Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

What do you want me to say? I'm sorry I didn't phase my comments like you wanted, but that's how I am as I don't mince my words.

Ok, fine. I’m moving on.

 

[TJPC]

Accuracy has never been a strong point with movies. My wife and I really enjoyed the movie “Argo” a few years ago, for instance, even though as Canadians we could probably been really offended, because the removal of the hostages was a Canadian operation, with only partial involvement of the US — a fact barely mentioned in the screen play.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Accuracy has never been a strong point with movies. My wife and I really enjoyed the movie “Argo” a few years ago, for instance, even though as Canadians we could probably been really offended, because the removal of the hostages was a Canadian operation, with only partial involvement of the US — a fact barely mentioned in the screen play.

It was definitely mentioned here on this forum by other Canadians. Americans always like taking credit like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Objective Burma" just to name a few movies.

 

[Tino]

When we get to the point where criticizing a movie because it invents radically fictional aspects of a "true story" makes you a "bitcher", I think there's something wrong.

Sorry, you can't shame me into saying that the huge lies in the movie are okay...

I’m not saying they’re ok by any means. They just bother some more than others.

To me, the film was so entertaining that I was able to forgive the filmmakers for those errors and fabrications. Again, it’s not a documentary so it was easy.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Because I don’t care, I wanted to be entertained first and foremost which this movie did for me. Your problem with accuracy is your issue.

So how far does this reach? If they made a movie about JFK's assassination that made Bob Dylan the shooter, that'd be A-OK as long as it entertained you?

BTW, this extends to movies that clearly want us to see them as accurate. Obviously this wouldn't extend to movies that we know intend to be fantasy.

I'm fine with the obvious historical inaccuracies of "Overlord" because it doesn't pretend to tell us factual history. When a movie craps out fiction like "BR" does, it's damaging, as now millions of people will believe the lies...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It keeps getting said that "other biopics do it too", which in my mind is a false equivalency. While that might be the case with The Glenn Miller Story (I haven't seen it), there's no biopic that I'm aware of in the last couple of decades that comes anywhere close to the amount of crap that's made up in this film.

I never saw "Miller" so I can't reflect on that, but the "everybody does it" defense doesn't fly for me either.

Yes, biopics often take liberties. However, as you say, most don't go to this one's extremes, and most don't do so with the perplexing approval of major parties involved!

I'll never understand why the surviving bandmembers gave their nod to the "alternate facts" in the movie, I suspect "$$$$" is the answer...

 

[Tino]

When a movie craps out fiction like "BR" does, it's damaging, as now millions of people will believe the lies...

Damaging? What the worst that can be learned? That events happened out of turn? That the band really didn’t break up? Damaging to who? Plus I think that most that saw and loved the film know it’s not very accurate as it’s all over social media.

I think you’re overestimating it’s “damage”.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Exactly. I accept that liberties need to be taken. You only have so much time to tell the story, so you can’t include everthing, you have to think about pacing so you have balls juggling over when certain songs are depicted as having being written vs other events etc, but as I earlier pointed out there were ways to more adhere to the facts. For example, I suspected Freddie’s relationship with his parents was contrived for narrative cliche (Freddie’s mother letting him come and go as he pleases in the desparate hope he’ll finally bring home a girl as an obvious hint to his sexuality and the strained relationship with his father to foster the inevitable climatic reconciliation). I might have lost all those scenes entirely to give more screentime to other events.

Though the father/Freddie stuff felt awfully "Jazz Singer" to me, I can easily accept that aspects of that relationship were true. The idea that they

Spoiler

reconciled as Freddie was on the way to Live Aid - and that Daddy was cool that Freddie brought his new boyfriend (who he hardly knew) - was inane and eye-rolling

but the notion of parental resistance to Freddie's lifestyle and his decision to go into music doesn't bug me....

I feel like the movie was more fiction than fact. All I really believe from this movie was that there were four guys who formed a band and wrote some hit songs, which one of them was a someone daring piece that met with resistance. Freddie once had a girlfriend who remained in his life, Freddie contracted AIDS, and they band had a “finest hour” moment at Live Aid.

Of course, the scenes

Spoiler

in which Freddie learns of his AIDS diagnosis in 1985 are fiction. He may well have had AIDS at that point but he didn't know yet.

I think the movie's interjection of Freddie's AIDS diagnosis is yet another maudlin aspect of a maudlin movie. Again: he didn't know in 1985, so the scenes that involve AIDS are fictional and exist just to tug heartstrings.[/quote]

The movie should've ignored Freddie's AIDS diagnosis until the end card that said what happened to him after 1985. Its inclusion in the narrative - which ends in 1985 - was a cheesy choice...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It's the truth! You ask if there is going to be a second movie? I said no. You think there might be, I'm fine with that, but I don't think so. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong or right, only time will tell! As to the lack of accuracy regarding Bohemian Rhapsody, it is an issue for some of you. I'm fine with that. However, the majority of us don't have any major issues with it, are you guys fine with us? It doesn't appear so.

I'm 100% fine with anyone's enjoyment of the film. Even if I ignore the factual issues, I think it's a poorly made movie - I'd dislike it even without the massive fictional elements - but I never begrudge anyone their happiness.

I just don't get the "who cares???" argument about the lies. If someone made "The Robert Crawford Story" and claimed you once killed a stranger and made a mask out of his face, would you think that was okay as long as the movie was entertaining?

I do agree there won't be a sequel - where to go? Freddie's sad decline and death?

Audiences like the movie because it focuses on the band's hits and related drama - and it ends on a high note. A "prequel" that focuses on Freddie's early life wouldn't have any of that, and a sequel that views 1986--1991 would lack hits casual fans know AND be depressing.

I can't see that film being made...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Accuracy has never been a strong point with movies. My wife and I really enjoyed the movie “Argo” a few years ago, for instance, even though as Canadians we could probably been really offended, because the removal of the hostages was a Canadian operation, with only partial involvement of the US — a fact barely mentioned in the screen play.

And "Argo" got ample criticism for that - as it should have...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I’m not saying they’re ok by any means. They just bother some more than others.

To me, the film was so entertaining that I was able to forgive the filmmakers for those errors and fabrications. Again, it’s not a documentary so it was easy.

As I noted, my objections to the film go waaaay beyond the fictionalization. That third act is a disaster of soap opera proportions - it's so melodramatic and absurd that I'm surprised my eyes ever returned to their normal position after all the rolling.

But even if I'd loved it, I'd be bothered by some of the "alternate facts" - they're just too major.

Claiming the band wrote "We Are the Champions" in 1980 and not 1977? Annoying, but not a dealbreaker.

Claiming the band broke up for years and reunited for Live Aid? BZZZZZ!

Using Freddie's not-yet-diagnosed AIDS as audience manipulation? BZZZZ!

And so on...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Damaging? What the worst that can be learned? That events happened out of turn? That the band really didn’t break up? Damaging to who? Plus I think that most that saw and loved the film know it’s not very accurate as it’s all over social media.

I think you’re overestimating it’s “damage”.

The "damage" is that millions of people now believe the movie's lies. They'll think that Queen broke up, etc., whereas these events never happened.

No, it's not "damaging" in the way lies from the White House are damaging, but I think it's a bad thing when fiction becomes commonly accepted as fact, and that's going to happen here.

Does it affect the functioning of the world that millions of people now think Queen broke up in 1982 - or whenever - and reunited for Live Aid? Obviously not, but I still view it as a negative whenever ANY lies get accepted as truth...

 

[Tino]

The "damage" is that millions of people now believe the movie's lies. They'll think that Queen broke up, etc., whereas these events never happened.

No, it's not "damaging" in the way lies from the White House are damaging, but I think it's a bad thing when fiction becomes commonly accepted as fact, and that's going to happen here.

Does it affect the functioning of the world that millions of people now think Queen broke up in 1982 - or whenever - and reunited for Live Aid? Obviously not, but I still view it as a negative whenever ANY lies get accepted as truth...

What makes you think millions believe everything they saw and accepting everything as truth?

Again you’re overestimating the films impact on audiences. I think we’re smarter than that.

Jeez this thread is turning ugly.

 

[Tino]

Claiming the band wrote "We Are the Champions" in 1980 and not 1977? Annoying, but not a dealbreaker.

Claiming the band broke up for years and reunited for Live Aid? BZZZZZ!

Using Freddie's not-yet-diagnosed AIDS as audience manipulation? BZZZZ!

So what?

Can’t you just accept that those issues do not bother most people? Yes most. I believe most don’t care and accept them as dramatic license.

If it bothers you and others that fine. Just don’t make out those that aren’t bothered as not caring or crazy somehow for enjoying the film despite these issues.

 

[Robert Crawford]

What makes you think millions believe everything they saw and accepting everything as truth?

Again you’re overestimating the films impact on audiences. I think we’re smarter than that.

Jeez this thread is turning ugly.

It only gets ugly, if you let it get that way. I really liked this film and enjoyed it immensely. Therefore, I really have nothing else to say about the contrary views regarding it. The film has done very well at the box office and will do the same on home video. I spoke my piece.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

What makes you think millions believe everything they saw and accepting everything as truth?

Millions of people saw "JFK" - one of the most ludicrous collections of lies ever put on screen - as fact.

Why wouldn't most people accept "BR" as accurate? Do you think the millions who saw it went home to research the facts/fiction?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

So what?

Can’t you just accept that those issues do not bother most people? Yes most. I believe most don’t care and accept them as dramatic license.

If it bothers you and others that fine. Just don’t make out those that aren’t bothered as not caring or crazy somehow for enjoying the film despite these issues.

Already said I don't care if people like the movie, I'm happy if people enjoy the movie.

I just find the hoops through which some jump to justify the fiction to perplex me...

 

[Malcolm R]

Millions of people saw "JFK" - one of the most ludicrous collections of lies ever put on screen - as fact.

Why wouldn't most people accept "BR" as accurate? Do you think the millions who saw it went home to research the facts/fiction?

Yeah, people aren't that smart. These days, the facts and truth are whatever you want them to be if you can get enough people to believe you or buy tickets. No one wants to put in the effort to look up the actual facts/events.

Most people seeing this film who are not die-hard Queen fans will simply accept the events portrayed as facts since it's being marketed as a biopic that is "based on the true story," no matter how loosely. And the fact that the surviving band members apparently are OK with this, or even endorsed it to make a few bucks, is really sad.

 

[AshJW]

I saw it last week, same as A Star Is Born.
I liked both very much. And as I'm not as familiar with the real events I didn't care for some inaccuracies. I was well entertained and that's the main thing. At least for me it is.

 

[Tino]

I just find the hoops through which some jump to justify the fiction to perplex me..

As far as I know, no one in this thread has attempted to justify the fiction.