May - Descending Further Into The Abyss

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


The film gave them another medium to tell their story
[/QUOTE]

If this is true, how can this be true?

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Rock musicians have zero influence over a Hollywood script. The top cats went to the band members for biographical notes early in the process, and their involvement pretty well ends there - Hollywood calls the shots from then onward. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, and the final decisions do not come down to two rock musicians who are not bankrolling the production.
[/QUOTE]

Do you have access to these 'biographical notes'? Do they say the band split up? Why, in a movie where so much is fabricated, should we believe any of it. This is the problem really. Defenders of the movie say it's not historical and yet we're asked to believe the bit about Fred leaving the band. Maybe those Hollywood screenwriters took some bits of info (band tensions/solo album) and created/exaggerated the drama.

Incidentally, rather than Fred being difficult to work with, it seems to be the case that Brian could be very difficult to work with. He fought with Fred and Roger. It's also been stated that Fred was the peacemaker in the band. So what should we believe? Certainly not a Hollywood biopic.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]If this is true, how can this be true?
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Rock musicians have zero influence over a Hollywood script. The top cats went to the band members for biographical notes early in the process, and their involvement pretty well ends there - Hollywood calls the shots from then onward. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, and the final decisions do not come down to two rock musicians who are not bankrolling the production.
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

I'd say that was an easy one. People close to Freddie were asked for anything and everything they had on Freddie and his life within the band. Brian, Roger and others provided that info.
The financial backers, producers and scriptwriters then decide which events are key, or as Bob Seger put it:
"What to leave in, what to leave out".

Truth of the matter will be that - they could ALL be difficult...but it wasn't a Brian Biopic and it certainly wasn't a Roger Biopic. If the movie had been a Queen Rockumentary, then those complaining about Brian looking great while Freddie looked like the villain, would have a case. It wasn't, so they don't.

It was a movie about Freddie's life in the music business. So, we take the rough with the smooth. Regardless of what "Freddie Loyalists" may claim, the movie (linear cracks in the space-time continuum, aside) will be a generally accurate account of events. Had it not been, there'd be lawyers all over the shop.

As for the Bonham/Blackmore analogy. I agree. But, I'd say that in Freddie's case, the difficulty was likely a 50/50.
50% - Bonzo's hard living approach (Bonham was also a very hard worker)
50% - Blacker's intolerance for other's methods/lifestyles

Peter Gabriel left Genesis. The Beatles split up. Ozzy Osbourne was fired. Slash left Guns n Roses. Brian Zeno left Roxy Music. Syd Barrett was removed from Pink Floyd.
We know this because it all happened and these artists toured and made new music on their own and were replaced in their former bands if they carried on.
Queen didn’t split up. We know this because it didn’t happen and none of the above happened. Regardless of Mr Bad Guy not being great the only member of Queen with any serious solo prospects was Freddie. It’s utterly ridiculous to portray the rest of the band as calling the shots as to whether Freddie could stay in the band.

Peter Gabriel left Genesis. The Beatles split up. Ozzy Osbourne was fired. Slash left Guns n Roses. Brian Zeno left Roxy Music. Syd Barrett was removed from Pink Floyd.
We know this because it all happened and these artists toured and made new music on their own and were replaced in their former bands if they carried on.
Queen didn’t split up. We know this because it didn’t happen and none of the above happened. Regardless of Mr Bad Guy not being great the only member of Queen with any serious solo prospects was Freddie. It’s utterly ridiculous to portray the rest of the band as calling the shots as to whether Freddie could stay in the band.

[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]Queen didn’t split up. We know this because it didn’t happen and none of the above happened. Regardless of Mr Bad Guy not being great the only member of Queen with any serious solo prospects was Freddie. It’s utterly ridiculous to portray the rest of the band as calling the shots as to whether Freddie could stay in the band.[/QUOTE]

you say this like you know - for a fact.
you don't.
queen always maintained that they were a four-equal-parts band - all with equal say, so there is nothing to say that the "three" didn't get to decide if he was allowed to return.

and again...regardless of your own definition of "split" - if they parted as a band - even for a few days, if the intention was to split, then split it is.

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

Peter Gabriel left Genesis. The Beatles split up. Ozzy Osbourne was fired. Slash left Guns n Roses. Brian Zeno left Roxy Music. Syd Barrett was removed from Pink Floyd.
We know this because it all happened and these artists toured and made new music on their own and were replaced in their former bands if they carried on.
Queen didn’t split up. We know this because it didn’t happen and none of the above happened. Regardless of Mr Bad Guy not being great the only member of Queen with any serious solo prospects was Freddie. It’s utterly ridiculous to portray the rest of the band as calling the shots as to whether Freddie could stay in the band.[/QUOTE]

You're view of "the facts" regarding Queen are just that, your view.

Yes your list of bands/artists is spot on though their are many more you could add.

What about the situation with Pink Floyd around the time of recoding The Wall, or just after it, when they sacked Richard Wright then re hired him to play live, at the time it wasn't common knowledge.

You don't know the facts around this episode in Queen's history but hypothetically suppose Freddie thought he had a bigger brighter future as a solo artist, "hey I've just secured a bigger deal than Queen from a rival record label and my songs are great" he's had enough of being an equal with people he's fed up working with ( he pointed to this in a couple of interviews). So he goes off tells bJim Beach that's it I'm gone. Beach tells the band who collectively realise that they are tied to contracts that say if the split they owe money to record companies etc. So they don't go public with the split. They honour any live work that's booked then have a few long meetings about what they can do next.

During this time Freddies album doesn't sell like CBS wanted it too, they drop him. Queen are still getting offers form promoters and still owe the record company new material, Beach or someone brokers a meeting for the four of them and Freddie re joins.

I'm sure you and a few other won't agree, but this is as possible as you saying it's not true.

One thing I have noticed is that a lot of Queen interviews from early to mid 80s the subject of staying together or splitting up is openly discussed. There’s a few on YouTube which pre and post date Mr Bad Guy.
Recurring responses are that they are better as a whole and that there is still room to do what they want to do individually in Queen. But that they were curious about whether they could play with others. So the question of splitting up seems to be constantly there. It’s all rather more mature and balanced than in the movie.

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

[QUOTE] [b]JS21 wrote:[/b]

Reg. Pete Brown incident, Freddie did throw stuff by his own account and told by David Wigg, John Reid. But I doubt if Freddie was that violent so as to throw stuff at someone and seriously injure them. Here is what probably might have happened. Freddie probably threw a mirror in the wall or somewhere which might have accidentally hit him slightly and caused an injury and he might have exaggerated it a bit for effect.
Anyway, who in their right mind would talk flippantly if they were smashed on their head by a huge mirror and also tell Freddie told him to pick up the pieces afterwards? Did he have a huge gash in his head after the incident? Was there any photos of him with injury or anyone else corroborating th[/QUOTE]

You can rationalize it all you want and create revisionist history by minimizing it as someone talking "flippantly" because you don't enjoy seeing your favourite singer as anything but a saint. But you can't change the facts, no matter how much you don't want them to be true.

The more you read books and talk to people who were around then, the more you realize most of the big rock stars were not very nice people a lot of the time.

Mercury was not an easy guy to work with by most accounts - he's up there with John Bonham and Ritchie Blackmore.

But these days Brian and Roger are still protecting their old friend by not divulging the stories that shed him in the most negative light. The movie was incredibly tame compared to some of the things they could've told.

Rock musicians have zero influence over a Hollywood script. The top cats went to the band members for biographical notes early in the process, and their involvement pretty well ends there - Hollywood calls the shots from then onward. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, and the final decisions do not come down to two rock musicians who are not bankrolling the production.

And what's with the user name? JS21 is awfully close to ST17, and is a miraculously more articulate version of the latter while still holding the same fundamental views...

[QUOTE]PS: I enjoy your queenlive.ca site very much.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. 'Tis a labour of love.
[/QUOTE]

No one has created more revisionist history than the awful Bohemian Rhapsody movie that had the involvement of Brian and Roger.

Brian was not an easy person to work with either as much as Freddie by all accounts.

Yes Brian and Roger are protecting their friend so would have Freddie. Freddie took all the secrets to his grave. Do you think none of them have any blemish at all? May be you do think that. Not too hard to believe as it is clearly evident that you are an 'ardent' Brian May worshipper. Nothing wrong with that though.

None of us were there to know what happened. In much the same way, you have your views, so can I.
I do not have to believe the movie that I feel was incorrect from beginning to end.

Isn't silly to complain about someone's user name? I thought you were a decent guy. FYI. I don't know anything about user ST17.

JS21 Take no notice of Real Wizard he thinks he knows it all and he is a bit of a drama queen on here plus he is from Canada so he has a big gob lol

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

One thing I have noticed is that a lot of Queen interviews from early to mid 80s the subject of staying together or splitting up is openly discussed. There’s a few on YouTube which pre and post date Mr Bad Guy.[/QUOTE]

Interviews tell a small portion of the story. Don't rely on them to tell all of it.

[QUOTE] [b]ST17 wrote:[/b]

JS21 Take no notice of Real Wizard he thinks he knows it all and he is a bit of a drama queen on here plus he is from Canada so he has a big gob lol[/QUOTE]

You may be schizophrenic, but at least you have each other.

And your brand of "humour" invoking nationality isn't even close to funny. You made an Irish comment the other day and nobody cared about that one either.

What a useless sack of human waste you are.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]ST17 wrote:[/b]
JS21 Take no notice of Real Wizard he thinks he knows it all and he is a bit of a drama queen on here plus he is from Canada so he has a big gob lol[/QUOTE]
And your brand of "humour" invoking nationality isn't even close to funny. You made an Irish comment the other day and nobody cared about that one either.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]ST17 wrote:[/b]
Paul Prenter was hated by many in the Queen ranks and as i said before [color=red][b]i would not trust that irish bum with my life.[/color][/b][/QUOTE]
first of all, i'd be very careful about using phrases like those ^ - highly offensive in every sense. [/QUOTE]

well, in fairness. I did care. and commented on it.

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]ST17 wrote:[/b]
JS21 Take no notice of Real Wizard he thinks he knows it all and he is a bit of a drama queen on here plus he is from Canada so he has a big gob lol[/QUOTE]
And your brand of "humour" invoking nationality isn't even close to funny. You made an Irish comment the other day and nobody cared about that one either.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]ST17 wrote:[/b]
Paul Prenter was hated by many in the Queen ranks and as i said before [color=red][b]i would not trust that irish bum with my life.[/color][/b][/QUOTE]
first of all, i'd be very careful about using phrases like those ^ - highly offensive in every sense. [/QUOTE]

well, in fairness. I did care. and commented on it.[/QUOTE]

Very well - replace "cared" with "was impressed by."

@Real Wizard No one really cares about your comments period so there !

"Phrases like those are offensive in every sense", while "go deo na hÉireann" is not offensive at all.
Why don't you use this primitive language in your posts? It's suitable to express your primitive views.

You have to choose between the nationalist motto and the complaint about racist comments, can't have them both in the same time.