For the vast majority of the movie-going public? Absolutely! You really should skip Rocketman when it comes out. I have it on good authority that neither Elton nor any of the audience members actually levitated at the show at the Troubadour.
That's your bar? That the "movie-going public" didn't know better? I find it perplexing that you shrug at massive lies in movies that purport to be at least reasonably factual. Why even bother to base a story on real events if they're gonna be fictional to such a substantial degree? Go ahead and trivialize a massive lie in "BR" if you want. Comparing the movie's fiction to a scene that's clearly intended to be fantasy indicates you know you have no real argument to support your thoughts...
Nope. I did comment about it to ask rhetorically: I'd be interested to find out if there's ever been a biographical film that showed exactly what happened in a person's life and didn't change a single event or piece of the timeline. I doubt it exists. I didn't directly address the film until I was answering you.
Wait, did Elton John marry Ed Sheeran? Puts a whole new spin now when I hear Ed sing 'The Shape of You'. Although, I typically do not listen to Ed Sheeran's Music. And how does Elton John with such a Heavy Past of Drug Usage end up looking better later in life currently now than Kate Bush(looks like Past Kate wrote 'Them Heavy People' for Future Kate)? I am a big fan of both of their Music overall(Everything by Kate), but for Elton mostly his early Albums up until Captain Fantastic or Rock of the Westies(not sure which Album came later as bought his Classic Years CDs in the late 1990s) and really like most everything he has done post 2000(since 'Songs From the West Coast' until 'The Diving Board'). Did not care for his Songs about Lion Kings and other Music for Disney Movies, and seems a Greatest Hits covers most of his late 1970s & 1980s well enough but for other people-YMMV.
Is this movie based off the recent Elton John Book('Captain Fantastic' by Tom Doyle) that came out 2 years ago, but think it covered only his 1970s Years? I bought it, but have not gotten around to reading it yet. Seems like there are several Books from the past though that have been written on EJ, but no idea if there is a Definitive Book to base a Movie off of any Book on his Life.
"Better than BR" is a pretty low bar to cross. And if Rocketman avoids being a scattershot box-ticking exercise full of ciphers delivering clichés and plot points as dialog, it probably can't help but be better.
A better description would be the “movie going public” don’t actually care. Despite being told by reviewers the film is riddled with inaccuracies, the audience have rejected this, and seem to like it as a spectacle. I was talking to a couple of colleagues at work about it, and they thought the film was brilliant, and had no interest in the factual inaccuracies; as a film they thought it worked. And to think I was appalled they had got it wrong, and portrayed Freddie Mercury with a moustache during the recording of We Will Rock You! It’s true though, the audience do not know any better, and even more worringly, they don’t actually care. Perhaps BR is the ideal film for the alternative facts age.
As I noted previously, I don't expect a biopic to be 100% accurate, and some of the chronological alterations are more annoying than truly problematic for me. But the whole "band reunited for Live Aid" thing is just so far away from reality that it boggles the mind. Also as I've noted previously, I just don't think it's a well-made movie no matter what factual alterations it makes. The notion this sloppy, scattershot movie might actually win the biggest Oscar out there threatens to force my face into a permanent expression!
I gotta admit I don't particularly care either, even though at least some of the inaccuracies/alterations had me rolling my eyes. Biopics are works of biographical fiction, not documentaries with a greater responsibility to the facts, and as long as they get the broad sweep and basic facts right - ie, the characters and events are reasonably accurate and they don't try and claim that Freddie was a Chinese spy who wrote "Don't Fear the Reaper" in 1948 (unless, of course, being fantastical is the clear intent) - the writers can go ahead and take some major liberties with things like timelines and secondary characters for dramatic purposes IMHO. Besides, as others have noted, these sorts of issues are the least of the movie's problems... ...and FFS, here I am contributing to the Forum trend of allowing Queen to take over every thread they're even glancingly brought up in. Sorry, Elton!
A few people here watched and enjoyed the Laurel & Hardy film “Stan and Ollie” and there was no outrage about it, even though if you look into it, the movie is no more accurate about the chronology of their lives in the period the movie depicts than “Bohemian Rhapsody” is. But because it wasn’t about rock stars whose fans are exactly this board’s demographic, but rather film stars of a vanished era that has become fuzzy for most people, nobody minded.
Not nitpicky at all. If you're going to tell someone's life story, especially to many people who don't know the details, be accurate. And worse than that was saying Freddie did Live Aid knowing he had AIDS. But hey, it made a "more compelling story." Why stop there? Maybe Freddie should have then saved a baby from a burning building, helped tear down the Berlin Wall, and then given Steve Jobs the idea for the iPhone. That is even more compelling. The Elton John movie looks like similar crap. But with worse singing (even with the obvious autotune assist.).
I think Freddie has a good feeling he was HIV positive by the time Live Aid happened. I’m sure he guessed he had what was refered to as the Gay Cancer at the time, since he was really into the unsafe promiscuous scene. The early symptoms in some cases came years before people actually got tested or got full blown Aids . Obviously many were afraid because people were dying as well as the social stigma. I knew the reality of Queens story and I still enjoyed the ride. I love that so many new folks were turned on to their music.
On an earlier thread, someone posted a picture a Freddie holding his arm up at Live Aid, and on the inside of his arm you can see the characteristic lesion of Kaposi's sarcoma. From what I recall he didn't confirm that he had AIDS until the day before he died. I had enough friends died of AIDS that I knew they knew (or at least suspected) long before they got the official diagnosis. I'm pretty sure the same was true for Freddie and his friends.
I don’t see why this is such a stumbling block for many biopics, especially the Queen/Freddie Mercury story. If the story is compelling enough, why distort the facts? It simply comes across as poorly researched, clumsy film making.
Because real life doesn't always happen in the order that makes a compelling story. I can't tell you the number of books I've read that were later turned into movies where characters were composited together, and events were rearranged. And I'm perfectly fine with that because the book is still available. Anybody who's interested in how things actually happened in the life of Freddie Mercury has the internet available to them and can research it to any depth they wish.
I guess the question becomes, is it compelling enough? If they tell the story as it happened, Live Aid is basically just another performance for Queen that year. The event is big, but it doesn’t have any special significance in their lives other than being a good spotlight for them. So then there’s no reason to show the whole thing, really. If Freddie never falls out with his band mates, then what is the dramatic engine of the last part of the movie? They’re just making more albums and playing more shows. It’s clear they felt they had to manufacture drama because for all its colour and noise Queen’s story was not all that dramatic. Basically, they formed, had a successful career for twenty years with the same four band members, and then Freddie died. There were some minor ups and downs of the sort all rock bands go through — albums that didn’t do so well, musical disagreements or disputes with the record company —but essentially, their career was pretty smooth sailing. The nuts and bolts of what goes on in a band aren’t enough meat for a feature film that will appeal to people who aren’t music nerds. If I were hired as the writer I would say, maybe there isn’t really a movie here, instead of making stuff up, but they were determined to do it and it paid off, so... what do I know.
Obviously they wanted to make the movie to keep Queen alive in the minds of the public. And it's done a wonderful job of that. I'm getting back to the point of this thread, Elton John has gotten to that point in his career where he's concerned about his legacy and is taking advantage of Hollywood's desire to tell his story. From everything I've heard he's quite happy with how the film has turned out.
I think the more compelling true version of the story would've been to focus on Freddie's youth and the band's early rise. Show how Freddie became into music and aspects of his family along with the band's formation and success. Finish with the song "Bohemian Rhapsody" - happy ending, follows events in a more accurate way. I tend to prefer biopics that focus on a fairly short period of the characters' lives instead of ones that cast too wide a net. Like many biopics, "BR" feels like a "greatest hits" reel, and that robs it of depth...
Yes but this way makes for a much better soundtrack album, which is the payday for the remaining band members.
