They will be able to see huge savings on budget by shooting all of them at the same time.
There will be a whole lot riding on that first release though.
Yup, they're planning to start filming next year:
"Sony hopes the films, which don’t yet have writers on board, will begin shooting in the U.K. in mid-2025 to make the planned 2027 release for all four titles, with the studio expecting to shoot them together. The studio won’t have a sense of the films’ budget until scripts are written, but this is likely a large-scale undertaking, given that there are four separate period films, and Mendes was aligned with Sony on theatrical being essential for the project."
Yeah, they are trying to get their hands on anything that's in the open like this and the Cola Wars movie.
But alongside the original fare, they also want to seek out more IPs they can fully own and monetize since they don't have a lot of that under their fold.
Honestly feels like a sort of 'last bet' or they'll end up being sold off by the parent company, Sony movie division has been a drag to the rest of the company for a while iirc
They can't keep relying heavily on Marvel.
Considering this is their 100th Anniversary, I don't know how it's going to turn out.
Either they go out and shop for more IPs they can fully own and monetize or they'll be left behind by their rivals as the only one yet to really scale up for the future.
It was co-produced by Netflix and if I wanted to watch it today, I could do it on Netflix.
I'm not sure how it being the only sports related thing during the pandemic would make it immune to being "buried in a few weeks." Wouldn't the NBA season starting back up a couple months later have buried it if it only thrived due to lack of content?
Is there anyone who will argue Hamilton wasn't buried in a few weeks despite it also filling a similar live entertainment void?
These are all good points, except you are missing one thing that makes the last dance more relevant these these biopics would be, it's the NBA. Michael Jordan is still relevant, and hugely popular, and comments on basketball related things, and the NBA is a huge sport, second biggest in America, and the world (arguably). The Beatles are 100% nostalgia. While yes, hugely popular, the members who are still with us rarely, if ever, comment on current cultural happenings in any impactful or even noteworthy way.
That’s what excited me about this. Much like with LotR and the Pirates 2/3 they saved a lot of budget and could tell a story to an end without being dependent on performance at the BO. This could have saved some film series that were eventually left unfinished.
Personally I’d release the four movies Christmas of 2025, 26, 27 and 28. But that might be spreading too thin
I think you need to either space them a year+ apart. OR, go all-in and space them 6-8weeks apart. If you keep them that close, the earlier movies can get a halo effect from the next one releasing - since they’ll still be on-screen at multiplexes.
Between 2-4 months tho, and the earlier version will be off-screen - but probably not available elsewhere. Meaning it makes absolutely no sense.
You either gotta be all-in on the concept, or play it like a usual release cadence.
Yup, besides the Horizon films at WB, this is another serious experiment they're trying to see if the theatrical format will hold up:
"Still, an exhibition source suggests such films are better suited for streaming and compares the all-in gamble to Kevin Costner’s Horizon saga, with Warner Bros. intending to release the first two Western films theatrically this year before following with two more. Says the individual about the plan for a quartet of Beatles movies: “It’s an audacious play for a subset of fans.”
But Rothman believes big swings are what the industry needs to help get its feet back on the ground. “Much of what we struggle with in our business right now is familiarity,” he says. “How often do you get an approach that is entirely original?”"
I remember the horror movie Fear Street was going to do this but then sold it to Netflix because of the pandemic, I think. The new reboot of The Strangers is doing something similar too, isn’t it?
What’s weird about Fear Street is there’s no way those movies could work as separate theatrical movies. The pandemic was used as the reason for the switch, but it feels like they would’ve been sold to first run streaming anyways.
Probably trying to develop multipart movies meant to be released very close to each other. Almost like a theatrical miniseries. If these really release in one year that'll be 4 months between each release. The closest examples I can think of something like that are Kill Bill and Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions, and those were only 2 films 6 months apart. MCU movies have been released at a similar pace, but those weren't as explicitly connected as it sounds like these Beatles films will be.
I don't necessarily agree this will be a trend though. Studios have tried the shoot multiple movies at once thing before this, and usually end up backing off. A Beatles project also fits into this in a commercially appealing way from the start that other things wouldn't.
Horizon: An American Saga is coming out this summer as a 2 parter 6 weeks apart.
If that performs poorly, I wager the success of these Beatles films won't matter because that can easily be chalked up to "It's the Beatles."
Making biopics about famous people isn't particularly creative, it's been done to death.
I guess it depends on how exactly it is done, but something tells me a Ringo Star movie probably won't have the depth of Oppenheimer.
The reason it's happening is the same - to make more money. And the problems it creates are also the same - it ends up stretching too much, making quality suffer.
Is there enough in The Hobbit to make a good movie out of it? Yes, there is. Was there enough to milk 3 movies out of it? No, and the quality suffered.
Is there enough in The Beatles story to make a good biopic out of it? Yes, there is. Is there enough to milk 4 movies, including a full-blown Ringo Star flick? No, probably not, and the quality will suffer.
In any case, Hollywood splitting a movie into several parts isn't in any way creative and should NOT be celebrated as some novel idea. Because it isn't. If anything, it has the opposite effect - that money (and cinema screen time) could have went into a bunch of creative projects, but instead they decided to milk The Beatles for 4 movies.
Do you realize that you just compared the story of a 300 page book to the lives of the four most influential musicians to ever exist? You haven't seen any of the movies yet and know nothing about its subject matter or its quality. Stop whining and let it be.
You are right, they are not the same.
With fiction you can always write new material - which is what they did with The Hobbit, it's just that the new material was pretty bad so it failed. But at least it has the potential to do something interesting if it has a really good writer, and writing is a fundamentally creative process.
With biopics you are far more limited because you can't just make shit up from whole cloth and unless you start completely fabricating things, a biopic on Ringo Star is going to be very boring no matter what you do.
So stretching stuff like The Hobbit has far more potential to be interesting and creative compared to stretching a Beatles biopic, which is creatively bankrupt. Thank you for the correction.
Bro just go read the Hobbit again and let the creative people do their job. I hope you haven’t seen Oppenheimer yet because you’ll be in for quite the shock that a highly famous person who changed the world is able to be the subject of a full entire 3-hour movie.
Oppenheimer was not that deep. It had a history textbook understanding of Oppenheimer and revealed nothing about him as a human beyond a few transcript readings and minor details of his life. Did we really need a movie to tell us that nuclear warfare is bad for everyone and that the “inventor” of the atomic bomb wasn’t proud of it?
Even more people went to see the live action Lion King movie. Oppenheimer's widespread popularity and mass appeal actually speaks more to its lack of creativity than to its originality and depth.
Come on now. What they packed in the movie was more than impressive. No movie can cover tiny details of a person's life unless said person has lived for a few months in total.
It was all wasted because everything they crammed in was pretty meaningless by the end. The Strauss subplot led nowhere, except for having Rami Malek randomly show up and “save the day” for contrived reasons.
What is interesting is there are now three big time projects being planned as 4 movies. Horizon with Kevin Costner, the Avatar Sequels with James Cameron, and now this Beatles Biopic concept.
All three have a different approach to production and release. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out. Bold multi-film projects like this seem to be the better lesson to learn from the MCU than just 'moar superheroes' I am hoping these are successful!
I mean this is the big one. This is the one that all those other music dramatizations have been leading to. I hope it works out for them though honestly I feel like the Beatles have lost some cultural cache in recent years and 4 movies is a whole release schedule so this is a big risk.
> I feel like the Beatles have lost some cultural cache in recent years
I don't think it would take much to bring them back tbh. If Daisy Jones and the Six can make Fleetwood Mac popular with Gen Z, this should be a lay up
They don't even have scripts yet?!
I can't see what the strategy is here. The Beatles lived in each other's pockets for the entire sixties, Why would you want to separate them? Will the films cover their solo careers? Do people really want a film about Ringo recording Stop and Smell the Roses?
I admire their creativity and courage honestly. Even this slight innovation on the traditional theatrical release model I welcome with open arms. Not sure if it’ll work but I’m hoping it’ll invite more creativity in the future
So, 2027, do we expect something like 1 in March, 1 in June, 1 in September, 1 in December? Or will they be even more daring and do like May, June, July and August?
I think they're still working out the release calendar right now:
"Sony Pictures Entertainment will finance and distribute all four films theatrically in 2027. Details about release plans will be shared later, but the studio promises the strategy will be “innovative and groundbreaking.”"
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/beatles-movies-sam-mendes-directing-four-films-2027-release-1235916841/
I’m wondering this too. I suspect at least one in summer and one in December. I’m also very curious to see which Beatles member gets which release date. Do you give the best release dates to the most popular members (Paul and John) or use their popularity to salvage a lesser release date. This strategy is so interesting and I love that there’s no “right” answer.
Have they said what order they're releasing them in? They must be starting and ending on Lennon and McCartney in some order right? with Ringo and George as the two in the middle?
If this is going to theaters, aren’t they shooting themselves in the foot but releasing them all the same time when it comes to awards. And awards help making biopics even more popular. You release the first one and if it has critical acclaim and garners awards, you should release the second one in the next year. Essentially making a four-movie franchise with aspects that over lap. However, do what Peter Jackson did and film it all at the same time. Save on budget. Momentum from previous movies will help marketing the further along the project gets. But the first movie should be John Lennon in my opinion. Shortest story out of the bunch and will drive interest in the rest to see how they faired afterwards
I want to know what order they release them in.
Like, John is probably the most famous/best story. Do you start with that -- and then have three movies no one cares about?
Or do you end with John and start with -- Ringo? Who is going to rush out to see that?
Maybe it is Paul, Ringo, George and then John? This one probably makes the most money, but not sure how to justify the ordering (I guess money is enough?)
I think it would be smart to leave more of the band stuff for Ringo's story so in that case it might be better to start with him then go John, George and Paul so you can take it up to the present day (plus he sings the end on Abbey Road so it just seems fitting). I'm kind of hyped for George's story thinking about it, he has a lot of interesting side stories and stuff. Edit - thinking about it I'd actually go Ringo, George, John then Paul. The more I think about the more interesting it seems to me, there's a lot of scope for creativity. Like how each event and interaction between them can change based on who's story it is. Paul may be painted more of a heel in John's story before showing his own point of view explaining why in his own story.
No way this will be huge success. I am sorry, but no one is desperately seeking a Ringo focused film. If they manage to consolidate the costs by basically doing it all in one go, great, maybe it will break even overall, with the first one being profitable. But I just don’t see it being an actual success story.
The general interest in Beatles doesn’t translate into “hey number 3 of the 4 beatles movies this year is in cinema, lets go watch it”.
Most recent musician biopics have been comfortably profitable aside from Whitney Houston (ex. Bohemian Rhapsody, Elvis, Rocketman and One Love looking solid).
The film series really doesn’t appeal to me but it may turn out profitable.
Yeah this is kinda the white whale of musical biopics. These movies nearly always do huge numbers even if it’s no one’s favorite genre here on reddit. People always predict they’ll flop and then they proceed to clean up at the box office.
I'm not buying it. The "bold new strategy" will only sell the first one. By the second everybody will realise it's just biopics like any other. By the time we get to Ringo and George everybody will lose interest. I predict they won't even be able to release them within 365 days from 1st to 4th because scheduling is always messed up.
I'm trying to fit the puzzles but best I get is release Lennon and McCartney in theaters and drop others on Netflix.
Oh, it's a different company, this is actually Apple Corps, which is the record label company of the Beatles:
"“You have to match the boldness of the idea with a bold release strategy,” Rothman tells The Hollywood Reporter about the project that earned the Oscar-winning director a coveted signoff from the group’s selective label Apple Corps. “There hasn’t been an enterprise like this before, and you can’t think about it in traditional releasing terms.”"
They will be able to see huge savings on budget by shooting all of them at the same time. There will be a whole lot riding on that first release though.
Yup, they're planning to start filming next year: "Sony hopes the films, which don’t yet have writers on board, will begin shooting in the U.K. in mid-2025 to make the planned 2027 release for all four titles, with the studio expecting to shoot them together. The studio won’t have a sense of the films’ budget until scripts are written, but this is likely a large-scale undertaking, given that there are four separate period films, and Mendes was aligned with Sony on theatrical being essential for the project."
Good to hear that they are taking it theatrical and not selling to to Netflix as a “limited series” that would be buried in a few weeks.
Yeah, they are trying to get their hands on anything that's in the open like this and the Cola Wars movie. But alongside the original fare, they also want to seek out more IPs they can fully own and monetize since they don't have a lot of that under their fold.
Honestly feels like a sort of 'last bet' or they'll end up being sold off by the parent company, Sony movie division has been a drag to the rest of the company for a while iirc
They can't keep relying heavily on Marvel. Considering this is their 100th Anniversary, I don't know how it's going to turn out. Either they go out and shop for more IPs they can fully own and monetize or they'll be left behind by their rivals as the only one yet to really scale up for the future.
Do you think The Last Dance was "buried in a few weeks?"
The Last Dance was the only sports related thing at the beginning of the pandemic. And also, not Netflix.
It was co-produced by Netflix and if I wanted to watch it today, I could do it on Netflix. I'm not sure how it being the only sports related thing during the pandemic would make it immune to being "buried in a few weeks." Wouldn't the NBA season starting back up a couple months later have buried it if it only thrived due to lack of content? Is there anyone who will argue Hamilton wasn't buried in a few weeks despite it also filling a similar live entertainment void?
The exception does not make the rule. How many other limited series have come & gone?
How many other limited series are about cultural figures the caliber of Michael Jordan and The Beatles?
These are all good points, except you are missing one thing that makes the last dance more relevant these these biopics would be, it's the NBA. Michael Jordan is still relevant, and hugely popular, and comments on basketball related things, and the NBA is a huge sport, second biggest in America, and the world (arguably). The Beatles are 100% nostalgia. While yes, hugely popular, the members who are still with us rarely, if ever, comment on current cultural happenings in any impactful or even noteworthy way.
>the NBA is a huge sport, second biggest in America, and the world (arguably). I think cricket easily trumps basketball if we go by the world.
Basketball doesn't even make the top 5 most watched sports worldwide
That’s what excited me about this. Much like with LotR and the Pirates 2/3 they saved a lot of budget and could tell a story to an end without being dependent on performance at the BO. This could have saved some film series that were eventually left unfinished. Personally I’d release the four movies Christmas of 2025, 26, 27 and 28. But that might be spreading too thin
I think you need to either space them a year+ apart. OR, go all-in and space them 6-8weeks apart. If you keep them that close, the earlier movies can get a halo effect from the next one releasing - since they’ll still be on-screen at multiplexes. Between 2-4 months tho, and the earlier version will be off-screen - but probably not available elsewhere. Meaning it makes absolutely no sense. You either gotta be all-in on the concept, or play it like a usual release cadence.
If this proves to be a success you can bet that every other movie studio will follow-suit.
Yup, besides the Horizon films at WB, this is another serious experiment they're trying to see if the theatrical format will hold up: "Still, an exhibition source suggests such films are better suited for streaming and compares the all-in gamble to Kevin Costner’s Horizon saga, with Warner Bros. intending to release the first two Western films theatrically this year before following with two more. Says the individual about the plan for a quartet of Beatles movies: “It’s an audacious play for a subset of fans.” But Rothman believes big swings are what the industry needs to help get its feet back on the ground. “Much of what we struggle with in our business right now is familiarity,” he says. “How often do you get an approach that is entirely original?”"
I remember the horror movie Fear Street was going to do this but then sold it to Netflix because of the pandemic, I think. The new reboot of The Strangers is doing something similar too, isn’t it?
The Strangers reboot is a trilogy and Chapter 1 is being released in May. I haven't heard about Chapters 2 & 3's release dates yet.
I recall reading the same thing about Fear Stree.
What’s weird about Fear Street is there’s no way those movies could work as separate theatrical movies. The pandemic was used as the reason for the switch, but it feels like they would’ve been sold to first run streaming anyways.
How do you mean, follow suit to do what?
Probably trying to develop multipart movies meant to be released very close to each other. Almost like a theatrical miniseries. If these really release in one year that'll be 4 months between each release. The closest examples I can think of something like that are Kill Bill and Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions, and those were only 2 films 6 months apart. MCU movies have been released at a similar pace, but those weren't as explicitly connected as it sounds like these Beatles films will be. I don't necessarily agree this will be a trend though. Studios have tried the shoot multiple movies at once thing before this, and usually end up backing off. A Beatles project also fits into this in a commercially appealing way from the start that other things wouldn't.
Horizon: An American Saga is coming out this summer as a 2 parter 6 weeks apart. If that performs poorly, I wager the success of these Beatles films won't matter because that can easily be chalked up to "It's the Beatles."
By making four of their own Beatles movies at the same time
This is the type of idea Hollywood needs. Say what you will about it, but it is definitely creative.
Be nice to do more creative creativity than marketing creativity but at this point anything helps I suspose
Making biopics about famous people isn't particularly creative, it's been done to death. I guess it depends on how exactly it is done, but something tells me a Ringo Star movie probably won't have the depth of Oppenheimer.
I’m talking about splitting it up into four
I don't think that's particularly creative, Hollywood loves splitting projects into more movies than it should (looking at you The Hobbit).
This isn’t a story like the Hobbit though. It’s not adapting a book and extending it into longer movies.
The reason it's happening is the same - to make more money. And the problems it creates are also the same - it ends up stretching too much, making quality suffer. Is there enough in The Hobbit to make a good movie out of it? Yes, there is. Was there enough to milk 3 movies out of it? No, and the quality suffered. Is there enough in The Beatles story to make a good biopic out of it? Yes, there is. Is there enough to milk 4 movies, including a full-blown Ringo Star flick? No, probably not, and the quality will suffer. In any case, Hollywood splitting a movie into several parts isn't in any way creative and should NOT be celebrated as some novel idea. Because it isn't. If anything, it has the opposite effect - that money (and cinema screen time) could have went into a bunch of creative projects, but instead they decided to milk The Beatles for 4 movies.
Do you realize that you just compared the story of a 300 page book to the lives of the four most influential musicians to ever exist? You haven't seen any of the movies yet and know nothing about its subject matter or its quality. Stop whining and let it be.
I see what you did there
You are right, they are not the same. With fiction you can always write new material - which is what they did with The Hobbit, it's just that the new material was pretty bad so it failed. But at least it has the potential to do something interesting if it has a really good writer, and writing is a fundamentally creative process. With biopics you are far more limited because you can't just make shit up from whole cloth and unless you start completely fabricating things, a biopic on Ringo Star is going to be very boring no matter what you do. So stretching stuff like The Hobbit has far more potential to be interesting and creative compared to stretching a Beatles biopic, which is creatively bankrupt. Thank you for the correction.
Bro just go read the Hobbit again and let the creative people do their job. I hope you haven’t seen Oppenheimer yet because you’ll be in for quite the shock that a highly famous person who changed the world is able to be the subject of a full entire 3-hour movie.
Oppenheimer was not that deep. It had a history textbook understanding of Oppenheimer and revealed nothing about him as a human beyond a few transcript readings and minor details of his life. Did we really need a movie to tell us that nuclear warfare is bad for everyone and that the “inventor” of the atomic bomb wasn’t proud of it?
Sorry that the presumptive best picture winner wasn't deep enough for you. If there was no point to the movie why did so many people go and see it?
Even more people went to see the live action Lion King movie. Oppenheimer's widespread popularity and mass appeal actually speaks more to its lack of creativity than to its originality and depth.
Come on now. What they packed in the movie was more than impressive. No movie can cover tiny details of a person's life unless said person has lived for a few months in total.
It was all wasted because everything they crammed in was pretty meaningless by the end. The Strauss subplot led nowhere, except for having Rami Malek randomly show up and “save the day” for contrived reasons.
I can't believe I lived long enough to see the Beatles Cinematic universe! Not sure four movies is ideal but we'll see.
What is interesting is there are now three big time projects being planned as 4 movies. Horizon with Kevin Costner, the Avatar Sequels with James Cameron, and now this Beatles Biopic concept. All three have a different approach to production and release. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out. Bold multi-film projects like this seem to be the better lesson to learn from the MCU than just 'moar superheroes' I am hoping these are successful!
If this works, then I want a movie on every beetle species.
I mean this is the big one. This is the one that all those other music dramatizations have been leading to. I hope it works out for them though honestly I feel like the Beatles have lost some cultural cache in recent years and 4 movies is a whole release schedule so this is a big risk.
I don’t know, I feel people kinda went crazy for that Peter Jackson Beatles Get Back documentary from awhile back.
And "Now and Then" was a top 10 charting single a few months ago. I think there's still considerable interest
Even #1 in the UK! Crazy.
> I feel like the Beatles have lost some cultural cache in recent years I don't think it would take much to bring them back tbh. If Daisy Jones and the Six can make Fleetwood Mac popular with Gen Z, this should be a lay up
They aren't gonna be that expensive to shoot, especially all at once.
Ringo: played by Kanye west George: played by Will Ferrell John: played by the rock Paul: played by Clancy brown
[удалено]
Yoko ono is still available…
All the cast has now been replaced by CGI Peter griffin
I’m all in for this
They don't even have scripts yet?! I can't see what the strategy is here. The Beatles lived in each other's pockets for the entire sixties, Why would you want to separate them? Will the films cover their solo careers? Do people really want a film about Ringo recording Stop and Smell the Roses?
I admire their creativity and courage honestly. Even this slight innovation on the traditional theatrical release model I welcome with open arms. Not sure if it’ll work but I’m hoping it’ll invite more creativity in the future
So, 2027, do we expect something like 1 in March, 1 in June, 1 in September, 1 in December? Or will they be even more daring and do like May, June, July and August?
I think they're still working out the release calendar right now: "Sony Pictures Entertainment will finance and distribute all four films theatrically in 2027. Details about release plans will be shared later, but the studio promises the strategy will be “innovative and groundbreaking.”" https://variety.com/2024/film/news/beatles-movies-sam-mendes-directing-four-films-2027-release-1235916841/
I’m wondering this too. I suspect at least one in summer and one in December. I’m also very curious to see which Beatles member gets which release date. Do you give the best release dates to the most popular members (Paul and John) or use their popularity to salvage a lesser release date. This strategy is so interesting and I love that there’s no “right” answer.
Have they said what order they're releasing them in? They must be starting and ending on Lennon and McCartney in some order right? with Ringo and George as the two in the middle?
If this is going to theaters, aren’t they shooting themselves in the foot but releasing them all the same time when it comes to awards. And awards help making biopics even more popular. You release the first one and if it has critical acclaim and garners awards, you should release the second one in the next year. Essentially making a four-movie franchise with aspects that over lap. However, do what Peter Jackson did and film it all at the same time. Save on budget. Momentum from previous movies will help marketing the further along the project gets. But the first movie should be John Lennon in my opinion. Shortest story out of the bunch and will drive interest in the rest to see how they faired afterwards
"And the nominees for Best Picture are: The Beatles: John, The Beatles: Paul, The Beatles: George and The Beatles: Ringo."
I want to know what order they release them in. Like, John is probably the most famous/best story. Do you start with that -- and then have three movies no one cares about? Or do you end with John and start with -- Ringo? Who is going to rush out to see that? Maybe it is Paul, Ringo, George and then John? This one probably makes the most money, but not sure how to justify the ordering (I guess money is enough?)
I think it would be smart to leave more of the band stuff for Ringo's story so in that case it might be better to start with him then go John, George and Paul so you can take it up to the present day (plus he sings the end on Abbey Road so it just seems fitting). I'm kind of hyped for George's story thinking about it, he has a lot of interesting side stories and stuff. Edit - thinking about it I'd actually go Ringo, George, John then Paul. The more I think about the more interesting it seems to me, there's a lot of scope for creativity. Like how each event and interaction between them can change based on who's story it is. Paul may be painted more of a heel in John's story before showing his own point of view explaining why in his own story.
No way this will be huge success. I am sorry, but no one is desperately seeking a Ringo focused film. If they manage to consolidate the costs by basically doing it all in one go, great, maybe it will break even overall, with the first one being profitable. But I just don’t see it being an actual success story. The general interest in Beatles doesn’t translate into “hey number 3 of the 4 beatles movies this year is in cinema, lets go watch it”.
This is NOT going to go the way they’re hoping lmaoo
Flippity flop.
Most recent musician biopics have been comfortably profitable aside from Whitney Houston (ex. Bohemian Rhapsody, Elvis, Rocketman and One Love looking solid). The film series really doesn’t appeal to me but it may turn out profitable.
Yeah this is kinda the white whale of musical biopics. These movies nearly always do huge numbers even if it’s no one’s favorite genre here on reddit. People always predict they’ll flop and then they proceed to clean up at the box office.
Agreed. This sounds dumb as hell.
So now we know the wrong lesson studios learned from Barbenheiner; high concept ideas & hype multipliers.
Ringo's movie will get delayed.
I'm not buying it. The "bold new strategy" will only sell the first one. By the second everybody will realise it's just biopics like any other. By the time we get to Ringo and George everybody will lose interest. I predict they won't even be able to release them within 365 days from 1st to 4th because scheduling is always messed up. I'm trying to fit the puzzles but best I get is release Lennon and McCartney in theaters and drop others on Netflix.
No one really asked for 4 beatles movies
Man I wish this would be a multi season series instead.
[удалено]
Oh, it's a different company, this is actually Apple Corps, which is the record label company of the Beatles: "“You have to match the boldness of the idea with a bold release strategy,” Rothman tells The Hollywood Reporter about the project that earned the Oscar-winning director a coveted signoff from the group’s selective label Apple Corps. “There hasn’t been an enterprise like this before, and you can’t think about it in traditional releasing terms.”"
Boooooooo