| Wiley 10.06.2018 13:44 |
Somebody else had posted this vídeo elsewhere and I found it very interesting. Phoebe talks extensively about his involvement in the Bohemian Rhapsody movie. This has gotten me super excited, I just say, although I'm sure someone will find something to bitch about. link Some highlights: - We should not expect a documentary or a docudrama. Artistic license was taken but the movie should please dirhard and casual fans alike and general public too. - He was consulting on the movie for over 5 months or so. Visited the set during filming 3-4 time's. During his visits he was constantly asked whether freddie would have done something a given way. - He was supposed to join Bryan Singer to consult for 3 days and he stayed 5 months. Bryan wanted to ensure authenticity of character. - The production company was meticulous and exhaustive. He gives an example on them asking him what Freddie used to keep on a bag he used to carry around and the recreated it all (hairbrush, mirror, cigarettes, etc.) even if the contents will never be seen on the screen. - He describes eerie moments in filming when he felt Rami, Gwylim and Joe looked just like tiger original guys. For Joe Mazzello he said he saw him sitting on a couch and when talking to him he had to ask him if he was talking to Joe or John. He thought Joe was rehearsing John's lines in character but he was just Joe being Joe. - He suggested Fat bottomed girls may feature earlier in the movie than it was written in real life because it fit with the story arc. - Another major artistic liberty was that the movie shows Freddie knowing he was HIV positive by 1985, as opposed to 1987. - Bryan Singer filmed 85% of the movie and will retain sole directing credit (movie says "A Bryan Singer film"). Dexter Fletcher finished the remaining 15% and did NO RESHOOTS, so none of Singer's stuff was changed. - Bryan Singer had asked for a few days to visit his elder, sick mother over the holidays but was denied. He said he did not know how much time she had with her. - The movie is filmed a lot in real locations, rather than studio sets. They were not allowed to film inside of Garden Lodge but they got another house in the area, built around the same time and recorded it with Phoebe's input. He said he was particularly amazed by how they got the Japanese room right. - The Live Aid stage/set was built by the same company that built the original in 1985 from the original plans. - Choreography and continuity was verified exhaustively. For example, on the Live Aid set they were comparing the daily shots with the Live Aid video as they were shooting, looking into details like how the cameramen in the concert moved. |
| Wiley 10.06.2018 13:46 |
Oh, so now we can't edit posts on this forum? Apologies for a few autocorrect typos in there, courtesy of my phone. |
| Holly2003 10.06.2018 13:58 |
Sorry, there can't be claims of historical accuracy AND wild liberties taken with when songs were written and released, or when Fred knew he had Aids. |
| emrabt 10.06.2018 15:05 |
So.... it's historically accurate while at the same time making massive changes to the timeline for both the song writing and personal storylines? |
| Star* 10.06.2018 15:20 |
Well i say this film is bringing back the magic of Freddie to the public as he has been very ignored as of late Lets hope people start respecting Freddie even more and get in back into vogue where he belongs. |
| Wiley 10.06.2018 15:28 |
The HIV diagnosis bit will be annoying, I guess, but they kinda painted themselves into a corner by wanting to end the movie on a high point with Live Aid. I see how it works better on the screen, though. It's more dramatic to have him KNOW he's sick and he won't be able to play much longer as one of the reasons for him to play the best damn show ever. The same could be said for Knebworth. Did he know it was the band's last concert? Wasn't part of the reason for Freddie not wanting to tour the U.S. in 1986 that he feared he might be sick and that the insurance company would require medical tests or something? (It was probably fan speculation). Lastly, on the Fat Bottomed Girls bit, I wouldn't think I mind if Queen's studio recording of the song plays in the background at an earlier point in the movie (i.e. some crazy party in '74 or '75) but it will bother me quite a bit if I see 1974 Freddie (angel gown and all) singing the song at the Rainbow or something during the movie. The former I could stand, like I could stand the presence of any Queen music in any pre-1971 scene in the movie, for example, something like the instrumental It's a Beautiful Day playing during a sunrise scene in Zanzibar or Bombay. |
| Star* 10.06.2018 17:47 |
I think it is very annoying if the film spends too much time on Freddie's illness because we all know Freddie was better known for his mega vocals and flamboyant performances than some pathetic relentless illness that some scum bag gave Freddie. The film should celebrate the brilliance of Mercury and how he made Queen look flash and a knockout. |
| Kamenliter 10.06.2018 22:40 |
As stated, all that attention to accuracy is kind of pointless if they're going to have FBG being performed live pre 1978...ugh...UGH...what plot line could possibly be that important to have that song being preformed so much earlier than it actually was? It just does not fit their image at all pre-1978 (or at least pre 1977). Blech. |
| The Real Wizard 10.06.2018 22:58 |
Wiley wrote: Wasn't part of the reason for Freddie not wanting to tour the U.S. in 1986 that he feared he might be sick and that the insurance company would require medical tests or something?We know he knew in 1986, as Mary Austin confirmed in an interview a few years ago. But 1985? We'll probably never know. But Hollywood knows (hell, even Brian knows) the average person won't be squabbling over such minute details. Good music doth not a good film make. Drama does. So they'll take some liberties, and probably focus on sex and drugs to some extent. Talking about how someone was a great songwriter or performer is not going to put asses in seats, I'm afraid. |
| stevendabudgie 10.06.2018 22:59 |
@Wiley Peter Freestone: "Another topic raised quite often is if Freddie knew he was sick during the Magic Tour. I wouldn’t go as far as to say he knew he was sick, but I have an idea that he knew something was wrong and he suspected the reason. It was a massive tour by any standards, only playing big stadiums all around Europe, but he was feeling much more tired than usual and for him, shows were what he did and he knew how to pace himself. At the end of the tour, he was exhausted and that was when he said he wouldn’t tour again for quite a while. When he was at home he really had the time to ponder on the realities of his life and accept what might be really wrong. He didn’t have confirmation of this until Easter 1987." link |
| The Real Wizard 10.06.2018 23:01 |
stevendabudgie wrote: Peter Freestone: He didn’t have confirmation of this until Easter 1987."Translation: Phoebe didn’t have confirmation of this until Easter 1987. Mercury clearly told Mary long before he told anyone else. She was his best friend, after all. |
| stevendabudgie 10.06.2018 23:10 |
"Mercury clearly told Mary long before he told anyone else. She was his best friend, after all." He told her in 1985. He was advised not take part in Live Aid because of a (flu-related) throat-condition. |
| The Real Wizard 10.06.2018 23:45 |
stevendabudgie wrote: He told her in 1985.Source? |
| Nitroboy 11.06.2018 00:51 |
stevendabudgie wrote:He was advised not take part in Live Aid because of a (flu-related) throat-condition.The laryingitis was unrelated to HIV / AIDS though. |
| stevendabudgie 11.06.2018 01:01 |
@The Real Wizard The source is Mary Austin. See Midge Ure's radio documentary "Mysterious Mr. Mercury" link link |
| Cruella de Vil 11.06.2018 01:07 |
Hmmm..."The production company was meticulous and exhaustive" I guess that this image of Freddie singing '39 in his white Zandra Rhodes wingsuit (c'74), John Deacon equally dressed c '74 and the glorious splendour of the tackiest, spangly backdrop. They must have done a mystery charity tour of Cornwall organised by Roger's mum to raise some quid for the Girl Guides. Bonus Lucky door prize was a shag with Roger. And, using artistic license, '39 is about time travel so Fred and Deaky got caught in some temporal wormhole. It all makes perfect sense really! |
| stevendabudgie 11.06.2018 01:15 |
@The Real Wizard Sorry, false memory. He told her in 1985 he had taken an HIV test and confessed to her 18 months later the result was positive |
| dysan 11.06.2018 07:04 |
I wonder if telling everyone he had AIDS at Live Aids (you know, to the truck driving casual fans) will make them reconsider the party line that it was a masterful performance and they'll just be repulsed? I know how the populace works. |
| emrabt 11.06.2018 07:48 |
From what I understand the test in 1985 took months as it wasn't always accurate, they would do it at least twice before you'd get the results. It's possible if he was tested first in late 1985 he wouldn't have confirmed results until some point in 1986. |
| user1 11.06.2018 09:27 |
David Wigg even stated: "Freddie lived with the knowledge he was HIV-positive for seven years before his death. I knew and kept his secret." That would be 1984. link |
| emrabt 11.06.2018 09:41 |
There wasn't even a test for it in 1984. Late 1985 is the absolute earliest he could have had it confirmed, the most likely was sometime in 1986. |
| Golden Salmon 11.06.2018 11:24 |
^I'm not even debating, but he probably felt sick before the end of 1985 even if there was no information about what it could have been back then. |
| user1 11.06.2018 11:34 |
@emrabt: 1984 only can't be true if you refer to a proper test, not only discovery of HIV/AIDS symptoms. However I don't see your "late 1985" as the absolute truth as well as I couldn't find any evidence that the test first results took months. I only found sources who state that a few months after the first infection had to pass before the test was exercisable. As he started his promiscuous behaviour around 1978/79 the time after infection until testing probably wasn't relevant anyway. it's totally possible that a rich rock star belonged to the first persons who chose to test their blood and that he got positive HIV results prior to Live Aid or even simply discovered HIV/Aids indications on his body without a proper test and knew it while singing there (and Peter Freestone refers to the day Freddie told it to him). Even if the tests weren't reliable if you count one and one you know that a second test probably won't give you a different result. And we're speaking about "know it" only here. If you regard his highly risky behaviour there's a big chance he even supposed to have nearly no chance not to have caught "the new disease" much earlier. link link @Golden Salmon: Exactly, it's totally possible that he made his assumptions before doing a proper test. |
| emrabt 11.06.2018 11:46 |
I'm not sure of the exact dates but for a large portion of 1985 the HIV test was only used on blood collected for tranfusions, and not on individual people to diagnose HIV, which is why i said late 1985. |
| user1 11.06.2018 11:51 |
That's indeed what it was meant for "blood donation centers began using the test in April of 1985 and by the end of July, the blood supply was declared free of AIDS." link |
| emrabt 11.06.2018 11:56 |
So it's unlikely Freddie would have had a test before Live Aid which was July as according to your source it's when it was still being used at bloodbanks. |
| user1 11.06.2018 11:58 |
Unlikely but not impossible. Basically there a four possible dates one could refer to if you take an example of a gay promiscuous man in the 80's anyway. A) the "new disease" turns up, many gay promiscuous people die under terrible circumstances you think/worry about your own risky behaviour but you don't "know" anything for sure B) your own body shows strange symptoms that make you worry C) HIV test positive D) HIV caused AIDS A) definitely applied to Freddie before Live Aid, we don't know about B) or C), D) couldn't be tested at that time. |
| Donovan 11.06.2018 22:58 |
According to QueenAnimals.ru, Roger didn't encounter the rooster until shortly before they went on stage at Knebworth in '86. I've been mildly skeptical about that site in the past, however... |
| MisterCosmicc 12.06.2018 08:17 |
What rooster? |
| Donovan 12.06.2018 18:26 |
My favourite moment of the trailer.... |
| MiracleTour1989 12.06.2018 21:16 |
Maybe this is minutia to the general public, but I really don't like this if it's actually happening in the film. If Freddie really didn't know he had the illness until 1987, why on earth is this movie bending that reality by two years? That is going to make Freddie look pretty irresponsible with Jim. They should have told the full story, and covered the inspiration and drama and sadness of his death. No, they wanted to tell a happy story that ends on a high. Well, now they're bending the truth to do that. And I really feel if you wanted an award-winning film, you needed to show Freddie's rise and fall. Sad or not, that's the unique story. |
| dysan 13.06.2018 07:30 |
Putting all the evidence together - it seems they are suggesting Freddie got AIDS in 1974 off a Fat Bottomed Girl. |
| user1 13.06.2018 07:36 |
DrowsingOnASundayAfernoon wrote: If Freddie really didn't know he had the illness until 1987, why on earth is this movie bending that reality by two years That is going to make Freddie look pretty irresponsible with Jim.There are various sources who claim he "knew" much earlier (whatever that exactly means, see my posting above) but kept on living his wild life and stayed in denial. If you want to, you can call that "irresponsible". Jim either refers to the date his HIV developed into AIDS or the date Freddie told it to him. |
| The Real Wizard 13.06.2018 19:45 |
DrowsingOnASundayAfernoon wrote: If Freddie really didn't know he had the illness until 1987, why on earth is this movie bending that reality by two years? That is going to make Freddie look pretty irresponsible with Jim.But considering Jim and Mercury's post-1985 life won't be featured in the film, 99.9999% of people won't even consider this scenario. |
| emrabt 13.06.2018 20:08 |
Maybe it will be featured but it will happen a year earlier than in real life? I have a feeling they are going to squeeze loads of post 1985 stuff in before Live Aid and make it seem like some last concert or something.... |
| Dr Magus 14.06.2018 09:52 |
The life of Queen post-Live Aid to present day will be the subject of the sequel, should the first film do well enough at the box office. |
| Invisible Woman 14.06.2018 10:32 |
I don't think it's right to show in movie this theory, that he knew before 1987. Mary Austin said Freddie knew but it's not proof that this was true. Why would be true every her word? I also think it's not right that there is nothing in the movie after Live Aid if movie really ends that way. It seems that they want to erase Jim from Freddie's life, to deny their love and how much Jim was important to Freddie. It's sad. |
| user1 14.06.2018 11:55 |
Invisible Woman wrote: I don't think it's right to show in movie this theory, that he knew before 1987. Mary Austin said Freddie knew but it's not proof that this was true. Why would be true every her word?She's one of the few persons who accompanied him through his whole adult life until the end. She got his home and 50% of his estate after he died. She was one of the first people he came out to. She promised him to hide the place of his grave and his ashes. It totally makes sense that she was the first to know that he had HIV. Before 1987. Jim's theory that Freddie didn't know until 1987 isn't credible considering the fact that Freddie had access to the best doctors and medicine. Invisible Woman wrote:It seems that they want to erase Jim from Freddie's life, to deny their love and how much Jim was important to Freddie. It's sad.It's not about erasing someone, it's about entertaining a film audience. Plus it would raise questions about Freddie's behaviour after he knew that he was ill. |
| Invisible Woman 14.06.2018 15:49 |
@user1 So what if she inherited all that from him? That doesn't mean that everything what she says is true. I have the right not to believe in all her statements. When Barbara Valentin said the same, most of people don't believe her. But when Marry says it's true. Who was the first to mention that Freddie knew 1984-85? Barbara or Mary? If they didn't want to include in the movie a period after Live Aid, why do they mention Hiv at all? What do they want to say with that? If they don't want his life with Jim in movie that means they really want to diminish Jim's role in Freddie's life. That's a fact. |
| emrabt 14.06.2018 16:26 |
I don't think Mary said he knew in 1985? As far as I know Mary has said he knew before / early on during the Magic Tour (so Mid 1986), which is pretty much what most other sources say and coincide with his change in attitude at the time. He probably 'knew' a bit before that as he wasn't stupid, knew his own body and his past behaviour meant he was very high risk. The reason they need to do it in the movie is because Jo Public will expect to see it in the movie, he was one of the first famous people to die from Aids complications. |
| The Real Wizard 14.06.2018 17:43 |
emrabt wrote: I don't think Mary said he knew in 1985? As far as I know Mary has said he knew before / early on during the Magic Tour (so Mid 1986), which is pretty much what most other sources say and coincide with his change in attitude at the time.Mercury knew on the Magic tour, and Mary knew by Knebworth. We know those two things for sure, but anything beyond that is conjecture. |
| user1 14.06.2018 18:08 |
Invisible Woman wrote: @user1 So what if she inherited all that from him? That doesn't mean that everything what she says is true. I have the right not to believe in all her statements.You have the right to believe what you want. Even if it's only to justify the behaviour of your idol. Fact: He didn't tell Jim until 1987 that he had HIV/AIDS and Jim caught HIV too: How do you like that? Invisible Woman wrote:If they didn't want to include in the movie a period after Live Aid, why do they mention Hiv at all?Because everyone knows the end and not mentioning HIV at all would be making a "family friendly" version which is exactly what they don't want to do. Invisible Woman wrote:What do they want to say with that?That he delivered the show of is life though (or because?) he knew he would die slowly and painfully in the next couple of years. Invisible Woman wrote:If they don't want his life with Jim in movie that means they really want to diminish Jim's role in Freddie's life. That's a fact.Why is that a fact? They just focus on a certain part of his life. They want Freddie to be remembered as a rock god, not as a helpless, dying man. Which is EXACTLY what Freddie wanted. The Real Wizard wrote: Mercury knew on the Magic tour, and Mary knew by Knebworth. We know those two things for sure, but anything beyond that is conjecture.You seem to only consider one source/interview that you take for granted and regard everything else as conjecture. Using this logic, I could even regard the one source as faulty. Which I don't. :) Fun fact: we don't know anything "for sure" as this would only be possible by seeing his first few test results. As long that this isn't the case, we have to take a look at the big picture. |
| Invisible Woman 14.06.2018 20:30 |
@user1 I don't have any idols but I have my own opinion. If you believe in everything Mary says is ok. I don't mind it. About movie, if it's biographical movie then it's necessary to present the life of that person and not just what would be pleasing to a wide audience or just what is commercial. Those who really love Freddie's music already consider him one of the best singers and musicians .They don't need a movie to convince them. That's my opinion. |
| stevendabudgie 14.06.2018 21:55 |
@user1 @Invisible Woman Barbara Valentin also stated that already in 1985 Freddie was aware something was wrong with his health |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 14.06.2018 23:18 |
Another thing.....Roger Taylor told me Barbara Valentin will be in the film. She was the worst influence, with Paul Prenter in Freddie's live and very important in the Munich years. Where is Barbara in the film? Everybody knows the answer. |
| user1 15.06.2018 05:03 |
Invisible Woman wrote:About movie, if it's biographical movie then it's necessary to present the life of that person and not just what would be pleasing to a wide audience or just what is commercial.Have you seen Peter's interview? He refers to people having that opinion by telling them that after all it's a multi million dollar movie made to please general public, not only Queen die hard fans. I think it's pretty logic that not every detail can be covered and artistic decisions were made where to focus/cut. @stevendabudgie: We have at least three sources of close friends who claim he knew pre 1987: Barabara Valentin, David Wigg and Mary Austin. That makes the 1987 theory pretty much refuted. The fact that Freddie lived in denial and neither told his bandmates nor his partners before he received the confirmation that it developed into AIDS even strengthens their statements |
| emrabt 15.06.2018 08:15 |
Very few biopics are 100% accurate, The Elephant Man's got his name wrong, Houdini's changed how he died, several of Bruce Lee's are total fiction. |
| Dr Magus 15.06.2018 10:00 |
Freddie knew he had aids in November 1991 but made the decision not to tell the rest of the band till backstage after the tribute concert. The person who told me this worked for Queen for over 10 years so it must be true. A FACT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! |
| Invisible Woman 15.06.2018 10:04 |
@user1 I really don't want to go into discussion about this but I just have add this. David wrote in one article that Mary and Freddie were over twenty years in " on-off " relationship and how she lived with Freddie in Garden Lodge, nurse him trough the illness but it's not true. He also wrote that her rivals had attacked her for jealousy because she had inherited a great wealth. ( some other threads here have links for this article ) Creating a public image about something or someone is a very important part of a show-business. Perhaps his articles and statements about Freddie's knowing are actually based on her statements. On the other hand, men who lived with him at house (Jim, partner; Phoebe, personal asistent and close friend) said that before 1987 he didn't have a conffirm. They also said that after the story about HIV in the tabloid he was worried and probably thought about his own health. None of us can say what the real truth is. So, it remains for us to decide which of those persons will believe and which theory seems more probable. As long as someone really proves what the truth is. That's all from me about it. |
| user1 15.06.2018 10:37 |
Regarding his wish to keep on living life as normal as possible it totally makes sense NOT to tell the ones around him in his house until it couldn't be hidden anymore (=1987).
If you want to cherrypick the source you like best because it supports your personal view on your idol: I wont stop you :)
Have you lived in the 80's in a western country and were old enough to watch TV? Anyone who did this will remember the massive amount of HIV/AIDS press coverage and hysteria from '83/'84 on. Lots of people who didn't live a life like Freddie were afraid to catch it. It was compared to black death and many people thought the whole mankind would be erased from this planet. There is absolutely zero chance a gay man who lived as promiscuous as Freddie didn't know ("to know": see my posting from a few days ago) anything about his infection and got badly surprised in 1987.
Apart from stating that, all I can to do is to quote myself:
user1 wrote: Fun fact: we don't know anything "for sure" as this would only be possible by seeing his first few test results. As long that this isn't the case, we have to take a look at the big picture.Back to topic: The story as presented in the film makes sense and can be true as many different statements support it. There is no conspiration to "erase Jim out of Freddie's life" |
| Invisible Woman 15.06.2018 11:58 |
@ user1 As I said, I don't have an idol. About movie, we comment on what we have heard or read about it. I didn't mention any conspirancy. I said how it seems to me now, based on information about the movie, information which we know. |
| MagicTourUS 15.06.2018 12:07 |
If David Wigg knew Freddie was ill by 1984, why did he clumsily ask him about “the AIDS thing” in 1987 when Freddie definitely knew he was suffering from it? If he was in the know about this big secret, does he ask that question on tape? |
| user1 15.06.2018 12:24 |
I don't know, either he felt he HAD to ask that in his interview because there were speculations in newspapers from 1986 on (-> "[...] Which is a very topical, magazines want me to") or he hoped for an honest answer which would have made quite a fuss as you can imagine. From what we know Freddie never talked much about it and basically stated it towards a few people once and then it's never been discussed again. So if David knew, he perhaps saw it as the right time to bring the topic up again (as he had an "excuse" for that). link |
| c.jory 15.06.2018 22:27 |
Invisible Woman - just dropping by briefly to agree with you on the David thing. A lot of things he wrote have mistakes in regarding small things like Mary's age, the length of Freddie and Mary's relationship, the nature of it etc. So yes his information probably does come from Mary whose memory isn't exactly sharp. (Remember she has several different recollections of Freddie's coming out story!) It's entirely possible she gave Wigg the 1984 date for knowing he was ill and he's just parroting. With the Barbara Valentin thing, a lot of what she's claimed has been called out as bullshit by other people who knew Freddie so what's to say the 'I noticed AIDS symptoms in 1984' isn't also bullshit. I mean this is the woman who claimed he tried to throttle her, then retracted it, then claimed he tried to drown her. I'd take what she said with a pinch of salt. She could have just been in some kind of 'I was closest to Freddie' pissing contest with Mary. |
| FunLovinCriminal 16.06.2018 00:07 |
Peter Fresstone, the movie, Freddie's HIV-status - there's zero news in any of that and it is being discussed over and over again. What we know and must not repeat anymore: Freddie was gay, Freddie enjoyed having gay sex. Freddie did contract HIV and he died from an AIDS related disease. The remaining two Queen boys want to make some more money by financing a movie which includes info that most people already know. Peter Freestone is on Queen's payroll again. He has got nothing new to tell anybody because he has told these Freddie-stories so many times, that I feel sorry for the man. He must feel completely empty inside. Let's talk about May's, Deacon's or Taylor's lifes for a change, won't we? Or do we fear that they are rather boring compared to Mercury's? Or let's talk about your latest HIV-antibody-tests. |
| The Real Wizard 16.06.2018 01:35 |
user1 wrote:I see and respect your logic. But in this case, this is an eyewitness account of literally the only person (besides his doctors) who would've known at that point.The Real Wizard wrote: Mercury knew on the Magic tour, and Mary knew by Knebworth. We know those two things for sure, but anything beyond that is conjecture.You seem to only consider one source/interview that you take for granted and regard everything else as conjecture. Using this logic, I could even regard the one source as faulty. Which I don't. :) Fun fact: we don't know anything "for sure" as this would only be possible by seeing his first few test results. As long that this isn't the case, we have to take a look at the big picture. She says she was sidestage at Knebworth, and as soon as Mercury got off, he said he was done. That sounds pretty solid to me. |
| user1 16.06.2018 06:24 |
@ captainjory: You can think of David, Barabara and Mary what you want, just have a look at Freddie's wild life between 1978 and 1985, the death of many hard clubbing gays from the early 80s on, the HIV/AIDS press coverage and his various physical symptoms (tongue, KS), he must have had at least (!) a strong suspicion in Summer '85. Of all theories and statements floating around, the 1987 one is the unlikeliest and just implausible.
The Real Wizard wrote: She says she was sidestage at Knebworth, and as soon as Mercury got off, he said he was done. That sounds pretty solid to me.I totally agree with you on that. It just doesn't rule out the possibility (supported by various statements) he already got tested in summer 1985 (Prior to Live AId? Who knows. At least much earlier than Summer 1986) but lived in denial and hoped for the best because tests were so unreliable at that time. |
| user1 16.06.2018 06:25 |
delete |
| stevendabudgie 16.06.2018 20:09 |
@user1 @TheRealWizard Tour manager Gary Stickells also said that on the Magic Tour they knew that Freddie was sick |
| Saint Jiub 16.06.2018 21:17 |
stevendabudgie wrote: @user1 @TheRealWizard Tour manager Gary Stickells also said that on the Magic Tour they knew that Freddie was sickI had not heard this before. Do you have a source? Did Gary know it was HIV related, or did he believe at the time that it was general illness? |
| stevendabudgie 16.06.2018 21:40 |
@Panchgani He said something like "We all knew he wasn't well" It's in the docudrama "The Freddie Mercury Story- Who Wants To Live Forever" from 42:00 to 46:00: link |
| stevendabudgie 16.06.2018 21:41 |
@Panchgani Sorry, it was Harvey Goldsmith who said that, not Stickells |
| Jake12 16.06.2018 21:42 |
Sorry if this has already been posted but I saw now on YouTube this Trailer Presentation for the movie in Barcelona with a extended scene from 1980 link |