Rocket Man vs Bohemian Rhapsody

[SteveSly]

Well, all of those things actually did happen to the band, just not quite in that way and not in that order. My guess is that the story as told in the movie makes for a more effective screenplay. That is, it allows a presentation of the band's history that more or less captures the band's essence in a cinematically dramatic fashion and that can be told within a reasonable 2 hours and 15 minutes. I thought it could have been done better in a number of places, but I still enjoyed the film quite a lot for what it was.

Exactly. Brian May has basically said this in quite a few interviews posted about the film that can be found various places on the net.

[SteveSly]

One point to mention about Rocket Man: It wasn't, of course, intended to be anything realistic; I think it might have been meant as a depiction of what Elton's life felt like to him, and maybe of how he remembered it. You could say that much of it was the story of "Elton John", a mythical figure and a larger-than-life pop star; and not quite as much the story of Reg Dwight, a shy, chubby, hugely talented gay guy from a troubled family in a small town, whose loneliness and emotional pain drove him to become "Elton John". And because of that, its playing hob with chronology didn't matter nearly as much.

You hit the nail on the head and it was the whole point of the film. It was not meant to be a chronological take on his life.

[SteveSly]

If you want facts, read a book or watch a documentary. It's a movie, fantasy. Just suspend disbelief, relax and enjoy. Didn't bother me in the least.

Elton's autobiography is coming out this fall. I have it pre-ordered.

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

They also omitted the fact that Reg auditioned for Gentle Giant.

No. He did not. He was touring keyboardist for "Simon Dupree and the Big Sound," but when they morphed into Gentle Giant, Elton was never considered as a possibility: too piano-centric for the freewheling GG.

[Purple_Camel]

Well, all of those things actually did happen to the band, just not quite in that way and not in that order.

But I would disagree that these things did NOT happen to the band. They did not come off a two year hiatus to perform Live Aid, rusty etc. Simply not true by any stretch of reality.

Freddie did NOT tell the band before the Live Aid concert that he had AIDS. Freddie was not diagnosed until TWO YEARS later. He was coming off a fresh tour and the band was in full throttle for those shows, that is why they "killed" it. They were ready and well rehearsed.

The band did NOT pull it together at the last minute with a "sick" Freddie and had to play "knowing" this might be their last performance with him. These are things that DID NOT HAPPEN. It's complete BS fabrication. Live Aid was Queen at the top of their game. It simply was not a comeback story, or a heroic effort by Mercury to pull it together after being dealt a deathly prognosis.

I don't see this is as taking some novel convenient artistic license, such as moving a song from one album to another that might have actually been written around the same time. This was very much the heart and soul of the movie which is now based on a heap of BS.

[Purple_Camel]

I think it might have been meant as a depiction of what Elton's life felt like to him, and maybe of how he remembered it.

This was apparent in the film, and the reason I liked it more. It felt more honest and genuine from that perspective.

[Purple_Camel]

No. He did not. He was touring keyboardist for "Simon Dupree and the Big Sound," but when they morphed into Gentle Giant, Elton was never considered as a possibility: too piano-centric for the freewheling GG.

I do remember "Elton Dean" being mentioned and that Elton John wanted to use the name Elton Dean of which Elton Dean did not find amusing. Was that true? Did that happen? In these kind of films, who knows. In the film he took Elton from Elton Dean and John from a poster of John Lennon in the record company office.

Was Soft Machine mistaken for Gentle Giant?

[hFx]

But I would disagree that these things did NOT happen to the band.

https://www.dvhn.nl/extra/Movie-mist...-23809088.html

[pb2015]

I do remember "Elton Dean" being mentioned and that Elton John wanted to use the name Elton Dean of which Elton Dean did not find amusing. Was that true? Did that happen? In these kind of films, who knows. In the film he took Elton from Elton Dean and John from a poster of John Lennon in the record company office.

Was Soft Machine mistaken for Gentle Giant?

Elton Dean and Reg Dwight were in a band together called Bluesology. Reg took his new name from Elton Dean and Long John Baldry.

[moecurlythanu]

^ Reg should have called himself Anderson Council.

[Poisoned Youth]

I suppose the question is, would a more accurate portrayal of the events been just as interesting? What is the real reason for presenting such a factually misleading film on such critical elements of their history?

This was discussed in the original BR thread, but for me the worst part of the film is where Freddie finds Jim and starts a relationship with him just after he told his bandmates that he has AIDS!

Anyway, it was a good film. The casting of the band was great as was their performances. I can't fathom why a more accurate portrayal of key points and time line would not have been every bit as entertaining as the "semi-fictional" account.

I personally believes this affects why someone might like BR over RM or vice versa. I know the Queen history pretty well, whereas a casual Queen fan would just assume that events occur in the way they are presented. Elton John I don't know well enough to know the difference, so I judge that film just based on what I'm watching.

[Baribrotzer]

Elton John I don't know well enough to know the difference, so I judge that film just based on what I'm watching.

Although one thing that's immediately obvious is that Rocket Man doesn't pretend to be realistic at all, so you might guess that the story it shows on screen was only true in the broadest outline.

[Man In The Mountain]

Does a Hollywood movie need to be 100% factually accurate? Can anyone point to a Hollywood biopic on a famous person that never strays from the facts and timelines?

Cripes, look at the GREEN BOOK that just came out about jazz pianist Don Shirley. Most of that is pure fiction based on a true story. Does it make it a bad movie? Um no. Because movies are entertainment, not documentaries. The idea is to entertain through story telling and visuals, to create an on-screen experience. Why don't we count how many things in BR were factually accurate, rather than the handful that were not?

[moecurlythanu]

^ Because if you have 5 gallons of clean water, and you drop only 3 ounces of mud into it, you no longer have clean water.

[Poisoned Youth]

Why don't we count how many things in BR were factually accurate, rather than the handful that were not?

It doesn't really matter what was right. I would call the vast majority of the things in BR were "unsubstantiated" in how it was presented, and I think there's some inherent understanding that this would be the case. However, in most of the unsubstantiated cases it comes down to dialog and order of events.

However, there are substantiated events and recorded events in Queen's history that are factual. Purposely misrepresenting a true event is not necessary. Why, for example, present a false story of how the Freddie joined the band? How is the alteration of that story justified and/or inherently more entertaining than the real story?

But to answer your question, a movie does not have to be 100% factually accurate. But when viewers know the story and are presented with a false narrative, that can hinder the enjoyment of that for some fans. Do you not agree?


And while Hollywood movies are indeed about storytelling, they are telling Queen's story, not a fictional band. And often times "based on a true story" in terms of biopic is a general disclaimer to fill in the unsubstantiated, not to re-write the facts.

That's where I'm coming from anyway.

[Man In The Mountain]

However, there are substantiated events and recorded events in Queen's history that are factual. Purposely misrepresenting a true event is not necessary. Why, for example, present a false story of how the Freddie joined the band? How is the alteration of that story justified and/or inherently more entertaining than the real story?

I guess if you were one of the film makers or screenplay writer you would know. Certainly, Reg Dwight sitting with a record producer who asks what his name is, showing Reg looking at a picture of John Lennon, to steal "John", is far more entertaining than the real person he took it from. Because nobody except Elton geeks know who that person is, and frankly it's not that interesting. The John Lennon picture bit was a great scene!

But to answer your question, a movie does not have to be 100% factually accurate. But when viewers know the story and are presented with a false narrative, that can hinder the enjoyment of that for some fans. Do you not agree?

Well, obviously it does because I'm talking to someone who is hindered by it. I just find it interesting that Queens biggest fans, the ones that know all the details, are the ones that are most disappointed with the movie. I suppose Queen's biggest fans can be disappointed with a new album, so sure they can be disappointed with a Queen movie.

And while Hollywood movies are indeed about storytelling, they are telling Queen's story, not a fictional band. And often times "based on a true story" in terms of biopic is a general disclaimer to fill in the unsubstantiated, not to re-write the facts.

Hollywood tells countless of stories of real people. How many of them are 100% factual? Is a bi-op on Howard Hughes going to be any more factual than the bio-op on queen? Doubt it.

I think the point of these movies like BR & RM, is to take their stories and weave them into an entertaining two hours. Maybe attract a new audience or an old audience to like them even more than before. I'm sure sales for both Queen & EJ shot up after these releases, as well created a shit-ton of new merchandise. I'm sure we'll see Rocketman on Broadway shortly. False narratives and all. And it should be judged on it's entertainment value, rather than if he really jumped in the pool to kill himself or not.

[wilcox660]

If I care to truly get nitpicky, equipment in scenes was incorrect. Vehicles, machinery, etc. In point of fact, more of the film (BR) was incorrect rather than correct.

Does a Hollywood movie need to be 100% factually accurate? Can anyone point to a Hollywood biopic on a famous person that never strays from the facts and timelines?

Cripes, look at the GREEN BOOK that just came out about jazz pianist Don Shirley. Most of that is pure fiction based on a true story. Does it make it a bad movie? Um no. Because movies are entertainment, not documentaries. The idea is to entertain through story telling and visuals, to create an on-screen experience. Why don't we count how many things in BR were factually accurate, rather than the handful that were not?

[Purple_Camel]

I think most understand that a biopic will not be 100% accurate due to the time restraints of crunching 20 years into 2 hours. However, to completely lie and misrepresent the core theme, build up and climax of the film to me was very disappointing.

The film was based upon Freddie realizing his solo career lacked his bandmates (family). He comes back after years of absence, the band is rusty, they make this difficult decision to come out of retirement and perform to the biggest audience in rock history (televised globally) and Freddie breaks the news of his deadly AIDS infection right before the show, to his band, and they all pull off one of the greatest comebacks in rock history despite the band not playing for years and their singer being diagnosed with a deadly prognosis before the event.

All of this is complete BS.

So I think this is taking artistic liberty too far in my opinion. I can see it angering fans. I can also see it loved by non fans as a story of triumph and remarkable human accomplishment, as all involved behind the scenes attempt to exploit a rewrite of history.

Elton's film felt much more honest from the perspective of what it felt like to be "Rocketman" during the 1970's. How it felt to be him. Mr Fantastical, Captain Fantastic. It was a fantasy film not trying to portray a biopic of accuracy about history. More like Yellow Submarine or something.

But the BR film comes across as presenting reality of the Queen's journey through history.

[Plasmatopia]

I just watch BR last night after seeing the first part of this thread. I was bored a few times during the first half of the movie, but the thing that grabbed me was the whole sequence of getting the band back together, Freddie telling the guys he had AIDS, and then them playing Live Aid. I was like "huh, I never knew that".

Then I come back to this thread today and find out I shouldn't have known any of that because it wasn't true. I find that an odd premise for the key moments of the movie except for the fact that it leaves the viewer with a fitting sense of triumph concerning Freddie's accomplishments. Maybe that's what's most important. Maybe it's just meant to be a fictional representation of the essence of Freddie's legendary talents.

I also have to wonder if it's a symptom of today's society where the discovery of truth has to start with an outrageous lie in order to get anyone's attention.

[Koreabruce]

But the BR film comes across as presenting reality of the Queen's journey through history.

Completely agree!

[moecurlythanu]

I think most understand that a biopic will not be 100% accurate due to the time restraints of crunching 20 years into 2 hours. However, to completely lie and misrepresent the core theme, build up and climax of the film to me was very disappointing.

The film was based upon Freddie realizing his solo career lacked his bandmates (family). He comes back after years of absence, the band is rusty, they make this difficult decision to come out of retirement and perform to the biggest audience in rock history (televised globally) and Freddie breaks the news of his deadly AIDS infection right before the show, to his band, and they all pull off one of the greatest comebacks in rock history despite the band not playing for years and their singer being diagnosed with a deadly prognosis before the event.

All of this is complete BS.

Wait til the sequel, where Freddie is elected Prime Minister in 1988 and has the largest inauguration crowd in British History.

[Poisoned Youth]

Well, obviously it does because I'm talking to someone who is hindered by it. I just find it interesting that Queens biggest fans, the ones that know all the details, are the ones that are most disappointed with the movie. I suppose Queen's biggest fans can be disappointed with a new album, so sure they can be disappointed with a Queen movie.

To be clear, I enjoy the movie. I just watched it again this last week. I'm sure I'll watch in future times over the years. There are pretty much two points I wanted to make:

1) I feel the story could have been just as compelling to a general audience had they "embellished" actual events instead of embellishing the events themselves. Everything from how the band met, the Ray Foster character, the band "break up" arc/Live Aid, the AIDS timeline, and a non-linear song order were completely avoidable imo. This does sour the movie for me and many other more knowledgeable Queen fans.

2) I can still be both critical and enjoy the film. Generally however, I'm suggesting there is a correlation between one's knowledge of the events and one's enjoyment of the film. Someone who is a casual fan of Queen won't question its historical accuracy, i.e. ignorance is bliss in this case. In the same way, I don't know enough about Elton John to question what's being presented in Rocket Man. Same goes with The Doors or The Dirt in my case.

I also have to wonder if it's a symptom of today's society where the discovery of truth has to start with an outrageous lie in order to get anyone's attention.

An interesting observation. One of the film's more vocal defenders is Brian May himself.

[Sean]

The Queen + Adam Lambert tour opened in Tacoma a few nights ago and looks like quite an event. Since it's their first tour since the movie I guess they were going to pull out the stops. Setlist is 30 songs long and covers pretty much every album, nearly. Once I watched a few vids I realized that some of these tunes are just portions rather than whole tunes, but the way they segue is pretty cool anyway. Anyone going? Since I've never seen Queen I figure it's about time to finally see Brian May work his magic. Roger is awesome as well. Adam will get the job done...

[SteveSly]

The Queen + Adam Lambert tour opened in Tacoma a few nights ago and looks like quite an event. Since it's their first tour since the movie I guess they were going to pull out the stops. Setlist is 30 songs long and covers pretty much every album, nearly. Once I watched a few vids I realized that some of these tunes are just portions rather than whole tunes, but the way they segue is pretty cool anyway. Anyone going? Since I've never seen Queen I figure it's about time to finally see Brian May work his magic. Roger is awesome as well. Adam will get the job done...

I am seeing the tour in Detroit. I only saw Queen once on the "Jazz" tour way back in the day. I had mixed feelings about seeing this tour, but my sister really wanted to go, so I decided to do it. I have looked at quite a few Youtube clips and it looks like it is going to be a lot of fun. Freddie also makes a few video appearences in the show. May is singing a few tunes and even Roger sings one. Lambert does a nice job in his role too. After seeing the clips I am really looking forward to it.

[JKL2000]

This was discussed in the original BR thread, but for me the worst part of the film is where Freddie finds Jim and starts a relationship with him just after he told his bandmates that he has AIDS!

I think since they changed the timeline on this and they seem to make it clear that they're just friends, maybe that was how they dealt with this. He tells Jim "I could use a friend," and tells his family that Jim is
his "friend." Not certain, but they seem to imply that.