The Freddie Mercury Biopic Was Sacha Baron Cohen's Idea, Plus More Details

buffypython wrote: TyinPalmSprings wrote: It is disappointing that the time period selected for the movie misses the mark. If you want show the true Freddy, show him after he found his true love (Jim), his struggle with fidelity, coke, his creativity and the health impact on his life, love, and existance with the band. It could also show the fair weather friends and those who betrayed him, used him, and those who stood by him til the end. He had quirks, some lovable, an artists temperment, and the last challenging period of his life, when he reflects, seems to be a much better choice for the film. I have read several books and feel Jim's would make the best basis. May, Deacon and Taylor are great musicians, but this is about Freddie. When he died the band fragmented and never made it back..that says a lot.
"The true Freddie" is Freddie from all time periods. There is no 1 time period where he was more Freddie than another one; you can't help but be yourself. I think Morgan just doesn't want the movie to be the sad, decline of the artist movie of the year; even if the movie spanned Queen's entire career, the trailers for it would just make it out to be a depressing tear-jerker all because of the end. At least, this way, the audience doesn't end up remembering Freddie for his illness & death, but for his music and love.

I disagree......The reason why The Doors was a big success was because they showed the ups and downs of the band, and not ending it after a good comeback album.   That's kind of silly if you ask me.  The Queen story didn't end in 1985, it ended tragically in 1991, and think it would have made a heck of a movie if they covered the whole career,   Even if we're shedding a few tears at the end.  The bonding of the 4 members during the Innuendo sessions was a big part of the bands history, and would gain the band a lot more respect as people and musicians.  Those are the things that make a great movie.    It still could end on a happy note with the tribute Concert and Bo Rhap hitting # 1 again.

we also know from various interviews from all the members that they did have disagreements about various things but nobody felt it was serious enough to say " im leaving and thats it"

it would be strange it they didnt argue and disagree about things, all 4 of them are/were very different charachters that fitted together well within the band which is what made them so successful

"The only worry for me - which is unfortunately unavoidable with films about real people - is that certain fictional dialogue and events will be created by the writer and director to 'sex it up', and the general public will assume that these events and conversations actually took place"

So you've seen Titanic then?

mike hunt wrote:

I disagree......The reason why The Doors was a big success was because they showed the ups and downs of the band, and not ending it after a good comeback album.   That's kind of silly if you ask me.  The Queen story didn't end in 1985, it ended tragically in 1991, and think it would have made a heck of a movie if they covered the whole career,   Even if we're shedding a few tears at the end.  The bonding of the 4 members during the Innuendo sessions was a big part of the bands history, and would gain the band a lot more respect as people and musicians.  Those are the things that make a great movie.    It still could end on a happy note with the tribute Concert and Bo Rhap hitting # 1 again.

You should watch The Damned United to see that you don't need to span someones whole career to tell a good story, I think that ending the film with the tribute concert and bohemian rhapsody at No. 1 would be awful, I mean talk about cliche. If you've ever read any of David Peace's work or seen any of his previous films you'd know that's not his style.

Dr Evil Bri did it again : focusing Fred's biopic on Mr Bad Guy's flop ! Outrageous !

Anyway, I'm not sure Freddie was really trying that hard to go solo at this point ; Mr Bad Guy is really below his standards in terms of both composition and production.  

I suppose a recreation of a Body Language performance during the US Hot Space Tour will make for great cinema, though

I see the point of not creating a tear jerker, bu this could be done in a meaningful way.
With all due respects to John, Roger and Brian, , I thought this movie was to be a biopic of Freddie, not of the rise of fame and fortune of Queen. There are enough praise and glory books and clips on the net. Like Frost/Nixon where Morgan dealt with Nixon at a turning point in his life, this film could be equally as powerful. My fear is that this will just be another exercize in guitar and drums solos (so to speak), possibly dealing only with creatively supplemented fillers and treating Freddie as a brilliant madman with an overactive libido. Morgan does seem to like to show the petty and flawed man/woman in his writings. (The Queen,Nixon, Henry VIII) This is not the way I think Freddie would want to be remembered. Rather, make the point that he finds true love (Jim), and its effects on him (looks at he ring from he wears in his later interviews), his gentile nature, constant need to know he is loved, shyness,refined taste, generosity, and the changes that finding Jim, the effects of the virus, plus the freedom to explore creative outlets that brought him completeness, peace, privacy and a time of happiness in spite of his dibilitating illness. Freddie was a gay man, and he celebrated that and his uniqueness, and, although reluctant to discuss it in public, did not hide it in his actions. He was genuine. I fear all that will be lost in this film if it just focuses on Queens glory years.

Sir GH wrote: GratefulFan wrote: "Do you think it's impossible that 1986/87 and beyond was not the most painful time in the band's history?" I highly doubt there is even a remote chance that there was any single time between 1970-1990 that was more difficult for them than November 1991 through April 1992.  But you're right about the Innuendo sessions.  It was a great time for them. As for the movie including the detail of Freddie rejecting the band and crawling back - that may not be far from the truth. Freddie's solo album as a whole was a major departure from Queen, but there were many parts that were very Queen-like.  It has been documented that Freddie asked his musicians to play certain parts the way the members of Queen did (particularly his guitarist), and they came up well short.  The first half of 1985 was probably the lowest point of their career as a band, and they were going through the motions on stage.  This solo album (particularly the thank you in the liner notes) likely did not help their relations. After the album flopped, Freddie may have realized he was best as part of the collective, and Live Aid was the vehicle that made it apparent.  If it wasn't for Live Aid, it's quite possible the band may have broken up after the Works tour.  Next to releasing BoRhap, those 17 minutes were probably the single most pivotal moment of their career. ================================ Would be interested to hear more of your thinking behind your Nov. 91 - Apr. 92 reference, if you're of a mind. Dug up something on brianmay.com I had remembered reading about Brian's feelings on some of Fred's  choices around his solo work.  It's striking that he characterizes it as hurt that still remains all these years later. So really there is nothing to say .... the art for the album hasn't been made public yet. But I have been hearing bits of the music all day [Wed 12 July]as Justin and Kris work on assembling it at incredibly high quality in my studio ... it sounds pretty damn good on the whole to me ... nice to hear Freddie's solo stuff again. There's always a tiny bit of pique inside us, I think, as well ... Freddie's solo stuff took him away from us, and although the rest of us all helped him on many tracks ... he put on the sleeve something like "thanks to Roger Brian and John for staying out of this" ... actually nothing had been further from the truth. And Freddie did this weird thing of hiring some guitarist to try to sound like me ... and played it to me with glee, imagining that I would love it ... strange .. forgive my immodesty - and the guy was not at all bad, but ... I just knew I could have done it 10 times better ... and it was MY style ! in some cases I had already demo'd parts for it. But in some cases Freddie just got the guy to "do Brian May type harmonies" - an approximation - and if he wanted the tracks to sound like us, why not just use us ? A little bit of hurt is still there. Unusual because Freddie was usually so considerate. .. (to us at least !!! ) Full post here: http://www.brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/brianssbjul06a.html

I think Brian's missed a simple practical point. If Fred employed a session musician he could keep him sitting around until Fred was ready to 'come to work'. On his own solo album, Fred probably didn't want to work to Brian's timetable, he would've wanted the freedom to work when he liked without having to worry about Brian (or Roger's) ego getting in the way. Plus, of course, it takes Brian a month to produce a 10-second solo :)

GratefulFan wrote: Sir GH wrote: GratefulFan wrote:

"Do you think it's impossible that 1986/87 and beyond was not the most painful time in the band's history?"

I highly doubt there is even a remote chance that there was any single time between 1970-1990 that was more difficult for them than November 1991 through April 1992.  But you're right about the Innuendo sessions.  It was a great time for them.

As for the movie including the detail of Freddie rejecting the band and crawling back - that may not be far from the truth.

Freddie's solo album as a whole was a major departure from Queen, but there were many parts that were very Queen-like.  It has been documented that Freddie asked his musicians to play certain parts the way the members of Queen did (particularly his guitarist), and they came up well short.  The first half of 1985 was probably the lowest point of their career as a band, and they were going through the motions on stage.  This solo album (particularly the thank you in the liner notes) likely did not help their relations.

After the album flopped, Freddie may have realized he was best as part of the collective, and Live Aid was the vehicle that made it apparent.  If it wasn't for Live Aid, it's quite possible the band may have broken up after the Works tour.  Next to releasing BoRhap, those 17 minutes were probably the single most pivotal moment of their career.
================================

Would be interested to hear more of your thinking behind your Nov. 91 - Apr. 92 reference, if you're of a mind.

Dug up something on brianmay.com I had remembered reading about Brian's feelings on some of Fred's  choices around his solo work.  It's striking that he characterizes it as hurt that still remains all these years later.

So really there is nothing to say .... the art for the album hasn't been made public yet. But I have been hearing bits of the music all day [Wed 12 July]as Justin and Kris work on assembling it at incredibly high quality in my studio ... it sounds pretty damn good on the whole to me ... nice to hear Freddie's solo stuff again. There's always a tiny bit of pique inside us, I think, as well ... Freddie's solo stuff took him away from us, and although the rest of us all helped him on many tracks ... he put on the sleeve something like "thanks to Roger Brian and John for staying out of this" ... actually nothing had been further from the truth. And Freddie did this weird thing of hiring some guitarist to try to sound like me ... and played it to me with glee, imagining that I would love it ... strange .. forgive my immodesty - and the guy was not at all bad, but ... I just knew I could have done it 10 times better ... and it was MY style ! in some cases I had already demo'd parts for it. But in some cases Freddie just got the guy to "do Brian May type harmonies" - an approximation - and if he wanted the tracks to sound like us, why not just use us ? A little bit of hurt is still there. Unusual because Freddie was usually so considerate. .. (to us at least !!! )

Full post here: http://www.brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/brianssbjul06a.html

sorry, but I hear nothing on Mr. Bad guy that suggests he was trying to sound like Queen.   Is this brian's ego talking or the truth?....but in all honesty I can't help but wonder how much better the works and a Kind Of magic era would have been if those same songs would have been done by the band, and not some weak session muscians.    The songs were good.   I do believe believe most of brian's words.  i think freddie was on a ego trip and wanted to make it on his own.   A shame, a lot of good music was wasted.

I think Freddie just wanted to see if he could "make it" on his own. I do agree that nothing on Mr. Bad Guy reminds of "Queen" in a way (not really a bad thing--just different). I always wondered if the band took each other's solo songs and they all re-did them and put them on a "Queen" record. Imagine how more successful The Works would have been if they took out a few of the weaker songs, and replaced them with the member's solo tracks!

Even if there was ego trips involved (I don't know), I do give Freddie respect for the following:

1. Using original ideas on his solo stuff
2. Not breaking up the band before going solo
3. Keeping the solo stuff out of the band's stuff (AKA not talking about it on stage).
4. Returning to the band after making Mr. Bad Guy

I shouldn't say the music was wasted.  i still enjoy some of the album, but when brian said he was excited because he liked what he heard, and put down some demo's  I started thinking of how good those songs would have sounded.   no offense to roger and john,  but freddie and Brian were musical soul brother's.   Their styles were perfect for each other.

Holly2003 wrote: "I think Brian's missed a simple practical point. If Fred employed a session musician he could keep him sitting around until Fred was ready to 'come to work'. On his own solo album, Fred probably didn't want to work to Brian's timetable, he would've wanted the freedom to work when he liked without having to worry about Brian (or Roger's) ego getting in the way. Plus, of course, it takes Brian a month to produce a 10-second solo :)"


Not to mention that Freddie probably felt that it would be best to record a solo album which was completely separate from the group. He spent so much with the other guys that when it came time to recording a solo album, I think he wanted it to be a proper solo album, rather than one with his bandmates doing guest spots.

GratefulFan wrote:

[QUOTE]Would be interested to hear more of your thinking behind your Nov. 91 - Apr. 92 reference, if you're of a mind.[/QUOTE]

11-24-91 - FM dies

12-3-91 - Bri/Rog TV interview, little more than a week after FM dies

Feb-Mar 92 - FM tribute rehearsals

4-20-92 - FM tribute concert

No band squabble before 1990 can remotely compare to the difficulty of these few months.

Not to mention the final months of Freddie's life were probably extremely painful on everybody.

mike hunt wrote: "I disagree......The reason why The Doors was a big success was because they showed the ups and downs of the band, and not ending it after a good comeback album. That's kind of silly if you ask me. The Queen story didn't end in 1985, it ended tragically in 1991, and think it would have made a heck of a movie if they covered the whole career, Even if we're shedding a few tears at the end. The bonding of the 4 members during the Innuendo sessions was a big part of the bands history, and would gain the band a lot more respect as people and musicians. Those are the things that make a great movie. It still could end on a happy note with the tribute Concert and Bo Rhap hitting # 1 again."


If the film is going to show Queen's entire career, then I don't think it should end with Innuendo. Personally I consider No-One But You to be the end of Queen, however since it's nowhere near famous enough for the producers to want to include it, I think they should end with the memorial concert and mention MIH and No-One But You in a postcript.