What’s the point of this movie?

literally just beatleswank so that the people who own the music keep making huge bank off it

HERE COMES THE TRUK
MILKY MILKY

>the indian guy is actually in a coma the entire time
>the beatle songs are from his GF who are playing his favorite songs by his bedside in the hospital
>in his coma dream he has a chance to go on tour and become a famous jerk or stay with his gf
>he decides to stay with his GF and wakes out of his coma
there...now u dont have 2 watch d movie

why do boomers have such a hardon for the beatles. They sound just like everything else from that era

>It was a dream

Attached: screenshot-www.youtube.com-2019.04.30-17-43-58.jpg (222x195, 10K)

my mom was a beatles fangirl who listened to their records so much that they became unplayable, she said that might seem that way in hindsight, but their records always seemed one step ahead of other bands like the rolling stones, and by the time everyone else was making records like them they'd moved on to something else.

>evil wh*tes want to change our history so we will change theirs!
no, you're spot on, that's why. why else would they make a movie about a white band where their music is somehow made famous by a shitskin for no reason at all? its pure propaganda, probably one of the worst

sexual repression probably

They were basically the 1D of the 60s. By 2050 Harry Styles will be as revered as Paul McCartney

Attached: teenage-girls-concerts-60s-beatles.jpg (640x424, 42K)

And that's why Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is better
youtube.com/watch?v=OJtHExo_Jqk

YESTERDAY
ALL THE TOILETS SEEMED SO FAR AWAY

/pol/ really is a mental illness

POO POO LANE
I HAVE TO FART

SOMETHING IN THE WAY SHE SHARTS
ATTRACTS ME WITH HER BOB AND VAGENE

Currycel fantasy

SHITTING LANE IS IN MY EARS AND IN MY EYES

kek

WE ALL SHIT IN A YELLOW POO POO LANE A YELLOW POO POO LANE A YELLOW POO POO LANE

(POOP)
I need a some street
(POOP)
Just not another toilet

HEY, POO
DONT MAKE A CRAP
IN A BATHROOM
THE STREET IS BETTER

women

Fuck this nostalgic circle jerk trying to squeeze boomers before they croak. God “classic” rock is trash

Wrong.

He's gonna meet Paul and Ringo at the talk show as we can see in the trailer. They're gonna say they wrote those lyrics but gave up when they never had their break. Message will be about never giving up on your dreams.

Lucy in the sky with C4 diamonds

Paul and ringo were also in a coma (wait till after the credits)

>Indian named Jack
huh?

That is absolutely not true. They were better than everyone else.
Meme opinion with absolutely no basis in reality.

The beatles are the greatest band of all time. OD on xanax zoomzilla

Dave clarke 5 was decent, but didnt quite have it

WHEN I GET TO THE TOILET I GO BACK TO THE STREET TO GO POO
WHERE I STOP AND I TURN AND I SAY FUCK THE LOO
TIL MY SHIT HITS THE PAVEMENT AND I DO IT AGAAAAAAAAAAAAIN YEAH YEAH YEAH

Not even better than the Stones.

You're probably a 17yo who comments on YouTube videos with "Now this is real music! Take me back to the good ole days! I'm not like those other kids who listen to that trash pop music!"

holy shit, another beatles argument thread

I aint gonna deny that richards is a riffmaster, but the beatles edge them out

actually i'm 18 and the music in my generation sucks.

don’t tell me Lennon and McCartney are better showmen than jagger or ringo a better drummer than watts

Nobody cares about the rolling stones except for druggie boomers.

No, just wrote more good songs if we consider them respectively

thats because everyone was trying to sound like them

Beatles were more for little girls, guys liked the stones better. Stones music also ages better.

If you like boy band pop tunes better than trad rock.

Attached: 2C369676-A5A1-41B6-B1C7-1F9EE4B97C00.jpg (819x1024, 88K)

Everybody loves the Beatles, only bisexual (gay) drug addicts care about The Rolling Stones. If you asked 1 million random people to name 3 Rolling Stones songs they'd struggle to even tell you one. Everyone on Earth, barring uncontacted tribes, are familiar with several Beatles songs.

>If you like boy band pop tunes better than trad rock.

Attached: 1536722963108.jpg (647x778, 83K)

it may seem like that, and then you get a tune like while my guitar gently weeps and you see my point

>loves the Beatles
>nobody cares about the stones
lol ok

Attached: C958BCD4-9108-4676-BE78-CEC935EA3122.jpg (768x1024, 66K)

Wild Horses is better, unless you’re young and it’s your first time taking a psychedelic drug.

>filename
Nice selfie, stonesfag. Thanks for proving my point.

This is why nobody takes The Rolling Stones seriously. Their fans are all high when they listen to the "music" so they think it's better than it actually is.

Fuck off with this shit. Rolling Stones were literal posh faggot plants. Only a retard who knows nothing about either would say the opposite

But seriously
Beach Boys > The Beatles.
I can't believe there are literal faggots ITT who think Rolling Stones are good because "duuude I heard Paint it black in a war movie. They are epic."

Actually they sound very uniquely "british" to my ear. In particular a sense of whimsy to their orchestral arrangements gives a stark contrast to the "heavy"ness of German-influenced orchestra.

Not to mention in a time when people usually wrote about the same shit (every song about a girl and boy) the Beatles really pushed the boundaries of lyricism. Not to say they didnt write about love (obviously they did most often) but they found more interesting "wrinkles" in the way they wrote about it.

They also revolutionized recording techniques. You guys have to understand the Beatles were the first people to record a kick drum with the mic inside the kick. When they were in the studio, the technicians in studios were still wearing white lab coats like they were fucking scientists. When the Beatles asked to put the microphone INSIDE the drum they nearly had a heart attack. "WE DONT DO THAT". Well the Beatles did it and now most records with a kick drum use a mic INSIDE the drum and that started with them.

The Beach Boys were amazing too. They absolutely dont get enough credit (mostly because their career trajectory was more troubled). Pet Sounds is an amazing album of all time and guess what: Brian Wilson wrote it while semen retention nofapping. Seriously.

holy shit this looks so good

i got two good movie recs from tv today the wraith and this

Attached: tenor (1).gif (498x338, 317K)

Nah it's the standard
>I built this
>you built this?
>....I built this
>destroy and ruin
>white ppl u did dis plz help

>a movie with a corny premise
>stars white person
ignored by Yea Forums
>movie with corny premise
>stars non white person
Yea Forums collectively loses their minds and begins a campaign of harassment against Brie Larson

People who post shit like this are, by far more annoying than the faux-nostalgia fags. You have to be retarded or baiting to not realize that pop music right now is absolutely dogshit.

>non white person
That's an oxymoron.

Lucy squatting in the street deficating

bobs and vagene
only girls like the Beatles this much

>taking the Beatles seriously

Attached: 9E496F7F-4F1D-470F-8F04-D3904874A802.jpg (367x451, 36K)

what is it about the Beatles that makes their fans think they have anything other than pleb taste in music? is it political, is it a fucking cult mentality? it’s overrated pop music — pretty decent, but not that great

>prefers artsy fart pop trash over good ol blues rock
just listen to fucking classical music, pleb

>they put a mic in the kick drum
>they was revolutionary
who literally gives a fuck

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

>They also revolutionized recording techniques.
they couldn’t tour anymore because little girls with moist panties screamed so loud looking at their cute bob haircuts that no one could hear their bastardization of American blues over the din— so they holed up in recording studios all day long instead, tinkering around with shit: “hurr durr lets stick a microphone where it’s never been stuck before”
truly groundbreaking
god, boomers take themselves so fucking seriously

Your mom's a dumb slut. There were loads of bands pushing the envelope further then the Beatles at the time. Beatles and Stones literally pop trash of their era, just like Frank Sinatra was the pop trash of his time. Guys would make fun of women for listening to in the same way guys would tease girls about listening to Justin Bieber in the school yard. In 20 years when your wife is playing Drake or whatever kpop band to your kids, their gonna think its cool, retro, and true music. When in reality its just the pop trash that your wife listened to when she was young. It's a cycle see

They wrote better songs than almost anyone. Hendrix could wank out as many guitar solos as possible, Jagger could dance life a fag, Dylan could write poems, but John and Paul were simply better songwriters

This some sort of retarded reddit pasta?

absolutely seething samefag

I think this movie looks alright. I won't watch in theaters though, I have a premonition that it'll just be filled with faggots

Attached: 1545334527119.jpg (500x419, 26K)

Even proto heavy bands like Purple, Sabbath, Zeppelin or proto punk like The Stooges, MC5 were influenced and were fans of The Beatles. Even the VU and that faggot Zappa loved them. You can barely comprehend their influence

>people who talk about how the beatles "sounded"/what instruments they used/what genres they invented/how popular they were

Telltale signs of a listener who doesn't actually understand or care about music.

Paul McCartney might have been the greatest melodist of the 20th century western musical canon. John was highly capable himself, and together the two vastly outperformed any of their contemporaries. Their ratio of quality to output was probably higher than any other musical artist or group in history. People who write the Beatles off as silly boy band boomer bait are attention-seeking wastes of space.

>muh paul
>muh John
Leaving out Stern George the unsung uncredited Hero

Based

>Investing time to learn what instruments were used and their influence
>nah u don't caree
Can you tell me how you ass pulled this retarded logic?

>bigger than jesus just for making music that’s appealing to kids
why wouldn’t young men in bands emulate? better than being a wagie

based, came here for this

just trying to wean folks off the fucking Beatles binkie — I consider it a humbling public service tbqhwy

>tfw boomer
>tfw prefer Lennon’s solo stuff
>tfw prefer The Eagles over any of this shit regardless

Attached: 70C1C927-17E5-4E56-8EBE-C4295BD9FA52.png (512x416, 46K)

Who > Stones > Beatles

Attached: maxresdefault (51).jpg (1280x720, 80K)

Fucking gold

I thought the point was “listen to this actor sing shitty covers of Beatles songs for 90 mins.”

Scrambled Eggs literally makes no sense as a song, like most of Paul's terrible discography. The lyrics are incomprehensible and only became #1 because lol beatles.
I rate Ringo higher than Paul 2bh.

I seriously hope this was satire

You're just being a contrarian faggot.

the vast majority of music from any generation is going to be shit. Just look at the top 40s from those generations and see if you recognize more than a few of them. It doesn't make sense to compare random pop music from today to a small collection of songs that have already stood the test of time. Nostalgiafagging over a generation you know nothing about aside from cherry picked media is retarded, and only smoothbrains utter those words in public for approval.

>dude i'm obsessed with identity politics lmao
It's a speculative work of fiction that entertains a ridiculous notion, albeit a funny one, for the purposes of comedy.

I won’t apologize for being ahead of my time. Some day people will understand just how overrated the Beatles actually were.

DON’T STREET SWEEP
OH YEAH
WHILE I GO POO

>I won’t apologize for being ahead of my time. Some day people will understand just how overrated the Beatles actually were.

Attached: maxresdefault-6.jpg (1280x720, 106K)

>like the rolling stones
The Rolling Stones are their peak were better. Their peak was a lot shorter than The Beatle's though.

You can't even fathom the amount of pussy Paul pulled in 1966 alone. He was literally on top of the world, he cucked everything and everyone. Muh Delon? He looked like a square boring old fart next to Paul. He even cucked bad boy Lennon and Bob Dylan, The Stones, etc.

>There were loads of bands pushing the envelope further then the Beatles at the time.
Yet somehow no one remembers any of them.
Funny how that works.

This is why everyone knows Hendrix but can barely name two or three of his songs. What people listen to and remember are SONGS. Technical wankery and shit is for nerds and losers

Basically what the other anons said. They just wrote better songs, so much so that people even today are trying to copy them, despite the massive increase in musical technology.

Bull-fucking shit.
There isn't a single song from this generation of popular music that will be remembered in 80 years.

Music is objectively worse now.

Can someone explain why this is so?
I keep seeing the argument “well, you only remember the good songs,” but that’s blatantly not true.
Is it the fact that music creation is so simple nowadays, both through the tools available, as well as a massive library of proven rhythms, combined with the application of absolute advertisement to the unarguably simplest form of art to appreciate? Even a film you at least have to sit still for two hours. Music can effortlessly play in the background. Quality is actually a detriment, because it becomes a distraction, more easily critiqued. Make it generic, let the proles eat it up.

>you’re just being a contrarian faggot

Attached: 5E0FED3D-C45D-4299-BE77-D58706953636.jpg (480x480, 37K)

>picture of ugly person
Truly, excellent arguments.

>>picture of ugly person
>Truly, excellent arguments.

Attached: D6CDAA15-E6CE-45DB-A3FB-5DD34FB73B37.png (600x352, 234K)

This board has become fucking unbearable.

Attached: 1492324799067.jpg (497x493, 35K)

Grand Cayman, let’s go faggot.

samefag
Press Ctrl + W and never come back then you dumb nigger faggot.

>I judge music based on what the top 40 says is popular
stay pleb

The beatles (mainly Paul) made great melodies. They were musicians first. Their lyrics are nothing special. Their experimental shit was very mediocre compared to the more daring bands of the time. They never played live.

underrated

Assuming the Beatles music did not exist and was suddenly created in the current time, would the music even be popular? Beatle mania was a thing because of the time and people it was introduced to. Culture has changed and while their music is still excellent and held up as 'classic' I doubt you could hook people on it today.

finally, somebody with an ounce of perspective

Attached: CC31C93D-B980-4F41-8B82-7B71050CB8B9.jpg (1300x768, 353K)

Shitposting aside I'm curious if the movie actually explores this at all.