Bohemian Rhapsody’s Terrible Editing – A Breakdown

Comments 100

  • John Ottman Editor of Bohemian Rhapsody Responds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy35ZJcxIg8

  • Dude such an awesome analysis

  • Come on you didn't like it!!!!
    It was amazing

  • I think he did this smart. Kept interest. Honestly if this was shot normally it’d probably get boring and I’d get lost in the background.

  • Freddy Mercury was pretty awesome so let's give the movie a lot of awards.

  • This Movie Is The Definition Of BULLSHIT

  • The Academy responds to lobbying and box office more than quality. Alot like Washington does with donors and special interest.

  • At the very least the grading is good

  • 7:22 Your cut is shit the other way is better

  • I think another issue with the editing of this film is that with the amount of cuts they have, along with the said spatial continuity, it ends up overwhelming the viewers' eyes, and therefore, making them feel tired, dissoriented, and needlessly confused, due to the amount of unnecessary information that's being presented all at once.

  • This is so hard to watch lmao. I almost can't believe the movie actually looks this way.

  • You are talking about one 90 second scene out of an entire movie. Why not break down some of the good editing like the Live Aid scene or the bathroom sink transition into tv van satellite. It's like people who never watched the whole movie think the whole thing has terrible editing based on this one scene that everyone keeps obsessing about.

    You're bitching about a 90 second long scene in a movie that's over 2 hours long bro, and claiming "Bohemian Rhapsody has bad editing", meanwhile you describe good editing techniques over footage of Bohemian Rhapsody doing exactly those techniques. What the fuck are you talking about? See the problem isn't really in this analysis, but it's in the presentation such as your stupid video title which is misleading, and idiots who haven't seen the movie or are complete sheep will somehow translate this into thinking the entire movie is this poorly edited. It's not. It won best editing which is voted on by professional film editors who know more about film editing than you do. John Ottman is an oscar winning Hollywood editor and you're a fucking Youtuber.

  • Sorry, but i have to disagree with your recut. I think the original is better.
    I have not seen the movie,all of what i have seen is what you show here. Yet I feel that the nervousness that shows through the second shot of Brian before the two other men are shown is very well expressed in the shot. Everybody needs to look their best, and he checks on them if they are looking good, which we see even before they are shown.
    I agree with most of the other things you say. The editing is surely flashy, possibly overly so.
    The shot of three members without Brian could be rooted in the story, though. On one hand, the scene seems to be filmed somewhat from his angle (commenting on mercurys choice of dress, looking if the other guys look good), on the other hand: I would, not knowing anything about the history of queen, surmise that this character gets thrown out of the band in the movie.
    These three guys are queen, the take seems to say.

  • This is some Catwoman-level editing. And we all know how that one was received…

  • don’t have to specify on editing, the movie is entirely terrible

  • Yes, it did win. Deal with it.

  • Seems to me this scene suffers from a lot of problems. Uninteresting cinematography and uninspired screenplay are just as significant to me as the editing. And those three things are probably interconnected. If a scene doesn't have a clear sense of purpose and tone, I imagine it's hard to edit it.

  • Might as well just put the camera on a stick and spin it.

  • I didn't like this movie at all. I wanting Sacha Baron Cohen and the more truthful movie he wanted to make . Cohen looks alot like Freddie and is British . Malek is really good and did good in the role but what could've been..

  • A little knowledge can be dangerous. Your recut does not work very well at all because it fails to deliver what the original did – the original makes the audience increasingly uncomfortable, especially contrasted with the long tracking shot that opens the scene. An audience not familiar with editing will share the feeling of the band, feeling uncomfortable and off-balance, in fact you get this effect if you watch the scene without sound. Knowing something about editing causes you to think it is 'wrong' because it does not conform to basic guidelines. Whether it deserved an Oscar is hard to tell but there is a clear purpose to the editing of this scene.

  • There are no set rules for a good edit. Rules are a trap and it restricts you. The only thing that matters is sticking to the story and the characters in it.
    You cannot question an editors decision unless and until you were in that room.

  • Someone told me that sound editing and film editing are similar. If you don’t notice it whilst watching the film, then it’s good.

  • Bohemian Rhapsody guitar solo was written by Brian May

  • The movie is gre at

  • yeah I agree editing and transitioning between scenes is bad IMO

  • Probably it won best editing just for the Live Aid scene, but it was mostly because of Malek, he did a really good job.

  • While the editing may have been a mess, the movie itself was like watching a sped up A&E Biography on Queen. It lightly touched on many, many subjects, but never completely told the story. The actors were great but the writing/script/direction was off. This was an R rated story made into a PG film

  • ngl, a lot of the dialogue scenes gave me headaches :')

  • rumor has it that all band members had to have equal time on screen. that could be tough to edit.

  • The Oscars are no longer respectable

    Disney scams the whole thing, the judges don't even watch the movie they are selecting. The whole thing lost its touch.

  • No offense to this guy or the matter at hand, or anyone who’s concerned with said matter, but this is thee most pointless video i’ve ever watched on youtube. Like who gives a F. I got an eye for terrible shit, but this wasn’t even on my radar at all. Also not a huge fan of the movie. In fact, what should be criticized is Rami’s Freddie. Watch Fred’s interviews. They melodramatized thee living shit out of em. Thats the worst part of the movie imo

  • academy awards are a joke at this point, everybody knows that

  • Buddy. Get a fucking life. Top movie,. I was at the premiere in Wembley and not one single soul had any issue with editing. Loser!

  • My God, you are as crass as the movie.
    You slag the movie off and then you demonstrate issues by using cartoons and other films.

    What a crock of robotic thunderously boring mono syllabic nonsense, how in hell did you get 49,000 likes?

    Sheet, that's a shipload of drugs you are on.

  • Is it just me or do others feel sick when they're a lot of quick cuts in a scene. Like movie motion sickness

  • Christ, this is a boring video. No idea why Ottman bothered responded to it.

  • This video made me realize that each scene of dialogue on this movie have a rythm. On the Original Scene that he shows, there is a 1-2-1-2-1-1 tempo. I mean, I may be high, but now that whole thing makes sense to me. The movie has a rythm just like a song, and the editing its like an orchestra!

  • I'd like to see you so better x

  • A failure at basic eyeline cuts should not be oscar worthy. I enjoyed the movie but an oscar is disrespectful.

  • I was kinda with you until you showed your simplified take on the scene. You just make it so much more boring and sterile. You removed the motivation for Brian looking at his bandmates. He was looking at what suit guy was looking at and now it's just general him looking around for no reason. I think by analyzing the cuts so deeply you come to the conclusion that there's a "correct" way to edit any given footage, which leads to bland editing. Someone's attention is grabbed by something? Cut to what they're looking at. Someone starts speaking? Cut to a close up of them. The rapid meaningless cuts might not be the "correct" way to edit the scene but it manipulates the audiences attention in deliberate ways.

    Then again I watched the movie without being bothered by the editing. If it took you out of the movie as your watching it then you have good reason to analyze and critic it as you are. Especially if it's supposed to be the best of the year.

  • I was watching Tremors the other day and there's one sequence about halfway through where they're riding horses and galloping.
    And as the one cut starts they're shown galloping away from the camera, and in one corner of the visible scene is a concrete ditch.
    Then they go to the "Getting tossed off the horses", and then they show them running again.
    And you're spatially aware they're running back where they came from. And then you see the ditch coming and your brain clicks and understands.

    It was such good editing in such a lesser known movie, but now that I've started watching all these "Bad editing" stuff I'm way more aware of good editing versus bad editing.
    So yay for you~

  • Hey I think the movie was a wonderful tribute to Freddie…. it is one of my favorite movies of all time!!!! Pure perfection!!!!

  • also is rami malek cgi’d? he looks super weird and i can’t put my finger on it

  • Rami Malek's performance is great, the movie itself being nominated for the Oscars is ultimate proof that the Oscars are irrelevant shit

  • It's great that this movie draw attention to Freddie, especially the attention of younger people that might have not known about him, but the editing, the storytelling, the dialogue were just mediocre. Malek's performance was the only thing worth praising about this movie. Otherwise it's just a subpar flick.

  • I wanted to watch this film, but when I tried, I couldn't make it far – the editing kept drawing me out of the story. It left me confused and feeling oddly stressed out, even in scenes that didn't call for me feeling that way.

  • Go and make a movie if u are so Good at it

  • I've never seen the film but I think that the editing in that scene is bad because it shows someone speaking and then the other persons reaction, rather than the persons face as the other one is talking. The audience show trust the actors enough to know the voice and tone of a character rather than having to flick between their faces to show reactions.

  • Pace this SHUT YOUR PISS FLAP AND WATCH THE MOVIE

  • These comments are hurting me :,( 😂

  • I really don't see what the big deal is that was a good movie and the editing was the way it should be I believe you can't criticize something that you haven't even done yourself

  • Bruhh stfu this movie is better than any movie u can make😒

  • I’m gonna go into epileptic shock because how fast the editing is .

  • Why did this film win awards? I'm as stumped as you.I'm an original Quen fan from 1975 and I suspected it wouldn't be filmed right.I resisted paying to see it and waited until it came on HBO,which I get anyway. I have to concur with much of what the presenter here says and only add,in an age when they can mimic all sorts of phenomina on screen with the use of CGI,you'd think they could get the wigs to look right on a film that must have had a reasonable budget !The dialogue was crap with no rhythm to it ,the clothes were wrong and worst of all,it didn't really convey a sense of the '70s-or for that matter even the 80s .All in all,a confusing mess. Freddie Mercury deserved much better.

  • Not an excuse,but the remaining band members would only agree to give the movie rights if all of them had equal screentime to Freddie

  • I have a neurological disorder called sensory processing disorder, which impacts how my brain processes sound, touch, visuals, etc. My brain can’t process the visual information as fast as I’m seeing it, which can make everything look like a blur. And holy FUCK, I almost passed out during this stupid fucking film, just because of the jump cuts! I shouldn’t be having the equivalent to petite mal seizures during a biopic. Rocketman was really superior in every aspect.

  • If we wanted real good editing, just give it to Rocketman. That movie deserved the hype they wasted on this movie (don’t get me wrong though, I love Queen and their acting in this)

  • I think the movie just won so many oscars because everyone loves queen, everyone loves freddy and it just played well into people’s emotions. The cinematography isn’t that great but I guess everyone’s judgement was clouded from Rami’s pretty good embodiment of Freddy and the exciting scenes such as Live Aid in the end

  • Who honestly cares

  • The only case where it is both noticeable and good is that of Edgar Wright. All of his movies are masterclasses in quality editing.

  • this actor don't fit in

  • It won the award for Best Editing for the same reason every other category wins for their respective movies – BASTARDLY MARKETING, not "actually" being the "best" in their category.

    Fuck fairness.

  • While rewatching the movie. My eyes started to hurt.

  • i completely agree, i remember feeling weird about some of the cuts, they felt unnecessary, almost amateur like

  • Watching that scene multiple times literally gives me motion sickness

  • This like the oposite of a movie like dunkirk or whiplash, or the social network which have perfect editing(notice all of these won best editing) this wpuld be like if alex cross won best editing

  • "And youuuu! must be Freddy Mercury… You're a big guy!"

  • Most "Regular people" do not care. Most people enjoyed the movie and don't have a clue about what what your getting hysterical about.

  • oscars are bought, news to anybody???

  • Overall, i found this movie to be okay, the soundtrack is to me the best part of the film and the live aid concert near the end was awesome. But this film has problems like the aforementioned editing so many quick shots!

  • Agree with everything! It just proves how corrupt the industry actually is, if this won the best edit award? Hmmmm, I smell shenanigans!

  • Everytime they cuts, i sing Galileo

  • The first time I saw the movie I was thinking that they can’t stay on a scene for 5 seconds

  • I thought the whole movie was awful. Most the diehard fans who love the movie are kids who knew nothing about Queen beforehand. Movie was inaccurate, poorly edited, and Rami sounded and acted nothing like Fred. Also, the oscars have been rigged for years.

  • PEOPLE, YOURE NOT QUIRKY OR EDGY FOR DISLIKING BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY

  • im sure other people have said the same thing, but it had a lot to do with three things. One: Brian May seems to be a lot of the focus in that dialouge scene, where you would assume a reaction from fred youd get one of brian. i feel like this is probably because brian was actually on set with them for a portion of the time. Two: bryan singer. of course, knowing that the cast had issues with him and that he was consistently late/didnt show, of course the movie isnt going to look right. you cant expect a movie to work without any direction. lastly, three: the camera crew themselves. joe mazzello, who played john deacon, actually told a story that he'd brought up the fact the shots were weird while filming. he has directed a little bit, and was confused why they wouldnt get specific shots for the AOBTD scene. sorry about being vague on that, i dont really remember the details other than that even the cast themselves noticed.

  • great commentary. I couldn't stand watching this

  • This is what happens when you have miscommunication between the director, DP, and editors.

  • this is why i enjoy director’s who prefer to hold wides and use static shots to shoot scenes. u can legitimately use static shots for scenes that go on for 5+ mins and i won’t have any problem with them. have characters enter and exit the frame without cutting or even following them. take Manchester By the Sea and First Reformed as examples. id say the most popular directors who always get the right reactions and tell their story fluently while also being creative would be Denis Villeneuve and Paul Thomas Anderson. they always work with competent cinematographers and editors to ensure their films maintain their vision.

  • I remember watching the movie and this scene was disturbing

  • Not buying what you say, dude! I understand your points, but editing is also an art and sometimes it has a personal touch. The film clearly has a fast pacing it is almost frenetical, so the editing is as well. This scene is fast, the tempo is fast and when Reed comes in, he sits down and looks at everyone around so it is not confusing to show shots and reactions of all the members. And also, even if Reed's eye line is on someone you can show anyone else reaction and mostly because is not a conversation.

  • Out of all the Oscars that "Bohemian Rhapsody" won, its win for Best Film Editing was the one that baffled me. I never thought that the editing was anything special.

  • I-Ill just be honest with my opinion here….

    I really thought the actors looked like that….

  • Someone should kill that editor. Ive been editing fklms for 20 years. This is worst edit ever.

  • This is brilliant.

  • Rami was so good, it's a shame some things about this movie weren't.

  • The one thing i do give props is the realism. If you look at the IWTBF scene as an example, they even simulated the 4:3 aspect ratio just like in the actual promo video.

  • We ain’t pitting movies against each other here, but may I say… we had Richard Madden as John Reid

  • BoRap was an excellent movie and every true Queen fan understood the pace and loved it. Haters gonna hate.

  • I fell asleep once I figured out it would just be montages of them coming up with their biggest hits and performing them.

  • This video is unkind, but worse it’s just nonsense. There is a little an editor can do about eyelines. That should be sorted on location.

    Editors, directors and producers have all sorts of reasons for why they cut to certain actors for a reaction. Brain May could be seen as the leader of the group outside of Mercury, thus we need to see how he views the events more than the other 2 musicians. The pacing is fine, without fast editing I’d fear a scene like this could go as flat as those you see in soaps . But of course, without seeing the different edits that were tried I cannot possibly comment.

    It seems to me that it is a waste of time to ham-fistedly critique a moving, successful movie. Word of mouth dragged audiences into cinemas who didn’t seem to be riled by the editing. The movie isn't perfect but then nothing ever is.

    There is so much poorly made dross around that to pick on a very successful, involving film like this is absurd.

  • Why does littlefinger play littlefinger in everything he's in

  • Hammersmith Bridge. I live There 😀

  • For me it looks like John Reid wasn't available to be on set the same day as the other ones so they tried to shoot around it. He recorded the scene another day only with the actor playing Brian May. The whole group is only seen together in very few shots (John Reid walking out through the door and an establishing shot of the whole restaurant) It could easily be fixed with a cgi face replacement on John Reid. The other shot of the group with John Reid and Brian may facing the camera, Mercury, Taylor and Deacon sits with their backs towards the camera which is probably 3 stand ins. That's just my 2 cents

  • Watching this fast paced editing makes me wanna throw up, it literally gives the scenes no room to breathe

  • an example of why the Oscars' is meaningless

  • One can argue this scene was intentionally uncomfortable and disorienting to mirror the feeling of the band. But nah it’s just bad

  • Theory: the real "Queen" members wanted to have an equally distributed screentime in the scenes they were together AND all of them wanted to appear often in the same timespan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *