Talk:Bohemian Rhapsody (film)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Film: British / American This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. 20th Century Studios Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Excuse me,But i got word from various entertainment news reports that the production for Bohemian Rhapsody has been halted due to Bryan Singer’s health issues such as variety for example ^[1]

What should we do with this Movie's wikipedia article now that the movie production is halted. --Belrien12 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to reflect this. Thoughts on my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalifaxMilkDud (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Singer was the original director credited, and under the studios' contract with the DGA there can be only one.[1] The DGA, at its sole discretion, would have to approve replacing Singer's name with Dexter Fletcher's, but there are no reports that they have done so yet. I'm taking Fletcher out of the Infobox, with the note that he stepped in at the end of principal photography and may be given credit at the DGA's discretion. If the Guild decides not to give Fletcher a directing credit, then we could always add him back with the parenthetical (Uncredited). But for right now, it's premature to say that Fletcher won't be credited, and there's still only one official director and it's still Singer. SixFourThree (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

I’ll be adding him back when I see the removal. There’s already a note explaining the situation next to his name. And if he’s not credited then fair enough. But similar with Solo: A Star Wars Story, both men will be listed until it’s fully understood who’s getting credit. Rusted AutoParts 16:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side note in my edit summary it autocorrected talk to y’all for some reason, so if you’re confused why that is, that’s what happened there. Rusted AutoParts 17:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how that is anything other than

OR

, but I don't want to start an edit war over it. 17:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)SIxFourThree

There’s nothing OR about it. Both men served in the directing capacity for the film. It’s not like Joss Whedon doing the directing for Justice League reshoots after the initial film was shot, Fletcher was hired after Singer was fired during primary shooting. Rusted AutoParts 17:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't about who did the job, but who will get the contractually-established title. You mention the Justice League film, but I can't help but notice that Whedon isn't listed as the director there. There will only be one official director for this film, regardless of the fact that two men performed the functions of the position at different times. And right now, Singer is the actual holder of the title. Once the DGA determines which of the two men gets the credit, then whoever is excluded can be included with a {Uncredited) notation. But right now, putting both men on the same level is a determination we make not on the contractual status, but on our opinions. Which is the very definition of OR. SixFourThree (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

We list them both because we don’t Who who’s getting that credit. Assuming it’s Singer is OR on your end, assuming it’s Fletcher is OR in itself so it’s more logical to keep them both there for the time being until a billing block is available. And the Justice League example was to demonstrate the levels of director replacement. Whedon came on during post production whereas Fletcher came in during the filming stage. Rusted AutoParts 19:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing - I'm not assuming anything. Right now, Singer is the credited director. That's objective, verifiable reality, and cannot change unless and until the DGA takes specific action. Putting anyone on the same level as the actual credited director because we think he probably deserves to be there is OR. SixFourThree (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)SIxFourThree[reply]

Adding off that, we can't put both directors unless they've agreed to have joint credit, like The Nutcracker and the Four Realms' Lasse Hallström and Joe Johnston. Also, I'm not going off the DGA, I'm going off of what the movie says (which happens to follow the DGA).

talk

) 10:32, 3 December 2018 (CST)

I was wondering: the fact that the Director's Guild of America rules that one or the other is the director has any effect on the rest of the world? As I see it, I thing it would be more reasonable to describe the situation as the reliable sources report it, than assume as Wikipedia's view the decision of a local private association (including their absurd stance that a film can only be directed by a single person). It is not OR to say that the film was directed by Singer up to a certain point, and by Fletcher since then.--RR (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows secondary sources, yes. The infobox does not necessarily reflect the "official" (primary source) claims; it is only incidental that it usually lists the names that are stated by both primary and secondary sources. If Fletcher is repeatedly named (in addition to Singer) to have directed part of the film, then we should list both names and state that Fletcher was uncredited, with a note explaining the background. Wikipedia is not and should not be a shill for any "official" outlet; it should follow what independent sources say and ascribe proper weight to the names. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bohemian rhapsody poster.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has even been acknowledged that he referred to Mary as the love of his life.[2] Even Vanity Fair acknowledged that she got most of his estate when he died.[3]2601:447:4101:41F9:E56A:A32F:5891:12D2 22:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, what some would like to believe isn't what history documents. Many critics who cricitized the film's portrayal of Mercury's sexuality clearly had a hard time accepting this. I think this article should sort out these biases as well. Even an article discussing Mary's thoughts on the film would be helpful2601:447:4101:41F9:E56A:A32F:5891:12D2 (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific proposal for the article? Because it looks like you are headed for a violation of WP:No original research.

Wikipedia is built on

WP:SECONDARY sources. If you can find reliable published sources that support your proposal then you have leverage here. Otherwise, no. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

And what do you think I sourced? That no research policy only refers to unreliable resources and sources not containing content related to the edit. I also like to include many secondary sources.2601:447:4101:41F9:E56A:A32F:5891:12D2 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you are challenging some of the sources, without identifying them, and you are proposing to "sort out" the biases of the sources. That's not likely to happen as it would violate

WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm afraid you're running out of excuses. Synth merely repeats the no original research policy and encourages no contradiction2601:447:4101:41F9:B80F:B090:36C5:4F23 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please describe a specific proposal you have for this film article. And remember it's an article about the film, summarizing published observations about the film. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I merely wish to find an article about critical bias towards the film's portrayal of his sexuality. I think both the film's performance at the box office so far and audience reviews shows that this article must be representational and see eye to eye with the opinions of the general population and not the opinions of the critics. Reading the difference in the score on Rotten Tomatoes was really intriguing to me as well. The top critics gave it 44% while the audience gave it 95%.[4]2601:447:4101:41F9:E56A:A32F:5891:12D2 (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's too soon for Rotten Tomatoes to give us a useful audience approval factor. Let the film play for another week or so.

Second, this article must represent the published sources in appropriate

WP:SECONDARY sources, with other sources (such as aggregate websites) given less prominence. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Truth hurts. Rotten Tomatoes had a similar stance as CinemaScore as well. It even went beyond a second reliable source with PostTrack2601:447:4101:41F9:E56A:A32F:5891:12D2 (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we're using this source as a citation for the film's critical consensus. Several editors have added things that don't seem to be in it. The source says: "Across the board, critics have praised Malek’s performance as one of the year’s best, while panning some of the film’s otherwise lackluster qualities, like its sanitization of Mercury’s sexuality and failure to live up to iconic band’s electrifying essence." I think we should stick as closely as possible to this, avoiding

Simply put, the edit is replacing verifiable content with original research. Apart from being a policy violation it also directly contravenes

MOS:FILM##Critical_response. The article should be reverted to the previous version. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I concur. If more sources are needed, one can search Google News with "bohemian rhapsody" "reviews"|"critics" to find sources where these keywords are plural. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TropicAces: can you explain why you just blanked sourced content about how critics criticized the portrayal of Mercury's sexuality? And, please list what your source is for a consensus that reviewers criticized "historical inaccuracies" and the directing. This not in the Variety source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

several reviews cited in the Reception section note issues with the screenplay/direction (and my original review roundup cited noted the historical inaccuracies, not sure if it was removed from the article), and the lead doesn’t need to have citations of links if they’re mentioned in the article sections below. TropicAces (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

@

original research. Why did you blank the fact Variety says there's a consensus that the film's portrayal of Mercury's sexual orientation was criticized? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is a blockable offense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

There seems to be a lot of conflict and discussion over the "Critical Reception" sentence in the Intro section. I've decided to get rid of it until we're on the same page. I'm open to the possibility of putting it back, or doing without the sentence. I'm open to discussion. -- Draco9904 (talk) 1:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need to update the box office stats on an hourly basis, seems silly to me. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "and has been cited as an example of gay erasure" from a recent addition since it doesn't seem to be actually widely cited as such? There are a number of critical opinion pieces out there about how his homosexual relationships were presented in the movie, though, so I left the rest of the sentence the same. Diff can be see here [5]. oncamera^(t) 09:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good call.—Aquegg (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording about the film being criticised about the depiction of Mercury's HIV and sexuality doesn't make clear if this is connected to historical accuracies. It needs to be clearer about what was criticised and whether this is connected to historical accuracy.

talk) 07:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That's true about the connection to historical accuracy. Maybe it should be moved to the 'Critical response' section? The cited source comes off an opinion piece, like all critical reviews are. oncamera^(t) 08:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 'further inaccuracies' section has been removed, which is kind of odd to me as it raises two problems: 1. Either the wording of the opening sentence (concerning the Rolling Stone article) should be changed to accommodate listed inaccuracies outside of the article Or 2. The inaccuracies found and cited should be separately listed in a non-article related section if the inaccuracy hasn't been noted in the article

Thoughts?

Seems to me that juxtaposing facts vs. the film is not drawing conclusions and does not violate the OR rule. Short of reverting, I agree with Letmejustcorrectthatforyou that at least a separate section is warranted. Plummer (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources cited have to mention the film. Otherwise, it's original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Sources must explicitly make the connection between the film's depiction and real events. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Wikipedia is not bound by DGA rules, but the infobox almost always uses information released by the studio (poster billing block, film credits order, stuff like that). Regardless, I'm not completely opposed to doing this, but I think this is a pretty big thing to change and should be discussed on the talk page first.

There already exists a local consensus at

WP:MOSFILMS and Template:Infobox film, neither of which state that we should be bound to the rules of an outside organization. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@SixFourThree: @Rusted AutoParts: @RR: @Erik: pinging members of that original discussion for an update. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. If the Guild and the studio don't give Fletcher a director credit, then we shouldn't either. I think the current solution is perfect - crediting Signer with a footnote, and mentioning the director change high in the article. I would not support changing that. SixFourThree (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

I disagree. Even without entering into the discussion of the merits of their arguments and the reasons of their assertions, the Guild and the studio are just two sources. There are many other reputable, third-party, respectable sources that credit Dexter Fletcher as director too, and that view should be given equal weight at least. When people look for the director's name at the infobox thay aren't interested in legalites, union agreements or royalty shares. They want to know who has been the creative lead of the project. Fletcher should be there.--RR (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can they both be there? Because of the rules for the various awards shows, the studio is restricted as to whom they name as director so I can see the argument for why Wikipedia doesn't have to be as strict for the same reason. oncamera 22:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and make the change. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I object strongly. Here on Wikipedia, we only go off what the film itself says. If he's not credited in the film, then it's a no. Not to mention, third party sites are only reports of what they hear, and we go by the studio's word, as they are the MAIN SOURCE. Also, next time, check if there's another section in the talk page that already discusses this.

talk) 20:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

"third party sites are only reports of what they hear, and we go by the studio's word, as they are the MAIN SOURCE." I mean, it's a fact that he finished directing the movie, it's not like it's just gossip. You can quote Fletcher, even.: "As to whether he will receive the director credit from the Directors Guild of America, Fletcher said, “I don’t know, and at the end of the day, I don’t know that that’s really important. I think the film stands on its own merit, and that’s what really should be important, I think. I didn’t get into it for that reason […] I was just proud to be able to be a part of it and help complete what I think is a great film. That’s what I got involved for.” (In studio contracts, the DGA has a strict clause stipulating that each film may have only one director (or directing entity, in the case of established duos), put in place to protect those axed from projects after a long investment.) Wikipedia is not part of those contracts, so I don't see why Wikipedia can't give him credit as well. oncamera 23:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand,

verifiability. In all this discussion, noah, not once have you pointed to an official Wikipedia policy or guideline to support your position, instead merely asserting that your opinion is correct. "Here on Wikipedia, we only go off what the film itself says". Where does Wikipedia policy say this? Based on my extensive experience editing, we actually care more about verifiability, not blind kowtowing to authority. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, of all the commentary here on the talkpage, it seems Iamnoahflore is the only one opposing having both listed with a footnoote. RR, Erik, SixFourThree, AxemTitanium, Myself, RustedAutoParts it seems are for including both names with the footnote condition describing the situation. Per WP:Consensus, I believe both names should stay listed. oncamera 02:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have unfortunately mischaracterized my position. I am emphatically opposed to listing both, as I said above. I think Fletcher should be mentioned in a footnote but has no business being listed in the Infobox. It also seems very hasty to close discussion two days after the bulk of the participants join in. Let's keep going and see what we can come up with. SixFourThree (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

So, bringing this back to the left, let's talk some more. And maybe we can clarify our thoughts to avoid any further misunderstandings. How would you like the directors listed?

• List Singer, with a footnote explaining Fletcher's contribution and DGA rules. Exactly as we have had it for a while. It seems clearly OR to arbitrarily put Fletcher on the same level as Singer. Had the Directors' Guild thought his contribution worthy of the title, they would have given it to him. Nor have the producers seemed to think it important to publicly lobby the Guild to give it to Fletcher over Singer. And they would all know more about the situation than we do. The footnote is quite clear in noting and explaining his contribution to the film without us deciding on our own to elevate him. SixFourThree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not elevating him to a position though. He's simply uncredited as the director. However, places like Amazon, IMDb are listing them both as directors. They don't care about DGA rules, neither should Wikipedia when it comes to the reality of the situation. Easiest solution would be to include "Dexter Fletcher (uncredited)" in the infobox. oncamera 04:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OR argument is patently nonsense. There are multiple reliable sources cited in the article already that name Fletcher as the director who replaced Singer. This isn't about the DGA and never has been. DGA has no jurisdiction here. If the DGA had credited Fletcher instead of Singer, I would be here making the exact same argument for why Singer should be added into the infobox. No one has "closed" the discussion, but it's abundantly clear that the present consensus is 6-2 strongly in favor of listing both and my edit in the main space reflects that. You can't just keep moving the goalposts for a consensus, nor has the against camp come up with a policy-based rationale that refutes the inclusion arguments. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I doubt that this matter should be subject to local consensus here—a consistent approach across all films should be set at a higher-level, perhaps
  WP:MOS-FILMS or template:Infobox film.—Aquegg (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The Infobox film instructions explicitly state "Insert the name(s) of the director(s). Separate multiple entries using Plainlist. Link each director to their article if possible." Axem Titanium (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It currently gives no guidance as to whether the director(s) listed should according to the official credits or otherwise. There might be reason to do differently for films, but for song-writers for example, infoboxes tend to use official credits.—Aquegg (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've asked for clarification at Template talk:Infobox film.—Aquegg (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus based exceptions" are allowed per the discussion you started over on the infobox. Consensus has been reached here. oncamera 10:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. As a general rule, we *should* be following on-screen credits and public press releases to determine proper crediting. This case is an extraordinary exception where the basic facts of real life fly in the fact of the corporate party line. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everybody so determined to give Fletcher credit when he doesn’t need any. You guys are completely missing the point of third party sources: they are to report what they hear from a MAIN source. Our main source Fox says Singer gets the credit, and the on-screen credit solely gives it to Singer. Besides, if you go against this, I dare one of you to give Ed Nortnon his writing credit for The Incredible Hulk, and give Todd Phillips and his partner their credits for The Hangover because they added some significant stuff into the screenplay. As you said, we aren’t going by the DGA (and on-screen credit) in this case. There should also be no exceptions with these kind of things, because we have enough info — Preceding

talk • contribs) 05:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how

reliable sourcing work on Wikipedia. Please (re)read those pages before engaging further on this issue. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I know of said rules, I had an argument with a guy who thought he was Simon Kinberg’s name as a screenwriter in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (I won that arguement btw). Also, you didn’t answer my question: why are you and these people so reluctant on giving Fletcher a director credit? — Preceding

talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If you look up the definition of reluctant, you are the one being reluctant. Please stop edit warring, by the way. oncamera 13:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inaccurate to give Fletcher a directing credit for two reasons:

• Singer and Fletcher were not the only directors of this film. The cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel directed several scenes during Signer's on-set absences, and yet he does not receive a credit. Bryan Singer is still the primary director of this film, Fletcher was only bought in to complete a mostly-finished film.
• I don't see any precedent for giving Fletcher credit. For example, Zack Snyder left the production of Justice League during filming and was replaced by Joss Whedon. And yet Whedon is not listed in the infobox, Snyder is the sole director. Why should it be any different here? Whovian99 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the discussion above, as it amply answers your questions. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement "places like Amazon, IMDb are listing them both as directors" fails verification at:

• https://www.amazon.com/Bohemian-Rhapsody-Rami-Malek/dp/B07HSK3DWC
• https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1727824/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1

IMDb does mention Fletcher (& Sigel) in its trivia section.—Cristallo (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to list awards that we don't even have an article for? Like North Texas Film Critics Association? Major awards should go there, not every website and film circle that ever existed. Also, where do the sources constantly disappear? I remember having sourced this section a few days ago and now again half of it doesn't have the source. Removing sources is considered vandalism.

No we do not. Only the notable stuff. Rusted AutoParts 19:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see three possible cuts:

1) List whatever awards anyone feels like adding. (Thus, the "Jimmy's Movie Blog Most Rockinest Movie of the Year Award" would make the cut. Basically, an

indisciminate list

.)

2) List any award with an independent reliable source. (This becomes a list of every possible obscure award if anyone feels like finding a gaffer's union site discussing the impressive use of gaffing tape in the film, obscuring all the meaningful awards.)

3) Blue link notable awards only. (You'd be surprised how extensive this list can be, depending on how you define the blue link. AARP is notable. Their awards are not.)

I favor #3. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to follow notability guidelines. Why would this film be any more special than any other film out there that we need to mention every single "award" it ever was norminated for? Notability is clear, if an award is not notable, it has no place in the Wikipedia article of a movie. I can have a notable blog and dole out an "award", that won't make the award a significant achievement for this movie. That list really needs to be trimmed down but I need help from other editors who know these awards a little better than I do.

^{편지 (letter)} 10:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I went ahead and created the page for

Los Angeles Online Film Critics Society so you can add the awards. oncamera 05:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Great! Just did.

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.144.108 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for reporting it. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ta,

but "singalong" according to the Oxford English. It's a British movie/story.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/singalong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.144.108 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Searching for "Bohemian Rhapsody singalong" and "Bohemian Rhapsody sing-along" I'm finding both in use but the latter appears more prevalent even in UK sources. For example, [6], [7], [8] etc. "Sing-along" matches the name of the Wikipedia article, linked earlier in the paragraph. I think either is acceptable. Dorsetonian (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Mike Myers' Wayne’s World reference was worth a mention. Made me laugh. Imagine it flew right over the heads of most viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.144.108 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Malek confirmed that he had conducted recordings at Abbey Road Studios" What does this mean, exactly? Surely all of the singing voice in the film is that of the real Freddie Mercury, correct? If some lyrics are Malek's voice overdubbing Mercury, which are they? Is Malek doing any actual singing in the film? In which scenes or parts? Addressing the singing is a critical subject to be included in the "Production" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times writes: For the singing, Mr. Malek’s voice was mixed with Mercury’s and that of the Canadian singer Marc Martel. “No one wants to hear me sing,” Mr. Malek said. But he had to, at the top of his lungs, in front of the cast and crew for every onstage scene. Thus, he needed to be in a recording studio for them to get his voice and mix it with the other two. As for specific scenes, most of it is from master tapes that Queen has, according to Rolling Stone magazine. The scenes where they probably didn't use Freddie's voice was when he's singing Happy Birthday, etc. oncamera 21:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Filming subsection in the Production section contains this line that summarizes that fact in the article: While Malek sang some parts in the film, producers inserted vocal stems from Queen songs as well as filling in parts with Canadian vocalist Marc Martel, a winner of the Queen Extravaganza Live Tour auditions. oncamera 21:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the hyperlink to Mary Austin. It is linked to the wrong Mary Austin Billwalker23 (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Thanks. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (by IdreamofJeanie) Deactivate template - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain how to add this information. Bohemian Rhapsody was nominated for Best Foriegn Film in Japan. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/japan-academy-awards-shoplifters-leads-13-nominations-1176525

I was unsure how to add the info without messing up the table.

Brian May and Roger Taylor also recorded a thank you to Japan for the award that the soundtrack received.

I would like to move the list of accolades to a new page, as I've done with other movie pages. Should I move it to List of accolades received by Bohemian Rhapsody (which I've already created a re-direct for), or List of accolades received by Bohemian Rhapsody (film)? Daerl (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My vote would be for List of accolades received by Bohemian Rhapsody. oncamera 04:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to add a disambiguation clause at the top since there's a popular song with the same name, and it was undone by Evil Idiot (talk) with reason "Unnecessary". Can someone please explain why? 12:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstern (talk • contribs) [reply]

Kstern, I've re-added it. It is absolutely necessary. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary because this isn't the primary topic and the article title already contains disambiguation. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the disambiguation hatnote is useful because it makes navigation much easier: anyone who searches for Bohemian Rhapsody on Google and ends up here by mistake can easily navigate to the song article if that was what they were originally looking for. The Google search results right now are dominated by websites referring to the movie, not the song. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is useful. Consensus is for it to be included. oncamera 21:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film shows the band playing "Fat Bottomed Girls" live on tour before they have even gone into the studio to record A Night at the Opera - isn't there a Crazy Little Thing Called Chronology? JezGrove (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence under this section currently reads "Sources said that Singer had not returned to the set after the Thanksgiving week". "After the Thanksgiving week" needs to go, as it is not an actual date understood by everyone, worldwide. There is even a "when?" in brackets at the end of the sentence. To the best of my knowledge, Thanksgiving is only celebrated in two countries, Canada and the US, with Canada's being in October, and the US's being in November. No other countries celebrate Thanksgiving, so "Thanksgiving week" should be replaced with an actual date, as "Thanksgiving week" is not universally understood to be a date. It doesn't clarify which Thanksgiving is being referred to, and most people on the planet have no idea what date either of the Thanksgivings fall on. Please change this to an actual date, or set of dates, in a universally understood format. Kubrickrules (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with labeling this film as a musical. Musicals are when characters break into song throughout the film. That is not the case here. All of the songs sung are songs that the band are currently playing. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genres should be reliably sourced

emphasis on that main genre rather than any other. -- 109.78.195.136 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]