Brian May on BBC Radio 2, 2 Dec 2018

The problem is that in the film Fred is blamed for everything. Because there's no mention of Sun City, Brian and Rog (and Jim Beach -- he offered the gig to them, and advised them it would be fine) get a free pass and therefore Fred's solo album, ego, drug taking etc gets the blame. This despite other members of the band doing solo albums and singles, taking drugs, cheating on their wives etc. Only Fred comes out of the film looking bad. There were clearly problems in 1985. However, there were clearly problems too before The Works. Roger basically admitted if The Works failed they would pack it in. But it was a massive success all over the world except the USA where it was a moderate success. They've always said, despite bickering fights etc, that Queen was the best vehicle for their talents. It was the "family" they came back to when their personal lives were difficult. There isn't any evidence that if MBG was successful then the band would've broken up. It's possible, of course, but only one of a number of outcomes. Why could it not be successful and Queen also remain together? That to me seems the most likely scenario.

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

[QUOTE] [b]Rami wrote:[/b]

Out of the blue, everybody slams Paul Prenter, as he is needed as the big villain in the movie.[/QUOTE]
It's not out of the blue. Brian has been talking about Paul Prenter since the 90s.

[QUOTE]Paul Prenter being rude to roadies is one thing (that had been documented before), but this hate against one person, making him the villain in the history of Queen, is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
You weren't there. Ask people who were. Why are you trying to protect him?

[QUOTE]What exactly happened in the smashing the mirror incident, we will never know.[/QUOTE]
I posted a quote from the very person it happened to. We know exactly what happened.

[QUOTE]And what do you mean by emphasizing that there was only one brief reference to cocaine in the movie? This has got nothing to do with the way Freddie treated his band members and friends in real life vs the movie.
[/QUOTE]
Some people are upset about Mercury being portrayed in a somewhat negative light. By the mid 80s he was a heavy coke user, which contributed greatly to how difficult it was becoming to work with him (it's why Michael Jackson took off). It hit a point where he wasn't even showing up to mixing sessions for his own songs. I mentioned the coke scene to emphasize how easy the film was on him, when it could've been a lot worse (aka more truthful). I brought up the mirror story from 1976 for the same reason.

[QUOTE]As far as we know, Freddie was the driving force to go back into the studio after Live Aid. So perhaps he felt the need to show a sort of responsibility towards Queen after his solo album. But that is miles away from the begging scene in the movie.[/QUOTE]
Again, because you were there, right?

There was an intervention after Live Aid. The other three members said to Mercury, point blank - "it's Prenter or us." They shifted around the timeline for the film, but this happened. If you need proof, then spend a decade or two in the music business and you'll eventually run into the right characters who will confirm it happened. Not everything was written in books or mentioned in interviews.

[QUOTE]I think it is very likely that Jim Beach bought him out of the contract.[/QUOTE]
...which is as good as being dropped. That's just a matter of saving face and beating the label to the punch.

[QUOTE]And again: Mr. Bad Guy did not bomb. It was a small success.[/QUOTE]
Mercury said his goal for Mr Bad Guy was to create his Thriller. He wrote about 15 songs, 11 of which ended up on the album.

500 songs were written for Thriller, and Quincy picked the best 9.

Mr Bad Guy only went gold in the UK after The Works had gone 2x platinum, and it didn't hit the US top 100. Considering the money that was invested into it, it was a colossal failure. There's no way to spin this as a positive.
[/QUOTE]

Brian has talked about Prenter (without using his name!) as one of the many reasons why Queen lost America. This is miles away from the way he is portrayed in the movie. Never did anyone imply that Paul Prenter was the big villain who nearly destroyed Freddie's life and Queen's career. That is Hollywood fabrication at best and Brian's twisted fantasy at worst. Why an intelligent man like you believes this is beyond me. It is not about protecting Paul Prenter, it is about basic rules of logic.

Just because Pete Brown said that Freddie had nearly killed him with a mirror we know exactly what happened? Huh??

Well, I always thought Michael Jackson took off just because Freddie used cocaine. Not because it was difficult to work with him.

The film was easy on Freddie? You are joking, right?
By all accounts there were problems in the studio with all four of them. Showing just one person who is the problem is not being easy at all.

Yeah, I know that there was a meeting where Freddie had to decide between Queen and Prenter. That is quite understandable. Four people meeting and talking about the future. That is called professionalism. But it is still not what is shown in the movie. The scene in the movie is kindergarten.

The success of Mr. Bad Guy is a question of perspective. I still maintain it was a success. And all this Thriller talking: Somewhere along the line Freddie must have changed his attitude towards the album, from being a Thriller like big production with famous people (Michael Jackson, Rod Stewart, Jeff Beck,...) towards a pure 100% Freddie Mercury album in a much more light-hearted way. This attitude is reflected in every interview I have heard of him speaking about the album.

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

[QUOTE] [b]Sealion wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Rami wrote:[/b]

But Mr. Bad Guy was a success in the UK.
And again: Where is the source that Columbia has dropped him?[/QUOTE]
There is no source. These things are usually not publicized. That’s why I could be wrong, but by evidence, it’s very likely, that they dropped him.[/QUOTE]

Precisely.

Good PR is everything in the entertainment business. Statements are carefully crafted as necessary. It's what literally every player in the game needs to do. It is as important a skill as their artistic skills.

Many Queen fans have somehow become convinced that May and Taylor suddenly became PR savvy after Mercury died, turning the band into a brand, harming their legacy, etc. The reality is - they were a hits band already by 1980, and literally from day one they were wise enough to keep their internal and business affairs as private as possible.

But then when they tell one new story in the biopic, fans get their knickers in a twist because they can't deal with the reality that their favourite singer wasn't a model human being or constantly successful.

While it sometimes makes for entertaining forum discussions, it's kind of disappointing to see how myopic and completely unaware of the workings of the music business so many Queen fans are.

Looking forward to being branded as a Mercury hater or something of that ilk, as is the norm around here.
[/QUOTE]

Wow, simply wow! That is not the point at all. And what an outrageous reply.

Freddie wasn't a saint, of course. But Brian and Roger also not saints.
Of course that only one person not guilty for all but it's easiest to blame someone who is dead and can't say anything.

As I said in the previous post, what kind of movie they wanted they did it and show in the movie what they wanted to show.

I‘m not a longtime Queen fan and would like to share my impression of the movie. I have only been listening to them since the nineties, but wasn’t interested in their background, until Adam started to tour with them.

I watched the movie twice. I don’t know, why everyone here says, that Freddie is pictured in a bad way. I went with 3 friends to see the film and we talked about it afterwards. My friends knew close to nothing at all about Queen, apart from their music. They didn’t even know Brian and Roger.

What we learnt from the film about Freddie isn’t at all negative. We saw, how Queen was formed, their way to success, how creative Freddie was and that he was a driving force behind the creation of the music. We learnt about the love of his life and that he „turned“gay. His private life was complicated and not easy. He was lured away from the band to go solo and he followed the prospect of more money and fame. After a time, he came to be aware, that he lost it with all his partying. He went back to his „family“ and together they had a huge success at Live Aid. My conclusion of the film: Freddie was a genius, creative musician, but also a human being. I haven’t thought about anything of it as being negative.

My conclusion: I find him much more likable now.

As for the rest of the band: My friends knew nothing about them before the film. Afterwards they knew, that Roger was the drummer and was a womanizer, Brian created We will rock you and John played bass. The film told Freddie’s story, not theirs.

I would think, most viewers saw the movie similar to me and my friends. I know some of it isn’t the truth. But in my opinion the essence of the story is. And we really enjoyed the film!

The success of Queen at live aid killed Freddie's solo career stone dead. Until then he'd been moderately successful.

"I don't think Freddie really wanted to go solo," Taylor said in A Kind of Magic. "It's just that he got an awful lot of money from CBS. When it came down to actually doing a solo album, he did sort of miss us. He used to ring me up, and I'd have to fly to Munich to do his background vocals." -- Roger Taylor

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/freddie-mercury-mr-bad-guy/

[QUOTE] [b]Blackvy wrote:[/b]

His "as Freddie would be" speech really annoys me. As some user said in a previous thread: "they just keep on milking the Queen cash cow and Freddie is the victim to make them the money", which I agree.
I second your idea to change the channel next time he's on.[/QUOTE]

Spot on.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
This stuff was known and spoken about years before the film came out.

Money was a source of competition and conflict between the band members from the day they started making money until circa 1988.

By 1984-85 Queen was falling apart (and not just because of Sun City), travelling in separate limos to gigs. It was all business. And then Mercury hired a guitarist to sound like Brian for his solo album. You think that didn't create further friction? Then his album bombed, which cost Columbia a pile of money, and they dropped him (it was supposed to be a two album deal). You'd better bet your life he went crying back to the band with his tail between his legs. If anything, the film didn't go far enough in depicting this.

The fact that the band played well on stage says nothing about the internal state of affairs at the time. Live Aid was a second lease on life for them. The entire experience humbled Mercury, and the happy scenes you see in the videos for One Vision hadn't existed for years.

Sorry / not sorry if all this ruins your rose tinted view. Being a fan of a band means accepting their story warts and all - not just your own personal version of it that filters out the inconvenient truths.
[/QUOTE]

Please stop spreading Brian May's lies as facts.Freddie would have like it! ;)

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

The problem is that in the film Fred is blamed for everything. Because there's no mention of Sun City, Brian and Rog (and Jim Beach -- he offered the gig to them, and advised them it would be fine) get a free pass and therefore Fred's solo album, ego, drug taking etc gets the blame. This despite other members of the band doing solo albums and singles, taking drugs, cheating on their wives etc. Only Fred comes out of the film looking bad.[/QUOTE]
Can't argue with that.

But still, don't underestimate people's intelligence - pretty much everyone knows that people (including rock stars) are flawed, and that a two hour movie is going to make omissions in order to advance a plot. The plot focused on one particular person's journey, not all of theirs.

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

"I don't think Freddie really wanted to go solo," Taylor said in A Kind of Magic. "It's just that he got an awful lot of money from CBS. When it came down to actually doing a solo album, he did sort of miss us. He used to ring me up, and I'd have to fly to Munich to do his background vocals." -- Roger Taylor

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/freddie-mercury-mr-bad-guy/
[/QUOTE]
What a wonderful anecdote. No doubt Mercury was having one hell of a battle within himself during those sessions.

[QUOTE] [b]Rami wrote:[/b]

Brian has talked about Prenter (without using his name!) as one of the many reasons why Queen lost America. This is miles away from the way he is portrayed in the movie. Never did anyone imply that Paul Prenter was the big villain who nearly destroyed Freddie's life and Queen's career.[/QUOTE]
A ton has been written and said about Paul Prenter's influence on Mercury and the band, including the Days Of Our Lives documentary in 2011.

Mack was recently quoted saying how Prenter attempted to influence Mercury to leave Queen if Mr Bad Guy was a success.

This 1987 interview with Prenter sums up his personality and toxicity in a nutshell:

http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1525451/from-wembley-stadium-to-dit-discos-forum-talks-to-paul-prenter-1987-.aspx

[QUOTE]Well, I always thought Michael Jackson took off just because Freddie used cocaine. Not because it was difficult to work with him.[/QUOTE]
Google "cocaine change brain chemistry," if you're interested.

Snorting coke isn't like eating a chocolate bar - there are repercussions. It changes your personality.

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

The problem is that in the film Fred is blamed for everything. Because there's no mention of Sun City, Brian and Rog (and Jim Beach -- he offered the gig to them, and advised them it would be fine) get a free pass and therefore Fred's solo album, ego, drug taking etc gets the blame. This despite other members of the band doing solo albums and singles, taking drugs, cheating on their wives etc. Only Fred comes out of the film looking bad. There were clearly problems in 1985. However, there were clearly problems too before The Works. Roger basically admitted if The Works failed they would pack it in. But it was a massive success all over the world except the USA where it was a moderate success. They've always said, despite bickering fights etc, that Queen was the best vehicle for their talents. It was the "family" they came back to when their personal lives were difficult. There isn't any evidence that if MBG was successful then the band would've broken up. It's possible, of course, but only one of a number of outcomes. Why could it not be successful and Queen also remain together? That to me seems the most likely scenario.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, except for Freddie's possible mind set at the time. If Prenter and maybe others in Freddie's circle convinced him he was capable of more than Queen, and he believed it for a while, then the Queen family cart would be well and truly about to run off the road, especially if the balance of the band being bigger than each member was upset in anyway.

I still think had Mr Bad Guy sold in the numbers CBS were expecting and had the second album option been taken up and maybe a solo tour that would have resulted in Freddie leaving.

It seems very poor judgement on the record company’s part to have expected huge sales from Freddie as a solo artist. It was after Hot Space and The Works but before Live Aid. Given the US Queen audience was a 70s rock one, was the perception, rightly or wrongly, not that the short haired, moustachioed Freddie had led the band into lame disco music. Why did they think there was a market for that when Queen had already bombed.

[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]

It seems very poor judgement on the record company’s part to have expected huge sales from Freddie as a solo artist. It was after Hot Space and The Works but before Live Aid. Given the US Queen audience was a 70s rock one, was the perception, rightly or wrongly, not that the short haired, moustachioed Freddie had led the band into lame disco music. Why did they think there was a market for that when Queen had already bombed.[/QUOTE]

All kinds of garbage was already being marketed as product and selling millions by then. So a solo album by one of the most famous singers in the world didn't seem like too much of a risk.

He wrote Bohemian Rhapsody, after all - how bad could it be?

Also, Michael had vastly outsold his former group. So, in context, it may have seemed like a good idea at the time.

Do you mean George Michael or Michael Jackson. I don’t see any comparison with either .George Michael was only leaving behind Andrew Ridgely, and moved into a more mature sound and image,growing with his original fans who were mainly young. Freddie was going the other way if anything.
What I thought at the time was it was just Freddie doing the type of music he wanted as an aside to Queen.
It seems the unnecessarily large amount of money offered by CBS just caused a lot of ripples.