View Full Version : Oliver Stone's Alexander
Hetairos Alexandrou
01-14-2010, 04:47
Hi, just wanted to know what people think of the film in general.
Historical accuracy, character portrayal? Etc. etc..
Come on Hellenophiles!
stratigos vasilios
01-14-2010, 06:03
I thought the battle scenes were not bad, but they weren't enough (in my opinion). I'm not going to comment on the historical accuracy (I'll let someone with a greater knowledge than I do that).
But I did enjoy the scenerary such as the Hanging Gardens in the background when they reach the City of Babylon. Supposedly it flopped in the cinema due to the 'gayness' of the film, i.e. the audiences couldn't connect or be drawn to Alexander and Hephaistian? That's what I heard on tv when it came out.
Hetairos Alexandrou
01-14-2010, 07:42
About the battle scenes.... yeah, I felt that Gaugamela could have been a bit longer and the Battle of Hydaspes... just plain historically inaccurate. Fun though.
Wasn't it on a swampy flood-plain, not some random jungle?
Yeah and about the gay thing.... well, American audiences didn't really appeal to it, I think. Neither did some Greeks for that matter - some guys were actually thinking of taking legal action, lol.
I found it boring, I cheered for elephants to put an end to it.:grin2:
I need to run to class so I'll post more at the end of the day, but as a preface to what I think, in my opinion the film failed on all accounts regardless of what it attempted to do (either as an historical epic or a biopic).
I absolutely despised the movie. There are some things my friends now know they shouldn't mention around me, 300 and Alexander are two movies they have learned not to mention.
EDIT: Also, where was Seleukos?!
seienchin
01-14-2010, 11:54
It think that movie wasnt great but It was an honest approach. Taking all the gay scence in the movie was brilliant. Finally somebody acknowledging the antic love for men :egypt:
Dont get me wrong I am not gay, but I think if its part of a culture like in the hellenistic world it should be shown in movies.
Titus Marcellus Scato
01-14-2010, 12:17
The movie had no scenes with 'gay' overtones - it had scenes with 'bisexual' overtones - which is not the same thing. (Although 'Bible Belt' audiences may not understand this.)
Some ancient Greeks were bisexual - none were gay. Relationships with other men were to be in addition to relationships with women - not instead of! A Greek man who did not marry and father children was a failure as a man.
What the movie should have shown, to depict this accurately, is Hephaistion's marriage, as well as Alexander's. He did get married historically, to a Persian princess, but only four months before his death.
I liked the movie.
anubis88
01-14-2010, 12:30
How can you say none of the Ancient Greeks were gay? Did you live with them and know this for a fact?
Back to the movie...
I hoped so much more from this movie. Forget the inacuracys, even if you are a history buff, this movie gets so BORING. Incredible.
Oliver Stone managed to do a movie about one of the greatest generals ever, into a 3 hour wanna be drama, with only 15 minutes in total of battle footage, and those inacurate as well.
I did like the battle of Gaugamela/Issus though. It shows at least the phalanx, and how it operated. I feared that Hollywood would forget about it, and do a Charge scene like in Gladiator:laugh4:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-14-2010, 13:03
I need to run to class so I'll post more at the end of the day, but as a preface to what I think, in my opinion the film failed on all accounts regardless of what it attempted to do (either as an historical epic or a biopic).
Actually, I dissagree (somewhat). The film is supposed to be the (now lost) account of Ptolemy; Arrian notwithstanding it was irrc described by commentators as petty, Hellenocentric and inaccurate. The third cut of the film is better organised, and the battle scenes are much better.
At the end of the day, it presents a human and flawed Alexander from the point of view of one of his friends looking back in his dotage. On those terms I actually think it's OK.
though it should not be used as historical reference(like most movies) the battle scenes were very puny(just limiting the sight is no excuse for beeing cheap) I found it ok. none of my favorites but ok to watch, my main problem with the movie was that Olympia was just marginally older than Alexander^^.
I think the movie simply lacks focus, in terms of who it was made for. too few battles for us and people who just like war movies, to much Hollywood for Intelectuals and too much bi for the man in the street.
antisocialmunky
01-14-2010, 14:50
Actually, I dissagree (somewhat). The film is supposed to be the (now lost) account of Ptolemy; Arrian notwithstanding it was irrc described by commentators as petty, Hellenocentric and inaccurate. The third cut of the film is better organised, and the battle scenes are much better.
At the end of the day, it presents a human and flawed Alexander from the point of view of one of his friends looking back in his dotage. On those terms I actually think it's OK.
Yes its supposed to be a first person narrative told by Ptolemy. The only part I truly enjoyed was the first battle scene. The pacing was terrible. The characterization was okay. The gayness might have been a little over the top(IE shoved in our faces to say 'HE WAS BISEXUAL!!!!' instead of better working it into the film naturally). Roxanna was cute ^_^.
All in all the final cut of it was an okay film. Not great, not terrible. It was strictly average.
Dutchhoplite
01-14-2010, 15:52
http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images/jolie_alexander.jpg
:smitten:
Andronikos
01-14-2010, 18:06
Dutchhoplite, I hope you are joking. For all three hours of the movie duration I hoped somebody would kill Olympias very soon. Actually I don't like Angelina Jolie in any movie, but this was worse than her standard. She was very disturbing. There are characters which are disturbing in a good way, but this is not that case. :thumbsdown:
About the movie: there is nothing I would criticize (OK, except Olympias :beam:), there are few inaccuracies (observed by my untrained eye), especially in the description of Persian army, but still is a lot better than in most Hollywood historical movies, but I didn't enjoy it. On the other hand, Kingdom of heaven which is far more historically inaccurate was one the most enjoyable historical movies I have seen.
I look forward to read abou's review.
alexanderthegreater
01-14-2010, 18:43
To me every way of disturbing is a new kind of adventure!I always found Olympias an interesting historical character.
IMHO, the film was probably decently done, but not great. Long, very long, and still not being able to cover most of the events. Maybe to much focus on the drama instead of the war.
Kingdom of heaven was a better movie yes. More coherent. A shame Orlando Bloom cant act.
ziegenpeter
01-14-2010, 19:13
Well I think there have been far worse "historical" movies than that. May I remind you of the first Beowulf with Dolph Lundgren, if I remember well. And that's why I guess we (as: "we history-nerds") shouldn't be to demanding about "historical" movies. I think for someone with no Idea at all, its quite educating.
Although I don't despise A.J. that much and I think she's pretty, I found her very misplaced as Alex mom. Was she like 5yrs old or what? And this stupid "epeirote" accent. It reminds me of the annoying Women-scenes in 300. Although I understand that otherwise this movie had been a 90 min MANOWAR video... just my opinion man.
HunGeneral
01-14-2010, 19:40
I personally didn't like the film very much although I quess it must have been because it was a typical hollywood film even not so inaccurate as they used to be... I wasn't fond of the "Bi sexual claimes" because I thouth it concentratet more on that then the real achievament of Alxender (im my humble opinion) and took away a lot of time which could have been used better. I liked the battle scenes although they weren't quite as accurate is I had hoped...
(Also I have been hoping (and still do) that if another film is made about the history of Alexander then it should be done like the french (?) did a few years agove with "Napoleon" - a four part (very long) movie showing Napoleon life from his childhood al the way to his death on St. Helena with every of his battles and important events he witnessed took part in.)
I found the odd accents too distracting.
Farrell either can't or won't do accents- so suddenly every Macedonian has an Irish accent. OK. I can see the logic there- make them fit in with Alexander. Except Ptolemy. Hopkins does do accents, but maybe his Irish one is bad. So one Macedonian general sounds Welsh.
Then Olympias gets given a cod-Transylvanian accent- perhaps Jolie looked it up on the map and that's the closest she could do.
Really distracting from the actual plot. Which didn't cover anything very well from a historical viewpoint. It came close to doing well as a story of Alexander's personality and how it changed. But for that you need to include his time in Egypt, I think, which didn't happen.
What are we left with from the general slating it's being given? The pikes looked good at Gaugamela, and Babylon was spectacular.
_____________
You can explain the absence of Seluekos quite easily. It's Ptolemy doing the narrating.
oudysseos
01-14-2010, 19:54
I think that it's obvious that the movie has many flaws- for me one of the worst was the dodgy accents. I understand the theory- to snobby Athenians, the Macedonians had comically rustic speech, like a Yorkshireman to a Londoner or a Kerryman to a Dubliner- but Oliver Stone et al totally failed to carry it off. In the mouths of Val Kilmer and Jared Leto, the accents were just farce, and even Colin Farrell sounded like an American trying to impersonate a Brit. Granted, his native accent is North Dublin scumbag (like me!), but he should have been able to do better. And Angelina's wierd Egyptian/Russian/whatever was just bizzare. It made it impossible to take the dialogue seriously.
The hair, also, was bad. It was a mistake to try and make Colin Farrell a blond- he looked like someone gone to a fancy-dress party in a Hutch wig - and Val looked like someones piss-drunk Uncle at a Christmas do who put a shag rug on his head. The music sucked it as well.
Having said that, there is a good movie in there somewhere. The Ptolemy/Anthony Hopkins flashback as framing device is o.k., and aside from the accents many of the performances were good. If the film was totally redubbed, re-edited, and had a new soundtrack, it could be very good. But there is a lot of Alexander's life missing: early Illyrian campaigns, exile, the Battle of Chaeronea (we could've had the Sacred Band!), the Gordian Knot, the trip to the Oasis of Siwa (how could that be left out?), the brutal Siege of Tyre, the whole problem of adopting Persian dress and proskynesis- and the increasing number of executions and plots. I realize that there were time constraints involved, but still, different choices as to what to include could have been made.
One more nit to pick: the Battle of Hydaspes was totally botched- everything about it is wrong. I especially didn't like the whole slow-motion/trippy colours thing, but the whole fighting-in-a-jungle-just-like-in-Vietnam-oh-how-clever was just crap. A huge missed opportunity.
There is also very little focus on other Macedonians, making the whole mutiny inexplicable. Alexander's policy of rewarding defeated enemies like Porus really alienated his Generals and soldiers, and there is almost nothing of that in the film.
SO, for me, more negative than positive. Could've and should've been great. Ollie really missed the mark on that one- but on the other hand, I'm glad that Ridley Scott didn't have a go at it. I'm so tired of his bombast. Maybe Peter Jackson?
EDIT: Jinx! Maeran posted while I was writing.
Then Olympias gets given a cod-Transylvanian accent- perhaps Jolie looked it up on the map and that's the closest she could do.
Welcome, Doctor Ptolemy...to Macedonia. Buahahahahahaha!
I had the feeling that the, as stated before, the pace of the movie was weird. It just didn't really aim for anything. I think that the decadent feeling of the later time of the conquest of Alexander wasn't executed (that well).
There are a number of reasons why I think Alexander fails - and on multiple levels. I don't want to get into this with the attitude of, "Well, where do I begin?" since it's been too long since I've seen the movie; I would need to see it again and then take notes so I could go into such an extensive review (similar to Red Letter Media (https://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia) and his 70 minute The Phantom Menace review). I'll just hit on some main points to clarify.
From the perspective of simply a good movie:
Stone's Alexander fails on this in a number of ways. In fact, he seems to have suddenly decided to follow the George Lucas school of movie making. Leaving aside the terrible acting, one of the things he does is bring up a topic and either never touches on it again or runs in the complete opposite direction of it (Example: Alexander's Oedipal complex... which came out of freaking nowhere).
Stone also seems to have a hard time with hitting major "beats" successfully. He creates opportunities for himself, but veers widely from the mark. Even ignoring how confusing and poorly laid out the battle sequences are - nonsensical even* - he completely butchered the pre-battle speech at Gaugamela. Rather than focusing on every word Alexander says in order to hype the audience and pull them into the movie, he has the camera chasing this eagle around in the sky. You don't really bother following what Alexander is saying. It's pointless to even have it in the film then if you don't focus on it.
Another major problem is the lack of tension at points throughout the movie. If he was going to completely pull the battle scene at the Hydaspes out of his ass, he could at least make it seem as though Alexander was in major trouble. It felt a lot like Indiana Jones 4 where, regardless of the events, you just don't care what happens. Hell, even in the weakest of the original Indiana Jones trilogy Temple of Doom, even after having seen it multiple times, there are still plenty of moments where you're at the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens. There was, however, one good moment filled with plenty of tension and a rare moment of good acting - the scene where Alexander kills Cleitus... and that was it.
From a historical perspective:
Any historical film is going to take liberties. It's true. To do such a film such as Alexander that is going to follow the life of an individual for over three decades means you're going to need to drastically compress it or exclude things. That being said, there are good ways to do this and bad ways. Moving Alexander's injury from a siege in India to the Battle of the Hydaspes: not great, but acceptable. Moving Cleitus' saving of Alexander from Granicus to Gaugamela: smart. Completely ignoring Chaeronea, the Balkans campaigns, the Siege of Tyre, and offhandedly remarking the visit to the Oracle of Zeus-Ammon: BAD.
Choices like these mar the movie. Furthermore, you don't really get much perspective on what happens and where. An example would be the assassination of Parmenio. Yeah, it's in Media.
From the biopic perspective:
This is perhaps the entry that could easily be the longest. Any biopic should not only focus on the events that the protagonist experiences in his life, but also his character. Think about it: you want to watch a movie on T. E. Lawrence and his exploits, but instead you get a movie featuring a dude with a cockney drawl who sits in a cave all day.
Alexander's character was one that must have been incredibly charismatic; maybe even intoxicating to be around since he was able to convince so many to follow him for so long without rest. What about those moments which defined or irrevocably altered his character? What about that time he was told he was the son of a god by an authority on the matter? How it changed him for the worst?
Exactly.
That isn't even mentioning many important events (see above). Instead, Stone focuses very much on moments of homoeroticsm. That wouldn't have been a big deal except that that isn't what defined Alexander. The Greek/Macedonian world had homosexuals in it - of course they did - but Alexander also took several wives without concern. The main point of this is that Alexander enjoyed sex (and really, who doesn't?). Big deal. Either do something of consequence with Alexander and Hephaestion or make room for more important things - such as Alexander conquering the world and descent into alcoholism, paranoia, and generally being a complete dick to his friends.
Anyway, I hope you guys see where I'm going with this. I'm getting close to 900 words so at this point I'm going to stop. Maybe some day I'll rewatch the movie (or one of the dozen extended editions) and do a more thorough write-up. There were a lot of points brought up in the thread so I'll try to address a few of them quickly.
The movie was supposed to be from the view of Ptolemy: From what I remember, there was one scene where Ptolemy actually had spoken lines within the narrative itself.
What about Seleucus: Seleucus didn't really do much until we start getting to India. Even then, his main function during Alexander's life was in the royal guard and role as military police chief. There are the propaganda stories of the bull and the diadem, but unless you want to make a sequel, putting them in there only detracts from the main story.
*"Back and to the left! Back and to the left!" - Seriously? You have absolutely no freaking clue what is going on in your own damn movie and the best you can do is enter a reference to the movie you made on the JFK assassination? Also, the music sucked.
EDIT: According to the_persian_cataphract, the representation of the Persian army is also quite bad. Search the forum for an extensive analysis on this.
Horatius
01-14-2010, 23:45
I didn't like the movie, and for historical accuracy it got some things wrong, but that isn't what was wrong with it.
Does Alexander ever give a reason for wanting to destroy the Persian Empire or is that major part of the plot rest 100% with the viewer?
IrishHitman
01-15-2010, 00:00
I found the odd accents too distracting.
Farrell either can't or won't do accents- so suddenly every Macedonian has an Irish accent. OK. I can see the logic there- make them fit in with Alexander. Except Ptolemy. Hopkins does do accents, but maybe his Irish one is bad. So one Macedonian general sounds Welsh.
Then Olympias gets given a cod-Transylvanian accent- perhaps Jolie looked it up on the map and that's the closest she could do.
Really distracting from the actual plot. Which didn't cover anything very well from a historical viewpoint. It came close to doing well as a story of Alexander's personality and how it changed. But for that you need to include his time in Egypt, I think, which didn't happen.
What are we left with from the general slating it's being given? The pikes looked good at Gaugamela, and Babylon was spectacular.
_____________
You can explain the absence of Seluekos quite easily. It's Ptolemy doing the narrating.
Not only do they have Irish accents, but they have Cork accents.
Heresy of heresies!
Some people around here joke that "Alexander" is actually about the People's Republic of Cork conquering Persia.
Not only do they have Irish accents, but they have Cork accents.
Heresy of heresies!
Some people around here joke that "Alexander" is actually about the People's Republic of Cork conquering Persia.
wut? I'm not Irish, so pardon my ignorance, but is there something I missed about Cork here? and, come to think of it, why is Cork called Cork? wierd name when you think about it.
anyways;
Stone also seems to have a hard time with hitting major "beats" successfully. He creates opportunities for himself, but veers widely from the mark. Even ignoring how confusing and poorly laid out the battle sequences are - nonsensical even* - he completely butchered the pre-battle speech at Gaugamela. Rather than focusing on every word Alexander says in order to hype the audience and pull them into the movie, he has the camera chasing this eagle around in the sky. You don't really bother following what Alexander is saying. It's pointless to even have it in the film then if you don't focus on it.
well, I'm not really here to add original opinion, but I do want to comment additionally to abou:
well, to quote spoony: "HMMMM that's good Macguffin". sarcasm aside, I find Oliver stone's use of the Macguffin (yes, that's what its called (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macguffin)), especially that annoying eagle, the creepy Snake scene, and the cave, to be very confused. And its kinda unecessary. I feel that Stone could have cut them up, and replace them with more fighting. I know that the 1956 version was WAY better, even if its not as accurate aethetically* (when compared to research as of 2004). it had 3 or 4 battles, and a siege or two. compare that to 2 fighting scenes in Alexander (2004). granted, there's excessive exposition in both movies, but the latter movie is WAY to exposition-ridden.**
Another really annoying problem with the movie was the way it kept jumping chronology. One moment Alexander is in Babylon, the next, the dip---- cuts to the point where Philip gets bumped off, or some similar scene from the period before Alexander's Kingship, which as mentioned above is unncessary exposition. it even affects the battles, where, as abou complained, keeps jumping from one flank to another. once or twice might be okay, but half-dozen or so? nah
but to me, the most disappointing aspect of the movie was simply the lack of campaigning history (as abou said). Its Alexander for God's sake, not some movie version of the young and the restless, which is what is frankly came accross as. I'd expect more marching, fighting, speeches, and all that other war stuff. The general audience is not interested in the full sex life of Alexander, or whether he has an Oedipus complex or not; people, when they see that promo poster/trailer, expect fighting, carnage, and gore. think on it: the promotional poster indicated little of what the movie was going to be, and was somewhat misleading. just look:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/AlexanderPoster.jpg
just Alexander (in full armor), with his parent in the background, along with large masses of soldiers. One, at most, expects something of the parents, and perhaps, Ptolemy (who is hidden in the background, in a "hidden" corner). Now you fellas realize why the movie tanked in America? in fact, the gain was minimal for such a large budget movie.
overall, Alexander suffers from many of the problems that Oliver Sone movies suffer from: too much personal exposition and out of place macguffins, that lend a feeling of crappy alternate theory movies, like those crappy Graham Hancock documentaries that say aliens built the pyramids or some similar crud...
*yeah, I know the Iranian people were innacurately depicted.
**yes, I think the 1956 Alexander was better as a movie. there is NO convincing me.
IrishHitman
01-15-2010, 02:13
wut? I'm not Irish, so pardon my ignorance, but is there something I missed about Cork here? and, come to think of it, why is Cork called Cork? wierd name when you think about it.
Well, Cork people consider themselves "different" to the rest of the country.
Hence the "People's Republic of Cork", the "Rebel County" and "The Real Capital of Ireland" being their self proclaimed nicknames...
Cork is called Cork because the English couldn't be arsed with "Corcaigh".
athanaric
01-15-2010, 02:53
Maybe Peter Jackson?
The guy who screwed Lord of the Rings, in just as pathetical a way as Stone screwed Alexander? Better not think about that.
Really good critiques here, by the way.
Well, Cork people consider themselves "different" to the rest of the country.
Hence the "People's Republic of Cork", the "Rebel County" and "The Real Capital of Ireland" being their self proclaimed nicknames...
Cork is called Cork because the English couldn't be arsed with "Corcaigh".
wow...talk about pride. so I guess this city is to Ireland what Texas is to the US?
well, at least I now know what this city's actual name is.:balloon2:
OP, forget what everyone said. Just kidding. Listen, though, and listen well. Know that whether or not Alexander the film was an accurate representation of Alexander the Great is not as important as another question. That is, was Alexander right in killing so many people? Macedonians died, Persians died, and many others whose people's I very sadly do not know the names of as I haven't looked into Alex's life. Was it right? Did all those litre's of blood really need spilling? Think on it over the weekend. I know you will see it.
Peace,
Vartan
oudysseos
01-15-2010, 04:55
wow...talk about pride. so I guess this city is to Ireland what Texas is to the US?
That's an interesting comparison :laugh4:.
well, at least I now know what this city's actual name is.:balloon2:
Yes, Corcaigh means "The Land of the Hairy-backed Bog Savages". For more information on this fascinating and exotic city, go here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc4Co-T_b6A&feature=related).
It's directed by Oliver Stone, it is terrible by definition.
Dutchhoplite
01-15-2010, 10:04
Just be happy Mel Gibson didn't direct it http://i.fokzine.net/s/puh2.gif
satalexton
01-15-2010, 10:41
oh c'mon, there's one redeeming factor: The Phalanx.
Those 3-4 short minutes of phalangitai in actions sooths me like warm cocao...far better than the nonsense on 'history' channel...
...as for the rest, let's ignore 'em >_>
Macilrille
01-15-2010, 11:14
SO, for me, more negative than positive. Could've and should've been great. Ollie really missed the mark on that one- but on the other hand, I'm glad that Ridley Scott didn't have a go at it. I'm so tired of his bombast. Maybe Peter Jackson?
I hope you are joking :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:
I never saw Alex for the same reason I see no historical films. But as part of a Viking Job I had to endure all thee PJ botch-ups of TLotR in gear. I wanted to find him, challenge him to a duel and cut him open so I could se the guts spilling from his fat belly while he tried in vain to keep them in. :skull::skull::skull::skull::skull:
Just be happy Mel Gibson didn't direct it http://i.fokzine.net/s/puh2.gif
Would have had more spanking in it, and the Brits would invariably be put in a bad light in some way.
Also, it probably would've had included an insane Thraikian who claimed to speak to Zeus (Stephen was the only thing that made Braveheart good).
antisocialmunky
01-15-2010, 14:45
I hlike how you think, Hax.
athanaric
01-15-2010, 15:11
But as part of a Viking Job I had to endure all thee PJ botch-ups of TLotR in gear. I wanted to find him, challenge him to a duel and cut him open so I could se the guts spilling from his fat belly while he tried in vain to keep them in. :skull::skull::skull::skull::skull:
Assuming of course you find him before I run him over with a tank.
"I like big fat men like you. When they fall they make more noise. And sometimes they don't get up." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060196/quotes)
oh c'mon, there's one redeeming factor: The Phalanx.
Yeah, and some nice stills of Babylon etc. (also to be found in EB I). But pictures and scenery isn't all. If somebody screws up the story and perverts the main characters, the movie becomes twisted, making it even worse than a plain bad film with no qualities to it.
No more slasher-fantasies involving Hollywood persona, please. You are free not to like them, but then you are free not to watch their work, too.
athanaric
01-15-2010, 15:46
You are free not to like them, but then you are free not to watch their work, too.
Not quite, Ludens. The world we live in forces these painful images into our minds to stay there forever, via marketing (ads screaming at you on every corner) as well as via your fellow human beings. You wanna talk about history or great works of fiction with other people, and it turns out all they know (and believe in) is the distorted stuff they saw in a film or a documentary.
Images are powerful, much more than words. Every journalist or historian knows this. Filmmakers have a responsibility.
oh c'mon, there's one redeeming factor: The Phalanx.
Yeah it was nice to see the box technique used to trap the chariots at Gaugamela being portrayed.
The major annoyance for me was Colin Bloody Farrell.....why oh why him of all people?:wall:
Skullheadhq
01-15-2010, 17:42
Not quite, Ludens. The world we live in forces these painful images into our minds to stay there forever, via marketing (ads screaming at you on every corner) as well as via your fellow human beings. You wanna talk about history or great works of fiction with other people, and it turns out all they know (and believe in) is the distorted stuff they saw in a film or a documentary.
Images are powerful, much more than words. Every journalist or historian knows this. Filmmakers have a responsibility.
WIN!
This is sadly true, my friends thought the persians used rhinos and where all pierced after they watched 300 :wall:
Macilrille
01-15-2010, 19:53
No more slasher-fantasies involving Hollywood persona, please. You are free not to like them, but then you are free not to watch their work, too.
This is not actually true, as I said it was part of a job- a very painful part. Much worse than when Jakob chopped me with his daneaxe...
That being said, we should keep on topic, but I can hardly express my intense dislike for PJ any other way without it being too weak.
Back to topic, Alex, I have not seen it for the same reason I very- very rarely see historical films (Stalingrad is great though). But one thing I applaud about it is (if it is true) that they hired an Ex Marine Drill Instructor to make the phalangati move in unison by drilling them then drilling them some more. If true, I like that aspect.
one thing I applaud about it is (if it is true) that they hired an Ex Marine Drill Instructor to make the phalangati move in unison by drilling them then drilling them some more. If true, I like that aspect.
you mean Dale Dye? yeah, he's good.
WIN!
This is sadly true, my friends thought the persians used rhinos and where all pierced after they watched 300 :wall:
Nobody can be THAT dumb ... I teach history to 12 year olds and even they know thats not true.
Nobody can be THAT dumb ... I teach history to 12 year olds and even they know thats not true.
yes, they can. in fact, they can be dumber (https://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4) (warning; extremely stupid behavior on his part). though yes, most people aren't like that, and hank God for it.
anyways: yes, people are really this influenced by movies/TV. I have people come to me saying the dumbest things abou dinosaurs, usually from movies and cheesy television series.:wall:
mountaingoat
01-16-2010, 03:28
doyouthinkhesaurus?
Skullheadhq
01-16-2010, 10:11
Nobody can be THAT dumb.
In fact, it was a real discussion during History class!
We were 13y old then, but I [played EB back then as well.
Macilrille
01-16-2010, 10:16
Ye Gods, and here I cannot get a job teaching history and enlightening youth here in Denmark...
NeoSpartan
01-16-2010, 13:55
Ye Gods, and here I cannot get a job teaching history and enlightening youth here in Denmark...
hum... try applying to a school/college in the US.
My Middle East/North Africa history professor is from Germany. He has been in the US for 3 years now. There are quite a few faculty like that.
p.s might be a little harder now due to the economy being slow as *****
Not quite, Ludens. The world we live in forces these painful images into our minds to stay there forever, via marketing (ads screaming at you on every corner) as well as via your fellow human beings. You wanna talk about history or great works of fiction with other people, and it turns out all they know (and believe in) is the distorted stuff they saw in a film or a documentary.
Images are powerful, much more than words. Every journalist or historian knows this. Filmmakers have a responsibility.
Fair point, and I agree to some extent. Still, wishing that Jackson dies an agonizing death for not treating LotR with respect is a bit... excessive. He is a story-teller, and is entitled to his own vision of the story just as much as you are.
There are many things wrong about today's media culture, but Peter Jackson is not the only one responsible for this.
HunGeneral
01-16-2010, 19:01
anyways: yes, people are really this influenced by movies/TV. I have people come to me saying the dumbest things abou dinosaurs, usually from movies and cheesy television series.:wall:
In fact, it was a real discussion during History class!
We were 13y old then, but I [played EB back then as well.
Well thats how we humans are: basicly stupid and if done right easy to influence. No wonder most Republics simply don't work as they should...
There are many things wrong about today's media culture, but Peter Jackson is not the only one responsible for this.
Thats true.
Macilrille
01-16-2010, 19:10
Fair point, and I agree to some extent. Still, wishing that Jackson dies an agonizing death for not treating LotR with respect is a bit... excessive. He is a story-teller, and is entitled to his own vision of the story just as much as you are.
There are many things wrong about today's media culture, but Peter Jackson is not the only one responsible for this.
Nope but he is the Kurt Westergaard of Tolkien, and I will even give him a fair chance to defend himself mano-a-mano ;-)
Let us get back to EB discussions anyway, I have no more to say that will not derail things even more.
Hetairos Alexandrou
01-18-2010, 03:00
Back to topic?
The third cut of the film is better organised, and the battle scenes are much better.
Agreed. I've got Alexander Revisited, which is not only longer, but goes around Alexander's relationships a bit more and has bloodier battle scenes - seeing a hypaspist's head getting smushed to jelly by Elephantes Indikoi is niiiiice!
And on a side note, however bad people think the film was, I think we can all agree on the score - LEGENDARY. Very atmospheric. I'm currently using it as background music to my Makedonian campaign.
satalexton
01-18-2010, 09:44
I still stand by the battle scenes, especially the phalangitai. Seeing them joyfully slaughter their foes makes me scream "ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!!" everytime.
I still stand by the battle scenes, especially the phalangitai. Seeing them joyfully slaughter their foes makes me scream "ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!!" everytime.
We have medicine for this, you know that?
mountaingoat
01-18-2010, 10:40
We have medicine for this, you know that?
gladius?
satalexton
01-18-2010, 11:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc_qVDvSnVU
ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!!!
HunGeneral
01-18-2010, 11:30
We have medicine for this, you know that?
Arrow between the eyes?
Althoug who needs medicine for that?
ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA:clown:
We need to get those Makedophile Romaioktonoi out.
I think it sucked! Battle scenes alrighty, but the rest...i don´t know. 2 much of everything.
HunGeneral
01-18-2010, 15:07
We need to get those Makedophile Romaioktonoi out.
Asking them to keep to themself and behave has brought the best results so far.
Get back to the topic, guys.
Metaluis90
01-19-2010, 21:52
cool movie
M to the A
01-20-2010, 01:03
Hated it, and Alexander is my hero =( <3
That said, can't wait for Vin Diesels movie about Carthage :sweatdrop:
It did dissapoint me, not because of historical issues. But because of the movie itself. Stone can do much better, he knows it, we all know it. Movies like natural born killers were great. I think he just wanted to do a film, that wasn't really within his genre. Sadly it showed. He still is a great director though.
@ least a movie was attempted. I wish more were attempted. I guess it just costs too much to make one (shoot me now...darned independent film-making).
@ least a movie was attempted. I wish more were attempted. I guess it just costs too much to make one (shoot me now...darned independent film-making).
honestly, they should just make cartoons if money is such an issue in historical movies.:clown:
but I actually wish it had never been attempted-at least not by Stone.
delablake
01-20-2010, 08:11
I loved the modern English descriptions on the mosaic, at the beginning of the movie, when Aristotel explains the world to the boys...Greece Asia Egypt and so on...as well as Alex himself: when scribbling his treasured thoughts it's actually: English, just written in a fashion that should hint it is Classical Greek. Try a screen-freeze and check it out
Skullheadhq
01-20-2010, 12:56
Can't those actors just learn ancient greek?!
Can't those actors just learn ancient greek?!
considering that many an actor have all the IQ of a Goldfish, no.
seriously now: it would be nice, but its expensive iirc, and its kinda unnecessary for a movie IMHO.
Can't those actors just learn ancient greek?!
A lot barely even know English! And why would they? Apparently you can even become governor without being able to speak english properly. So why even bother learning foreign languages?
Either way I don't think that's even necessary. And it isn't what broke the movie.
oudysseos
01-21-2010, 16:03
Just be happy Mel Gibson didn't direct it.
Why?
1. It would have been in Greek (although there is a good chance he would have gotten the exact dialect wrong). This means no dodgy accents.
2. The action scenes would probably have been done better. More explicitly gory, anyways.
3. Would have been at least as historically accurate as Stone, as far as costumes and scenery went.
4. Mel might have gone for less well known actors- altogether a good thing, methinks. No Colin Farrell (and there was much rejoicing). Who knows, he might even have cast actual Greeks.
5. Unlikely to have gone for the 70s mop top look.
6. Mel has his faults, but visually, both Apocalypto and the Passion were stunning. What he would need is an Executive Producer to kick his ass twice a day to keep him from being too Mel Gibsony. Chuck Norris could do that.
But leaving Mel aside, if the movie were being done from scratch, who would we want to act in it- assuming that we'd trash the entire cast of Stone's movie. Ideas?
Alexander:
Hephaistion:
Philip: Nick Nolte.
Olympias:
Ptolemy:
Aristotle: Liam Neeson
Skullheadhq
01-21-2010, 16:46
Alexander: Me?
Hephaistion:
Philip: Nick Nolte.
Olympias:
Ptolemy:
Aristotle: Liam Neeson
Vilkku92
01-21-2010, 17:01
The movie was OK. It was entertaining in normal Hollywood-style, which means it wasn't bad. It was visually good, it wasn't boring but quite fascinating, and director actually tried instead of going on autopilot. However, instead of good it could have been great!
As allready mentioned, the movie needed more battles. Alexander was a great war-leader, but we had only two battles. They were done quite well, but there wasn't enough of them. There was also too much focus on Alexander's bisexuality, which took time from more important things. Then again, Alexanders life had too much events to have them all in one movie, but focus could have been elswhere. Also other elements of Alexander's person could have been included, as the movie was more about Alexander himself than his life.
Oh, and Collin Farrel was a bad choice, he looked like being panicking all the time.
This post is entirely my own opinion, and if you are offended by me not hating the movie, feel free not post about it here. :clown:
Cullhwch
01-21-2010, 17:59
Damn, Top Gun-era Val Kilmer would have made a perfect Alexander.
Oh, and anything about Alexander should be a trilogy. Start with Chaeronea, end with Ipsus.
Christopher Walken as Ptolemaios II:
"This is a story my..mother used to tell me, when I was younger, before she hit her head on a hoplon..and died. There's this guy, called Alexander. He went to Persia and killed all of those Persian :daisy:"
Just imagine it..
MButcher
01-21-2010, 18:56
Christopher Walken as Ptolemaios II:
"This is a story my..mother used to tell me, when I was younger, before she hit her head on a hoplon..and died. There's this guy, called Alexander. He went to Persia and killed all of those Persian :daisy:"
Just imagine it..
Well thank you. Now I won't be able to read his revenue laws without hearing Christopher Walken in my head talking about cow bells.
On the movie itself, I enjoyed it, except for the scenes where it's only Alexander and Olympias. I just fast forward through those two.
Christopher Walken as Ptolemaios II:
"This is a story my..mother used to tell me, when I was younger, before she hit her head on a hoplon..and died. There's this guy, called Alexander. He went to Persia and killed all of those Persian mother:daisy:ers"
Just imagine it..
you should see the guy in the Ripper (a video game he helped in).:clown:
I have to agree with Cullwuch though: a trilogy would be awesome. In fact, I now see it:
1-Mel Gibson is the director
2-greek and persian actors
3-a trilogy.
Apázlinemjó
01-21-2010, 20:04
1-Mel Gibson is the director
You're jokin' right?
On the other two points, I agree with you and the others.
satalexton
01-22-2010, 03:22
A trilogy would be nice...Then you can throw in prequels and sequels afterwards...like the Gaza Campaign (hint hint) and the rise of Phillipos...
...I still liked the way how the phalangitai were depicted. ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!!
Horatius
01-22-2010, 04:19
To be honest I didn't like the movie, but why all of the hate for it?
It wasn't Oliver Stone's best work, infact most of his work is not his best work, but at least it's better then King Arthur.
Your acting like it is
At best this movie was only half done, but most movies are at best only half done when they are released without any character development and many bad points and limited acting.
You're jokin' right?
On the other two points, I agree with you and the others.
its obviously a bit of a joke.
personally, I think its better if a historian did it.
Vilkku92
01-23-2010, 18:13
I think it would be better, if historians would do manuscript, costumes and scenery, and the rest would be left for professional film-makers and actors.
anubis88
01-23-2010, 20:54
I just watched the film once again after this thread.
It definetly has it's moments.
I love the fact that at the Battle of Gaugamela, they showeed the Macedonian center, left and right...
It really gave that epic look to the battle
I like the movie. Despite all historical failures, it is the movie with the least failures compared to all others coping with ancient history. Or? Please point a better one to me (and please don't mention Kingdoms of Heaven). It gives a small impression how phalanx combat might have been. The battle of Hydaspes of course is ridiculous. The equipment of the soldiers is of course not historically accurate, but it is surprisingly near-accurate in some cases. Alexanders wicked character is shown a little bit, but that is the worst aspect of the movie; I would have liked much more social interaction with the soldiers and the generals. Even the length of the movie and the sometimes boredom coupled with it has some positive meanings for me.
If Mel Gibson would have made the movie? Hmm, Alex would have been a family guy, trying to implement a Christian forerunner religion by conquering the world, throwing out of windows all homosexuals? Something like that I guess.
Macilrille
01-24-2010, 11:05
I think it would be better, if historians would do manuscript, costumes and scenery, and the rest would be left for professional film-makers and actors.
Unfortunately all films would be 10+ hours long and boring to 99.9 % of any audience. We historians do not learn the knack of writing in catching and exiting ways, which is why we write so few historical novels, films and games; the place where the most people gets their information from. This is somewhat sad, but even I- who considers it sad- have not yet done so.
Unfortunately all films would be 10+ hours long and boring to 99.9 % of any audience. We historians do not learn the knack of writing in catching and exiting ways, which is why we write so few historical novels, films and games; the place where the most people gets their information from. This is somewhat sad, but even I- who considers it sad- have not yet done so.
The movie was cool, yup. But Macilrille I'm having trouble following the wording in your paragraph. When you say 'have not yet done so' what are you referring to? have no yet done what? :dizzy2:
antisocialmunky
01-24-2010, 19:50
We should make a machima using EB.
We should make a machima using EB.
Or maybe you should get your guys together like you planned and make reenactments, so we can get them edited and up on youtube already! I've been waiting for those, hand me over the replays!
Macilrille
01-25-2010, 01:23
The movie was cool, yup. But Macilrille I'm having trouble following the wording in your paragraph. When you say 'have not yet done so' what are you referring to? have no yet done what? :dizzy2:
Written a few historical novels, films or game. I do write historical roleplaing campaigns for my friends though; gaming every Thursday.
Written a few historical novels, films or game. I do write historical roleplaing campaigns for my friends though; gaming every Thursday.
Sounds so fun. Wish I could do that! :2thumbsup:
Macilrille
01-25-2010, 18:47
It is, they get to play Romans on Cimbria Chersonesos 47 BC this time. But you could, IMO it is a nice way of propagating history and historical knowledge. Even if the audience is limited.
Krusader
01-25-2010, 19:03
Written a few historical novels, films or game. I do write historical roleplaing campaigns for my friends though; gaming every Thursday.
Being a RPG junkie this is intrigueing...what game system?
Being a RPG junkie this is intrigueing...what game system?
I think he was referring to pen(cil), paper, and imagination game system :laugh4:
Krusader
01-25-2010, 22:06
I think he was referring to pen(cil), paper, and imagination game system :laugh4:
Actually, the term 'game system' is also used for rules sets when it comes to pen&paper RPGs too ~:)
Macilrille
01-26-2010, 00:33
Definately. This one runs using my friend Oleg's DBA-inspired "Skirmish" rules, only us in the group knows them. He has recently put the "modern-ish" (Musket, and early modern versions) online I think, and I lobby for him to put Skirmish there as well. When I get the green light I will show you a link if interested.
Examples of our campaigns:
Takshendal (http://takshendal.blogspot.com/) (Jan)
Rocketman (http://brookehurst.blogspot.com/) (Jan)
Turbator Germania (http://turbator.blogspot.com/) (me)
Jan runs the best games I have participated in and heard about since I started 1986, Oleg who started 1976 agrees.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.