That's the thing with that movie, it doesn't tell a more exciting story (I noticed you quoted the word exciting). It's just the PG-13 dumbed down version where some stuff got altered about, and some stuff was invented (where there was just no need to invent stuff). For example, the tension and arguments between the band in the early to mid 80s could've been played out well enough without making out they spilt up and Freddie begged to get back with the band.
I might well agree, but it makes for a great rebel image on the big screen. Queen never did any of that stuff. They kept to the program.
I'm glad Queen never did any of that cliche stuff. I found their story more interesting for it. Not the PG-13 movie version, but the real version. I don't know what you mean by "kept to the program". If anything, that stuff you've mentioned all seems to be keeping to the program of cliched dumb rock n roll behavior. Busted for drugs, pissed on whatever, vomited on stage? What else? Throwing a TV out of the window? *Rolls eyes*
"Kept to the Program" is an Americanism for focusing on the job at hand and doing it right. I am actually paying Queen a great compliment, but it does not seem to be coming through clearly.
I know you're not knocking 'em. I just kinda of got bored with all that years ago now. I used to find Ozzy's tales funny, but these days it comes across as cliche or worse. "Look how wild and crazy I was". Yeah, okay. In actual fact, the guy was a complete prick (think about him shooting 17 cats).
Why didn't you just ask in the first place instead? Of course, you'll most likely dismiss the answer, based on what you first said. But I don't think repeatedly having orgies with loads of different guys at the same time was "most conventional (if not cliched)" for a rock star, certainly not back then when society frowned so much on gays, nor the way he went about it (with his assistant going out to find them all to let into his bedroom).
I don't think it'd be much of push for any fan - even a casual one - to judge more accurately. For example, in the movie, it's made out that they hadn't played "in years" prior to Live Aid. It's easy enough to check that's not true, let alone many other inaccuracies in the movie.
It didn't really heighten the drama though. It was a PG-13 watered down version of what happened in reality. If done right, the inaccuracies (at least on that level) wouldn't have needed to exist. I don't think Oatsdad (who as far as I know is what could be loosely described as a casual fan, not a hardcore fan) is being particularly pedantic either, at least, no more than any of the many, many other people who could tell they weren't getting the true story. At this point, quite a few people I know have gone to see it - many being no more than casual fans - and most of them have picked up on it not telling the story the way it happened.
Well we all knew that back in the 70s. But despite the welcome tolerance of the last couple of decades, I reckon the producers felt that most of the paying audience did not want to actually see it happening.
Could make the inevitable sing along version more interesting. Perhaps some dwarves roaming the aisles with cocaine on trays on their heads too. No one'll be too fussed about the odd inaccuracy then.
You kid, but the survey we received after the showing we saw did ask if we were interesting in one. Vickie and I both said yes, though I'm not sure if it was genuine interest or sheer perversity.
My girlfriend wanted to ask the others in the cinema (ten or so) if they minded doing a singalong. I suggested not as I'd be off!
I have no intention to watch the film. This thread, though, is somewhat Mama Mia and Rocky Horror totally go together. It is hard to think of one without thinking of the other.
Rock star in sex, drugs shocker! This was happening decades after being decriminalized, and many years after the likes of Bowie, Jobriath, and Boy George had already waved that flag (pardon me while I stifle a yawn).
