Fab Four begins taking shape for Zemeckis' YELLOW SUBMARINE!

I'm a baaaaaaaaaaaad booooooooy!

does that make me second. Yay!! Covers? Really?

Do you and your wife like self-torture????

Would like to read your thoughts…

I hope the Fab 4 are just being brought in to do some bridge work, and that we'll get real Beatles songs played in their entirety. And I would really love the song list to be drastically different from the original. Would love for this to be more of a sequel than a straight up remake.

Otherwise, why bother when the original was so damn awesome? I have a door in my house that opens onto George's phantasmigorical realm.

see any commercial featuring a Beatles song or the entirety of Across The Universe.

and Across the Universe came up. Yikes.

VOLTRON!!!! Kinda.

I'm a big Beatles fan and I will not see this.. it's a traveshamockery. The original is replete with late 60s sensibility and that is where it belongs.. What good can come of remaking this? Release the original on BLU RAY and call it a fucking night..

...was a little known animated feature based on Beatles songs being produced at NYIT's computer graphics lab in the 1980's. In fact MJ's version of "Come Together" was going to be featured in the film. I saw about 4o minutes of it at NYIT, though it was never released.

Is this really something that needs to be remade? Is this really something that's going to benefit from a cover band and people covering the band members' voices? Is there some demographic out there who is clamoring for a remake of Yellow Submarine? This doesn't just sound bad, this sounds fucking stupid. If Zemeckis wants to make something in this vein, then why not just hire Foo Fighters or something and do something fucking original? Fuck this shit. Remake of Yellow Submarine...now I've heard everything. Not only is it a fucking travesty, but who the fuck is this movie even for? Who the fuck even wants to see this? Beatles fans are going to avoid it like the plague, and everyone else is going to not give a flying fuck since they don't give a fuck about The Beatles. This is seriously one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

Really making me fucking sick, he needs to realize how much he sucks at it and get back to making real movies. People reminisce about Back to the Future and Forrest Gump for a reason, they don't sit around and talk about how wicked The Polar Express or Beowulf is.

A thingie! A fiendish thingie!

And this assclown is already making me hate this movie sight unseen. Fucking up The Beatles, hem? Because fucking up a millenarium piece of english literature (Beowulf) and Charles Dickens wasn't enough. Screw this hack, man!

Zemeckis' mo-cap remake of MOONWALKER?

Just saying

... the Bee Gees Sgt Pepper's movie? And also "All this and World War 2"?

Agreed on Beowulf. When he first conceived of the idea I went along with it, he promised something groundbreaking, something we had never seen before and I remember thinking "fuck yeah, this could be great!" Then I saw the trailer... Jesus Christ, what a disappointing movie. And yes he keeps on championing this whole performance/motion capture thing; does anyone here actually want more of it from him?

I don't know. It just sorta seems a little too early for the casting to be done. Plus, there's no way they wouldn't just use the original Beatles songs. Why would they bother having a tribute band re-record the songs?

I could get Modern Artists redoing Beatles Songs, I could ubnderstand using the original songs But using a rip Off band to sing sub standard songs? Something is very wrong indeed.

And this coming from a person who is allergic to musicals.

Definatly.

Fuck, he should play Ringo as well.

Should be George Harrison. His brief turn on Walk Hard was genius. Funny and brilliant.

Remember when you were a respected filmmaker who made live action movies (and not CG Motion Capture ones which would be so much better as live action)?

I just found out they are using a cover band! wtf!? voices are one thing, that's fine, but to not use the songs!?

... to remake an animated movie? has he totally lost it now? he thinks he's going to improve on the madness of the original by tying it down to real world physics and lack of exaggerated movment? what a pillock. If hes got any brains, he'll march on over to Pixar and beg for some help. he needs it.

After becoming a teensy bit addicted to THE BEATLES: ROCK BAND I was pretty interested in this project.<p> The CG intro to the video game is outstanding, and if Harmonix can put together a compelling four minute CG mini-movie like that then maybe Zemeckis can put together an equally compelling feature length one, right?<p> IF HE USED THEIR FUCKING MUSIC!!!<p> Dialogue voices fine and dandy - they werent the original Beatles in the first YELLOW SUBMARINE - but why have a cover band singing their tracks????!!!!<p> We've just had the entire Beatles back-catalogue remastered so it sounds like it was recorded yesterday. And yet you've got a cover band singing new vocals????<p> ARE YOU CHANGING THE WORDS ZEMECKIS?? WHY THE FUCK CANT YOU USE THE ORIGINAL RECORDING???<p> Is it a 'legal' thing? If so, then dont make the fucking movie at all.<p> As I said I *was* interested in this. Not any more.<p> BINO = Beatles in name only.

Can't something be done about Zemeckis and his horde of all-singing, all-dancing, 3d reanimated corpses? This and a cover band... How many bad ideas can you cram into a single project?

It's easy if you try No reboots either Above us only sky Imagine all the people Watching original films... Oh yoohoo oooh....

this is just generally a bad idea isnt it? YOU SIMPLY DO NOT MESS WITH THE BEATLES RECORDINGS how can zemeckis expect them to be anyhting but shallow imitations. i mean if they are really good impressions then it kind of makes it even more pointless for excluding the originals. As a limey from blighty i heartily express my disgust in this idea. peace and love

... is give live action a chance...

The Fab 4 are only being used for the performance motion capture not to perform the songs. The Beatles songs are the originals!

The single best point I've ever heard on a talkback behind YOU CAN'T KILL A KID IN A SUPERMAN MOVIE! Kudos sirs.

"Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song, and I'll try to sing it like the original recording artist..."

My blood pressure did not need that...

Seriously, who needs this? I love my Beatles and the original movie, and I just can't understand why in hell Zemeckis might want to remake it. Just one of the weirdest choices I've heard for a remake in a very long time. My god, what's wrong with Hollywood?

Ultimarex, I cant speak for Roborob but your kudos makes me feel strong inside!<p> Time to break some boards - the 15cm mahogany this time...

There'd be no use in doing a remake if Zemeckis couldn't get his hands on the original Beatles songs. So the Fab 4 are being used to motion capture the music performances. Unless they're going to do "Stairway to Help" <p>http://tinyurl.com/cknqgm

But I'll wait until I actually hear some of it to get an idea of how they are being used.

Watch the making of Beowulf on the dvd when he's standing next to Anthony Hopkins, who's wearing long underwear/mo-cap jammies, and says "This is the only way to make movies. I wish I could have made all my movies this way."

So to clarify, this column misreports information taken directly from another website, (with a handy link), and then the owner of this film news site admits that 3 of the 4 major roles had already been cast and he wasn't aware. Not to seem picky, but that's some weak ass reporting...

That will teach me to read something on the internet and flip my lid. FAB 4 just being using for motion capture. phew...hold on I read that on the internet too! I FUCKING HATE THE WEB!

...from a movie camera or MoCap stage.

Mocap doesn't suck. GOllum and Avatar are proof of that if you like the movies or not. It's just a tool and in the wrong hands someone can do crap things with it. As tech is really quite fucking amazing.

Whatever your thoughts on the film it's self, you have to admit that kong himself was pretty incredible in how he moved with the use of mocap and looked in cgi.

So is this crap a remake or reboot? Can someone make a goddamn original movie already!

I'm pretty good at calling total failures in movies, like that recent amelia earhart biopic...I haven't even see any proof that it failed, but i knew in my heart it was a big turd when saw the trailer, that only a small handful of people would ever pay to see. Well, a remake of Yellow Submarine? Just as stupid. Maybe they'll get some sales from the geezer nostalgia crowd, but they'd be just as likely to hate it for being a remake, with computers. I expect this movie to come and go with little notice. They could have asked me sooner and saved millions of dollars.

DaVinci died people had the decency to say..."...man, that was some good painting, drawing, and sculpting. I say we give this shit a rest until the late 1800's or so...maybe the twentieth century...how 'bout it?"...

ROFLMAO!!!!!! Eddie Murphy as the 5th Beatle. I loved the doctored photos they had of him with them. <p>On a side note, after Avatar, can anyone take Zemeckis' mo-cap movies seriously anymore? Seriously? Didn't Cameron just effectively end any interest in these fucking things if they aren't either A) Photorealistic or B) Twisted into cartoon-like caricatures after the mo-cap is done?<p>Also, I would have been interested in the team that did the animations for Beatles: Rock Band (father got it for Christmas, I'm addicted to those damn drums), being given a much bigger budget and doing the whole story. I think whomever did those 'got' the Beatles and the imagery WAY more than Taymor did with her pos movie.

"Oh, fuck me! I can see my large intestine!" <br><br> We already have one movie with trippy cartoon Beatles. Who said it needed a remake?

It says 'But in an odd twist, they won't be needed for the musical numbers - that duty will fall to tribute band Fab 4, who will be playing along to actual Beatles tracks. Sounds like overkill, if you ask us' but then again if you just google you can find this link from ABC - http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=9537688 which basically says the same thing. Weak reporting Harry, you should know better and check your facts

with CGI Kurt Russell and CGI Cheryl Rixon's boobs

a 3D CGI Pink Floyd movie with trippy animation accompanying Dark Side of The Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall, that would be pretty interesting

Really don't know how to react to this. I love the original Yellow Submarine, and I keep wishing maybe they'd bring it out on blu-ray or something. But a modern 3D version? Possibly without the original songs? It's almost blasphemy! But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, because generally I like Zemekis, and because HOPEFULLY if something like this is given some modern oomph it'll get more people, who weren't geeky enough to love the original, the chance to enjoy it, and maybe start listening to The Beatles. And I gotta agree with an earlier comment: The Beatles Rock Band was bloody brilliant.

Gerald Scarfe's animations in The Wall movie

. . . can't it be the Sgt.Peppers remake?

RingosNose, Nose you seem to know things... Pls clarify - is it the Beatles music or the cover bands?<p> ps. Taymor's ACROSS THE UNIVERSE seemed more like a remake of HAIR than anthing Beatlesy. I applauded her effort but didn't much like the end result.

Too messed up for the normal audience and not messed up enough for the psychonauts.

I'm sorry but did no one see...ohh...A Christmas Carol or AVATAR?

...you randomly come across on Netflix a few years later and wonder, "why the hell was that movie ever made?"

Both sucked.<p>Money does not equal quality.

. . . in the hands of Zemeckis.

James Cameron showed that poseur Zemeckis how Mo-Cap is really done. Zemeckis should quit while he still hasn't fucked up completly the good will he gain with the Back To The Future and Retard Gump movies.

What a waste of fucking time. I hate the beatles & I hate oasis. Bunch of retarded fuckspoons

It's definitely going to be the Beatles original tracks used in the movie (16 it's reported). The 'Fab 4' covers band are being motion captured for the musical performances. I think the confusion stems from Harry's report and his use of the word 'covered'

That's a shame, they speak highly of you.

cunch of(50% dead thank the lord) scouse bunts

Anyone interested in the new movie Chloe, where Julianne Moore hires hooker Amanda Seyfried to test her hubby Liam Neeson's fidelity, there's an R-rated International trailer that includes a nice Seyfried boob shot. Just thought I'd pass it along...http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=62324

YouTube, instant gratification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za7JMbkUhkQ

They should reboot the reboot halfway through.Although its animated, who cares! Just start over again now!

hehe very good :)

He get's the job done.

Here's some info for you to help you understand. There wouldn't even be Avatar at this point in time if it wasn't for Lucas, Jackson and Zemeckis pushing the mocap to the point it is today. So crying? nope. More proud than anything else I would guess. I'm also guessing you haven't seen a christmas carol yet right? You can't have to have made such a stupid comment. The Motion capture in that is outstanding. Nice try at hacking on 'ol bobby boy, but no banana! Your opinon on him or his recent films means fuck all when he's being hailed as one of the pioneers of this tech in future years. Where as you will most likely still be on these talkbacks crying "Zemeckis should quit! jar jar! Shit Trek! boo hoo. I done did a boo boo out of my bot bot"

..and I'm a big Beatles fan. Just can't seem to get through it again. (Saw it as a wee lad). Some great music for sure, but just too freaking strange.

Uggh ... Bury My Heart at "Let It Be".

His "films" look like cut-scenes for video games from the last century...

They are stupid. He should only produce movies and do more Back to the Future, Michael J. Fox goes to the future find the cure for Parkinsons.

Is FAB 4 another tribute band? I know there is the Fab Faux.

Just like every other "event" movie, or "trippy" movie from this point forward. Oh, and the $$$$$$$$$$$

it makes me sad.

who could take a good story and "tell" it well. Now its all about getting our eyeballs fucked.

Now, I haven't watched A Christmas Carol, but I have seen both Beowulf and Polar Express, and both sucked big time. And it seems pretty much that anyone who disliked those films dislikes Christmas Carol too, so I'll most likely fit in that group. Can't Zemeckis stop with the mo-cap obsession? Avatar has already made his work obsolete, he should go back to doing live-action films. Some people know how to use mo-cap, some don't. And Zemeckis is one who doesn't. All characters so far in his pictures haven't been convincing enough for me to hop in on his mo-cap film bandwagon. Not anticipating Yellow Submarine at all.

that there wouldn't be an Avatar today if it wasn't for the advances in mo-cap, I think you can take Zemeckis out of the picture. The ones that did the REAL advancement of it and showed just how well it could be used was Peter Jackson and WETA, not the hack that Zemeckis has become.

the worst idea for a remake <p> <center>EVAR</center>

PLEASE stop plugging away on these lifeless mo-cap adaptations and just give us one more live-action, original piece of work.

Because at least it had original Beatles songs. tinyurl. com/ybgwr78

A "Yellow Submarine" remake without Beatles music? DON'T BOTHER. The idea of bringing in a cover band to do Beatles tunes is sacrilege.

The Beatles continued popularity is amazing. I was reading last night that they are still the biggest selling band in the world. The sold more cd's from 00-09 than any other band + they had the biggest selling single cd of the decade. There will never be another "Beatles" Imagine what the demand would be to see them live in concert if they were all alive today? They would crush the records set by The Rolling Stones recent masssive tours.

There's no way in hell that can be true. NO ONE is that insane.

At least domestically?

The master would not approve....

a spike in parking lot hotboxing when this gets released. I can't wait.

that his motion capture work is just absolute shit. I actually feel sorry for him, he's been making this shit for years and he's still stuck in 'dead-eye' territory. James Cameron just takes one stab at it and it's already infinitely better. Not to mention 2002(!!!)'s fucking Two Towers has better mo-cap than Zemeckis can ever achieve. What's up with this moron?

Was this acid trip screaming for a remake? Is the world demanding a return to the psychedelic aesthetic?</p><p>Don't get me wrong...I love barely there crocheted bikini clad, stringing haired, waif thin high as a fucking kite women of highly questionable morals as much as the next guy;....but The Yellow Submarine? fuck.

A totally realistic MoCap performance. Maybe because its ILM, and Jackson (& Cameron) use Weta. Does Sony Imageworks do the work for Zemeckis? Maybe thats the cause to blame.

Empire, America is a cultural melting pot, and we have last names just like. <p>I mean, I disparage my own country all the time, but I think we can handle that last name.

he looked really cool. But Gollum is still the most impressive for me considering how old the character is now and how engaging he was too.

Jesus christ, makes me want to watch the 1970s Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band again. At least it's closer to the time the Beatles actually existed. Across the Universe sucks bollocks, btw.

all over Rob's face.<br><br> COVER BAND? <br> Not only was I FOR this before today, I was fucking EXCITED about it. Now I want to turn into a blue meanie and face-fuck Zemeckis to death with my giant, spiney blue cock.

Anybody see him on The Tonight Show (WITH CONAN O'BRIEN) last night?<p> He did a wicked impression of each Beatle.

Makes sense, when you stop to think about it . . .

Read the Empire article it clearly states that they are only being used for...oh why do I bother

Uh, WHY?!

of the performances you dumb little shits.

Good Grief!

Jesus, I think only about 1% of you actually read the links provided on this site and the rest just talk shit about the small summary AICN posts about a story. The cover band is only used for the performance capture, not the music. Why? Because Zemeckis wants realistic Beatles movement. Ever see Beatles footage? They did move in recognizable ways, be it head bobs, instrument playing and foot movement and lots of little stuff that doesnt seem like much but does all add up to a believable performance. And a good Beatles cover band will have spent years perfecting these little movements. So why not use their experience. Then he can use actual actors for, oh, I dont know, the ACTING. I dont see anything wrong with his thinking.<P>And the amount of hate spewed on AICN talkbacks never ceases to amaze me. "I hate Beatles, this sucks, why do this, why do that, I hate everything and everyone needs to know I hate everything". This movie MAY suck but I think I will just wait and see the movie when it comes out and THEN decide.<P>As for Bob's performance capture sucking, I will agree that Polar Express sucked but Beowulf was okay, not great, just okay. But his A Christmas Carol was pretty damn good. I didnt want to go but was dragged to it by my wife and while I was sure I would hate it, I was pleasantly surprised.<P>And regardless of your opinion of his mocap movies, SOMEONE has to be on the leading edge of this style of movie making. Someone has to dedicate himself to pushing the limits and coming up with improvements.....even if the results are meh. I am sure with any talented painter, if you go back far enough to his childhood you will see art that, well, kinda sucked and looked childish, like crappy chicken scratch. Why? Cause it takes time to discover one's talent. I liken this to Zemeckis and other movie makers using mocap.<P>So just be patient with this era of mocap because their efforts are helping to create technology that will allow amazing movies to be made in the near future. Some would say that time is now, with Avatar. I LOVE Avatar but I think there is still a lot of room for mocap and rendering improvements. I believe we are only a decade away from a truly photo relistic rendering of another human in a movie. Not aliens, not bugs, not furry animals but actual believable humans. Oh they get close now but we all know you can still tell the difference. But I think we will eventually not be able to detect what is real and what isnt and this will open up creative possibilities for movie makers to such a degree that if they can think it, they can film it. I am looking forward to it and am happy to let these moviemakers "ckicken scratch" their way thru this learning period.

RingosNose, cheers for the clarification. Yep... thank Harry for the confusion. Amateur.<p> Kaiser Soze, nice one on the CHLOE link. Im really looking forward to that movie in a 'late-night blu-ray wearing dressing gown wankathon kinda way'.

I fucking hate him. Fuck Zemeckis. This assclown needs to get kicked out of making movies. He's past his validation date. Thrown him to the trash with the rest of the litter. And now, after AVATAR, completly obsolete. Get out, Zemeckis, and close the door on your way out! Fucking ass!

Seems it took Zemeckis to finally united us in agreement on something. So, that assclown Zemeckis has an use after all!

... and he's going to make us suffer for it, with his movies!

Click on Empire's list of "10 Actors Who Could Take Over Spider-Man." Jesus Christ...

Zemeckis also made BACK TO THE FUTURE Asi... so back off the man. He earned a pass with that classic.<p> Plus now I know that this *will* feature original Beatles music im interested once again. Call me an optomist but this could be cool!

Nohe doesn't. In fact, he deserves even ore criticism because of that. Because once he was alright. And now he's an assclown. Fucker can't excuse himself for all eternity on the strengh of past glories.<br><br>If you want cool use of Beatles songs to tell as story, watch ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. That one was made by a proper talented director.

No he doesn't get any pass. In fact, he deserves even more criticism because of that. Because once he was alright, a proper filmmaker. And now he's an assclown. Fucker can't excuse himself for all eternity on the strengh of past glories.<br><br> If you want cool use of Beatles songs to tell as story in a movie, watch ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. That one was made by a proper talented director.

I can't wait for this. It's definitely an interesting pick for a remake.

of the Beatles, in the style of Walk the Line and Ray? It's a pretty good story and has a built in audience.

To tell the tale of The Beatles, you would need a trilogy of movies each lasting 4 hours.

I showed my brother; who was about 8 or 9 at the time, the original YELLOW SUBMARINE on tape(yeah I'm Old School ;)). He loved it so much that he stole my tape. The point I'm trying to make is that kids KNOW what is good and what is crap. The original was good and still hold up today. As some one mentioned that a Beatles movie without the original Beatles music will not work. Again, Hollywood never ceases to amaze me at the depth of stupidity that they will come up with.

That Harry will always state that he is working on his weekly DVD column but then we never see it for that week?

then why bother with this fucking talkback? And that was all I wanted to say on the whole fucking matter. Not because I fucking hate the band,I just fucking dislike their music. Consider this fucking post an example of the average talkbacker's use of the english fucking language. I believe many of you fuckers are native speakers, why not fucking act like it, and use the vocabulary?

just don't like music. Period.

As much as this sounds bad (concept in general), the Beatles' cover band is only doing the motion captures! Original Beatles music will be used! Peter S is a very funny guy (Spaced, Look Around You season 1) and the use of 3D in Avatar gives hope if psychedelica is "properly" employed... BUT a remake of YS is still not the best way to make $$$ at the box office.

Someone on here summed it better that I ever could 'There are those who like the Beatles and those who don't know them'

So when I say that the Beatles doesn't really do it for me,that means I don't like music,or haven't heard the band? Or does it mean that the music I do like must be shit, because no one with good taste can possibly dislike the Beatles? I like a few Lennon songs. Is that enough for the elitist wannabe's? Do I have to like McCartney too? I mean, just tell me what to like,this is too much to bear!

—but it had some very effective moments and although it may have 'softened' much of Sagen's ideas, it also broadened them for the mainstream sensibility. That's not an easy feat.

But, do you like "Rubber Soul"?

rocked the shit on Conan last night.

about this project any more than they cared about the original, which is sad since the original rocked. They had a deal for another film, they granted rights for someone to make Yellow Submarine, a couple Beatles even made it to the premiere. They were pleasantly surprised at the quality, but had virtually nothing to do with it and wrapped the worst soundtrack album (worst Beatle album as well)around it to boot. The remastered soundtrack from a few years ago kicked ass, but they won't give a rats ass about the re-make, just send the money. Paul's got a hot new girl young enough to be his daughter and baby needs another tropical vacation.

I'd settle for that. I got the remastered song/soundtrack album from a couple years back too, mostly for a few songs I didn't have like Hey Bulldog. The original songs from the movie range from the fun, All Together Now, to the un-listenable, Only A Northern Song. Just release a great Blu-ray transfer and leave it there!

I mean ok, I enjoyed A Christmas Carol, but come on! he's done 3 CGI flicks in a row and hasn't done a live action movie in almost a decade now, time to return to live action already!

for not only the Back To The Future movies, but also for Who Framed Roger Rabbit

I really don't understand. It actually makes my head hurt to think about it. Just, stop it. Do something new and creative, PLEASE!

... now that I would see.

He's talking about the "smug" last line in the Empire article that suggests ignorant Americans won't be able to pronounce Seripehooheywhatiz's last name. You know,the guy that will voice McCartney's character. <p> Anyway, looks like the Brit's may have a point, despite harry's disdain for their "smugness".

Let's face it: Zemeckis's foray into 3D, mo-cap exposes what a visionless hack he really is, esp. considering to what Cameron just pulled off.

Go watch Avatar, realize nothing you will ever do in mocap will ever match a tenth of that movie's effects, then go back to live action.

you shut your fucking mouth and take back what you said about "Only a Northern Song!"

Can't say that I have. I understand it is widely regarded as one of the Beatles' finest recordings. Maybe I'll check it out one day, see if it can change my preferances, so people can feel comfortable knowing I am one of them..

NO! And, again: NO!! Bakshi used rotoscoping as a way to save money on his later films. "Fire and Ice" it was used to help give dimension to the animators drawings, with Frazetta himself going over tons of key poses. Bakshi never intended to rely on rotoscoping but he didn't have the budget to do full scale battle scenes like he wanted to. It wasn't as an innovation.

Well, there's a question mark over McCartney. And they're not exactly as spritely as they were 40 years ago, but why has Zemeckis chosen a tribute band over the real deal? Sony may as well announce Zemeckis for Spiderman and be done with it.

My mainstream sensebilities, you mean the midwest neo-con christian fundie loonies?

Wrong. His past glories will only take him so far. And he far overreached it already.

Retire from filmmaking already. Goodbye and never come back.

I love Jeremy Hilary Boob, the Blue Meanies, Sgt. Pepper and Pepperland so much I won't be able to resist seeing this travesty. Even though this version of the Yellow Sub will probably sink faster than the Titanic. "Nearer my God to thee..."

Gollum is not the best example to explain the advances that lead to Avatar. At least half of his performance was keyframed ... The big advances in AVATAR have come from the development of image-based markerless motion capture technology and some very precise facial rigging.

I should've said slightly un-listenable!

these mo-cap films. The guy's done some great movies in the past, but after he started this obsession with mo-cap, his films have been nothing but crappy. Avatar has made his mo-cap films obsolete and irrelevant. If Zem keeps going ahead with these crappy mo-cap films and doesn't do any other live-action films, the guy's just gonna turn into the next George Lucas.

I don't even get real Beatles music out of this?!?

If you could getThe Beatles to go on tour the billion dollars they were offered in the 70's would be a light offer. I think you'd have to go 4 billion and pray for a 30 minutes set. But that would be ....freakin' awesome!

Now that I would see.

and thats the only place you'll see it as long as Paul and Ringo live.

OTXfgTEH <a href="http://bbylpe.com/ ">bJZjhr</a>

kaJSxww <a href="http://lyqttp.com/ ">oobAcsQT</a>