Post by AKA on May 18, 2018 5:34:17 GMT
You know, because “lifestyle” and “debauchery.”
Exactly. I bet the film never shows the 1979 Tokyo gig where he performs in black leather and a stormtrooper hat, or when he rode on top of Darth Vader. Or the party where midgets where serving up cocaine.
So we need all that though? Is rather it be a film that celebrates his life and talent, rather than being some depressing morality lecture. It would be a real downer.
I mean in a Billie Holiday pic you need all that depressing stuff as it kinda defined her and shaped her, but Freddie wasn't defined by having AIDS.
I mean in a Billie Holiday pic you need all that depressing stuff as it kinda defined her and shaped her, but Freddie wasn't defined by having AIDS.
Except the latter part of his life was defined by AIDS. If he doesn't fully engage in 'the lifestyle' back then, he doesn't get HIV and he's still writing amazing songs to this day. To pretend that debauchery(hetero/homo) is 'part of the deal' and excusable is not ok in my book.
First two hours: meticulously re-created studio sessions and significant live performances, intercut with scenes of Freddie doing drugs and having wild sex in various accurate locations.
Last half hour: Freddie dying of AIDS, as secondary characters declaim about his sexuality and the repressive climate of the day that kept him in the closet.
A Godard film, in short.
So, you’re blaming his lifestyle choices as part of his decline and death which is true, but he was a human being; he made choices, often reckless, and paid for them with the ultimate price.
I doubt Mercury would care if you thought his choices were “ok” in your book. I doubt anyone does. Let’s see the movie first and then judge.
I doubt Mercury would care if you thought his choices were “ok” in your book. I doubt anyone does. Let’s see the movie first and then judge.
It's hardly an issue of what Freddie thought of detractors. The more interesting thing is what drove him to such incredible recklessness.
For what its worth, had Freddie led that lifestyle five years sooner, he would not have had to worry about AIDS. AIDS began showing up in the early 80s. While that lifestyle would likely have had other consequences, AIDS is AIDS.
Being young, having money, the expectations of being a "rock star" within himself, and without his self, the era in which he "debouched" himself, as you say. These are a few of the things. Freddie isn't the only rock 'n' rock casualty of the aforementioned choices, but his status as a gay man polarizes him, in a time when men weren't coming out as gay in any profession.
Consider the trials and tribulations that Freddie went through as a young gay man. Despite his mega-talent, he was also mega self-conscious in how he identified with himself and is environment outside of rockdom. So, imagine the chance of being worshiped, behind closed doors...he took it and ran with it, because he could. Freddie, like everybody else, didn't have a clue that AIDS would come around and kill millions. Before he realized it, like many other people, it was too late. Freddie wasn't immune from life anymore than anybody else. AIDS doesn't care if you have the the potential to makes more platinum records.
The 70s glam black fingernail Freddie was a lot cooler than the 80s nightclub bear Freddie in my opinion. I know he said he couldn't do that look anymore at 40+ or whatever but I think it kind of corresponds to when I feel a total disconnect from their music as well.
I truly can not believe I'm hearing something like this in this day and age, manco sir, you are entitled to your opinions on this matter, It really is all good. I'm calling you out on a very real matter that you might not understand yet...research is a friend...you are no better than anyone else here...and we are no better than you...
knowledge is bliss...
Consider the trials and tribulations that Freddie went through as a young gay man. Despite his mega-talent, he was also mega self-conscious in how he identified with himself and is environment outside of rockdom. So, imagine the chance of being worshiped, behind closed doors...he took it and ran with it, because he could. Freddie, like everybody else, didn't have a clue that AIDS would come around and kill millions. Before he realized it, like many other people, it was too late. Freddie wasn't immune from life anymore than anybody else. AIDS doesn't care if you have the the potential to makes more platinum records.
I've read that HIV re-infection can increase viral load. So his having sex after initial infection with other HIV infected partners might have shortened his life.
Life is for the living. What can I say. We tend to put a clock on things as if longevity is of the essence, but when one's time is up, we live and die in that moment with our choices, or those we didn't make.
Yeah, kind of expected to see Freddie dancing in a gay club but none of that to be seen in this trailer.
And to make a film about Freddie Mercury, without his battle with AIDS and final years, is just a waste imho.
manco said:
I bet the film completely side-steps what how badly Freddie got ****ed up in Munich in the early 80s. That's where he did a ton of drugs and got AIDS.manco said:
Old Rusty said:
Freddie's rise to Rock God & ensuing debaucherous lifestyle IS the movie. That screenplay would be killer. But I suspect we'll get a watered-down PG-13 kind of movie instead. Too bad, as the truth about Freddie's life would make for a fascinating bio-pic.Exactly. I bet the film never shows the 1979 Tokyo gig where he performs in black leather and a stormtrooper hat, or when he rode on top of Darth Vader. Or the party where midgets where serving up cocaine.
Jim B. said:
manco said:
I bet the film completely side-steps what how badly Freddie got ****ed up in Munich in the early 80s. That's where he did a ton of drugs and got AIDS.So we need all that though? Is rather it be a film that celebrates his life and talent, rather than being some depressing morality lecture. It would be a real downer.
I mean in a Billie Holiday pic you need all that depressing stuff as it kinda defined her and shaped her, but Freddie wasn't defined by having AIDS.
manco said:
Jim B. said:
So we need all that though? Is rather it be a film that celebrates his life and talent, rather than being some depressing morality lecture. It would be a real downer.I mean in a Billie Holiday pic you need all that depressing stuff as it kinda defined her and shaped her, but Freddie wasn't defined by having AIDS.
Except the latter part of his life was defined by AIDS. If he doesn't fully engage in 'the lifestyle' back then, he doesn't get HIV and he's still writing amazing songs to this day. To pretend that debauchery(hetero/homo) is 'part of the deal' and excusable is not ok in my book.
Dudley Morris said:
Man, the sort of movie some folks here would come up with would surely be a disaster. Putting various responses together, I imagine something like this:First two hours: meticulously re-created studio sessions and significant live performances, intercut with scenes of Freddie doing drugs and having wild sex in various accurate locations.
Last half hour: Freddie dying of AIDS, as secondary characters declaim about his sexuality and the repressive climate of the day that kept him in the closet.
A Godard film, in short.
GodShifter said:
manco said:
Except the latter part of his life was defined by AIDS. If he doesn't fully engage in 'the lifestyle' back then, he doesn't get HIV and he's still writing amazing songs to this day. To pretend that debauchery(hetero/homo) is 'part of the deal' and excusable is not ok in my book.So, you’re blaming his lifestyle choices as part of his decline and death which is true, but he was a human being; he made choices, often reckless, and paid for them with the ultimate price.
I doubt Mercury would care if you thought his choices were “ok” in your book. I doubt anyone does. Let’s see the movie first and then judge.
manco said:
GodShifter said:
So, you’re blaming his lifestyle choices as part of his decline and death which is true, but he was a human being; he made choices, often reckless, and paid for them with the ultimate price.I doubt Mercury would care if you thought his choices were “ok” in your book. I doubt anyone does. Let’s see the movie first and then judge.
It's hardly an issue of what Freddie thought of detractors. The more interesting thing is what drove him to such incredible recklessness.
hbbfam said:
manco said:
Except the latter part of his life was defined by AIDS. If he doesn't fully engage in 'the lifestyle' back then, he doesn't get HIV and he's still writing amazing songs to this day. To pretend that debauchery(hetero/homo) is 'part of the deal' and excusable is not ok in my book.For what its worth, had Freddie led that lifestyle five years sooner, he would not have had to worry about AIDS. AIDS began showing up in the early 80s. While that lifestyle would likely have had other consequences, AIDS is AIDS.
EVOLVIST said:
manco said:
It's hardly an issue of what Freddie thought of detractors. The more interesting thing is what drove him to such incredible recklessness.Being young, having money, the expectations of being a "rock star" within himself, and without his self, the era in which he "debouched" himself, as you say. These are a few of the things. Freddie isn't the only rock 'n' rock casualty of the aforementioned choices, but his status as a gay man polarizes him, in a time when men weren't coming out as gay in any profession.
Consider the trials and tribulations that Freddie went through as a young gay man. Despite his mega-talent, he was also mega self-conscious in how he identified with himself and is environment outside of rockdom. So, imagine the chance of being worshiped, behind closed doors...he took it and ran with it, because he could. Freddie, like everybody else, didn't have a clue that AIDS would come around and kill millions. Before he realized it, like many other people, it was too late. Freddie wasn't immune from life anymore than anybody else. AIDS doesn't care if you have the the potential to makes more platinum records.
statcat said:
Always thought he was bisexual.The 70s glam black fingernail Freddie was a lot cooler than the 80s nightclub bear Freddie in my opinion. I know he said he couldn't do that look anymore at 40+ or whatever but I think it kind of corresponds to when I feel a total disconnect from their music as well.
stuwee said:
manco said:
Except the latter part of his life was defined by AIDS. If he doesn't fully engage in 'the lifestyle' back then, he doesn't get HIV and he's still writing amazing songs to this day. To pretend that debauchery(hetero/homo) is 'part of the deal' and excusable is not ok in my book.I truly can not believe I'm hearing something like this in this day and age, manco sir, you are entitled to your opinions on this matter, It really is all good. I'm calling you out on a very real matter that you might not understand yet...research is a friend...you are no better than anyone else here...and we are no better than you...
stuwee said:
It's 2018 and we're still discussing AIDS/HIV on these terms?? Educate yourselves, play safe, be safe!!! We all have done things, respect your partner, Sheeze folks?? Freedie wasn't one of the lucky ones from those days, some of us ducked under the blade of the reaper! knowledge is bliss...
manco said:
EVOLVIST said:
Being young, having money, the expectations of being a "rock star" within himself, and without his self, the era in which he "debouched" himself, as you say. These are a few of the things. Freddie isn't the only rock 'n' rock casualty of the aforementioned choices, but his status as a gay man polarizes him, in a time when men weren't coming out as gay in any profession.Consider the trials and tribulations that Freddie went through as a young gay man. Despite his mega-talent, he was also mega self-conscious in how he identified with himself and is environment outside of rockdom. So, imagine the chance of being worshiped, behind closed doors...he took it and ran with it, because he could. Freddie, like everybody else, didn't have a clue that AIDS would come around and kill millions. Before he realized it, like many other people, it was too late. Freddie wasn't immune from life anymore than anybody else. AIDS doesn't care if you have the the potential to makes more platinum records.
I've read that HIV re-infection can increase viral load. So his having sex after initial infection with other HIV infected partners might have shortened his life.
EVOLVIST said:
manco said:
I've read that HIV re-infection can increase viral load. So his having sex after initial infection with other HIV infected partners might have shortened his life.Life is for the living. What can I say. We tend to put a clock on things as if longevity is of the essence, but when one's time is up, we live and die in that moment with our choices, or those we didn't make.
Interpolantics said:
I expect a nice glossy whitewashing of eventsMichael Rose said:
Interpolantics said:
I expect a nice glossy whitewashing of eventsYeah, kind of expected to see Freddie dancing in a gay club but none of that to be seen in this trailer.
Zach Johnson said:
I already notice little inaccuracies like John Deacon signing in studio...Stuff like that drives me crazy, so I likely won't be watching.And to make a film about Freddie Mercury, without his battle with AIDS and final years, is just a waste imho.
