Brian May on BBC Radio 2, 2 Dec 2018

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

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

Is there a difference between "artists" and people? Artists don't remember but people do?[/QUOTE]
Yep. Because most people don't invest themselves so fully into things the way artists invest themselves in their art. And when that much focus is involved, other things go by the wayside. It's not the kind of thing that can be explained in a single paragraph. Unless someone understands it from experience, chances are they'll give you a blank look when you try explaining it to them.

That aside - some people just have better memories than others.

[QUOTE]Brian played IAHL numerous times: it's even on Rock in Rio. When he said that about IAHL he was probably just making the crowd feel like this was a special performance.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. But considering how the Works tour was a low point in their career, I wouldn't be surprised if it's taken a back seat in his memory.

[QUOTE]As for his comments about the movie, let's not forget he is stupidly stubborn and has surrounded himself with yes men. I don't think in that moment he could bring himself to admit that something in the movie was wrong.
[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with stubbornness or yes men. It's the simple fact that Brian fully understands the process. Hollywood invested $50 million so that Queen could greatly expand their legacy. Anyone with half a brain knows not to bite the hand that feeds them. Compromises will be made, and the players involved will stand up for them in the interest of marketing that product. It's smart business. A few people complaining on internet forums are the only casualties at the end of the day.
[/QUOTE]
Why is The Works tour lowpoint?????

It really is beyond me why anyone defends May anymore the movie is full if lies and he seems to believe them. Especially that he was the creative Force in Queen Freddie was a drugged up lonely fool and he let him back in the band after he begged them.
This crap film is an insult to any Queenfan with sense and tbh i am sick of Maylor. They have become worse than Simmons and Stanley

Isn’t it two months’ time between the tour and Live Aid?

My point is that “you’d just come off” and “quite a while” are not time specific.

“Quite a while” might mean two months. “Just come off” might mean two months. One implies that they were “fresh” from a tour. The other, that there was enough time that had lapsed that the band needed to regather themselves physically and emotionally and rehearse. Neither interpretation is incorrect, but Brian remembered it as needing to regather and prepare.

May says what is in the movie is correct or didnt you see the film or heard the interview.In the film they havent played for YEARS. And two months is quite shorter dont you think. YOu can defend the guy as much as you like but dont embarrass yourself

I listened to the entire interview and Brian clearly said that some details had to be changed in order to tell the story. He never said it was two years between the tour and Live Aid.

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

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

Is there a difference between "artists" and people? Artists don't remember but people do?[/QUOTE]
Yep. Because most people don't invest themselves so fully into things the way artists invest themselves in their art. And when that much focus is involved, other things go by the wayside. It's not the kind of thing that can be explained in a single paragraph. Unless someone understands it from experience, chances are they'll give you a blank look when you try explaining it to them.

That aside - some people just have better memories than others.

[QUOTE]Brian played IAHL numerous times: it's even on Rock in Rio. When he said that about IAHL he was probably just making the crowd feel like this was a special performance.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. But considering how the Works tour was a low point in their career, I wouldn't be surprised if it's taken a back seat in his memory.

[QUOTE]As for his comments about the movie, let's not forget he is stupidly stubborn and has surrounded himself with yes men. I don't think in that moment he could bring himself to admit that something in the movie was wrong.
[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with stubbornness or yes men. It's the simple fact that Brian fully understands the process. Hollywood invested $50 million so that Queen could greatly expand their legacy. Anyone with half a brain knows not to bite the hand that feeds them. Compromises will be made, and the players involved will stand up for them in the interest of marketing that product. It's smart business. A few people complaining on internet forums are the only casualties at the end of the day.
[/QUOTE]

I don't really buy the huge distinction you're creating between artistes and the bourgeoisie. And in any event it conflicts with your later comment that Brian deliberately lied to support the movie. So he either forgot (and why would he forget about his art? Surely, following your argument, it's non-artistic things he might forget about?) or he lied. Given that range of possible motivation, it's not so hard then to consider also that he stubbornly refused to admit that the film has factual errors (done for dramatic effect). Why would he not simply say so? He even comes close to that when he says the "essence of the film is true".

Overall in the interview he mainly sounds alert, jovial, happy. I was pleased to hear this. Despite his faults, he's given us a lot of great music over the years.

Holly2003, your comments are spot on. The simple truth is there are factual errors in the movie, they might serve this or another purpose, but his denials are pointless and a little embarrassing. It's not like the Prime Minister is going to go on the radio the next day and say, "OMG, Brian May just confirmed things were changed in this film, boycott it and return your tickets!". People are still going to see it and Hollywood will not cut him off in some act of medieval retaliation. Without his consent, they might have not been able to make this film at all, so it's not like poor Bri needs to watch his every word now. Rami Malek already expressed quite a few concerns about the film and he's still alive, I'm sure Brian could get away with it too.

(1:09:07) (when asked about reactions to the movie)

BM: I think some of it is a misconception. I think some people thought it was supposed to be a documentary, and it’s not. So they start picking holes and saying, you know, “This is compressed and this is in the wrong order.” That’s not what a film is about. You know, the film is about trying to find an inner truth in a sequence of events, whereas a documentary is just stringing the events together and bits of film from the time. So I think there’s a bit of a misconception.

[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]

Why is The Works tour lowpoint?????
[/QUOTE]

-Sun City

-their show became stale in their eyes

-they were on the verge of breaking up, not least because of the tensions from Mercury having gotten a 3x bigger advance for his solo album than the band got for The Works

It's not far fetched to suggest that had Live Aid not happened they may well have called it quits in 85.

[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]

It really is beyond me why anyone defends May anymore the movie is full if lies and he seems to believe them. Especially that he was the creative Force in Queen Freddie was a drugged up lonely fool and he let him back in the band after he begged them.
[/QUOTE]

Literally every biopic stretches the truth in order to advance the story. It's how Hollywood works, and no outside force will ever change that. Take a deep breath and accept this basic fact.

Unlike 1974-79 where Mercury wrote the majority of the band's hits, 1980-86 saw the other three members carrying the weight. Mercury's art took a back seat to his personal life. He wasn't creatively hungry anymore. He found himself and a community where he felt he belonged.

If anything, the film was very generous to Mercury. There was only one indirect reference to cocaine in the entire film.

Imagine the outrage if the film depicted him smashing a mirror over Pete Brown's head.

Which actually happened.

In 1976. Never mind when he went off the rails in the 80s.

[QUOTE] [b]k-m wrote:[/b]

Without his consent, they might have not been able to make this film at all, so it's not like poor Bri needs to watch his every word now. Rami Malek already expressed quite a few concerns about the film and he's still alive, I'm sure Brian could get away with it too.[/QUOTE]

Now we're getting into legalities.

Don't underestimate the inner workings of Hollywood or the entertainment business as a whole. All the players involved know exactly what they can and cannot say at any given moment, given their particular roles and the legal documents they've signed.

Successful people calculate every word they say, now more than ever in this digital age. There are massive repercussions if they don't. Hollywood is far bigger than Rami Malek or Queen Productions.

"the film is about trying to find an inner truth in a sequence of events"

The fact that Brian May is smart enough to rhyme off things like this off the top of his head is precisely why he is rich and famous - not just because he wrote great songs. It's because he is constantly cognizant of his role in business.

If forces bigger than you are helping you, then you protect that force at all costs, end of. If you can't, then you're gone and they've got ten people waiting in line to replace you because you're just a moving part. That's been the way of the world for thousands of years. Loyalty is everything.

Even if the movie got all the dates correct, and other known facts correct, there would be complaints that the dialogue was made up. Also people would be upset that an actor is pretending to be Freddie or someone else.

But remember, Peter Freestone was on set and Rami consulted with him on everything. So they really made a good attempt to get the details correct. If anything was out of character, Peter and Rami would have put a stop to that.

Interesting that Brian brought up the bad situation with the first director. And he didn’t try to sound polite about the situation. I think there was a lot going on and Rami had to take control.

[QUOTE] [b]Donna13 wrote:[/b]

Interesting that Brian brought up the bad situation with the first director. And he didn’t try to sound polite about the situation.[/QUOTE]

Of course - because Bryan Singer's name is mud now. Anyone can slam him.

By details, I mean details of Freddie’s character/personality/habits.

He didn’t slam him, but he just didn’t try to sound polite about it.