"I don't know where this story came from" - Brian May
Exactly. There is no Queen movie planned, or Johnny Depp cast... period. Somebody is bored.
I'm sure Brad Pitt would make a good Roger Taylor, but it's not ever going to happen. Any "movie" about Queen would simply be another documentary, except this time with fake actors.
Suggesting that Tommy or Yellow Submarine were successful enough to warrant a production for Queen is a little bizarre considering those movies were involving bands that were still in their prime or shortly thereafter. What demand is there for a Freddie/Aids movie now, sixteen years later?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Cricket Nutter wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Again let's name the successful AIDS tragedy movies out there. I'm waiting.
[/QUOTE]
Philadelphia? [/QUOTE]
No. Might have been a good movie, but hardly successful. Peter Gabriel and Bruce Springsteen made more money off it than the actual producers!!!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"I don't know where this story came from" - Brian May
Exactly. There is no Queen movie planned, or Johnny Depp cast... period. Somebody is bored.
[/QUOTE]
Ummm..... actually Brian said that discussions are at an early stage and that he can't comment on it at the present time. He never said that there was no movie being planed.
http://brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/brianssbdec06.html#14
Exactly. There is no Queen movie planned, or Johnny Depp cast... period. Somebody is bored.
[/QUOTE]
Ummm..... actually Brian said that discussions are at an early stage and that he can't comment on it at the present time. He never said that there was no movie being planed.
http://brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/brianssbdec06.html#14
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"I don't know where this story came from" - Brian May
Exactly. There is no Queen movie planned, or Johnny Depp cast... period. Somebody is bored.
I'm sure Brad Pitt would make a good Roger Taylor, but it's not ever going to happen. Any "movie" about Queen would simply be another documentary, except this time with fake actors.
Suggesting that Tommy or Yellow Submarine were successful enough to warrant a production for Queen is a little bizarre considering those movies were involving bands that were still in their prime or shortly thereafter. What demand is there for a Freddie/Aids movie now, sixteen years later?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Cricket Nutter wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Again let's name the successful AIDS tragedy movies out there. I'm waiting.
[/QUOTE]
Philadelphia? [/QUOTE]
No. Might have been a good movie, but hardly successful. Peter Gabriel and Bruce Springsteen made more money off it than the actual producers!!!
[/QUOTE]
You might want to check your facts before making such a claim.
Budget
$26,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend
$12,000,000 (USA)
Gross
$77,324,422 (USA) (sub-total)
£9,439,124 (UK) (16 May 1994) (sub-total)
£6,634,221 (UK) (17 April 1994)
$201,300,000 (Worldwide) (sub-total)
$124,000,000 (Non-USA) (sub-total)
SEK 10,217,664 (Sweden) (sub-total)
Admissions
3,267,132 (Germany) (31 December 1994)
173,064 (Sweden)
Rentals
$37,500,000 (USA)
So worldwide box office was about $200 million dollars. That doesn't even factor in sales of VHS and two separate DVD releases in America. "Philadelphia" was a HUGE box office hit and of course was also a critical darling and garned (at least) two Oscars.
As for your "Tommy" and "Yellow Submarine" comments, was there a huge demand for biopics on Johnny Cash or Ray Charles? Ray Charles especially was NOT at the height of his career when the movie was made.
If Johnny Depp is indeed cast as Freddie, that will give this film a HUGE boost of interest in America. Depp is not only a highly respected actor (who no doubt would be looking for an Oscar nomination with this role....playing a dead celebrity usually gets you one) but a major blockbuster star. Would a Freddie/Queen movie make $100 million at the US box office? That's hard to say but I'd be willing to bet it would certainly NOT be a flop.
Exactly. There is no Queen movie planned, or Johnny Depp cast... period. Somebody is bored.
I'm sure Brad Pitt would make a good Roger Taylor, but it's not ever going to happen. Any "movie" about Queen would simply be another documentary, except this time with fake actors.
Suggesting that Tommy or Yellow Submarine were successful enough to warrant a production for Queen is a little bizarre considering those movies were involving bands that were still in their prime or shortly thereafter. What demand is there for a Freddie/Aids movie now, sixteen years later?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Cricket Nutter wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Again let's name the successful AIDS tragedy movies out there. I'm waiting.
[/QUOTE]
Philadelphia? [/QUOTE]
No. Might have been a good movie, but hardly successful. Peter Gabriel and Bruce Springsteen made more money off it than the actual producers!!!
[/QUOTE]
You might want to check your facts before making such a claim.
Budget
$26,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend
$12,000,000 (USA)
Gross
$77,324,422 (USA) (sub-total)
£9,439,124 (UK) (16 May 1994) (sub-total)
£6,634,221 (UK) (17 April 1994)
$201,300,000 (Worldwide) (sub-total)
$124,000,000 (Non-USA) (sub-total)
SEK 10,217,664 (Sweden) (sub-total)
Admissions
3,267,132 (Germany) (31 December 1994)
173,064 (Sweden)
Rentals
$37,500,000 (USA)
So worldwide box office was about $200 million dollars. That doesn't even factor in sales of VHS and two separate DVD releases in America. "Philadelphia" was a HUGE box office hit and of course was also a critical darling and garned (at least) two Oscars.
As for your "Tommy" and "Yellow Submarine" comments, was there a huge demand for biopics on Johnny Cash or Ray Charles? Ray Charles especially was NOT at the height of his career when the movie was made.
If Johnny Depp is indeed cast as Freddie, that will give this film a HUGE boost of interest in America. Depp is not only a highly respected actor (who no doubt would be looking for an Oscar nomination with this role....playing a dead celebrity usually gets you one) but a major blockbuster star. Would a Freddie/Queen movie make $100 million at the US box office? That's hard to say but I'd be willing to bet it would certainly NOT be a flop.
Movies about dead musicians are all the rage these days. If they are going to make one about Freddie now would be the time.
Of course I am biased when I say it would be a nice sized hit bc I am a huge fan. I think it would do just fine. Especially if the right actors are given the right script, as is with almost every film.
I also think Philadelphia was an EXCELLENT movie. There aren't many movies with Tom Hanks in them that aren't good in my opinion. I enjoy him a lot. I don't know all the monetary factors with the movie but it is one of my all time favorites. I watch it every time I see it is on. Hmmmm...Tom Hanks...Brian May.....it could happen!!!
;)
I also think Philadelphia was an EXCELLENT movie. There aren't many movies with Tom Hanks in them that aren't good in my opinion. I enjoy him a lot. I don't know all the monetary factors with the movie but it is one of my all time favorites. I watch it every time I see it is on. Hmmmm...Tom Hanks...Brian May.....it could happen!!!
;)
Scoreboard: Michael Allred, PieterMC, Cicket Nutter
And yes, it was a good movie. I guess compared to the numbers from the other Tom Hanks movies, I was a little misled in not calling it a success.
But as far as RAY or WALK THE LINE, those were quite fictionalized. Anybody that knows Johnny Cash knows that was the “milk & cookies” version of his life and Joaquin Phoenix sounded / acted more like himself than Johnny. There was a lot more “trouble” between Johnny and June that the movie didn’t mention, because both parties’ estates would not agree to do the movie with it. RAY was a nice promotional video for Jamie Foxx’s upcoming music career. And for Foxx, it was like going to the best music school for a year, so why not make an album? Both were really written to appeal to the female crowd (chick flicks) in my opinion.
Maybe it would do good outside the US. But how come they haven’t tackled The Beatles or The Rolling Stones in this fashion? With big name actors. Obviously they’re bigger acts with just as much, if not more, tragedy in their careers. Why haven’t those been done?
Tom Hanks would make a good Brian May, but chaaa—chingg!!! Johnny & Tommy = 50 million dollars. I’m not saying it’s a nice “concept”, but a reality?
Let me share with you the definition of “early discussion” in Hollywood:
“I’ve got a script for a movie you’re client would be perfect in”
“I’ll have my people get back to your people”
Johnny Depp probably gets 50 of these a day. Brian May, not so much.
And yes, it was a good movie. I guess compared to the numbers from the other Tom Hanks movies, I was a little misled in not calling it a success.
But as far as RAY or WALK THE LINE, those were quite fictionalized. Anybody that knows Johnny Cash knows that was the “milk & cookies” version of his life and Joaquin Phoenix sounded / acted more like himself than Johnny. There was a lot more “trouble” between Johnny and June that the movie didn’t mention, because both parties’ estates would not agree to do the movie with it. RAY was a nice promotional video for Jamie Foxx’s upcoming music career. And for Foxx, it was like going to the best music school for a year, so why not make an album? Both were really written to appeal to the female crowd (chick flicks) in my opinion.
Maybe it would do good outside the US. But how come they haven’t tackled The Beatles or The Rolling Stones in this fashion? With big name actors. Obviously they’re bigger acts with just as much, if not more, tragedy in their careers. Why haven’t those been done?
Tom Hanks would make a good Brian May, but chaaa—chingg!!! Johnny & Tommy = 50 million dollars. I’m not saying it’s a nice “concept”, but a reality?
Let me share with you the definition of “early discussion” in Hollywood:
“I’ve got a script for a movie you’re client would be perfect in”
“I’ll have my people get back to your people”
Johnny Depp probably gets 50 of these a day. Brian May, not so much.
RAY or WALK THE LINE comparisons:
Well, this movie would be about a rock singer.
"But how come they haven’t tackled The Beatles or The Rolling Stones in this fashion?"
This is Robert De Niro (according to the article).
"Tom Hanks would make a good Brian May, but chaaa—chingg!!!"
What? (I need Zebonka's picture that he uses for this reaction here.)
"Let me share with you the definition of “early discussion” in Hollywood:
“I’ve got a script for a movie you’re client would be perfect in”
“I’ll have my people get back to your people”
Johnny Depp probably gets 50 of these a day. Brian May, not so much."
Or it could go like this: "Mr. Depp, Robert De Niro is calling." "Put him through!"
Well, this movie would be about a rock singer.
"But how come they haven’t tackled The Beatles or The Rolling Stones in this fashion?"
This is Robert De Niro (according to the article).
"Tom Hanks would make a good Brian May, but chaaa—chingg!!!"
What? (I need Zebonka's picture that he uses for this reaction here.)
"Let me share with you the definition of “early discussion” in Hollywood:
“I’ve got a script for a movie you’re client would be perfect in”
“I’ll have my people get back to your people”
Johnny Depp probably gets 50 of these a day. Brian May, not so much."
Or it could go like this: "Mr. Depp, Robert De Niro is calling." "Put him through!"
"What? (I need Zebonka's picture that he uses for this reaction here.)"
Did someone say my name!?
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6404/whagz2.jpg
Anyways. I find the idea of a Queen film made in Hollywood to be problematic at best. It'll probably suck balls : Ron Howard will turn it into the 'feel good movie of the summer' or that shitty M Knight Shamalammylan guy (the 'Next Hitchcock', he *AIN'T*) will turn it into the creepiest film since Pyscho (knowing him, it'd be about as creepy as the 1997 remake). Of course, someone might turn it over to Michael Bay and it'll be like Pearl Harbour without the bombing scene, but if we're really lucky then Tom Shadyac will direct the picture and it'll become a tale of Freddie Mercury : down-on-his-luck Wall Street Executive who finds being an investor isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Brian May : Maybe I should send this to you. But don't do the Hollywood thing, for fucks sake. If you guys make a movie, do it properly. Eh?
Did someone say my name!?
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6404/whagz2.jpg
Anyways. I find the idea of a Queen film made in Hollywood to be problematic at best. It'll probably suck balls : Ron Howard will turn it into the 'feel good movie of the summer' or that shitty M Knight Shamalammylan guy (the 'Next Hitchcock', he *AIN'T*) will turn it into the creepiest film since Pyscho (knowing him, it'd be about as creepy as the 1997 remake). Of course, someone might turn it over to Michael Bay and it'll be like Pearl Harbour without the bombing scene, but if we're really lucky then Tom Shadyac will direct the picture and it'll become a tale of Freddie Mercury : down-on-his-luck Wall Street Executive who finds being an investor isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Brian May : Maybe I should send this to you. But don't do the Hollywood thing, for fucks sake. If you guys make a movie, do it properly. Eh?
There ought to be a Queen movie, their career is so outrageous and scandalous at every turn the script could write itself. I wonder what Penelope Spheeris thinks about the Queen movie...esp since <Wayne's World> brought Queen back to life in America. Depp + Hanks possibly = 2 much production cost
Just a little info about the industry:
When stars command "$20 million" per picture, it doesn't mean EVERY picture they make. Actors will choose projects that they believe in and will not command a huge salary. George Clooney does this a lot and actors do it for directors/producers and scripts that they truely believe in or fall in love with. When that happens, money is not a problem.
The reason that there has not been a movie about The Beatles or The Rolling Stones can be contributed to one of the following:
1. The estates of certain singers will not allow it.
2. There is an ensemble cast and not enough focus for a single protagonist or storyline.
With Mercury, we can tell the story of Queen, but focus on the rise and fall of Freddie. It wouldn't work with The Rolling Stones because who would you focus on. It wouldn't work with The Beatles, because Lennon and Harrison are dead, so it would be unfair to focus on Lennon only. Especially since McCartney and Starr are still around.
Finally - since Tribeca has backed We Will Rock You, and De Niro can attract interest in scripts and pitches, then this could also be positive.
BUT - until someone says that a script has been crafted and is doing the rounds to casting agents, then it's all heresay.
When stars command "$20 million" per picture, it doesn't mean EVERY picture they make. Actors will choose projects that they believe in and will not command a huge salary. George Clooney does this a lot and actors do it for directors/producers and scripts that they truely believe in or fall in love with. When that happens, money is not a problem.
The reason that there has not been a movie about The Beatles or The Rolling Stones can be contributed to one of the following:
1. The estates of certain singers will not allow it.
2. There is an ensemble cast and not enough focus for a single protagonist or storyline.
With Mercury, we can tell the story of Queen, but focus on the rise and fall of Freddie. It wouldn't work with The Rolling Stones because who would you focus on. It wouldn't work with The Beatles, because Lennon and Harrison are dead, so it would be unfair to focus on Lennon only. Especially since McCartney and Starr are still around.
Finally - since Tribeca has backed We Will Rock You, and De Niro can attract interest in scripts and pitches, then this could also be positive.
BUT - until someone says that a script has been crafted and is doing the rounds to casting agents, then it's all heresay.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Maybe it would do good outside the US. But how come they haven’t tackled The Beatles or The Rolling Stones in this fashion? With big name actors. Obviously they’re bigger acts with just as much, if not more, tragedy in their careers. Why haven’t those been done?[/quote]
There could be a variety of factors. One, to do a movie about music superstars, you absolutely need to be able to secure the rights to use that music in the film so you'd have to have a script that pleases *everyone* involved and that alone could take years to overcome. Yoko, Paul, Ringo, George's estate, etc. Everybody wants this or that. Plus who's to say that said parties would want a say so over choices of director, cast and so on. It's just not an easy thing to do.
[quote]
Tom Hanks would make a good Brian May, but chaaa—chingg!!! Johnny & Tommy = 50 million dollars. I’m not saying it’s a nice “concept”, but a reality?[/quote]
Well, IMO, Hanks would NOT be a good choice to play Brian at all. Daniel Day Lewis would be far more fitting but anyway, as others have said, stars don't necessarily demand $20 mil paychecks for each film.
[quote]
Let me share with you the definition of “early discussion” in Hollywood:
“I’ve got a script for a movie you’re client would be perfect in”
“I’ll have my people get back to your people”
Johnny Depp probably gets 50 of these a day. Brian May, not so much.
[/QUOTE]
Depp may gets tons of offers all the time but not one that screams "Oscar bait" like the role of a famous dead rock star who lead one hell of a life and would make a tasty dramatic role on screen.
Maybe it would do good outside the US. But how come they haven’t tackled The Beatles or The Rolling Stones in this fashion? With big name actors. Obviously they’re bigger acts with just as much, if not more, tragedy in their careers. Why haven’t those been done?[/quote]
There could be a variety of factors. One, to do a movie about music superstars, you absolutely need to be able to secure the rights to use that music in the film so you'd have to have a script that pleases *everyone* involved and that alone could take years to overcome. Yoko, Paul, Ringo, George's estate, etc. Everybody wants this or that. Plus who's to say that said parties would want a say so over choices of director, cast and so on. It's just not an easy thing to do.
[quote]
Tom Hanks would make a good Brian May, but chaaa—chingg!!! Johnny & Tommy = 50 million dollars. I’m not saying it’s a nice “concept”, but a reality?[/quote]
Well, IMO, Hanks would NOT be a good choice to play Brian at all. Daniel Day Lewis would be far more fitting but anyway, as others have said, stars don't necessarily demand $20 mil paychecks for each film.
[quote]
Let me share with you the definition of “early discussion” in Hollywood:
“I’ve got a script for a movie you’re client would be perfect in”
“I’ll have my people get back to your people”
Johnny Depp probably gets 50 of these a day. Brian May, not so much.
[/QUOTE]
Depp may gets tons of offers all the time but not one that screams "Oscar bait" like the role of a famous dead rock star who lead one hell of a life and would make a tasty dramatic role on screen.
Micro, ma bookieee. Wow, what a pessi cynic, huh?! LOL
Anyway, if there's a reason to think of Depp, it would be because this man puts in the work and thrives on creating a real character. And let's face it, for someone like him, Freddie is one helluva character to go for and be a real challenge.
And there have been pics about the beatles which leant more towards Lennon & McCartney and the 5th beatle. Backbeat being the most well known. There was even one I'd never heard of on a movie channel the other night. It was all about John Lennon with the Beatles right up till his death. I'm pretty sure there's another one that I can't quite remember. There's also a new one planned which will focus on their time in India.
But the most important point is that just because it's a movie, doesn't mean it's instantly a hollywood pic. And also worth remembering is that quality pics can come from people like these independant film groups. I'm not really familiar with Deniro's Tribeca group. Anyone have some examples?
Adam.
Anyway, if there's a reason to think of Depp, it would be because this man puts in the work and thrives on creating a real character. And let's face it, for someone like him, Freddie is one helluva character to go for and be a real challenge.
And there have been pics about the beatles which leant more towards Lennon & McCartney and the 5th beatle. Backbeat being the most well known. There was even one I'd never heard of on a movie channel the other night. It was all about John Lennon with the Beatles right up till his death. I'm pretty sure there's another one that I can't quite remember. There's also a new one planned which will focus on their time in India.
But the most important point is that just because it's a movie, doesn't mean it's instantly a hollywood pic. And also worth remembering is that quality pics can come from people like these independant film groups. I'm not really familiar with Deniro's Tribeca group. Anyone have some examples?
Adam.
Hey Microwave!
Haha Philadelphia was successful! At least it put Tom Hanks in the drama mainstream, and he is my favourite actor ;-)
Also didn't it win an oscar?
Anyway, I am personally glad that Brian has come out and said what he has, I am also glad that he has probably quoted seeing my picture!
Awesome :-D
Haha Philadelphia was successful! At least it put Tom Hanks in the drama mainstream, and he is my favourite actor ;-)
Also didn't it win an oscar?
Anyway, I am personally glad that Brian has come out and said what he has, I am also glad that he has probably quoted seeing my picture!
Awesome :-D
"I'm not really familiar with Deniro's Tribeca group. Anyone have some examples?"
Neither was I. I just looked this up. I don't know how accurate the information is:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/TribecaProductions.php
Neither was I. I just looked this up. I don't know how accurate the information is:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/TribecaProductions.php
You know, even IF Depp signs on to portray Mercury, that will not automatically make any movie a sure thing, financially or critically. There are two other major factors to consider. 1) The screenplay. You can make crap out of something good but you can't make something good out of crap. 2) The director. You can't have a hack handling the duties on this. You need a top shelf name like Scorcese. (I'm pretty sure I spelled his name right.)
Depp would only be one aspect for putting together a quality film based on Freddie and Queen.
Depp would only be one aspect for putting together a quality film based on Freddie and Queen.