Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Bohemian Rhapsody: What the haters didn't get

forum rss feed
Author

Mr. Poor Grammar user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 09:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.

mariah carey user not visiting Queenzone.com
mariah carey
Bohemian: 172 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 09:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

BoRhap sucks and that's it.

Invisible Woman user not visiting Queenzone.com
Invisible Woman
Bohemian: 567 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 10:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

If I don't like the movie so much it doesn't mean that I'm hater.

I still think that the movie could have been much better, especially about Freddie's private life, and I will not change my opinion only for fact that the movie has achieved success and earned a lot of money.

jozef user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 169 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 10:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Blah-blah-blah, ... yes even Adolf Hitler was kind to children, empathetic to women and liked animals! So this movie shit is Holy Grail .... ??? Haha ...


dysan user not visiting Queenzone.com
dysan
Deity: 5273 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 11:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

No one is right or wrong liking what they like, or seeing reason for not liking something. We're all different and that's cool.

NEXT!

Vali user not visiting Queenzone.com
Vali
Deity: 2181 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 14:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

the Larry Lurex single was released before the first Queen album and we all know the story behind it, so.... like it or not, Roger Taylor will always be the first Queen member that released a solo project. And Brian after him. And Roger again after that. And after them, Freddie.

I hate the movie and I´m happy you like it. But please don´t try to make me think I´m wrong.

dudeofqueen user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 809 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 14:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Mr. Poor Grammar,

I believe it was QPL themselves who trumpeted the film's attention to detail. They lied.

It's a fictional story based loosely on events.

A pile of steaming horse shit is what the film is if it purports to be anything other than that.

Mr. Poor Grammar user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 17:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Invisible Woman wrote:

I still think that the movie could have been much better, especially about Freddie's private life, and I will not change my opinion only for fact that the movie has achieved success and earned a lot of money.


I agree, but it also could have been much worse. And I'm not telling you to like it because it has achieved success and earned a lot of money, in fact I'm not telling you to like it at all, I just gave my opinion and tried to correct somes mistruths about May's and Taylor's role in the making of Bohemian Rhapsody.

Mr. Poor Grammar user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 17:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

dysan wrote:

No one is right or wrong liking what they like, or seeing reason for not liking something. We're all different and that's cool.

NEXT!


Wise way of thinking.

Mr. Poor Grammar user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 17:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Vali wrote:

the Larry Lurex single was released before the first Queen album and we all know the story behind it, so.... like it or not, Roger Taylor will always be the first Queen member that released a solo project. And Brian after him. And Roger again after that. And after them, Freddie.



Fair point, but the Larry Lurex single is still a solo single. When it was released, Queen already existed and the album was already recorded (but unreleased, as you pointed). In the end, it doesn't really matters who did a solo project first. In the film, the drama is the cumulation of the CBS deal + the solo album, not only the solo project. And in real life, Freddie was the first to sign such a contract and could have easily went solo if his album was a success, encouraged by Prenter.

Mr. Poor Grammar user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 17:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

dudeofqueen wrote:

Mr. Poor Grammar,

I believe it was QPL themselves who trumpeted the film's attention to detail. They lied.



I see what you mean, but I think it was more Fox than QPL. Anyway, no one explicitly said the movie was going to be factually accurate, and the official Bohemian Rhapsody book corrected some artistic licenses of the film.

dysan user not visiting Queenzone.com
dysan
Deity: 5273 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 17:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think with hindsight what they meant about the accuracy was more the 'period' feel of the movie. I'm playing devil's advocate here of course.

pittrek user not visiting Queenzone.com
pittrek
Deity: 10757 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 19:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

What the hell is wrong with today's society? Are people no longer allowed to have a negative opinion about anything? During the last couple of years Hollywood keeps giving us one shitty re-make or sequel after another shitty re-make or sequel and if anybody dares to express a negative opinion, that critic gets attacked, publicly insulted, or told that they just "didn't get" the movie/TV show.And now even review aggregator sites like RottenTomatoes are changing their whole system because there are people who dared to say that they don't like a comic book movie.

Hey, original poster, did you like Bohemian Rhapsody? Great, I'm glad that you could enjoy it. Did anybody here think the movie sucked? Also great, it's not the end of the world.
I've seen the movie. I'm glad I've seen it but I don't think I will ever watch it again. There are good things about the movie, of course. For example Rami's performance was definitely Oscar-worthy, and the guy who played Brian looked like Dr.May's clone. It also motivated TV stations all over the world to check if they don't have anything Queen related in their archives, and many of them shared that previously unseen stuff with the rest of the world, which is fantastic. But honestly, that's it. The movie was complete fiction, but there's a tiny little problem - it was supposed to be a biopic.

FMBMJDRT user is on Queenzone.com

Rocker: 49 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 20:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.

Marlamir user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 520 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 20:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.


pittrek user not visiting Queenzone.com
pittrek
Deity: 10757 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 20:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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

Mr. Poor Grammar user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 20:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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?

Mr. Poor Grammar user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 10 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 21:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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 :) )

k-m user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 649 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 23:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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??

k-m user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 649 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 28 May 19, 23:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

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.