Across The Universe

politoe · Post by **politoe** » Sat May 12, 2007 8:50 pm

Anyone seen the trailer to this Beatles influenced psychedelic-romance?
I think its going to be pretty good, what do you guys think?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bQ6d3m-GFyw

Covar · Post by **Covar** » Sat May 12, 2007 10:09 pm

i want the soundtrack, but thats it.

Post by **Quzar** » Sat May 12, 2007 10:53 pm

Eddie Izzard is one of my favorite comedians, and after seeing the preview on the official site a week or so ago I know I'm going to go see the movie.

http://acrosstheuniverse.com/

They have higher quality trailers there.

S. Thompson · Post by **S. Thompson** » Sat May 12, 2007 11:02 pm

That looks... interesting. Not sure how it's going to be as a film, but the re-interpretations of beatles tunes in the trailer is intriguing. The Helter Skelter reminded me of Janis Joplin.

- Fuzmeister

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Sat May 12, 2007 11:51 pm

Saw the preview at spiderman3. And well. I'm really just bored of people telling us how great and awesome the 70's were. I just don't fucking care anymore. So probably no go.

DaMadFiddler · Post by **DaMadFiddler** » Sun May 13, 2007 1:20 am

I saw the preview at Spider-Man 3 as well. The whole time, the trailer seemed to be saying "Look how much we spent on Beatles licenses!"

I'm not sure what I think about the movie itself; it could be good, but there are *tons* of melodramatic "struggling relationship caught in the middle of societal troubles" movies.

mink03 · Post by **mink03** » Sun May 13, 2007 6:46 am

saw the preview a long time ago...there was a huge clash between the director, the editor, and the producer... arentlly the director and the editor cut the movie to shit and made it the way the producer producer hates it.. or vicaversa.. i don't remember it was a while ago...

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sun May 13, 2007 6:34 pm

Wagh wrote:Saw the preview at spiderman3. And well. I'm really just bored of people telling us how great and awesome the 70's were. I just don't fucking care anymore. So probably no go.

Are you sure you're not thinking of the 60s?

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Sun May 13, 2007 7:00 pm

yeah. That's what I meant. Eitherway. The generation can all go fuck themselves.

Jeeba Jabba · Post by **Jeeba Jabba** » Sun May 13, 2007 7:09 pm

I saw this trailer at the movies. I really, really want to see it.

Post by **Christuserloeser** » Sun May 13, 2007 7:14 pm

I'm sure the 60s were okay for some, but today isn't that bad either.

The biggest difference between now and then is that there was the Soviet Union and its attempt to live communism. You grew up and had to think about these two different ideas for the future of mankind.

I remember that when I was a kid, my parents took me and my brother with them on a trip to East-Berlin in 1988. All I still remember is that they didn't have Coca Cola and sold glass instead of plastic bottles.

S. Thompson · Post by **S. Thompson** » Sun May 13, 2007 10:40 pm

Wagh wrote:The generation can all go fuck themselves.

That's a little rash isn't it? I think it's obvious in comparison to today and the 90s, the 60s and 70s (maybe even 80s) were much more culturally rich and dynamic than anything happening today. Sure we've got a war today - but people don't care enough to protest it the way they did then. We've also got music, but most of it is soulless and created more for financial gain than anything else. Maybe the 60s weren't the greatest decade ever, but try to at least show a little benevolence towards one of eras of American history with the most impact.

</End rant>

- Fuzmeister

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Sun May 13, 2007 10:47 pm

I'm not doubting its impact. I'm just sick of hearing just how amazing it was. Giving up on your own generation because you refuse to look for the good is pathetic.

Living in the past rocks though....

Post by **Christuserloeser** » Mon May 14, 2007 1:06 am

S. Thompson wrote:I think it's obvious in comparison to today and the 90s, the 60s and 70s (maybe even 80s) were much more culturally rich and dynamic than anything happening today.

Dynamic? Yes. Culturally rich? Hm, no.

S. Thompson wrote:Sure we've got a war today - but people don't care enough to protest it the way they did then.

The US fought a war in Vietnam against a freedom movement.

S. Thompson wrote:We've also got music, but most of it is soulless and created more for financial gain than anything else.

I doubt the percentage of soulless music has changed since then. In fact I assume it's become MUCH better and we can choose from a billion of fantastic groups and individuals today.

S. Thompson wrote:Maybe the 60s weren't the greatest decade ever, but try to at least show a little benevolence towards one of eras of American history with the most impact.

You got a good point there

S. Thompson · Post by **S. Thompson** » Mon May 14, 2007 8:53 am

Christuserloeser wrote:
S. Thompson wrote:I think it's obvious in comparison to today and the 90s, the 60s and 70s (maybe even 80s) were much more culturally rich and dynamic than anything happening today.
Dynamic? Yes. Culturally rich? Hm, no.

I think a lot more events happened that shaped society back then. I also think that people in general were greater. Maybe it's just something weak-minded, but how many "great" presidents do people generally think we've had since the 80s. No one has had the same "greatness" attributed to them. Also - people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X did a lot for the race race where as people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are hardly respectable.

Christuserloeser wrote:
S. Thompson wrote:Sure we've got a war today - but people don't care enough to protest it the way they did then.
The US fought a war in Vietnam against a freedom movement.

I'm not bothering to click the link - I never said I agreed with Vietnam - quite the opposite actually. I'm just saying that the American people claim to care about the war today and the most outspoken people are the celebrities who don't even have anything to worry about.

Christuserloeser wrote:
S. Thompson wrote:We've also got music, but most of it is soulless and created more for financial gain than anything else.
I doubt the percentage of soulless music has changed since then. In fact I assume it's become MUCH better and we can choose from a billion of fantastic groups and individuals today.

I will say that in the past 10 years, the internet has allowed a greater amount of bands to penetrate the listening masses. However, in top 40 terms, it's not really respectable anymore to strive to be a top 40 musician. In fact, a lot of people probably want the opposite.

That is all.

- Fuzmeister

Post by **Christuserloeser** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:48 am

S. Thompson wrote:I think a lot more events happened that shaped society back then.

Society shapes constantly but back then a good part of it came from the people.

S. Thompson wrote:I also think that people in general were greater.

I am not sure but somehow I doubt that. Society today has come a long way since then. What most of us think is tolerated and accepted wasn't back then.

...sometimes I think this religious thing ruined the revolutionary potential this era had.

S. Thompson wrote:Also - people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X did a lot for the race race where as people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are hardly respectable.

Well, while Malcom X achieved a lot, he spend a good part of his life being full of hate towards everything Christian and Jewish, while himself being Muslim doesn't seem to be a good alternative.

S. Thompson wrote:I'm not bothering to click the link - I never said I agreed with Vietnam - quite the opposite actually.

The link leads to Wikipedia's article about the origins of the conflict. What I meant to say was that it's an entirely different war with entirely different goals. Perhaps that is one reason why people act so different today then they did act back then. (Not saying that there couldn't have been alternatives to this war.)

S. Thompson wrote:I will say that in the past 10 years, the internet has allowed a greater amount of bands to penetrate the listening masses. However, in top 40 terms, it's not really respectable anymore to strive to be a top 40 musician. In fact, a lot of people probably want the opposite.

I think it's not only the internet that's the difference. I doubt there existed that many great bands back then. Don't get me wrong though, there was a load of great music back then - from Jazz to Pop. What I mean is that the amount of comparable good artists is much bigger today, plus we got all the stuff from the past 100 years on top of that.
What we glorify today for the most part is the very best from back then, the vast majority of the other top 40 artists we don't know anything about.

Synlor · Post by **Synlor** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:37 am

Bump

I just got back from seeing it tonight. It finally started showing here in Lincoln last night, but ya, I was quite pleased with the movie. Very good story, very well done. The middle got almost too trippy, but just when that started to get a little long it switched gears to being more conventional like the beginning. I really want to get the soundtrack though, as the music was very very well done and remixed. The actors all did an amazing job with it.

butters · Post by **butters** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:16 am

Ooh thank you for reminding me about this movie. I'll watch it tomorrow afternoon.

APE · Post by **APE** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:25 am

Looks like meh but I'm not a beatles fan. Some of their stuff is on my mp3 player but it seems like "beatles inspired" means "cram a beatles song every place possible".

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:51 pm

Wagh wrote:Saw the preview at spiderman3. And well. I'm really just bored of people telling us how great and awesome the 70's were. I just don't fucking care anymore. So probably no go.

I think it looks like pretentious shit.

Across The Universe

Across The Universe

Re: Across The Universe

Re: Across The Universe

Re: Across The Universe

Re: