Yesterday (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

You and I agree far more often than we disagree, but we disagree on this one. I just got back from seeing it at the same arthouse theater Wayne mentioned, and I thought it was 3/4ths or even 4/5ths of a great movie.

I'm glad you liked it more than I did. Nothing you wrote actually changes my opinion of the movie, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, which is fine. But no one wants to go to the movies and be disappointed so I'm happy you weren't.

I also really hate big public gestures. They're supposed to be romantic, but they always come across to me as selfish and manipulative; it really puts the other person on the spot, and makes it horrible for them if they don't want to say yes.

Agreed. After the scene you're talking about:

Spoiler

Why does Ellie react with surprise that he didn't write any of the songs? I don't remember the exact quote, but it's something like, "That's a really surprising piece of information" or something. I mean, he straight up told her and his other friends that he didn't write Yesterday in the first scene when they claimed not to know who the Beatles were and he thought they were messing with him. So at the bare minimum she should know that he didn't write that one. It's also obvious that he was close to telling her something important before receiving the call from Ed Shereen. I'm not saying she could have put the whole thing together, but her acting like there weren't any signs at all that something was up rang false to me.

Could you elaborate? I thought its rules were very consistent; it was only Jack's understanding of them that changed.

I can try. I would have been able to be more specific if it were closer to when I saw the movie, but it hasn't really stayed with me since I went. That being said, the big issues i had were:

Spoiler

The movie presents its premise as "only Jack remembers the Beatles." But then it revises that to, "No, there are these two other randoms who also remember for some reason," only because Curtis needs them to tell him where to find John Lennon. That's a cheat. I suppose it qualifies under what you're saying about Jack's understanding changing, because he understands that they remember once they tell him they do, but I found it to be a violation of the premise that wasn't used for anything particularly interesting.

Also, it's easy to assume that George Harrison would have passed away in this timeline regardless, but if Lennon is alive, then McCartney and Starr should also, logically, be alive. Where are they? What are they doing? I was really mad that the scene with them coming to confront him on James Corden's show was a fake out dream sequence. That was one of the most interesting parts of the trailer for me and I was looking forward to seeing how that would play out if it turned out that they were in the narrative, and it felt like a copout.

Also, the Beach Boys still exist in this film, as do many of the other artists from around the Beatles' time period. The work that The Beatles were doing influenced Brian Wilson to write Pet Sounds, and then Pet Sounds influenced Sgt. Pepper. Echo in the Canyon, a great documentary out right now in which Paul McCartney is an interview subject, discusses how various musicians from the time period influenced each other. So, if you take the Beatles out, there would be ripple effects on the state of pop music; they were too influential to disappear in a vacuum, but the movie doesn't care to explore the consequences of their disappearance on the music that's left. That to me was a cheat.

I love Across the Universe, too. Probably more. But the two movies provide different pleasures, and they're both celebrations of the Beatles in very different ways.

We can agree that they are about as different from each other as it is possible to get for a movie with the Beatles catalog as its basis. But I don't think Yesterday was all that pleasurable, personally. I didn't hate it, but I really didn't like anything in it either. Again, agree to disagree.

Previously, I had several tracks of the Across the Universe soundtrack downloaded, but I realized, after becoming interested in revisiting it after seeing this film, that it actually wasn't the whole album and I was missing a handful of tracks. So I corrected that surprising omission by buying the complete album (for Across the Universe) on physical CD after coming out of Yesterday. I went into the movie expecting to like it and to want the CD (for Yesterday) after it, but didn't like the movie enough to want a souviner of it. Oh well.

 

[Wayne_j]

Spoiler

Why does Ellie react with surprise that he didn't write any of the songs? I don't remember the exact quote, but it's something like, "That's a really surprising piece of information" or something. I mean, he straight up told her and his other friends that he didn't write Yesterday in the first scene when they claimed not to know who the Beatles were and he thought they were messing with him. So at the bare minimum she should know that he didn't write that one. It's also obvious that he was close to telling her something important before receiving the call from Ed Shereen. I'm not saying she could have put the whole thing together, but her acting like there weren't any signs at all that something was up rang false to me.

I had the same issues with that scene as you did but I still enjoyed the movie regardless.

 

[Mike2001]

Spoiler: Other Two

Jake - I didn't feel the point of having the other two rememberers in the movie was solely to set up the John Lennon scene. 1) it was to add suspense about Jack being exposed; and 2) it was to make the point that it was a good thing that someone was bringing this music back into the world. When my wife and I were discussing the basic plot idea (spoiler free) with my father-in-law (a big Beatles fan) after we saw the movie, his first reaction was how great it was that someone was able to bring the music back into the world. If and when he sees Yesterday, I am sure that the scene where Jack meets the other two will resonate with him.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

This post is full of spoilers. If you haven't see the movie, stop reading now!

The movie presents its premise as "only Jack remembers the Beatles." But then it revises that to, "No, there are these two other randoms who also remember for some reason," only because Curtis needs them to tell him where to find John Lennon. That's a cheat. I suppose it qualifies under what you're saying about Jack's understanding changing, because he understands that they remember once they tell him they do, but I found it to be a violation of the premise that wasn't used for anything particularly interesting.

Those two other people are threaded throughout the movie, though. You see the guy in the crowd in Moscow when he's opening for Ed Sheeren, dumbstruck that he's hearing Beatles songs. You see the woman trailing Jack as he's visiting the sights from the songs in Liverpool. Given the billions of people on Earth, it makes sense that he wouldn't have been the only one who had a traumatic event interfere with whatever happened during the power outage.

There are probably others, too, who just weren't big enough Beatles fans to make the connection.

Also, it's easy to assume that George Harrison would have passed away in this timeline regardless, but if Lennon is alive, then McCartney and Starr should also, logically, be alive. Where are they? What are they doing? I was really mad that the scene with them coming to confront him on James Corden's show was a fake out dream sequence. That was one of the most interesting parts of the trailer for me and I was looking forward to seeing how that would play out if it turned out that they were in the narrative, and it felt like a copout.

There was a scene in Richard Curtis's screenplay, that got cut before the movie went into production, where Jack ran into Paul and Ringo at a pub in Liverpool. Starr played for a while with the Hurricanes, one of Liverpool's leading bands, but ultimately dropped out to finish his machinist apprenticeship. McCartney was in a group called the Quarrymen, but like most teenage bands, it never ultimately went anywhere.

I think the main reason it was cut (aside from the question of whether Paul and Ringo would be willing to participate) was to preserve the power of the later scene by the beach.

 

[Simon Massey]

Really enjoyed it / much more like Curtis previous films than Boyle but I thought Boyle kept the film moving at a terrific pace.

Even though I’m not a huge Beatles fan it was still great fun ( weirdly I’d been to visit the Cavern Club on the same day without really planning on that and the film together ). Most of the characters are lifted straight from Curtis previous films but the performance are so likeable I forgave that.

 

[mattCR]

I enjoyed it.. until the third act. I did not in any way understand WHY he would need to make that reveal at Wembly? It made absolutely no sense. Others were glad he was bringing the music out, and I thought there were even more possibilities..

Spoiler

They revealed Oasis didn't exist, and other things.. plus you'd have all of the individual music of Lennon, McCartney, Starr, Harrison - there are a lot of hits there.. hell, even Julian Lennon had a hit; and then group efforts like Wings, Traveling Wilbury's and so on.. I didn't understand at all the reason to reveal.. and his reveal would make NO sense to anyone in the world because they didn't remember. It seemed clunky and all sorts of wrong.

I would have been so much more accepting of him just conitnuing to put out music, doing more research into more bands that disappeared - or at least songs that disappeared - and make those. Why not? He seemed to have this moral crisis, but the other two people who remembered were like: at least someone remembers the music.. and I thought: exactly.

Besides which, since no one else could prove the music, who would anyone credit with the lyrics & music - still him. And, he would still be entitled to royalties, etc. so I thought the entire last bit was TERRIBLE.

It could have been so much better if he just went up, busted out some beatles Tunes, and then dropped something like "Wonderwall" or "She's Electric". Maybe he drops "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Maybe" from McCartney or "Woman" and "Imagine" from Lennon.. this is a film that I thought had so much potential for him to be a good guy who re-introduced the world; and in the end, he just kind of bailed in a way that made NO sense.

Still, I enjoyed it for the music, for the fun, but it went from a solid B+ film until the ending bit, and that dropped it to a C+

 

[TonyD]

Boy I think you guys are really over analyzing this one.

So many episodes of the Twilight Zone were exactly like this m I’ve and didn’t supply or need a reason for the “unexplainable” things that happened.
That’s why it’s called unexplainable.
Spoilers





I’m one who really dislikes ambiguity in stories but the story wasn’t really about the disappearance of The Beatles and Coke and whatnot it was about these two people and the journey of how they get to where they belong.

The music thing was the mcguffin for lack of a better word.

Anyway I’ve never been big on the Beatles but I understand why a movie like this needs to use the Beatles, using The Who wouldn’t really work.

I loved the Actress who played Ellie, lily James, she was great.
Also confirming that it was uncredited Robert Carlyle who played Lennon, Boyle said it on the commentary.

I’m so glad I didn’t know about that scene.
As soon as it was released who he went to visit I just about lost it.
I mean I did lose it.
One of my favorite movie scenes ever.

Also there’s and alternate start and end for the movie in the extras.

I really love this movie.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I had to bump this thread because this is one of the weirdest news items I've seen in a long time.

Fans Sue Universal Over Ana De Armas’ Absence From The Film ‘Yesterday’

Fans Sue Universal Over Ana De Armas' Absence From The Film 'Yesterday'

deadline.com

Really? People want to burden the American legal system with this? It seems like there are much more important cases to be considered. I hope this one is laughed out of court.

But even if it isn't dismissed, I don't see how this case holds any water. Movie trailers sometimes feature footage that is deleted from the final cut because the studios start marketing for their films before the final cut is totally completed. Ana De Armas being in the trailer for ten seconds does not seem to be a legitimate reason to sue a movie studio, especially over a $3.99 rental.

If De Armas was promoted as the main star of the film, that might be deceptive advertising, but the trailer clearly demonstrates that this film is about Hamish Patel and Lily James' characters.

From the lawsuit: “Unable to rely on fame of the actors playing Jack Malik or Ellie to maximize ticket and movie sales and rentals, Defendant consequently used Ms. De Armas’s fame, radiance and brilliance to promote the film by including her scenes in the movie trailers advertising Yesterday.”

I guess they're ignoring the fact the trailer does promote the actors in the lead roles and includes both of their names. Apparently these people didn't see Cinderella, Baby Driver, Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again or James' TV work on Downton Abbey, all of which were widely seen prior to the release of Yesterday.

Also, Ana De Armas was not exactly a name star at the time Yesterday came out in June 2019. Her highest-profile role role up to that time was probably her supporting one in Blade Runner 2049. I liked Blade Runner 2049 a lot, but it was not marketed with De Armas' name, and it didn't do as well as those involved expected from it. Her leading performance in Knives Out, which put her on a lot more people's radar, was not released until November 2019.

Good grief.

 

[Sam Favate]

Wow. It’s outrageous.

 

[JoeStemme]

Most of Richard Curtis' (NOTTING HILL, LOVE ACTUALLY) feature work has some element of playful fantasy to them. As long as one keeps that in mind, it's not really a leap to imagine the world of YESTERDAY where the Beatles never existed save for one dude. Jack Malik (Himesh Patel) is that man. A small-time musician who travels around Suffolk with his combined manager and roadie Ellie (Lily James) just struggling to get by. The pair have known each other since they were kids, but, despite their close bond have never moved beyond the "friend zone". One night while riding his bike back from a gig, Jack is knocked cold by a bus JUST at the moment some kind of magnetic storm has wiped out all power on earth. Fast as you can say The Day The Earth Stood Still, all collective memory (and physical evidence) of The Beatles is gone -- save for Jack.

Armed with their catalog of great songs, Jack takes advantage and begins to pass them off as his own writing. Ed Sheeren (playing a good natured version of himself) happens to be listening and gives him his first big break. Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon) signs him on the spot and his career skyrockets.

Director Danny Boyle adds a few touches, but, he mostly just lets the actors and, most of all, the Beatles' tunes do the persuading. The light fantasy is pleasant enough, even if the script gets a bit baggy (one of Curtis' negative tendencies). YESTERDAY never really digs down to expand much on what the impact and meaning of such an occurrence would mean*. Patel and James are charming together, and most of the cast follows along (McKinnon starts off amusing, but, becomes a one-note caricature pretty quickly). The arc of the story is pretty predictable, save for a last act diversion which is pretty questionable. Some have found it a bittersweet comfort, but, it made me feel a bit squeamish. I get why the scene is there (and, it's plot "logic"), but it's squeaky wheel in an otherwise purely pleasurable ride. Curtis also tosses in a few oddball power outage 'aftereffects' in the margins that are quite amusing in their specificity, while remaining affectionately offbeat.

YESTERDAY isn't for those who take things too literally. Curtis is just doodling a Silly Love Song -- You either get on the Magical Mystery Tour or you may as well Hide Yourself Away.

* Two things the movie ignores:
1. Even armed with the lyrics, that doesn't mean the finished music would recapture The Beatles magic. The quartet also played the instruments, and, with George Martin, created a unique sound. You can't just throw a newbie in a recording studio with a backing band and out comes Sgt. Pepper.
2. In this streaming, download, and uncentralized music landscape, would even The Beatles be "The Beatles!!" today if they were just arriving on the scene? Sure, they had the chops, but, would they be able to break through in this increasingly fractured and narrow-casted society? They might be Cold Play big, but, "The Beatles!!" big.....?

 

[JohnRice]

I had to bump this thread because this is one of the weirdest news items I've seen in a long time.

Fans Sue Universal Over Ana De Armas’ Absence From The Film ‘Yesterday’

Fans Sue Universal Over Ana De Armas' Absence From The Film 'Yesterday'

deadline.com

Really? People want to burden the American legal system with this? It seems like there are much more important cases to be considered. I hope this one is laughed out of court.

But even if it isn't dismissed, I don't see how this case holds any water. Movie trailers sometimes feature footage that is deleted from the final cut because the studios start marketing for their films before the final cut is totally completed. Ana De Armas being in the trailer for ten seconds does not seem to be a legitimate reason to sue a movie studio, especially over a $3.99 rental.

If De Armas was promoted as the main star of the film, that might be deceptive advertising, but the trailer clearly demonstrates that this film is about Hamish Patel and Lily James' characters.

From the lawsuit: “Unable to rely on fame of the actors playing Jack Malik or Ellie to maximize ticket and movie sales and rentals, Defendant consequently used Ms. De Armas’s fame, radiance and brilliance to promote the film by including her scenes in the movie trailers advertising Yesterday.”

I guess they're ignoring the fact the trailer does promote the actors in the lead roles and includes both of their names. Apparently these people didn't see Cinderella, Baby Driver or James' TV work on Downton Abbey, all of which were widely seen prior to the release of Yesterday.

Also, Ana De Armas was not exactly a name star at the time Yesterday came out in June 2019. Her highest-profile role role up to that time was probably her supporting one in Blade Runner 2049. I liked Blade Runner 2049 a lot, but it was not marketed with De Armas' name, and it didn't do as well as those involved expected from it. Her leading performance in Knives Out, which put her on a lot more people's radar, was not released until November 2019.

Good grief.

Oh for cryin’ out loud. No, Ana was virtually unknown and Lily James was freaking Cinderella. Not to mention being in one of the most popular shows across two continents. How did they even find an attorney to file this?

 

[Jake Lipson]

I understand being a fan of De Armas (I am too), but I don't understand how anyone could look at the trailer for Yesterday and think that she would have a major role. The trailer accurately represents the kind of film that it is and who the main stars are.

How did they even find an attorney to file this?

I wondered the same thing. Also, the bill for the lawyer's time to even have a meeting about it far exceeds the cost of the rental that is the focus of their rental. So what could they realistically gain from this?

 

[RMajidi]

I had to bump this thread because this is one of the weirdest news items I've seen in a long time.

Fans Sue Universal Over Ana De Armas’ Absence From The Film ‘Yesterday’

Fans Sue Universal Over Ana De Armas' Absence From The Film 'Yesterday'

deadline.com

Really? People want to burden the American legal system with this? It seems like there are much more important cases to be considered. I hope this one is laughed out of court.

But even if it isn't dismissed, I don't see how this case holds any water. Movie trailers sometimes feature footage that is deleted from the final cut because the studios start marketing for their films before the final cut is totally completed. Ana De Armas being in the trailer for ten seconds does not seem to be a legitimate reason to sue a movie studio, especially over a $3.99 rental.

If De Armas was promoted as the main star of the film, that might be deceptive advertising, but the trailer clearly demonstrates that this film is about Hamish Patel and Lily James' characters.

From the lawsuit: “Unable to rely on fame of the actors playing Jack Malik or Ellie to maximize ticket and movie sales and rentals, Defendant consequently used Ms. De Armas’s fame, radiance and brilliance to promote the film by including her scenes in the movie trailers advertising Yesterday.”

I guess they're ignoring the fact the trailer does promote the actors in the lead roles and includes both of their names. Apparently these people didn't see Cinderella, Baby Driver or James' TV work on Downton Abbey, all of which were widely seen prior to the release of Yesterday.

Also, Ana De Armas was not exactly a name star at the time Yesterday came out in June 2019. Her highest-profile role role up to that time was probably her supporting one in Blade Runner 2049. I liked Blade Runner 2049 a lot, but it was not marketed with De Armas' name, and it didn't do as well as those involved expected from it. Her leading performance in Knives Out, which put her on a lot more people's radar, was not released until November 2019.

Good grief.

Yes, I read this news in a BBC article here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60092299,which additionally specified their claim - “They are seeking $5m in compensation on behalf of all affected viewers.“

Going only by the info in these article, perhaps the fair outcome would be to pay back the claimants’ $3.99 - which they rightly ought to have recouped from their rental outlets - and then order them to pay legal costs for wasting the court’s resources in a transparent attempt at an undeserved money-grab.

 

[JohnRice]

I understand being a fan of De Armas (I am too), but I don't understand how anyone could look at the trailer for Yesterday and think that she would have a major role. The trailer accurately represents the kind of film that it is and who the main stars are.


I wondered the same thing. Also, the bill for the lawyer's time to even have a meeting about it far exceeds the cost of the rental that is the focus of their rental. So what could they realistically gain from this?

She’s an exceptional actor, not to mention being freaking gorgeous. She was outstanding in Bladerunner 2049, and even in the otherwise mediocre Knock, Knock, but she was virtually unknown when Yesterday came out.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Going only by the info in these article, perhaps the fair outcome would be to pay back the claimants’ $3.99 - which they rightly ought to have recouped from their rental outlets - and then order them to pay legal costs for wasting the court’s resources in a transparent attempt at an undeserved money-grab.

I don't even think there is cause to give them the $3.99 (each) back.

There have been movie trailers in the past that have done a far worse job of representing their films as Yesterday did. Even when the trailer does not reflect the movie, I don't come out of a movie and think I should sue the studio.

Deciding to view a film is not a guarantee that you will like it or that it will conform to your preexisting expectations about it.

I've certainly

she was virtually unknown when Yesterday came out.

I agree with your assessment. But I don't think the idiots who filed this suit are considering Yesterday in the context of when it came out. They mentioned Knives Out and No Time to Die in their suit, which both raised De Armas' profile afterwards. They probably saw the trailer and paid for their rentals after those films came out. The trailer that is available for Yesterday now is still the same trailer as it was when it was new. They think that her increased stature now makes her a marketing tool for Yesterday. They aren't taking into account the age of the Yesterday trailer because they saw it second.

I saw Blade Runner 2049 when it came out, and I liked De Armas in it. But I didn't take any particular notice of her appearance in the Yesterday trailer until after reading about this yesterday. I had to play it back in order to realize what they were even talking about.

But obviously they are playing fast and loose with facts because a simple glance at Lily James' IMDb would demonstrate that she had been in more high-profile projects prior to Yesterday than they want to admit.

 

[JohnRice]

I don't even think there is cause to give them the $3.99 (each) back.

There have been movie trailers in the past that have done a far worse job of representing their films as Yesterday did. Even when the trailer does not reflect the movie, I don't come out of a movie and think I should sue the studio.


I agree with your assessment. But I don't think the idiots who filed this suit are considering Yesterday in the context of when it came out. They mentioned Knives Out and No Time to Die in their suit, which both raised De Armas' profile afterwards. They probably saw the trailer and paid for their rentals after those films came out. The trailer that is available for Yesterday now is still the same trailer as it was when it was new. They think that her increased stature now makes her a marketing tool for Yesterday. They aren't taking into account the age of the Yesterday trailer because they saw it after those films. This is an essential flaw in their argument.

I saw Blade Runner 2049 when it came out, and I liked De Armas in it. But I didn't take any particular notice of her appearance in the Yesterday trailer until after reading about this yesterday. I had to play it back in order to realize what they were even talking about.

But obviously they are playing fast and loose with facts because a simple glance at Lily James' IMDb would demonstrate that she had been in more high-profile projects prior to Yesterday than they want to admit.

Well, I’ve seen the Yesterday trailer more than once and didn’t realize de Armas Was even in it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Well, I’ve seen the Yesterday trailer more than once and didn’t realize de Armas Was even in it.

Exactly. I saw the trailer several times in theaters in the run-up to its release, and I knew who De Armas was from having already seen BR2049. I still didn't notice her until last night when I looked up the trailer following this news.

Here's the trailer:



And here is the scene with De Armas from YouTube, so these guys could have seen it without even renting the movie. I guess it must have been on the Blu-ray.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I've been thinking about this some more and I still think it's ridiculous.

De Armas is in the trailer for ten seconds and doesn't even speak in it, so there is no indication that she is going to be a major part of the movie. These guys are also ignoring that Lily James is well-known. So they're being very selective in their facts.

However, the guys are right that she is in the trailer and she isn't in the final cut of the movie. Do I think Universal engaged in deceptive conduct here? No. The trailer for Yesterday represents the story and tone of the movie it is advertising, and the percentage of footage that isn't in the movie is very small. But it also wouldn't cost Universal very much to re-cut the trailer without her scenes in it.

These guys watched the trailer on Amazon and saw Ana de Armas in the trailer and then decided to rent the movie because they like her. Universal is using the same trailer as they originally did before she was cut out of the movie, so that is why the discrepancy exists. I don't think the discrepancy is worth suing for and I hope this will get tossed.

But if I were Universal, I would hire an editor to remove her from the trailer. Then distribute the new trailer to the various digital services. I don't think that this means they did anything wrong, but it probably wouldn't cost very much money for Universal to do and might prevent this from happening again. They would obviously still have to deal with this litigation. But removing her from the trailer that is currently screening on rental sites would at least prevent more people from being able to claim this "injury" in the future.

 

[TravisR]

This lawsuit will get tossed as soon as a judge looks at it. Nonsense like this is a reason that corporations have teams of lawyers on retainer. It's kind of amusing until you stop and think that there's some poor guy whose life was wrecked by a truly defective product and he has to wait even longer to get a day in court because a judge has to spend time to shoot down a couple of morons' idiotic waste of time whining about a movie.

But if I were Universal, I would hire an editor to remove her from the trailer. Then distribute the new trailer to the various digital services. I don't think that this means they did anything wrong, but it probably wouldn't cost very much money for Universal to do and might prevent this from happening again. They would obviously still have to deal with this litigation. But removing her from the trailer that is currently screening on rental sites would at least prevent more people from being able to claim this "injury" in the future.

If I was Universal, I'd never change it purely out of spite.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I can all but guarantee that Jake has dignified this with more thought than a judge will before tossing it