Peter Freestone on Bohemian Rhapsody at Dutch Queen Day

Maybe this is minutia to the general public, but I really don't like this if it's actually happening in the film.

If Freddie really didn't know he had the illness until 1987, why on earth is this movie bending that reality by two years?

That is going to make Freddie look pretty irresponsible with Jim.

They should have told the full story, and covered the inspiration and drama and sadness of his death.

No, they wanted to tell a happy story that ends on a high.

Well, now they're bending the truth to do that.

And I really feel if you wanted an award-winning film, you needed to show Freddie's rise and fall. Sad or not, that's the unique story.

Putting all the evidence together - it seems they are suggesting Freddie got AIDS in 1974 off a Fat Bottomed Girl.

[QUOTE] [b]DrowsingOnASundayAfernoon wrote:[/b]
If Freddie really didn't know he had the illness until 1987, why on earth is this movie bending that reality by two years
That is going to make Freddie look pretty irresponsible with Jim. [/QUOTE]

There are various sources who claim he "knew" much earlier (whatever that exactly means, see my posting above) but kept on living his wild life and stayed in denial. If you want to, you can call that "irresponsible".
Jim either refers to the date his HIV developed into AIDS or the date Freddie told it to him.

[QUOTE] [b]DrowsingOnASundayAfernoon wrote:[/b]

If Freddie really didn't know he had the illness until 1987, why on earth is this movie bending that reality by two years?

That is going to make Freddie look pretty irresponsible with Jim.[/QUOTE]

But considering Jim and Mercury's post-1985 life won't be featured in the film, 99.9999% of people won't even consider this scenario.

Maybe it will be featured but it will happen a year earlier than in real life?

I have a feeling they are going to squeeze loads of post 1985 stuff in before Live Aid and make it seem like some last concert or something....

The life of Queen post-Live Aid to present day will be the subject of the sequel, should the first film do well enough at the box office.

I don't think it's right to show in movie this theory, that he knew before 1987.
Mary Austin said Freddie knew but it's not proof that this was true. Why would be true every her word?

I also think it's not right that there is nothing in the movie after Live Aid if movie really ends that way.

It seems that they want to erase Jim from Freddie's life, to deny their love and how much Jim was important to Freddie.
It's sad.

[QUOTE] [b]Invisible Woman wrote:[/b]
I don't think it's right to show in movie this theory, that he knew before 1987.
Mary Austin said Freddie knew but it's not proof that this was true. Why would be true every her word?[/QUOTE]
She's one of the few persons who accompanied him through his whole adult life until the end. She got his home and 50% of his estate after he died. She was one of the first people he came out to. She promised him to hide the place of his grave and his ashes. It totally makes sense that she was the first to know that he had HIV. Before 1987.

Jim's theory that Freddie didn't know until 1987 isn't credible considering the fact that Freddie had access to the best doctors and medicine.

[QUOTE] [b]Invisible Woman wrote:[/b]It seems that they want to erase Jim from Freddie's life, to deny their love and how much Jim was important to Freddie.
It's sad.[/QUOTE]
It's not about erasing someone, it's about entertaining a film audience. Plus it would raise questions about Freddie's behaviour after he knew that he was ill.

@user1 So what if she inherited all that from him? That doesn't mean that everything what she says is true.
I have the right not to believe in all her statements.

When Barbara Valentin said the same, most of people don't believe her. But when Marry says it's true. Who was the first to mention that Freddie knew 1984-85? Barbara or Mary?

If they didn't want to include in the movie a period after Live Aid, why do they mention Hiv at all? What do they want to say with that?
If they don't want his life with Jim in movie that means they really want to diminish Jim's role in Freddie's life. That's a fact.

I don't think Mary said he knew in 1985?
As far as I know Mary has said he knew before / early on during the Magic Tour (so Mid 1986), which is pretty much what most other sources say and coincide with his change in attitude at the time.

He probably 'knew' a bit before that as he wasn't stupid, knew his own body and his past behaviour meant he was very high risk.

The reason they need to do it in the movie is because Jo Public will expect to see it in the movie, he was one of the first famous people to die from Aids complications.

[QUOTE] [b]emrabt wrote:[/b]

I don't think Mary said he knew in 1985?
As far as I know Mary has said he knew before / early on during the Magic Tour (so Mid 1986), which is pretty much what most other sources say and coincide with his change in attitude at the time.[/QUOTE]

Mercury knew on the Magic tour, and Mary knew by Knebworth.

We know those two things for sure, but anything beyond that is conjecture.

[QUOTE] [b]Invisible Woman wrote:[/b]

@user1 So what if she inherited all that from him? That doesn't mean that everything what she says is true.
I have the right not to believe in all her statements.[/QUOTE]
You have the right to believe what you want. Even if it's only to justify the behaviour of your idol. Fact: He didn't tell Jim until 1987 that he had HIV/AIDS and Jim caught HIV too: How do you like that?

[QUOTE] [b]Invisible Woman wrote:[/b]If they didn't want to include in the movie a period after Live Aid, why do they mention Hiv at all? [/QUOTE]
Because everyone knows the end and not mentioning HIV at all would be making a "family friendly" version which is exactly what they don't want to do.

[QUOTE] [b]Invisible Woman wrote:[/b]What do they want to say with that?[/QUOTE]
That he delivered the show of is life though (or because?) he knew he would die slowly and painfully in the next couple of years.

[QUOTE] [b]Invisible Woman wrote:[/b]If they don't want his life with Jim in movie that means they really want to diminish Jim's role in Freddie's life. That's a fact.[/QUOTE]
Why is that a fact? They just focus on a certain part of his life. They want Freddie to be remembered as a rock god, not as a helpless, dying man. Which is EXACTLY what Freddie wanted.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

Mercury knew on the Magic tour, and Mary knew by Knebworth.

We know those two things for sure, but anything beyond that is conjecture.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to only consider one source/interview that you take for granted and regard everything else as conjecture. Using this logic, I could even regard the one source as faulty. Which I don't. :)
Fun fact: we don't know anything "for sure" as this would only be possible by seeing his first few test results. As long that this isn't the case, we have to take a look at the big picture.

@user1 I don't have any idols but I have my own opinion. If you believe in everything Mary says is ok. I don't mind it.

About movie, if it's biographical movie then it's necessary to present the life of that person and not just what would be pleasing to a wide audience or just what is commercial.
Those who really love Freddie's music already consider him one of the best singers and musicians .They don't need a movie to convince them.
That's my opinion.

@user1
@Invisible Woman

Barbara Valentin also stated that already in 1985 Freddie was aware something was wrong with his health

Another thing.....Roger Taylor told me Barbara Valentin will be in the film. She was the worst influence, with Paul Prenter in Freddie's live and very important in the Munich years. Where is Barbara in the film? Everybody knows the answer.