Zebonka, go ahead and justify your AIDS jokes and puns. Do it all you want. My feathers will remain ruffled, as you say.
(That's a classy way to put it, too, the feather-ruffling bit; not at all homophobic or meant to say I am in any way effeminate in my sensitivity.)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Fair, Daniel. I see your point, and it's valid, no doubt.
And, yes, I do find AIDS jokes disgusting and idiotic.
Take care.
And, yes, I do find AIDS jokes disgusting and idiotic.
Take care.
I need to get this straight:
Zebonka, you persisted on making AIDS jokes on at least one forum on a Queen fansite because you wanted to see how ruffled *my* feathers could get? Little ole me? That's the reason why?
I suppose I should be charmed; but couldn't you find anything better to do?
Also: When you makes AIDS jokes on a site dedicated to a band whose lead singer died of AIDS, you think it is immature to be offended?
Does the subtext of this AIDS joke project of yours go like this: That it's a rough world out there, mate, and there's going to be AIDS jokes everywhere you go, and you might as well get used to it here on Queenzone? That people should not express their offense when you make AIDS jokes, else be called as immature as the joke-teller? You don't think any of this makes you look at least a wee-little bit offensive?
I didn't know that the website rules around here stated you should just let idiots make AIDS jokes at their every whim. I might be 'promoting a cause,' after all.
Zebonka, you persisted on making AIDS jokes on at least one forum on a Queen fansite because you wanted to see how ruffled *my* feathers could get? Little ole me? That's the reason why?
I suppose I should be charmed; but couldn't you find anything better to do?
Also: When you makes AIDS jokes on a site dedicated to a band whose lead singer died of AIDS, you think it is immature to be offended?
Does the subtext of this AIDS joke project of yours go like this: That it's a rough world out there, mate, and there's going to be AIDS jokes everywhere you go, and you might as well get used to it here on Queenzone? That people should not express their offense when you make AIDS jokes, else be called as immature as the joke-teller? You don't think any of this makes you look at least a wee-little bit offensive?
I didn't know that the website rules around here stated you should just let idiots make AIDS jokes at their every whim. I might be 'promoting a cause,' after all.
Yeah Yara, I do think both sides of looking at art are provocative and useful. I try--all I can do is try--to present these ideas to my students. I try to see both sides. I just get a little bit of a BS detector goes off when either one is portrayed as 'promoting a cause,' as you say. For some odd reason, that's a buzzword/phrase with me. Because the only way we're going to understand the world, in my humble opinion, is to take everything into account.
One of my favorite quotes about this kind of intellectual debate is from F. Scott Fitzgerald: "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
All I can do is try!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crack-Up
One of my favorite quotes about this kind of intellectual debate is from F. Scott Fitzgerald: "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
All I can do is try!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crack-Up
Stop, please! The illogic is making me want to speak Yiddish.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]We've moved from poopy humor to necrophilia on the Zebonka front. Stay classy.
[/QUOTE]
Oy vey....
You seem to have an incredibly tenuous grasp of what 'context' is. If I were to simply take every swear-word you've posted in this thread and put it in a quote box, what impression might that give?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
--Well, Zebonka, if you are half the fan you probably are, you probably know everything there is to know. So what would you do with the movie?
[/QUOTE]
Well... I'll assume this isn't rhetorical and that you're after an opinion here.
I wouldn't do *anything* with the movie. I don't think it needs to be made. Or, I have very little faith in a good film being made from his life story. At this point in time, anyway.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
We're talking about *how* a movie about Freddie would be made, and what in the story would be told. I'd guess all of us in this thread know down the finest minutia about his life. What we're debating here is what would be excluded and included.
So if you want to learn something new about Freddie from the movie, I suggest you hit the FAQ boards and buy a few books, maybe a Wiki page or three.
That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is what is going to be included or excluded. And Mr. Z, you seem to want something a little less sex, a little more music.
[/QUOTE]
I'd like more thought to be put into what goes in. I read the original posters excerpts and summaries, and I reckon it sounds like garbage.
You're not really paying much attention to what I say, and that's cool, but I'll say all this anyway. You didn't quite understand what I was trying to say in my other post. When I say 'stuff we already know', I mean that within the context of a movie itself.
Imagine someone who doesn't even know who Freddie is, watching this movie. They need to know he's gay, so it's explained in the movie. They need to know that's a big part of his personality... so more of it is in the movie. Fair enough.
As I recall, the original poster claimed this movie could wind up mostly sex scenes or whatever. Redundant. Bad filmmaking. This movie isn't going to break any ground, if that's how they're going to do it.
How much sex was in "Philadelphia"?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Do you think that the world needs to hear the songs more again? Another version of We Are The Champions with Johnny Depp on lead vocals? Maybe. But I think if we want a story about Freddie to be told, we need to hear about his life.
[/QUOTE]
The issue with how much sex should go in the movie is only a tiny bit of what is wrong with this turkey.
"We need to hear about his life". That's nice, but from the snippets on the first couple of pages, it doesn't even *sound* like his life. Sounds like Armageddon without the asteroid.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And guess what? It's gonna be a whole lotta gay love, son. A whole lotta gay love. And it ain't gonna be like the drawn curtain Rocky Horror variety, either. We're talkin' piston shots. Gay love scenes.[/QUOTE]
I get a vague impression you'd like that concept to bother me.
Hehe.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]We've moved from poopy humor to necrophilia on the Zebonka front. Stay classy.
[/QUOTE]
Oy vey....
You seem to have an incredibly tenuous grasp of what 'context' is. If I were to simply take every swear-word you've posted in this thread and put it in a quote box, what impression might that give?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
--Well, Zebonka, if you are half the fan you probably are, you probably know everything there is to know. So what would you do with the movie?
[/QUOTE]
Well... I'll assume this isn't rhetorical and that you're after an opinion here.
I wouldn't do *anything* with the movie. I don't think it needs to be made. Or, I have very little faith in a good film being made from his life story. At this point in time, anyway.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
We're talking about *how* a movie about Freddie would be made, and what in the story would be told. I'd guess all of us in this thread know down the finest minutia about his life. What we're debating here is what would be excluded and included.
So if you want to learn something new about Freddie from the movie, I suggest you hit the FAQ boards and buy a few books, maybe a Wiki page or three.
That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is what is going to be included or excluded. And Mr. Z, you seem to want something a little less sex, a little more music.
[/QUOTE]
I'd like more thought to be put into what goes in. I read the original posters excerpts and summaries, and I reckon it sounds like garbage.
You're not really paying much attention to what I say, and that's cool, but I'll say all this anyway. You didn't quite understand what I was trying to say in my other post. When I say 'stuff we already know', I mean that within the context of a movie itself.
Imagine someone who doesn't even know who Freddie is, watching this movie. They need to know he's gay, so it's explained in the movie. They need to know that's a big part of his personality... so more of it is in the movie. Fair enough.
As I recall, the original poster claimed this movie could wind up mostly sex scenes or whatever. Redundant. Bad filmmaking. This movie isn't going to break any ground, if that's how they're going to do it.
How much sex was in "Philadelphia"?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Do you think that the world needs to hear the songs more again? Another version of We Are The Champions with Johnny Depp on lead vocals? Maybe. But I think if we want a story about Freddie to be told, we need to hear about his life.
[/QUOTE]
The issue with how much sex should go in the movie is only a tiny bit of what is wrong with this turkey.
"We need to hear about his life". That's nice, but from the snippets on the first couple of pages, it doesn't even *sound* like his life. Sounds like Armageddon without the asteroid.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And guess what? It's gonna be a whole lotta gay love, son. A whole lotta gay love. And it ain't gonna be like the drawn curtain Rocky Horror variety, either. We're talkin' piston shots. Gay love scenes.[/QUOTE]
I get a vague impression you'd like that concept to bother me.
Hehe.
blah, blah, blah gay....blah blah...moustache, blah blah blah.....toilet, Rocky Horror, sex...blah blah..AIDS....Fresh Prince?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Zebonka, go ahead and justify your AIDS jokes and puns. Do it all you want. My feathers will remain ruffled, as you say.
(That's a classy way to put it, too, the feather-ruffling bit; not at all homophobic or meant to say I am in any way effeminate in my sensitivity.)
[/QUOTE]
:/
For your information, birds have had feathers for millions of years. In fact, many dinosaurs had feathers too.
It is incredibly basic of you to go for that interpretation.
I say that in the full knowledge that I was going "AIDS IN HEAVEN" and all that, which is again - very basic.
However; why then do you complain, or even bring it up, if you've no qualms with stooping to that level? :) I don't like throwing the word 'hypocrite' around but really...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Zebonka, you persisted on making AIDS jokes on at least one forum on a Queen fansite because you wanted to see how ruffled *my* feathers could get? Little ole me? That's the reason why?
[/QUOTE]
Nope.. just happened to be you this time. I think you're carrying the assumption that I 'persisted' with some level of conviction. Or perhaps that I was sitting here with a rhyming dictionary and a flow-chart of just how many ways I could piss you guys off with the AIDS word?
Nope... I'm just fascinated with people like you.
I put next to no thought into those posts, and it shows. It's simply interesting to watch another human being make something else out of them; in this case, acting like I set fire to Rwanda or something.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I suppose I should be charmed; but couldn't you find anything better to do?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I can, and I did, and I do. Again; couldn't take more than ten seconds to make a post like that. And again, you're putting more thought into them than I did at the time.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Also: When you makes AIDS jokes on a site dedicated to a band whose lead singer died of AIDS, you think it is immature to be offended?
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's immature, but it exposes a flaw in human nature. The ones that protest the most at an immature joke are the ones who are (by their own logic) the ones that are supposed to be above responding, or even paying attention to, the joke.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Does the subtext of this AIDS joke project of yours go like this: That it's a rough world out there, mate, and there's going to be AIDS jokes everywhere you go, and you might as well get used to it here on Queenzone? That people should not express their offense when you make AIDS jokes, else be called as immature as the joke-teller?
.[/QUOTE]
Hehe, more assumptions... (I'm assuming that you're still reading.)
I wouldn't presume to try and 'toughen' you up against the big bad world of AIDS humour. If one even exists.
As for people expressing their offense.... pffft. Go for it! At what point, exactly, did I say you shouldn't complain?
I still reserve the right to say something in response, whether it's something thoughtful or not.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I didn't know that the website rules around here stated you should just let idiots make AIDS jokes at their every whim. I might be 'promoting a cause,' after all.[/QUOTE]
(sigh) I don't see any idiots in this thread. I think you're misinformed, but I don't hold that against you because it's actually my fault for representing myself with AIDS jokes. I don't think that makes you an idiot....
And as for me? (chuckle). I'm no idiot. I have valid points about this silly Freddie script, and you choose to read past them because I wrote something perplexing in another thread. Your prerogative!
I'm still a little surprised at your reading of my 'feathers' comment.
In all seriousness - has that phrase ever been used with a gay connotation?
(That's a classy way to put it, too, the feather-ruffling bit; not at all homophobic or meant to say I am in any way effeminate in my sensitivity.)
[/QUOTE]
:/
For your information, birds have had feathers for millions of years. In fact, many dinosaurs had feathers too.
It is incredibly basic of you to go for that interpretation.
I say that in the full knowledge that I was going "AIDS IN HEAVEN" and all that, which is again - very basic.
However; why then do you complain, or even bring it up, if you've no qualms with stooping to that level? :) I don't like throwing the word 'hypocrite' around but really...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Zebonka, you persisted on making AIDS jokes on at least one forum on a Queen fansite because you wanted to see how ruffled *my* feathers could get? Little ole me? That's the reason why?
[/QUOTE]
Nope.. just happened to be you this time. I think you're carrying the assumption that I 'persisted' with some level of conviction. Or perhaps that I was sitting here with a rhyming dictionary and a flow-chart of just how many ways I could piss you guys off with the AIDS word?
Nope... I'm just fascinated with people like you.
I put next to no thought into those posts, and it shows. It's simply interesting to watch another human being make something else out of them; in this case, acting like I set fire to Rwanda or something.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I suppose I should be charmed; but couldn't you find anything better to do?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I can, and I did, and I do. Again; couldn't take more than ten seconds to make a post like that. And again, you're putting more thought into them than I did at the time.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Also: When you makes AIDS jokes on a site dedicated to a band whose lead singer died of AIDS, you think it is immature to be offended?
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's immature, but it exposes a flaw in human nature. The ones that protest the most at an immature joke are the ones who are (by their own logic) the ones that are supposed to be above responding, or even paying attention to, the joke.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Does the subtext of this AIDS joke project of yours go like this: That it's a rough world out there, mate, and there's going to be AIDS jokes everywhere you go, and you might as well get used to it here on Queenzone? That people should not express their offense when you make AIDS jokes, else be called as immature as the joke-teller?
.[/QUOTE]
Hehe, more assumptions... (I'm assuming that you're still reading.)
I wouldn't presume to try and 'toughen' you up against the big bad world of AIDS humour. If one even exists.
As for people expressing their offense.... pffft. Go for it! At what point, exactly, did I say you shouldn't complain?
I still reserve the right to say something in response, whether it's something thoughtful or not.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I didn't know that the website rules around here stated you should just let idiots make AIDS jokes at their every whim. I might be 'promoting a cause,' after all.[/QUOTE]
(sigh) I don't see any idiots in this thread. I think you're misinformed, but I don't hold that against you because it's actually my fault for representing myself with AIDS jokes. I don't think that makes you an idiot....
And as for me? (chuckle). I'm no idiot. I have valid points about this silly Freddie script, and you choose to read past them because I wrote something perplexing in another thread. Your prerogative!
I'm still a little surprised at your reading of my 'feathers' comment.
In all seriousness - has that phrase ever been used with a gay connotation?
Gosh, this business really does spark some controversy amongst Queen fans. The underlying question being, "Who was Freddie Mercury?"
As YourValentine pointed out, every single one of us has a different connotation when it comes to Freddie Mercury, or any of the other band members. So, if and when this movie comes out many of us will be disappointed and many of us won't be. It all depends upon your idea of who this remarkable man was. I, for example, think of Freddie Mercury as a musician at heart, who was quite the existentialist, although not an extremist. I recall him stating in a David Wigg interview from 1987 that he could do whatever he wanted and not feel obligated by someone or something to continue doing it. He once said "Rock and roll does not control me." I think that is a remarkable quality in a man mixed up in the world of rock and roll. Yes, he did drugs (coke, I believe was his drug of choice), but he never forced it upon another individual, or let it influence his music. Therefore, I would be pissed off if the movie made him look like an uncontrollable rock star. I mean, even when we look at his attitude toward AIDS, he was just as ignorant as most everyone else at the time.
On a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Freddie Mercury only experimented with drugs during the early 1980's. I would appreciate it if someone could verify that for me.
As YourValentine pointed out, every single one of us has a different connotation when it comes to Freddie Mercury, or any of the other band members. So, if and when this movie comes out many of us will be disappointed and many of us won't be. It all depends upon your idea of who this remarkable man was. I, for example, think of Freddie Mercury as a musician at heart, who was quite the existentialist, although not an extremist. I recall him stating in a David Wigg interview from 1987 that he could do whatever he wanted and not feel obligated by someone or something to continue doing it. He once said "Rock and roll does not control me." I think that is a remarkable quality in a man mixed up in the world of rock and roll. Yes, he did drugs (coke, I believe was his drug of choice), but he never forced it upon another individual, or let it influence his music. Therefore, I would be pissed off if the movie made him look like an uncontrollable rock star. I mean, even when we look at his attitude toward AIDS, he was just as ignorant as most everyone else at the time.
On a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Freddie Mercury only experimented with drugs during the early 1980's. I would appreciate it if someone could verify that for me.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]
There's some real chestnuts in your strained explanation for making AIDS jokes on Queenzone's boards.
1. No, Zebonka. References to feathers and the ruffling thereof has never, ever been used in reference to gay people or effeminate people, not ever. I am oh-so-wrong in sussing out that connotation.
That paragraph, by the way, was written in a mode of writing we call "sarcasm."
2. So that it took just a little bit of time out of your day to make the "AIDS in Heaven" joke somehow justifies your doing so? How does that logic work? You had the AIDS jokes already at the ready? Does the fact that you wrote--and continued to write them--really fast makes them less offensive?
3. You say that it's "interesting to watch another human being make something else out of them; in this case, acting like I set fire to Rwanda or something."
A couple things here. How do you "make something else" out of an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site? Do you go "wow, that AIDS joke is really funny; making song parody lyrics about Freddie Mercury dying of AIDS is hilarious"? How is anyone hyper-sensitive to take offense, when one of my all-time favorite artists died of the disease?
Then--classic Zebonka move--you set up a straw man red herring argument that states that, to complain about someone who makes an AIDS joke--again, keep in mind the context, on a Queen fan club site--is tantamount to comparing such an act to "set[ing] fire to Rwanda."
I assume you're referring to the Rwanda genocide. Of course an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site isn't the same. It's more like going to a fan club site for the movie Hotel Rwanda and making African genocide jokes. How do you think that would fly? I suppose there's an Andy Kaufman-like appeal or sensibility of seeing how you can piss off people who are seriously vested in a topic. But what exactly is your point? Is it to show how stupid you are? Or how angry you might get people? I think it might be. I really do. And so here, you are, my dear young man, with a person who is angered by your joke.
And, my dearest, dearest Zebonka, if you fail to make any connection with making AIDS death jokes with hatred and persecution of gays, then there's something amiss in your brain circuitry.
4. Here's another classic from you, Zebonka, straight out of, like, junior high: "The ones that protest the most at an immature joke are the ones who are (by their own logic) the ones that are supposed to be above responding, or even paying attention to, the joke."
Nope. I am afraid that doesn't fly. It's the ones who *laugh* in response at the immature (read: abusive, obnoxious, hateful, homophobic) joke who are the most culpable, alongside the ones who make it. The latter would be you.
I simply don't get how taking you to task for making AIDS jokes on a Queen fan site, instead of ignoring them and you, the high and mighty joke-teller, makes me immature; the strained logic you use to go about justifying why you do it only proves to me you are a complete idiot.
And a homophobe. And prejudiced against gays (Here's just a random idiocy from you in the past: "Freddie liked arse sex. And Michael Jackson. Let's not go using his tastes in life as an irrefutable yardstick of sorts" http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=1091801)
And an idiot. There, I said it. And hey, listen, if I am on a high horse because I take offense at your jokes, Zebonka, then so be it.
Is all this an over-reaction? Sure. I should just ignore you and all other idiots, and take your own advice. But I don't feel like ignoring you. So deal with it.
1. No, Zebonka. References to feathers and the ruffling thereof has never, ever been used in reference to gay people or effeminate people, not ever. I am oh-so-wrong in sussing out that connotation.
That paragraph, by the way, was written in a mode of writing we call "sarcasm."
2. So that it took just a little bit of time out of your day to make the "AIDS in Heaven" joke somehow justifies your doing so? How does that logic work? You had the AIDS jokes already at the ready? Does the fact that you wrote--and continued to write them--really fast makes them less offensive?
3. You say that it's "interesting to watch another human being make something else out of them; in this case, acting like I set fire to Rwanda or something."
A couple things here. How do you "make something else" out of an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site? Do you go "wow, that AIDS joke is really funny; making song parody lyrics about Freddie Mercury dying of AIDS is hilarious"? How is anyone hyper-sensitive to take offense, when one of my all-time favorite artists died of the disease?
Then--classic Zebonka move--you set up a straw man red herring argument that states that, to complain about someone who makes an AIDS joke--again, keep in mind the context, on a Queen fan club site--is tantamount to comparing such an act to "set[ing] fire to Rwanda."
I assume you're referring to the Rwanda genocide. Of course an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site isn't the same. It's more like going to a fan club site for the movie Hotel Rwanda and making African genocide jokes. How do you think that would fly? I suppose there's an Andy Kaufman-like appeal or sensibility of seeing how you can piss off people who are seriously vested in a topic. But what exactly is your point? Is it to show how stupid you are? Or how angry you might get people? I think it might be. I really do. And so here, you are, my dear young man, with a person who is angered by your joke.
And, my dearest, dearest Zebonka, if you fail to make any connection with making AIDS death jokes with hatred and persecution of gays, then there's something amiss in your brain circuitry.
4. Here's another classic from you, Zebonka, straight out of, like, junior high: "The ones that protest the most at an immature joke are the ones who are (by their own logic) the ones that are supposed to be above responding, or even paying attention to, the joke."
Nope. I am afraid that doesn't fly. It's the ones who *laugh* in response at the immature (read: abusive, obnoxious, hateful, homophobic) joke who are the most culpable, alongside the ones who make it. The latter would be you.
I simply don't get how taking you to task for making AIDS jokes on a Queen fan site, instead of ignoring them and you, the high and mighty joke-teller, makes me immature; the strained logic you use to go about justifying why you do it only proves to me you are a complete idiot.
And a homophobe. And prejudiced against gays (Here's just a random idiocy from you in the past: "Freddie liked arse sex. And Michael Jackson. Let's not go using his tastes in life as an irrefutable yardstick of sorts" http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=1091801)
And an idiot. There, I said it. And hey, listen, if I am on a high horse because I take offense at your jokes, Zebonka, then so be it.
Is all this an over-reaction? Sure. I should just ignore you and all other idiots, and take your own advice. But I don't feel like ignoring you. So deal with it.
I have not studied film making or story writing or script writing but when I first heard about this movie (the possibility of it) I thought it would be good if the story were told from the perspective of Mary. I still do. OK, that is the end of that idea.
Now, I think the only problem with one gay sex scene after another has nothing to do with the shock value that Freddie was gay. I don't think any of us are shocked or in denial about that. It is that I think the writer is maybe trying to capture the times to show a contrast to our reality today (pre AIDS / AIDS) and Freddie is just the vehicle for this (I don't think vehicle is the right word, but you know what I mean).
I don't think this writer (of the script we are discussing) appreciates the musical talent that Freddie had and how rare it was. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my hunch.
Now, I think the only problem with one gay sex scene after another has nothing to do with the shock value that Freddie was gay. I don't think any of us are shocked or in denial about that. It is that I think the writer is maybe trying to capture the times to show a contrast to our reality today (pre AIDS / AIDS) and Freddie is just the vehicle for this (I don't think vehicle is the right word, but you know what I mean).
I don't think this writer (of the script we are discussing) appreciates the musical talent that Freddie had and how rare it was. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my hunch.
Twas a double post and I deleted the first.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Thunderboltwrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't see it as any different to if this was a film about Errol Flynn and 78% of the film turned out to be him shoving his love-sausage into different girls.
Redundant sex scenes are redundant sex scenes. I don't buy Queen DVDs or listen to their music because I give a shit about where Freddie was stuffing his cock.
What next? Freddie was a regular user of the toilet, 'it was who he was!', and so the film should be him taking a crap every five minutes?
A good movie is an eloquent movie. The fact that he has a big gay moustache should spell out his sexuality well enough, and the movie can get on with the business of not being so shitty.
Either way, it actually doesn't bother me. The film will probably suck.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, 100%!
I am quite aware of that fact. Actually, when I was younger, I was friends with a lot of people who wrote Queen stories and all they talked about all day was who he was doing :) I don't think anyone on the board is trying to deny or cover up the fact that Freddie was gay, it's just less important as a legacy.
In fact he's always been highly criticized in the gay community for never coming out and for hiding his AIDS for so long instead of trying to aid others in the same situation.
Redundant sex scenes are redundant sex scenes. I don't buy Queen DVDs or listen to their music because I give a shit about where Freddie was stuffing his cock.
What next? Freddie was a regular user of the toilet, 'it was who he was!', and so the film should be him taking a crap every five minutes?
A good movie is an eloquent movie. The fact that he has a big gay moustache should spell out his sexuality well enough, and the movie can get on with the business of not being so shitty.
Either way, it actually doesn't bother me. The film will probably suck.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, 100%!
I am quite aware of that fact. Actually, when I was younger, I was friends with a lot of people who wrote Queen stories and all they talked about all day was who he was doing :) I don't think anyone on the board is trying to deny or cover up the fact that Freddie was gay, it's just less important as a legacy.
In fact he's always been highly criticized in the gay community for never coming out and for hiding his AIDS for so long instead of trying to aid others in the same situation.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]