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

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). Iamnoahflores (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)

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)

Critical consensus

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 synthesis or other forms of original research. This includes unsourced claims about a consensus on "historical inaccuracies" and criticism about the direction, as seen in this edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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

@TropicAces: It doesn't matter if several reviews "note issues". We need a source that explicitly says there's a critical consensus about this. You can't just decide what that the critical consensus is. This is 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)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Wasn't intended to blank it, was more that the way it was worded implied that was the only issue with the direction/script was the sexuality and not more, as is the case (and it doesn’t need to be cited up top, per MOS:LEAD). I restored the sexuality line, didn’t mean to kick up dust on this all (because based on this Talk Page and the edit summaries people are making a big deal of the summarization of one film’s critical reception haha)... TropicAces (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces: Yes, you do need a source up top. MOS:LEAD does not allow you to engage in original research. We have a source for what the reviewers criticized, and this is what we should stick to. Anything that is not in that source needs to be removed, and anything that is in the source needs to be included. It doesn't matter if there are a few reviews currently in the article that have criticized historical inaccuracies. What you're saying in the lead is that there's a critical consensus that this is a major issue in the film. This is unsourced. None of the sources in the article currently say that there's a critical consensus for this. If you want to state a critical consensus, it must be explicitly sourced. You can't invent your own critical consensus. You have to summarize what someone else has said. This is from 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)

Critical Reception sentence

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)

Box office

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)

Historical Inaccuracies section

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)

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

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. Popcornduff (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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? Letmejustcorrectthatforyou (talk) 01:19, 08 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed original research from the "Historical accuracy" section -- content whose sources predate the film, which is unacceptable per WP:FILMHIST. Editors are not permitted to play armchair historians, synthesizing sources unrelated to the film to draw novel conclusions about a film's historical accuracies or inaccuracies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

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

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

Dexter Fletcher director credit

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. Sandrobost (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There already exists a local consensus at #Director Credit that establishes that Wikipedia articles should reflect reality, rather than some arbitrary rules by an organization that has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia. Reliable sources consistently report that both Fletcher and Singer directed this film (at different times) and I don't see a compelling Wikipedia policy reason not to do the same. Cf. 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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"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)

To expand, Wikipedia policy states that a primary source like the film itself should be used "with care" and that reliable and independent secondary sources are preferred to establish 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • I've asked for clarification at Template talk:Infobox film.—Aquegg (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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 unsigned comment added by Iamnoahflores (talk • contribs) 05:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how verifiability and 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)

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 unsigned comment added by Iamnoahflores (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • Please read the discussion above, as it amply answers your questions. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

Awards

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. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 19:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 10:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

JIC

Malek won for Best Actor and the film was nominated for Best Comedy/Musical at the Los Angeles Online Film Critics Society Awards. It was added to the article under the name Online Film Critics Society weeks ago, and therefore I removed it because are not the same. Btw, actors attended the ceremony so I guess is relevant-but it doesn't have an article here yet. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

Great! Just did. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

sing-alone ...

The topic says, "sing-alone".

I think they meant "singalong" but I can't correct it.

Unless, I suppose, if someone was rich enough to hire a whole movie house to themself?

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

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

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)

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)

Wayne’s World

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)

RFC about listing Dexter Fletcher in the infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a lot of debate about whether or not to include Fletcher in the infobox, but there does not seem to be a clear consensus one way or the other. So should we include Fletcher in the infobox with Singer, or should we just include Singer with a note mentioning that Fletcher took over towards the end of production? RfC extended 21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC); originally raised by JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just Singer with a note There is a clear precedent established to follow how the films are credited in majority of cases, and I do not see why this should be any different. We only include Ron Howard in the infobox for Solo: A Star Wars Story despite Lord and Miller filming three quarters of the film. We don't include Joss Whedon in the infobox for Justice League (film). We don't even include Ethan Coen in the boxes for all of the early Coen brothers movies because despite it being well known that they directed the movies together, only Joel was credited as director. I just don't see any reason why this should be considered an exception to the rule. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a comment, many people who often edit this page have most likely already posted their comments in previous discussions on this topic. I would suggest you leave a new section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to bring in new eyes. oncamera 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Because "other stuff exists" is not a compelling reason to do things a particular way. In some of the above cases, I would argue that we *should* list all relevant directors, but this discussion is about here and not there. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support for only Singer with a note. I do not find either approach to be detrimental, and I do not want Wikipedia to be an "official" mouthpiece when it comes to weird situations like this. One could say that the note is enough, like the so-called asterisk in baseball's home run records. I find that omitting Fletcher from the infobox is a little bit of disservice to Wikipedia generally needing to follow reliable sources mentioning Fletcher's directorial work following Singer's departure. Yet I also find including Fletcher as "uncredited" to be void of upfront context and complicates the presentation of names by perhaps putting unclear weight on mentioning Fletcher's role. Is "two weeks" or "one-thirds" of directorial contributions sufficient? I'm not quite sure if the infobox can capture that well, as much as I want it to be flexible. I also would say in general that I would expand the note more to explain Fletcher's specific contributions (even if it is redundant to what is already in the article body). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Singer (with or without a note) – According to this Variety article Singer shot 85% of the film. It is to all intents and purposes his film. It certainly wasn't co-directed, and I think including more than one name in the infobox implies an equivalence in workload and creative input, which clearly isn't the case. This type of situation is more common with the writing credit and we usually limit the infobox to the credited writer or the writer who verifiably regarded as the "main" author. No reason for doing things differently with the director field. Betty Logan (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Betty Logan: I disagree that a second director being listed in the field, especially with a note and "(uncredited)", will imply any sort of equivalence between the two directors' contributions. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Just Singer with a note I think all the arguments made further up on this page (thank you for pointing them out, Oncamera) are valid, but based on the Variety article that Betty Logan shared, it seems that Fletcher's involvement was small. Even in the Indiewire link that Oncamera shared further up the page, Fletcher appears to minimalize his own involvement: "it’s really about watching what had been already created and being part of that. It wasn’t like changing and reinventing the wheel." I will also point out that, contrary to what I just said, a director who finishes a film does also oversee editing and therefore has a lot of control over shaping the final product. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Another comment. This discussion was also brought up at template talk for Infobox Film (and the section beneath it). I think it should be figured out there since it will effect many films. Consensus was to leave it up to discretion of editors and to present the truth rather than solely rely on the production company releases. oncamera 06:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Singer (perhaps with a note) — I don't think there’s any issue of hiding the truth here: Singer directed, with minor creative contribution from Sigel and Fletcher. The issue is detailed fully in the article body; naturally, the infobox contains only the most-significant information. Rather than duplicate an article section in an infobox note, perhaps include a note that just refers the reader to the article for further details.—Aquegg (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Both directors with a note. Wikipedia is not in the business of adjudicating what counts as "enough" to warrant a credit. The film had two directors, one for the first X% of the production and another for the remaining Y%; this is unambiguous ground truth. Interesting that this "Request for Comment" happened so soon without pinging ("requesting") any members of the previous discussion for their comment. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • On the contrary: the very essence of an encyclopedia is that it summarizes, which requires editorial judgement. Infoboxes are for the most-significant facts, not exhaustive lists. All the details are in the article body. The previous discussion btw, yielded no consensus.—Aquegg (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    • And this is also not a consensus. There was no effort to bring in relevant editors who have weighed in in the past. If anything, previous editors' comments should be considered together with these to form a single consensus, rather than constantly WP:KEEPLISTING the discussion until you get an outcome that you like. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • To expand, reliable sources amply describe the directing situation of this film as Singer for the first portion and Fletcher for the second portion. That Singer is the only one credited in the film itself is a quirk of the Director's Guild, not a reflection of verified reality. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Both directors with a note. Just like previous discussion. There is really no real consensus here to change from what it was: both directors with a note. oncamera 07:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  What a bald-faced lie. Please do not ignore the five-in-a-row stances of listing only Singer (whether with or a note or not). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  The five-in-a-row stance in this section is an artifact of the (lack of) discussion notification process, not reflective of an actual consensus. JDDJS also failed to lay out or even acknowledge the existence of prior discussion on this topic and only presented his own side to set the tone of the discussion. Oncamera had to do that for him. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  Very disingenuous claim. The RfC was posted neutrally at WT:FILM. I weighed the notion of listing two names as director quite a bit. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  ...After being prompted by Oncamera. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium and @User:Oncamera you are both misrepresenting the original discussion when you say it resulted in a consensus to include both directors. There was no consensus one way or another at all in the original discussion, which is why I started this RFC in the first place. After the discussion had been open for a month and weeks had passed since anyone had commented on it, I made a request for it to be closed, but then I was told that since it was unanimous, I could just make the change myself. So I did. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

So you admit to being aware of the previous discussion, yet made no effort to contact any of the previous participants. Those who did only happened upon this discussion by chance. The previous discussion resulted in a consensus to include both because all arguments against inclusion were responded to and no new arguments were brought forth. This is the definition of consensus. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see the need to go through all of the names listed there so that I can ping every single editor contributing. I figured if they cared about so deeply, they would be watching the article. I figured it would be better to ping nobody than if I accidentally lefy anyone out because then I could be accused of being biased with who I pinged. And are you seriously claiming that there was consensus simply because the people who wanted to include him had the last word??? That's completely ridiculous. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

When one side has refuted every one of the other side's arguments, then yeah, that's a consensus. Wikipedia has never been a straw poll for/against whatever particular issue of discussion. This RFC is not over by the bare fact that people are still talking about it right now. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you disputed the fact that he only directed a third of the film, and therefore it would be giving him undue weight? Or the fact that Sigel directed part of the film as well, so that it doesn't make sense to include Fletcher and not him? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources naming Sigel as having directed this film? I looked at the source the purports to corroborate Sigel directing and found that it is guilty of WP:SYNTH. There are reliable sources naming Fletcher as director, regardless of his own humble appraisal of his work, in fact and in title. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There are sources that state that Fletcher directed some scenes, not that he should be credited as a director, the distinction being that the role of the director is understood to be one of significant creativity (often considered to be the most significant). Fletcher's contribution was described by King as "work in a box".—Aquegg (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be a WP:OR interpretation of what a director is or needs to be on this particular film. Source absolutely state that Fletcher is the director. Sources also speculate on DGA director credit, but never do they make any value judgments about who should be credited. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The claim that sources call Fletcher the director of the film is extremely misleading. Yes there are plenty of sources saying that took over towards the end of filming and directed some scenes. Nobody is disputing that. However, none of the sources refer to him as the director of the film. Rather, 'Bohemian Rhapsody' director is used almost exclusively to refer to Bryan Singer. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Now this is a completely ridiculous claim. Your favorite reference says "'Bohemian Rhapsody' director Dexter Fletcher" right in the title. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I said almost exclusively. In an overwhelming majority of sources, 'Bohemian Rhapsody' director is used to refer to Singer, not Fletcher. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

So what? Plenty of sources after the director change refer to Fletcher as director. This isn't a compelling reason to omit Fletcher from the infobox. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

So WP:DUE weight, prominence of placement, applies.—Aquegg (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

As the editor above me says, it actually is a valid reason to keep him out of the infobox because by listing him in the infobox, we're implying equal contributions from both of them, which sources do not at all support and are giving undue credit to Fletcher. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The note that was agreed upon in the previous discussion easily addresses any implication of equal contribution. Please reread WP:DUE. It does not say "minority opinions should be ignored and omitted". The correct amount of weight to assign to Fletcher is to include both with a note that explains his minority contribution. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Axem Titanium was so concerned about editors who previously discussed this topic not paticipating in this conversation, I'm pinging @SixFourThree: @Rusted AutoParts: @RR: @Sandrobost: @Iamnoahflores: @Whovian99: @Cristallo:. Seems a little weird to me Axem was so offended that I didn't ping the participants in the previous discussion, but then didn't bother to do so themselves either, but whatever. I believe that's everyone who participated in the previous discussions that hasn't already commented here, but if I missed anyone, please ping them for me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I relisted it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to hopefully get new editors to chime in. We can already go back and look what what those pinged users voted in previous discussions. We need more input outside of them. oncamera 10:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we would need more input. Out of the editors I pinged, only RR argued for inclusion of Fletcher (Rusted AutoParts preciously argued for inclusion, but that was before it was known who would get the credit, which was his main reason for inclusion). That only leaves three editors arguing for inclusion, opposed to nine arguing against. I know that this isn't a vote, but it's extremely rare for consensus to be considered on a side that's a third of the size of the other side. I also don't see why we would need more than 12 editors to establish a consensus on the matter, especially considering that majority are arguing to continue with the precedent already established. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There was a consensus before you created yet another discussion, therefore you must want fresh eyes on this. Asking for more input is just continuing the trend you, yourself, was fine with. So now you think it's not ok? There has been hardly any new voices added to this discussion, so we should encourage more to join. oncamera 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I gave JDDJS an opportunity to correct his mistake himself, which he finally did above. Please be cognizant of the appearance that you are suggesting suppressing further debate once your "side" has taken the lead. I will respect that the consensus has shifted if and when this discussion concludes properly, as opposed to rammed through. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's extremely misleading, if not outright false to suggest that there was a real consensus before this RFC. It was discussed with both sides making valid points, but the discussion died without either side having enough support to establish consensus. That's why I started an RFC in the first place, so that a true consensus can be established. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Singer with a note, like how it's done at Solo: A Star Wars Story, per those who voted above. JOEBRO64 18:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Production

"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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

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

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

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

Japan Film Academy

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.

Accolades

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)

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

Disambiguation

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Fat Bottomed Girls

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)

Firing of Singer and his replacement

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)

Musical?

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)

Genres should be reliably sourced WP:RS. The lead section should if possible try to list the primary genre WP:FILMLEAD not every genre that applies. (Editors also keep adding drama as a genre and it is often redundant.) A reasonable argument (and I've seen some pretty dumb arguments about genres) can be made that this film is a type of musical (not the traditional type as you have already pointed out, but still a type of musical). Nonetheless the main primary genre would seem to be biopic. I'm not going to get involved in this one but it is certainly a point you could argue further, and insist that the genres be better sourced. I would recommend you line up several reliable sources to help show more clearly what genre is indicated and why the article should put greater emphasis on that main genre rather than any other. -- 109.78.195.136 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)