Hope this doesn't come across too synical, but something that immediately sprang to mind when hearing the basis of the Freddie movie was, the potential sequel. Knowning QPR as we now do over the last 10-15 years, being very money orientated, are they hoping they can put everything into the original movie, upto Live Aid, then potential look to do a sequel for the last 6 years, and perhaps most interesting and secretive, of Freddies life? I hope not, I would really consider it almost grave-stealing to do that, but as mentioned, I do feel a little synical to the thought process in QPR these days.
I would say just about the opposite: A movie only featuring his life up 1985 is an indication that the his personal life, and especially life as HIV positive isn't going to be featured in a movie in the future.
At this point I would rather have a "fictional" movie about a rockstar called Johnny Hermes instead of this sanitised version by QP.
There are already two documentaries about Freddie's life as a musician, I don't need a dramatised movie about the same material.
It would be dumb not to reveal a little in terms of Freddie's sexuality,,, and obviously he got the disease in the early 80's,,, possibly in the New York gay scene. I think they could hit upon the disease and the time frame fairly effectively without major details and it would be great. That is what happened at the time, and Freddie was living it. It should be a part of the film in at least very small segments as a result.
Secondly, who cares if they made a second movie? I find that wonderful. Make it. Freddie Mercury was such an inspiration in how he took death head on,,, not backing down and continuing to live his life. The best part? IT'S A TRUE STORY!!! It would be wonderful if the mainstream public,,, in particular the average American, can be exposed to such films. I would think Freddie's iconic status would only be enhanced.
a sequel???
great idea, no fantastic idea...
let's show a "larger than life" rock star shrinking and shriveling away to a shadow of his former self, while a nasty disease ravages him until he finally dies...
you'd need a very credible serious actor to play "that" role...i suggest Tom Hanks - cos it's never been done before, no wait....wasn't he in "Philadelphia" ???
a sequel??? - fucking stupid idea
Is the writer, Peter Morgan, still involved? I thought I had read somewhere that he pulled out soon after Sacha Baron Cohen was gone from the project.
If that's the case, then the movie may not take place up until 1985, as that was the direction Peter Morgan chose to take. A new writer may have different intentions.