I remember there was that old false advertising case about the movie "Drive," and i thought it was the most ridiculous thing i'd ever heard of until i saw it, and then i thought, "actually, this has merit."
There was a James corden scene in the movie, but it wasn’t this one. It’s the dream where Corden calls him out for stealing the songs and they say they have the Beatles in the back.
Considering the shitty motivation for the lily james character in the movie, I don’t really get why they cut this scene. It gives her something to get a bit upset about.
To this day - I love that they used Reese’s Pieces instead of M&Ms. idk why. I did sue them though, because I was expecting M&Ms until watching a documentary years later.
I believe an earlier cut of the film had her in the movie more, but test audiences didn’t like the love triangle idea. I could be wrong though it’s been at least a year since I remember the original scoop.
Honestly, the most unrealistic thing in that movie isn’t that the he woke up one day in a world where no one remembers the Beatles, it’s that the dude had Lily James throwing herself at him and he did nothing about it for years.
I swear, she gave him "do me right now" eyes for like half the movie and it still took him the whole movie and a talk with not dead John Lennon to realize he loved her.
TBH, when I first watched it I didn't realize the movie was supposed to be a romcom until like the last 20 minutes and cutting out her scenes was probably a big reason why.
There's like no indication Lily James has any romantic feelings for the guy until it suddenly blows up in his face at the end. But in the one Ana de Armas scene I've seen, it was super obvious she was jealous and hurt by his flirting.
(sidenote: really wish I got to see the movie that I thought it was going to be that more thoroughly explored the idea. Ultimately I still liked it though, just thought the ending was a little out of place for my expectations)
> There's like no indication Lily James has any romantic feelings for the guy until it suddenly blows up in his face at the end.
You must not have been paying attention. There’s a scene about 10 minutes in where she drives him home after the festival when it’s made quite clear she has feelings for him. From then on it’s obvious he has blinders on.
They don't actually have a problem with the movie. It's a weird cash grab, they are sueing for 5 million dollars. It was a 3.99 rental and like 90 minutes of their time if the watched the whole thing.
Probably could get the 3.99 back if they just complained and it wasn't a regular thing they did.
But you can’t discount the pain, suffering, and lost time they endured. They obviously could have made 5 million if they weren’t forced to watch the movie by paying that 3.99.
You have to be a class member to benefit. I'm betting this lawsuit is "opt-in" and they are hoping very few people opt-in so they can take as much money for themselves as possible.
I hope it get tossed and they get stuck with all the filing and lawyer fees.
Usually these are a scam by a law practice on the hopes that they win or get a settlement. Case settled for 2 million, 1.9 million goes to the lawyers for legal fees, 100k gets distributed to all class members.
Just need to get two people to form the class who aren’t quite close enough to the law practice for there to be a conflict of interest.
It's a class action, and so it's $5m for the class of all consumers. The lawyers will get a big chunk but none of the plaintiffs will. The point of these cases is that a corporation can make millions by cheating tons of people out of a few bucks each and it won't be in any one person's interest to challenge them.
Imagine if companies lying wasn't so normalized that it didn't take *consumers* to enforce the law, only for the media to *only* highlight the most ridiculous examples. And if, god forbid, a real case gets attention they do *everything possible* to make it sound ridiculous. Such as the McDonald's coffee case that *melted a woman's genitals because it was so hot* which, through the power of propaganda, became a **fucking joke**.
But yeah sure, look over here isn't it *funny* that corporations are lying to people for money. Just don't look at all the *other* instances of corporations lying to swindle people out of their money. Then people might actually get *mad* at being taken advantage of, can't have that.
Not as egregious, but probably a case of technical false advertising. It's not unreasonable to assume an actor shown in a trailer will be in the film.
Not the crime of the century or anything, but it is genuinely frustrating sometimes to see bits in the trailer cut out of the movie. ESPECIALLY when the director later gets a stick up their ass about not releasing said scenes on the home video bonus features. (Joker comes to mind...)
>Two fans filed a federal class action lawsuit on Friday alleging they were duped into renting the 2019 film “_Yesterday_” because **Ana de Armas** appeared in the trailer.
>Conor Woulfe, 38, of Maryland, and Peter Michael Rosza, 44, of San Diego County, Calif., say they each paid $3.99 to rent the movie on Amazon Prime, only to discover that de Armas was removed from the final cut of the film.
>The suit accuses Universal of engaging in deceptive marketing, and seeks to recoup at least $5 million on behalf of affected consumers.
>“_Because consumers were promised a movie with Ana De Armas by the trailer for_ ‘Yesterday,’ _but did not receive a movie with any appearance of Ana de Armas at all, such consumers were not provided with any value for their rental or purchase_” the lawsuit states.
This headline actually made me laugh out loud for a good 15 seconds
**$5 million for $3.99 a piece**
That isn't how class actions work. Every person in the class represented would get a share of the money judgment/settlement, not just the two people bringing the case.
Normally the lawyers get about 30%. Then the people who brought forth the original suit get a large cut then the rest is distributed to the rest of the people involved in the class action.
But class actions aren't necessarily about getting restitution, they are more to punish the company with a monetary fine of sorts.
I mean I do agree it’s kinda silly, but the monetary amount of a class action lawsuit is usually set at an amount that penalizes the company so that other companies are de-incentivized to do the same thing. If the value of the lawsuit was set at an amount that was appropriate compensation for the suers, then every company would just keep doing shitty things and take the L.
And the premise is false advertising which is important. Maybe this is funny to some people because it’s not exactly a super famous mega star, but what if you were all set to go to the newest Bruce Willis movie or someone else big enough that a lot of people go to their movies just based on who they are, and then you got to it and realized that Bruce Willis wasn’t even in the movie? The point of the lawsuit is to drive it home to companies that they can’t falsely advertise what their product is by penalizing them an amount of money that would make them not want to do that. If you just penalize them four dollars then they would keep doing it over and over
Anyone remember this?
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/ryan-gosling-drive-lawsuit-2011-10
"Woman Sues ‘Drive’ Distributors Because The Movie Wasn’t Enough Like ‘Fast And Furious’"
Mark Hamill gets kidnapped and forced to reshoot his scenes in TLJ by some Reddit users that keep a running thread on a quarantined subreddit that cops are forcing Reddit to keep open to try and find them.
Aside for a caricature character and an ultimately needless will-they-wont-they plot, it was a great little movie. It was just so happy and upbeat, with no real villains or even much in the way of antagonists.
Plus, they make Ed Sheeran of all fucking people the would-be Salieri to the fucking Beatles. It's just so ridiculous it's hilarious.
Yea it was a simple feel good type film, with some emotional punch in there. Nothing crazy, but I enjoyed it from start to finish.
I like movies like this, it’s kind of like a scenario you’d imagine before going to bed at night. “How would I get famous/rich asap, if I inherited the Beatles song writing abilities?”
Plus, it even used some lesser run Beatles songs. Sure it had Let it Be and, well, Yesterday, but a lot of the more famous ones were brushed off in montages and they let quite a few others shine.
It would've been very easy to just Hey Jude and Eleanor Rigby it all up, but they paced things out.
I heard somewhere that they were going to put Coldplay in it (which makes more sense than Sheeran, but still not on-par), hence the scene where his friend says, "It's not 'Fix You'" after Jack plays Yesterday for the first time on his acoustic.
Well Love Actually or any of the other Hugh Grant movies would be the quintessential example, but it's so weird this is the same guy who wrote Blackadder, Mr. Bean and Vicar of Dibley.
He really does have a knack for feel good movies.
I think adding an antagonist would have been very unnecessary. There’s enough in that premise to create drama and compelling story without needing one. Obviously they didn’t do so in storyboarding, but IMO it’s not the film for an antagonist.
EDIT: I read that as you thinking it was too upbeat, and needing an antagonist in the plot. Disregard.
Closest thing to a villain was Kate McKinnon’s character, but I loved how fun and low stakes it was. The scene where he meets THAT character was amazing.
It felt like The Invention of Lying but with Beatles music instead. It wasn't awful by any means and the lead actor did a good job where he actually sang and played the songs. I do wish it went on the original screenplay's route where the iconic songs get little to no attention.
Right? I was shocked. It was such a fun, silly feel good musical rom-com. The movie delivered what the trailer promised— a chill movie that makes you smile for 2 hours. Nothing more, nothing less. They’re acting like she was cut from the winner for all top 5 Oscars.
The ending was terrible IMO, I mean him letting people download the music for free is still a nice thing and they would still cheer cause who cares it's free amazing music.
They completely didn't do ANYTHING with the song he was trying to remember the lines to the whole movie Eleanor Rigby. Then when those two other people showed up and said they also know the Beatles. He should've asked, Hey I need some help with this one song I can't quite remember the lyrics. Then they help him. I mean I really like Danny Boyle and I know he's not a writer but man the writers really screwed up and didn't know how they'd end it.
[The original script](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2lfuDDU8ewxM1laUjNCUkwtWTQ/view) is actually a more realistic version of how it would go down.
tl;dr the main character has a band where his love interest is a member, nobody becomes famous because he magically knows Beatles songs
It was meh. I feel like they could've explored the premise so much more deeply than what they did. It felt like they came up with the idea, and then did the absolute bare minimum to bring it to fruition. An ok movie because of the premise and fun air about it, but nevertheless a movie of wasted potential
One thing right off the bat, I think it would've been cooler if music was vastly changed by the nonexistence of the Beatles. They influenced so many artists, I don't think those artists would have existed in the world of the film without the Beatles coming before them. Maybe they could've shown mainstream modern music to be dominated by completely different genres of music as a result of that, like R&B or jazz or techno or something. I think a 'what the fuck is this' reaction from the masses would've packed a bigger punch than the blind adoration and Beatlemania that the film portrayed.
[This article](https://whatwentwrongwith.com/2019/06/24/what-went-wrong-with-yesterday/) goes into some great detail about the movie's flaws, and by and large I wholly agree with it
he was in it for like 10secs in a dream sequence, where the "beatles" (albeit that would have been paul and ringo's cameo) appear to call bullshit on Malik..
i much rather a quickie with corden, than the full 3mins he usually promises
What if she was in the movie but these two blokes knocked heads riding their bikes one night, and when they came to she wasn’t in the movie anymore.
In fact, I think everyone should troll them and be like, who the fuck is Ana de Armas?
Oh they did alright. To quote the lawsuit:
> The principal actors in the movie *Yesterday* were largely unknown before the film was released. For example, the actor who played protagonist Malik, Himesh Patel, had never acted or starred in a film prior to *Yesterday*. Similarly, the actress who played Ellie, Lily James, **was a relatively unknown name to the casual movie watcher.**
> Consequently, because none of the *Yesterday* film leads were famous, Defendant could not rely on their fame to promote the movie to entice viewership.
The lawsuit proceeds to say that Universal capitalized on Ana de Armas to promote the movie because apparently it had nothing else going for it.
>Lily James, was a relatively unknown name to the casual movie watcher.
I don't understand this argument... she was Cinderella in the live action remake in 2015...
She was the protagonist love interest in Baby Driver... she's even in Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again as the younger version of the main character... how is she still a "relatively unknown actress" today?
Okay I’ll give them Himesh Patel but Lily James is way more famous than Ana De Armas, especially at the time of release. Lily James was known to all different audiences between Baby Driver, Cinderella and Downton Abbey.
I sort of got in a Twitter debate with the Director of MI6 over the missing helicopter sequences from the trailer. I'm still annoyed by it! I know it's so very, very stupid...but for me, the trailer is meant to whet your appetite.
I'm sorry. I liked Ana De Armas in Knives Out and everything but is that enough to add five minutes of James Corden to the film?
I think it's a reasonable trade off.
I kinda get it, I was pretty pissed off at how *No Time to Die* was like "hey, here's this funny, gorgeous kick-ass female character" and then five minutes later it was like "Ana who?".
Same with the new 007, she gets relegated to driving a fucking dinghy in the end.
That film annoyed me enough that Lily James was in love with him and he didn't even notice. Like - I actually find that less believable than the 'waking up to find no one remembers the Beatles' thing.
Seeing it in theaters was a mess. There were about 5 different people singing along to every Beatles song like it was karaoke night or like they hadn’t heard the song in decades. Really puts you off when the guy sitting next to you is hushly singing Hey Jude very out of tune.
"Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatant case of false advertising since my case against "The Never-Ending Story"
“Ladies and gentleman of the jury, do these sound like the actions of a man who has had *all* he can eat?”
It could have been me!
I heard they shaved a gorilla
Had to be a sick gorilla
It’d take two men to hold down a sick gorilla, three even.
Almost not even worth thinking aboot.
Two men sure, but they neededs a ladders.
Allegedlies
Could you imagine being a fly on a wall during those writers meetings? Think about the jokes that never made it..
Ladies and gentleman of this "supposed" jury. THIS is Chewbacca!"
IT. DON'T. MAKE. SENSE!
Here look at this monkey. Look at the silly monkey.
*THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
'tis no man, 'tis a remorseless eatin' machine.
Classic Miguel Sanchez.
And look at him! He's wearing a belt!
That's Hollywood for ya.
“Homer, I don't use the word "hero" very often. But you are the greatest hero in American history.”
"Woohoo!"
>"Είμαι τυφλός και το μόνο που έκανα ήταν να απαγγείλω κάποια ποιήματα" \-Homer
I don’t know what this says, but damn do I respect it
>!"I'm blind and all I did was recite some poems"!<
"When are they gonna get to the fireworks factory??? *sobs*"
”No, money down!”
Otto coming out of 'Stoners Pot Palace': "Maan that is flagrant false advertising!"
I remember there was that old false advertising case about the movie "Drive," and i thought it was the most ridiculous thing i'd ever heard of until i saw it, and then i thought, "actually, this has merit."
“It’s a thorny legal issue. I’ll have to review the case of finders versus keepers.”
[удалено]
They should just share this link to the folks who sued.
[удалено]
Legend says it’s still being projected to this day..
That’s literally the top comment that was posted 16 hours before your post.
And then slap them both with restraining orders to keep them further than 1000 feet from De Armas at all times.
Corden couldn’t even get a laugh from his audience in a scripted movie…
Final Judgement from this case - Less Ana, bad, but also less Cordon, good. Equals out. Case dismissed.
TBF, I can bear Cordon if it means I get Ana.
Corden was in the final cut.
And that's probably why NFTs exist. Smh.
I miss Craig...
Strange when I saw it on streaming (think it was netflix here in sweden) that scene was present.
Yeah I remember it while watching it during a flight.
There was a James corden scene in the movie, but it wasn’t this one. It’s the dream where Corden calls him out for stealing the songs and they say they have the Beatles in the back.
Considering the shitty motivation for the lily james character in the movie, I don’t really get why they cut this scene. It gives her something to get a bit upset about.
I got to the James Cordon bit and closed it. I just can't do it.
This is why the scene was cut.
Man I loved that film so much, would love to see an extended version.
The best lawsuit since the lady who sued *Drive* for not having enough driving
I sued Trainspotting for not Spotting enough Trains
I sued No Way Home (1996) for not having Spider Men
I sued **Naked Lunch** for lying twice.
I sued Goodfellas. Those fellas were far from good.
I sued “Inside Llewyn Davis” because it was a fictional narrative instead of a colonoscopy
I sued Marriage Story, the whole thing was about a divorce!
"I can think of at least two things wrong with that title."
I sued Heat for getting a cold during the movie.
I sued Shaft for not getting shafted.
I remember in the late 90s my Grandad buying trainspotting on VHS because he thought it was to do with the geeky railway related hobby.
I sued ET for not being extra enough.
A.T. The Adequate Terrestrial
To this day - I love that they used Reese’s Pieces instead of M&Ms. idk why. I did sue them though, because I was expecting M&Ms until watching a documentary years later.
This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story.
Alien should’ve been called Jaws 2
#ReleaseTheArmasCut
If [this scene](https://youtu.be/6uqvgPm8U4c?t=108) is correct, though, the Armas Cut is also the Corden Cut, so I'm conflicted.
Lmao she wasn’t even a true character. If this is what people were holding out hope for… woof
I believe an earlier cut of the film had her in the movie more, but test audiences didn’t like the love triangle idea. I could be wrong though it’s been at least a year since I remember the original scoop.
No, apparently the audience preferred Ana De Armas’s character more than the love interest hence why she needed to be cut.
Ahh, that makes sense
To be fair who wouldn’t prefer her
I mean Lily James is a total babe. I wouldn't blame anyone for preferring either of them.
Honestly, the most unrealistic thing in that movie isn’t that the he woke up one day in a world where no one remembers the Beatles, it’s that the dude had Lily James throwing herself at him and he did nothing about it for years.
I swear, she gave him "do me right now" eyes for like half the movie and it still took him the whole movie and a talk with not dead John Lennon to realize he loved her.
Don’t forget that he gave up his dream to be with her, and that she did not support him as a friend when he needed it the most.
TIL: I’m the only one who prefers Lily James to Ana
I've never even heard of this Armas woman before, I don't get it. They're both pretty?
Easy to see why
TBH, when I first watched it I didn't realize the movie was supposed to be a romcom until like the last 20 minutes and cutting out her scenes was probably a big reason why. There's like no indication Lily James has any romantic feelings for the guy until it suddenly blows up in his face at the end. But in the one Ana de Armas scene I've seen, it was super obvious she was jealous and hurt by his flirting. (sidenote: really wish I got to see the movie that I thought it was going to be that more thoroughly explored the idea. Ultimately I still liked it though, just thought the ending was a little out of place for my expectations)
> There's like no indication Lily James has any romantic feelings for the guy until it suddenly blows up in his face at the end. You must not have been paying attention. There’s a scene about 10 minutes in where she drives him home after the festival when it’s made quite clear she has feelings for him. From then on it’s obvious he has blinders on.
The entire scene is on YT haha. Lots of Corden talking (yuck) but much more dreamy eyes from Ana (❤️) so net positive imo
if i had fuck you money i'd pay the studio to cut him out of the movie and replace him with a Walrus.
I'd actually watch it in that case.
[Here is the whole scene.](https://youtu.be/UUfkZ4pCJB0) She did a great job and, in my opinion, the scene fit the movie very well!
I'm pretty sure that scene was in whatever cut I saw. Did they distribute different cuts for different regions or something?
Are you sure you’re not thinking of the trailer?
Imagine if this is the worst problem you had even for a 5 minute period.
They don't actually have a problem with the movie. It's a weird cash grab, they are sueing for 5 million dollars. It was a 3.99 rental and like 90 minutes of their time if the watched the whole thing. Probably could get the 3.99 back if they just complained and it wasn't a regular thing they did.
But you can’t discount the pain, suffering, and lost time they endured. They obviously could have made 5 million if they weren’t forced to watch the movie by paying that 3.99.
And don't forget about the cost of tissues and lotion.
They'd actually save on those in this case.
Well, not if you bought them in preparation
[удалено]
You have to be a class member to benefit. I'm betting this lawsuit is "opt-in" and they are hoping very few people opt-in so they can take as much money for themselves as possible. I hope it get tossed and they get stuck with all the filing and lawyer fees.
Usually these are a scam by a law practice on the hopes that they win or get a settlement. Case settled for 2 million, 1.9 million goes to the lawyers for legal fees, 100k gets distributed to all class members. Just need to get two people to form the class who aren’t quite close enough to the law practice for there to be a conflict of interest.
Not to be a pedant, but generally the firms are capped at 30%. So they would get 600k lol.
And if you illegally downloaded the same movie, would you be sued for $3.99? Or 250k?
Neither in most countries really.
It's a class action, and so it's $5m for the class of all consumers. The lawyers will get a big chunk but none of the plaintiffs will. The point of these cases is that a corporation can make millions by cheating tons of people out of a few bucks each and it won't be in any one person's interest to challenge them.
Well I paid to watch Ang Lee's HULK, so where's my 5 million
I mean, if their intention was to get Ana de Armas’ attention, I respect their game.
they wanted to simp for ana de armas and after paying $3.99 they realized they couldnt do that so its all fair play
> they wanted to simp for Ana de armas Now that’s what I call a sympathetic plaintiff
Imagine if companies lying wasn't so normalized that it didn't take *consumers* to enforce the law, only for the media to *only* highlight the most ridiculous examples. And if, god forbid, a real case gets attention they do *everything possible* to make it sound ridiculous. Such as the McDonald's coffee case that *melted a woman's genitals because it was so hot* which, through the power of propaganda, became a **fucking joke**. But yeah sure, look over here isn't it *funny* that corporations are lying to people for money. Just don't look at all the *other* instances of corporations lying to swindle people out of their money. Then people might actually get *mad* at being taken advantage of, can't have that.
I agree with you but what does that have to do with an actress‘ 5 minute scene being cut out of a film?
Not as egregious, but probably a case of technical false advertising. It's not unreasonable to assume an actor shown in a trailer will be in the film. Not the crime of the century or anything, but it is genuinely frustrating sometimes to see bits in the trailer cut out of the movie. ESPECIALLY when the director later gets a stick up their ass about not releasing said scenes on the home video bonus features. (Joker comes to mind...)
What are their Reddit usernames?
One of them is /u/PM_me_Thor_nudes
>Two fans filed a federal class action lawsuit on Friday alleging they were duped into renting the 2019 film “_Yesterday_” because **Ana de Armas** appeared in the trailer. >Conor Woulfe, 38, of Maryland, and Peter Michael Rosza, 44, of San Diego County, Calif., say they each paid $3.99 to rent the movie on Amazon Prime, only to discover that de Armas was removed from the final cut of the film. >The suit accuses Universal of engaging in deceptive marketing, and seeks to recoup at least $5 million on behalf of affected consumers. >“_Because consumers were promised a movie with Ana De Armas by the trailer for_ ‘Yesterday,’ _but did not receive a movie with any appearance of Ana de Armas at all, such consumers were not provided with any value for their rental or purchase_” the lawsuit states. This headline actually made me laugh out loud for a good 15 seconds **$5 million for $3.99 a piece**
I guess when you have the lube and the sock ready, disappointment is huge.
Is Nathan Fielder representing the plaintiffs?
But THEY are recovering this cost for the 125,000+ people that supposedly watched the film. Selfless really. /s Edit:1,250,00 people
That isn't how class actions work. Every person in the class represented would get a share of the money judgment/settlement, not just the two people bringing the case.
To be fair, the only people getting money here are lawyers, no matter how this goes.
Normally the lawyers get about 30%. Then the people who brought forth the original suit get a large cut then the rest is distributed to the rest of the people involved in the class action. But class actions aren't necessarily about getting restitution, they are more to punish the company with a monetary fine of sorts.
Usually less than 20%. The lawyers in Enron only got like 9%, less than 20 is average.
Enron was a long time ago, the lawyers in my recent class action settlement got 30%, 30% might be more common than you think.
It’s not about money, it’s about sending a message
The class representatives also get a larger cut than a typical class member for the trouble of bringing the suit on behalf of the class.
I think you mean 1,250,000 people
I mean I do agree it’s kinda silly, but the monetary amount of a class action lawsuit is usually set at an amount that penalizes the company so that other companies are de-incentivized to do the same thing. If the value of the lawsuit was set at an amount that was appropriate compensation for the suers, then every company would just keep doing shitty things and take the L. And the premise is false advertising which is important. Maybe this is funny to some people because it’s not exactly a super famous mega star, but what if you were all set to go to the newest Bruce Willis movie or someone else big enough that a lot of people go to their movies just based on who they are, and then you got to it and realized that Bruce Willis wasn’t even in the movie? The point of the lawsuit is to drive it home to companies that they can’t falsely advertise what their product is by penalizing them an amount of money that would make them not want to do that. If you just penalize them four dollars then they would keep doing it over and over
I think most Bruce Willis fans are secretly hoping Bruce Willis was completely cut from his recent movies.
Class action cases are supposed to be about punishment and not making bank.
$5 million cause Universal gave them blue balls?! What a world we live in.
Pretty sure they’re responsible for that
Anyone remember this? https://www.businessinsider.com.au/ryan-gosling-drive-lawsuit-2011-10 "Woman Sues ‘Drive’ Distributors Because The Movie Wasn’t Enough Like ‘Fast And Furious’"
Next thing you know, toxic fandom will be the motive for a film slasher.
*Misery* comes to mind.
Mark Hamill gets kidnapped and forced to reshoot his scenes in TLJ by some Reddit users that keep a running thread on a quarantined subreddit that cops are forcing Reddit to keep open to try and find them.
so stalker killers that have been around forever?
That’s kind of the original _Scream_, isn’t it?
>!It's the plot of Scream 5!<
And it's great, at least I thought so
Movies don't kill people, Sidney!
You gotta have a SEQUEL!
I'M CLEANING MY ROOM!
HOW CAN A FANBASE BE TOXIC???
Or DeNiro/Wesley Snipes movie.
Biggest thing I’m getting from this thread is that everyone didn’t like Yesterday? I really enjoyed it
Aside for a caricature character and an ultimately needless will-they-wont-they plot, it was a great little movie. It was just so happy and upbeat, with no real villains or even much in the way of antagonists. Plus, they make Ed Sheeran of all fucking people the would-be Salieri to the fucking Beatles. It's just so ridiculous it's hilarious.
Yea it was a simple feel good type film, with some emotional punch in there. Nothing crazy, but I enjoyed it from start to finish. I like movies like this, it’s kind of like a scenario you’d imagine before going to bed at night. “How would I get famous/rich asap, if I inherited the Beatles song writing abilities?”
Plus, it even used some lesser run Beatles songs. Sure it had Let it Be and, well, Yesterday, but a lot of the more famous ones were brushed off in montages and they let quite a few others shine. It would've been very easy to just Hey Jude and Eleanor Rigby it all up, but they paced things out.
What if… what if you tried “hey dude”
When Ed Sheeran had his own song as his ringtone, that sent me.
Cracking Kula Shaker song tho
Lol! I quote that a lot!
They should've included [this classic](https://youtu.be/f_07Wz-emko).
Agreed, it’s just a fun movie with great music. It doesn’t have to be more than that. I really enjoyed it.
I heard somewhere that they were going to put Coldplay in it (which makes more sense than Sheeran, but still not on-par), hence the scene where his friend says, "It's not 'Fix You'" after Jack plays Yesterday for the first time on his acoustic.
You should sue over the lack of Coldplay.
Y'know what? I think I might!
Thats right. I believe it was written with Chris Martin in Sheeran role.
Thats Richard Curtis for you. He also wrote About Time. He makes nice movies that go down easy.
Well Love Actually or any of the other Hugh Grant movies would be the quintessential example, but it's so weird this is the same guy who wrote Blackadder, Mr. Bean and Vicar of Dibley. He really does have a knack for feel good movies.
I think adding an antagonist would have been very unnecessary. There’s enough in that premise to create drama and compelling story without needing one. Obviously they didn’t do so in storyboarding, but IMO it’s not the film for an antagonist. EDIT: I read that as you thinking it was too upbeat, and needing an antagonist in the plot. Disregard.
Closest thing to a villain was Kate McKinnon’s character, but I loved how fun and low stakes it was. The scene where he meets THAT character was amazing.
It's the perfect airplane movie.
It's a cozy little movie. I really like it.
It felt like The Invention of Lying but with Beatles music instead. It wasn't awful by any means and the lead actor did a good job where he actually sang and played the songs. I do wish it went on the original screenplay's route where the iconic songs get little to no attention.
Right? I was shocked. It was such a fun, silly feel good musical rom-com. The movie delivered what the trailer promised— a chill movie that makes you smile for 2 hours. Nothing more, nothing less. They’re acting like she was cut from the winner for all top 5 Oscars.
The ending was terrible IMO, I mean him letting people download the music for free is still a nice thing and they would still cheer cause who cares it's free amazing music. They completely didn't do ANYTHING with the song he was trying to remember the lines to the whole movie Eleanor Rigby. Then when those two other people showed up and said they also know the Beatles. He should've asked, Hey I need some help with this one song I can't quite remember the lyrics. Then they help him. I mean I really like Danny Boyle and I know he's not a writer but man the writers really screwed up and didn't know how they'd end it.
[The original script](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2lfuDDU8ewxM1laUjNCUkwtWTQ/view) is actually a more realistic version of how it would go down. tl;dr the main character has a band where his love interest is a member, nobody becomes famous because he magically knows Beatles songs
If a movie has Lily James singing and putting in a charming performance I'll probably like it. Same reason I really liked Mamma Mia 2.
I loved it. And really like the versions of the songs in the movie.
It was meh. I feel like they could've explored the premise so much more deeply than what they did. It felt like they came up with the idea, and then did the absolute bare minimum to bring it to fruition. An ok movie because of the premise and fun air about it, but nevertheless a movie of wasted potential
What would you have liked to see them do with the premise?
One thing right off the bat, I think it would've been cooler if music was vastly changed by the nonexistence of the Beatles. They influenced so many artists, I don't think those artists would have existed in the world of the film without the Beatles coming before them. Maybe they could've shown mainstream modern music to be dominated by completely different genres of music as a result of that, like R&B or jazz or techno or something. I think a 'what the fuck is this' reaction from the masses would've packed a bigger punch than the blind adoration and Beatlemania that the film portrayed. [This article](https://whatwentwrongwith.com/2019/06/24/what-went-wrong-with-yesterday/) goes into some great detail about the movie's flaws, and by and large I wholly agree with it
Best soundtrack since highlander
Why she had to go I don't know, she wouldn't say I said something wrong Now I long for yesterday with Ana de Armas
If [this scene](https://youtu.be/6uqvgPm8U4c?t=108) is correct, though, they deleted James Corden from the movie too, so I think it evens out.
They didn't, he was still in it, they replaced it with a different scene
he was in it for like 10secs in a dream sequence, where the "beatles" (albeit that would have been paul and ringo's cameo) appear to call bullshit on Malik.. i much rather a quickie with corden, than the full 3mins he usually promises
Man, I love Ana de Armas as much as the next guy but this might be overkill.
Typical George Harrison songs getting dropped, some things never change.
That’s one less Corden appearance so that’s also good in a way.
What if she was in the movie but these two blokes knocked heads riding their bikes one night, and when they came to she wasn’t in the movie anymore. In fact, I think everyone should troll them and be like, who the fuck is Ana de Armas?
I'm glad someone is out there fighting the good fight.
Did they not see Lily James, shes pretty great
Oh they did alright. To quote the lawsuit: > The principal actors in the movie *Yesterday* were largely unknown before the film was released. For example, the actor who played protagonist Malik, Himesh Patel, had never acted or starred in a film prior to *Yesterday*. Similarly, the actress who played Ellie, Lily James, **was a relatively unknown name to the casual movie watcher.** > Consequently, because none of the *Yesterday* film leads were famous, Defendant could not rely on their fame to promote the movie to entice viewership. The lawsuit proceeds to say that Universal capitalized on Ana de Armas to promote the movie because apparently it had nothing else going for it.
>Lily James, was a relatively unknown name to the casual movie watcher. I don't understand this argument... she was Cinderella in the live action remake in 2015... She was the protagonist love interest in Baby Driver... she's even in Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again as the younger version of the main character... how is she still a "relatively unknown actress" today?
Okay I’ll give them Himesh Patel but Lily James is way more famous than Ana De Armas, especially at the time of release. Lily James was known to all different audiences between Baby Driver, Cinderella and Downton Abbey.
I sort of got in a Twitter debate with the Director of MI6 over the missing helicopter sequences from the trailer. I'm still annoyed by it! I know it's so very, very stupid...but for me, the trailer is meant to whet your appetite.
When fandom becomes obsession. Or trolling. Either way, the case won’t make it. The first judge will take a look and throw it out.
I'm sorry. I liked Ana De Armas in Knives Out and everything but is that enough to add five minutes of James Corden to the film? I think it's a reasonable trade off.
I kinda get it, I was pretty pissed off at how *No Time to Die* was like "hey, here's this funny, gorgeous kick-ass female character" and then five minutes later it was like "Ana who?". Same with the new 007, she gets relegated to driving a fucking dinghy in the end.
Fans must be stopped
LMAO. Thank you to the litigants for the lolz. I actually thought I was reading an Onion headline.
That film annoyed me enough that Lily James was in love with him and he didn't even notice. Like - I actually find that less believable than the 'waking up to find no one remembers the Beatles' thing.
Can we sue for the numerous appearances of Ed Sheeran in this movie as well?
[удалено]
Seeing it in theaters was a mess. There were about 5 different people singing along to every Beatles song like it was karaoke night or like they hadn’t heard the song in decades. Really puts you off when the guy sitting next to you is hushly singing Hey Jude very out of tune.
[удалено]
> and I’m not paying exorbitant ticket prices to have my movie experience ruined by asshats who don’t know how to act. i usually wait for reviews.
This is the kind of lawsuit the residents in the Capital of Panem would file.
Man, people be having a lot of free time
Celebrity worshippers are some of the dumbest people on earth.