mean Ed Sheeran is pretty good can’t deny that.
@@TheOfficialoddity If by pretty good you mean bland and annoying, you would be right.
Honestly, the opportunity this film missed was to highlight just how much of an impact The Beatles had on modern music
Lets just be honest, they missed a few opportunities
The impact of their having not happened is so far reaching that it would just about impossible to quantify.
@Nicefisher aside from the fact that the scope of music in general wouldn't be the same as today, im also pretty sure that people wouldnt be as socially conscious as they would in this day and age. racism, sexism, and homophobia would probably be widespread, if it werent for them, and the political landscape would drastically change as well.
@@jaykeii homophobia? Its still thriving
It's also improbable there wouldn't have been a different band named The Beatles or even The Beetles. Naming a band is very hard, because everything is taken. Beat - being synonymous with music - surely would have been incorporated into something close to 'Beatles'.
One thing that really bothered me about this film is the dishonesty in the marketing. They knew what they were doing when they included that "dream scene" with Paul and Ringo. I was SO excited to see some sort of exploration of how the real Beatles react and challenge Jack, as he profits off their songs (which presumably they had still written, but for some interesting reason were never successful with). The trailers framed that confrontation as a major plot point, and instead we got NO external conflict about Jack stealing these songs. He grows successful and becomes a star with exactly 0 challenges. He remembers every song perfectly and somehow executes his rise to flame flawlessly. Imagine how interesting this movie would be if Jack struggled to make the songs work and had to constantly weave a more complicated string of lies to hide the truth. Even within the movie, Jack's fear of being found out and the constant hints that he's being tracked down by a small group of people who know the truth go nowhere. They just say "thank you for recording the songs" and move on, with no conflict or anger or anything resembling the kind of story we all expected.
Instead we get a shockingly boring romcom that wouldn't have stood on its own or have been watched by anyone if it hadn't been attached to the Beatles. The only thing that convinced me to keep watching was the SMALL possibility of a Paul and Ringo cameo, which they shadily tried to imply. And that really upsets me. For a movie that claims to care so much about the Beatles, they sure had no problem manipulating fans into watching an awful romance film under the guise of being a true exploration and subversion of the band's history and legacy.
Would be really interested to hear your thoughts on this aspect of the movie.
Before I watched this video I thought that they did appear in the movie
I looked forward to that confrontation with Paul and Ringo and then... nothing.
yeah That would have made the movie much more interesting if. the Beatles were haunting Jack...or jack was channeling the Beatles...or ...I don't know so many options.
What do you mean? There was a scene when he couldn't remember Eleanor Rigby and also go to strawberry fields and penny road
Understandable and if I'm honest I felt robbed as well so you are definitely not alone in this situation Mr. John DellaContrada
I think Ed Sheeran’s hurt puppy act, after realising Jack was far better than he was, was SO arrogant. I don’t think he played a humble guy in this film at all, and like another commenter said, he sticks out in any TV or film he features in, he does have a weird ‘aura’ like they said. Not a fan.
Edit: I’ll be honest, I only like this film for the John Lennon sequence, but even that could’ve been far more poignant than it was made to seem. It was in the wrong hands and badly executed, as you said.
Like the time Ed Sheeran was in Game of Thrones. He sticks out.
his comment about being ‘Salieri to Jacks Mozart’ or whatever it was like yeah nice one ed mate👍🏻
@@tedcopp567 lmao exactly, like dry your eyes, mate
i always thought he was a villain in this movie? like he is not a nice character at all... but the awkward humour sort of confuses things. Even the love interest is unlikable and cruel to jack, but it's glossed over?
no lmfao. the point of that scene was that jack feels, talks, behaves like the exact same guy. except now, singing these nice beatles songs, he has everything he thinks he ever wanted. and the conclusion of that is that he makes a nice, humble, actually genuinely talented person just feel like a dickhead, gets people to vaccuosly clap while he has a lost confused look on his face. even the line 'someone better shag him now while you can' (not exact). shows how isolating fame becomes. like why? why would no one be able to get with him and have a relationship with him or be friendly with ihim. even though it sounds like a joke it just shows how this life just pushes you onto a pedestal, and another way of phrasing that is that it pushes you into a shadowy corner with people staring and clapping and just treating you differently. every part of every scene in this, one of the best movies ever made, other than framing and colour etc, has these type of comments.
The Beatles wrote so many insanely good songs in such a short time that when I watched Yesterday I did question whether maybe this really happened to John and Paul and a bunch of legendary musicians suddenly vanished from all our consciousnesses except those two 😂
In their famoya interview in the 1970s (after the band broke up) they agreed that their separate songwriting efforts pushed each other. Paraphrasing, "If he came in with something and it was really good, I'd go home and try to top that and come in the next day with something even better." By competing they pressed each other to do better work than if they had each been solo.
@@pandroidgaxie They never came 1% close to being as good apart than together 🤣
You have to buy into the fact that Ed Sheeran is "this generation"s Lennon/McCartney for the movie to work. That, alone, is so completely insane that most people can't even begin to get on board.
Ed is a good musician, and quite talented but man the Beatles created new music genres, changed the whole industry. There’s no one who’s this generations Lennon/McCartney, and there probably never will be. It’s impossible to do what they did in this day and age and I wish the movie had explored that
@@annesilva3542 Absolutely agree!
It was so strange because it wasn't like Ed had to be that. His role could've been the guy that gets the main guy into the industry. He didn't have to be some weird god
@@JonahNelson7 haha I think it gives us a valuable insight into the distorted mind of Richard Curtis.
@@annesilva3542 the beetle’s did not create a new style or genre of music. They’re earlier career was covers of black blues and rock and roll artist like chuck berry. The rest of the beetles career was creative and had its gems but let’s not Mystify them as If they didn’t just popularize styles of r&b and jazz elements.
My problem with this film is that the majority of the film is spent exploring the main guys guilt for stealing Beatles songs which is so unenjoyable to watch. I would have loved it if he as a character was utterly shameless and had no guilt about stealing the songs, and maybe the conflict of the film comes instead from him fighting against the few people who remember the Beatles who want to expose him during his climb to the top. This movie really lacked joy for me.
His confession to his fans was ridiculous. They would think he was crazy and maybe start walking away.
Here’s a list of things directly caused by the Beatles’ influence on society/pop culture:
- Musical: Indian folk music in pop, innovative recording techniques such as reversed guitar solos, the album as a concept, the artist singing his own material, first stadium concerts, first 100w guitar amps, music videos as a promotion tool, massive influence on artists that came after… (comment if you come up with more/better examples)
- Sociopolitical: Overtly protesting against segregation and advocating for civil rights in the US, popularisation of certain niche mens fashion/hairstyle/mannerisms, visibility of psychedelics as a creative tool, spreading of eastern philosophy in the west, giving a cohesive format to baby boomers identity.
Economic: giving birth to the modern live music industry as we know it today, showing the financial incentives of the LP against the single, inspiring the creations of boy bands that used them as a template…
Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Imagine then the consequences of all the things above stated never happening.
One good example of a musical change would have to be the lack of The Beatles' influence on artists who ended up inspiring other artists in turn, whole genres even. The Beach Boys, Queen, The Byrds, and Nirvana are the first bands I think of who had elements of their sound directly taken from The Beatles, and from that alone that's like over half of alternative and indie music gone or warped beyond recognition.
Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention released the first concept album in 1966 which inspired the Beatles to create Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
@@dieter2889 I always thought Sgt Peppers was directly inspired by Pet Sounds, which in turn was also heavily influenced by Rubber Soul. Never heard any member of the band mention Frank Zappa in that regard, tbh. Do you have any link to interviews/excerpts where it is mentioned?
@@michaellisinski2822Ozzy Osbourne got into music because of The Beatles. So without them even metal wouldn't be the same.
@@dieter2889Ai read that it was pet sounds
Fantonos idea to have Ed Sheeran also know The Beatles and be the antagonist of the film would’ve made it so much better
Fantano knows.
The film really annoyed me in some very specific ways, most of which you picked up on! I'd say the real tragedy of not sticking with the original premise is how much better the John Lennon scene would've hit.
Here, John being alive is simply another facet of an already confused timeline where stuff is randomly gone and, as you say, nothing is actually worse. But in the original premise, you could have the low point where Jack realises he's not going to succeed even with the Beatles' music, that he is ultimately always a failure... but then he discovers John. Who cares if this miracle doesn't grant him success? It's saved John Lennon's life. There's your human cost, there's your bittersweet ending, that would help Jack see the bright side and carry on playing the Beatles music because it makes him happy, not because it makes his successful.
I was gonna say “always look on the bright side of life” but given that in Yesterday’s universe the Beatles don’t exist, Monty Python may not have existed either. I mean the Pythons were hugely inspired by the Beatles, and Life of Brian in large part only got made due to George Harrison funding the production! So if the Beatles don’t exist, the Pythons might not exist either or at least not in the form we’d recognise perhaps!
This concept of a world without the Beatles had so much going for it and yet it is completely wasted and turned into a Richard Curtis romcom 😡🤬🤣😂
And the Rutles certainly wouldn’t have existed if the Fab Four didn’t! 😂🤣😂
@@arghjayem Would've been funny if The Rutles were the "replacement" for The Beatles in a universe without The Beatles.
Like, instead of being inspired by The Beatles; in this universe they *WERE* The Beatles!
Dude that ending would’ve hit a lot harder. That would’ve been a beautiful ending to the movie…..
Your comment has more meaning and heart than the entire film.
That's such a good point. I think the film, even going with Curtis's version, could've explored this ethical question more. I'm sure a lot of Beatles fans wonder if it'd be worth it if the Beatles never existed but John got to live.
When once questioned about the inconsistencies between the song ‘Imagine’ and his life, John replied ‘It’s just a song, man.”
Yesterday: "a man lies and cheats his way into the music industry, while treating everyone around him like garbage... he finally tells the truth and is rewarded with a girlfriend"
What a heartwarming tale.
So if you knew all the Beatles songs and they never existed you wouldn’t do it?
@@Linfindores Problem there is that I have no real stage presence or musical ability. You know, like the guy in the film.
@@jacob8949 dude is a solid performer he just doesn’t look the part and let’s be honest any sane person would take the opportunity he had. I just don’t think that was smart for him to throw away for a romance
@@Linfindores probably wouldn’t, no. I don’t have the charisma suited for pop music like they did. I’m more into other types of music, which would likely still exist if they hadn’t
@@Cannon_The_Guy Charisma is just another word for confidence even the biggest rockstars faked it and were nervous as hell. And even if the same music still existed today it wouldn’t be the same because every artists were influenced by the Beatles so would’ve been much different probably worse.
Just remember that David Bowie’s hunky dory album still exists in this world which has a song that mentions Lennon
That's another rabbit hole, did the song Fame exist? Life on Mars? It's nuts
@@portagenial Does John still play/get quoted on Young Americans?
No Beatles = no Monkees = Davy Jones (David Thomas Jones) doesn't become famous.
So does David Robert Jones still feel the need to change his last name to Bowie?
@@NJGuy1973 well apparently he did change his name in yesterday so I guess Jones still became famous through some other group
This just shows the magnitude of The Beatles' impact on music.
the "u alright mate" is such a british response to getting hit by a bus lmao
Elliot Roberts: “George Harrison’s incredibly soothing voice...”
*cuts to footage from 1974 Dark Horse tour*
The Dark Hoarse Tour
lol that’s a fair point!
@@Stevesk0011 nice one Steve….jobs…..movie….will apparently be the next video by Elliot
that’s hilarious
Don't mention the war
this is supposed to be a beatles tribute movie but having practically all of the music industry remain exactly the same undermines their importance to not only music but just general culture,, it's like they're saying "these guys weren't particularly special as people or performers, anyone could have done it because yEsTerDAy iS gOoD soNg!"
I agree. The movie wasn’t a tribute movie at all to John, Paul, George or Ringo…or to the memory of John and George. The movie insulted them.
It should be noted that there was a possibility that they could have opened the universe up more in the terms of people remembering certain things that others don't with the alternate ending, where the fiance is the one that remembers Harry Potter, while Jack doesn't. It was a great ending idea, I don't know why they chose the ending we see here.
No mention of the bizarre choice to change the ending. They’d originally shot Lily James being the only one who remembers Harry Potter. A much better punchline! Oh well!
Good video!
Exactly! An opportunity for a great finale totally wasted.
Wow they really screwed the pooch
Which is freaking awesome because Harry's parents are James and Lily.
@@Niven42 Haha!!! Man, you're a genius, I haven't noticed!
wait for real? That would have been good for a chuckle and left you thinking about what would happen next, instead I was just glad the movie was over
This would've worked so well as a Netflix series
It would give so much time to develop the impact of no beatles in the music industry. They could have artists inspired by The Beatles but they have different band names and different genres, I feel series could've worked so well!
The movie just feels like an elongated music video
the places they can go dammit: impact on music industry, their solo records, what is appropriate and what is not, all the lawsuits with come together and my sweet lord,... argh.
Imagine if in this alternate universe the full effects of such a change were realized
Names change
Haircuts change
Cultural zeitgeists shift
Almost the entire body of popular music from the 60s onward is radically different (just imagine a 60s with the pacemakers as a top British band for the early 60s and a moderately less experimental but perhaps more stable and consistent beach boys leading the charge, with the psychedelic genre being much more niche)
Some people never were born
Some major events in history never happened
The butterfly effect in full swing
The Beatles changed my whole life when I was 7 years old with my 5 year old sister.In 1967 we got to take part in the TV film Magical Mystery Tour for 2 days from the 23rd to the 24th of September 1967 -55 years ago. Today we have one of the largest Magical Mystery Tour Collections on the planet
I really enjoyed this movie as "just a fun movie". That being said, I agree 100% with everything you've pointed out.
Fun or stupid?
I agree totally with this. There was something about the idea of the people who also remembered Beatles but couldn't sing that really moved me, and of course the Lennon scene had me in tears. That made me really moved by the movie even though I recognise a lot of flaws in it and see a lot of ways it could be better.
I just mentioned that to my son. It was meant to be a fictional feel good film not a fact-checked opus. I just rewatched it the other night. It is a fantasy, not to be taken seriously or as rock gospel. I love the McCartney album review on this channel-I thought it was genius. Can't we have a little Beatles influenced fantasy in a plague ridden world?
@@tonywillans7556 Fun and stupid are pretty synonymous, in all reality.
@@garmen- They are not just little inconsistencies though. They are unforgivable errors borne of laziness and commercialism.
My thoughts as to why Ed Sheeran is in this movie so prominently. The movie suggests that it not be just Jack's lack of good songs that is holding him back, it's looks and charisma. But then here is dorky Ed Sheeran, who despite all odds, is an international pop star. He's there to show you that it is possible to be famous even if you aren't conventially attractive.
the best musicians are usually ugly. look back through the 70s
@@308damage I know I certainly am.
people think ed sheeran is ugly? i must be top contender for ugliest man on the earth then jesus
@@womp47 his awful fucking music makes it even more amazing that he's a world famous musician
@@womp47 I've often said barely anyone is ugly, most people are just normal-looking or could clean up nice if they wanted to, but Ed Sheeran is legit ugly. I highly doubt you are worse off than him.
This was probably one of the first movies that I was genuinely critical of. I remember going all cinema sins on it while leaving the theater and thinking “man, why does this guy make so many obscure and specific pop culture references”
Does anyone ever wonder what would've happened if John had decided to live with his father in Australia when he was 5? Surely the Beatles would've never happened and it's scary how it all came down to the decision of a 5 year old.
:O
They could've started the movie like that. A 5 year old John flipping a coin creating two different timelines. Of course they'd have to come up with a way where jack would unknowingly switch timelines.
Your question evokes so much more than the film.
I'm pretty sure it was New Zealand.
@@bobotten9085 John could have grown up to be Two Face the Batman villain who always decides things with the flip of a coin and Paul could have grown up to be the Riddler, leaving clues in songs as to whether or not if he's dead or which bank he's going to rob.
Really surprised that the climax of this movie isn’t centered around everybody in the world suddenly remembering The Beatles and him looking like a huge fraud all of the sudden. I guess I just assumed that would be what happens.
I was hoping it would actually end with Lennon and McCartney angrily confronting, exposing him.
So you didn't realize that he was going to be stuck in an alternate reality forever? It's not 'Remembering' he literally went into a fucking alternate reality which he now can't escape from, the Beatles were never formed in that universe
The Beatles were a great band with a classic catalog that is the envy of practically every musician. However, they had a hell of a lot more than just that, they had the whole package. They were 4 cherubic young lads with great looks and truckloads of charisma bopping around the stage having the time of their lives, you can't help but have a good time watching their early performances, it's infectious. You can't bottle that and give their songs to just anyone and expect them to achieve the same results, that's madness. I'm glad I didn't watch this movie, the preview was preposterous enough to warn me away from what would otherwise be right up my alley.
You should have watched the movie. You'd see just how even a chubby, unattractive man with mediocre talent could STILL make the Beatle's songs come to life because they were THAT GOOD. Yeah, the movie is fluff, but it remains enjoyable and the ending with John is precious.
And then everything changed in 1967.
Helps that they were white
As a 13 year old when this came out, my mind was racing when I heard about it, having only seen clips of the trialer I thought Ed sheeran was going to be just some guy because pop music as we know didn’t exist, and I think that if i at age 13 could grasp the impact the Beatles had on music and the world, then the writers of the this film were just truly lazy in not conveying that at all.
@@kidnamedfinger2502 quite a bit changes in those 3 years at least in the uk, yk drinking and sex and all that. but yh my point still stands regardless of how old i am now
@@kidnamedfinger2502 but it's true, there's plenty of difference between 13 and 16. Growth is much faster than say between 32 and 35. It's roughly a fifth of their age, so it makes sense that they see themselves change a lot
@@kidnamedfinger2502 you probably would have said the same at that age and it would have been true.
@@kidnamedfinger2502 13 year olds are pretty different from 16 year olds
bravo.... well said for a very young person
Also it's wild that they mention James Taylor in this movie since he notoriously got his big break with the help of Paul Mccartney and was the first non-British act to sign onto Apple Records.
Good point. Too many errors in the movie.
Jack should have looked for all 4 of them (with no Ciggies, George is still alive) and explained to them what happened because in the Time Space Continuum, the Lads still wrote and preformed these songs on another dimension and/or parallel universe…. They still would have had their vague musical memories to re-learn the songs from Jack…. And, a whole new Mania for the Beatles would exist…. What happened to Yoko, Linda, Hey Jude, etc is for someone else to figure out!!
I don’t get the modern angst about the opening of “I Saw Her Standing There”. The song is past tense. It could be a memory of the singer meeting his high school sweetheart who he is still with.
I think it's more the 'if you know what I mean' bit that follows that sounds a bit dodgy
@@harryhackman7586 makes sense, considering john suggested the line
@@harryhackman7586 16 is age of consent in the uk though
@@thecage2580 I was just going to say the same. It's true that times have changed but also a lot of the fuss is from Americans who are used to an older age of consent and seemingly can't conceive of somewhere in the world being different. (Just don't mention Jerry Lee Lewis or Chuck Berry!)
Because these people just need to find something to be all wokey about!
There is a 2006 french film called Jean-Philippe with a very similar scenario. In this movie, the hero has an accident and wake up in a world where Johnny Halliday (a very famous french singer) is not famous. So he founds the unknown Johnny, played by the real Johnny Halliday, and try to convince him to become a singer. I wonder if the scenarist of Yesterday knows this movie.
The scene with John Lennon left me in tears. It redeemed all the other flaws for me.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at.
did it also leave you in tears when he'd beat his wife and ignored his son for years?
@@linengray what are you even babbling about dude
@@linengray you didn't answer the question. Did it leave you in tears when he would hit his wife and treat his innocent kid like garbage?
@@linengray So what's your answer did that also left you in tears: yes or no?
I really enjoy The Beatles’ music, but this movie feels like the embodiment of every annoying belief and cliché related to Beatles worshippers, including the deluded notion that their songs would still be similarly beloved and successful if it had been dropped in a completely different social context by a completely different person
I was so unbelievably bored by his covers that it's not even funny. And The Long and Winding Road is a great song, but if one guy on piano played it to me without having ever heard it, there's no way I would immediately praise it as "one of the greatest songs ever" like Ed Sheeran does in this film. Like come on, that song is so beloved in large part because it was the universally-adored Beatles performing it as one of their final songs as a group. The way this movie presents things, Paul McCartney could've banged out the whole Beatles discography in an afternoon on acoustic guitar and still would've sold millions and millions of records.
Missing another key element too: George Martin. The Beatles did wite good music and lyrics, but not for a second do I believe they would've been as popular as they were if it wasn't for George Martin.
Agree, and the one thing I didn’t like about this review is the other annoying belief that without the Beatles various bands “wouldn’t exist” as if the Beatles were the only band or artist doing similar things or experimenting at the time. You had the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, the Doors, Buddy Holly, Elvis, the Hollies, I could go on. The Beatles were a huge part and almost certainly the spearhead in changing the musical landscape, but it’s just disrespectful to the other artists of the time (including the hundreds of bands in Liverpool and Birmingham etc in the 60s who played live but maybe never recorded but will still have influenced people including the Beatles) to say that without them everything would be completely different.
Also side note. If the Beatles and Oasis both never existed I reckon you’d sell far more records recording Oasis tracks than Beatles tracks. You can argue that the Beatles walked so Oasis can run all you like, but it’s still Oasis that are running. When Jack has his realisation “I know the tracks are solid, it’s me that’s the problem” my response was actually hmmm maybe the tracks aren’t actually as solid as you think they are without the cultural phenomenon that the Beatles have been presented to you in. That’s the REAL missed opportunity IMO, are the Beatles songs actually incredible or are they just so culturally significant to Jack from his perspective of living in that world, for people outside that cultural reference point would they ever get it?
Most of their songs before rubber soul would probably not work today.
@@Sci1211 Are you suggesting that Oasis are better than The Beatles?
I would have made a movie about the Beatles breaking up in 1960 after George Paul and Pete got deported from Hamburg, and the lads all going their separate ways and living normal life. Then in 1970 (they year they actually broke up), John and Paul happen to bump into each other and catch up on old times, they talk about what songs they've been listening to (the music scene is still pretty much what it was in 1962-63 with a few advances). They go to John's home where they find Cynthia and Julian, who John stayed with in this timeline. John and Paul go into the music room and reminisce over some old originals they wrote together and start jamming on one, Love Me Do.
I'd watch that movie...
"Missed opportunity" is the phrase that comes to mind for this movie. It's not an awful movie, but it ignores everything that made the concept so interesting. Alternate realities absolutely hinge on cause and effect, and this movie never even hints at it. The John visit is my favorite scene as well, but even then, he didn't ask the questions I wanted to know... like: Does the name Paul McCartney ring a bell? No idea why the Beatles didn't form...did he never meet Paul? Did he meet him but Paul couldn't make it to The Quarrymen practice? Not even a hint as to why The world changed. And you're right, the differences that go back over 100 years with no explanation. If this film gave us more answers, or even more interesting questions with hints peppered throughout the film, that could have been something, but no, just non-sequitur random differences that don't add up to anything.
And yeah, it's hard to believe this was directed by one of film's greatest directors! Did the studio meddle and screw it up? In such capable hands, how did this end up such a disappointment??
Yes, I just saw it on Netflix for the first time. I can't stop going over all the things they could have done which easily could have turned this mediocre film into a classic heartfelt fantasy/comedy like Groundhog Day or Ghost Busters.
@@j.d.waterhouse4197 absolutely! And the worst part is that now the idea is wasted. It's just too specific so nobody will ever run with the same concept and give us the movie we would have wanted to see! That's what bugs me the most. I don't begrudge a great director making a mediocre film; I begrudge that he totally through away a great concept that can probably never be done right!
@@kevdmiller Yes, it was a fairly mediocre film, but not bad enough that someone would be willing to remake it...very unfortunate for us Beatles fans!
I'd say it was likely a little bit of studio interference (they'd push for Ed Sheeran to be a "big role" because "he's the in thing, that'll draw in the 14-22 demographic that we need") and likely they would have been the ones to cut Ana de Armas when they realised she was more likeable entirely accidentally because nobody had focused on Lily James and just hoped some early witty dialogue would set them up well...except most of the early dialogue has to go into setting up the Beatles and then the pointless "friends" and the accident... It's just confused.
But really if you look at Richard Curtis' biggest films they are all self written projects, largely based on his own life or close friends according to interviews, they've taken years to write he says and they are crucially romantic comedy, nothing else.
This is trying to be a music biopic, time travel/parallel universe....romantic comedy.
And it really wants to mythologize the world of writing songs, which we already do too much, the whole plot is about how special one person is for coming up with one or two songs but it never really impacts the plot itself, its like the plot happens despite the accident and the love story is forgotten about in favour of showing the pop star lifestyle just so "we can see what he has to choose between" when it comes to the big final moment.
Crucially Richard Curtis usually writes AND directs his own films but this was partly a Danny Boyle film, another influence, however good at film making, likely (knowing Danny's style) trying to pull it in a darker edgier, realist, grounded direction towards criticising the music industry just adding a further complication and detracting from the plot.
I think the best comparison is "About Time" (2013) which I actually consider to be Richard Curtis' finest film. That was also a very complicated premise, it was a time travel romantic comedy, but crucially didn't over stress any of the explanation because it doesn't matter, the gimmick is just the hook for us to explore the concept and MOST CRUCIALLY it actually explored time travel in a way that I think was new and more interesting than even Back to the Future had, the film has a great central moral message that even leaves the audience not feeling like they missed out because they didn't get a time travelling DeLorean.
Everything that "About Time" gets right "Yesterday" gets wrong.
It's also just not that funny... 😂 Like it is really short of jokes, I wonder how many jokes Richard wrote that Danny Boyle either didn't film or some producer cut out to give more screen time to James Corden "because we need that recognised brand integration and he'll shout the film out at prime time West Coast if he's in it on his actual show" but unless I ever get to meet Richard Curtis (and get stuck with him in an elevator for a few hours) I doubt we'll ever know 😂
This movie fails its premise so profoundly. Imagine if Jack wakes up to find himself in a sort of endless 50’s modern landscape. Music is still crooners and one hit wonders. Concept albums have never been a thing. Guitars are relegated to the background. The Cold War never ended, the 60’s never truly began, and the entire world’s development was stunted and stagnated without that cultural lynchpin. Jack’s introducing of the Beatles’ music would thus become a way to start the clock back up on human development and consciousness.
That would be a far more interesting film, and would actually prove the Beatles were necessary.
Either that or the original idea, where even having the Beatles’ catalog can’t save him from obscurity.
But not what they made.
And as an indian man his idea would get stolen just like elvis stole from chuck berry and cilla black stole from dionne warwick. That would be so much more interesting. Him going through that as a modern brown man and the fact that the songs arent really his either. Could potentially be very funny.
@@The1starberry Most performers in those days did covers almost all of the time, very few wrote even one of their own songs and almost any popular song was covered multiple times within weeks.
In that context., describing this as "stealing" seems somewhat over the top.
Oh, and Dionne Warwick's songs covered by Cilla Black were created by the not noticeably black Burt Bacharach.
@@johnnhoj6749 I hear you about Dionne, that was a bad example. However many black artists had the records they wrote stolen not covered. The list would go on all day from the rock n roll era alone. They were never compensated or credited. I wasn't talking about covers.
@@johnnhoj6749 Your little history lesson was rude considering you don't know me or what I know about music history. The black rocknroll musicians that inspired bands like The Beatles and Rolling stones (by their own admission) wrote their own music and lyrics, thats who I was refering to! We were offering ideas of more interesting storylines not criticising strangers on youtube!
John Lennon protesting didn't end the cold war
An issue for me is that, despite how much I love The Beatles, the idea that their sound would be "totally fresh" in 2019 in a universe that is basically unchanged musically, is ridiculous. A lot of The Beatles' songs still hold up extremely well today ofc, but since we're keeping every band except Oasis, we're also keeping all the bands (most of them, tbf) who were somehow influenced by them. Like Radiohead, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Black Sabbath, U2 etc, as well as all the bands and artists they in turn inspired. In that universe, what The Beatles did will surely be pretty damn outdated by now. A song like I Saw Her Standing There probably wouldn't do that well simply because...music clearly moved on from that sound a long time ago, with or without The Beatles.
You could probably still do very well as an artist just stealing Beatles songs, but you absolutely wouldn't be considered new, fresh and totally unheard of.
Really the entire British Invasion of the 60s was due to the Beatles. Bands like the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, the Turtles, the Who, eventually Led Zeppelin and Electric Light Orchestra wouldn't have been as huge without the Beatles kicking open the door and leading them through. The Beach Boys and Motown would've probably filled the void.
IT might be fresh, if there was no Beatles influence on music and music had taken a completely different tangent. I doubt it would have, it just would have been bereft of the Beatles genius, and pushing the edge further, and so many others might not have been influenced and made music similar. Perhaps without the Beatles the things they championed and pushed forward might have been delayed in the changes to music, culture, and influence that they had by 8 to ten years.
To add to this what kind of Beatles is the Beatles without harmonies???
possibly. but how could music move on from something that never happened in the first place. The Beatles songs would be new and fresh in 2019 because of that.
I simply reject your premise outright. B/c we have a different definition of ‘timeless’ and CLEARLY listen (on the regs) to a completely different band who just so HAPPEN to have stolen the greatest band of all time’s name and found their way into your selection. I say all that to say this…The Beatles are not ONLY still as fresh as day 1, FRESHER EVEN, seeing as beyond their first 2-3 albums, they literally lifted off the “conventional-genre-foundations” and created a whole new category of creation musically! They took an existing artistic medium (music), through their charisma, creativity, decision-making, parity (between John and Paul mostly of course), senses of humor, NEXT-Level-producer, and ultimately a brave and experimental writing commitment, the likes of which seem damn-near “spoiled-brat-rich-time-wasting-ignorant-esque” feel to it in hindsight, they created music that is STILL heretofore not labeled other than just “Beatles Music”. All of Abbey Road and Sgt. pepper and Revolver and Rubber Soul and The White Album ,AT LEAST, are all 100% still beyond fresh today. You’re opinion seems to be the world’s first incorrect one…kind of legendary trailblazing YOU’RE doing with this new kind of “opinion”…lol!
I love this review - totally agree! A film about the ramifications of realising it's not just talent/good material that you need to be successful but a whooollle load of other things to fall in line would have been SO MUCH MORE INTERESTING. To be fair to Ed Sheeran, I think his character was meant to be hateable (like a send up of himself) but also can Ed Sheeren stop appearing in everything, please?! I was nervous about the John part of the movie as I felt like it had the potential to go so wrong but it was actually the best, most touching, bittersweet part! Good work, Elliot :)
The Rolling Stones would most likely have remained an unsigned blues cover band if it weren't for The Beatles. Aside from their first single being a Beatles song, it was George Harrison who recommended them to Decca. And even if another label had signed them, they most likely would have never started writing their own songs.
And James Taylors first album was on Apple Records.
Come on was their first single. But yes. Beatles saved Rock n Roll.
And even death doesn't stop the Stones Rolling.
Beyond the terrible covers, what annoyed me the most is how incoherent the track list on his album would be. How do you blend such a range of maturity and styles? Imagine getting Within on Without You right after I Saw Her Standing
That's a great point! It's odd that they blended early and late-period Beatles songs on the same album. That suggests the writer didn't know anything about their music (even though he must have.)
That’s another thing that pestered me. It wasn’t just the songs that made the Beatles popular, it was the albums. This goes back to the “it takes more than beatles songs to be like the Beatles” argument but yeah just so many aspects of this movie were cheap.
I kinda liked some of the covers
As you obsess about detail, there is also an error at the railway station, where you clearly see "no smoking " signs...
the Lennon scene is fine as it is, but it would've been perfect if when jack knocked on the door, George Harrison was in the kitchen making tea. like even through this mixed-up timeline, the two of them still knew each other, just as coworkers or something non-musical. we got so much john and paul love in the movie that it felt like George and Ringo got gipped.
John met George through Paul
@@christophervincent6656 in our timeline. it’s a movie, dude.
@@rosebyanyname o right, right my bad didn’t fully read your comment
Would make more sense if Lennon somehow teamed up with McCartney as a co-worker -
or as a business partner. Perhaps initiated a community of painting artists helping other artists to succeed.
And called it "Come Together" or "With a Little Help From My Friends" - or something.
@@tomrogerlilleby2890 bro. it’s a movie.
Would’ve loved to have seen a scene where some old man approaches Jack after a show and tells him he really enjoyed his music, possibly after Jack plays “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” and Jack says “Thank you….?”
The old man shakes Jack’s hand and says “George”
I want this movie to be remade with the original premise but in the end Jack reunites the 4 Beatles who have never met and pulls them from the jobs they would have been doing had they not been the Beatles
Maybe the Beatles didn’t exist because John went down to Australia with his father which was one of the options he was presented with as a child so the film could be a bit like “Mr. Nobody” as it examines what our choices can lead to
The film could be called “Tomorrow Never Knows” which always seemed like a more appropriate title than “Yesterday”
One thing I didn't like was that there was no payoff for Jack's struggle with Eleanor Rigby!
Also no George either or hidden cameos from Ringo and/or Paul in the crowds or something. Did love the John Lennon scene though, that was super cute!
I was also surprised that Jack didn't ask the other two people that knew of The Beatles for help with songs he was struggling to remember the lyrics to. Even if they couldn't sing they could've had it that the two remember lyrics or rhythms more clearly that Jack just couldn't fully piece together. If I were him I would've been over the moon to find more people that could help me with those songs!
Also saw Revolution 9 on a sticky note in Jack's room during the movie.. Wonder how that turned out XD
Hint: Ellie is probably Eleanor Rigby. Check out this interpretation from a "Ryan."
"The movie was under appreciated because people misinterpreted the story. The movie is about Ellie, not Jack. Ellie is the persona of Eleanor Rigby (as revealed in this last montage where her wedding gown silhouette matches Jack’s previous vision of Eleanor Rigby).
Like the song, Ellie “lives in a dream” and imagines what could have happened if Jack survived the cycling accident and became the star she always believed he could be. Since Jack barely had any decent songs of his own, she imagines him originating the catalog of the greatest rock band of all time, reaching super stardom, and ultimately saving her from the doldrums of lonely suburban single life.
Like Eleanor Rigby, Ellie’s imaginary daughter “waits at the window” of their home shown here."
This is a good critique. The Eleanor Rigby didnt exactly payoff. Also, he is critiquing that maybe he should have uploaded to UA-cam where YT might not have existed
I’m sorry I’ve never got the opportunity to say this- no shade on Lily James, but that woman plays the same character in every role. Even in this film she has the quaint, romantic, lofty demeanour of an Austen protagonist or any other female character in a period drama. I see potential in her as an actress- but darling please get out of Regency era England.
She’s playing Pamela Anderson soon actually- totally different !!
Rachel Darby That’s what I was concerned with. Like I really hope she pulls it off. Because think- Elizabeth Bennet is so vastly different from Pamela Anderson. I don’t know how it could work well if shes still Elizabeth trapped in the body of Pamela Anderson. All we can do is hope- because the woman has so much potential.
James was such a blank audience POV character in _Darkest Hour._ Her role in _Baby Driver_ was much more interesting in a rising-tide-lifts-all-boats way.
and for some reason that's usually the case with nepotism actors/actresses. they always manage play the exact same character in every movie
I bawled my eyes out at seeing that John Lennon was alive. It was truly my FAVORITE part of this movie. I wish we would have seen where the other 3 would have been had they not been Beatles. Wouldn't it have been fun if instead of cashing in on the songs, the main character tried to get them back together (even in their late 70's) and tried to get THEM to be the Beatles they were meant to be? And upon the world hearing the actual Beatles play for the first time, it snapped him back into the previous world where they did exist? While I didn't mind Yesterday, I agree with you there were so many missed opportunities here. I would have loved to see what a world without the Beatles would have looked like. The Coke, cigarettes and Harry Potter things were just out of place. What if as he played the songs more and more people started to "snap out of it" and started remembering them? I just can't deal that had there been no Beatles that life would look the same as it did in the film.
You really articulate why I was frustrated with this film. There has been an enormous amount written about the impact of The Beatles on both Popular music and culture as a whole over the past 60 years . As you say it was not just the songs but the musicianship, production and presentation of their music. Their impact had significant social implications too. Whether we would actually have acts like Radiohead and Coldplay (and indeed Ed Sheeran ) but for how the Beatles impacted popular music, particularly here in UK.
Jack Barth's original script does sound like it addressed this issue far more . Even the title 'Cover version' explores that Jack can never hope to replicate what the Beatles achieved with their music and can only vaguely reproduce it. I sincerely Jack Barth got a good renumeration for his script.
Ironically a film which is supposed to celebrate the Beatles oddly ends up downplaying their impact by how little things are altered by their absence
Yeah, he articulated it really well! (Luckily, for my lazy head!)
I feel like something worth noting that the filmmakers completely forget about is how many "Beatles" songs were created or released as solo material.
Like even if Jack somehow recreated every single Beatles song from memory (including all of the singles, and somehow Tomorrow Never Knows and Revolution 9) this alternate universe would still be without songs like Imagine, Maybe I'm Amazed, All Things Must Pass, Isn't it a Pity, Band on the Run, etc.
Beatles songs are more universally loved (especially after that pandemic version of "Imagine"), so it makes sense he'd start there and not move on right away. The movie also makes it quite explicit that he also has the whole Oasis discography to select from. If Jack had a long life, it would be easy to introduce all the songs he remembered.
There are so many potential facets that the film could have been far longer if they were all addressed, and maybe they didn't want to address them with throwaway lines, although I would have appreciated Ellie letting Jack know what song he played for her instead of "Wonderwall."
You're not wrong. I didn't know I needed this video until UA-cam suggested it. I think that's what happens in the movie. You don't know you need the Beatles until you listen to their music. And I think that when the old lady says something about the world being worse, I relate it to our interior world. For example, when I find myself in times of trouble, I listen "In my life" and everything changes. Beatles are the most similar I can find to family, I don't know if I was clear enough. I tried my best writing this comment in english. By the way, I learnt a lot of this language through Beatles songs (plus: I'm a spanish teacher 😅).
Thanks for this video 😍
I have this conspiracy theory about Ed Sheeran's insistence on being in this movie. What if (hear me out on this) *this exact same premise happened to Ed Sheeran irl* Like, he comes from a world where a very popular band existed, but doesn't in this reality, so he "stole" a bunch of their stuff and passed it as his own music.
Think about it, he's just a normal guy, with not many great singing qualities, who got popular out of nowhere with songs he wrote by himself (and wrote for other artists too). So this movie is a way for Ed Sheeran to subtly confess this.
Anyways, great video bro.
Ed also married and had a child with a girl he knew from school.
This theory would be realistic if his lyrics and the instrumentals were good
going by sheerans songs that band must be crap.
@@davidlynch5566 Why would Ed Sheeran copy a horrendous band? is my response to the theory
@@TankEngine75 I mean, Hey Dude also sounds kinda bleh. "Something" lyrics alone feels toothless compared to the album mix.
i guess this is the universe where John Lennon went to therapy
You're right!
John Lennon was in therapy after the Beatles
@@seeling_liebe uh yeah I meant non-quack therapy
@Michael Rogers Refer to my other response. I have zero reason to believe primal scream therapy had any positive impact on John's life
@@only_sleeping7276 it did make for Mother tho, so it did one good thing
I remember being really excited about this film, great concept. Then I saw it and was so disappointed at its missed opportunity. I groaned about it to friends and family, but was met with surprise that I hated on it so much. I forgot all about it until I came across your video. Thank you for making me feel not so alone. It was so disappointing, and you hit the nail right on the head.
ok but like what’s the point of having cigarettes not exist in the movie but not have George scene in there? i’d like to see how they woudlve done a scene with an 70 something year old George, like the least they could’ve done was add him in that Paul and Ringo scene
So, my thoughts. Sir Walter Raleigh never makes it back to England to introduce tobacco. Much lower demand so southern American colonies aren't as successful, Coca Cola isn't invented. Blah blah, either both mother's don't die or only one of them, so John & Paul never bond.
maybe, without beatle publicity, coca cola and cigarettes went bankrupt in the film, idk
@@valeriataylor8337 first off, thats super inplausible. secondly, they'd still have a wikipedia article tho
'do you genuinely don't know who the beatles are?'
'me to the other kids in school'
SO TRUE
Relatable
Same!
The idea of some of the greatest music/art/books/movies being overlooked and swept under a rug because of the "wrong person" creating them is so true. I don't know how many obscure artists I've found that are 100 times better than the mainstream shit that I've found. There's also the counter to this concept of someone with connections, money, marketing, etc, releasing the absolute worst music ever but being hyper successful. I think everyone can think of at least one or two musicians who confuse us because their music is awful, but they're popular anyways.
4:00 - she doesn't put her life or passions on the line, she continues to teach, and even when he's booked by Ed Sheeran for the Russia concert she turns down the opportunity to go with him. I think she sees a friend with a passion and wants to support him, even when he doesn't believe in himself.
Yes, she's in love with him, he can't see it, and the only thing that she can do to keep him in her life is to support his musical ambitions and hope that one day he'll wake up to her.
@@kartvelo I disagree that she's only supporting his musical career to keep him in her life, I think she just genuinely believes in him and loves him enough to support him - and that also means staying optimistic on his behalf when he's down on his luck!
The biggest missed opportunity of this film, to me, is the notion that even Lennon might have simply quit music without the success of the Beatles. This could have been used to mirror Jack's struggles from the beginning of the film and comment on how even the best of us can struggle, doubt themselves, and even quit when faced with setbacks. That its important to perceiver if you believe in your art would have been a hell of a conclusion.
Would’ve also tied in nicely with Jack Barth selling his first screenplay at 62.
I get where she was coming from in terms of not wanting to let Jack give up. She fell head over heels in love with *her idea of what Jack was* and she will not let reality get in the way of Jack *becoming* her idea of the man she wants to be in love with. I honestly think it would have been a cool concept to have Lily turn out to be the reason the world was so deeply changed -- that she'd had some kind of Lathe of Heaven/Franklin Richards/Anthony (the Twilight Zone kid who sends people 'to the cornfield' with his mind) moment. And in that moment her mind had reached out and changed the world into one where Jack would be able to be poured into the hole she left by reaching back and breaking up the Beatles before they could become a famous band.
I can almost understand her not getting together with him in such a circumstance, too: if she were subconsciously shaping this altered world, and she was afraid of losing him (which has got to be why she has manager/friend-zoned herself for over a decade), then of course she creates a world where she has obstacles to getting together with him. Because her drive wasn't for the world to be one where she gets to be with Jack, it's for the world to be one where Jack becomes what she envisions him as being -- and that person isn't one she thinks she'll end up getting together with, it's one she'll end up mooning over from the sideline, exactly like she's been doing all along.
The scene where he declares that the songs were written by the Beatles is funny to me. Like none of the Beatles members seems to have any recollection just imagine how confused they’d be.
Jack: "John Lennon wrote this song"
John Lennon: "uhhhhh"
When he was 5 years old, John had to choose between staying in Liverpool with his mother Julia, or emigrating to New Zealand with his merchant seaman father Alfred. In Yesterday, apparently John chose his father, became a seaman himself, and never formed the band.
Paul probably was friends with George but neither ever met Ringo, so it would have been a complete shock to them to be credited as the authors of all of Jack's songs.
And for the crowd to just automatically believe and forgive him, and not walk off thinking he was some kind of nutter is stretching credibility.
@@RustyViewer why would that make people think he was some kind of nutter? Everyone already believes he wrote the songs himself. Why would he lie about not writing them? And why would it be unbelievable? People have secret ghost writers all the time
I really didn't like this movie.
can we also talk about how its dark everywhere in the world at once when the power goes out
I thought the same thing. As if the sun had vanished
Those solar flares work magic.
Yes, this was a missed opportunity. It just became a romantic comedy.
Heard a behind the scenes tidbit that they scripted George and Ringo being old buddies at a bar and Paul walking his dogs
So again- Ringo and George get shafted LOL
As Elliot said in another video, "Justice for George and Ringo, I swear to God".
You forgot to mention the scene when he look for his record collection trying to find Beatles Albums and he does not find anyone, but he took "Hunky Dory" from Bowie, so definitely the song "Life on Mars?" was not influenced by Lennon, not to mention the entire Bowie career, so the Beatles did not existed but the white thin duke did and apparently his songs were the same. this is a simplistic approach to a great concept or idea. thanks for this video! this is the review i was waiting for!!!
Yeah! Either the Beatles historically never formed so the face of popular music and the entire timeline is changed a’ la butterfly effect
Or Beatles stuff just magically disappears and people just forget them but nothing else actually changes so you just have a bunch of blank records and posters and two very confused old men
@diamond dogs yeah !! haha you are right
I really appreciate your analysis of the missed opportunities here. I’ll ask, the nature of the Hollywood beast is to cater to the more general romcom movie audience, I’ll be it with plenty of Beatles love. I saw this video roughly when you posted it, and it kept me from seeing the movie until tonight when I was just in the mood for it. It was interesting enough and the songs alone brought tears. And I agree that the scene with 78-year-old John Lennon. That was a beautiful scene. Anyway, I just turned 65 and I’m still a kid waiting to retire so I can play guitar and wrap my own songs without my job getting in the way. Thank you so much for your thoughtful video… Videos. Especially your epic video on all of George’s albums. You’re the best.
I had so much expectation in this movie especially as it seemingly tackled a unique alternative historical effect on the Beatles’ non existence. I was so excited to see this to the point my mom and dad accompanied me to the theater, and they set up a double date with my uncle and aunt. Once I realized while watching the film that what we were all expecting wasn’t going to happen and that it was just going to be a romcom, I cringed, especially on the hotel room kissing scene, like I was thrown off the experience of the movie and I felt embarrassed that I dragged my parents, uncle and aunt to this type of movie that doesn’t even fit their taste anymore.
The Beatles are used as Checkov's Band in the Firebird series of books by Claudia Gray. The series explores the Multiverse and the fact that the Beatles sometimes don't exist becomes very important for the main character personally. These books go HARD into the multiverse theory and the series happens to be one of my favorites. It doesn't specifically explore what things would be like without the Beatles, but the fact that it's hinted on definitely makes me mind race and made me very excited initially for his movie.
Thank you for the recommendation!! I've been on a big reading slump recently, and I've needed something just like this. I'd recommmend "Plastic Jesus" by Poppy Z. Brite. It's not about alternate universes, but an excellent heart wrenching McLennon story with the serial numbers filed off.
Being a songwriter and a music producer (not successful but passionately for decades), I too felt that this movie was a let-down. I liked it, but it failed to explore the premise. I too loved the John Lennon scene best to the extent that it made me cry. Just think of the songs we've been deprived of by the the loss of him or Freddie Mercury. Or Prince or Bob Marley for that matter. Being also a Depeche fan, this movie made me feel very - VERY - privileged. It's such a blessing that they're still around after 40+ years, with a new album and a new world tour on the horizon. In fact, I do dread a world without any Depeche Mode in it. It will happen one day, and it will break my heart. Yesterday shouldn't have been a romcom. It completely missed the mark by trying to be. Although depicting the music industry for the evil arseholery it's always been, these people are not actually the problem. The problem are flat-rates. The highway-men over at Spotify. That's the problem. And maybe an inevitable one at that, given the rise of the internet. The Beatles opened up our minds. Showed us - in just six short years - what is possible. They even wrote a song - on the Revolver album? - that was mimicked by "Setting Sun" by the Chemical Brothers. They had a message of positivity. John Lennon was all about emancipation from the status quo, about hope, about inner empowerment. That's what they stood for. To go above and beyond. In every conceivable way. And this movie boils it all down to how much money you could possibly make off their music. It's a travesty!
You really nailed this! I had no idea the original screenplay actually tackled the core premise so differently. Like you said, this would have been SO much more interesting and probably more in line with reality.
No, some random dude would not be able to achieve stardom with loose memories of Beatles songs in a world that suddenly lost them. Especially if he did not also take the time to remember the specifics of the vocal arrangements, guitar/ bass/ percussion parts, and production decisions made in addition to the lyrics and chords.
You put it very well that the impressive songwriting is just a small part of what made the Beatles a success, but a few things that came to mind that you didn't explicitly name are:
-The energy, cohesion, and instrumental skill the Beatles developed from their grueling early days performing in Hamburg and Liverpool. The protagonist in the movie doesn't seem to have earned anything like that.
- The direction and assistance of George Martin and the rest of the talented producers/engineers who made their records and helped them innovate in the studio. This movie's versions of the songs (like a lot of Beatles covers) lose pretty much all of the vitality and depth of the originals and somehow make them sound very bland.
-The fact that there were four of them! Four Beatles, not just one guy! The Beatles were a group act and presented four different whimsical, funny, lovable personas that played off each other perfectly. A person can't exactly generate that same kind of dynamic within their own belly.
Anyway, you make great videos and I enjoy your thoughtful takes on all the weird Beatles stuff people keep making. This was my favorite of yours so far.
"I saw her standing there" is from the early period, when John, the oldest, was only in his early twenties and George, the youngest, was about 18...them talking like that about a 17 year old girl was basically age-appropriate for the time
Then, there's this 30 year old talking about a 17 year old girl in a modern context. You're right, yikes
A man of any age can write a song about a high school sweetheart he had, and that's not pedo. What's got into you people thinking that songs have to be about events that happened at the singer's current age?
@@stevenpoe640 the film doesn't address it at all so i don't think it's a far cry to say how odd that is that jack wouldn't think "hmm maybe i as a 30 year old should not change the lyric"
@@iggykad There is no reason to change the lyric. Even 90-year-old Tony Bennet could sing a song about his teenage sweetheart from long ago. Songs do not have to represent an experience from the recent past. Why is this so hard to understand?
Why in the hell would you assume it's talking about the modern context? After all, it doesn't say "She is just 17," but rather "she WAS just 17." You people are all crazy. Songs can be about the distant past, or even about a fictional character other than the singer. Did David Bowie fly on a spaceship? Was he Major Tom? You guys are a real trip.
its being looked at incorrectly. it is from the early days of Rock And Roll where song were often written specifically for their teenage audience and songs like that are written from the perspective of a teenager. thus Ringo Starrs cover of the wonderful Johnny Burnette song "You're Sixteen". it isn't creepy time have just changed and so has the understanding of why a grown man is seemingly singing about teenage girls. it is from the perspective of a teenage boy in love.
Thank you so much for doing this analysis. “Missed opportunity” is such a great way to start thinking about this movie
I agree completely and also feel there's a lot more they could have explored in the film:
- Would some of the songs be considered controversial today, which ones and why? How would people react to that?
- More profound effects on a person's mental health of stealing someone else's life work. Potential identity crisis? Claims of divine inspiration? Losing touch with reality?
- How has the music changed over the years without them? Exploring fun new genres or maybe being a few decades behind?
- If they wanted it to be a love letter to the Beatles they could have also analyzed the music, harmonies, lyrics, and the main character's struggle to put it all together. It's a great opportunity to sit and think about the whole creation process...
I mean, the potential of this film is so frustrating.
Who else wants to see full video review for the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I want to know more, but I never want to watch it.
Brad Jones (The Cinema Snob) reviewed it some years ago.
the maker of this video did that in his other video about movies based on the Beatles
@@futuramayeah yeah I know that. I saw the last where he reviewed Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, and I was asking to see a full length video for it, rather than just a 7 minute segment in a full length video.
@@Omsmitten I really doubt that
Didn't he say it before it happened?
I really appreciate you pointed out the "frizzy hair" thing :D I have frizzy hair and when I saw that scene in the theatre I was like "What the hell are you talking about??"
This is maybe the only movie that would have been better with a “It was all a dying dream” ending than the actual ending it had.
We're probably supposed to realise that's what's happened ourselves.
Oh please no. I hate that ending cliché, one of the worst things in cinema.
I would use the og lyrics for I Saw Her Standing There as an easter egg ''When we were just 17, she was never a beauty queen''.
me too bro
Just found your video. I felt exactly the same about how you felt about this film. Touched by the John Lennon part, and felt the movie missed out on a great opportunity to be something special. I feel like the John scene should have been a series of four. Sticking with the original premise that despite having these songs he isn't a star. I think it could have really said something about art and the nature of it. But I feel it would have been interesting to have the main character meet with all the Beatles in an attempt to turn his songs into successes. Imagine the real Paul and Ringo speaking with him. Could have been so great. Instead it just sort of phoned in the idea and his love story was just got a groan from me. A bold idea with a painfully flat execution.
The antidote to YESTERDAY is Peter Jackson's GET BACK.
It proves that the Fab Four's most important component was their chemistry.
Dude had nobody.
It got me a bit pissed at the film right there in the theater.
Me: After all these years.
I watched every Beatles biopic so you don't have to
The best (and worst) Beatles tribute films
The missed opportunity of Yesterday
Me: Finally, I have them all.
My wife and I saw it with her friend and her friend's husband. Her friend applauded at the Downton Abbey trailer, and she was the only person in the theater to do so. Her husband fell asleep and then suddenly woke up and shouted, "Coke and cigarettes! COKE AND CIGARETTES!" If not for those two incidents, I would have no memory of this awful movie.
i don't think the beatles would've been that successful today lol. the film should've explored the concept and differences between the music industry nowadays and before
Of course they wouldn't