Bohemian Rhapsody-- yes or no?

[Mushroo]

The other problem with Sacha Baron Cohen for the role, is that at age 47, he's older than Freddie Mercury ever lived to be.

Rami Malek is 10 years younger than Cohen, about the same age as Mercury during the Live Aid era.

 

[InhumanResource]

Not easier. Just more profitable. Just like venue owners - their goal is not art, its profit.

View attachment 3192821

I agree that profit is the goal, but you'd think they would try something different to increase performance. The most recent industry/trade article I could find referred to "modest growth" through 2022 and used the word "sluggish" to describe the industry financially.

That's just from a quick Google though, I'm no expert... But it would seem OTT services and content are where the money is.

 

[pigpen1]

Why not?

Just can't stand the guy or his sense of humor. To be honest I don't really any comedy out of Britain.

 

[InhumanResource]

Just can't stand the guy or his sense of humor. To be honest I don't really any comedy out of Britain.

Fair enough!

 

[mellowinman]

Warning: OPINION ahead!

1. Sasha Baron Cohen is a no-talent hack with a crass, unfunny style of humor. There is no team of wild horses that could drag me to a picture showing him playing one of the greatest frontmen/songwriters/rock stars of all time
2. It doesn't take tons of money to make GREAT films. You need a good script, talented actors, and a good director. Period. Big names and special effects don't make films better.
3. Ice cream is too fattening. Sure, the taste is pure heaven, but I can't have it so I'm sad.
4. Queen is one of the greatest bands of all time, whether you like them or not. They made music that was singularly unique. Everyone in the band was amazing at their instruments; three of them were amazing singers; and they brought the rock when they played live.

These statements are my OPINION, and not presented to be fact, except for the ice cream and Queen things, which are kind of hard to dispute.

 

[Passinwind]

Thanks everyone. Many points of view.

Queen has never been a favorite, actually I never really liked them much. But there may well be many other aspects that would interest me, or not. Time will tell, no need to be in any hurry in my case. In all honesty I have no idea how much it even costs to go see a movie in a theater these days. The one in my home town closed decades ago and is a pretty nice music venue now, FWIW. Works for me.

 

[donotfret]

If there's a James Jamerson movie please let me know. Then again it might not be as exciting as his basslines.

 

[dhagopian]

Can't stand Queen. Pass.

 

[SactoBass]

Not in a million years. I don't like Queen's music, and to my ears, Freddie's voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard.

 

[Kragnorak]

Here's the deal... Our audio consuming options are awful these days. Stereo is such a last-century way to mix bands, and most people listen to heavily-compressed stereo mixes on the internet or MP3 downloads.

Attempts at creating superior listening experiences just haven't caught on with the public as people just don't care enough about music to buy BluRay Audio or even 5.1 DVD audio or whatever. So we continue to get boring stereo mixes designed for radio and other low-fi media.

When does music sound great? When it is remixed in x-channel sound for a movie! It's no accident that many songs become popular after they are used in a movie or when they are heard in the credits.

So if you're a Queen fan or want to introduce the music of Queen to a friend or family member, probably the best thing you can do is take them to see this movie in an IMAX theater. I saw the trailer in an IMAX theater and the songs sound great that way.

I live close enough to a Dolby theater, so it's a no-brainer to watch a movie that celebrates music in one of these. The Dolby Atmos system has 50 or so speakers, 4 sub-woofers and a buttkicker in every seat. That is how music should be listened to ideally! Can you imagine the sound separation if orchestral music was recorded and mixed specifically for highest-caliber audio instead of lowest?!

So if my local theater puts the Queen movie in the Dolby theater I'll see it there. I understand the controversy of the movie that the members of the band are protecting their legacy. But in that vein every movie put out by the Beatles or Prince was advertising and every music video is propaganda. I'm not going to judge the content of the movie before seeing it with an open mind (even though I'm disappointed about Sacha).

 

[Kragnorak]

But as much as I thought it was cool when i saw the film was coming out, i just as quickly got pissed off about the worship of singers in our society. I really have had enough of singers.

Right on man! That Doors movie by Oliver Stone was really well done, but it was 97% about Jim Morrison; hardly a mention of the bass player!

 

[Plectrum72]

But that's the exact point. They do this to make money. Theater attendance in this country has been going down for decades - even for blockbusters. They could make On the Waterfront meets Casablanca meets Starwars meets The Godfather, and most people STILL wouldn't pay to see it in theaters. They have no incentive to make better films, because most people are still going to wait to watch in streaming, where they make far less money.

At least 13 posts here said either they no longer watch films in theaters, or that they specifically would wait until this hit streaming.

I think this is due in large part to the quality of the venues (sticky floors and such) and the patrons (talking, cell phones, etc.) and not so much to do with the quality of movies. Most theaters just can't compete with what I have at home aside from screen size. Add the convenience of watching it on my schedule and the ability to pause should a family member need to use the bathroom or get a snack and there really isn't much incentive to see any movie in a theater. I'll go see my favorites like Star Wars, Tolkien, Potter, Marvel in a theater for the big screen effect with my family, but we all still enjoy (see & hear) the movie more at home.

Back on topic, I'll watch Bohemian Rhapsody when it's available digitally.

 

[Kragnorak]

Warning: OPINION ahead!

1. Sasha Baron Cohen is a no-talent hack with a crass, unfunny style of humor. There is no team of wild horses that could drag me to a picture showing him playing one of the greatest frontmen/songwriters/rock stars of all time
2. It doesn't take tons of money to make GREAT films. You need a good script, talented actors, and a good director. Period. Big names and special effects don't make films better.
3. Ice cream is too fattening. Sure, the taste is pure heaven, but I can't have it so I'm sad.
4. Queen is one of the greatest bands of all time, whether you like them or not. They made music that was singularly unique. Everyone in the band was amazing at their instruments; three of them were amazing singers; and they brought the rock when they played live.

These statements are my OPINION, and not presented to be fact, except for the ice cream and Queen things, which are kind of hard to dispute.

My OPINIONS on your OPINIONS...

1. Baron Cohen is a brilliant man that can do things that most people cannot do. For example, he insightfully knows how to call B.S. with his comedy, and I don't know many people that could keep a straight face while a noted food critic gushes over eating human flesh. That is comedy gold. Period. When Baron Cohen plays fictional characters in a fictional setting, he is much less funny and is somewhere in between Rob Schneider (awful) and Mike Myers (funny) at that stuff. I have not seen him play a serious fictional role so have no idea of his acting range.

2. While throwing money at a film does not guarantee greatness, it is very difficult these days to achieve a great result without money. I thought World's Greatest Dad is an amazing little movie, but it's budget was "ONLY" $10,000,000 because Robin Williams believed in the material enough to work on the cheap. Perhaps our definition of tons of money differ? Because if you made a music album on the budget of the cheapest B-movie you'd have an A-list album on your hands.

3. Agreed, but the real problem is that it is weird stuff to digest.

4. Queen made music that was singularly unique and they were culturally important, so I don't argue with them deserving a place in rock royalty. I like their material from the 1970s and love their final album with Freddie. "The Show Must Go On" is an amazing piece of music. I thought they were pretty boring in the eighties, but a friend that is a fan of the "Highlander" TV show disagrees with me

 

[buldog5151bass]

I think this is due in large part to the quality of the venues (sticky floors and such) and the patrons (talking, cell phones, etc.) and not so much to do with the quality of movies. Most theaters just can't compete with what I have at home aside from screen size. Add the convenience of watching it on my schedule and the ability to pause should a family member need to use the bathroom or get a snack and there really isn't much incentive to see any movie in a theater. I'll go see my favorites like Star Wars, Tolkien, Potter, Marvel in a theater for the big screen effect with my family, but we all still enjoy (see & hear) the movie more at home.

Back on topic, I'll watch Bohemian Rhapsody when it's available digitally.

You have my point backwards. As fewer people went to theaters (at least in the US), film makers were making less money from these films here, and more overseas. As a result, they are more concerned making films that everyone recognizes (so will get via streaming), and that can be dubbed easily for foreign audiences.

 

[Kragnorak]

I think this is due in large part to the quality of the venues (sticky floors and such) and the patrons (talking, cell phones, etc.) and not so much to do with the quality of movies. Most theaters just can't compete with what I have at home aside from screen size. Add the convenience of watching it on my schedule and the ability to pause should a family member need to use the bathroom or get a snack and there really isn't much incentive to see any movie in a theater. I'll go see my favorites like Star Wars, Tolkien, Potter, Marvel in a theater for the big screen effect with my family, but we all still enjoy (see & hear) the movie more at home.

The talking patrons is exactly the reason I see movies in IMAX when possible. The sound is more immersive and I don't notice Jerky B texting. The ability to pause a movie and get interrupted by phone calls and knocks at the door is good enough reason for me to leave the house for a first viewing. Watching at home is more casual and we are more likely to do that when a movie is average enough to talk during.

 

[Plectrum72]

You have my point backwards. As fewer people went to theaters (at least in the US), film makers were making less money from these films here, and more overseas. As a result, they are more concerned making films that everyone recognizes (so will get via streaming), and that can be dubbed easily for foreign audiences.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarity. My reading comprehension is lacking today.

 

[jamro217]

Nope.

 

[Plectrum72]

The talking patrons is exactly the reason I see movies in IMAX when possible. The sound is more immersive and I don't notice Jerky B texting. The ability to pause a movie and get interrupted by phone calls and knocks at the door is good enough reason for me to leave the house for a first viewing. Watching at home is more casual and we are more likely to do that when a movie is average enough to talk during.

Different locations, lifestyles, I guess. I turn my phone off when I don't want to be interrupted and anyone knocking on my door after 6pm (a rare occurance in my neighborhood) better have an oversize check with a large sum on it if they weren't invited over to begin with.

 

[Versatek6]

...Considering Hollyweird always takes liberty on changing things for dramatic appeal (one way or another)- the story is less likely to be really accurate. But on the other hand... Freddy had a flair' for the dramatic. ...

 

[alaskaleftybass]

As with a lot of TB discussions, this one has been interesting. Beneath the initial question much discussion came about the current state of theaters and changing social values. As many mentioned, there was a time when it was only movies. Then came TV, then at the turn of the century (or slightly before) the digital era. I remember for years getting Netflix in my mailbox for wife and I to watch, now it's instant streaming. Still, there's some way Hollywood seems to keep churning out the money. Such a shame that so many people make more money than they could every practically spend in a lifetime. I mean, really how many Rolex watches does one need?

As I already mentioned, as a bass player, I listened to Queen if my late brother was playing them. But he wasn't really a musician, more of a listener. He loved dramatics too. I always felt that Queen's material was very overproduced, and wondered how they could even create one third of it live.

Thanks everyone for chiming in. Interesting to get so many different perspectives. Please continue discussion....