Bo Alex
If they want to make a film about Queen and the second half of it wouldn't have Freddie in it, why they were calling it a Freddie's biopic all these years? It's clearly not their idea.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Costa86
Not sure how it took me two days to read about this, but anyway... longish rant below.
I was surprised to read what Baron Cohen said, and, of course we have to bear in mind that we might need to take some of it with a grain of salt, but I think the jist of it is genuine.
>About half the film being about Queen+:
I knew there had been loads of problems surrounding this film - but I didn't expect that "half the film" would be devoted to what happened after Freddie died. I do think that Baron Cohen is exaggerating for effect when he says "half the film". I think it would be natural for, say, the last two or three minutes to contain some depiction of what Queen have been doing after Freddie died. But anything more than that is unnecessary.
This is a film, not a documentary. Good film making involves using motion picture to captivate an audience with a story. And the most interesting story of Queen happened while Freddie lived. More than that, the most interesting part of Queen is Freddie, by far.
We don't need to see the last 2 or 3 years of Freddie's illness, that's in bad taste. But we want 97% of the film dedicated to Queen during's Freddie's years. Nobody gives two tosses about seeing on film what Queen did afterwards. We appreciate their efforts, some of us enjoy their shows with Lambert, and their previous work with Rodgers, but we don't need a film about this. It's not noteworthy.
The film should have ended either with Live Aid, or, unless Brian and Roger are so bloody insecure that they only want to focus on 'Queen', they should have included a very short bit on Freddie's work with Monsty. And Freddie's resilience in the end should be shown as well.
>About Brian and Roger trying to make the film a 'PG' story:
This has been known for a while - that they've been trying to portray a more family-friendly version of themselves.
I don't agree with the Wizard when he said a few posts up that he undestands why Queen would not want to have their drug taking depicted in the film, lest it tarnish their legacy.
Queen were not a druggie band. Their drug taking was comparable to the average rock band of the day. We all know this. It's no surprise.
We don't want our rock stars to be choir boys. Queen were legendary for their partying, and it was very much part of what made up the Queen image. People want to see this in the movie.
'Walk The Line', the biopic on Johnny Cash, showed Cash in his true light. He spent years as a drug addict, and he didn't treat his family right. But it showed that deep down he was a good man, but a human prone to addiciton nonetheless. And then it showed how he found the love of his life, and how they went through the ups and downs of life until they settled. It was a great movie, and it only made me respect Cash more. Had they only showed Cash in a tame 'PG' light, the movie would have been a piece of crap, and an insult to the intelligence of the audience.
And not including drug use and lots of sex in a Queen biopic is just that - an insult to the intelligence of the audience. Yes, we want the movie to focus on the musical legacy, but the sex and partying and drugs were part of that legacy. We don't need some PC nannies (Brian and/or Roger) trying to tame the product for us, in fear of making them look bad. We already know Roger had a proclivity for drugs and pussy, while Brian was the less hedonistically-inclined intellectual. It doesn't make us think bad of them.
Freddie was human. He was a bi-sexual sex addict, he liked cocaine (who can blame him?), he was a musical genius, an entertainer the likes of which have been very seldom seen, and, in the end, he was a man who most have described as generous, loving, caring, temperamental, impatient, and possessing a good sense of humour. Let's see this in the film.
If what Baron Cohen says is right, they had potentially some great directors who could have made this a success. Brian and Roger are musicians. They are not film makers. And I do feel they have fucked this one up. They owed it to Freddie to do a good job, and I know they really tried, but in trying so hard, they failed. "Don't Try So Hard".
I was surprised to read what Baron Cohen said, and, of course we have to bear in mind that we might need to take some of it with a grain of salt, but I think the jist of it is genuine.
>About half the film being about Queen+:
I knew there had been loads of problems surrounding this film - but I didn't expect that "half the film" would be devoted to what happened after Freddie died. I do think that Baron Cohen is exaggerating for effect when he says "half the film". I think it would be natural for, say, the last two or three minutes to contain some depiction of what Queen have been doing after Freddie died. But anything more than that is unnecessary.
This is a film, not a documentary. Good film making involves using motion picture to captivate an audience with a story. And the most interesting story of Queen happened while Freddie lived. More than that, the most interesting part of Queen is Freddie, by far.
We don't need to see the last 2 or 3 years of Freddie's illness, that's in bad taste. But we want 97% of the film dedicated to Queen during's Freddie's years. Nobody gives two tosses about seeing on film what Queen did afterwards. We appreciate their efforts, some of us enjoy their shows with Lambert, and their previous work with Rodgers, but we don't need a film about this. It's not noteworthy.
The film should have ended either with Live Aid, or, unless Brian and Roger are so bloody insecure that they only want to focus on 'Queen', they should have included a very short bit on Freddie's work with Monsty. And Freddie's resilience in the end should be shown as well.
>About Brian and Roger trying to make the film a 'PG' story:
This has been known for a while - that they've been trying to portray a more family-friendly version of themselves.
I don't agree with the Wizard when he said a few posts up that he undestands why Queen would not want to have their drug taking depicted in the film, lest it tarnish their legacy.
Queen were not a druggie band. Their drug taking was comparable to the average rock band of the day. We all know this. It's no surprise.
We don't want our rock stars to be choir boys. Queen were legendary for their partying, and it was very much part of what made up the Queen image. People want to see this in the movie.
'Walk The Line', the biopic on Johnny Cash, showed Cash in his true light. He spent years as a drug addict, and he didn't treat his family right. But it showed that deep down he was a good man, but a human prone to addiciton nonetheless. And then it showed how he found the love of his life, and how they went through the ups and downs of life until they settled. It was a great movie, and it only made me respect Cash more. Had they only showed Cash in a tame 'PG' light, the movie would have been a piece of crap, and an insult to the intelligence of the audience.
And not including drug use and lots of sex in a Queen biopic is just that - an insult to the intelligence of the audience. Yes, we want the movie to focus on the musical legacy, but the sex and partying and drugs were part of that legacy. We don't need some PC nannies (Brian and/or Roger) trying to tame the product for us, in fear of making them look bad. We already know Roger had a proclivity for drugs and pussy, while Brian was the less hedonistically-inclined intellectual. It doesn't make us think bad of them.
Freddie was human. He was a bi-sexual sex addict, he liked cocaine (who can blame him?), he was a musical genius, an entertainer the likes of which have been very seldom seen, and, in the end, he was a man who most have described as generous, loving, caring, temperamental, impatient, and possessing a good sense of humour. Let's see this in the film.
If what Baron Cohen says is right, they had potentially some great directors who could have made this a success. Brian and Roger are musicians. They are not film makers. And I do feel they have fucked this one up. They owed it to Freddie to do a good job, and I know they really tried, but in trying so hard, they failed. "Don't Try So Hard".
Togg
The whole issue depends on whether they wish to make a film about Queen or a film and Mercury...? If it's a Queen film then obviously it can't finish when he died, but if it's about Mercury then it should finish at the point he died. They will have to work out firstly what they want and secondly what makes the best film?
user1
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
I hate (at least figuratively) to admit it, but it fits exactly with the way Queen has been portrayed in the past years.
In Brian's eyes Freddie was a member for less than half of the band's existence, and without Freddie holding them back they've reached into new heights with Adam Lambert.
Those views have been published in their own press releases, and even the most die-hard stepfords will have a hard time spinning that black into white.
Sad but true.[/QUOTE]
Full Ack. So stupid they scared these great writers off. Nearly everything they touched after Freddies passing went wrong.
I wish, Sacha would do the movie without them.
I hate (at least figuratively) to admit it, but it fits exactly with the way Queen has been portrayed in the past years.
In Brian's eyes Freddie was a member for less than half of the band's existence, and without Freddie holding them back they've reached into new heights with Adam Lambert.
Those views have been published in their own press releases, and even the most die-hard stepfords will have a hard time spinning that black into white.
Sad but true.[/QUOTE]
Full Ack. So stupid they scared these great writers off. Nearly everything they touched after Freddies passing went wrong.
I wish, Sacha would do the movie without them.
Mr.Jingles
[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]
Not sure how it took me two days to read about this, but anyway... long-form rant below.
I was surprised to read what Baron Cohen said, and, of course we have to bear in mind that we might need to take some of it with a grain of salt, but I think the jist of it is genuine.
>About half the film being about Queen+:
I knew there had been loads of problems surrounding this film - but I didn't expect that "half the film" would be devoted to what happened after Freddie died. I do think that Baron Cohen is exaggerating for effect when he says "half the film". I think it would be natural for, say, the last two or three minutes to contain some depiction of what Queen have been doing after Freddie died. But anything more than that is unnecessary.
This is a film, not a documentary. Good film making involves using motion picture to captivate an audience with a story. And the most interesting story of Queen happened while Freddie lived. More than that, the most interesting part of Queen is Freddie, by far.
We don't need to see the last 2 or 3 years of Freddie's illness, that's in bad taste. But we want 97% of the film dedicated to Queen during's Freddie's years. Nobody gives two tosses about seeing on film what Queen did afterwards. We appreciate their efforts, some of us enjoy their shows with Lambert, and their previous work with Rodgers, but we don't need a film about this. It's not noteworthy.
The film should have ended either with Live Aid, or, unless Brian and Roger are so bloody insecure that they only want to focus on 'Queen', they should have included a very short bit on Freddie's work with Monsty. And Freddie's resilience in the end should be shown as well.
>About Brian and Roger trying to make the film a 'PG' story:
This has been known for a while - that they've been trying to portray a more family-friendly version of themselves.
I don't agree with the Wizard when he said a few posts up that he undestands why Queen would not want to have their drug taking depicted in the film, lest it tarnish their legacy.
Queen were not a druggie band. Their drug taking was comparable to the average rock band of the day. We all know this. It's no surprise.
We don't want our rock stars to be choir boys. Queen were legendary for their partying, and it was very much part of what made up the Queen image. People want to see this in the movie.
'Walk The Line', the biopic on Johnny Cash, showed Cash in his true light. He spent years as a drug addict, and he didn't treat his family right. But it showed that deep down he was a good man, but a human prone to addiciton nonetheless. And then it showed how he found the love of his life, and how they went through the ups and downs of life until they settled. It was a great movie, and it only made me respect Cash more. Had they only showed Cash in a tame 'PG' light, the movie would have been a piece of crap, and an insult to the intelligence of the audience.
And not including drug use and lots of sex in a Queen biopic is just that - an insult to the intelligence of the audience. Yes, we want the movie to focus on the musical legacy, but the sex and partying and drugs were part of that legacy. We don't need some PC nannies (Brian and/or Roger) trying to tame the product for us, in fear of making them look bad. We already know Roger had a proclivity for drugs and pussy, while Brian was the less hedonistically-inclined intellectual. It doesn't make us think bad of them.
Freddie was human. He was a bi-sexual sex addict, he liked cocaine (who can blame him?), he was a musical genius, an entertainer the likes of which have been very seldom seen, and, in the end, he was a man who most have described as generous, loving, caring, temperamental, impatient, and possessing a good sense of humour. Let's see this in the film.
If what Baron Cohen says is right, they had potentially some great directors who could have made this a success. Brian and Roger are musicians. They are not film makers. And I do feel they have fucked this one up. They owed it to Freddie to do a good job, and I know they really tried, but in trying so hard, they failed. "Don't Try So Hard".[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree with you more.
The way I see it is that Brian May (and perhaps Roger as well) are way too obsessed with sugar coating Freddie's life on film. After all, wasn't Brian the one who said that at some point he was fed up with all the excess of the parties thrown back in those days. Well, guess who was instigating all of that?
Now, the film should not focus on Freddie's promiscuity and deviant lifestyle. It should be acknowledged at some point, but as much as Hollywood would love to make a Freddie Mercury biopic depicting sex, drugs, and rock n' roll, and in consequence his illness, then why not focus on how brave Freddie was towards the final years of his life and how he decided to keep on working and make the best out of those last moments knowing that he had a foot in the grave and his illness was going to progressively worsen. If that doesn't address some of the darkest subjects of his life, while still maintaining a great deal of respect and admiration for a man who chose to live life on the edge, but in the end was filled with courage to fight a battle he was going to eventually lose, then I don't know what will portray Freddie in a positive yet honest way.
Not sure how it took me two days to read about this, but anyway... long-form rant below.
I was surprised to read what Baron Cohen said, and, of course we have to bear in mind that we might need to take some of it with a grain of salt, but I think the jist of it is genuine.
>About half the film being about Queen+:
I knew there had been loads of problems surrounding this film - but I didn't expect that "half the film" would be devoted to what happened after Freddie died. I do think that Baron Cohen is exaggerating for effect when he says "half the film". I think it would be natural for, say, the last two or three minutes to contain some depiction of what Queen have been doing after Freddie died. But anything more than that is unnecessary.
This is a film, not a documentary. Good film making involves using motion picture to captivate an audience with a story. And the most interesting story of Queen happened while Freddie lived. More than that, the most interesting part of Queen is Freddie, by far.
We don't need to see the last 2 or 3 years of Freddie's illness, that's in bad taste. But we want 97% of the film dedicated to Queen during's Freddie's years. Nobody gives two tosses about seeing on film what Queen did afterwards. We appreciate their efforts, some of us enjoy their shows with Lambert, and their previous work with Rodgers, but we don't need a film about this. It's not noteworthy.
The film should have ended either with Live Aid, or, unless Brian and Roger are so bloody insecure that they only want to focus on 'Queen', they should have included a very short bit on Freddie's work with Monsty. And Freddie's resilience in the end should be shown as well.
>About Brian and Roger trying to make the film a 'PG' story:
This has been known for a while - that they've been trying to portray a more family-friendly version of themselves.
I don't agree with the Wizard when he said a few posts up that he undestands why Queen would not want to have their drug taking depicted in the film, lest it tarnish their legacy.
Queen were not a druggie band. Their drug taking was comparable to the average rock band of the day. We all know this. It's no surprise.
We don't want our rock stars to be choir boys. Queen were legendary for their partying, and it was very much part of what made up the Queen image. People want to see this in the movie.
'Walk The Line', the biopic on Johnny Cash, showed Cash in his true light. He spent years as a drug addict, and he didn't treat his family right. But it showed that deep down he was a good man, but a human prone to addiciton nonetheless. And then it showed how he found the love of his life, and how they went through the ups and downs of life until they settled. It was a great movie, and it only made me respect Cash more. Had they only showed Cash in a tame 'PG' light, the movie would have been a piece of crap, and an insult to the intelligence of the audience.
And not including drug use and lots of sex in a Queen biopic is just that - an insult to the intelligence of the audience. Yes, we want the movie to focus on the musical legacy, but the sex and partying and drugs were part of that legacy. We don't need some PC nannies (Brian and/or Roger) trying to tame the product for us, in fear of making them look bad. We already know Roger had a proclivity for drugs and pussy, while Brian was the less hedonistically-inclined intellectual. It doesn't make us think bad of them.
Freddie was human. He was a bi-sexual sex addict, he liked cocaine (who can blame him?), he was a musical genius, an entertainer the likes of which have been very seldom seen, and, in the end, he was a man who most have described as generous, loving, caring, temperamental, impatient, and possessing a good sense of humour. Let's see this in the film.
If what Baron Cohen says is right, they had potentially some great directors who could have made this a success. Brian and Roger are musicians. They are not film makers. And I do feel they have fucked this one up. They owed it to Freddie to do a good job, and I know they really tried, but in trying so hard, they failed. "Don't Try So Hard".[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree with you more.
The way I see it is that Brian May (and perhaps Roger as well) are way too obsessed with sugar coating Freddie's life on film. After all, wasn't Brian the one who said that at some point he was fed up with all the excess of the parties thrown back in those days. Well, guess who was instigating all of that?
Now, the film should not focus on Freddie's promiscuity and deviant lifestyle. It should be acknowledged at some point, but as much as Hollywood would love to make a Freddie Mercury biopic depicting sex, drugs, and rock n' roll, and in consequence his illness, then why not focus on how brave Freddie was towards the final years of his life and how he decided to keep on working and make the best out of those last moments knowing that he had a foot in the grave and his illness was going to progressively worsen. If that doesn't address some of the darkest subjects of his life, while still maintaining a great deal of respect and admiration for a man who chose to live life on the edge, but in the end was filled with courage to fight a battle he was going to eventually lose, then I don't know what will portray Freddie in a positive yet honest way.
Vocal harmony
Re wind a couple of years. . .
Wasn't all the info about the film saying it would tell Freddie's and the bands story up to Live Aid. Also wasn't it said, by RT or BM, that the film would be about Freddie's and Queen's triumphs and it would have a feel good factor
Cohen I'm sure was exaggerating when he said the lead role would only last half the film and if it was a true and accurate statement why not name the band member Who said it?
As for Wizards thoughts about the drugs that were around the band in the late 70's and 80's I would agree with him. BM and RT don't want to involve that side of Freddie's life too much with the history of the band. Freddie's use of Bolivian marching dust was well known to certain people including the Met drug squad who for a while were keeping an eye on Freddie.
Wasn't all the info about the film saying it would tell Freddie's and the bands story up to Live Aid. Also wasn't it said, by RT or BM, that the film would be about Freddie's and Queen's triumphs and it would have a feel good factor
Cohen I'm sure was exaggerating when he said the lead role would only last half the film and if it was a true and accurate statement why not name the band member Who said it?
As for Wizards thoughts about the drugs that were around the band in the late 70's and 80's I would agree with him. BM and RT don't want to involve that side of Freddie's life too much with the history of the band. Freddie's use of Bolivian marching dust was well known to certain people including the Met drug squad who for a while were keeping an eye on Freddie.
The Fairy King
Brian May is the George Lucas of rock.
Trying to rewrite and upgrade history.
Trying to rewrite and upgrade history.
aion
[QUOTE] [b]beemack74 wrote:[/b]
The original idea was good. I'd be interested in a Queen movie that perhaps starts in the late 60's, perhaps focusing on Freddie's prior bands, meeting Smile then leading up to the formation in '70 and John Deacon joining in' 71,then some dramatisation of recording sessions and early tours, culminating in the mega Live Aid show or even the Magic tour. [/QUOTE]
That's not a movie, though. Like another poster says a little bit above, the existence of a successful band alone does not warrant a movie.
I'm guessing that the people who want the Freddie biopic to be about his musical legacy don't watch a lot of movies. In a movie you tell a story, you show conflict, relationships, setbacks, unusual situations, difficulties and comebacks, whatever. A talented musician singing and having success and then more success doesn't make a movie with any cinematic value, it's not a plot.
Freddie's a legend and he had a very cinematic life story, and you could possibly make a good movie out of it, but the movie absolutely needs to be about his personal life. To be honest, the music should largely be only in the background - no one except hardcore Queen fans is going to watch a movie where Freddie mostly sings and records some songs and is celebrated. The real, interesting story is in the initial success (not Live Aid); it's in the outrageous parties and wild lifestyle of the late 70s/early 80s; it's in his turn from glittery glam singer to leather-clad macho man and then later calming down; it's in sex, drugs & rock'n'roll; it's in the contrast of his bold stage persona and shyer private self; and obviously it's in his death from AIDS, with its years-long struggle and attempt to keep the illness a secret. There's the movie, and if you're not going to do that, then there shouldn't be any movie at all.
The original idea was good. I'd be interested in a Queen movie that perhaps starts in the late 60's, perhaps focusing on Freddie's prior bands, meeting Smile then leading up to the formation in '70 and John Deacon joining in' 71,then some dramatisation of recording sessions and early tours, culminating in the mega Live Aid show or even the Magic tour. [/QUOTE]
That's not a movie, though. Like another poster says a little bit above, the existence of a successful band alone does not warrant a movie.
I'm guessing that the people who want the Freddie biopic to be about his musical legacy don't watch a lot of movies. In a movie you tell a story, you show conflict, relationships, setbacks, unusual situations, difficulties and comebacks, whatever. A talented musician singing and having success and then more success doesn't make a movie with any cinematic value, it's not a plot.
Freddie's a legend and he had a very cinematic life story, and you could possibly make a good movie out of it, but the movie absolutely needs to be about his personal life. To be honest, the music should largely be only in the background - no one except hardcore Queen fans is going to watch a movie where Freddie mostly sings and records some songs and is celebrated. The real, interesting story is in the initial success (not Live Aid); it's in the outrageous parties and wild lifestyle of the late 70s/early 80s; it's in his turn from glittery glam singer to leather-clad macho man and then later calming down; it's in sex, drugs & rock'n'roll; it's in the contrast of his bold stage persona and shyer private self; and obviously it's in his death from AIDS, with its years-long struggle and attempt to keep the illness a secret. There's the movie, and if you're not going to do that, then there shouldn't be any movie at all.
k-m
Just reading people's comments under The Guardian article on this. "Surely the second half of the movie should just be John Deacon sat at home shaking his head". I would add, "with MIH's track 13 in the background". The contemplative bit.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Freddie's use of Bolivian marching dust was well known to certain people including the Met drug squad who for a while were keeping an eye on Freddie. [/QUOTE]
Citation needed !?
That's quite the claim, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Freddie's use of Bolivian marching dust was well known to certain people including the Met drug squad who for a while were keeping an eye on Freddie. [/QUOTE]
Citation needed !?
That's quite the claim, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Mr.Jingles
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Freddie's use of Bolivian marching dust was well known to certain people including the Met drug squad who for a while were keeping an eye on Freddie. [/QUOTE]
Citation needed !?
That's quite the claim, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
[/QUOTE]
Actually there's an entry on Peter Freestone's blog where he admits that Freddie was a casual coke user, but according to him he was never fully addicted in the same way Elton John, Stevie Nicks, or Eric Clapton were, who ended up in rehab at some point in their careers.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Freddie's use of Bolivian marching dust was well known to certain people including the Met drug squad who for a while were keeping an eye on Freddie. [/QUOTE]
Citation needed !?
That's quite the claim, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
[/QUOTE]
Actually there's an entry on Peter Freestone's blog where he admits that Freddie was a casual coke user, but according to him he was never fully addicted in the same way Elton John, Stevie Nicks, or Eric Clapton were, who ended up in rehab at some point in their careers.
musicland munich
Rinig Ring ! Wake-up call !
Freddie had many cocaine / drug related overdoses.Usually a paramedic was consulted in those cases.-...
If someone was trying to talk about that subject with Freddie, he don`t want to hear about it.
Freddie had many cocaine / drug related overdoses.Usually a paramedic was consulted in those cases.-...
If someone was trying to talk about that subject with Freddie, he don`t want to hear about it.
Costa86
I'd expect he probably did some designer drugs as well while clubbing in Munich - ecstacy (MDMA) and what not. He would probably have had access to high quality stuff. It's perfectly natural for someone who enjoyed himself as much as Freddie did to do cocaine. But, from what we know, he always was in control, although he did do quite a lot of it for a period. But it never rendered him useless like it did with some other artists - he still knew that music was his real drug.
If the drug squad were really keeping an eye on him (a citation would indeed be good to substantiate this), it would be because he was buying the powder in large quantities, and they may have been concerned it was for re-sale, in which case I expect it would be classified as drug trafficking. I know he bought a lot of it so his friends could do it too, and he'd most likely offer it for free, but perhaps that's what the police were looking in to.
If the drug squad were really keeping an eye on him (a citation would indeed be good to substantiate this), it would be because he was buying the powder in large quantities, and they may have been concerned it was for re-sale, in which case I expect it would be classified as drug trafficking. I know he bought a lot of it so his friends could do it too, and he'd most likely offer it for free, but perhaps that's what the police were looking in to.
bucsateflon
Freddie biopic is for gay fanboys, I want a movie about the "Queen machine".Something like a Scorsese movie.
Mr.Jingles
[QUOTE] [b]bucsateflon wrote:[/b]
Freddie biopic is for gay fanboys, I want a movie about the "Queen machine".Something like a Scorsese movie.
[/QUOTE]
A Scorsese style Freddie Mercury/Queen bio pic will start like this...
(Freddie narrating)
- "For as long as I can remember I always wanted to be a rock star. To me that was better than being president of the United States. To be a rock star was to own the world".
...and trust me, that movie will include all the nitty gritty aspects of Freddie's lifestyle.
Freddie biopic is for gay fanboys, I want a movie about the "Queen machine".Something like a Scorsese movie.
[/QUOTE]
A Scorsese style Freddie Mercury/Queen bio pic will start like this...
(Freddie narrating)
- "For as long as I can remember I always wanted to be a rock star. To me that was better than being president of the United States. To be a rock star was to own the world".
...and trust me, that movie will include all the nitty gritty aspects of Freddie's lifestyle.