I wouldn't worry about getting the rights to Queen music. They can always get Valensia to write some more ripoffs, that'll work.
I hope this film gets made. It'll boost the membership of Queenzone so much that I can make it my full time job to say 'no, Freddie didn't get KS until 87' or 'John Deacon is still alive'.
Actually, there's a good question. Will Paul Rodgers be in the film?
I fucking hope so.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I think they have a point there. If there are no sex scenes in the movie, no point in doing it.
I'm not trying to be clever, by the way, which I'd never get to be, nor facetious or witty.
It's still premature to do a movie about Freddie. It's going to be unintersting whoever is in charge - it'll be inevitably about coke and so on, which is great, but we had already tons of films about celebrities or talented artists who were destroyed by drugs and alcohol and sex. Why another one, especially after the releasing of the movie about Edith Piaf, which was kind of a killer, gained an oscar and said pretty much the last word about the whole stuff?
The movie about Ray Charles, pretty good, great actor.
About Freddie? No.
I think after studying and playing music since I was a kid, I want to believe I know a little bit about it. I do it for a living. Spent the last days performing, the whole days.
I have talked about music with people specialized in Jazz, Opera, and so on. I had discussions. I learned quite a good deal.
What does it prove? That I'm great? No, there are many people like me and better than me at that, for sure, many, thousands, musicians and non-musicians alike, and that's why I worry.
People still don't understand how talented Freddie was. It's absolutely premature to do a movie about him. His singing style and his compositions are barely understood.
He was one of the very finest popular singers of the last century, ranking above in terms of technique and sophistication, much above, than Ella Fitzgerald, for instance. I had this discussion millions of times, and Freddie comes out as a better singer - I'm talking about qualities that we usually expect singers to have - than most who performed in any field except Opera which is a world of its own - and not really "popular music".
So, unless people begin to understand what the guy was about, sorry, any movie will be pointless - because great movies about artists being destroyed by drugs, sex and so on we hae aplenty. The lay audience, so to say, will find it boring: "Another movie about a star who went the wrong way...". I bet it.
What makes Freddie different is being gay? Well, perhaps.
Though, among others, Cole Porter was gay, and there's a great movie about him. We have had movies about gay relationships which are certainly much better than a movie about Freddie could possibly be. So people will react like: "Another movie about gays...and this is a boring one". It'll be boring because the music is not there and it's the music which makes the difference.
So, unless the gay stuff is given a real good attention, there's no point in releasing the movie.
We need to wait some 10 or 20 years to realize that the guy deserve to be ranked among the very greatest popular singers.
So, I expect a lot of...gay. Gay sex scenes, reflections about aids, and that's it. Because it actually can't be otherwise at the present state.
Strong scenes, very sad atmosphere, a lot of reflections about the trials of being and having been gay at that time, what AIDS is really about, how promiscuous Freddie was, and so on. Then, nice, if that's the point they want to make, I find it legitimate. I just don't know whether the audience will have the patience to go through it, but that's with the producers.
I'm not trying to be clever, by the way, which I'd never get to be, nor facetious or witty.
It's still premature to do a movie about Freddie. It's going to be unintersting whoever is in charge - it'll be inevitably about coke and so on, which is great, but we had already tons of films about celebrities or talented artists who were destroyed by drugs and alcohol and sex. Why another one, especially after the releasing of the movie about Edith Piaf, which was kind of a killer, gained an oscar and said pretty much the last word about the whole stuff?
The movie about Ray Charles, pretty good, great actor.
About Freddie? No.
I think after studying and playing music since I was a kid, I want to believe I know a little bit about it. I do it for a living. Spent the last days performing, the whole days.
I have talked about music with people specialized in Jazz, Opera, and so on. I had discussions. I learned quite a good deal.
What does it prove? That I'm great? No, there are many people like me and better than me at that, for sure, many, thousands, musicians and non-musicians alike, and that's why I worry.
People still don't understand how talented Freddie was. It's absolutely premature to do a movie about him. His singing style and his compositions are barely understood.
He was one of the very finest popular singers of the last century, ranking above in terms of technique and sophistication, much above, than Ella Fitzgerald, for instance. I had this discussion millions of times, and Freddie comes out as a better singer - I'm talking about qualities that we usually expect singers to have - than most who performed in any field except Opera which is a world of its own - and not really "popular music".
So, unless people begin to understand what the guy was about, sorry, any movie will be pointless - because great movies about artists being destroyed by drugs, sex and so on we hae aplenty. The lay audience, so to say, will find it boring: "Another movie about a star who went the wrong way...". I bet it.
What makes Freddie different is being gay? Well, perhaps.
Though, among others, Cole Porter was gay, and there's a great movie about him. We have had movies about gay relationships which are certainly much better than a movie about Freddie could possibly be. So people will react like: "Another movie about gays...and this is a boring one". It'll be boring because the music is not there and it's the music which makes the difference.
So, unless the gay stuff is given a real good attention, there's no point in releasing the movie.
We need to wait some 10 or 20 years to realize that the guy deserve to be ranked among the very greatest popular singers.
So, I expect a lot of...gay. Gay sex scenes, reflections about aids, and that's it. Because it actually can't be otherwise at the present state.
Strong scenes, very sad atmosphere, a lot of reflections about the trials of being and having been gay at that time, what AIDS is really about, how promiscuous Freddie was, and so on. Then, nice, if that's the point they want to make, I find it legitimate. I just don't know whether the audience will have the patience to go through it, but that's with the producers.
Um, I'll just skip over Yara's post here, and talk about the OP.
The changing Smile to Queen bit with John? Yes, it's an "inaccuracy," but I do hope that people are smart enough to know it happens all the time in biographies, biopics, etc. It's called a composite, a combinations of events to move the story along. Do you think any movie would work that chronicles the succession of Tim Staffell, Mike Grose, Doug Bogie and Barry Mitchell, then John Deacon, then the name change? No.
It's probably a first draft you're reading? What does it say on the title page?
Give Michael Cunningham a chance, will ya? Oscar. Pulitzer. Geez.
The changing Smile to Queen bit with John? Yes, it's an "inaccuracy," but I do hope that people are smart enough to know it happens all the time in biographies, biopics, etc. It's called a composite, a combinations of events to move the story along. Do you think any movie would work that chronicles the succession of Tim Staffell, Mike Grose, Doug Bogie and Barry Mitchell, then John Deacon, then the name change? No.
It's probably a first draft you're reading? What does it say on the title page?
Give Michael Cunningham a chance, will ya? Oscar. Pulitzer. Geez.
Also: No roadies? Are we really sorry that there are *no roadies* in the screenplay?
Also: Freddie did coke. Lots of it. It's interesting.
Also: Recording studio scenes are usually do not, like, make for great cinema. It's dark. People are arguing. There are exceptions. I could see maybe the BoRap sessions making it into the movie, but maybe that's because I have a visual memory of watching Brian and Roger in the BBC documentary.
Also: Freddie did coke. Lots of it. It's interesting.
Also: Recording studio scenes are usually do not, like, make for great cinema. It's dark. People are arguing. There are exceptions. I could see maybe the BoRap sessions making it into the movie, but maybe that's because I have a visual memory of watching Brian and Roger in the BBC documentary.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Also: No roadies? Are we really sorry that there are *no roadies* in the screenplay?
Also: Freddie did coke. Lots of it. It's interesting.
Also: Recording studio scenes are usually do not, like, make for great cinema. It's dark. People are arguing. There are exceptions. I could see maybe the BoRap sessions making it into the movie, but maybe that's because I have a visual memory of watching Brian and Roger in the BBC documentary. [/QUOTE]
Hi, Daniel!
Do you think the "coke", or, let's put it in a broader sense, the "artist devastated by drugs" theme is still interesting after so many good movie about it?
Charlie Parker, Ray Charles, Cole Porter, Edith Piaf (a killer, this last one, great movie), Jim Morrisson, just to mention a few who made it into the screen.
Well, Amadaeus highlights a pretty derrailed Mozart, by the way! Great movie. Not much accurate, as you correctly pointed out, but a good movie all the same.
I think the studio scenes in the movie about Ray Charles were stunning. And the actor was incredibly good. So, maybe there's a pontential there to be developed - a new kind of theme the movies could explore.
Because the "drug theme", so to speak, has been over, and well, explored - either in the artistic realm or outside of it (I think about Requiem for a Dream, pretty recent movie, or many other about drug dealing, like American Gangster, just released, great, great movies, great actors).
So, my worry: if that's going to be the gist! (Hahaha. Hey, MasterHistoryGirl!) of the movie, will the audience find it interesting? Well, maybe, I'm skeptical. I think it's a theme that has already been addresses many times in movies.
Music, don't: especially music making. There's a potential there, a surface that the movie industry didn't even begin to tap. So, maybe it's worth trying!
Giving the music a chance!
What can be really interesting, and that's what I'd expect then, is the gay theme. That, yes, I think it's an interesting theme to be addressed: a promiscuous, drug-addicted gay artist who destroyed his life and harmed a lot of people who loved him in the process. There could be reflections, as you were arguing earlier, about whether he should have come out as gay or not.
That I find interesting.
But, really, I doubt, I very much doubt that it will be given a good approach. If the actor is going to be Johnny Depp, that helps, it's a great actor.
Sex scenes would be nice - nothing very explicit, but, you know, conveying the point that there's such thing as a gay sexuality.
Then, yes, interesting.
But it depends on what it'll be done, for sure.
Also: Freddie did coke. Lots of it. It's interesting.
Also: Recording studio scenes are usually do not, like, make for great cinema. It's dark. People are arguing. There are exceptions. I could see maybe the BoRap sessions making it into the movie, but maybe that's because I have a visual memory of watching Brian and Roger in the BBC documentary. [/QUOTE]
Hi, Daniel!
Do you think the "coke", or, let's put it in a broader sense, the "artist devastated by drugs" theme is still interesting after so many good movie about it?
Charlie Parker, Ray Charles, Cole Porter, Edith Piaf (a killer, this last one, great movie), Jim Morrisson, just to mention a few who made it into the screen.
Well, Amadaeus highlights a pretty derrailed Mozart, by the way! Great movie. Not much accurate, as you correctly pointed out, but a good movie all the same.
I think the studio scenes in the movie about Ray Charles were stunning. And the actor was incredibly good. So, maybe there's a pontential there to be developed - a new kind of theme the movies could explore.
Because the "drug theme", so to speak, has been over, and well, explored - either in the artistic realm or outside of it (I think about Requiem for a Dream, pretty recent movie, or many other about drug dealing, like American Gangster, just released, great, great movies, great actors).
So, my worry: if that's going to be the gist! (Hahaha. Hey, MasterHistoryGirl!) of the movie, will the audience find it interesting? Well, maybe, I'm skeptical. I think it's a theme that has already been addresses many times in movies.
Music, don't: especially music making. There's a potential there, a surface that the movie industry didn't even begin to tap. So, maybe it's worth trying!
Giving the music a chance!
What can be really interesting, and that's what I'd expect then, is the gay theme. That, yes, I think it's an interesting theme to be addressed: a promiscuous, drug-addicted gay artist who destroyed his life and harmed a lot of people who loved him in the process. There could be reflections, as you were arguing earlier, about whether he should have come out as gay or not.
That I find interesting.
But, really, I doubt, I very much doubt that it will be given a good approach. If the actor is going to be Johnny Depp, that helps, it's a great actor.
Sex scenes would be nice - nothing very explicit, but, you know, conveying the point that there's such thing as a gay sexuality.
Then, yes, interesting.
But it depends on what it'll be done, for sure.
I do think those studio scenes in the Ray movie were great. I would say they are an exception to the rule, however. I am listening to isolated Queen tracks that have been popping up on the internets, and I think maybe a studio scene could work.
Sex scenes, sure -- I do think the movie would work to explore Freddie that way. And sex is interesting, no matter what happens to whom and where.
I agree the drugged-out rock star has been done. But Freddie's brand of drugginess is uniquely Freddie. He never checked into rehab--that we know about!--he never ruined his life, the band didn't go kaput because of it. It's true decadence. So maybe if he explores that angle, it could work. I certainly don't want to see a montage of nose-snorting. Seen it a million times.
I would like to see the others as more well-rounded characters. But as a writer myself, and one who's writing about colorful characters in my own life, you need to recognize who are the colorful characters in a story. In mine, in this particular thing I'm writing about--a family memoir--I totally recognize I am not "the star." It's other people. With Queen, even though I find everyone immensely interesting and great human beings, it's the story that's being served. And so Freddie, I think we can all agree, it by far the most colorful character in the Queen universe, and will be the main focus. I personally would not like to see, say, Jim Beach as a character. His job is to be in the background, and I think even he would admit to that. And John Deacon sort of personifies that archetype of background person in a band. Is he a genius? Sure. A great musician? Sure. But he, like, me, drives a Volvo. Not so sexy.
One thing UnderPressure brought up that makes me cringe: Velvet Goldmine. Hated hated hated that movie. If it's like that, all arty and interior and fake, then I'm with you, UP! But let's give this one a chance.
By that way: Can I get a copy?
Sex scenes, sure -- I do think the movie would work to explore Freddie that way. And sex is interesting, no matter what happens to whom and where.
I agree the drugged-out rock star has been done. But Freddie's brand of drugginess is uniquely Freddie. He never checked into rehab--that we know about!--he never ruined his life, the band didn't go kaput because of it. It's true decadence. So maybe if he explores that angle, it could work. I certainly don't want to see a montage of nose-snorting. Seen it a million times.
I would like to see the others as more well-rounded characters. But as a writer myself, and one who's writing about colorful characters in my own life, you need to recognize who are the colorful characters in a story. In mine, in this particular thing I'm writing about--a family memoir--I totally recognize I am not "the star." It's other people. With Queen, even though I find everyone immensely interesting and great human beings, it's the story that's being served. And so Freddie, I think we can all agree, it by far the most colorful character in the Queen universe, and will be the main focus. I personally would not like to see, say, Jim Beach as a character. His job is to be in the background, and I think even he would admit to that. And John Deacon sort of personifies that archetype of background person in a band. Is he a genius? Sure. A great musician? Sure. But he, like, me, drives a Volvo. Not so sexy.
One thing UnderPressure brought up that makes me cringe: Velvet Goldmine. Hated hated hated that movie. If it's like that, all arty and interior and fake, then I'm with you, UP! But let's give this one a chance.
By that way: Can I get a copy?
The only way to make a suitable, not to mention justifiable, film is to choose a dedicated film director who will study Freddie Mercury in as many different aspects as possible. For instance, he or she must look at several interviews (especially David Wigg's), watch documentaries, interview his closest of friends, and even go as far as to listen to his music with as much attention and consideration as possible. It is the only way I can thing of. Until such a film director is found this is a helpless cause.
As for the music in the film, I would love to hear mostly orchestral versions of Queen songs. We all know they sound great that way and would make for a magnificent soundtrack, if there were one.
As for the music in the film, I would love to hear mostly orchestral versions of Queen songs. We all know they sound great that way and would make for a magnificent soundtrack, if there were one.
Great points, Steven, about research. Even the most skeletal film script can be transformed by a performance--I Walk The Line comes to mind.
Johnny Depp is notorious for doing research as well as method acting his way into role. I wish someone like Tim Burton, Depp's frequent collaborator, would direct it, actually...
Johnny Depp is notorious for doing research as well as method acting his way into role. I wish someone like Tim Burton, Depp's frequent collaborator, would direct it, actually...
Whoa, lots of replies.
First of all: What sets Freddie apart from some of these others, like Edith, isn't just that he's gay. Focusing on the fact that he's gay totally undermines the fact that he's one of the greatest songwriters of the past century. And that's the problem with the screenplay -- it's literally one gay sex scene after another, until he gets AIDS.
As to Dan, it may be a first draft, but structurally it's nothing. There are no major plot points in the film, everything Queen achieved historically is forgotten in favor of more drugs and sex. I'd say drugs and sex make up about 70% of this script.
And while it's true that Freddie was, to some degree, unsafe and that's how he got AIDS, it's unfair to say that "this is what happens when you're a gay sex fiend" which I think is the message I've seen.
And in terms of roadies, again, I'm not looking for everyone and his mother to be in this script, far from it -- but what I am looking for is some human interaction between Freddie and other people who he's not fucking. He was a sensitive guy, a caring guy, a generous guy -- none of that is shown.
As well, there are NO other characters "developed" other than Freddie, and he's not at all, considering we only see him as a diva brat -- all he does is do drugs, sex, shopping for clothes. On occasion we flash to him rehearsing for Live Aid, but the dialogue is like:
(rehearsing Ga Ga)
He stops again
ROGER
What's wrong this time?
FREDDIE
No soul. Girls playing jacks sing like this.
ROGER
How about we go on to "Hammer?"
FREDDIE
No. "Ga-Ga" still sounds like crap.
Clearly Roger, Brian, and John are becoming exhausted.
BRIAN
This isn't like you, Freddie.
JOHN
It's just--
Freddie finishes the phrase along with him. Clearly this has been said before.
JOHN AND FREDDIE (IN UNISON)
--a benefit.
ROGER
There's more than a dozen other bands.
-----and it goes on and on-----
But it's SO BLAND, no personality to anyone. These are people who have known each other since they were vulnerable kids. They're rehearsing for something HUGE, that they ALL cared about. They're rehearsing with their FRIENDS from other bands ... I mean the author clearly has no interest or knowledge of the rock scene whatsoever.
Also, for comparison, let me reiterate that this script is almost exactly like Velvet Goldmine, sans Kane-ian framing device. There are glitter kids chasing Freddie down the street, writing on his walls, and camping out in front of Garden Lodge even in 1985, wearing boas.
First of all: What sets Freddie apart from some of these others, like Edith, isn't just that he's gay. Focusing on the fact that he's gay totally undermines the fact that he's one of the greatest songwriters of the past century. And that's the problem with the screenplay -- it's literally one gay sex scene after another, until he gets AIDS.
As to Dan, it may be a first draft, but structurally it's nothing. There are no major plot points in the film, everything Queen achieved historically is forgotten in favor of more drugs and sex. I'd say drugs and sex make up about 70% of this script.
And while it's true that Freddie was, to some degree, unsafe and that's how he got AIDS, it's unfair to say that "this is what happens when you're a gay sex fiend" which I think is the message I've seen.
And in terms of roadies, again, I'm not looking for everyone and his mother to be in this script, far from it -- but what I am looking for is some human interaction between Freddie and other people who he's not fucking. He was a sensitive guy, a caring guy, a generous guy -- none of that is shown.
As well, there are NO other characters "developed" other than Freddie, and he's not at all, considering we only see him as a diva brat -- all he does is do drugs, sex, shopping for clothes. On occasion we flash to him rehearsing for Live Aid, but the dialogue is like:
(rehearsing Ga Ga)
He stops again
ROGER
What's wrong this time?
FREDDIE
No soul. Girls playing jacks sing like this.
ROGER
How about we go on to "Hammer?"
FREDDIE
No. "Ga-Ga" still sounds like crap.
Clearly Roger, Brian, and John are becoming exhausted.
BRIAN
This isn't like you, Freddie.
JOHN
It's just--
Freddie finishes the phrase along with him. Clearly this has been said before.
JOHN AND FREDDIE (IN UNISON)
--a benefit.
ROGER
There's more than a dozen other bands.
-----and it goes on and on-----
But it's SO BLAND, no personality to anyone. These are people who have known each other since they were vulnerable kids. They're rehearsing for something HUGE, that they ALL cared about. They're rehearsing with their FRIENDS from other bands ... I mean the author clearly has no interest or knowledge of the rock scene whatsoever.
Also, for comparison, let me reiterate that this script is almost exactly like Velvet Goldmine, sans Kane-ian framing device. There are glitter kids chasing Freddie down the street, writing on his walls, and camping out in front of Garden Lodge even in 1985, wearing boas.
Why would focusing on his gayness undermine his status as a great songwriter?
Is gayness some sort of force field or krytonite that repels people from focusing on songwriting talents?
Is gayness some sort of force field or krytonite that repels people from focusing on songwriting talents?
Some examples of gay musicians, many of them songwriters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_musicians
Some of my favorites are on that list. I might or might not know they're gay, but it's not distracting. Or undermining.
What we're talking about is homophobia, by the way. Which is a shame because we're, like, Queen fans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_musicians
Some of my favorites are on that list. I might or might not know they're gay, but it's not distracting. Or undermining.
What we're talking about is homophobia, by the way. Which is a shame because we're, like, Queen fans.
Well first of all, I mean that the gay aspect of the story FAR outweighs the musical aspects -- to the point that changing his profession would have little bearing on the script.
The reason that it undermines his music to focus on the fact that he was gay is that nobody wants to be "known" for being gay, a woman, black, white, or anything like that that's part of them and they can't change.
Hillary Clinton doesn't want to be known as "that chick who ran for President" ... she wants to be known as a great politician. Obama likewise doesn't want to be "that black guy," but a strong leader. Freddie surely wouldn't want to be known as "that gay singer." That makes it seem as if his career, his fame had nothing to do with talent, and everything to do with his promiscuity, which is not true. Just like people could say Obama only got the nomination because he's black, which isn't true -- it's because he's a talented speech writer and he ran a good campaign. Saying "oh, he just got it because he's black" UNDERMINES his talents.
They want to be known for what they accomplish during their life, what they strove for. Sure, relationships are important to anyone's life, but for someone who's such an incredible creator, with drive and passion and talent like no other, it would be a WASTE to focus merely on sex. Would you make a film about any of the Beatles and focus on the girls they were banging? No. Picasso? No. Bunuel? No. Any great artist? No -- because from an audience perspective, that's of little interest.
Amadeus I would say has a fantastic balance. His relationship was crystal clear, but we were still able to get inside his head, and Salieri's head. There were a lot of players too in that film, and all of them felt well rounded and even if we didn't see a lot of them, we understood their characters right away.
The reason that it undermines his music to focus on the fact that he was gay is that nobody wants to be "known" for being gay, a woman, black, white, or anything like that that's part of them and they can't change.
Hillary Clinton doesn't want to be known as "that chick who ran for President" ... she wants to be known as a great politician. Obama likewise doesn't want to be "that black guy," but a strong leader. Freddie surely wouldn't want to be known as "that gay singer." That makes it seem as if his career, his fame had nothing to do with talent, and everything to do with his promiscuity, which is not true. Just like people could say Obama only got the nomination because he's black, which isn't true -- it's because he's a talented speech writer and he ran a good campaign. Saying "oh, he just got it because he's black" UNDERMINES his talents.
They want to be known for what they accomplish during their life, what they strove for. Sure, relationships are important to anyone's life, but for someone who's such an incredible creator, with drive and passion and talent like no other, it would be a WASTE to focus merely on sex. Would you make a film about any of the Beatles and focus on the girls they were banging? No. Picasso? No. Bunuel? No. Any great artist? No -- because from an audience perspective, that's of little interest.
Amadeus I would say has a fantastic balance. His relationship was crystal clear, but we were still able to get inside his head, and Salieri's head. There were a lot of players too in that film, and all of them felt well rounded and even if we didn't see a lot of them, we understood their characters right away.
That scene doesn't read as fantastic. And that idea that Cunningham isn't interested in the rock scene is problematic. I'm with you there.
But gay is going to be a theme. Gay gay gay. Guys with penises kissing other guys with other penises. Guys with penises performing acts on other guys' penises. That's what gay is. And whether we like it or not, gay is hip these days. Or something. Brokeback Mountain, etc.
UP, all you gotta do is say it's like Velvet Goldmine, and I'm outta here. It's funny: A lot of times, people employ gay writers (like Paul Rudnick in the lesbian bar scene in the First Wives Club) to "punch up" the dialogue and realism in gay-themed scenes. Maybe Cunningham et al will have to hire a straight male rocker to "punch up" the rock scenes in Somebody to Love. We could all offer our services...
But gay is going to be a theme. Gay gay gay. Guys with penises kissing other guys with other penises. Guys with penises performing acts on other guys' penises. That's what gay is. And whether we like it or not, gay is hip these days. Or something. Brokeback Mountain, etc.
UP, all you gotta do is say it's like Velvet Goldmine, and I'm outta here. It's funny: A lot of times, people employ gay writers (like Paul Rudnick in the lesbian bar scene in the First Wives Club) to "punch up" the dialogue and realism in gay-themed scenes. Maybe Cunningham et al will have to hire a straight male rocker to "punch up" the rock scenes in Somebody to Love. We could all offer our services...
Actually, one of the best movies about the Beatles (IMHO), Backbeat, focuses on John Lennon's purported bisexual relationship with Stu Sutcliffe in the early days in Germany.
Want to be known is a bit iffy to me. Are you saying this movie could spread the awful, distracting and undermining news that Freddie Mercury was gay? Sure people will focus on that if a movie about his life comes to happen, but there is no way that it would overshadow the music, the songs, the band. At least not for me. Will football fans stop singing along to WWRY/WATC after the movie comes out? I don't think so.
The bottom line is that people have gotten past these distinctions, and the people who haven't will stay at home anyway.
The bottom line is that people have gotten past these distinctions, and the people who haven't will stay at home anyway.