I’m glad I watched it a second time because I very much appreciated Kate McKinnon’s performance so much more. In the 1st viewing, I loathed her character and so I didn’t like her. With 2nd viewing, I enjoyed her performance. It looked like she was having fun, playing such a terrible, selfish, shallow, materialistic person. She was fun to watch and appreciate.
Indeed. But they decided to have zero impact on culture, other than the missing music, and the disappearance of Oasis, presumably because they couldn’t be inspired by the Beatles. The alt-history is practically identical to today’s culture.
How many musicians were inspired by the Beatles?
How many SDMB usernames are based on the Beatles …
That’s the best, most sensible interpretation of the movie.
Yes, agreed.
I doubt that there’s any…
An obvious plot-line could have been to make one of the other 2 Beatle fans a nicotine addict (cigarettes also missing in the new universe). Opportunities for running gags on those lines abound. (Could have had some fun with him playing ‘A Day in the Life’ (found my way upstairs and had a smoke).
Agreed.
mmm
mmm, indeed…
I absolutely loved the movie. A few months before it came out, I had been over in the U.K. and spent time in Liverpool for the first time…I’d only passed through briefly before, but on this trip I stayed for four nights and really explored the city and the sights. I didn’t know that would be my last trip overseas for several years, but even later that summer, I was wistful seeing Lime Street Station on the big screen. It’s impossible to be a tourist there and not feel the Beatles vibe. I did the Yellow Submarine bus tour, saw the John & Yoko exhibit at one of the museums, went to the Cavern Club and bought a ton of Fab Four souvenirs. Liverpool is by far my fave city in the North, and not being able to travel for so long may make a rewatch doubly sad.
I liked the movie quite a bit, but not as much as I hoped, given that it was directed by Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire director), written by Richard Curtis (writer of Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill and other rom-coms) and featured Beatles music.
(Only because a new post quoted this).
I just wish they had made the other one. I wonder if someone has ever written a dissertation on what the absence of the Beatles would mean for the future of Western culture (tho I`d settle for a blog post somewhere).
So Lennon lives to spout romcom claptrap. Great. 
You’re shocked to find romcom dialogue in a romantic comedy?
I’m mocking the fact that the movie resurrects a famous individual mainly to signal to the lead character to “go to her.” That certainly fits in with the conceits of this romcom movie. It deviates substantially from real life relationships of rock stars and ordinary people.
John Lennon is not a rock star in this movie. He has clearly led a very different (and longer) life than the man we too briefly knew. And, due to his isolation, he doesn’t seem to realize that the guy visiting him is a rock star himself.
I think a long blog post or a dissertation is probably a better format. A narrative form requires characters and conflict, and while you could certainly tell a story in such a world, the one that Yesterday tells is in some ways the most obvious one to tell.
I don’t think that the story of “What if you could become a rockstar on the Beatle’s coattails” is necessarily enhanced by a more scholarly understanding of exactly how different the world would be without them.
He’s a rock star to the audience and to the protagonist. No other reason to look up a retired seaman in that timeline.
Kind of wonder why he would be faithful, since he wasn’t in real life and his seaman father wasn’t either.
As far as taking the topic more seriously, of course you could have a world without the Beatles. There were plenty of other bands coming out around that time, and few of them really owe their sound to the Beatles. The Rolling Stones? The Kinks? The Zombies? All different bands with different sounds.
The Beatles scored the best because they were about as melodic and nice as you could get without losing the male audience. Maybe Herman’s Hermits and Gerry And The Pacemakers hold on for a bit longer. Monkees still would have happened.
Thanks for bumping the thread. I saw it finally a few weeks ago, and liked it.
Having read lots of alt-universe stories, I found that this had random differences. I didn’t want a dissertation on it, but it would have been nice to have given a hint to where the universes diverged. Way back clearly, since there were no cigs and someone must have cursed Sir Walter Raleigh.
No one mentioned this, but I was sure that the picture on John’s desk was of Paul. The movie is back to Netflix, if someone owns it maybe they can check.
My biggest negative was that why Jack didn’t get that Ellie loved him. He seemed quite sexless to me. And clueless, especially for someone who had to sell love songs.
I loved the scene at Jack’s parents house. So true. And his father later saying how they heard the first verse.
BTW the Monkees would never exist in this universe. Though their members were mostly good, they were a synthetic band designed to capitalize on the “A Hard Days Night” and “Help” movies. No Hollywood person would have created that show without the Beatles.
I’d loved to have seen more of what the Stones did without the Beatles to copy from. No “Satanic Majesties Request” at least, that would be a plus.
Here’s an interesting article about the original screenplay:
[Jack Barth Interview: 'Yesterday' Writer Claims He Was Rolled]
In the movie, public reaction is overwhelmingly enthusiastic. It’s as if all that matters is the melody and the lyrics, not the performance. Not the actual singing, the harmonies, the instruments, the image and the prevailing culture.
The original screenplay makes more sense but it seems that the movie had to be more upbeat to attract a larger audience.
I like the original concept better.
Somewhere upthread (not gonna look), I posed the question of whether the Beatles’ songbook would be as popular a half-century later and performed by a different (and clearly less talented) artist. Reaction was split, but I’m firmly in the “No” camp.
The Dave Clark Five were for a brief moment as big as or even bigger than the Beatles. No reason to think they couldn’t have filled some of the role of The Beatles (except for talent 
) They even had a zany movie.
The Monkees were a direct result of A Hard Day’s Night. (ninja’d! curses!) Depending on how big a non-Beatles band became, the Monkees might be different, but still there. Maybe less zany, maybe more like