Bohemian Rhapsody: What the haters didn't get

pittrek wrote:

What the hell is wrong with today's society? Are people no longer allowed to have a negative opinion about anything?

From what i see the problem in today era is that your own opinion is not welcome anymore(hope you understand what im mean)

Anyway i kinda like the movie, yeah sure the are quite few badly done things so for me its not biopic but more like movie inspired by queen. With that look i kinda enjoying the movie.

Oh, I did enjoy it too. But "only" enjoy it, nothing more, nothing less.

FMBMJDRT wrote:

The original poster asks "can you name one scandalous event due to their drugs use in the 1970-1985 period?"

As I have posted elsewhere I found this at Deaky.net at the link below http://www.deaky.net/weekly/2008/dw34E.html

"Dawkins' Memoirs
Record producer/ record label chief Peter Dawkins' memoirs 'The Icecream Boy' is as much a glimpse into the corporate music world as his struggle against Parkinson's. Among some of the anecdotes:
* Queen's John Deacon and Roger Taylor arrived for a promo tour, and Deacon disappeared for two days in Sydney, rattled after taking mushrooms in Bali and convinced that Rupert Murdoch was spying on him through the hotel TV set. Queen's management and EMI America kept ringing EMI Oz with threats they'd better find their boy. "

I am sure that plenty more of these types of events have been kept hidden (the book was only published in Australia). We only know about Freddie's misadventures because he is dead.

Thanks for the info! I knew something happened in Bali, but I didn't know what. Do you have something else similar to share?

pittrek wrote:

What the hell is wrong with today's society? Are people no longer allowed to have a negative opinion about anything?

Of course everybody can like or dislike the movie or anything else as much as they want, I don't have a problem with that. But it is annoying to read on this board dozens of posters blaming the wrong persons for what they don't like about the movie. Plus, some of the most hated scenes of the movie can be explained, like the press conference scene for instance. I believe some people really "didn't get" that scene, as well as some other things.

pittrek wrote:

The movie was complete fiction, but there's a tiny little problem - it was supposed to be a biopic.

Well, a lot of critically acclaimed biopics contain a lot of fictional elements. I know you know your Queen very well, and I'm sure if one day you watch it again you could see what true facts inspired Anthony McCarten (and Peter Morgan) to write the movie.

( btw, thanks for the bootlegs :) )

Mr Poor Grammar, I think you need to learn how to read between the lines. You go into so much detail in your post that you're actually often missing the point. Larry Lurex - who cares? We all know what it was like, so Roger was definitely the first one to go solo. May & Taylor executive music producers only? Well, in the name only. We all know they had a right to veto many choices or even pull the plug on the whole thing. Quite an influence. Brian did say the film was generally accurate, I am not even going to waste my time looking for the exact quote, I simply heard him say that, for example in a BBC Radio 2 interview. Freddie doesn't break up the band? Oh really, who invites them to his house then with Paul whispering in his ear "We cannot prolong it any longer". He clearly knew something serious was about to happen and it did. But no, it wasn't Roger who announced he just signed a major deal for two solo albums, it was the Fredster. Pre-Live Aid gap? I think you answered your own question there, the film clearly rewrites the history in that scene. No scandals with Bri, Rog and John? Ok, probably nothing serious publicised there, but those were the 70s and 80s, these stories simply never saw the light of day. However, we all know Rog liked his drink, Brian admitted it with regards to his Hot Space era too and we all heard Freddie say he could tell you stories about Brian you'd find hard to believe. John also had some booze issues around '86 etc. etc. Yet still, the 3 of them are portrayed almost as saints indeed in the film. Never heard about Deacon's contribution being erased claim, that's a new one for me. He's clearly credited with AOBTD and IWTBF so not sure where you got this accusation from. Same goes for the alleged press scene hate - really? One of the more truthful moments in the movie. The begging scene - once again, I think we watched different films then. It's clearly Freddie who phones Jim first asking for a meeting, then kicks it off with a long apology and is sent outside by Bri at some point while they make up their minds if they should let him back in. Honestly, did you not see that??

PS. And don't call me a hater, please. I actually sat down some time ago with my family and rewatched it on DVD and enjoyed it a lot since it's a very watchable movie, yet it doesn't change the fact I think it's mostly a load of crap. As simple as that, no strong feelings there.

Mr. Poor Grammar wrote:

Being a huge success, it doesn't stop Bohemian Rhapsody being hated by some Queen fans. Everyone here gave their opinions about the movie, but very few people actually did some research about that film. There are some elements the haters on this board didn't get. Of course, you have every right to not like the movie, but it is annoying to read mistruths on a Queen forum.

First, Brian May and Roger Taylor have been blamed for every single flaw of the script and sometimes montage (someone almost blamed Brian for the singing-along during Hammer To Fall). Is this board and a huge part of the internet, they are rumored to be the executive producers of Bohemian Rhapsody movie.
BUT, they are actually NOT. They are not co-producers either. They are executive MUSIC producers, which is something completely different. It's unfair to blame the music producers for what you consider to be script flaws. As far as I know, John Williams was never blamed for the existence of Jar Jar Binks, so why is May blamed for everything in Bo Rhap?

Then, there are a few people here believing that Brian said the movie was factually accurate. But he never said that, in fact he said the opposite.
Brian May: "It's not really about the facts so much." http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/nhknewsline/backstories/brianmay/index.html

The changes of facts were also not commanded by Brian. Graham King said: "I told May, ‘We’re making a film, not a documentary’".

In the movie Freddie doesn't break up the band, Roger does. In fact, Freddie says he doesn't want Queen to stop and he doesn't leave the band, but his bandmates are pissed off and decide to split-up. There is something else you guys missed.
If you were in a "Roger did a solo project first" mood, you forgot about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3epki8NAbWg
Yes, it is Freddie having a solo project in 1973. Though Brian and Roger appear on the a-side (as well as Taylor appears on Star Fleet and May, Deacon and Mercury appear on Strange Frontier), they don't appear on the b-side, hence why this single is considered as a Freddie release. And there is something else you didn't notice.
What you didn't notice is that the band get pissed when Freddie tells them "I signed a deal with CBS". In fact, Freddie was indeed the first to sign a deal for a solo project outside EMI. And he was also the first who wanted his project to be more successful than the "last Queen album". Plus at the time, it was a common thing for singers to release a solo album and become more successful than their band (Michael Jackson, Peter Gabriel, Sting...).

About the "We haven't played together in years" line, they didn't perform live between november 1982 and september 1984. Almost 2 years. Though Live Aid was the very last concert of The Works era, it seems to be placed at the very begining of the tour in the movie. Is that really a big deal? Plus, in real life they really had to rehearse and get trained because of the "more than one month break" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3MtdSka8xE&feature=youtu.be&t=60

About May, Taylor and Deacon being portrayed as saints who went home to their families and never used drugs, can you name one scandalous event due to their drugs use in the 1970-1985 period? Plus, Roger's girlfriends are not hidden in the movie at all. He is clearly shown as a womanizer. Freddie even jokes about it twice in the movie. And in reality, Brian and John happened to bring their wife and kids on tour with them, so portraying them as family men is not too far away from the truth.

About the depiction of Deacon, his contribution is not erased and he is not shown as a loser. Aside from Freddie, John's contribution is the most respected one. He is credited as the writer of YRMBF, SYW, AOBTD and IWTBF, while Brian is only credited for WWRY and SL (not named), and Roger for IMILWMC. The movie credits Deacy on twice more songs than Brian. About the depiction as a loser, the only thing that can indicate that is a "lack" of dialogue. But in fact, John used to describe himself as "the quiet one" of the band, and wasn't talking much in band's interviews. In a 2 hours movie, Joe Mazzello almost had more dialogues than John Deacon in 25 years.

About the press conference scene, why all the hate? It's personally one of my favourites. The love story of Queen and the press being outlined in 3 minutes. I think some of you missed the point of this scene. I believe it was not about showing Freddie not being polite with the press, but to show how the press was nasty to Queen and specially to Freddie. And it does it very well.

About the Fat Bottomed Girls scene, it was not only meant to show Queen perform live in 1974, it also shows Freddie questioning his sexuality. He is dating Mary, everyone believes he is heterosexual, but inside he knows he is not.

About the "begging" scene, he doesn't ask to go back to the band. Though that scene might be a bit exagerated, in the middle of the movie the band rejected Paul Prenter and Freddie wanted Prenter in his life. He didn't listen to his bandmates. In that scene, he apologised for this and showed how humble he was. That's how I see it.

Before someone brings up some useless movie critics, I would like to conclude with a Freddie Mercury quote from a 1981 Rolling Stone article: "What do I think about critics? I think they're a bunch of sh*ts".

With love.

is there a summary?

People are allowed to have their opinion....and in my humble opinion, the movie does a disservice to Freddie and I don't like it

I think what irked me most is now people use it as a factually accurate piece and (from a zero start) they have now become Queen experts based on one watch.

So when I tell them it was actually loaded with inaccuracies (most of which I accept as necessary plot devices) they say it's not 'BECAUSE I SAW IT IN THE FILM'.

We usually conclude that it was a fun film but should be taken with a pinch of salt. Like Velvet Goldmine. And I put myself in my own position when I first saw The Doors in 1991. I knew next to nothing about them but liked the 'Best Of'. I now am expert level on The Doors and see the film wasn't too accurate. But unlike BR - the lay person could tell when the film was in a 'fantasy' sequence. Like when Wayne & Garth turned up and met Jim in the Desert. Or was that Waynes World?

But I do stand by my original opinion (expressed in my live commentary thread) that Rami is only good in about 2 or 3 scenes. I don't think that was his fault though. Strange editing and wardrobe. BM and JD are spot on throughout. I can't believe some of John's expressions. Excellent. RT: problematic.

I mean, this one will run and run.

Mr. Poor Grammar wrote:

Plus, some of the most hated scenes of the movie can be explained, like the press conference scene for instance. I believe some people really "didn't get" that scene, as well as some other things.

That scene is the least problematic in the whole movie

On the other hand this is one of the most weak, bad scenes
a poor flimsy 40 seconds portrait of what shoulda been glorious, epic and at least 20 minutes long :
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0r-SDY4ElbQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

One of the bits that should've featured more in the film - like the fantasy / explainer bits in Velvet Goldmine. The camera sweep at around :30 should've been way closer to the crowd to hide lame stage and cut quickly to Brian or roger to punctuate the music and hid the clumsiness of Rami's movements. Should've cut to the stage with the explosions you hear on the soundtrack but, again, are lazily not actually present on the stage.

Hi k-m

k-m wrote:

Larry Lurex - who cares? We all know what it was like, so Roger was definitely the first one to go solo.

Larry Lurex was a Freddie project outside Queen. Yes it was released a few weeks before the debut album, but it is still a solo project.

k-m wrote:

May & Taylor executive music producers only? Well, in the name only. We all know they had a right to veto many choices or even pull the plug on the whole thing. Quite an influence.

They could have pulled the plug on the whole project in the way they could have not given the rights to use Queen music to Fox. And you can't make a movie about Freddie and Queen without using any Queen music. That's how they could have cancelled it.

k-m wrote:

Brian did say the film was generally accurate, I am not even going to waste my time looking for the exact quote, I simply heard him say that, for example in a BBC Radio 2 interview.

Don't worry, I know what he said. At the premiere of the movie, he compared the accuracy of the movie to the accuracy of a history painting. I think it is a good comparison.

k-m wrote:
Freddie doesn't break up the band? Oh really, who invites them to his house then with Paul whispering in his ear "We cannot prolong it any longer". He clearly knew something serious was about to happen and it did. But no, it wasn't Roger who announced he just signed a major deal for two solo albums, it was the Fredster.

Depends what you mean by "Freddie breaks up the band". It is Roger who announced to Freddie "You just killed Queen", meaning that Queen doesn't exist anymore, but it's Freddie who signed the deal and all that stuff.

k-m wrote:
Never heard about Deacon's contribution being erased claim, that's a new one for me. He's clearly credited with AOBTD and IWTBF so not sure where you got this accusation from.

That particular thing wasn't explicilty said on QZ. Some fan accounts on Twitter (which I hate) imagined what a Netflix serie about Queen could be like, saying this time Deacy contribution would not be erased. And on this place, I have seen various posts saying that John was disrepected, so I assumed they were talking about the same thing.

k-m wrote:
Same goes for the alleged press scene hate - really? One of the more truthful moments in the movie.

I have seen some posts here saying that scene was b/s because people would not imagine Freddie talking like this to journalists in public. In a non QZ context, there was also David R. Fuller on Tumblr who said that Freddie never had a nervous breakdown in a press conference, which led me to think a lot of people missed the point of the scene and didn't like it for this reason.

k-m wrote:
The begging scene - once again, I think we watched different films then. It's clearly Freddie who phones Jim first asking for a meeting, then kicks it off with a long apology and is sent outside by Bri at some point while they make up their minds if they should let him back in.

I'm not a fan of that scene either and I admit it is exagerated. In my original post, I was referring to the long apology. Yes, it was Freddie who phoned Jim first while watching the Paul Prenter interview, then there is the apology. Then he talks about his solo project, saying things similar to what the real Freddie said in interviews. Eventually, there is a mixture of various things that happened later (the big band meeting in Switzerland Phoebe mentioned once in ask Phoebe: http://www.freddiemercury.com/en/ask-phoebe/blog-9 + others things you already know). I saw it more as a "should we carry on?" moment than a "should we let Freddie back in?" one.

It is like a history painting.

'Larry Lurex was a Freddie project outside Queen. Yes it was released a few weeks before the debut album, but it is still a solo project.'

On a technicality, I suppose it is. In the same way Brian playing guitar on a Holly Johnson album is technically. If it had been a hit, would Freddie have become Larry Lurex in the same way after studio projects like Alvin Stardust and Gary Glitter (almost accidentally) became hits? I wonder. Queen might have become the backing band and they would've toured as Larry Lurex but playing their 1973 set plus those 2 songs. A fascinating thought.

The difference of course is that we probably wouldn't be discussing them in 2019.

I often wonder the same if Bowie's pre-fame Arnold Corns project would've been a hit. Both would be firmly in the Junkshop Glam file but with an intriguing tale.

This movie is a projective test of faith, not in the band but in yourself as a fan.
Explaining it scene by scene is as bad as destroying it scene by scene.

I went to the cinema determined to like it and I liked it more than I expected. The facts? Fuck them.