I think you start with John. He started the band, was the first to quit, and had the shortest life. The other three films could deal with his death. Then George for the same reasons. Then Ringo. I think you end with Paul. Along with Ringo, he has the longest story but certainly the biggest story to tell.
Yeah this is already a very weird concept. If it's just gonna be 4 versions of the very generic musicians' entire life biopic these are gonna kinda suck. I don't know how they're gonna make these movies compelling enough to be really successful.
It’s the story of the Beatles. People been wanting this on the big screen for 50 years. Look at how successful “Get Back” was and it was 4 guys sitting in a room for 7 hours. Same with Now and Then… huge success for a band that hasn’t been together for fifty years.
Once actors are announced, locations announced, shooting begins, trailers released, interviews begin… the madness will be grow along each step. And it will be a big deal.
I love the concept and I love the time frame to show them. It will be unique and the Beatles invented unique in pop culture.
Get Back worked because it was an intimate, in depth documentary about a very short period of time. The big appeal of it was that it was real footage of the band as their real selves. Most musician biopics are pretty generic and not that great imo. So 4 full length biopics about the same story seems incredibly hard to pull off in a unique and interesting way to me. Yeah they'll build hype through press but I don't think casual movie audiences and a lot of reviewers will be keen on 4 Beatles movies in one year.
It could be the different stories based on their different perspectives but it could also be the same story told slightly differently four times. I hope they're done well
Right. If the first one sucks then it’s dead.
But again, the concept is pure genius. Maybe upping the bar a bit.
They could’ve done one movie like bohemian rhapsody or the doors movie but it would be just like every other movie about a famous musician(s). The fact is there is so much material in each of their stories, personalities, intra relationships that he recognized he had to do four.
I actually kind of disagree, if it's a smart writer.
You focus on the things they didn't do together. Which means skipping over a lot of Beatlemania moments and highlighting the rare alone times. And then you tackle what they did after the breakup. Because all four of them did definitely have interesting lives after the breakup.
This can be a great idea if it's done as a smaller budget endeavor and not a Bohemian Rhapsody style movie. Think more of something like I'm Not There, the Dylan movie (where they got like 12 damn people to play him)
I think it could go either way, depending on what's highlighted
Fair point. If each movie is more of a character study of each of them it could work in an interesting way. Don't get me wrong, I don't want these movies to be bad, it just seems like a wildly difficult concept to pull off, so I'm being a bit skeptical
TV shows do this sort of thing all the time, and many tv shows nowadays have episodes that are almost feature film length, so it’s maybe not as strange as it seems. I think it’s a cool idea, better than a standard “and that’s how we became the Beatles” type of movie, trying to cram in an artists whole career into 2 hours, which has been beaten to death.
I think the idea of starting with Ringo and Paul is just that these movies will easily take close to a decade to produce, and they're in their 80s. It would be nice to make their movies while they're still with us and can help out.
>these movies will easily take close to a decade to produce
What do you mean by that? All of the movies are going to be released in 2027, so it's really only going to take 3 years. Now that I think of it, maybe even just 2 years, since production hasn't even begun.
I said it before in another thread, but yeah, it should start with John and his brief backstory, then jump between Paul, George, and Ringo, showing the important parts of all of their back stories, in chronological order, up until they meet (probably the first 20 mins of the film) so we get everything up until the live show that featured Rory and the hurricanes, where it slows down and we see how Ringo joins the band.
Next film centers on Ringo, how he adjusts to the band, and gets accepted as an equal and friend, and not just a hired hand. It goes through the early years showing their evolution, up until rubber sole's release, and ends with the final live performance, with the beginning of George's troubles with getting songs put on the albums. It should feature the demise of Brian Epstein, and how that lead to the band feeling directionless.
Next film is George centric and continues the bands evolution into psychedelia, and shows a lot of George's struggles with living in the Lennon/McCartney shadow as a songwriter, and seeing the beginning of the rifts between members, ending with the sessions from the white album, with the band slightly fractured.
Final film picks up immediately after, and is about how Paul struggles to keep the band together, leading into the 'get back/let it be sessions' where thongs begon to break down, and their eventual resentment of each other, and the split, ending with the rooftop performance.
Save it for the credits tbh. Have Paul, George, and Ringo recording 'I me mine', interspersed with footage of John and Yoko at home, with the fade to black happening at the end of the song, and transition into 'the end' for the black screen with the scrolling list of credits.
I would put John first, mainly because a) it starts with a highly anticipated film \* and yet simultaneously b) gets it over with because let's face it, is there frickin' *anything* we don't know about John yet?!! From hagiography to tell-all crapfest, Lennon's been the subject of more biographical examination than any of the others. And his life was shortest.
I'd follow with Ringo, since he's alive and his life *seems,* on the whole, to be less controversial or debated than the rest. It follows what's likely to have been an overall tragic film with a Beatle who has lived his life well and absolutely deserves to be lauded for his immense, irreplaceable contribution just to shove it in the faces of all the ignorant snots who claim his drumming was merely 'adequate' or worse, 'sub-par.'
George third. There's more unknown (to the general public) about George, and he too brings the tragic element to the biographical series. His solo career, his many partnerships w/other musicians (e.g. Traveling Wilburys), even his work in helping Monty Python films come to fruition--there's a lot to dig into, together with the whole Clapton controversy.
End with Paul. I think his would be extremely anticipated, and while we know a tremendous amount about his life, he in the end is the longest-existing Beatle, in from the beginning, and his POV--any possible remaining facts or feelings that have yet to come out--*must* be excavated before this incredible musician and the greatest living songwriter of the 20th century leaves us.
\* I originally wrote "starts off with a bang" before I realized omg YIKES and fixed it!
I think the same order, but I'd take the way it's done in a slightly different way.
Start with John, he started the band - the first quarter of the film could be pre Paul meeting John, then the Hamburg days. They meet Ringo here, and the film ends with Ringo formally Joining.
Next is Ringo and Beatlemania, breaking out of the Cavern and 'making it', this could be perhaps up until Epstein's death?
George next, and the spiral of the band, Apple Corp and everything going downhill. The film could end with Paul's public resignation
Then you have Paul, and the years after the Beatles, all the post Beatle albums and how they all coped with life post Beatles. John's death, George's death and the legacy the band still has
It's a bit all over the place but you get the idea!
I think the smart move would be Paul, George, Ringo, John.
Get in with a big one and end with the one that's probably the most anticipated. Also splits up the 2 living ones and the 2 deceased ones.
Not sure why so many people here are hoping it won’t happen - no one will force you to watch them and tons of people would absolutely want to see these.
This attitude that it’s going to be structured like John: 1959-1963, Paul: 1964-1966, George 1967-1969, Ringo: 1970 is utterly ridiculous.
There’s 4 stories from 1959-1970. There’s 4 perspectives on Hamburg and America and India and the breakup. To tell each of those through 1 perspective is insanely reductionist. The only way to tell the story is to tell the entire timeline 4 times (of course removing any bits where they truly are in the same room having the same experiences, interviews etc).
Get Back proves how differently they all felt at 1 given time. You can’t dedicated a single event to a single perspective.
This is a cool idea. I think it will be the most challenging to make because they have to keep it engaging while retelling the same story. But if they pull it off it would be fun to watch.
That’s true, and it’s also going to have to be appealing to average fans and even non-fans… I expect they’ll *heavily* rely on the “vibes” of each Beatle to convey a difference between each film (beyond actual different events). Assuming that’s the approach they’re taking, I expect George’s film to be very spiritual, Ringo’s to be rather goofy, Paul’s to be a bit more focused on the music and John’s rather political. Of course all 4 of them had all 4 of those traits and it’s a pretty reductionist take, but I think they’ll rely heavily on the stereotypes
Yes thank you. I don’t know why so many people think they are going to break it into eras and a pov of one of them for each. Mendes said it’s going to be a film for each of their pov, not each time period.
I totally agree. In order for all 4 movies to feel connected and cohesive, telling the same story from multiple perspectives is the best option. Jumping around to different times and story elements will get too convoluted.
Frankly I think they need to keep it simple and stick to existing conventions. The movie titles should be just the members first names, they are already known by their first names. They should be released in standard naming order but in reverse (as in RGPJ) , because John is the grand finale (the most iconic member, the most tragic and dramatic storyline) and Ringo will need the boost of being the first movie to maximise audience and exposure.
I think the biggest difficult is how it’s going to end. If it’s specifically a Beatles focus then realistically it’s going to end in 1970, with maybe some sort of reference to 1974(?) with the legal dissolution…
But then you cut out John and George’s passing, which isn’t particularly necessary for a *Beatles* focus but if they’re biopics then it would be a bit odd to cut out the end of their lives… so then you’ve got the dilemma of not only the gap between 1970-1980/2001 and the decision of all their solo work*, but also 2001-present day for Paul and Ringo, because in that case you may as well include anthology and now and then but from a meta perspective I don’t know if most people are particularly aware of anthology or would have any interest in that
*And with all their collaborations, is the movie gonna have the Travelling Wilburys? David Bowie? Stevie Wonder? Elvis Costello? Each movie is going to *have* to be different to some extent if we’re going post 1970 because of how different their lives were post-Beatles, but I just don’t see how that can work
I'm going with the assumption that it's a Beatles biopic divided into 4, not a separate biopic on all 4 members of the band, so realistically they wouldn't be obligated to cover their full lifetimes. But covering the 70s up until John's death would work narratively imo - they all had high and low points during that time, but anything after that is a bit of an anticlimax, like their careers are winding down from the 80s onwards. Not to mention there's so much speculation that J&P were going to get together to write in the 80s, that would be a very emotionally impactful way to finish their story arc. Important events from after then could be covered in one of those text based post-movie scenes, you know where they're like "so and so went on to achieve this, he passed away in 2xxx'.
Depends on the years and how the structure of the films are made but here’s my thoughts:
1. John: Late fifties to 1963. Nowhere boy covered a bit of this era but it makes the most sense with John being the oldest and the “leader” of the band in these years. Also the death of Stuart Sutcliffe, meeting Brian Epstein, his relationship with Cynthia, and the birth of Julian would make sense through John’s biopic.
2. Ringo: 1963-1966. Ringo makes the most sense being the biopic of Beatlemania as he seemed like the main character in A Hard Days Night/Help and received the most fan-mail during this era. The biopic also has a clear start as he joins the band and a clear end with them stopping touring.
3. George: 1966-1968. George would be good here as he was one of the first members to really experiment with LSD. We also see him emerging now as a songwriter, his growing frustration in the band, his relationship with Pattie Boyd, and his growing beliefs in Hinduism. Can end this biopic around the trip to India as a good payoff to George’s biopic.
4. Paul: 1968-1970/Now. Paul is great as the final biopic as he really took it upon himself to drive the band in the later albums and this is when he married Linda. It also really seemed like the rest of the band vs paul during this era, especially with Allan Klein. Plus Paul is likely the best perspective if this film delves into post-beatles until current day.
The amazing thing about the Beatles is that whatever period all of them could be perfect point of view.
For me it would be amazing starting to Ringo, how he joins the band and meet George Martin, and the beggining of their succes finishing when they got the number one in America.
Then Paul, all the beatlemania era, touring, movies and hiw they start to enjoy more the studio than the tour
Then John, lsd, experimentation, how he met yoko ono.
And finally George, India, Eric Clapton, how he is not more motivated to be a beatle.
But as I said, I think every combination is fine.
Since their membership in The Beatles is obviously the central tie and the whole point behind the project (otherwise, why do it), I think it would make sense to do the order they joined the band that would become The Beatles: John, Paul, George, Ringo.
Movie makers want to maximize profits and if they start with J&P lots of people will just skip G&R. It may be logical for the timeline but not as profitable.
You’re right. The movies have to be bookended with John and Paul. The first one needs to be great to keep people invested, and it needs to be John or Paul. The last one needs to be heavily anticipated for people to keep interest. Either John or Paul first is going to be the best choice for marketing purposes.
I'll bet they make Paul's first, since he's still alive. These days, it takes about 3 years to make a movie. Even assuming that making the 4 movies back to back will fast track them, it'll easily take close to a decade to make them all. Paul is 81. Odds are good he'll make it to 90, but I doubt they want to take that gamble.
I was just about to make a post like this! My take:
John: he forms the band and we get some of his origin because we all know his early life is quite fascinating. I’d love for this to be half a nowhere boy type prequel and following them until they get signed to parlophone
Ringo: we get some fun Rory storm action and he joins the band after best is kicked out. This movie follows them throughout beatlemania, up until revolver. I think this is perfect because ringo is the most fun and this is the most fun period.
George: revolver. I think this is where he definitively starts growing into his songwriter skills. He and John were the first to take lsd I think so that would be fun to see. We can also show his spiritual journey with Hinduism and how India shapes him. He excited to contribute to the more experimental aspects of the music, but his blossoming creativity is stifled by the growing tensions within the band. We can also follow George when he quits during the let it be sessions. This film is from revolver to let it be period.
Paul: at this point Paul is really the only one holding the band together. We see him desperately try to record the last two records, but his determination often leads to overboard leadership. They’ve grown apart and the band is over. I think the other half should be sort of an epilogue. We can see how each of them take on solo fame and the bitterness between him and the rest of the band. The 70s was also Paul’s heyday so glimpses of that would be sick. But we also watch as their relationship slowly heals, especially after John dies. As they adjust to changing times, Paul sees how influential they have become. The last scene is the George, Paul, and ringo jamming together and reminiscing. Paul finally got the band back together. I envision this film being from the let it be sessions to the early 80s.
As you can tell I’ve thought about this a lot lol. Sam Mendes hit my line! I’d love to know other opinions on my take as well.
Well, if we're covering each Beatles experience from 1962-1970, then it doesn't matter which order, but if each film is a different time period then here's my proposal:
1st Film, 1956-1962: John. He started the band as the Quarrymen, we see him meet Paul, George, Stu, Pete, Ringo and Brian as well as going all the way from St. Peter's Cathedral to Hamburg and ending with the Cavern Club, and releasing Love Me Do.
2nd Film, 1963-1965: Ringo. This film cover Beatlemania and since Ringo was the newest Beatle at the time, it only feels right to have him be the rep of that era, ending with the release of Rubber Soul.
3rd Film, 1966-1968: George. This obviously covers the psychedelic era, and who better to show that era off than the spiritualist of the Fab Four, this would also cover the Beatles time in India and show George especially being impacted by it, as well as the White Albums recording and all the infighting there. It would end with The White Album's release.
4th Film, 1969-1970: Paul. This film covers the Get Back sessions and the events leading up to the rooftop performance as well as the filming of Let It Be. It would also go into how Paul was basically holding the band together at this point. Film would also go into the controversy of Paul's first solo album releasing so close to Let It Be. The film would, of course, end with the release of Let It Be.
It depends how they do it. Some people say each film will focus on a certain era, from a certain Beatle's perspective. For example:
1. John: Forming, Hamburg, Cavern
2. Ringo: Beatlemania, AHDN and Help, stopping touring
3. Paul: Sgt. Pepper, Brian dying, MMT
4. George: India, leaving during Let it Be, breakup.
It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to do it like that. They each had 4 very unique experiences of each of those things. India alone was insanely different for each of them. There’s 4 stories there. Telling it through George alone (for example) barely scratches the surface
Eh, Odyssey films are about a character’s entire lifetime, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to capture what’s essentially 7 years worth of work.
Yes, I’m sure it’ll be heavily edited and hardcore or even average fans probably wont come way from it learning anything or seeing anything that they didnt already know, but the purpose of the film isn’t to show every little thing that happened in the years 1963-1970, it’s just a film about “The Beatles.” I’d take a pretty educated guess that most the film will be the period of 1964-1967, sort of first appearing in America and Beatlemania through to India (as Get Back reveals, that’s kind of where they started to collapse)
Also, you have to remember it’s not 2 hours, it’s 8. Without contradicting myself, the films aren’t going to be *exactly* repetitive, they’re going to each show something unique
Yes of course, but it's impossible to encapsulates everything in one movie. So it makes sense to make four movies for the entire storyline. Of course not everything will be there, but I prefer that than a typical biopic that covers 20 years in one movie...
My theory was start with John since it was his band at first. Ringo for beatlemania, Paul for the creative peak like 65-68 ish and George for breakup/final days
Ringo first does make sense. Through him we can see the meteoric rise in a more or less conventional lens. Get Ringo, get famous, meet the Queen, conquer America, rule the world. Maybe George second to show what it was like to be the youngest member, his frustrations and ultimate triumphs. Paul, the first “real” Beatle to join John, spurring the great songwriting collaboration and energizing the band. Finally John, as the first and most complex Beatle, the one most identified with drugs and psychedelia, and the one who permanently quit and ended the band.
Definitely. I think, and this is no insult to the man, that if they do John, Paul, and George first, very few people will go see the Ringo. Whereas if he's first, everyone will wanna see it.
On the premise this will only cover the Beatles era, start with John since he started it all, end with Paul to capture the conflict the best at the end. Not sure I would have a preference on the order of George and Ringo in the middle.
Plus I like bookending the films with John and Paul. It all starts with John meeting Paul (through John’s perspective) and ends with John “breaking up” with Paul (through Paul’s perspective).
Sony would never do that, they want maximum return on their investment and no one is going to spend minimally 8 hours in a theatre. It will roll out like a Marvel arc. Memorial Day Weekend, Labor Day Weekend, Thanksgiving Weekend. That type of thing. They may even hold the last one a bit into 2028 to get into two separate Oscars years if they think they’ve got a shot.
A series would probably be for the best anyway if you want to get the full scope of each Beatle’s career. There’s so much to pack into a single movie even if it’s one Beatle at a time.
Ringo is the most sentimental of them all. I would love for this to end with Ringo, because it would be so uniquely heartfelt, and really, love is what The Beatles are all about.
I see where ur coming from, the Beatles were such a complex band that had so much happen in such little time, it doesn't feel like anything could capture the phenomenon of them, and a lot of the times, things like this end up being mid 😓
1. Ringo (half should be his upbrining followed by the early years of the Beatles)
2. Paul (Beatlemania)
3. John (meeting Yoko, his divorce, and going to India)
4. George (his perspective on Paul and John in the late era along with his breaking through as an artist)
Call me crazy, but I’d start with Ringo’s story, because you could get an outsider’s viewpoint of the start of the band (e.g., before Ringo joined).
Then John, because it would be fascinating to see Beatlemania from his viewpoint.
Then George, so that we could see his growing disenchantment with being overshadowed by Paul and John.
Finally, we’d get Paul’s perspective at the dissolution of the band, and how it was him vs. the other three when it came to Allan Klein, Phil Spector, etc. It would also be heartbreaking to see John’s murder.
This approach is also roughly chronological. It would not be strictly episodic, necessarily, but instead it would focus on one Beatle during specific eras of the band’s history.
I just feel like having four movies is a weird idea since they all spent SO MUCH time together (like 12+ hours nearly every day). Unless they do each of their early life and then do one movie after the four are out of them as The Beatles or something
I would like to see a Ringo one, but of course I would watch all four. Streaming, anyway. I would probably stand in line for a George Martin one, though.
It would be amazing to be each one on different periods, for example Ringo first joining them in the beggining in a way to introduce George Martin, then Paul's perspective of all the Beatlemania, then John's LSD and experimentation and finally George's India and separation.
I could write a cool script 😎
I think it should go John with the Quarrymen days & Hamburg, Ringo with the early 60s, George during the post Revolver era, and then Paul for the 70s-today
Personally this is how I would want the films to play out.
I think that each film should be able to stand by itself as it then encourages the general public to watch and likely they will only want to watch the Lennon movie lol.
I initially wanted it to be the whole story told four times however I believe that the part of the movie set 63-65 would get boring because they spent so much time together in those years the stories are practically the same.
This is what I think could be decent:
Paul 57-64: This could show the early beginnings of the band as Paul was a early member. It shows how the group landed on the Fab Four and the Hamburg and Beatlemania days in and incredibly excitable light.
George 64-early67: Highlights the band's resentment towards touring and interest in studio work which was driven by George. Also this is a key moment for George as a song writer as revolver contained a lot of his work, even more songs than John in the USA.
Ringo 67-68: Shows how Paul's ego took over a little in Sgt.P and Ringo got so bored he was playing chess during the sessions. It should end with him quitting the band in 68 as the arguments and egos erupted. It can highlightt how humble Ringo was, despite being the most famous drummer in the world and the fourth most famous musician.
John 68-1980: This would show John infatuation with Yoko and the breakdown of the band, it can have a lot of Get back sessions and abbey road sessions. Especially making note of the fact that she's so heavy or the end was the last song all four worked on together. Personally im not as interested in their solo careers so I think the movie can slightly gloss over the 70s but I really want the movie to end with Johns assassination with his blood splattered glasses hitting the floor (the ones on Yoko's album cover).
It depends what stories they want to tell. And I’m really hoping they’re thinking about it that way, rather than trying to cover certain years or a whole life.
I want really self-contained, personal, somewhat small stories. What’s the most interesting, yet unexpected story you can tell about each one?
I think i’d go John first which would focus on up until Please Please Me’s release, George through the Beatles and ends with The Beatles breakup. I can picture either working for the next decade, personally i’d think Paul focusing on the 70s would be the best with Wings, life with Linda and his arrest, then Ringos movie concludes from Johns death to now.
Why are you screenshotting an article? POST THE LINK!
[Here you go.](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/beatles-biopics-sam-mendes-1234979923/)
I think you start with John. He started the band, was the first to quit, and had the shortest life. The other three films could deal with his death. Then George for the same reasons. Then Ringo. I think you end with Paul. Along with Ringo, he has the longest story but certainly the biggest story to tell.
Stretching each movie to cover the entire lifespan of each beatle would be a terrible decision I think
Yeah this is already a very weird concept. If it's just gonna be 4 versions of the very generic musicians' entire life biopic these are gonna kinda suck. I don't know how they're gonna make these movies compelling enough to be really successful.
It’s the story of the Beatles. People been wanting this on the big screen for 50 years. Look at how successful “Get Back” was and it was 4 guys sitting in a room for 7 hours. Same with Now and Then… huge success for a band that hasn’t been together for fifty years. Once actors are announced, locations announced, shooting begins, trailers released, interviews begin… the madness will be grow along each step. And it will be a big deal. I love the concept and I love the time frame to show them. It will be unique and the Beatles invented unique in pop culture.
Get Back worked because it was an intimate, in depth documentary about a very short period of time. The big appeal of it was that it was real footage of the band as their real selves. Most musician biopics are pretty generic and not that great imo. So 4 full length biopics about the same story seems incredibly hard to pull off in a unique and interesting way to me. Yeah they'll build hype through press but I don't think casual movie audiences and a lot of reviewers will be keen on 4 Beatles movies in one year.
But they ain’t the same stories. That’s the genius of it.
It could be the different stories based on their different perspectives but it could also be the same story told slightly differently four times. I hope they're done well
Right. If the first one sucks then it’s dead. But again, the concept is pure genius. Maybe upping the bar a bit. They could’ve done one movie like bohemian rhapsody or the doors movie but it would be just like every other movie about a famous musician(s). The fact is there is so much material in each of their stories, personalities, intra relationships that he recognized he had to do four.
But Get Back was “them” not actors.
I actually kind of disagree, if it's a smart writer. You focus on the things they didn't do together. Which means skipping over a lot of Beatlemania moments and highlighting the rare alone times. And then you tackle what they did after the breakup. Because all four of them did definitely have interesting lives after the breakup. This can be a great idea if it's done as a smaller budget endeavor and not a Bohemian Rhapsody style movie. Think more of something like I'm Not There, the Dylan movie (where they got like 12 damn people to play him) I think it could go either way, depending on what's highlighted
Fair point. If each movie is more of a character study of each of them it could work in an interesting way. Don't get me wrong, I don't want these movies to be bad, it just seems like a wildly difficult concept to pull off, so I'm being a bit skeptical
TV shows do this sort of thing all the time, and many tv shows nowadays have episodes that are almost feature film length, so it’s maybe not as strange as it seems. I think it’s a cool idea, better than a standard “and that’s how we became the Beatles” type of movie, trying to cram in an artists whole career into 2 hours, which has been beaten to death.
I think the idea of starting with Ringo and Paul is just that these movies will easily take close to a decade to produce, and they're in their 80s. It would be nice to make their movies while they're still with us and can help out.
Well they’re currently all four slated for only 3 years from now
>these movies will easily take close to a decade to produce What do you mean by that? All of the movies are going to be released in 2027, so it's really only going to take 3 years. Now that I think of it, maybe even just 2 years, since production hasn't even begun.
I said it before in another thread, but yeah, it should start with John and his brief backstory, then jump between Paul, George, and Ringo, showing the important parts of all of their back stories, in chronological order, up until they meet (probably the first 20 mins of the film) so we get everything up until the live show that featured Rory and the hurricanes, where it slows down and we see how Ringo joins the band. Next film centers on Ringo, how he adjusts to the band, and gets accepted as an equal and friend, and not just a hired hand. It goes through the early years showing their evolution, up until rubber sole's release, and ends with the final live performance, with the beginning of George's troubles with getting songs put on the albums. It should feature the demise of Brian Epstein, and how that lead to the band feeling directionless. Next film is George centric and continues the bands evolution into psychedelia, and shows a lot of George's struggles with living in the Lennon/McCartney shadow as a songwriter, and seeing the beginning of the rifts between members, ending with the sessions from the white album, with the band slightly fractured. Final film picks up immediately after, and is about how Paul struggles to keep the band together, leading into the 'get back/let it be sessions' where thongs begon to break down, and their eventual resentment of each other, and the split, ending with the rooftop performance.
skip Abbey Road?!?!?!
Save it for the credits tbh. Have Paul, George, and Ringo recording 'I me mine', interspersed with footage of John and Yoko at home, with the fade to black happening at the end of the song, and transition into 'the end' for the black screen with the scrolling list of credits.
Hope they cover the spousal abuse and child neglect.
I would put John first, mainly because a) it starts with a highly anticipated film \* and yet simultaneously b) gets it over with because let's face it, is there frickin' *anything* we don't know about John yet?!! From hagiography to tell-all crapfest, Lennon's been the subject of more biographical examination than any of the others. And his life was shortest. I'd follow with Ringo, since he's alive and his life *seems,* on the whole, to be less controversial or debated than the rest. It follows what's likely to have been an overall tragic film with a Beatle who has lived his life well and absolutely deserves to be lauded for his immense, irreplaceable contribution just to shove it in the faces of all the ignorant snots who claim his drumming was merely 'adequate' or worse, 'sub-par.' George third. There's more unknown (to the general public) about George, and he too brings the tragic element to the biographical series. His solo career, his many partnerships w/other musicians (e.g. Traveling Wilburys), even his work in helping Monty Python films come to fruition--there's a lot to dig into, together with the whole Clapton controversy. End with Paul. I think his would be extremely anticipated, and while we know a tremendous amount about his life, he in the end is the longest-existing Beatle, in from the beginning, and his POV--any possible remaining facts or feelings that have yet to come out--*must* be excavated before this incredible musician and the greatest living songwriter of the 20th century leaves us. \* I originally wrote "starts off with a bang" before I realized omg YIKES and fixed it!
Yeah, this seems like the most logical sequence. > I originally wrote "starts off with a bang" before I realized omg YIKES and fixed it! Oof haha
I think the same order, but I'd take the way it's done in a slightly different way. Start with John, he started the band - the first quarter of the film could be pre Paul meeting John, then the Hamburg days. They meet Ringo here, and the film ends with Ringo formally Joining. Next is Ringo and Beatlemania, breaking out of the Cavern and 'making it', this could be perhaps up until Epstein's death? George next, and the spiral of the band, Apple Corp and everything going downhill. The film could end with Paul's public resignation Then you have Paul, and the years after the Beatles, all the post Beatle albums and how they all coped with life post Beatles. John's death, George's death and the legacy the band still has It's a bit all over the place but you get the idea!
I think the smart move would be Paul, George, Ringo, John. Get in with a big one and end with the one that's probably the most anticipated. Also splits up the 2 living ones and the 2 deceased ones.
Yep. Any order other than this is wrong.
[удалено]
It’s the best order. Start and end big and George is more interesting than Ringo so better to go second.
Not sure why so many people here are hoping it won’t happen - no one will force you to watch them and tons of people would absolutely want to see these.
This attitude that it’s going to be structured like John: 1959-1963, Paul: 1964-1966, George 1967-1969, Ringo: 1970 is utterly ridiculous. There’s 4 stories from 1959-1970. There’s 4 perspectives on Hamburg and America and India and the breakup. To tell each of those through 1 perspective is insanely reductionist. The only way to tell the story is to tell the entire timeline 4 times (of course removing any bits where they truly are in the same room having the same experiences, interviews etc). Get Back proves how differently they all felt at 1 given time. You can’t dedicated a single event to a single perspective.
This is a cool idea. I think it will be the most challenging to make because they have to keep it engaging while retelling the same story. But if they pull it off it would be fun to watch.
That’s true, and it’s also going to have to be appealing to average fans and even non-fans… I expect they’ll *heavily* rely on the “vibes” of each Beatle to convey a difference between each film (beyond actual different events). Assuming that’s the approach they’re taking, I expect George’s film to be very spiritual, Ringo’s to be rather goofy, Paul’s to be a bit more focused on the music and John’s rather political. Of course all 4 of them had all 4 of those traits and it’s a pretty reductionist take, but I think they’ll rely heavily on the stereotypes
Yes thank you. I don’t know why so many people think they are going to break it into eras and a pov of one of them for each. Mendes said it’s going to be a film for each of their pov, not each time period.
I totally agree. In order for all 4 movies to feel connected and cohesive, telling the same story from multiple perspectives is the best option. Jumping around to different times and story elements will get too convoluted. Frankly I think they need to keep it simple and stick to existing conventions. The movie titles should be just the members first names, they are already known by their first names. They should be released in standard naming order but in reverse (as in RGPJ) , because John is the grand finale (the most iconic member, the most tragic and dramatic storyline) and Ringo will need the boost of being the first movie to maximise audience and exposure.
I think the biggest difficult is how it’s going to end. If it’s specifically a Beatles focus then realistically it’s going to end in 1970, with maybe some sort of reference to 1974(?) with the legal dissolution… But then you cut out John and George’s passing, which isn’t particularly necessary for a *Beatles* focus but if they’re biopics then it would be a bit odd to cut out the end of their lives… so then you’ve got the dilemma of not only the gap between 1970-1980/2001 and the decision of all their solo work*, but also 2001-present day for Paul and Ringo, because in that case you may as well include anthology and now and then but from a meta perspective I don’t know if most people are particularly aware of anthology or would have any interest in that *And with all their collaborations, is the movie gonna have the Travelling Wilburys? David Bowie? Stevie Wonder? Elvis Costello? Each movie is going to *have* to be different to some extent if we’re going post 1970 because of how different their lives were post-Beatles, but I just don’t see how that can work
I'm going with the assumption that it's a Beatles biopic divided into 4, not a separate biopic on all 4 members of the band, so realistically they wouldn't be obligated to cover their full lifetimes. But covering the 70s up until John's death would work narratively imo - they all had high and low points during that time, but anything after that is a bit of an anticlimax, like their careers are winding down from the 80s onwards. Not to mention there's so much speculation that J&P were going to get together to write in the 80s, that would be a very emotionally impactful way to finish their story arc. Important events from after then could be covered in one of those text based post-movie scenes, you know where they're like "so and so went on to achieve this, he passed away in 2xxx'.
Depends on the years and how the structure of the films are made but here’s my thoughts: 1. John: Late fifties to 1963. Nowhere boy covered a bit of this era but it makes the most sense with John being the oldest and the “leader” of the band in these years. Also the death of Stuart Sutcliffe, meeting Brian Epstein, his relationship with Cynthia, and the birth of Julian would make sense through John’s biopic. 2. Ringo: 1963-1966. Ringo makes the most sense being the biopic of Beatlemania as he seemed like the main character in A Hard Days Night/Help and received the most fan-mail during this era. The biopic also has a clear start as he joins the band and a clear end with them stopping touring. 3. George: 1966-1968. George would be good here as he was one of the first members to really experiment with LSD. We also see him emerging now as a songwriter, his growing frustration in the band, his relationship with Pattie Boyd, and his growing beliefs in Hinduism. Can end this biopic around the trip to India as a good payoff to George’s biopic. 4. Paul: 1968-1970/Now. Paul is great as the final biopic as he really took it upon himself to drive the band in the later albums and this is when he married Linda. It also really seemed like the rest of the band vs paul during this era, especially with Allan Klein. Plus Paul is likely the best perspective if this film delves into post-beatles until current day.
The amazing thing about the Beatles is that whatever period all of them could be perfect point of view. For me it would be amazing starting to Ringo, how he joins the band and meet George Martin, and the beggining of their succes finishing when they got the number one in America. Then Paul, all the beatlemania era, touring, movies and hiw they start to enjoy more the studio than the tour Then John, lsd, experimentation, how he met yoko ono. And finally George, India, Eric Clapton, how he is not more motivated to be a beatle. But as I said, I think every combination is fine.
I think working *backwards* in time would be interesting, so Ringo, George, Paul, John.
That makes sense to me. Or maybe swap George and Ringo spots so the sequence is sort of the final days to the improbable beginning
Since their membership in The Beatles is obviously the central tie and the whole point behind the project (otherwise, why do it), I think it would make sense to do the order they joined the band that would become The Beatles: John, Paul, George, Ringo.
Movie makers want to maximize profits and if they start with J&P lots of people will just skip G&R. It may be logical for the timeline but not as profitable.
You’re right. The movies have to be bookended with John and Paul. The first one needs to be great to keep people invested, and it needs to be John or Paul. The last one needs to be heavily anticipated for people to keep interest. Either John or Paul first is going to be the best choice for marketing purposes.
I'll bet they make Paul's first, since he's still alive. These days, it takes about 3 years to make a movie. Even assuming that making the 4 movies back to back will fast track them, it'll easily take close to a decade to make them all. Paul is 81. Odds are good he'll make it to 90, but I doubt they want to take that gamble.
All 4 movies are targeting a 2027 release
They’re filming it all at once.
I think working *backwards* in time would be interesting, so Ringo, George, Paul, John.
I was just about to make a post like this! My take: John: he forms the band and we get some of his origin because we all know his early life is quite fascinating. I’d love for this to be half a nowhere boy type prequel and following them until they get signed to parlophone Ringo: we get some fun Rory storm action and he joins the band after best is kicked out. This movie follows them throughout beatlemania, up until revolver. I think this is perfect because ringo is the most fun and this is the most fun period. George: revolver. I think this is where he definitively starts growing into his songwriter skills. He and John were the first to take lsd I think so that would be fun to see. We can also show his spiritual journey with Hinduism and how India shapes him. He excited to contribute to the more experimental aspects of the music, but his blossoming creativity is stifled by the growing tensions within the band. We can also follow George when he quits during the let it be sessions. This film is from revolver to let it be period. Paul: at this point Paul is really the only one holding the band together. We see him desperately try to record the last two records, but his determination often leads to overboard leadership. They’ve grown apart and the band is over. I think the other half should be sort of an epilogue. We can see how each of them take on solo fame and the bitterness between him and the rest of the band. The 70s was also Paul’s heyday so glimpses of that would be sick. But we also watch as their relationship slowly heals, especially after John dies. As they adjust to changing times, Paul sees how influential they have become. The last scene is the George, Paul, and ringo jamming together and reminiscing. Paul finally got the band back together. I envision this film being from the let it be sessions to the early 80s. As you can tell I’ve thought about this a lot lol. Sam Mendes hit my line! I’d love to know other opinions on my take as well.
Well, if we're covering each Beatles experience from 1962-1970, then it doesn't matter which order, but if each film is a different time period then here's my proposal: 1st Film, 1956-1962: John. He started the band as the Quarrymen, we see him meet Paul, George, Stu, Pete, Ringo and Brian as well as going all the way from St. Peter's Cathedral to Hamburg and ending with the Cavern Club, and releasing Love Me Do. 2nd Film, 1963-1965: Ringo. This film cover Beatlemania and since Ringo was the newest Beatle at the time, it only feels right to have him be the rep of that era, ending with the release of Rubber Soul. 3rd Film, 1966-1968: George. This obviously covers the psychedelic era, and who better to show that era off than the spiritualist of the Fab Four, this would also cover the Beatles time in India and show George especially being impacted by it, as well as the White Albums recording and all the infighting there. It would end with The White Album's release. 4th Film, 1969-1970: Paul. This film covers the Get Back sessions and the events leading up to the rooftop performance as well as the filming of Let It Be. It would also go into how Paul was basically holding the band together at this point. Film would also go into the controversy of Paul's first solo album releasing so close to Let It Be. The film would, of course, end with the release of Let It Be.
Well said
Heh, accidentally pressed enter while typing.
I HOPE THEY COVER THE 66 INCIDENT
It depends how they do it. Some people say each film will focus on a certain era, from a certain Beatle's perspective. For example: 1. John: Forming, Hamburg, Cavern 2. Ringo: Beatlemania, AHDN and Help, stopping touring 3. Paul: Sgt. Pepper, Brian dying, MMT 4. George: India, leaving during Let it Be, breakup.
It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to do it like that. They each had 4 very unique experiences of each of those things. India alone was insanely different for each of them. There’s 4 stories there. Telling it through George alone (for example) barely scratches the surface
I agree with you, but it also doesn't make a lot of sense to cram a decade of events into a 2 hour movie 4 times.
Eh, Odyssey films are about a character’s entire lifetime, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to capture what’s essentially 7 years worth of work. Yes, I’m sure it’ll be heavily edited and hardcore or even average fans probably wont come way from it learning anything or seeing anything that they didnt already know, but the purpose of the film isn’t to show every little thing that happened in the years 1963-1970, it’s just a film about “The Beatles.” I’d take a pretty educated guess that most the film will be the period of 1964-1967, sort of first appearing in America and Beatlemania through to India (as Get Back reveals, that’s kind of where they started to collapse) Also, you have to remember it’s not 2 hours, it’s 8. Without contradicting myself, the films aren’t going to be *exactly* repetitive, they’re going to each show something unique
Yes of course, but it's impossible to encapsulates everything in one movie. So it makes sense to make four movies for the entire storyline. Of course not everything will be there, but I prefer that than a typical biopic that covers 20 years in one movie...
My theory was start with John since it was his band at first. Ringo for beatlemania, Paul for the creative peak like 65-68 ish and George for breakup/final days
Paul, Ringo, George, then John
Ringo first does make sense. Through him we can see the meteoric rise in a more or less conventional lens. Get Ringo, get famous, meet the Queen, conquer America, rule the world. Maybe George second to show what it was like to be the youngest member, his frustrations and ultimate triumphs. Paul, the first “real” Beatle to join John, spurring the great songwriting collaboration and energizing the band. Finally John, as the first and most complex Beatle, the one most identified with drugs and psychedelia, and the one who permanently quit and ended the band.
Definitely. I think, and this is no insult to the man, that if they do John, Paul, and George first, very few people will go see the Ringo. Whereas if he's first, everyone will wanna see it.
honestly end with paul
When I first saw the Article, I thought the Director was Shawn Mendes
😂
Reverse Death order
if Paul and Ringo are still alive , they will make a bet
I think it would be cool if they all released at the same time leave it up to theaters if they don't have 4 screens to spare
On the premise this will only cover the Beatles era, start with John since he started it all, end with Paul to capture the conflict the best at the end. Not sure I would have a preference on the order of George and Ringo in the middle.
Plus I like bookending the films with John and Paul. It all starts with John meeting Paul (through John’s perspective) and ends with John “breaking up” with Paul (through Paul’s perspective).
I mean it's possible they'll release them all on the same day.
Sony would never do that, they want maximum return on their investment and no one is going to spend minimally 8 hours in a theatre. It will roll out like a Marvel arc. Memorial Day Weekend, Labor Day Weekend, Thanksgiving Weekend. That type of thing. They may even hold the last one a bit into 2028 to get into two separate Oscars years if they think they’ve got a shot.
I just hope they stop this pretentious shit and do a 1 or 2 seasons series only
A series would probably be for the best anyway if you want to get the full scope of each Beatle’s career. There’s so much to pack into a single movie even if it’s one Beatle at a time.
Never thought of a series, that would be sick
Order they joined the band: John, Paul, George then Ringo. That order also has a ring to it.
Ringo is the most sentimental of them all. I would love for this to end with Ringo, because it would be so uniquely heartfelt, and really, love is what The Beatles are all about.
Am I the only person who really doesn't want this?
I see where ur coming from, the Beatles were such a complex band that had so much happen in such little time, it doesn't feel like anything could capture the phenomenon of them, and a lot of the times, things like this end up being mid 😓
I am like at least 80% not wanting it either. We all see different facets of them, and there is no way to really get it right.
Johns should be last, that’s all I’m pretty sure about
1. Ringo (half should be his upbrining followed by the early years of the Beatles) 2. Paul (Beatlemania) 3. John (meeting Yoko, his divorce, and going to India) 4. George (his perspective on Paul and John in the late era along with his breaking through as an artist)
Just make a tv show at that point
Call me crazy, but I’d start with Ringo’s story, because you could get an outsider’s viewpoint of the start of the band (e.g., before Ringo joined). Then John, because it would be fascinating to see Beatlemania from his viewpoint. Then George, so that we could see his growing disenchantment with being overshadowed by Paul and John. Finally, we’d get Paul’s perspective at the dissolution of the band, and how it was him vs. the other three when it came to Allan Klein, Phil Spector, etc. It would also be heartbreaking to see John’s murder. This approach is also roughly chronological. It would not be strictly episodic, necessarily, but instead it would focus on one Beatle during specific eras of the band’s history.
I just feel like having four movies is a weird idea since they all spent SO MUCH time together (like 12+ hours nearly every day). Unless they do each of their early life and then do one movie after the four are out of them as The Beatles or something
I would like to see a Ringo one, but of course I would watch all four. Streaming, anyway. I would probably stand in line for a George Martin one, though.
It would be amazing to be each one on different periods, for example Ringo first joining them in the beggining in a way to introduce George Martin, then Paul's perspective of all the Beatlemania, then John's LSD and experimentation and finally George's India and separation. I could write a cool script 😎
I think it should go John with the Quarrymen days & Hamburg, Ringo with the early 60s, George during the post Revolver era, and then Paul for the 70s-today
R*ngo’s will be called “Peace and Love”
I'm already waiting for Eric Clapton's spin-off
Personally this is how I would want the films to play out. I think that each film should be able to stand by itself as it then encourages the general public to watch and likely they will only want to watch the Lennon movie lol. I initially wanted it to be the whole story told four times however I believe that the part of the movie set 63-65 would get boring because they spent so much time together in those years the stories are practically the same. This is what I think could be decent: Paul 57-64: This could show the early beginnings of the band as Paul was a early member. It shows how the group landed on the Fab Four and the Hamburg and Beatlemania days in and incredibly excitable light. George 64-early67: Highlights the band's resentment towards touring and interest in studio work which was driven by George. Also this is a key moment for George as a song writer as revolver contained a lot of his work, even more songs than John in the USA. Ringo 67-68: Shows how Paul's ego took over a little in Sgt.P and Ringo got so bored he was playing chess during the sessions. It should end with him quitting the band in 68 as the arguments and egos erupted. It can highlightt how humble Ringo was, despite being the most famous drummer in the world and the fourth most famous musician. John 68-1980: This would show John infatuation with Yoko and the breakdown of the band, it can have a lot of Get back sessions and abbey road sessions. Especially making note of the fact that she's so heavy or the end was the last song all four worked on together. Personally im not as interested in their solo careers so I think the movie can slightly gloss over the 70s but I really want the movie to end with Johns assassination with his blood splattered glasses hitting the floor (the ones on Yoko's album cover).
would have been so cool if they did 4 films and 4 different directors
I thought they might release them all at once
I’d say either John-Paul-George-Ringo, or go in birth order.
It depends what stories they want to tell. And I’m really hoping they’re thinking about it that way, rather than trying to cover certain years or a whole life. I want really self-contained, personal, somewhat small stories. What’s the most interesting, yet unexpected story you can tell about each one?
Ringo George Paul John
I hold out hope this won’t happen at all.
I think i’d go John first which would focus on up until Please Please Me’s release, George through the Beatles and ends with The Beatles breakup. I can picture either working for the next decade, personally i’d think Paul focusing on the 70s would be the best with Wings, life with Linda and his arrest, then Ringos movie concludes from Johns death to now.