Pingfah
Link
Well. I guess they won't be shooting in May then...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
k-m
Now I really have a bad feeling about this movie. What a mess.
pittrek
Only now? After 10 or so years of making without having shot anything?
flash00.
Anyone would think this movie is jinxed, I wonder what the budget is for this movie?
brENsKi
about fifty quid by sounds of it
Michael Allred
Note "creative differences" with the band.....again. sound familiar?
mooghead
Just abandon the thing ffs, no one cares anyway...
flash00.
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
about fifty quid by sounds of it[/QUOTE]
I agree it does all sound low budget it confirmed it for me after hearing Dexter "was" involved.
Spinal Tap 2.
about fifty quid by sounds of it[/QUOTE]
I agree it does all sound low budget it confirmed it for me after hearing Dexter "was" involved.
Spinal Tap 2.
SweetCaroline
"Ben Whishaw-starring Freddie Mercury bio loses helmer," March 14, 2014
http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/176854/
http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/176854/
philip storey
We don't need a movie about Freddie and Queen,Roger,Brian will never agree with Producer,Director anyway.I think a far better idea would be for Brian and Roger to write a book together,which would be more informative than some crappy 90 mins of rehash of what we all know.
Stellabella
I am relatively new to Queen Zone and to discovering any background information on Queen the band. I'm sure most of you know much more than I.
As a lover of nearly all music I now know why. Queen albums took 5-6 years sometimes to get released in the U.S. if at all. No album or single release no radio play and then add Paul Prenter's involvement.
There seems to be a lot of anger, resentment and jealousy surrounding the history of Freddie Mercury. Elton John's former manager and Queen's for a spell hired Paul Prenter as an assistant. In an interview Brian indicates that after Freddie's death Queen found out that Prenter was telling DJ's in America that Freddie didn't want to speak with them. Prenter succumbed to AIDS as well.
What I'm curious about with regard to the biopic is that in one of the Queen biography videos Jim "Miami" Beach says that Freddie told him I'm not leaving you anything in my will but you are my executor, do whatever you want with my music, just don't make me boring" - paraphrasing.
Brian May has said "we have the music".
I suppose this means that the remaining members of Queen own the rights to Queen music and Jim Beach to Freddie's solo music and image, etc.?
Does Mary having been left royalties, etc. have a vested interest and thus a say in what is done as it will affect her earning potential?
The more I read the more a tangled web this story seems to have. With this biopic being in the news a lot of the old interviews are resurfacing. I re-read the interview by David Wigg with Mary Austin "Freddie gave the band 1/4 share of the last 4 albums, he didn't have to do that".
Brian May in an interview "after the Magic tour we decided to share writing credits equally" - paraphrase
Some speculate that Mary meant he was ill and could have spent his time doing other things? yet she contradicts herself by saying Freddie only lived until he couldn't work any longer.
At the time of Freddie's death the band had sold approximately 80 million records, now over 300 million.
Freddie's estate was worth approximately 8 million when he died, it's nearly tripled if not more.
A interesting find is that there seem to be zero pictures of Mary Austin and Freddie's family. The love of his life? I think I finally unravelled the reasoning behind giving Mary the house. Freddie was her son's godfather, a position he took seriously according to Reinhold Mack.
Really, who cares right? well if the story wasn't so damn compelling...... it's no wonder it's taken so long to film this biopic.
Just a few insights or questions from a wanna be investigator :)
As a lover of nearly all music I now know why. Queen albums took 5-6 years sometimes to get released in the U.S. if at all. No album or single release no radio play and then add Paul Prenter's involvement.
There seems to be a lot of anger, resentment and jealousy surrounding the history of Freddie Mercury. Elton John's former manager and Queen's for a spell hired Paul Prenter as an assistant. In an interview Brian indicates that after Freddie's death Queen found out that Prenter was telling DJ's in America that Freddie didn't want to speak with them. Prenter succumbed to AIDS as well.
What I'm curious about with regard to the biopic is that in one of the Queen biography videos Jim "Miami" Beach says that Freddie told him I'm not leaving you anything in my will but you are my executor, do whatever you want with my music, just don't make me boring" - paraphrasing.
Brian May has said "we have the music".
I suppose this means that the remaining members of Queen own the rights to Queen music and Jim Beach to Freddie's solo music and image, etc.?
Does Mary having been left royalties, etc. have a vested interest and thus a say in what is done as it will affect her earning potential?
The more I read the more a tangled web this story seems to have. With this biopic being in the news a lot of the old interviews are resurfacing. I re-read the interview by David Wigg with Mary Austin "Freddie gave the band 1/4 share of the last 4 albums, he didn't have to do that".
Brian May in an interview "after the Magic tour we decided to share writing credits equally" - paraphrase
Some speculate that Mary meant he was ill and could have spent his time doing other things? yet she contradicts herself by saying Freddie only lived until he couldn't work any longer.
At the time of Freddie's death the band had sold approximately 80 million records, now over 300 million.
Freddie's estate was worth approximately 8 million when he died, it's nearly tripled if not more.
A interesting find is that there seem to be zero pictures of Mary Austin and Freddie's family. The love of his life? I think I finally unravelled the reasoning behind giving Mary the house. Freddie was her son's godfather, a position he took seriously according to Reinhold Mack.
Really, who cares right? well if the story wasn't so damn compelling...... it's no wonder it's taken so long to film this biopic.
Just a few insights or questions from a wanna be investigator :)
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]philip storey wrote:[/b]
We don't need a movie about Freddie and Queen,Roger,Brian will never agree with Producer,Director anyway.I think a far better idea would be for Brian and Roger to write a book together,which would be more informative than some crappy 90 mins of rehash of what we all know.[/QUOTE]
The last thing the world needs is "Freddie Mercury the Re-Told Story", but there is a genuine possibility for dramatising key moments to paint a portrait of FM as a person.
The only problem is that such a movie doesn't need WWRY on the soundtrack, so that rules out Brian's support...
We don't need a movie about Freddie and Queen,Roger,Brian will never agree with Producer,Director anyway.I think a far better idea would be for Brian and Roger to write a book together,which would be more informative than some crappy 90 mins of rehash of what we all know.[/QUOTE]
The last thing the world needs is "Freddie Mercury the Re-Told Story", but there is a genuine possibility for dramatising key moments to paint a portrait of FM as a person.
The only problem is that such a movie doesn't need WWRY on the soundtrack, so that rules out Brian's support...
Stellabella
I wanted to add in Mary Austin's defense. She was probably justified in her actions against the "hangers on". She was around for 20'ish years the others at the most 13? I don't know how long Peter Strayker sp? had known one another.
dysan
Will it be better than the Paul Potts story? No, sadly.
emrabt
The best thing for the band would be to let the BBC make one of their Docudramas, they don’t have the best budget but I have seen 5 of them (“Kenny Everett”, “Holy flying circus”, “Eric and Ernie”, “an adventure in space and time” and “the wipers times”.) and so far every one has been enjoyable and respectful.