Why Walt Disney World’s Tower Of Terror Could Be In Trouble Because Of The New Twilight Zone

This week, we got a new look at Jordan Peele’s take on the classic TV series The Twilight Zone. The only place the Twilight Zone name has been regularly seen over the last several years has been at Disney theme parks attached to the popular Tower of Terror attraction, like the first one built at Walt Disney World for Disney’s Hollywood Studios. One might think that renewed interest in the TV series would be nothing but good news for the nearly 25-year-old attraction, but the truth is it could actually spell the end of the ride by making The Twilight Zone too popular and too expensive for Disney.

The first version of the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror opened at Disney’s Hollywood Studios in 1994. Three other Tower of Terror attractions were built at Disney parks in California, Paris and Tokyo, and two of those used the Twilight Zone brand.

The thrill ride itself is fairly simple: it’s a drop ride that pushes a car full of guests into the air, before dropping them in free fall (it actually pulls the car down, so you fall faster than you actually would if only gravity was acting on the ride vehicle). Then the car slows, goes back up, and does it again, causing several thrilling drops per ride.

While simple, the ride certainly built its share of fans. The popularity of the attraction was made clear when it was announced that the version of the attraction at Disney’s California Adventure would be replaced by Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission: Breakout. While the attraction’s thrill would remain essentially the same, everything would be re-themed to match the popular Marvel Cinematic Universe heroes. As popular as Marvel is, many were unhappy to see the Tower of Terror go.

This led various people to wonder what the future of the other Towers was, especially the original one at Walt Disney World. While nothing has ever been officially announced by Disney to imply the attractions are going anywhere, the impending brand-new Twilight Zone series could actually spell the end of the existing attraction.

The buzz surrounding this latest iteration of The Twilight Zone is strong. Jordan Peele is acting as producer and host of the show, and that association alone has people excited. What was Get Out, if not the best feature length episode of the Twilight Zone ever conceived? The Twilight Zone name is poised to be bigger than it’s been in decades, and that has to be good news for a theme park attraction that holds the name, right?

But that’s exactly the problem. The Twilight Zone is owned by CBS and Disney pays the company a licensing fee for use of the name and the elements of the classic series. Now, I don’t pretend to know how much Disney is currently paying to license the name, but it stands to reason that if the brand new series is a hit, the next time the deal comes up for renewal, the price tag to Disney could be a lot higher than it has been in the past. It could be so much higher that Disney isn’t interested in paying for it.

Disney has all the money in the world, especially these days, but that doesn’t mean it’s always interested in spending it. Next door to the Tower of Terror at Walt Disney World is the Rock N’ Roller Coaster, featuring Aerosmith. Originally, Disney wanted it to feature the Rolling Stones, but the group wanted too much money to license its music.

The only reason I can conceive that the Twilight Zone licensing deal won’t get a lot more expensive is if the new show somehow doesn’t succeed. If the show bombs, then CBS won’t be in a great bargaining position. However, that causes its own problem, as a bad show would damage the brand as a whole and potentially make Disney less interested in continuing with it.

I don’t think the show will fail. I think it looks amazing.

Of course, if the new show is a massive new hit, there could be problems in the other direction. If the show becomes really successful there could be a call to see elements of it incorporated into the attraction. While Walt Disney World purists as well as classic Twilight Zone fans would probably lose their minds at the idea of Rod Serling being replaced by Jordan Peele, the average tourist may not care so much.

Of course, this would increase the cost of Disney that much more, as the park would need to not only pay for the new licensing deal, but also pay to re-skin the attraction.

Even if I’m right, it doesn’t mean the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror will be gone tomorrow. Details on exactly what the licensing deal between CBS and Disney looks like are hard to come by; these sorts of deals usually aren’t made public. It’s barely possible that the deal between the two has no expiration date or set plan for renewal. Maybe Disney was able to get CBS to agree to a fixed renewal price for as long as Disney wants to continue with the attraction. It’s unlikely CBS would have agreed to that.

What’s more likely is that every few years CBS and Disney meet to renegotiate the deal. If the last renewal took place a couple of years ago, then the Tower of Terror might be safe for quite some time. If the deal is coming up for reconsideration soon, however, things could be changing a lot faster.

Of course, the loss of the Twilight Zone name doesn’t mean that the Tower of Terror is doomed. If a re-theming is required, the general concept can be kept while simply removing the Twilight Zone related elements. The version of the attraction at Tokyo DisneySea has existed for over a decade with no ties to the Twilight Zone at all. Still, those elements are part of what give the Walt Disney World attraction its unique mood and feel. Losing them would still be a major blow.

Walt Disney World’s Tower of Terror likely won’t be transformed into Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission: Breakout, if only because a Guardians of the Galaxy themed roller coaster is currently under construction at Epcot. But as popular as the Tower is, it seems that the deck is stacking against the attraction’s future.

Blended From Around The Web

 

Charlize Theron Is Doing A Comic Book Movie For Netflix

With recent news that the remainder of Netflix’s Marvel shows Jessica Jones and The Punisher have been cancelled as the studio’s partnership with Marvel soon comes to an end, the streaming giant will be running a bit low on original content to appeal comic book fans. The studio is now turning to an adapt the Image Comics series The Old Guard into a feature film starring Charlize Theron.

The comics are penned by Wonder Woman and Black Magick writer Greg Rucka and illustrated by Leandro Fernández. It’s an action series is about a band of immortal soldiers whose existence and powers become exposed to the public. According to Deadline, Rucka will write the screenplay for Netflix, Gina Prince-Bythewood will direct the film lead by Charlize Theron and If Beale Street Could Talk star KiKi Layne Sounds badass!

Gina Prince-Bythewood is known best for her directorial work on The Secret Life of Bees, Beyond the Lights and for the pilot for Marvel’s Cloak & Dagger television series. She was previously attached to Sony’s Silver and Black film, that would have focused comic book heroines Silver Sable and Black Cat teaming up, until plans to split of the films in separate origin stories was announced. The Old Guard is an exciting move for the director if she’s no longer attached to the DC property.

Charlize Theron is well-known for showing strength on screen, with her characters and is no stranger to starring in action flicks such as Mad Max: Fury Road, Atomic Blonde and The Fate and the Furious. With The Old Guard, Netflix users will get to see her play a soldier who has been around since ancient times and can bleed, break and experience pain, though cannot die – it’s quite reminiscent of Wolverine’s story.

So far, she will be joined by KiKi Layne, a 26-year-old actress who has only starred in Barry Jenkins’ Oscar nominated Moonlight follow-up. Layne will soon star in sci-fi thriller Captive State from Rise of the Planet of the Apes director and in Sundance drama Native Son. It will be exciting to see the actress as she takes on more roles and her involvement in The Old Guard is especially interesting.

Theron joins the likes of Hollywood biggies such as Sandra Bullock, Jake Gyllenhaal and Alfonso Cuarón, who have recently been a part of Netflix projects as the streaming service continues to expand their original content.

Besides The Old Guard, Charlize Theron is set to play Megyn Kelly in an untitled project about her and other woman who stood up to Fox News executive Roger Ailes’ sexual misconduct allegations. She will soon star in a rom-com with Seth Rogen called Long Shot about sparks between a president nominee and her speech writer who she once babysat, coming to theaters on May 3, 2019.

The Classy Reason Why Reba McEntire Turned Down Titanic

Reba McEntire may have first gained fame for being a country music star, but she has proven a multi-talented entertainer, carving out a separate career as an actress in both film and television. The singer/actress did have to miss out on one huge movie role in James Cameron’s Titanic. Why would anyone turn down Titanic you may ask, well Reba McEntire actually had a really classy reason for doing so, as she explained:

As is seemingly so often the case in this industry, packed schedules and obligations mean that some actors have to pass on exciting projects and that was what happened here. Reba McEntire was offered the role of Molly Brown in Titanic and had her schedule blocked out for a specific time to film the movie. When the production was delayed and moved to a time when she was going to be on tour, she had to make a choice.

There was no way for her to reschedule the tour and all the logistics of the venues to accommodate Titanic’s new production period as she told Andy Cohen on Watch What Happens Live. It sounds like she would have had to cancel the tour entirely basically just to be in Titanic.

That would have not only affected her but all the people that were set to work on the tour with her. Knowing how many people were committed to her tour and were counting on those jobs, she made the classy decision to turn down Titanic.

It is unfortunate for her that the change meant Titanic would be filming during her tour, but bowing out was definitely the right thing to do and a classy move. If she had decided to do Titanic no matter what it would have been only about her. Titanic could recast the role and did with actress Kathy Bates, but the tour was entirely dependent on her involvement.

Of course, while it was the right move it had to sting a little bit after Titanic became (at that time) the most successful movie of all time. Reba McEntire admits as much, while still standing by the decision:

As Dumbledore once said, you have to choose between what is right and what is easy. And although it would have been easy to choose to be a part of a big movie, it was right to take care of her crew. Reba McEntire would have been a fun choice for the sassy and outspoken Southerner Molly Brown, but Kathy Bates killed it in the role. We can add Reba McEntire’s name alongside Matthew McConaughey’s to the Titanic that might have been.

Like the ‘Unsinkable Molly Brown’ she almost played, Reba McEntire just keeps on going. The country artist releases her next album Stronger than the Truth on April 5. For all the big movies you can look forward to this year, check out our 2019 Release Schedule.

The Sports Cliche Fighting With My Family Tried To Avoid, But Had To Include

Biopics, especially ones that deal with the subject of sports, have certain sign posts that must be approached carefully. Those moments, when used incorrectly, can be clichés. However, if used properly, they can be significant touchstones that really tie the film together. One such concept that writer/director Stephen Merchant originally wanted to avoid using in Fighting With My Family was that of the training montage. But, as he explains below, that device basically cried out to be used in the telling of WWE Superstar Paige’s road to glory. Merchant explained this thusly:

The montage is something that has been mocked so often in parodies and comedies throughout history that it’s kind of hard to take it seriously. Perhaps the apex of poking fun at this practice was the song from Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s Team America: World Police, as they admitted in one the film’s songs that “you’ve gotta have a montage.”

So it’s certainly easy to write off the practice of showing a period of time in quick, but progressive narrative succession as something that’s earn an eye roll or a derisive chuckle. But, as Stephen Merchant himself admitted, that moment is sometimes necessary for the audience to view the journey of films such as Fighting With My Family as a satisfying and serious enterprise.

In particular, he described his feelings about the training montage in Fighting With My Family through remarks below, obtained throughout our talk with him during the press day for his latest film.

Fighting With My Family certainly uses its montage to the best advantage, as it shows Paige’s journey starting to pay off after the earlier difficulties and doubts that she faced in the earlier acts. Which is perhaps the key to determining whether or not your sports film should have a montage.

If you have enough of an underdog that the crowd can root for, then the basic rule of thumb is that they’ve earned the right to use the montage. It certainly feels like Stephen Merchant understands that concept, as you can see below in the footage from this discussion about the art of using this unfairly maligned mechanic.

Yes, the montage has been used often enough that people might still laugh at it, but if you’re using it right, then you shouldn’t even have a doubt that the audience will take it seriously. But don’t take our word for it, as Fighting With My Family is in theaters now for you the eager audience to enjoy at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, keep watching us here at CinemaBlend, as we’ll have more coverage from our experiences with the talent behind this wrestling crowd-pleaser.

Kevin Feige Clarifies James Gunn’s Influence On Phase 4 And His Guardians 3 Script

Around this time last year, it was looking like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 could be one of the the first Marvel Cinematic Universe movies to be released during Phase 4, but now that James Gunn has been fired from Marvel, it’s unclear when that threequel will arrive. However, Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige has clarified to CinemaBlend that Gunn’s influence will still be felt in the Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 script, though not necessarily throughout other areas of Phase 4. In Feige’s words:

The latter half of Kevin Feige’s comment to our own Eric Eisenberg refers to back in 2017, when James Gunn stated that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 would help launch a new era of cosmic MCU stories, and that he would help Feige and the other creative minds involved with these stories and ensure that the cosmic side of the MCU “is as special and authentic and magical as what we have created so far.” Obviously that’s no longer going to happen, but Feige has now made sure that people know that the plan wasn’t for Feige to be the master architect of all things MCU cosmic, including the The Eternals and, assuming the first movie does well, a Captain Marvel sequel.

In terms of the Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 script, though, Kevin Feige confirmed that James Gunn’s draft will still be used, which Star-Lord actor Chris Pratt said earlier this month. Needless to say that although several Guardians of the Galaxy teams already existed in the comics, Gunn’s ‘voice’ was definitely felt in the first two Guardians of the Galaxy movies, and was undoubtedly part of the reason these characters became so popular to the general public. That’s also why he contributed to Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, since the Guardians finally got to interact with other Marvel heroes. So it sounds like we don’t need to worry about Gunn’s ‘voice’ being completely wiped away from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. although I do wonder how much of his script will be altered once a new director is hired.

As for James Gunn’s future, while he’s no longer working in the MCU, he is lending his talents to a different comic book franchise. It was confirmed earlier this month that in addition to writing The Suicide Squad, he will also direct the DC Extended Universe feature. It’s been said that The Suicide Squad will be less of a direct sequel and more of a relaunch for the anti-hero property, although there’s word that Margot Robbie will be back as Harley Quinn. That movie comes out on August 6, 2021.

Stay tuned to CinemaBlend for more updates on what’s happening with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. For now, you can look through our Marvel movies guide to find out what else is coming out during Phase 4.

New Star Wars Video Shows Every Time The Force Is Mentioned, And It’s A Lot

It’s no secret that “the Force” is an important element of the Star Wars movies. Back in 1977, Obi-Wan famously told a young Luke “it surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” Word of the Force certainly didn’t stop there and certainly binds the franchise together given how many times it’s been mentioned in all the movies. Check out just many times it’s said below:

Wow, that got a bit intense! While it’s not surprising the Force is a habitual phrase in Star Wars, I certainly wasn’t expecting the whopping 161 mentions throughout the franchise. The Star Wars By The Numbers episode has numerous characters from nearly all the movies taking turn uttering the words, so much so that it’s almost exhausting.

Some of the times when “the Force” was mentioned are certainly some of the most iconic moments in the franchise and often empowered the Star Wars characters at their most trying times. As the almost 3-minute video chugs along with every “Force” reference to date, it starts to become both hilarious and ridiculous about just how much it’s said!

At the end of the video, it actually breaks down how much each movie mentions the mystical energy field with a pie chart. Rogue One is unquestionably the franchise’s first-line offender since it’s said 46 times, which takes up over a third of the overall mentions. This is due to Donnie Yen’s Chirrut Îmwe frequent saying “I am one with the Force and the Force is with me,” which he tirelessly repeats throughout the film.

Second up is A New Hope with 22 mentions, which makes a lot of sense because the movie introduced to concept to audiences for the first time, along with the world as a whole. Revenge of the Sith comes in third with 20 mentions as Anakin makes his transition to Darth Vader in the final prequel installment.

Attack of the Clones says it the least… wait, can the quality of a Star Wars film be measured by the amount of “Force” talk alone? One film notably missing from the video is Solo: A Star Wars Story. It looks like the recent spinoff doesn’t mention the Force at all!

This count of 161 certainly won’t be the last we see of “the Force” with Star Wars: Episode IX soon on the way. The J.J. Abrams film that recently wrapped filming ahead of its December 2019 release will close out the Skywalker Saga and presumably conclude the stories of new characters Rey, Finn, Poe and Kylo Ren.

There is also a Rogue One spinoff series starring Diego Luna’s Cassian Andor coming from Disney’s new streaming service Disney+ and a new trilogy coming from Rian Johnson. The Force is certainly strong with the Star Wars franchise, and may the Force be with you. Force. Force. Force!

Annette Bening Finally Talks Captain Marvel Role

One of the biggest mysteries surrounding Captain Marvel, alongside Jude Law’s role, has been the question of who four-time Academy Award nominee Annette Bening is playing in the film. She has been an enigmatic figure in the trailers, clearly playing an important role, but not definitively one character or another. Now that the film has screened, the secrecy has loosened just a bit and Annette Bening can spill some of the beans. She said:

Like Daenerys Stormborn of the House Targaryen rattling off her many titles to intimidating effect, Annette Bening’s announcement of who her Captain Marvel character is on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was an impressive summary and quite a mouthful. Her description is meant to inspire awe and grandeur, and it is right to do so because Annette Bening is playing the Kree Supreme Intelligence.

It was rumored that Annette Bening might be playing Carol Danvers’ mother in the film, but one of the trailers showed that she was in fact a Kree. She appeared to be a high-ranking military officer, but we now know, as many have suspected, that Annette Bening is playing the Kree Supreme Intelligence, though one that looks quite different than its comic book counterpart.

In the comics, the Kree Supreme Intelligence is all of those things that Annette Bening said: a God-like being, the leader of the Kree and an A.I. made up of the greatest minds of the Kree race. However, in the comics it is basically just a giant floating green head. See below:

So the Supreme Intelligence is getting a new look for this film and a much more pleasant and friendly face. In the comics, the Kree Supreme Intelligence is a cold entity, concerned only with the survival and advancement of the Kree race. It is the one who assembles and commands the Starforce during the Kree-Shi’ar War, even acting as a member itself through the android Supremor.

I suspect that the Kree-Skrull War may be standing in for the Shi’ar conflict in Captain Marvel, which would perhaps portend an important role for Annette Bening’s Supreme Intelligence.

It’s definitely a cool role for Annette Bening to play. She is an acclaimed actress who can bring the necessary gravitas to a character that is both wise and calculating. Although Annette Bening admits, she needed a little help understanding her story in the film. Take a look at the video of her Late Show appearance below to hear who she enlisted to help her and a clip of the Supreme Intelligence from the film.

Captain Marvel blasts into theaters on March 8 with a potentially big opening if tracking and pre-sales are any indication. Check out our guide for all the biggest movies headed to theaters this year, and for more examples of supreme intelligence, follow all the writers here at CinemaBlend.

What If The Oscar Ratings Get Worse Again This Year?

The Oscars have a serious problem. For the last several years, the ratings for the broadcast have been pretty bad. Last year, the ratings were as low as they’ve ever been, and while the Academy was ready to try numerous things to remedy the problem, it has since gone back on pretty much all of those changes. However, the fact that it did could spell potential disaster for the future of the awards show, as another bad showing in the ratings this weekend will almost certainly mean massive changes next year.

The Academy announced a number of potential changes and goals several months ago following the abysmal performance in the Oscars ratings last year. One of the major items was the creation of a new award that would somehow focus on blockbuster movies, a way to make sure that the films that fill the most seats at the theaters actually got recognized at the Oscars.

There was never much explanation as to how such an award would work and what the criteria would be, and the response was instantly negative. The feeling was that it would create a second tier Best Picture, and if a movie was good enough to be recognized at all, it could be done within the existing awards. Eventually, it was decided that the award would not be presented this year, though the door is still open for it to show up in the future.

One of the other major goals for this year’s show was that the telecast should be limited to three hours. In order to help reach that goal, it was reported that only two of the five songs nominated for Best Original Song would be performed. This also received strong backlash and it was eventually announced that all five songs would be performed (though the word is that “All the Stars” from Black Panther will not be performed by Kendrick Lamar and SZA due to scheduling issues), though not in their entirety, and most not by the artists that performed them in the films.

The next idea was that not all awards would actually be given live, and that some would be presented during commercials. This was also met with an expected backlash, especially since two of the awards that were going to be given during breaks were to be for Best Editing and Cinematography, two pretty key aspects of film making. The Academy has since reversed this decision as well.

While the reversing of these decisions is best for the Academy Awards as a respectable awards show, it’s unclear what sort of an impact they will have on the telecast of those awards.

It’s possible that with all of the attention that the Oscars have received this year, the televised ceremony could see a ratings uptick, if only because people are curious just how the show will progress. Will the show be better without a host or will it be an absolute train wreck? People who might otherwise not bother might check out the show just to see if it works.

What’s more likely, however, is that ratings will fall someplace close to where they did last year. Maybe they’ll be up slightly, but not by a lot. They could just as easily dip even lower.

Save the fact that the show will have no host this year, this year’s show will likely look a lot like last year’s show, which means that if ratings don’t improve, there’s a good chance the lack of changes this year will be used to justify major changes in the future.

The argument is pretty simple. We tried it your way, it didn’t work. Now we’re doing it our way.

The Academy wanted to make numerous changes and it was talked out of that, implying that a lot of people cared. But in the end, nothing changed on the viewership side. That means, at least according to this logic, that for viewership to change, the broadcast will have to do things differently.

One of the things the Academy is really working on doing is shrinking the length of the show. If this year’s show is another four-hour marathon, then the possibility that awards could be handed out during commercials in 2020 will be back, and it will be less likely the Academy will back down if it see the ratings as supporting the decision.

The Oscars are going to see changes; nothing goes on forever without changing. What I’m really afraid of is that the longer we wait to see anything change, the more drastic those changes will be when they actually come. Everything that the Oscars went back on will return to the table, and there’s no reason to believe those will be the only proposed changes. Entirely new bad ideas will be proposed.

And let’s be honest, the ratings at the Oscars are unlikely to change, even with the changes that are being proposed. Black Panther‘s Best Picture nomination notwithstanding, the movies nominated for awards this year are still not the movies that draw crowds to theaters. The average moviegoer doesn’t care about them. People might tune in to watch Queen open the show, but I’m not sure anybody will hang around afterward that wasn’t going to watch the show anyway.

I almost wish the Academy had just gone ahead with some of their terrible ideas, because the ratings wouldn’t have improved and at least once these ideas are tried and fail, then the powers that be would understand they’re on the wrong track.

A small change like not having all the Best Original Song nominees perform can be fixed the next year without much of a problem. Larger changes however, once they happen, they could very easily become permanent, even if they don’t actually fix the ratings problem. A badly thought-out Best Blockbuster Film award is unlikely to happen one year and then disappear forever. If it ever shows up, it’s going to be around for a while.

The battle over the Oscars and its television ratings may not have resulted in any major changes this year, but this battle isn’t over yet. Unless a lot of people decide to sit through the entire show just to see if Black Panther wins Best Picture, ratings aren’t going to see a major improvement, and if things don’t change we’ll be right back here in about 11 months. And next time, whatever changes are proposed will be much more likely to actually happen.

Blended From Around The Web

 

David Harbour Doesn’t Know If His Hellboy Is A Good Person

It’s also interesting that David Harbour said that his version of Hellboy is younger. In the original Hellboy comics and the 2004 Hellboy movie, Hellboy was summoned to Earth by Rasputin (yes, that Rasputin) towards the end of World War II, and Professor Trevor Bruttenholm took in the infant demon and raised him as a son. Judging by a quick shot in the trailer, it looks like the Rasputin summoning will remain intact in the Hellboy reboot, but if this Harbour’s Hellboy is younger, that suggests this event won’t occur during World War II. After all, Ian McShane, who’s playing Bruttenholm in the reboot, was born in 1942, so assuming Bruttenholm is around the same age, that means he wouldn’t have been active during World War II. I wonder if Hellboy will now be brought to Earth several decades later, thus accounting for why he hasn’t been on Earth as long.

What To Know About The YouTube Star Who Sang For Rami Malek in Bohemian Rhapsody

Queen frontman Freddie Mercury has one of the most iconic, recognizable and cherished voices in music history. So when the filmmakers of Bohemian Rhapsody were tasked with replicating his unique vocal presence on screen, they actually had a little help from one talented YouTube sensation. Take a look:

Wow, he sounds incredible! As Good Morning America revealed, Marc Martel lent his voice to Bohemian Rhapsody’s Freddie Mercury in collaboration with masters of Freddie and Rami Malek’s vocals as well. The beautiful singer started playing Christian music before his bass player observed his resemblance to the Queen singer’s voice.

Marc Martel also auditioned for a contest hosted by Queen in 2011. The band was in search for a singer to front their Queen Extravaganza Tribute Tour. Martel sang his rendition of “Somebody to Love” which went viral and scored him the win. The singer still does a mix of playing his own music and embodying the Queen frontman in his own tribute band.

Breathtaking! He certainly can pass off for the rock legend, and calling upon him to provide some additional vocals was a great call. Freddie Mercury was born with four extra teeth, which he attributed to his 4-octave range. Whether or not this is true, it’s impressive Martel can recreate some of the magic found in Freddie’s unique voice.

It would be difficult to pinpoint where Marc Martel, Freddie Mercury and Rami Malek’s vocals begin and end since it seems as though a mixture of all their talents was implemented into Bohemian Rhapsody. While I imagined the filmmakers had their hands on a bunch of raw Freddie recordings, it makes sense they would need a stand-in for “additional vocals,” which is what Martel is credited for on the film.

The collaboration between the vocals and Rami Malek’s performance as Freddie created the film experience that had audiences witnessing Queen’s beginnings, rise to fame, iconic live performances and Freddie’s personal struggles. The film has been acclaimed almost indisputably for Malek’s embodiment of the icon, and he’s now a front-runner for Best Actor in Sunday’s Oscars, in addition to the film’s four other nominations.

Bohemian Rhapsody is a worldwide phenomenon that has scored over $854 million, becoming the highest grossing music biopic ever. The movie had the Queen band members involved in the casting process and were frequently present on set. Bohemian Rhapsody was a challenging film to make, considering the actors pulled off reenacting the band’s famous 20-minute Live Aid set on their first days and director Bryan Singer left the project during filming.

With the Oscars coming this Sunday, you can expect to see Queen performing with frequent frontman Adam Lambert as the lead vocalist, along with the film potentially taking home some golden trophies.