This makes you wonder, how many "John's" are walking around right now, living a hum drum life because they made the wrong move or didn't get the right break or weren't at the right place at the right time. Makes you think, doesn't it? Would the shmuck you passed on the street today be a legend if the stars had aligned a little differently years ago?
Michelle Burgess Nice thought. It also leads me to think that people who make it in History are the product of a cocktail of factors, not just themselves alone.
Even The Beatles were a close run thing until they met Epstein; if that guy looking for "My Bonnie" had gone in a shop other than Epstein's, he wouldn't have gone looking for them, never offered to manage them and the EMI/George Martin thing might not have never happened and they'd have faded out by 1963...But yeah, hundreds of potential Johns or Jimis or Janises or Stephen Kings or Elon Musks are out there, living a different life than they would have had they persevered a bit longer or taken that music class in grade three or had different friends in high school. Luck and fate plays a bigger part in fame and fortune than people like to admit.
Yes, that's what I heard. 'be in one'. As in a sad fuck like Eleanor Rugby which Paul wrote but unconsciously got of of grave stone near George who was Johns uncle dad substitute.
The scary thing is how many people who are actually like this, who could have been like John Lennon. So many people who missed their lucky breaks, or didn't go after their dreams. Could have happened to John if he'd listened to his teachers or Aunt Mimi.
@@breakfastline You never know. If he was asked if he could be a rockstar and die tragically at 40 or have a normal job and live to 80, what would he prefer?
@@Gunn27 who's to say? Life without purpose isn't life at all. Music was everything to John Lennon. The flame of John's life burned short, but extremely bright. Would he have preferred a longer life, if it wouldn't be a fulfilling one, and he ended up bitter and lonely as shown in this video? As it was, though John suffered a gruesome end, he seemed to be at his happiest in 1980. He had grown and matured into a wise and loving person, and he was content with his life.
@@Potatopot724 Yeah the thing is he was bitter and angry most of the 60's and 70's DOING the thing he loved. Agree about 1980 though. The interview he done on December the 6th is great and it's brilliant to hear him be funny, positive, kind and optimistic. Came across so well in that.
It's sad because this film is kind of Pete Best's reality-with the added fact that the Beatles became one of the best bands of all time and he missed it all.
But, as far as I know, Pete lived on and thrived, never got ultra-rich but was not the depressing loser the short portrays. Pete lived an efficient, successful life and he raised a family. This "John" goes round and round and round in circles: the same tantrum-prone character that meant his departure from The "Beatles" cost him now this tiny humble job. I can hardly sympathise with eternally "entitled" people who somehow believe they´re the only humans on earth.
Pete Best was not exactly a musical genius. The reason he got let go in the first place was he wasn't a very good drummer. If he had been there were a multitude of other bands that formed and had hits from the Liverpool area he could have joined.
@@javiergilvidal1558 But the point of this is that if John hadn't had the great success of the Beatles, what would have become of him? He was a very talented man, but he was also moody, argumentative, cocky, bitterly sarcastic , and had an acid tongue. In many ways, the qualities that drove him to become a great musician and fight for his art were the same sort of qualities that would have made it difficult for him to work in the straight world. Sure the character is bitter about leaving the Beatles, but he's also a man who was never a good fit for the world of ordinary working people anyway (read pretty much any decent Beatles bio and that becomes obvious), and without the context in which he could change the world, what would have happened to him? I this is meant to be a meditation on what would happen to certain "great" men if the circumstances that allowed them to rise to fame and fortune hadn't worked out.
If John had left the Beatles, their sound would have more resembled Wings. And George may have emerged earlier as a songwriter. I think we know that in reality John had wanted to pull out, but it wasn't over artistic differences. John wanted out because the stress was killing him. He was working himself to death.
If The Beatles were a trio dominated by Paul it would not have lasted very long. They would all growm bored with it; George and Ringo would and Paul would have a moderate sucsess...maybe. But certainly not among the leading stars in the 1960s.
Bob Dylan started out his career as singer songwriter long before anyone in America had heard of The Beatles. I think The Beatles were more influenced by Dylan around 1964-1965 than the other way around.
If Paul or George or Ringo had left the Beatles in 1962, if Dylan, Hendrix, Kinks, Stones, etc., etc. then music would not have been the same. Why this modern view that John was the Beatles is beyond me. The claim is usually made by people who were not around in the '60s .......................Ringo was just as important maybe even more than John, Paul & George.
id say its a distilled character of him in the most simple and contrast way...not the full spectrum of the complete man but just the quippy side thats about it. Yea he was quippy and clever as they come..but he was much more than this snippy old man.
Yes, the famous rock and roll Messiah personality. One that wouldn't have developed if he wasn't king shit for the better part of twenty years. I'm not talking about the sarcasm. I'm sure that was there before he was famous. I'm talking about the superiority complex
The irony is that IF John had left the Beatles then pretty much any of the music played on the radio in this sketch wouldn’t exist as it does today as the Beatles either directly or indirectly influenced pretty much every rock or pop act that followed them. It’s actually pretty scary how much they influenced modern music in such a profound way.
Kinda agree, but then there's Bob Dylan. And when they heard him, and met him (and the Holy Herb) that's when they went from being a fantastically famous boyband, to becoming artist on another level.
There would have been no Tomorrow Never Knows, I am the Walrus, A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields. The Beatles with Paul as the dominant force would have been a lot poppier for a lot longer and not as groundbreaking and would it have gone on past 1968 when George was starting to get his songwriting up to par with his bandmates? There might have been three or four different Beatles lineups if Paul had it all his way without John in the picture.
And it wasn't the first time he played Lennon either. Backbeat, the Stephen Dorff film where he played Stuart Sutcliffe also featured Ian Hart playing John. Apparently, Paul hated the movie.
@@GoldwaterB Not as a single though. It Martin had forced them to go into the studio and re-record it and release it as a single, John might’ve quit right there. I just watched “That Thing You Do!” and the scene where Jimmy quits I feel is based off an alternate scenario very similar to this one, of John leaving over creative differences.
@@tommyl.dayandtherunaways820 I deeply doubt John would have quit over that. He was fairly pragmatic, and Paul would have talked him out of it anyway ("Let's just write something better").
According to some authors and experts on the subject, if it wasn't for Brian seeing them that day at the cavern, they were and had been thinking of stopping. This was a really good idea for a film. Enjoyed it. Great performance and writing :)
When I first saw this I thought it would be Impossible for The Beatles to continue without John Lennon, then I remembered that Pink Floyd survived the demise of Syd Barrett.... so you never know.
A little different. Pink Floyd was a band that they could play a show and then hang with the crowd and nobody would recognize them. All they did was replace a guitarist and songwriter and Syd was a kind of eccentric writer and I don't believe Dark Side and the success that followed would've happened if Syd stayed. The BIG part of the Beatles was looks and personality and of course the chemistry between John and Paul. They might have made it without John but would of have been but probably with only moderate success.
@@dodiesdiary he's referring to the lyrics of a Lennon song called Working Class Hero. And besides, despite his childhood, this video shows that if he left The Beatles he probably would have ended up living in a working class area anyway.
John seemed to like to give the impression of a Working Class Hero - his book title too. He was (as his song says) an angry young man - and as we know as angry older man. He wasn’t a very nice character at all. Acerbic humour is nastiness disguised.
@@lfcforever1482 We know it refers to his book - but he liked people to think he had working class roots - look at me an ordinary man. His family had money.
so sad how many people still suffer from the capitalist delusion that hard work, perseverance, talent or even genius automatically leads to financial "success." ITS A LIE! one thing, and one thing alone, brings capitalist success - LUCK! you have to meet and know the right people. you have to be in the right place at the right time. any number of coincidences MUST CONVERGE in order to achieve this capitalist success we're brainwashed to believe WE CAN ACHIEVE! the fact that 99% of all rich people were BORN RICH! that's LUCK! 1000s if not millions of people follow the very same path of "successful" people but fail. there's an old LIE-ISM that says "luck is the product of design." that's just elitist propaganda. to create and maintain the illusion that our failures are our own fault. you think rich people don't make mistakes? one mistake can ruin the life of a non-rich person. yet the elite make mistake after mistake but stay RICH! why is that? here's the reality of the world in which we live - 1) NO ONE becomes a "success" without the help of others. 2) you can't be a success without harming others in some way. NO ONE EVER GOT RICH FROM KINDNESS! not even the beatles. wealth comes from the victimization of others, 3) TRUE SUCCESS ISN'T MEASURED BY WEALTH AND GREED or material possessions! i live in poverty. i live everyday in abject MISERY! but i'm one of the most successful humans who ever lived because i've maintained in my life a VERY HIGH standard of ethics and justice. I REFUSE TO SELL MY SOUL and that makes me more successful than musk, gates, trump or any of the other gangsters who live in utter opulence while others suffer.
John said it himself, that they were ALL vital to The Beatles as the band it became, and without the four who were, they wouldn't have gotten to where they did whatsoever. Not as the famous Beatles at least, because it would've just been another band entirely. It was the formula of those four Liverpudlian boys, just like the right ingredients to make a cake. You omit something and it's gonna look and taste like a spongy brick of fallen hell. Not quite the right desert to make the top display on that bakery shelf. Sure, the four would've likely had some measure of success if each had been on their own or gone with a different group of musicians because they were individually talented enough for other bands to want them...but it wouldn't have been the same level of fame they reached together. So it's not just one of them who were vital to the band as it's become known. Just try to imagine some of their classic songs with a different lead guitar bit or another drummer besides Ringo.
Kind of relatable to my own life story in my early to mid 20s. Between 2001 and 2005 I was in a band with some friends of mine, we played heavy metal and wrote our own songs and played gigs and even recorded two demos. It was a fun time and we gain somewhat of a local reputation as very talented young lads. But around christmas time in 2005 we called it quits, the singer moved on with other bands for a period of time, the rest of us moved on with other things like dead end jobs, traveling, college etc. Nowadays most of us have families, morgages, student debt to pay, married, traveled the world. Me, Day job as a fence builder, still very passionated about playing my guitars, single, pushing 39 this year. But I am ok with it! I can look back on that time with a smile and say " that was fun" and focus on new goals ahead of me. Life goes on you know 😉
' Life happens when You are busy making plans' as john would say. I understand Man! I also played in a band for 7 hard years, We were good and wrote our own music well, I wrote songs, my guys weren't serious enough. they were content with being the best in a certain region. My turning point was I did not go to California like I wanted at 17 when I graduated. LOL! Mom and Dad had a hissy fit and took my car away ( this is in 1972. ) they were afraid I would. 'Life Goes On ' , the title of one of my songs, your story just made me want to reply .Thanks Man!!!!!!!!!
Very well done. Spot-on characterization of John. This might have particularly deep resonances for some people in their 50s and older who wanted to be the next Beatles themselves, and maybe gave it their best shot, but of course it didn't work out. The idea that with one small slip the story could have gone very differently for John and the band is almost painfully plausible.
David Carpenter as someone in his 50s, I do find this a little depressing. Though I did find success in another field, nobody wants to know anymore. They don't care what you used to be down the Jobcentre.
He practically left the Beatles in 61 when they had problems in Hamburg. He returned to England alone and pondering the future. He didn't talk to the other three for weeks. But in McCartney he saw a supreme talent. And wanted to carry on.
no he didn't actually. They got kicked out of Hamburg because George (god bless him) was underage at the time. Paul And Pete Best got deported for burning a condom on the wall of the club that they were leaving and John had to make his own way back to england alone. Thats the true story of what actually happened. You can hear all about it on the Anthology.
@@nigelmurphy6761 yes, and I think it was both paul and john who just hung around and kept quiet to the rest of the band. they weren't thinking about leaving; they just wanted some rest. then they joined again and the rest of them were pissed because they wanted the money from the gigs.
I know somebody to whom something similar happened: bungled some fantastic opportunities when they were younger and then lingered on into a could-have-been half-life for decades afterward. The harsh truth is that most of us start off believing we're going to be John Lennon but end up being Pete Best. Fate really is pitiless and unfair. Oh well, I'm off to listen to some old records...
I pretty much hated him in both Backbeat and The Hours and The Times. Playing Lennon minus the wit and humour is plain innacurate and just made him seem bitter and annoying. I did like him in this though as the writer included his humour. Only trick I thought they missed was having the music sounding as it did. If the Beatles hadn't existed, music would be very different now as they influenced pretty much everyone.
Cat Damon Ian Hart was a cute looking guy when he did play the part of John Lennon in back beat but now he looks like a old ugly ass dry up weirdo in this crappy ass movie
Reading some commments I noticed some people really didn't get it. People, it is fiction! They are not especulating anything. They don't mean to tell the true possibilities. It is only for fun. A good joke. And...a love declaration, as nobody would waste time writing about a band without caring. Just relax and enjoy, please. I love the part John sayd they could have been most famous than the Hollies. Oh, yes.
Julie Bee, They would not have had their drive if Lennon had left. The Beatles may have carried on, but would have been an average band. They'd be playing at Butlins now!!👍😆
Yeah, I liked how John said in this that the Beatles never did make it to the "toppermost of the poppermost." Without him, they would have been just another pretty good band.
I really enjoyed this. Ian Hart is brilliant. Love the zebra crossing scene (a clear nod to the Abbey Road album cover) at 06:20 and the “Mull of Kintyre as lift muzak” scene at 07:54.
It’s crazy thinking about how John could’ve easily left when Stuart either left The Beatles of when he died. Stuart was John’s best friend. Makes you think of the many scenarios that The Beatles could’ve been. Hell The Beatles wouldnt have been nowhere as big as they were!!! AND IS THAT IAN HART?! THOUGHT I RECOGNIZED THAT FACE!!! THATS COOL THAT HES REPRISING THE JOHN LENNON ACT AGAIN! For those who have seen Backbeat, its like a whole different universe of that John!
5 ปีที่แล้ว +4
JOHN was under contract. Even if John had walked out as later George and Ringo did, I believe his years of collaborating with Paul would have contacted John and persuaded him to reconsider. The two had dreamed of success for at least 5 years. John would have come back - at this point anyway.
I think if the Beatles had never met Paul McCartney would have made it as a Cliff Richard type pop star in Britain or he would have become a school teacher,if he had made it in music he would have had a couple of hits and then would have concentrated more on his song writing,many years later he would have returned and played on oldies tours around Britain,George Harrison would have gotten out of music completely and become a bus driver like his father and later on he would have studied religion,Ringo Starr would have played drums in local bar bands till he was an old man because of his love for simply playing the drums and John Lennon would have either made it as a writer or as an artist,either one of those two careers or he would have ended up in prison. Bob.
Janet Sampson ringo could continue as the drummer for Rory storm and the hurricanes they could have done something they were as popular as the Beatles during the early 60s
I think that Paul and Ringo still would have made it! Not to the level they did of course, and perhaps nowhere even close, but I'm sure they both would have been successful and stayed successful. John and George? I'm not so sure. Perhaps they would have both joined successful groups, but I think if anything, we would think of them as 'a former member of...' rather than as famous in their own right. But without that perfectly magical combination of all four of them and George Martin it simply wouldn't have happened!
Nice bit of whimsy - the fate of many who are talented but never in the right place at the right time. John and Paul meeting each other was the catalyst for unparalleled musical creativity and influence that still endures - impossible to imagine a world without it.
There's no way Lennon would've sat through the 60s without at least picking up his guitar and making some sort of inroads into the music scene himself and then on through the subsequent decades. And possibly come out better.
Lmao, no way. John needed Paul to keep him focused. He would have given up on it eventually after knocking a girl up, bouncing from job to job, not much better than his father.
I just watched “That Thing You Do!” for the first time the other day and now coming back to see this again, there are a lot of similarities between the hypothetical of John leaving over a song (maybe George Martin forced them to record How Do You Do It again instead of letting them have their way) and the way Jimmy quit the Wonders in the movie. Imagine John storming out of the studio, declaring his artistic integrity, walking away from the chance of a lifetime (of course he would probably find another band to join, maybe even another Liverpool based group). As John himself would say: “it’s easy if you try”.
Paul needed John and John needed Paul. They would have been a far less successful band without John, he was their cutting edge. George would have gotten fed up with Paul by 1965 instead of 1969.
terrythekitti this is the only answer that hits the Nail on his head . No John , no Paul . No Beatles . The most logicall answer i read . Greetings mate and please pardon my bad english
What a brilliant opening to a show, with all those pics of the actors.. I read the original story 'Snodgrass' as part of a horror story anthology. This is a great adaption and Ian Hart's brilliant as John Lennon, but the story has a lot more to it. The ending goes much further, with him meeting Paul McCartney again. Also, he briefly chats with an unnamed American who has a copy of 'Catcher in the Rye' on him - obviously this was Mark Chapman.
Not a coincidence. Ian Hart had already played Lennon in a low-budget film called The Hours and the Times, before Backbeat. His resemblance to Lennon and the fact he had already played him so well twice before made him an obvious choice here.
TrainInVain Even though i love John's influence, a lot of bands don't have John and are still good bands. George Harrison turned out to be quite the songwiter, he had the most successful post-Beatles career. I often wonder what they would have created if George and Paul had collaborated.
Harrison didn't have the most successful post Beatle career. McCartney far exceeded him. Ringo did too in terms of effort and longevity. Harrison may have come a bit closer had he survived cancer (same as Lennon had he not been murdered), but he could not have ever likely caught up with McCartney who was prolific not only in composing but also his love of performing which goes on to this day. Not sure where that post-Beatles career comment comes from.
I think lilyroza was meaning in the creative sense. George did a lot more worthwhile projects all Paul did was make money - Mull of Kyntire - give me a break - Silly Love Songs of yeagh you really got the band on the run with that one. The only time he sounded good was when his band played old Beatle stuff - then we all forgave him anything and cried.
This is true, eccentric creatives born too late. Spurned talent and wit condemned to misfit, sentenced to modern mundanity. Muttering innuendos to the aging nowhere man in the mirror.
Without John, The Beatles still would've existed. Paul is enough to make a decent band. They just wouldn't be as remembered and respected without John, the genius he was.
HIStory In The Mix oh no if John had left, the Beatles would have produced a bunch of silly love songs which we call bubble gum wouldn't have last more than two or three songs!
it shows that he would have just stayed like he was as a teenager if he had left, being a artist and being apart of a band taught him a lot of things, good and bad
This BBC piece doesn't seem far from reality. Maybe not exactly like how this was portrayed, but something similar. As someone pointed out, Pink Floyd went on without Syd Barrett and became bigger. On my end, I know some bands who did well without one of their founders. The Stones ditched Brian Jones and still managed to remain relevant until 1980 (with the painful reminder that they could just fill in the void left the guy who formed their band with, not one, but TWO musicians). After Ian Curtis' death, Joy Division successfully rebranded themselves as New Order. On the before-they-were-famous side of things; there was this sleazy bar band called the Soul Giants that entered the public consciousness when their leader left and Frank Zappa took his place. A small-time college band from London (with a healthy cult following to boot) was this close to disbanding once their frontman ditched them; but it took their most ardent fan to persuade them to carry on, even persuading them to let him join the band as their new frontman - it's a good thing they listened, because otherwise we wouldn't have had Queen. The Beatles in 1962 were just a bunch of lucky guys that may already have gotten public exposure by having that one regional hit ("Love Me Do"). However, it also wasn't enough to make them that big yet. Had John Lennon left at that point, I would like to think that Brian Epstein and Paul McCartney were panicking, initially, but managed to get back on their feet again by thinking of the next logical step. They would have gotten a guy as competent as Lennon to play rhythm guitar. And with McCartney just as excellent on the songwriting department, they would have rode a wave of hits on the strike of his fountain pen. They would have either taken the Floyd route by continuing as the Beatles, with McCartney taking leadership; or went the New Order/Queen route by forming another band from the debris of the Beatles and become a big sensation from there. I don't subscribe to the whole "Beatles-wouldn't-survive-without-Lennon" notion, because that wouldn't be fair to the other three guys who were just as talented. I'd like to believe that George Harrison would have taken the reign, had the group bypassed their breakup in 1970. Did you hear the music he was churning out at that time? Grade-A material. Also, what a charming call-back to have Ian Hart portray Lennon a *third* time.
This is spot on explanation but you know all of this scenario I think only has one vital reason why it’s not possible this could have been an alternative. First of all, in the year 1962 John and Paul were as close as ever. If John decided to quit the band, Paul I think would have been gone astray. He was his best friend and well songwriting partner at the time so I think even if John fucked up and left the band all of a sudden like that, Paul would not just give up on bringing John back. That’s just really it.
They wouldn’t survive without John, not in 1962. Paul wasn’t ready to be a leader yet, and in my opinion he wasn’t ready to be a solo songwriter. And the same goes for George but even more so. John was definitely the driving force in the early days, and Paul was a brilliant contributor who was allowed time to grow. Put simply the Beatles couldn’t have gone on without either John or Paul in the early days, John couldn’t have written as many hits without Paul and vice versa. George? They could’ve maybe...maybe replaced him if they had to. But even then...they were so close as friends that it’s hard to imagine it. Ringo (no offense to him) I think was the most replaceable in 1962. He was new to the band and if for whatever reason he was unable to continue, they could’ve tried out different drummers at George Martin’s suggestion.
A really clever "mini-drama" that gets you thinking "what if ?". I thought it was an interesting theme,...and the lead actor was excellent. Production values,too, were spot on !
A very good point of the film is that it portraits the beatles without john as just another famous pop band from the 60s. He makes it very clear that if john were not in it, the beatles would not have matured musically and consequently would not have changed the world the way they did. I can really say it's not just you that loses when you don't follow your dreams.
If John Lennon had left the Beatles in 1962, he still wouldn't have gone for a day job. There were many hot, up-and-coming bands he could have joined, eager for a brilliant songwriter. The premise here, that if he left the Beatles, he'd leave the music business altogether misses the mark. No. Way. This is well done as a piece, but the premise as an alternate future for Lennon doesn't hold up.
You're forgetting about Cyn and Julian. As soon as his kid was born, he'd have had to find a job fast. He couldn't have afforded to spend years trying out different bands until one worked. That's how things happen for many young aspiring musicians, even talented one, life obligations catch up with you. Luckily, the Beatles breakthrough happened at the right moment.
Well perhaps the idea of being in the music business wouldn't have been the same for him knowing he'd left the Beatles and wanted to quit the music scene altogether..?
D Ashford Good point. He would have had royalties coming in from the songs he and Paul wrote together up to the point he left, maybe for his own songs as well. Just one hit would have set him up for life, I think.
I see lots of good points in this thread. All I can say is that there could have been endless possibilities for John. Even if his marriage with Cynthia and the birth of Julian still happened, John would have still have had that drive to become a rock star, even if he had to work a side job or 2. He was determined ever since he formed the Quarrymen.
my theory for this, in 1966 the beatles release the album 'turret' jonh get bored with this and he formed a band call 'the walrus' in 1967 the first well succed album was in 72 the 'close to the end' in 84 john did a song featuring the beatles and michael jackson a song call 'don't say say' in 98 jonh did a song with kurt cobain called 'suicide is for losers' he gained the grammy for best pop song he still alive (living in tibet)
I'd like to think that when this version of Lennon said "I Still Am" , especially after the lady said that Paul told her that recording "How Do You Do It" was a bad idea, there came an epiphany to John that served as a sort of inspiration for him to make a sort of come back. What may have happened is a collaboration with Paul. I guess another factor to consider was being a normal person wasn't something Lennon fancies. Deep inside he still was that rocker, he just needed to reignite the flame.
This is pretty accurate. If John had quit in '62 the Beatles probably would have continued on, with Paul stepping into the leader role (as he did in real life around '66), except without John's edge and psychedelic interests they would have only had his ballads like Yesterday and playful songs like Yellow Submarine. It sounds here like they never cracked America, so they only had middling success, and bands like the Stones and Who formed but without the American audience the Beatles created. The 'there would have been no Beatles without John' angle is just bullshit :)
I'm Down was just a Little Richards knock-off, Skelter a Who one, Oh Darling based on Fats Domino, and I've Got A Feeling just middle-brow. Everything but Skelter would've probably existed in the other timeline.
@Zach Higgins Nah lol. Helter Skelter's heavier than anything off of Sabbath's first two albums or anything by Cream, and I say that as a massive fan of both bands. It's an incredible song.
@@RollingOrmond Oh, don't be ridiculous. These are all stupid opinions but how the fuck does Helter Skelter sound like anything The Who ever did, let alone pre-1968? I Can See For Miles sounds nothing like Helter Skelter. Nothing else on Sell Out is even remotely as heavy. You're just saying this stuff based on what you've heard the inspirations were for those songs. They don't actually sound like them.
@Zach Higgins The only Zeppelin song that's heavier than Helter Skelter is Dazed and Confused, and small bits of other songs from their first album. Nothing those three bands did involve screaming, yet Paul rips his chords on Helter Skelter. The way it rises during the chorus with the guitars wailing ending up in Paul screaming wouldn't be matched for fucking years.
This is a MASTERFUL piece of writing, and excellent piece of acting and producing - A very, very real piece of majestic work of art - truly magnificant piece - thank you so very much for sharing this production EXCELLENT WORK...
Kinda makes sense if you think about it. Imagine having a big popularity/impact when you start a band in humble beginnings for it to get shot down due to a dispute within the group itself and for you to never hear the end of it. I would’ve taken the same time to try and find John to tell him we were wrong Bc it’s been so boring since we broke off
Lennon would have probably ended up going to jail if he left lol, he need grounding, be it McCartney or Yoko, Ringo would have kept playing and Harrison would have landed a gig in another band, no telling if McCartney would have gone on or become a teacher, but the Beatles would have packed it in if Lennon had left, there were other Brit bands coming up but its hard to tell if any would have pushed to come to America without Epstein's push, RnR was on the way out, kinda like it is in 2017, we are back to Fabians again lol
I feel that the seed of Leaving the Beatles was planted in John's mind when Yesterday was released as a single. He seemed to have a long standing resentment about that song, which is effectively a Paul McCartney solo song.
Well John shouldn't have "long standing resentment", Yesterday is a very beautiful song with great lyrics. The only reason I can think of him not liking it because he had nothing to do with it.
Excellent film! The actor pretty much nailed John's character (as many have said already..) The part that is spot on in my view is the whole glasses exchange between him and the secretary!!! Right down to the head tilt! Has me in stitches EVERY time!!!
I remember about 30 years ago I walked into newsagent in Sydney Australia & this guy was walking out & he looked exactly like John Lennon from the mid 1970s. He had the same facial features, hairstyle, the granny glasses & the jeans & denim jacket look from that rooftop photo session in New York. It actually gave me a quite a shock at first.
If John had left in 62, I believe the Beatles would have some success, but nothing like they had. Lennon and McCartney together were the powerhouse of songwriters. There has never been anything like them since, and I doubt ever will be.
The people who wrote it are no doubt aware that the music at the start wouldn't be there without john and that the Beatles couldn't have continued without him but that wouldn't have made an interesting short film. On another note, it's interesting to see Ian Hart playing John Lennon again, his first film role was playing a young Lennon in the film Backbeat.
Great show and interesting thought experiment! The truth was - ALL of The Beatles (including Paul) didn't want "How Do You Do It" released. They were embarrassed by it (and rightly so) and it was George Martin that pushed for it. Although Paul was seen the diplomatic Beatle, he also didn't like being told what to do and could have easily quit over the song as much as Lennon would. If the song was released, Lennon would have stuck it out. The single would have been successful (as it was for Gerry and the Pacemakers), but they would have worked hard to regain control of their work. It could have also strained the relationship between Martin and The Beatles.
Trivia: If John left the Beatles, he may have not used those spec glasses. It was the Beatles fame that got him a part in the movie, How I Won the War, in which he wore them for the first time. It was someone on the movie production that told him he looked good in them, in which he started to wear them shortly after. John originally wore the Buddy Holly style glasses before 1966 when he made the movie.
_"You give me a feeling in my heart (oo-la-la) like an arrow...passin' through it"_ “Look, George, I have to tell you, we really think that song is crap. I mean, it may be all right, but it’s just not the kind of thing we want to do. We want to record our own material, not some soft bit of fluff written by someone else.” - John Lennon “I’ll tell you what, John. When you can write a song as good as that one, then I’ll record it.” - George Martin Enter _Please Please Me..._
This is what happened to Pete best, but he did not leave the Beatles he was pushed..eventually he had to do mundane jobs to keep his family, while seeing and hearing his ex band mates being superstars it must have been terrible he was not with them to share in their amazing success .
With Pete Best, the Beatles never even would have *had* their amazing success so if he hadn't been booted, he still wouldn't have enjoyed any money or fame.
That is the most stupidest comment ever it was the pure incredible songwriting talent of Lennon/McCartney to say if they had not booted Pete best the Beatles would not have had become superstars is really way into the twilight zone and living in another alternative reality.
@The Flat Earth Society What your saying makes sense to the other three beatles however it was the way they did the dirty on him. All three should have done the right thing sat him down and be honest with him he deserved respect after all he lived in terrible conditions eating horrid food along with the boys. He looked at them like his brothers what they did was inhuman. However pete did recieve royalties decades later because of the beatles anthology album which will keep him financially healthy for the rest of his life I think the guy deserved every penny.
@@MaccaLives Well, that's where you're wrong. He received a substantial sum in royalties from the anthology album due to his contribution to some tracks, earning him 2.4 million. He enjoys a modicum of fame, constantly being approached for interviews worldwide. Whether he likes it or not, he will always be a part of Beatles history, and no one can take that away from him.
Glad they really focused on John's wit, which is often overlooked in biopics about him/Beatles. I still think he could have made something of himself though. Interesting concept
With all due respect, without John there would be no Beatles. Nor without Paul, or George. "The Beatles" - as Lennon said - were four parts of one personality. Remove a piece, and it all falls down. However, I disagree with those who suggest that a band of Paul, George, Ringo would have been bubblegum. Its easy to forget how much of the avant garden elements of the Beatles was actually brought in by McCartney. The question is would he have been driven to innovate without John, or would John have created anything of lasting importance without Paul. John's post Beatle output indicates maybe not.
Yesterday has a more optimistic version of this alternate story, but the difference is that in Yesterday John was never part of The Beatles because they never existed. In the movie he lacks the sense of humor and attitude he has in this short film. This is a more realistic version, although it’s weird that John never pursuited a solo career like he did in real life. Very nice, well done.
This makes you wonder, how many "John's" are walking around right now, living a hum drum life because they made the wrong move or didn't get the right break or weren't at the right place at the right time. Makes you think, doesn't it? Would the shmuck you passed on the street today be a legend if the stars had aligned a little differently years ago?
Michelle Burgess Nice thought. It also leads me to think that people who make it in History are the product of a cocktail of factors, not just themselves alone.
Even The Beatles were a close run thing until they met Epstein; if that guy looking for "My Bonnie" had gone in a shop other than Epstein's, he wouldn't have gone looking for them, never offered to manage them and the EMI/George Martin thing might not have never happened and they'd have faded out by 1963...But yeah, hundreds of potential Johns or Jimis or Janises or Stephen Kings or Elon Musks are out there, living a different life than they would have had they persevered a bit longer or taken that music class in grade three or had different friends in high school. Luck and fate plays a bigger part in fame and fortune than people like to admit.
You make some good points. Then again.... how about all these rock stars that crashed and burned and maybe wished they had just stayed normal folks..
ME !
I think I just saw John today in Barcelona. 😱
"Is that a Liverpool accent I detect?" "Where?" Nailed John.
Lady: "I bet you could write a book."
Lennon: "I bet you could read one."
Ahhh, that's soo Lennon :)
Yes, brilliant line!!
@Grimsby Reapers I heard I bet you could be in one
Yes, that's what I heard. 'be in one'.
As in a sad fuck like Eleanor Rugby which Paul wrote but unconsciously got of of grave stone near George who was Johns uncle dad substitute.
"sooo Lennon" yet you didnt even quote it correctly😅
@@AkyovNorthWest Lol
The scary thing is how many people who are actually like this, who could have been like John Lennon. So many people who missed their lucky breaks, or didn't go after their dreams. Could have happened to John if he'd listened to his teachers or Aunt Mimi.
Sometimes its for the better (not in John's case)
@@breakfastline You never know. If he was asked if he could be a rockstar and die tragically at 40 or have a normal job and live to 80, what would he prefer?
@@Gunn27 who's to say? Life without purpose isn't life at all. Music was everything to John Lennon. The flame of John's life burned short, but extremely bright. Would he have preferred a longer life, if it wouldn't be a fulfilling one, and he ended up bitter and lonely as shown in this video? As it was, though John suffered a gruesome end, he seemed to be at his happiest in 1980. He had grown and matured into a wise and loving person, and he was content with his life.
@@Potatopot724 Yeah the thing is he was bitter and angry most of the 60's and 70's DOING the thing he loved. Agree about 1980 though. The interview he done on December the 6th is great and it's brilliant to hear him be funny, positive, kind and optimistic. Came across so well in that.
Oh, you mean Pete Best?
It's sad because this film is kind of Pete Best's reality-with the added fact that the Beatles became one of the best bands of all time and he missed it all.
Pete Best worked at a job centre. he must have loved watching the beatles move on while he slogged away
But, as far as I know, Pete lived on and thrived, never got ultra-rich but was not the depressing loser the short portrays. Pete lived an efficient, successful life and he raised a family. This "John" goes round and round and round in circles: the same tantrum-prone character that meant his departure from The "Beatles" cost him now this tiny humble job. I can hardly sympathise with eternally "entitled" people who somehow believe they´re the only humans on earth.
Pete Best was not exactly a musical genius. The reason he got let go in the first place was he wasn't a very good drummer. If he had been there were a multitude of other bands that formed and had hits from the Liverpool area he could have joined.
@@javiergilvidal1558 But the point of this is that if John hadn't had the great success of the Beatles, what would have become of him? He was a very talented man, but he was also moody, argumentative, cocky, bitterly sarcastic , and had an acid tongue. In many ways, the qualities that drove him to become a great musician and fight for his art were the same sort of qualities that would have made it difficult for him to work in the straight world. Sure the character is bitter about leaving the Beatles, but he's also a man who was never a good fit for the world of ordinary working people anyway (read pretty much any decent Beatles bio and that becomes obvious), and without the context in which he could change the world, what would have happened to him? I this is meant to be a meditation on what would happen to certain "great" men if the circumstances that allowed them to rise to fame and fortune hadn't worked out.
Well, at least Pete didn't get shot dead on his doorstep by a nutter. And he didn't have to shag Yoko.
Moral of the story... "Life goes on within you and without you."
Ian Hart f'cking NAILED IT with this performance.
@Ian Turner And another movie as well, "The Hours and Times"
Ian Turner he did so and was great in that too
I know John Lennon sounded a bit like Lilly Savage but I think Ian Hart put it on a bit too much here.
If John left the Beatles none of the music you hear at the beginning on the radio wouldn't exist the same way
If John had left the Beatles, their sound would have more resembled Wings. And George may have emerged earlier as a songwriter.
I think we know that in reality John had wanted to pull out, but it wasn't over artistic differences. John wanted out because the stress was killing him. He was working himself to death.
If The Beatles were a trio dominated by Paul it would not have lasted very long. They would all growm bored with it; George and Ringo would and Paul would have a moderate sucsess...maybe. But certainly not among the leading stars in the 1960s.
Bob Dylan started out his career as singer songwriter long before anyone in America had heard of The Beatles. I think The Beatles were more influenced by Dylan around 1964-1965 than the other way around.
If Paul or George or Ringo had left the Beatles in 1962, if Dylan, Hendrix, Kinks, Stones, etc., etc. then music would not have been the same. Why this modern view that John was the Beatles is beyond me. The claim is usually made by people who were not around in the '60s .......................Ringo was just as important maybe even more than John, Paul & George.
how did Dylan influence the beatles if they were treading the road since 1960?
they capture John's personality perfectly in this film
Agreed. We were lifelong pals, John and I. If anyone knew him it’d be me.
id say its a distilled character of him in the most simple and contrast way...not the full spectrum of the complete man but just the quippy side thats about it. Yea he was quippy and clever as they come..but he was much more than this snippy old man.
Yes, the famous rock and roll Messiah personality. One that wouldn't have developed if he wasn't king shit for the better part of twenty years. I'm not talking about the sarcasm. I'm sure that was there before he was famous. I'm talking about the superiority complex
It's not the first time Kevin Hart has played John Lennon, he was John in Backbeat.
Yes, he’s horrible isn’t he?
The irony is that IF John had left the Beatles then pretty much any of the music played on the radio in this sketch wouldn’t exist as it does today as the Beatles either directly or indirectly influenced pretty much every rock or pop act that followed them.
It’s actually pretty scary how much they influenced modern music in such a profound way.
Kinda agree, but then there's Bob Dylan. And when they heard him, and met him (and the Holy Herb) that's when they went from being a fantastically famous boyband, to becoming artist on another level.
@@tomkristensen3919 that’s a fair point. It’s amazing how all these acts influenced each other...especially with some herbal encouragement 😂
There would have been no Tomorrow Never Knows, I am the Walrus, A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields. The Beatles with Paul as the dominant force would have been a lot poppier for a lot longer and not as groundbreaking and would it have gone on past 1968 when George was starting to get his songwriting up to par with his bandmates? There might have been three or four different Beatles lineups if Paul had it all his way without John in the picture.
i’m sorry but john wasn’t the supreme creator of everything, do you know how much paul did? Also so many other artists did plenty too
@@gezi0752 John was I think the most important for their innovation and experimentation Paul probably would have developed much slower
This is the most depressing thing I have ever seen in my life.
Did you watch it to the very end?
The fact that he got murdered is more depressing and that's the reality...
@@rikutsu_ Yes !!
I don't know ... WWII was pretty bad. And the Twin Towers coming down. Maybe this is the third most depressing thing you've ever seen?
@@AverageMe No....this.
this actor does a good Lennon with that edgy toughness that apparently John was like in the early days
And it wasn't the first time he played Lennon either. Backbeat, the Stephen Dorff film where he played Stuart Sutcliffe also featured Ian Hart playing John. Apparently, Paul hated the movie.
+Fabian Lelo Backbeat was a great movie...i liked it a lot! Its cool too see this guy play John again!
He also played Lennon in "The hours and Times." A great film.
Best Lennon was Bernard Hill. Hart's best was Backbeat- here his diction is too gravelly and he's too short for JL!
He's 30 years older and sagging and worn down by life; probaably been hitting the bottle most of those 30 years.
Also known as the alternate reality where they recorded that "How Do You Do It" song instead of "Love Me Do"
They did record "How Do You Do It."
@@GoldwaterB Not as a single though. It Martin had forced them to go into the studio and re-record it and release it as a single, John might’ve quit right there. I just watched “That Thing You Do!” and the scene where Jimmy quits I feel is based off an alternate scenario very similar to this one, of John leaving over creative differences.
@@tommyl.dayandtherunaways820 I deeply doubt John would have quit over that. He was fairly pragmatic, and Paul would have talked him out of it anyway ("Let's just write something better").
According to some authors and experts on the subject, if it wasn't for Brian seeing them that day at the cavern, they were and had been thinking of stopping. This was a really good idea for a film. Enjoyed it. Great performance and writing :)
When I first saw this I thought it would be Impossible for The Beatles to continue without John Lennon, then I remembered that Pink Floyd survived the demise of Syd Barrett.... so you never know.
They also did pretty well without Waters, although some of their later stuff would have benefited from his poignant lyricism.
excellent point, eduardo.
No George either
A little different. Pink Floyd was a band that they could play a show and then hang with the crowd and nobody would recognize them. All they did was replace a guitarist and songwriter and Syd was a kind of eccentric writer and I don't believe Dark Side and the success that followed would've happened if Syd stayed. The BIG part of the Beatles was looks and personality and of course the chemistry between John and Paul. They might have made it without John but would of have been but probably with only moderate success.
Syd was a boat anchor. They would NEVER have gone on to what they did with Syd at the helm.
This guy is phenomenal in Back Beat. Best Beatles movie by miles
BoutYoungAnnaLee You apparently haven't seen Nowhere Boy!
John Clark Nowhere Boy is amazing but it was more of a John Lennon movie than a Beatles movie
@@lunardream6021 Backbeat is more a Stu Sutcliffe movie.
@@johnclark4593 Yea I have. Its crap.
@@BoutYoungAnnaLee lol we apparently didn't watch the same movie...
A working class hero is something to be
C Synch . Lennon lived in a middle class, owner occupier area. The other three were brought up in a council house.
@@dodiesdiary he's referring to the lyrics of a Lennon song called Working Class Hero. And besides, despite his childhood, this video shows that if he left The Beatles he probably would have ended up living in a working class area anyway.
John seemed to like to give the impression of a Working Class Hero - his book title too. He was (as his song says) an angry young man - and as we know as angry older man. He wasn’t a very nice character at all. Acerbic humour is nastiness disguised.
@@lfcforever1482 We know it refers to his book - but he liked people to think he had working class roots - look at me an ordinary man. His family had money.
so sad how many people still suffer from the capitalist delusion that hard work, perseverance, talent or even genius automatically leads to financial "success." ITS A LIE! one thing, and one thing alone, brings capitalist success - LUCK! you have to meet and know the right people. you have to be in the right place at the right time. any number of coincidences MUST CONVERGE in order to achieve this capitalist success we're brainwashed to believe WE CAN ACHIEVE!
the fact that 99% of all rich people were BORN RICH! that's LUCK! 1000s if not millions of people follow the very same path of "successful" people but fail. there's an old LIE-ISM that says "luck is the product of design." that's just elitist propaganda. to create and maintain the illusion that our failures are our own fault. you think rich people don't make mistakes? one mistake can ruin the life of a non-rich person. yet the elite make mistake after mistake but stay RICH! why is that?
here's the reality of the world in which we live - 1) NO ONE becomes a "success" without the help of others. 2) you can't be a success without harming others in some way. NO ONE EVER GOT RICH FROM KINDNESS! not even the beatles. wealth comes from the victimization of others, 3) TRUE SUCCESS ISN'T MEASURED BY WEALTH AND GREED or material possessions!
i live in poverty. i live everyday in abject MISERY! but i'm one of the most successful humans who ever lived because i've maintained in my life a VERY HIGH standard of ethics and justice. I REFUSE TO SELL MY SOUL and that makes me more successful than musk, gates, trump or any of the other gangsters who live in utter opulence while others suffer.
John got up got out of bed dragged a comb across his head. made the bus in seconds flat.
and went upstairs and had a smoke?
@Apple Juice ahh ahhhhhah ahhhhha ahhhah
Ian Hart turning in another brilliant portrait of Lennon.
He is brilliant because JWL was the genius/mind of The Beatles.
Its all ancient history.
Had he played him before? What in
Backbeat
John said it himself, that they were ALL vital to The Beatles as the band it became, and without the four who were, they wouldn't have gotten to where they did whatsoever. Not as the famous Beatles at least, because it would've just been another band entirely. It was the formula of those four Liverpudlian boys, just like the right ingredients to make a cake. You omit something and it's gonna look and taste like a spongy brick of fallen hell. Not quite the right desert to make the top display on that bakery shelf. Sure, the four would've likely had some measure of success if each had been on their own or gone with a different group of musicians because they were individually talented enough for other bands to want them...but it wouldn't have been the same level of fame they reached together. So it's not just one of them who were vital to the band as it's become known. Just try to imagine some of their classic songs with a different lead guitar bit or another drummer besides Ringo.
I dunno what John's problem is. "Mary Had A Little Lamb", was like... my favorite Beatle record.
What if JFK suffered a hernia and couldn't make it to Dallas?
A hernia is only a minor issue in most cases.
Jeff O what if RFK wasn't assainated and became president
What if Diana had taken a taxi that night in Paris?
What if Hitler had converted to Buddhism?
…..
Jeff O What if JFK had developed a recipe for fried chicken and founded a fast food chain called JFKFC?
John Clark the most unappreciated comment on TH-cam.
Kind of relatable to my own life story in my early to mid 20s. Between 2001 and 2005 I was in a band with some friends of mine, we played heavy metal and wrote our own songs and played gigs and even recorded two demos. It was a fun time and we gain somewhat of a local reputation as very talented young lads. But around christmas time in 2005 we called it quits, the singer moved on with other bands for a period of time, the rest of us moved on with other things like dead end jobs, traveling, college etc. Nowadays most of us have families, morgages, student debt to pay, married, traveled the world. Me, Day job as a fence builder, still very passionated about playing my guitars, single, pushing 39 this year. But I am ok with it! I can look back on that time with a smile and say " that was fun" and focus on new goals ahead of me. Life goes on you know 😉
' Life happens when You are busy making plans' as john would say. I understand Man! I also played in a band for 7 hard years, We were good and wrote our own music well, I wrote songs, my guys weren't serious enough. they were content with being the best in a certain region. My turning point was I did not go to California like I wanted at 17 when I graduated. LOL! Mom and Dad had a hissy fit and took my car away ( this is in 1972. ) they were afraid I would. 'Life Goes On ' , the title of one of my songs, your story just made me want to reply .Thanks Man!!!!!!!!!
Keep rockin brother Richard…
That's your problem you were a heavy metal band
Similar. 56 now and wish I had continued on; still making music no one listens to
Very well done. Spot-on characterization of John. This might have particularly deep resonances for some people in their 50s and older who wanted to be the next Beatles themselves, and maybe gave it their best shot, but of course it didn't work out. The idea that with one small slip the story could have gone very differently for John and the band is almost painfully plausible.
David Carpenter good comment
David Carpenter as someone in his 50s, I do find this a little depressing. Though I did find success in another field, nobody wants to know anymore. They don't care what you used to be down the Jobcentre.
David Carpenter Gene Clark of the Byrds.
He practically left the Beatles in 61 when they had problems in Hamburg. He returned to England alone and pondering the future. He didn't talk to the other three for weeks. But in McCartney he saw a supreme talent. And wanted to carry on.
no he didn't actually. They got kicked out of Hamburg because George (god bless him) was underage at the time. Paul And Pete Best got deported for burning a condom on the wall of the club that they were leaving and John had to make his own way back to england alone. Thats the true story of what actually happened. You can hear all about it on the Anthology.
@@nigelmurphy6761 yes, and I think it was both paul and john who just hung around and kept quiet to the rest of the band. they weren't thinking about leaving; they just wanted some rest. then they joined again and the rest of them were pissed because they wanted the money from the gigs.
The important question to ask is this one. What would have become of pop culture, music, fashion, film, art and poetry had he left the Beatles?
Ian Hart was brilliant yet again, playing John Lennon for the third time. He should think about a one-man show.
Yeah, but he's too old now to do John age 20-40 -- during the public life everybody knows about.
I know somebody to whom something similar happened: bungled some fantastic opportunities when they were younger and then lingered on into a could-have-been half-life for decades afterward. The harsh truth is that most of us start off believing we're going to be John Lennon but end up being Pete Best. Fate really is pitiless and unfair. Oh well, I'm off to listen to some old records...
Love John's quick wit,to any given conversation,or situation.
Holy shit! I've been trying to find this for a year!!! Thank you! Love Ian Hart playing Lennon! He did it in Backbeat!!!!
That's why I posted, Cat - took me ages to find it too!
And he played John in 'The Hours And The Times' too. Very good!
I pretty much hated him in both Backbeat and The Hours and The Times. Playing Lennon minus the wit and humour is plain innacurate and just made him seem bitter and annoying. I did like him in this though as the writer included his humour. Only trick I thought they missed was having the music sounding as it did. If the Beatles hadn't existed, music would be very different now as they influenced pretty much everyone.
Cat Damon Ian Hart was a cute looking guy when he did play the part of John Lennon in back beat but now he looks like a old ugly ass dry up weirdo in this crappy ass movie
Reading some commments I noticed some people really didn't get it. People, it is fiction! They are not especulating anything. They don't mean to tell the true possibilities. It is only for fun. A good joke. And...a love declaration, as nobody would waste time writing about a band without caring. Just relax and enjoy, please. I love the part John sayd they could have been most famous than the Hollies. Oh, yes.
John should have shown up at the office (Snodgrass' Office) at 9:10, and said , " What? It's only one after 9:09!"
o rojas lol! that's good :)
Right, then; you got the in-joke, didn'tcha?
If this was Yesterday, I would've watched it many times over.
Notice how depressed Liverpool looks now that the Beatles had never existed
Dang I never noticed that that’s pretty weird and crazy to think
Interesting, but slightly depressing.
That's what happens when you don't follow your dreams, or back out from a huge opportunity...it depresses you.
..slightly...?
Thought I was going to see Stevie Riks as Paul.
Stevie Riks can play all of them
Doooo
It's not like Pete Best leaving, where it didn't matter. lol Lennon leaves, they woulda disbanded.
Julie Bee How do you know? (Clue - You don't)
Julie Bee, They would not have had their drive if Lennon had left. The Beatles may have carried on, but would have been an average band. They'd be playing at Butlins now!!👍😆
Yeah, I liked how John said in this that the Beatles never did make it to the "toppermost of the poppermost." Without him, they would have been just another pretty good band.
Because I've had loads of bands where I was essentially John and they all fell apart without me.
Julie Bee Ha! Good answer
the actor looks more like julian lennon.
And the music at the end sounds like Julian.
"At least he's alive."
Is he though?
I really enjoyed this. Ian Hart is brilliant. Love the zebra crossing scene (a clear nod to the Abbey Road album cover) at 06:20 and the “Mull of Kintyre as lift muzak” scene at 07:54.
Didn't Ian Hart played John Lennon in the 🎥 Backbeat before he played this 🎥 movie
Add the unsuspecting self-nod to 'Working Class Hero' on the bus.
similar concept used on Yesterday
Difference hes better off in yesterday
Not really
It's hard to watch this. I cannot imagine a world without John Lennon as a Beatle.
If John would have quit the Beatles he would have started Oasis.
or Badfinger with the Elephant's memory.....
William Smith or as a ghost writer for Liam.
I believe this is the worst comment on the internet
Adam Keenan I agree
yeah right
It’s crazy thinking about how John could’ve easily left when Stuart either left The Beatles of when he died. Stuart was John’s best friend. Makes you think of the many scenarios that The Beatles could’ve been. Hell The Beatles wouldnt have been nowhere as big as they were!!! AND IS THAT IAN HART?! THOUGHT I RECOGNIZED THAT FACE!!! THATS COOL THAT HES REPRISING THE JOHN LENNON ACT AGAIN! For those who have seen Backbeat, its like a whole different universe of that John!
JOHN was under contract. Even if John had walked out as later George and Ringo did, I believe his years of collaborating with Paul would have contacted John and persuaded him to reconsider. The two had dreamed of success for at least 5 years. John would have come back - at this point anyway.
I think if the Beatles had never met Paul McCartney would have made it as a Cliff Richard type pop star in Britain or he would have become a school teacher,if he had made it in music he would have had a couple of hits and then would have concentrated more on his song writing,many years later he would have returned and played on oldies tours around Britain,George Harrison would have gotten out of music completely and become a bus driver like his father and later on he would have studied religion,Ringo Starr would have played drums in local bar bands till he was an old man because of his love for simply playing the drums and John Lennon would have either made it as a writer or as an artist,either one of those two careers or he would have ended up in prison. Bob.
Janet Sampson ringo could continue as the drummer for Rory storm and the hurricanes they could have done something they were as popular as the Beatles during the early 60s
I think that Paul and Ringo still would have made it!
Not to the level they did of course, and perhaps nowhere even close, but I'm sure they both would have been successful and stayed successful.
John and George? I'm not so sure.
Perhaps they would have both joined successful groups, but I think if anything, we would think of them as 'a former member of...' rather than as famous in their own right.
But without that perfectly magical combination of all four of them and George Martin it simply wouldn't have happened!
Nice bit of whimsy - the fate of many who are talented but never in the right place at the right time. John and Paul meeting each other was the catalyst for unparalleled musical creativity and influence that still endures - impossible to imagine a world without it.
Really liked this, very clever premise.
There's no way Lennon would've sat through the 60s without at least picking up his guitar and making some sort of inroads into the music scene himself and then on through the subsequent decades. And possibly come out better.
Lmao, no way. John needed Paul to keep him focused. He would have given up on it eventually after knocking a girl up, bouncing from job to job, not much better than his father.
I just watched “That Thing You Do!” for the first time the other day and now coming back to see this again, there are a lot of similarities between the hypothetical of John leaving over a song (maybe George Martin forced them to record How Do You Do It again instead of letting them have their way) and the way Jimmy quit the Wonders in the movie. Imagine John storming out of the studio, declaring his artistic integrity, walking away from the chance of a lifetime (of course he would probably find another band to join, maybe even another Liverpool based group). As John himself would say: “it’s easy if you try”.
The accent is part Beatle cartoon, part Yellow Submarine.
It's the actor who played Lennon in Backbeat, Ian Hart.
Best Lennon actor?
I'd say Stevie Riks
I like Stevie. A more a comic take though. I like his Ringo series, Ringo making tea and toast etc :D
Same. He's great for a guilty pleasure laugh, when you're feelin' blue.
This whole movie you keep waiting for a flashback you never get.
If John had left the Beatles , their would be no Beatles . Simple as that . But Its funny to watch johns boring life with his synicall humor
One word: "WINGS".
Paul needed John and John needed Paul. They would have been a far less successful band without John, he was their cutting edge. George would have gotten fed up with Paul by 1965 instead of 1969.
If John left in 1962 they would have become a bubblegum pop band until 1964 when George gets fed-up with Paul and leaves too.
We will never know it mate . But speculating How it would be is always fun . Please pardon my bad english .
terrythekitti this is the only answer that hits the Nail on his head . No John , no Paul . No Beatles . The most logicall answer i read . Greetings mate and please pardon my bad english
What a brilliant opening to a show, with all those pics of the actors.. I read the original story 'Snodgrass' as part of a horror story anthology. This is a great adaption and Ian Hart's brilliant as John Lennon, but the story has a lot more to it. The ending goes much further, with him meeting Paul McCartney again. Also, he briefly chats with an unnamed American who has a copy of 'Catcher in the Rye' on him - obviously this was Mark Chapman.
Coincidentally, Ian Hart who plays John in this sketch played John in the 1994 film Backbeat about the Beatles' early days
Not a coincidence. Ian Hart had already played Lennon in a low-budget film called The Hours and the Times, before Backbeat. His resemblance to Lennon and the fact he had already played him so well twice before made him an obvious choice here.
john nhoj He looks like the love child of Lennon and a wharf rat!
As if the Beatles would've stayed together without John. No bloody way!
Macca Lives A It's just a drama B How do you know they wouldn't have stayed together?
LOL 5.46 ...fast track to "Wings", .... "the band the Beatles could have been" (Alan Partridge)
TrainInVain Even though i love John's influence, a lot of bands don't have John and are still good bands. George Harrison turned out to be quite the songwiter, he had the most successful post-Beatles career. I often wonder what they would have created if George and Paul had collaborated.
Harrison didn't have the most successful post Beatle career. McCartney far exceeded him. Ringo did too in terms of effort and longevity. Harrison may have come a bit closer had he survived cancer (same as Lennon had he not been murdered), but he could not have ever likely caught up with McCartney who was prolific not only in composing but also his love of performing which goes on to this day. Not sure where that post-Beatles career comment comes from.
I think lilyroza was meaning in the creative sense. George did a lot more worthwhile projects all Paul did was make money - Mull of Kyntire - give me a break - Silly Love Songs of yeagh you really got the band on the run with that one. The only time he sounded good was when his band played old Beatle stuff - then we all forgave him anything and cried.
That's what happens to all the good musicians now.
Yep, pretty much.
My own story
sugar Julie
This is true, eccentric creatives born too late. Spurned talent and wit condemned to misfit, sentenced to modern mundanity. Muttering innuendos to the aging nowhere man in the mirror.
Julie Bee not really
Without John, The Beatles still would've existed. Paul is enough to make a decent band. They just wouldn't be as remembered and respected without John, the genius he was.
HIStory In The Mix so Paul, who’s probably the best musician of the past century isn’t a genius, nice joke.
Well I mean two is always better than one
HIStory In The Mix I mean your missing that without John he wouldn’t be in the band and he also wouldn’t have been a bass player
HIStory In The Mix oh no if John had left, the Beatles would have produced a bunch of silly love songs which we call bubble gum wouldn't have last more than two or three songs!
Not really, just listen to Wings..
REALLY enjoyed that. A clever work of fiction...peppered (ahem!) with Beatle cleverness and references (eg 'A Day in the Life'). Thank you..
it shows that he would have just stayed like he was as a teenager if he had left, being a artist and being apart of a band taught him a lot of things, good and bad
Ian look like more Julian as John
That's because we know what Julian looks like at 55; we never got to see exactly what John would look like at 55, or 77.
I've heard that before as well.
This BBC piece doesn't seem far from reality. Maybe not exactly like how this was portrayed, but something similar. As someone pointed out, Pink Floyd went on without Syd Barrett and became bigger. On my end, I know some bands who did well without one of their founders. The Stones ditched Brian Jones and still managed to remain relevant until 1980 (with the painful reminder that they could just fill in the void left the guy who formed their band with, not one, but TWO musicians). After Ian Curtis' death, Joy Division successfully rebranded themselves as New Order. On the before-they-were-famous side of things; there was this sleazy bar band called the Soul Giants that entered the public consciousness when their leader left and Frank Zappa took his place. A small-time college band from London (with a healthy cult following to boot) was this close to disbanding once their frontman ditched them; but it took their most ardent fan to persuade them to carry on, even persuading them to let him join the band as their new frontman - it's a good thing they listened, because otherwise we wouldn't have had Queen.
The Beatles in 1962 were just a bunch of lucky guys that may already have gotten public exposure by having that one regional hit ("Love Me Do"). However, it also wasn't enough to make them that big yet. Had John Lennon left at that point, I would like to think that Brian Epstein and Paul McCartney were panicking, initially, but managed to get back on their feet again by thinking of the next logical step. They would have gotten a guy as competent as Lennon to play rhythm guitar. And with McCartney just as excellent on the songwriting department, they would have rode a wave of hits on the strike of his fountain pen. They would have either taken the Floyd route by continuing as the Beatles, with McCartney taking leadership; or went the New Order/Queen route by forming another band from the debris of the Beatles and become a big sensation from there. I don't subscribe to the whole "Beatles-wouldn't-survive-without-Lennon" notion, because that wouldn't be fair to the other three guys who were just as talented. I'd like to believe that George Harrison would have taken the reign, had the group bypassed their breakup in 1970. Did you hear the music he was churning out at that time? Grade-A material.
Also, what a charming call-back to have Ian Hart portray Lennon a *third* time.
This is spot on explanation but you know all of this scenario I think only has one vital reason why it’s not possible this could have been an alternative. First of all, in the year 1962 John and Paul were as close as ever. If John decided to quit the band, Paul I think would have been gone astray. He was his best friend and well songwriting partner at the time so I think even if John fucked up and left the band all of a sudden like that, Paul would not just give up on bringing John back. That’s just really it.
THIRD time.......really?? I know the first time was "Backbeat", but when was the second?
@@karlmccarron3318 The hours and times, a film about him and Brian Epstein.
They wouldn’t survive without John, not in 1962. Paul wasn’t ready to be a leader yet, and in my opinion he wasn’t ready to be a solo songwriter. And the same goes for George but even more so. John was definitely the driving force in the early days, and Paul was a brilliant contributor who was allowed time to grow. Put simply the Beatles couldn’t have gone on without either John or Paul in the early days, John couldn’t have written as many hits without Paul and vice versa. George? They could’ve maybe...maybe replaced him if they had to. But even then...they were so close as friends that it’s hard to imagine it. Ringo (no offense to him) I think was the most replaceable in 1962. He was new to the band and if for whatever reason he was unable to continue, they could’ve tried out different drummers at George Martin’s suggestion.
Sucky life, but it beats getting shot outside the Dakota.
Yea, i'm not so sure it does.
No it doesn't. That's the whole point.
Yea, and living with Yoko Ono......
Think John would agree with you...
Unctious d
Well, thats highly debatable.
A really clever "mini-drama" that gets you thinking "what if ?". I thought it was an interesting theme,...and the lead actor was excellent. Production values,too, were spot on !
Ian Hart had acted as John twice before and he still nailed it
A very good point of the film is that it portraits the beatles without john as just another famous pop band from the 60s. He makes it very clear that if john were not in it, the beatles would not have matured musically and consequently would not have changed the world the way they did. I can really say it's not just you that loses when you don't follow your dreams.
If John Lennon had left the Beatles in 1962, he still wouldn't have gone for a day job. There were many hot, up-and-coming bands he could have joined, eager for a brilliant songwriter. The premise here, that if he left the Beatles, he'd leave the music business altogether misses the mark. No. Way. This is well done as a piece, but the premise as an alternate future for Lennon doesn't hold up.
I agree..had he quit the Beatles...he would started a new band and not leave music at all.
You're forgetting about Cyn and Julian. As soon as his kid was born, he'd have had to find a job fast. He couldn't have afforded to spend years trying out different bands until one worked. That's how things happen for many young aspiring musicians, even talented one, life obligations catch up with you. Luckily, the Beatles breakthrough happened at the right moment.
Well perhaps the idea of being in the music business wouldn't have been the same for him knowing he'd left the Beatles and wanted to quit the music scene altogether..?
D Ashford Good point. He would have had royalties coming in from the songs he and Paul wrote together up to the point he left, maybe for his own songs as well. Just one hit would have set him up for life, I think.
I see lots of good points in this thread. All I can say is that there could have been endless possibilities for John. Even if his marriage with Cynthia and the birth of Julian still happened, John would have still have had that drive to become a rock star, even if he had to work a side job or 2. He was determined ever since he formed the Quarrymen.
my theory for this, in 1966 the beatles release the album 'turret' jonh get bored with this and he formed a band call 'the walrus' in 1967 the first well succed album was in 72 the 'close to the end' in 84 john did a song featuring the beatles and michael jackson a song call 'don't say say' in 98 jonh did a song with kurt cobain called 'suicide is for losers' he gained the grammy for best pop song he still alive (living in tibet)
also the shelved 1996 collaboration with icelandic trance producer dj miilk that had the working title "sprout chakre"
What makes you think Kurt would not have killed himself in 1994 despite John living?
If only....
@@seanimusprime9849 probably moral support from John
@@seanimusprime9849 But the rest of it made sense to you? 🤔
"Mary Had A Little Lamb" LOL
This is if John was Pete best
It almost would of been as tragic for us. There were a lot of great Lennon songs written after 1962 we would have missed out on..
“He was here!”
“Adolf Hitler? I hope you told him to sling his hook!”
🤣🤣
Wouldn't it just be easier to call it "Whatever Happened to Pete Best?"
PS: Uh, in all fairness, this is a pretty good little movie.
Pete didn't leave, he was fired.
No wonder they picked Ian to play this- he’s excellent- plus he’s played John in 2 other movies. Backbeat and The Hours and Times.
I'd like to think that when this version of Lennon said "I Still Am" , especially after the lady said that Paul told her that recording "How Do You Do It" was a bad idea, there came an epiphany to John that served as a sort of inspiration for him to make a sort of come back. What may have happened is a collaboration with Paul. I guess another factor to consider was being a normal person wasn't something Lennon fancies. Deep inside he still was that rocker, he just needed to reignite the flame.
This is pretty accurate. If John had quit in '62 the Beatles probably would have continued on, with Paul stepping into the leader role (as he did in real life around '66), except without John's edge and psychedelic interests they would have only had his ballads like Yesterday and playful songs like Yellow Submarine. It sounds here like they never cracked America, so they only had middling success, and bands like the Stones and Who formed but without the American audience the Beatles created. The 'there would have been no Beatles without John' angle is just bullshit :)
And don't forget the other "playful" Macca songs like I'm Down, Helter Skelter, Oh Darling, I've Got A Feeling... ;-)
I'm Down was just a Little Richards knock-off, Skelter a Who one, Oh Darling based on Fats Domino, and I've Got A Feeling just middle-brow. Everything but Skelter would've probably existed in the other timeline.
@Zach Higgins Nah lol. Helter Skelter's heavier than anything off of Sabbath's first two albums or anything by Cream, and I say that as a massive fan of both bands. It's an incredible song.
@@RollingOrmond Oh, don't be ridiculous.
These are all stupid opinions but how the fuck does Helter Skelter sound like anything The Who ever did, let alone pre-1968? I Can See For Miles sounds nothing like Helter Skelter. Nothing else on Sell Out is even remotely as heavy.
You're just saying this stuff based on what you've heard the inspirations were for those songs. They don't actually sound like them.
@Zach Higgins The only Zeppelin song that's heavier than Helter Skelter is Dazed and Confused, and small bits of other songs from their first album.
Nothing those three bands did involve screaming, yet Paul rips his chords on Helter Skelter. The way it rises during the chorus with the guitars wailing ending up in Paul screaming wouldn't be matched for fucking years.
I love this movie and the guy playing John Lennon is excellent. I know he’s from Backbeat. I miss John so much.
This is a MASTERFUL piece of writing, and excellent piece of acting and producing - A very, very real piece of majestic work of art - truly magnificant piece - thank you so very much for sharing this production EXCELLENT WORK...
Yeah, right. It would've taken Paul 20 years to go to John's house and tell him "we should never have done that song." Oy.
Kinda makes sense if you think about it. Imagine having a big popularity/impact when you start a band in humble beginnings for it to get shot down due to a dispute within the group itself and for you to never hear the end of it. I would’ve taken the same time to try and find John to tell him we were wrong Bc it’s been so boring since we broke off
@@antonrendar2073 And you would have waited 20 years to tell him? Seriously?? 🤨
Lennon would have probably ended up going to jail if he left lol, he need grounding, be it McCartney or Yoko, Ringo would have kept playing and Harrison would have landed a gig in another band, no telling if McCartney would have gone on or become a teacher, but the Beatles would have packed it in if Lennon had left, there were other Brit bands coming up but its hard to tell if any would have pushed to come to America without Epstein's push, RnR was on the way out, kinda like it is in 2017, we are back to Fabians again lol
I feel that the seed of Leaving the Beatles was planted in John's mind when Yesterday was released as a single. He seemed to have a long standing resentment about that song, which is effectively a Paul McCartney solo song.
Well John shouldn't have "long standing resentment", Yesterday is a very beautiful song with great lyrics. The only reason I can think of him not liking it because he had nothing to do with it.
I really don't know how I feel about this, personally. Artistically, it's well-done, well-crafted...I dunno', kinda made me sad
Excellent film! The actor pretty much nailed John's character (as many have said already..) The part that is spot on in my view is the whole glasses exchange between him and the secretary!!! Right down to the head tilt! Has me in stitches EVERY time!!!
Who Played John Lennon when he was young and in the beatles???
I remember about 30 years ago I walked into newsagent in Sydney Australia & this guy was walking out & he looked exactly like John Lennon from the mid 1970s. He had the same facial features, hairstyle, the granny glasses & the jeans & denim jacket look from that rooftop photo session in New York. It actually gave me a quite a shock at first.
REALLY well done! Wonderful melancholy, thought-provoking story, extremely well acted and directed and realized. Brilliant work!
At least in this version he's still alive.
Woowww that was a dark video, I guess the lesson we all can learn is: follow your bloody dreams and don't give up.
I love the flashbacks, especially the broken record quit scene. There should be more movies like this in the world.
If John had left in 62, I believe the Beatles would have some success, but nothing like they had. Lennon and McCartney together were the powerhouse of songwriters. There has never been anything like them since, and I doubt ever will be.
Perfectly said.
The people who wrote it are no doubt aware that the music at the start wouldn't be there without john and that the Beatles couldn't have continued without him but that wouldn't have made an interesting short film. On another note, it's interesting to see Ian Hart playing John Lennon again, his first film role was playing a young Lennon in the film Backbeat.
Great show and interesting thought experiment! The truth was - ALL of The Beatles (including Paul) didn't want "How Do You Do It" released. They were embarrassed by it (and rightly so) and it was George Martin that pushed for it. Although Paul was seen the diplomatic Beatle, he also didn't like being told what to do and could have easily quit over the song as much as Lennon would. If the song was released, Lennon would have stuck it out. The single would have been successful (as it was for Gerry and the Pacemakers), but they would have worked hard to regain control of their work. It could have also strained the relationship between Martin and The Beatles.
It's great seeing Ian Hart playing Lennon again.
Trivia: If John left the Beatles, he may have not used those spec glasses. It was the Beatles fame that got him a part in the movie, How I Won the War, in which he wore them for the first time. It was someone on the movie production that told him he looked good in them, in which he started to wear them shortly after. John originally wore the Buddy Holly style glasses before 1966 when he made the movie.
_"You give me a feeling in my heart (oo-la-la) like an arrow...passin' through it"_
“Look, George, I have to tell you, we really think that song is crap. I mean, it may be all right, but it’s just not the kind of thing we want to do. We want to record our own material, not some soft bit of fluff written by someone else.” - John Lennon
“I’ll tell you what, John. When you can write a song as good as that one, then I’ll record it.” - George Martin
Enter _Please Please Me..._
This is what happened to Pete best, but he did not leave the Beatles he was pushed..eventually he had to do mundane jobs to keep his family, while seeing and hearing his ex band mates being superstars it must have been terrible he was not with them to share in their amazing success .
With Pete Best, the Beatles never even would have *had* their amazing success so if he hadn't been booted, he still wouldn't have enjoyed any money or fame.
That is the most stupidest comment ever it was the pure incredible songwriting talent of Lennon/McCartney to say if they had not booted Pete best the Beatles would not have had become superstars is really way into the twilight zone and living in another alternative reality.
@The Flat Earth Society What your saying makes sense to the other three beatles however it was the way they did the dirty on him. All three should have done the right thing sat him down and be honest with him he deserved respect after all he lived in terrible conditions eating horrid food along with the boys. He looked at them like his brothers what they did was inhuman. However pete did recieve royalties decades later because of the beatles anthology album which will keep him financially healthy for the rest of his life I think the guy deserved every penny.
@@MaccaLives Well, that's where you're wrong. He received a substantial sum in royalties from the anthology album due to his contribution to some tracks, earning him 2.4 million. He enjoys a modicum of fame, constantly being approached for interviews worldwide. Whether he likes it or not, he will always be a part of Beatles history, and no one can take that away from him.
He sounds kinda like John Lyndon at some points
Owens 29292 He sounds like Paul Weller at some points.
@@johnclark4593 he sounds like Ian Hart 🙃
Glad they really focused on John's wit, which is often overlooked in biopics about him/Beatles. I still think he could have made something of himself though.
Interesting concept
With all due respect, without John there would be no Beatles. Nor without Paul, or George. "The Beatles" - as Lennon said - were four parts of one personality. Remove a piece, and it all falls down. However, I disagree with those who suggest that a band of Paul, George, Ringo would have been bubblegum. Its easy to forget how much of the avant garden elements of the Beatles was actually brought in by McCartney. The question is would he have been driven to innovate without John, or would John have created anything of lasting importance without Paul. John's post Beatle output indicates maybe not.
Yesterday has a more optimistic version of this alternate story, but the difference is that in Yesterday John was never part of The Beatles because they never existed. In the movie he lacks the sense of humor and attitude he has in this short film.
This is a more realistic version, although it’s weird that John never pursuited a solo career like he did in real life. Very nice, well done.