Talk:Bohemian Rhapsody (film)

Production halted due to Bryan Singer’s health issues What should we do?

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

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)

References

Singer is Officially Out

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)

Director Credit

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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)

Many reviews regarding Mercury's sexuality showed bias

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:WEIGHT, with critical reviews given far more weight than algorithm-derived aggregate scores. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, with other sources (such as aggregate websites) given less prominence. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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)