- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bohemian Rhapsody
Posted on 11/1/18 at 1:33 am to cigsmcgee
Posted on 11/1/18 at 1:33 am to cigsmcgee
quote:
absolute nonsense.
How so?
quote:
his life isnt a secret, there are tell alls and documentaries. no reason it should be taboo. so why make a movie at all if not to tell a real story? well....
And from everything I've read, this film touches on all of those aspects. Sacha Baron Cohen must have had a different draft of the script, because this movie is nothing like what he described several years ago on the Howard Stern show.
quote:
right, so i dont really understand why we're shitting on the fact that some people would like to see some honesty and weight into movies about famous people, instead of "sanctimonious stories about the genius of rock stars."
The only people who are interested in the story you are looking for are movie critics and hard core fans of film. Personally, I couldn't care less about a film set in the late-80s/early-90s that did nothing but tell us about Freddie Mercury's struggle with HIV/AIDS. That's what SBC wanted. He wanted a dark, gritty story about Mercury's final years. That's fine. But as a fan of Freddie Mercury and of Queen, I'd rather see what we're getting with this movie. AIDS may have ultimately killed the man but it sure as hell didn't come to define him. His music did.
And there's no guarantee that the darker and grittier route would have been successful. So if it turns out to be a critical flop, all you have is a film that is dark, depressing, and leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. At least with the more upbeat film you get a crowd pleaser that might even have good replay value.
This post was edited on 11/1/18 at 1:40 am
3
Posted on 11/1/18 at 1:58 am to RollTide1987
You are a fan of Mercury and Queen. You want Rock Star. Lol
This post was edited on 11/1/18 at 2:01 am
Posted on 11/1/18 at 7:33 am to RollTide1987
To anyone interested, if you have Amazon Music, the soundtrack is on there free as of this morning.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:42 am to RollTide1987
quote:
How so?
91 was a crucial year for AIDs awareness, Freddie was a global superstar and Magic Johnson was straight. Those two cases made aids something more than an underground niche disease. Epidemics take alot of factors to get under control, but having people talk about the disease and admit it exists is a must.
So even tho Freddie wasnt leading the AIDs fight in the 80s, his death affected the way alot people thought about the disease.
quote:
Personally, I couldn't care less about a film set in the late-80s/early-90s that did nothing but tell us about Freddie Mercury's struggle with HIV/AIDS. That's what SBC wanted.
From what i understand, Cohen wanted to use Freddies last days as a framing device around the larger story. I think youre prob overplaying the grimness and darkness here to help youre argument, when in reality the movie would have dealt with heavy themes, sure, but its not like SBC was looking to make Salo' II.
quote:
And there's no guarantee that the darker and grittier route would have been successful
Very true. Art should never take chances, cause who knows if itd make millions of dollars! Playing it safe is just good business, and exactly the legacy Queen and Freddie Mercury left behind.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News