Music biopics are littered with predictable story beats and tired tropes, making them some of the most bland projects to come out of Hollywood today.
With the anticipated release of the Micheal Jackson biopic “Michael” this April, now seems a better time than ever to address why biopics, specifically those centered around musicians, rarely ever work.
Despite occasionally competent filmmaking and almost always great music, this subgenre of film often does the bare minimum in terms of crafting an interesting,complex story that can stand on its own two feet.complex
Movies like “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Elvis”, despite being box office hits, were criticized heavily by critics, the latter for its tonal haphazardness and the former due to its sanitized depiction of lead Queen singer Freddie Mercury.
COMPASS sophomore Zachary Veeh noted that the films “do seem to follow a pattern,” in terms of the beats they follow, listing the “rise to fame” to the artist’s “death/fall” as somewhat repetitive.
However, Veeh also believes that music biopics can still be a fun, enjoyable experience “to people who don’t know the [musician],” and introduce people to artists they’ve never even heard of before.
The 2024 film “Better Man” introduced me and thousands of other Americans to Robbie Williams‘ music and story, and although the movie didn’t make the biggest splash financially, it’s been praised for its refreshing and creative approach, primarily in portraying Williams as a CGI chimpanzee.
This audacious decision not only helped the movie stand out, but characterized Williams in an incredibly unique way, essentially personifying how he feels on the inside externally to the viewer in a palpable form.
But “Better Man” is the exception to the rule, and while I don’t think it’s the only good music biopic out there, it’s the only one that’s stuck with me, and that’s because of its ambition.
There’s no doubt in my mind that “Michael” will be a commercial success, but whether it breaks the formulaic mold that’s become so commonplace in music biopics is still yet to be seen.
Sophia Romero • May 18, 2026 at 1:17 pm
With a rising trend of biopics coming out almost every year it is nice to see commentary on the trends that the movies follow. I like how Daigle transitions between the different points that people have for the topic such as repetitive plots and surface level stories. As someone who has grown up hearing the backgrounds of many celebrity artists, like Freddy Mercury, it’s true that you can’t ever put a person’s entire life into a single film. They will always lack the complexity, the step-by-step process, and glosses over a lot of details to appease the audience. That’s why while many love the movies for the simple fact of getting to see the story of a rising star, or to inform themselves of artists they didn’t know before, it will never break the mold of a simple rise to fall artist. The best way to keep these stories entertaining is if they focus on the side of the story that isn’t well known or a mini story that is often looked over. Through untold stories or new takes with different mediums movies will be able to give the audience new ways to appreciate the artist.
Chloe Garica • May 18, 2026 at 11:21 am
Daigle makes the claim that music Biopics almost never work because the films barely craft and interesting and complex story. Using examples of “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Elvis” as music biopics that lack depth. As I agree with the majority of her perspective on biopics, especially that they artists are watered down. I noticed that Daigle failed to acknowledge how the music from the artists shapes the depiction. She states that it can introduce people to new artists but does not address how the music is vital part of the storytelling, and how it heavily effects the overall quality of the movie. I believe for this article to become a better analysis on musical Biopics, I think that Daigle should include and acknowledge how the the music aspect can often make or break the biopics.