What do you think about the new movie coming out about Freddie? Do you think Sacha Baron Cohen was the right choice? Are you excited to see it? When is it coming out?
daaydo wrote: What do you think about the new movie coming out about Freddie? Do you think Sacha Baron Cohen was the right choice? Are you excited to see it? When is it coming out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool, eh, yeah, I dunno.
SiriuslySmitten wrote: "Visually, he might be able to pull it off. Vocally? I'm thinking no."
It mightn't matter if he mimes the music, rather than sing it himself.
In some ways I think that Queen's involvement, albeit hands off, may actually ruin the project. If it's just a nice happy tale of a boy from Zanzibar who grew up to write great music, then it won't really be of interest, even if it is Freddie Mercury.
I fear that there are some elements of Freddie's life that would probably need to be told to make the story 'exciting', that won't be, due to surviving members insisting on it being watered down.
I hope I'm wrong but I do fear 90 minutes of....'1974 - great concert. 1975 - great song...oh look and more great concerts and songs..now here's Live Aid - the end'.
Which wouldn't be very satisfying. I just cannot see Brian or Roger 'okaying' anything that revealed anything much about Freddie's private life, which as we already know pretty much what he did in the public eye, is surely the only thing of potential interest about the movie?
Roger and Brian don't really have any legal say in anything other than how they're portrayed and whether Queen's music is used. Freddie's Estate handles the rest, particularly his image and his solo material.
How much you like it also depends on what you expect from it. If you're after a steamy, tabloid story of a confused man battling demons, sexing it up in discos and doing a lot of drugs, you may be disappointed. If we get "Glitter," we'll definitely all be disappointed! I'm hoping for something close to "Ray" or "Walk The Line," where we see a man with talent, flaws, goals and accomplishments.
I'm not after anything particularly saucy for the sake of it, but it is a movie we're talking about and movies surely need drama and emotion and excitement. Freddie's public life or public icon, as it were, is already very well established. It'd be a shame therefore if this was a bland project sold on the basis that it has Freddie's or Queen's name attached to it.
I can't see how it's possible NOT to touch on the AIDS thing. It isn't that I 'want to see a movie where Freddie Mercury gets AIDS' but he did and it makes as much sense leaving that out of a story of his life as it would leaving out drug addition in a biopic of Amy Winehouse or the Vegas years about Elvis or writing the story of Jesus but forgetting to mention the small matter of being the son of God and the crucifixion (if you believe that stuff).
If they're making the movie they may as well do it properly surely and accept that it's audience is surely going to be those who are interested in what we don't already know. As I said, if it's just a few sing songs, Freddie goes to the park, buys some chips, sings some more songs and wows the world at Live Aid and then the credits role...it'll be shit.
I'd take it right through, his early life, coming to England, breaking into the business, tormented relationships, struggling with sexuality, finding fame, becoming a rock icon, finding a loving gay relationship, AIDS diagnosis, press intrusion, ploughing on through the rumour and speculation, death and legacy.
To me it doesn't make much sense to do it any other way. We might not 'like' the fact that to be interesting it has to be as gritty and emotional as possible, but unless we're just going to have a pointless script with the occasional Queen song being played (who said that sounds familiar) then it surely has to be, doesn't it?
I think the AIDS thing is way too talked about among non-Queen fans. It's a shame but Freddie Mercury is more known (at least in America) for dying of AIDS than the numerous extraordinary talents he possessed. I'm perfectly happy with it ending at Live Aid. If they're going to do a movie about his life I'd much rather it focus primarily on Queen (the recording, the parties, the touring, the parties) than his love life. So basically I'd rather see a Queen movie than a Freddie Mercury biopic. Oh well.
Ebert's Law: "It's not what it's about, it's *how* it's about it."
No one watches movies just to see things happen, they watch them to see well-crafted characters engaged in interesting conflict, be it against themselves, a singular antagonist, the "world" or nature. What the conflict is is secondary anyway to how the writer portrays it. Take The King's Speech, the story of the heir to the throne has to overcome a stutter in order to feel worthy of the title. Not very exciting (lots of politics, history, talking heads and scenes on men sitting around in rooms). The human story, though, is brilliant and enthralling. The emotional pain the Prince feels is palpable.
It doesn't matter what part of Freddie's life they decide to tell as long as they tell it well. No offence, truly, but the very reason you cannot imagine any other story than the AIDS angle demonstrates the difference between the average audience member and the writer of a good (or great) screenplay. There is potential drama in just about everything in life, if handled properly.
