It’s a dramatization, no need to clutch your pearls. It’s common for movie plots to condense, conflate, reinterpret, invent. I think you know this already, in fact.
Nobody’s much interested in documenting what Freddie got up to in SF bathhouses or Munich night clubs. In 2018, porn is just a click away. That aspect of his life is simply boring. It amuses me that a number of critics have dumped on the movie because it failed to convey a liberatory message and “outrage the squares”, as if we haven’t had many decades of that already from Hollywood. In fact, there was irritation in some quarters that it might promote the idea that living a life where every carnal desire is indulged is probably not be the best thing for your spiritual or physical wellbeing. The Guardian critic (who appears to be in his mid twenties) even asserted that Queen’s 1970s audience was made of of Heep and Purple fans too stupid to realize Freddie was gay. Nothing is further from the truth - everyone knew Freddie wasn’t straight and nobody gave a d@mn, we loved his larger than life persona and true rock star charisma.
Like I said, you'd dismiss the answer. Nonetheless, it wasn't conventional. And I think you'll find Boy Geoge came along on the music scene after Freddie Mercury did. Bowie didn't have tons of orgies with groups of men either.
Dismissed because you earlier claimed you weren’t talking about so-called debauchery. Regardless, it may not be “conventional” to you because that’s not your lifestyle. To the billions of hedonists hat have lived, however, that would not necessarily be unconventional behavior.
No, I didn't claim that I wasn't talking about that at all. If that's what the dismissal was based on, then you misunderstood. It was unconventional for an international rock star. That's what we're talking about here. I don't think the number of hedonists that did it in the way Mercury did would amount to billions either.
Clutching at pearls? You seem to be confused. Either that or you replied to the wrong comment. You wrote (as a reply to someone else), "You talk as if you have more authority to judge whether those scenes are accurate than Brian May and Roger Taylor do." My reply: "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". That's what I addressed above. Your flawed logic that no one here can judge more accurately than Roger and Brian, when it's evident from recorded history that the movie makes many historical inaccuracies.
Maybe 70's rock star life is a harder story is to tell, it's all so far removed now. All the "correcting" that needs to be done. All the people involved in making a film, the PG13 stamp, lord knows what's going to wind up at your local cineplex......hell I was surprised it was'nt worse.
I'm really loving all the live video releases that I'm only now discovering. The Night at the Odeon Blu-ray is currently in constant loop until the Rainbow 74 discs arrive this weekend. Queen is one of the few bands that I really love throughout various career incarnations and it's been great getting into them again, especially their early work. I hope that this new film, like it or not, will motivate people to listen to their music - especially those discovering it for the first time. Also, if anyone is interested in their Days of Our Lives doc DVD (NTSC) please PM me, I have an extra copy.
That stuff is already documented, or at least that it happened. Why do you assume nobody is or would be interested what Freddie got up to in nightclubs? I recall Paul Gambaccini talking about Freddie's attitude in a nightclub on the Days of Our Lives documentary, where he asked if Freddie was going to curb his ways in light of the "new disease". And Freddie's attitude was "F*** it, I'll do what I want with whoever I want" (or very similar words). But we didn't get that. We got the family friend PG-13 movie. Addressing his attitude at the time doesn't equate to porn either. What we got in the movie was sad, lost, sentimental, serious Freddie, which by all accounts wasn't how he was for the most part. The scene where Freddie was partying, where the rest of the band were sitting around (because Roger, in particular, didn't like partying whatsoever), was played out like a miserable scene from Eastenders. It didn't capture the spirit of Freddie or Queen at all. Like I said, the movie was fun, but it was very flawed.
Yes, you're right. As I've said, I'm a "greatest hits" fan for Queen. I do like a few non-hits - mostly the hard-rocking stuff - but if you took away everything else and left me with a hits CD, I'd be fine with that. Most of the history I knew before this whole discussion came from simply growing up with Queen as a popular band. I never "researched" them but I lived a lot of their career. I didn't need to be an expert to know lots of the movie didn't pass the smell test!
Agree, but there still needs to be a real positive from the changes. I see no need for "BR" to break up the band just to create the phony drama of Live Aid. There were many other ways the movie could go toward a climax without that idiotic fictionalized element. BTW, I'd bet that if the Internet had been around in 1967, there would've been much grousing about the fiction in "B&C"! The real events were still recent enough that many people would've remembered them - unlike now, where pretty much anyone who knew of B&C in real time is dead - so complaints would've been legion. According to Wiki, the real Blance Barrow did complain about how the movie portrayed her - imagine how that would've gone in the Internet era! All this bickering about facts vs. fiction aside, my main issue with "BR" remains it's not a good movie. As I've said, it could be 100% accurate and it'd still be a bad flick. Unlike "B&C", which is a classic!
I liked the movie in the theater. I suspect I'll like it even more on Blu-Ray, if they load it with all the proper goodies.
just saw this last night and accuracy aside, it was a really good film. especially IMO Mr. Malek. went in with low expectations due to a couple of reviews and came out nicely surprised.
There was definitely a time through the 70s where this existed. It mostly evaporated when the punk and new wave art scenes were happening although there was still traces in metal and hair music band shenanigans. .
$400 million is more than Solo: A Star Wars Story made in its entire run, and it cost a damn sight lot more to make that movie too.
Lots of people like it, but that doesn't make it a well-made movie. There are lots of poorly made movies that people love. And that's their prerogative. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I begrudge absolutely no one their enjoyment of "BR". I don't get it, but heck, there are plenty of crap movies I like, so there you go!
We went yesterday as a family of Queen fans and we all enjoyed and are looking for a chance to see it again. Fact or fiction, folks were clapping, singing, laughing, and rocking in the theater. Just a lot of fun. If you haven't seen it yet, go see it at the theater. The recreations of props, settings, and vibe of the film are great.
