QueenZone discussion #1312554

dysan wrote: Would be nice to see more pictures of this chap.

dysan wrote: He could probably play ill freddie, if you don't mind me saying. There's a thread somewhere on here of a south american look a like who is amazing.

dysan wrote: Yeah, I'm not convinced.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote:

matt z wrote: Facials features don't mean shit (sorry to continue putting it bluntly--but that's how it is) i UNDERSTANT WHAT YOUR SAYING, YOU ALSO NEED PEOPLE ABLE TO ACT THE ROLES GIVEN THEM, BUT I DO THINK THE CAST I HAVE WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO Characterisations are key. Sacha is a joke and another petty effort by QPC or Queen Productions to look like they're on the cutting edge of talent, humor, "hip-ness" and popularity.. I believe Kapone will be able to convincingly cover all aspects of Freddie's characters on stage and off , earlier and later. I agree he( sbc) is AS GOOD AS IF  talentless,  as far as this role is concerned,. he is not upto any serious role for he cant convince as an actor. Facial features are not the case with sacha as he truly does not look anything like freddie, this idea that he does is because of the present cultural state of general dumbness  and is born of the fact  men with black hair and moustaches are rarely seen nowadays,and he is outrageous but in so much the wrong way  Freddies  onstage humour was nothing like what sacha has donebut they conclude so he must look like Freddie??    Its plain unthinking. (i find it hard to understand queen themselves likening him to freddie looks wise,  and then  even saying he can hold a tune! ...You can see what it has done since their involvment with american idol and the voice etc... Objects of ridicule. Cast no namers chosen by the director Jeremy is virtually unkown, but i can see he can act. He won best newcomer in france- he is french and has been in only a few movies, played the lead in his first and then was  supporting. as to how he looks he to me has very clear facial features that resemble freddie, and he could be made to look exactly like him, there are so many pluses for him in the role, because i doubt you will find anyone else to come as close to the perfomance i believe he can give. . or better yet, an astute screen writer...otherwise you're looking at a major flop + EMBARRASSMENT on the level of 'SHOWGIRLS' (without the tits and ass of course) or THE COSMOS ROCKS. Hopefully someone with a keen mind and artistic talent is overseeing this all; rather than the suits who'd rather see children crawl in dismay BY YOUR SAYING SEE CHILDREN CRAWL IN DISMAY DO YOU MEAN LEAVING THEM CULTURALLY AND ARTISTICALLY FAMISHED? This is my hope also  but i have reason to doubt that. but if Stephen Frears is involved, i hope he acts like a director and not a paid order taker.

Supersonic_Man89 wrote: Get this bloke to play him, looks just like him :) 0:14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0U6OAk2r5U

inu-liger wrote: Just ignore this medusa troll, folks. He already has quite an established history of trolling the QOL forums.

emrabt wrote: MEDUSA-RULES do you have some kind of split personality or ocd where you have to post everything twice?

ParisNair wrote: A lot of those pictures look like cut-and-paste jobs...

emrabt wrote: MEDUSA-RULES do you have some kind of split personality or ocd where you have to post everything twice?

cmsdrums wrote:

emrabt wrote: MEDUSA-RULES do you have some kind of split personality or ocd where you have to post everything twice?

Only twice? That's understating it somewhat!!

Daniel Nester wrote: Have you read the script, know the storyline, seen the [reputed] director's films, the screenwriter's films?

Daniel Nester wrote: Have you read the script, know the storyline, seen the [reputed] director's films, the screenwriter's films?

inu-liger wrote: Please stick to Queenonline, thank you very much...

inu-liger wrote: Inigular...I like that, thank you :)

inu-liger wrote: Inigular...I like that, thank you :)

inu-liger wrote: May I offer a fair suggestion, Medusa? Please get a blog and condense your biopic/Queen related speculations there

tomchristie22 wrote: These are some pretty sizeable posts. What's more impressive is the fact that they're almost, if not entirely bullshit.

inu-liger wrote: You don't own exclusive control rights to your threads. This is a PUBLIC forum.

Stick wrote: Kids, this is what happens when you read too much religious bullshit. You lose sight of reality and start seeing things that are simply not there. You start to learn that one can believe anything to be true and you even start to claim to be some sort of authority regarding what is the truth. Also this usually leads to a very black and white point of view. Good/evil, with me/against me, truth/lies, sane/insane, friendly/hateful. No discussion works with a point of view like this and it always end up being the person with the black and white point of view who accuses everyone who offers a bit of criticism to be a hater. Of course said person also seems to know exactly what the other is thinking and what his/her motivation is. This Medusa character types his/her responses in a style reminiscent of the stories in a book like the bible and it looks a lot like he/she considers him/herself a bit of a prophet. An explanation for the incapability of self criticism and the twisting of his/her own words and those of others could be the following way of thinking: "I am a prophet so I could not have made a mistake so (insert insane way of reasoning) this weird conclusion witch excludes me from any fault must be the truth!" This combined with his/her adoration of Freddie and the obsession for the forthcoming film (in which Freddie would have to be portrayed as god on earth if you have to believe this Medusa) leads to the insane ramblings on Queenonline and Queenzone. Most people just consider this Medusa a psycho or a deranged fanatic with too much free time but I think the situation is a bit more complex. But of course this is just one man's opinion after analysing Medusa's posts here and on Queenonline and I could be completely wrong but somehow I think this explanation may hold some truth.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: Your fascination with me is very flattering. But has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: Your fascination with me is very flattering. But has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Don't flatter yourself.
I was not , you were.
But i must say, you do sound rather judiciously psychotic and self rightious, if that isnt too much of a dichotomy.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: I was not , you were. But i must say, you do sound rather judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious.

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: I was not , you were. But i must say, you do sound rather judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious.

Please take the time to learn how to quote properly otherwise people might think you deliberately try to alter what another person said.

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: I was not , you were. But i must say, you do sound rather judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious.

Please take the time to learn how to quote properly otherwise people might think you deliberately try to alter what another person said. Anyhow, please explain why I sound judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious to you otherwise it's just a meaningless statement with no arguments.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote:

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: I was not , you were. But i must say, you do sound rather judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious.

Please take the time to learn how to quote properly otherwise people might think you deliberately try to alter what another person said.

I would suspect they are very ineterested in each mistake even, obsessively so, and mark every point every jot, for you may miss something of outstanding importance, mind you. lol

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote:

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: I was not , you were. But i must say, you do sound rather judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious.

Please take the time to learn how to quote properly otherwise people might think you deliberately try to alter what another person said.

I would suspect they are very ineterested in each mistake even, obsessively so, and mark every point every jot, for you may miss something of outstanding importance, mind you. lol

Still, better to read something twice before posting it than risking a mistake and later having to explain yourself.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote:

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote:

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: I was not , you were. But i must say, you do sound rather judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious.

Please take the time to learn how to quote properly otherwise people might think you deliberately try to alter what another person said.

I would suspect they are very ineterested in each mistake even, obsessively so, and mark every point every jot, for you may miss something of outstanding importance, mind you. lol

Still, better to read something twice before posting it than risking a mistake and later having to explain yourself.

I do not mmake any mistakes though do i?
surely that is your point.
OR SHOULD I SAY GRIEVANCE
AND THE SOURCE OF YOUR ACCUSATION

MEDUSA-RULES wrote:

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: I was not , you were. But i must say, you do sound rather judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious.

Please take the time to learn how to quote properly otherwise people might think you deliberately try to alter what another person said. Anyhow, please explain why I sound judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious to you otherwise it's just a meaningless statement with no arguments.

I do not care to. How does that make you feel? I am interested in that. Do you feel anger? jealousy? what is it?

MEDUSA-RULES wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote:

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote:

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: I was not , you were. But i must say, you do sound rather judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious.

Please take the time to learn how to quote properly otherwise people might think you deliberately try to alter what another person said.

I would suspect they are very ineterested in each mistake even, obsessively so, and mark every point every jot, for you may miss something of outstanding importance, mind you. lol

Still, better to read something twice before posting it than risking a mistake and later having to explain yourself.

I do not mmake any mistakes though do i? surely that is your point. OR SHOULD I SAY GRIEVANCE AND THE SOURCE OF YOUR ACCUSATION

woowoo
look a wormhole time tunnel

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote:

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: I was not , you were. But i must say, you do sound rather judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious.

Please take the time to learn how to quote properly otherwise people might think you deliberately try to alter what another person said. Anyhow, please explain why I sound judiciously psyhocotic and self rightious to you otherwise it's just a meaningless statement with no arguments.

I do not care to. How does that make you feel? I am interested in that. Do you feel anger? jealousy? what is it?

Why would I feel anger or jealousy if you don't want to provide an argument for your opinion? In general it's a sign of a weak statement if no argument can be given for it but I don't see how that would make me angry or even jealous. Of what could I be jealous regarding this? The only thing I feel right now is a bit thirsty and some disappointment that you seem to be unable to provide an argument. But of course that's your choice. It makes your statement meaningless but like I said that's your choice.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: I do not mmake any mistakes though do i? surely that is your point.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: an argument for your opinion? I was not arguing anything was i?

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: "unable to provide an argument." what argument do you seek?

Stick wrote:

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: "unable to provide an argument." what argument do you seek?

You do have trouble remembering, or reading back for that matter, what someone else has said. But to repeat myself: I am seeking an argument/reason behind your opinion that I am psychotic and self rightious. You know, the opinion you posted only minutes earlier. Please try to keep up.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: My saying that to you, was based upon my observations of you, observations gained from reading your long daitribe about me. but such things are not the topic of this thread. Please talk about the movie, or if you prefer to connect it to me, talk about the cast i have found for the movie.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: You one sick mother Is that sufficent enough?

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: childish name calling? you asked me i answered. where were you?

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: The Freddie Mercury Biopic is the topic not me.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: The Freddie Mercury Biopic is the topic not me or you.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: 'the psychology behind your ramblings is just as valid a topic to be discussing" Go make a thread about it then if it interests you.

MEDUSA-RULES wrote: you feel the need to judge me, because of whatever reason you have, which is based upon your feeling i am somehow wrong. Yet the fact you make the effort shows a fascination with me beyond normal. And your tone is self rightious and accusatory and so slightly Pychotic and fantastical in nature.