The Debate: Do we need an Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne biopic?
Oh, how we must remember him, people say in one breath, mourning the loss of the heavy metal icon that was Ozzy Osbourne. Not another fucking biopic, they say in another, eyes rolling at the news of an Ozzy and Sharon story.
The confirmation of an Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne biopic being in the works is circling around the musical hemisphere at the moment. The film isn’t a new concept; it’s been in the works since 2021, but given the recent passing of Osbourne, many are asking whether or not a biopic about him is the right move.
Musical biopics don’t have the best reputation at the moment. We at Far Out have been one of the frontrunners when it comes to criticising the lack of imagination in many of the recently released films. Our half-star review of the Amy Winehouse biopic, Back To Black, was “akin to an episode of Horrible Histories”. Meanwhile, our three-star review of Bob Dylan’s A Complete Unknown highlighted the movie’s “mediocrity”.
We’re not alone in these opinions either. While a lot of biopics provide a pretty good backdrop for actors to showcase their talent, the movies themselves never seem to land. As such, there appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the news of a biopic, where we immediately criticise and scorn it. Unsurprisingly, this is the reaction many fans are having to the announcement that the Ozzy and Sharon picture is still going ahead. The question now: Is this reaction justified? At Far Out, opinions remain divided.
Sure, music biopics have proven to be a failure recently, and maybe another potential failure isn’t the greatest way to honour Ozzy Osbourne. On the other hand, Osbourne was one of the most interesting characters in music, and maybe the nature of his being lends itself to a story. Equally, the medium of film and storytelling was something Osbourne felt particularly drawn to.
So, which way should we lean? Let’s find out, as two Far Out writers with contrasting opinions go head-to-head, debating whether an Ozzy Osbourne biopic is a good idea.
Failure waiting to happen? Perfect way to honour his legacy? You decide. Ding ding, round one!
FOR
Why is everyone so angry?
The second a biopic is suggested, the whole world seems to pile on, swift to rip it to shreds. It happened with Bohemian Rhapsody, it happened with A Complete Unknown, it happened with Elvis, Walk The Line, Control – the list goes on. But guess what? Asses were in seats.
Whether you admit it or not, everybody loves a biopic. It’s simple and, most of the time, enjoyable. It’s interesting. Even if you know the artist’s life like the back of your hand, sitting for a while to see how a director would depict it, or merely kicking back and enjoying a tour through the life of a legend, is always a nice enough time. And you know who loved to have a nice time in front of the TV? Ozzy.
A simple man with simple pleasures, Osbourne probably watched many a biopic in his time, given how often he was positioned in front of his own telly in his TV show. Also, for a man who opted to do an early reality show, embracing film media early on and stepping outside of music, the idea of a whole movie would probably thrill him and likely did, given that this upcoming project was first suggested when he was still alive in 2021.
AGAINST
Biopics are only for the box office
The backlash is rooted in what, let’s admit, is abundantly clear: the biopic is a rapidly failing medium devoid of any artistic integrity.
Sure, the box office wins big, and for a man who fronted what is arguably the original reality TV series, that is, of course, allowed to be prioritised. But narrative nuance is always the biggest loser, and let’s not forget that this was also a man prior to that reality TV stardom who had said nuance in spades. While modern pop culture has eagerly painted him as a tracksuit-clad telly addict, the truth is his life story is a tale of two, perhaps very different halves, a point which will be drastically lost in the super condensed confines of 90 minutes.
He was also undeniably bizarre. But in an endearing way, the sort that allowed the righteous screaming of “all-aboard” to be charming and innovative. But it was later leveraged for reality star gains, which are now in the hands of money-hungry film studios, and it is just going to turn it into a caricature.
Sure, we’ve all recited an iconic line from The Osbournes during one mundane life situation or another, but now with a fully fledged creative team behind it, a film adaptation will border on satire. ‘The Prince of Darkness’ will inevitably be played by an actor – god forbid Yungblud puts his hat in the ring – desperate to nail the humorous idiosyncrasies of the man to a point where we’ll inevitably lose sight of what he contributed to music.
FOR
We learn so much about them
You can say it’s all about the music, blah, blah, blah, but is a biopic an entirely different thing?
The power of a person’s records has absolutely nothing to do with the desire to see his story laid out on screen with cinematic decisions made, actors doing their best, and a fresh perspective on the hero.
There is absolutely no connection or comparison between his releases, and one impactful two-hour-long movie. If we’re talking about inspiring the next generation, or even introducing new fans to Ozzy’s work, telling them to sit down and listen to each and every track is not the way to do it. That’s not an in, a movie with an inspiring life story, told succintly and interestingly that leaves you wanting to listen to more of the music – that’s an in.
And Ozzy’s story deserves that. In an industry overrun by the wealthy and their children, his is a true working-class hero story, and that’s exactly what Hollywood should be platforming. His story is a victory for a normal guy breaking down doors, making music feel more accessible to people growing up in small towns and small houses like he did.
A biopic itself is far more accessible than telling people to just go listen to the music, so surely that’s a great way to honour the legacy?
AGAINST
But isn’t the music enough?
But the biopics will inherently reference the music? In fact, if the cookie-cutter approach to every single other biopic is anything to go by, it will be a central part of the film.
I would say, after eight studio albums and another 13 solo records to boot, if you want to delve inside the mind of Ozzy, you’ll be more than satisfied just there. Moreover, he crucially curated this through several chapters of his life. Any given album could represent the emotional nuance of perhaps a year, whereas on the glossy silver screen of modern biopics, we’ll get that boiled down to a five-minute scene.
Sure, seeing the story told of one of Britain’s great everyday heroes being projected on the silver screen could undoubtedly inspire the next great icon. Someone so young they are uncorrupted by the competing importance of different artistic mediums, but isn’t the slow build of his music’s impact more important than what could potentially be another baseless biopic, lost in a saturated catalogue, of stories of yesteryear?
FOR
What about Sharon?
We’re missing a big part of all of this: Sharon. When I talk about the potential for this film to be inspiring, it’s not all about Ozzy.
People love to forget that Sharon was an essential part in all of this, not just as his wife and the co-pilot in his life, but also in his career. Sharon was there from the start, helping the band and then the man solo, make the decisions that guided them to greatness. Her story is inspiring too, as a woman navigating the male-dominated industry and navigating it masterfully. Without this biopic, does her story just go untold?
Even if it does end up as a more cheesy rom-com type biopic, we can rest assured knowing how much it would have pleased Ozzy. Any chance he got, the ‘Prince of Darkness’ went soft as he publicly declared his love, admiration and gratitude for his wife over and over for decades.
They are a true love story, a proper ride-or-die pair whose lives have long since been watched, or even mocked, but rarely given the respect they’re due, or their love story given the Hollywood treatment it deserves.
AGAINST
Is Sharon really a supporting cast member?
I understand Sharon is a crucial point I’m missing in my entire tirade. A staunch defender of Ozzy through thick and thin, who has quietly represented a rare story of music loyalty. And in the latter stages of his iconic career, she was as much a part of it as he was, but I can’t help but feel like therein lies the problem.
Why render Sharon’s story as simply a supporting player in Ozzy’s, through the lens of what could be, as you put it, a glossy rom-com? Instead, why not champion her story as something more than a play-by-play of her life, a nuanced tale of the feminine champion operating in the deeply misogynistic world of rock?
With regards to their empire, of course, together they were indeed savvy operators in the world of modern media and did of course build a globetrotting brand for themselves. But it’s only now, with a sense of post-modern irony that we look back on The Osbournes as hidden treasure. In 2025, reality TV has become so insufferable that we actually view The Osbournes as somewhat of a high-brow incarnation.
At that time, we laughed at Ozzy’s bumbling misfortune with what was genuinely poor taste. We revelled in the demise of a cultural icon and laughed it off as great TV. So what happens now when the domesticity of their relationship is leveraged by writers with creative freedom over truth?
