alexander...the movie

[VAE VICTUS]

ok just wacthed ALEXANDER the movie.ok from a movie goer stand point i liked it.from a historical standpoint im not sure.i read alexander the great by peter green last year.but forgot a lot of it.so can anyone point out the historical errs?i have some i think,but im not sure.but was alexander's "GRAND PLAN" of mixing races and making europe and asia one,was there ever any kind of inkling of this in the annals of true history?and if so did he mean it,or did he merely lust for power?

[Colovion]

After reading Alexander of Macedon by Harold Lamb (which is essentially a biography) I can say from what they portrayed, it was relatively similar to the biography. They obviously missed huge events in the movie like the Seige of Tyre and others, but what they were displaying turned out rather well in my mind. I wasn't expecting the best movie ever, but in general it was very similar. He was a Macedonian who fell in love with the Greek culture and then later, much more so, to the Eastern culture. In doing that I believe he became the epitome of what he desired; everyone to accept and appreciate everyone else's cultures.

[Byzantine Prince]

I love how people in the west consider northern greeks, non-greeks, or barbarians. This despite the fact that we had the same names, language, religion, and culture. What do you guys need a birth certificate of every northern greek for the past 6,000 year? :laugh:

Yeah the movie was good, but it's not one that I would want to buy. There are some lame parts that could have been better. Also why on earth did they have to shoot in northern Africa?!? That's why it cost them so much money, they could have easily done it on the deserts of California and Nevada, but NOOOO. ~D

[caesar44]

Maybe he was Graeco-Macedonian ? ~D

[The Stranger]

the movie sucked, but from historical view it was oke. but it still sucked, atleast it wasnt worth paying $9 for

[Taurus]

I did not like the movie one bit. There should have been a lot more battles in that film and a lot less scenes reminding us of ALexander's preferences. ALso the battles that were included like Gaugamela were only about 3 minutes long. They could have made that film a lot better imo.

[The Marcher Lord]

Hated that film, what a lost opportunity to make something truly great with all that money - and what do we get ? Irish accents everywhere, that god awful Vangelis type music, annoying long stretches of narration by Antony Hopkins, rubbish sets full of ridiculously clean ornaments and structures that looked like they had been bleached before they were stuck in front of the camera, hilarious wigs, duff acting. The only bit I enjoyed was the Indian elephant attack which was very dramatic and well filmed, but completely inaccurate.

[VAE VICTUS]

Hated that film, what a lost opportunity to make something truly great with all that money - and what do we get ? Irish accents everywhere, that god awful Vangelis type music, annoying long stretches of narration by Antony Hopkins, rubbish sets full of ridiculously clean ornaments and structures that looked like they had been bleached before they were stuck in front of the camera, hilarious wigs, duff acting. The only bit I enjoyed was the Indian elephant attack which was very dramatic and well filmed, but completely inaccurate.

how was the elephant scene inaccurate?just curious.

[The Marcher Lord]

That last battle seemed to be a summarised mish mash of all of Alexanders battles in NW India. I took it to be the battle at Hydaspes versus Porus's elephants, but that actually took place on the open floodplain of a river, not in dense jungle. Alexander was wounded by an arrow in a battle for one of the Indian cities rather than at Hydaspes. It is difficult to believe that Alexander would have fielded his army in a jungle situation - the scene with the phalanx flailing about amongst creeper laden trees and cavalry charging through jungle just did not ring true for me.

[Colovion]

I love how people in the west consider northern greeks, non-greeks, or barbarians. This despite the fact that we had the same names, language, religion, and culture. What do you guys need a birth certificate of every northern greek for the past 6,000 year? :laugh:


I'm not pulling this stuff out of the air, I'm pulling it from Greeks writers such as Demosthenes. He lived at that time, he was a Greek, and he didn't see Macedonians as Greeks at all. Couple that with Alexander having Macedonian and Epirote royal blood in him, being born in Macedon and being raised there, I fail to see the Greek ethnicity. Oh by the way this:


the same names, language, religion, and culture.

is complete Greek revisionism and total bollocks. Educated peoples of the day, and merchants, would use Greek to speak with eachother. Alexander spoke Greek, but he would use his native tongue to call on his troops as they spoke Macedonian primarily. Do a little more reading on the subject - I've had this discussion with many people and the other side never have anything other than grand conjecture and blatantly false assumptions thrown around.

[Kraxis]

Keep the politics out please... We all know the arguments and counterarguments. And we all have out idea of the truth, and I can safely say that noone will back down. So what is the point of the argument? NONE!!!

So please do not continue this. It is about the movie not about Alexander's ethnicity.

I actually liked the movie.
It had the balls to show him as a slowly degrading man with a genius on the battlefield. Most other movies would have presented him as a conquering hero all along with a sly smile or a deep frown as he contemplated the future. You know, mythical status.

I'm sad, though, that Tyre or Gaza was left out (save a short comment on Gaza). I'm also sad about the confusing pace of events. At one point Alexander storms out of the palace, the next he is at Gaugamela... To anyone who doesn't know the events would be quite confused, and I know several people who did get confused.
I did like how we folloed the army to end of the 'world', to see how they suffered, how they began to struggle against Alexander and finally forced him home. It did give the movie a streak of mythological events. Not the least because Alexander and his buddies kept talking about other mythical events.
The battle of Hydaspes was to say the least, very impressive, but unlike the rest of the movie it was horribly ahistorical. The only historical parts was the fact that the elephants did pressure the phalanx, the rest you can throw out, including the setting.

All in all it was worth it for me, perhaps because the view I had of Alexander was that of a semi-crazy man, so it fitted well with the movie.

[eadeater]

Terrible movie - but his lady friend was very nice ~D ~D ~D

[caesar44]

With 200,000,000 $ even I could have done a better movie :balloon2: :charge:

[Kraxis]

With 200,000,000 $ even I could have done a better movie :balloon2: :charge:
Wishful thinking...

[caesar44]

No , just an opinion .
(please notice the "even I" , me so modest ~D )

[AquaLurker]

I appreciate movies that dare to dwell on historical controversies so... yes I like it very much. ~:)

[Gurkhal]

I have to say I thought it was pretty good. That much of the battles were sumerised into two bigger ones didn't really make me mad, and I think it was good that it wasn't just several hours of fighting and dying but dialoge and such.

A good movie, even if not exceptionelly good.

[Soulforged]

I never saw any movie from Oliver Stone wich sucks. This is not the exception. I also liked how Alexandros is painted as an human and later idealized as a myth. And someone talked about the sets, man if you see the work that they do to do such thing you will be grateful of seing such an splendid Babylon, the only film with greatests sets that i've seen is perhaps The Lord of the Rings. And the movie is about Alexander not about the battles, so they tried to see the human behind the general as far as one could tell, and do some mention to the battles and history so everybody is advised.

[VAE VICTUS]

Terrible movie - but his lady friend was very nice ~D ~D ~D

hell yeah,he shuold have been like hephaiston who
?!?!?! ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~D ~D ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This is the third thread on this movie and it still sucks. Even more of a let down than RTW. Well maybe not that bad. ~;)

[VAE VICTUS]

BUT THEY LEFT OUT TARSUS!!!!!(thats my fav. part of alex. except for when he fights porus)

also,did the elephants break the phalanx?

[Kraxis]

No, not really, neither in real life nor in the movie, but they inflicted serious losses on the troops. Perhaps that is an indicator of them actually breaking through but the breakthrough was dealt with by light troops? Who knows. But the result was a bad scare for the phalangites.

[edyzmedieval]

I liked the movie, especially the battle. But it was as I expected it to be. Not very good, average movie.

I prefer much much more Kingdom of Heaven.

As for historical stuff, the phalanxes really had a good scare.

[Advo-san]

I'm not pulling this stuff out of the air, I'm pulling it from Greeks writers such as Demosthenes. He lived at that time, he was a Greek, and he didn't see Macedonians as Greeks at all.
"Blessed are the poor-minded, for they will inherit the kingdom of heaven". Demosthenes was an ATHENIAN retor (=polititian) that was trying to persuade the Athenians to march against Phillipe (Alexander's father) in order to save an Athenian city named Olynthos which was invaded by Phillip :book: How 's THAT for history knowledge???

@Colovion: I ve read all three Dimosthene's speaches written against Phillipe. His argument about the barbaric, non-greek nature of the Macedonians is so feeble even Dimosthenes is not bothering to back it up. He is just throwing insults on Phillipe.
But, you preffer to ignore things as the language of the macedonians (not their trading language, but the language CARVED ON THEIR GRAVES), their gods and culture. Did you know ARISTOTLE WAS ALSO MACEDONIAN, from a village named Stageira? Mabe he wasn't Greek too, ha!!
Mabe you should pay a visit to Phillip's the barbarian grave, and read the scripts carved on it. It is GREEK. Ask a Greek to translate it for you. It is his native language.

[Steppe Merc]

Language is not the same as culture always.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I never saw any movie from Oliver Stone wich sucks. This is not the exception. I also liked how Alexandros is painted as an human and later idealized as a myth. And someone talked about the sets, man if you see the work that they do to do such thing you will be grateful of seing such an splendid Babylon, the only film with greatests sets that i've seen is perhaps The Lord of the Rings. And the movie is about Alexander not about the battles, so they tried to see the human behind the general as far as one could tell, and do some mention to the battles and history so everybody is advised.

Soul':

Boy do you and I differ on Stone.

I have never seen one of his movies that didn't end badly. He does some wonderful things, and the first 2/3rds of every film are powerful and compelling. Then, just as you are looking for a smooth finish, he goes and hammers his point at you in an overly obvious and over-preachy way. It's almost insulting to the intelligence after the thematic development of the rest of the film.

Seamus

[pezhetairoi]

They left out the Gordian Knot (which I think would have been a great insight into his personality if they wanted to study him as a person), they left out Siwa (or did they? I can't recall) but the most offensive, they left out the historical accuracy!

Firstly. At Gaugamela, Alexander's life was saved by Cleitus the Black who tells him to be more careful next time. Nonsense. That happened at the Granicus, not at Gaugamela.

Secondly. There was no infantry charge at Gaugamela. The battle opened and was mainly the action of cavalry. The infantry only clashed when they were very close together, and Alex was breaking through them. Most of what the infantry did was running away and being gunned down--I mean, speared, by pursuing horsemen.

Thirdly. Rhoxana in the movie is too big-sized (and her boobs are a tad too big too.) for a Central Asian.

Fourthly. Hydaspes (as has been mentioned) was fought on a floodplain, not in a jungle.

Fifthly. Why the hell is Roxana trying to kill Alexander?

Sixthly. Whatever happened to the sack of Persepolis?

Seventhly. The Siege of Tyre, though that's justifiable given the focus on Alex as a person, not as commander.

Eighthly. Darius...wearing eyeshadow? Suffice it to say that Alexander was at least a better movie than Troy (oh my eyes still hurt when I remember watching that show).

Ninth. The Indian longbowmen, according to historical sources, were actually unable to muster a volley of the destructiveness we saw in the movie. Firstly, Hydaspes was fought in heavy rain, or at least just after it. The Indians are reported as not even being able to string their bows, since it was their habit to string the bow by bracing the bow on the ground, and the ground was soft, which defeats the purpose. Also, their strings would have been hopelessly wet by the damp. Also, the Indian longbows were frankly overstated in power since they were in reality cane bows without recurving etc. So what if they were longbows?

I know that the phalanx would have been OOOOHHHH for me if I hadn't played RTW for so many months beforehand ;-) But now I'm just like, 'stupid persians, don't attack head-on! stupid chariots too!' xP

It was kinda touching to see the appropriate equipment on the soldiers too, frankly. Touching. And it was mildly surprising (it should be very surprising that I should be even mildly surprised) that the Persians weren't wearing uni-coloured pajamas. Ahem.

Ah well. My two cents worth. I once made a list of 52 errors in Troy, based on historical/archaeological knowledge and my reading of the Iliad. But, ah well.

[Soulforged]

Thirdly. Rhoxana in the movie is too big-sized (and her boobs are a tad too big too.) for a Central Asian.

Well i don't mind this really ~;) . And you cannot state this as a principle, just as a probability.


Sixthly. Whatever happened to the sack of Persepolis?

Oliver Stone sais it: "Too god damn much history on this man...". When you're a director you've to state your point before start the movie and decide what parts are in and what parts not. But as far as i can say it was not so historically innacurate, there were far more worser than this. For me it was a redemption from "Troy" (if i see Brad Pitt here in any time i will stick a lance throu his body and then run in circles around the Obelisco), and a really great movie.
Sorry Seamus but i must disagree. Have you seen "Salvador" it's an independent that uses the little budget to make surprising things, both historically accurate, impressing and realistic. The ends matter very little in his movies, is about stating facts when he's good, and don't give any message (the only thing i didn't like about "Alexander").

[Advo-san]

Language is not the same as culture always.
Very true, indeed, but it is a sign,no? So, we have a person whose:
1) Name is as greek as it gets, since it consists of two greek words put together, meaning the Defender.
2) He speaks greek.
3) His teacher was one of the most famous greek philosophers.
4) His favourite book to read was the Heliade.
5) His favourite hero was Achilles.
6) He offered a bull to Zeus the soonest he sat foot in asia.
7) His father's name was greek, two greek words put together meaning the friend of horses.
8) His mother's name was greek, named after the Divine mountain of Olympus.
9) The scripts on his father's tomb are greek.
10)He even gave his horse the greek name "voukefalas" meaning "the bull-headed".

On the other side, you have an enemy politician named Demosthenes who called Phillip "a barbarian", period.

The conclusions are yours.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=pezhetairoi]They left out the Gordian Knot (which I think would have been a great insight into his personality if they wanted to study him as a person)

Agreed , but on second thought , maybe they knew that it is only a legend , ha ?

[Adrian II]

Agreed , but on second thought , maybe they knew that it is only a legend , ha ?Right. I haven't seen the film and I don't know if I will bother, but it strikes me as odd that people demand realism from a film. That is about as unreal as demanding realism from a Total War game.

Films tell stories, and every story-teller knows that in order to tell a good story, no matter what it is about, you have to introduce artificial elements such as the age-old unity of time, place and action. Without an inner logic to the images portrayed, the characters presented, the words spoken, audiences will not 'believe' a film. That is why films can only be real at the cost of reality.

Take Saving Private Ryan, a movie praised for its uncompromising realism, at least in the opening scenes. Imagine watching that scene and somebody in the audience going: 'Hey, I know that guy. That's not Captain Miller, that's Tom Hanks from Hollywood!'

So sit back and reflect for a moment: by what criteria do you guys really judge a film's realism? :mellow:

[Steppe Merc]

Adrian, it's fine to make things into legends. But it's not fine when they make it into legends when they claim it's accurate.
edit: Rhoxana is far too dark... she should be white, at the most have black hair. She would have been Iranian, not... whatever she is.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Rhoxana is far too dark... she should be white, at the most have black hair. She would have been Iranian, not... whatever she is.

Man I though she was UGLY. Especially in the nude scene. She didnt have breasts she had udders. ~D

[Steppe Merc]

I didn't think she was ugly... ~;)
She was just incorrect.

[Adrian II]

Adrian, it's fine to make things into legends. But it's not fine when they make it into legends when they claim it's accurate.I don't mind what they claim. You are a thinking member of the audience, so what is your idea of accuracy? Is it in the stirrups/no stirrups details, in the psychology, the photography? Do you think Ben Hur is a bad film because the trumpeteer is wearing a watch? Does it bother you that Judah Ben Hur is really Charlton Heston?

[Steppe Merc]

Never seen Ben Hur.

But if they have stirrups, then they are idiots. It's not hard to ride without stirrups, and it's just foolish to have them in.
Adrian, if something is supposed to be history, I think it should be as close to history as possible. The soldiers should be as accurate as possible, the people should look like as close as we know that we did (in other words, Alexander not blonde, Rohxan as an Iranian, Persians as Iranians), it should be as close as possible to what we know because that is far more interesting than anyone could make up.
If they wanted to make a fantasy, they should do it! Don't even bother with Alexander, make some fantasy! I love Lord of the Rings, despite the fact that it's obviously not real, and there were some deviations from the book. But what was added could have been in the book.
Not so for most of these sort of movies.

What exactly do you mean by photography and physyology?

[Adrian II]

Adrian, if something is supposed to be history, I think it should be as close to history as possible.Steppe Merc, I want you to listen to yourself. Alexander was 33 when he died. Do you seriously want to see a film that lasts 33 years?

And speaking of Roxan -- is it the colour of teh actress' skin that is important, or is it her portrayal of emotion, conflict, personal chemistry?

[Steppe Merc]

No, I don't want to see a movie 33 years long. I'd like to see one that touched on the most important parts of those 33 years.


And speaking of Roxan -- is it the colour of teh actress' skin that is important, or is it her portrayal of emotion, conflict, personal chemistry?
In a historical movie, I think it is important. Just as it is silly to have Alexander as a person of African descent, it is silly to have someone who was possiblly lighter than most Greeks as someone of Arabic descent.

Would a movie about the Civil War make any sense if Abraham Lincoln was black? Or if Robert E Lee was Asian?

Adrian, I know I may sound stupid. But if you want to make a movie about a famous person, why not make it right?

[Adrian II]

Would a movie about the Civil War make any sense if Abraham Lincoln was black? Or if Robert E Lee was Asian?Yes. It might make more sense than a tv series about the Civil War I saw some years ago -- you probably know the genre -- in which Lincoln wore the right beard and all the guns did 'pop' at the right moment, but the (amateur) acting was so stiff and anachronistic that I rolled off the couch laughing. On the other hand I have witnessed a Medea (Euripides) played by black African actors in Avignon many years ago and it was fantastic. Greeks were not black and their choruses did not dance to African rhythms, but apparently Medea is a black tragedy as much as white one and I was thoroughly impressed by that piece of theater.
Adrian, I know I may sound stupid. But if you want to make a movie about a famous person, why not make it right?What do you mean by 'realistic', 'accurate' or 'right'. Making films equals making compromises with reality as far as we know it.

I guess my sense of the 'reality' of a movie has more to do with the acting, psychology and photography than anything else. Movie audiences are aware that they are looking at a flat screen upon which an illusion of reality and spontaneity is created with the most artificial means you can think of. Creating 'reality' within those confines means creating scenes that look, sound and even smell right to the audience so that they are drawn out of themselves and sucked into that screen. The best (some would say the only) way to achieve that is by making the audience identify with one or more characters in the film. That is where psychology comes in. Without it, I don;t see a film, I see a bunch of actors running around amid props and studio lights. To me, no amount of historically correct elephants is going to compensate for one wrong smile of Alexander. And to me, no sagging breast is going to stand in the way of a good Roxan, because it is the very nature of love that it makes people blind to such imperfections. If you judge a film like Alexander by its pornographic content like Gawain does, you are going to be disappointed anyway.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=AdrianII] Do you think Ben Hur is a bad film because the trumpeteer is wearing a watch?


No way !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :jawdrop: please some proofs !!

[Adrian II]

No way !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :jawdrop: please some proofs !!Oh pullease.. I know you're joking, but on the other hand this is exactly what I mean. People talk about Ben Hur as if it were the vehicle for that wrist watch and not the ground-breaking film that enthralled audiences the world over, saved a studio and made more than a few careers in show business. And do not imagine for a moment that it does not tackle the same issues thatAlexander touches upon. Here is a nice fragment I found about the famous Messala/Judah encounter:


In the disc's "Making of ..." documentary, Gore Vidal (who wrote the bulk of the screenplay) says that he suggested to [director] Wyler that the character's scenes together be written as "a lover's quarrel":

"Wyler said, 'What do you mean?' I said, could it be that the two boys had some kind of emotional relationship the first time around, and now the Roman wants to start up again and Ben-Hur doesn't — and doesn't get the point? Willie said, 'Gore, this is Ben-Hur. You can't do that to Ben-Hur.' I said, well, if you don't do something like that you won't have Ben-Hur. You'll have an emotiveless mess on your hands. And he said, 'Well ... you can't be overt.' I said, I'm not gonna be overt. There won't be one line. But I can write it in such a way that the audience is going to feel that there is something emotional between these two that is not stated, but that blows a fuse in Messala. That he is spurned. So it's a love scene gone wrong."

[caesar44]

That is a good one .
Bty , did not heard of a man named Ben Hur at that period...accuracy... ~D

[Adrian II]

That is a good one .
Bty , did not heard of a man named Ben Hur at that period...accuracy... ~DWell, there you go. There were Jews in Jerusalem at the time, we know quite a bit about them and that justifies the making of a historical movie about one of them, even though a Ben Hur did not exist as far as we know. He was a fictional character created by the writer Lew Wallace in 1880. So was Christ, whose birth and cruxificion are vividly portrayed in the book and (partly) in the movie. We know there were chariot races in those days and we know what they were probably like, and that justifies the recreation of one such race in the film Ben Hur, even though it never took place in the exact way that it was portrayed.

There is no fundamental difference between making up a character and making up things about a historic character. If you want to make a film about Alexander you have to fill in so many blanks and voids that you are practically making him up, too.

And some of the best historical movies are fictional. Master and Commander[ with Russell Crowe for instance is one of my favourites. It combines everything we know about naval warfare and frigate duels at the time with a good story and some superb acting, though I will readily admit that the plot is rather weak. But when you take a frigate as the main scene of action, this allows for the exact concentration in time, space and action I wrote earlier about. That concentration is required because it allows for identification and therefore the development of a gripping story.

Recreate Trafalgar in the same way and you get an impossible monster movie with lots of historically correct explosions but no sense of 'reality' at all because the intimacy of the characters is lacking.

On the other hand, if you recreate Trafalgar around a fictional character -- for instance around the experiences of a young bosun's mate on one of the ships -- you get a very real movie.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=AdrianII] Ben Hur did not exist as far as we know. He was a fictional character created by the writer Lew Wallace in 1880. So was Christ, whose birth and cruxificion are vividly portrayed in the book and (partly) in the movie.

One can say that the whole story of Jesus is fictional , wait , you have said it !!!!

[Adrian II]

One can say that the whole story of Jesus is fictional , wait , you have said it !!!! So what? Burn me.

[caesar44]

So what? Burn me.

Not me , dude , not me... ~D
As I have said , I don't belive in the story either ~;)

[Adrian II]

Not me , dude , not me... ~D
As I have said , I don't belive in the story either ~;)But it is a bloody good story and it makes for bloody good movies! See, and that's my point.

[caesar44]

Agreed ! Mel Gibson's ?

[Steppe Merc]

And some of the best historical movies are fictional. Master and Commander[ with Russell Crowe for instance is one of my favourites. It combines everything we know about naval warfare and frigate duels at the time with a good story and some superb acting, though I will readily admit that the plot is rather weak. But when you take a frigate as the main scene of action, this allows for the exact concentration in, space and action I wrote earlier about. That concentration is required because it allows for identification and therefore the development of a gripping story.
I agree Master and Commander was excellent. I don't have problems with fictional peoples as long as they act as if they were really there. I mean, I could believe Russell Crowe was an English warship captain, in large parts due to how realstic it was. I couldn't believe Brad Pitt as Achilles, mainly because how he acted was nothing like Achilles could have acted, and how wrong it was for the period.

And I see what you are saying about the actor's looks not mattering as much as how they act. But they obviously chose Roxane because they thought "Oh, around Afghanistan, then she's an Arab", which is wrong. If they honestly thought that she was the best actress they could get, and all actresses that are white have black hair or possibely even brown are worse, than mabye I'd buy it. But I don't think so.
I can live with say an Australian playing an Englishman (Russel Crowe). But I would have a harder time buying him as an Englishman if he was from India.

In the end, I agree, good actors are key, making it feel real. But I think making it accurate and realistic would help, rather than hurt good actors. To me, it's sort of like CA's argument that they put in gameplay instead of historical accuracy. But historical accuracy is far more fun then anyone could make up.
Now I know that sometimes things need to be invented or streched. And that is fine, as long as feels like it could have happened in that time period. Again, Master and Commander felt like it could have happened. Not so with Troy or Alexander or King Arthur.

[Soulforged]

Agreed ! Mel Gibson's ?

Not i would stay more with the "Final Temptation of Christ" based on the book by a Greek actor.

[Adrian II]

And I see what you are saying about the actor's looks not mattering as much as how they act. But they obviously chose Roxane because they thought "Oh, around Afghanistan, then she's an Arab", which is wrong.I realise I will have to see Alexander before I take this any further. I'll bow to your judgment.
I agree Master and Commander was excellent. I don't have problems with fictional peoples as long as they act as if they were really there. I mean, I could believe Russell Crowe was an English warship captain, in large parts due to how realistic it was.Totally agreed. I think Crowe is excellent in that movie. Unsurpassed, really; his character is far better than any (would-be) Hornblower I have ever seen.

One of the things I liked about his performance is that he obviously loved his ship. He was too old and too good as a commander to be in charge of a frigate. At his age and ability (and having fought under Nelson) he should have commanded a ship-of-the-line. But he wouldn't because he is in love with this particular ship and also because a frigate is his natural habitat. It shows, throughout the movie. He loves that frigate for its speed and versatility, the closeness of the water, the independent life with no superiors around to kick him about. And he is clearly fond of his hand-picked crew. There is no way that this man would do just as well if he commanded an amorphous mass of 800 men on a 68-gun SOL. He knows every nook and cranny of the old lady, he strokes her almost absent-mindedly, he even strokes the occasional gun and talks to it. Jees what a performance.

Oh, and the brilliant scenes with the junior officer who is being regarded as a 'Jonah' by the crew. He is a Jonah, you can feel there is something about that young man that makes him a profound danger to the entire ship. Even Crowe drops him after the first incident, no sentimentality, no gratuitous intimacy. Everybody, including the boy himself, knows that he has got to die, and die soon before he takes more people with him. Makes you sick to the bone if you think of it.
I couldn't believe Brad Pitt as Achilles Nobody could. Ridiculous.

[caesar44]

Not i would stay more with the "Final Temptation of Christ" based on the book by a Greek actor.


Great movie indeed .
1 minute after it's screening in Israel (5 or 10 years ago) , thousands of Arab Christians went to the streets to "demonstrate" against the anti Christian Israeli government... ~D haaaaaaaaaaa...

[Advo-san]

Not i would stay more with the "Final Temptation of Christ" based on the book by a Greek actor.
Final Temptation of Christ was written by Nikos Kazantzakis, who was Greek, but not an actor. He was an author, one of the most important authors of m odern Greece. ~:) :book:

[Adrian II]

Final Temptation of Christ was written by Nikos Kazantzakis, who was Greek, but not an actor. He was an author, one of the most important authors of m odern Greece. ~:) :book:And the author of Zorba, the story of another movie. I visited his grave high up on the huge walls of Herakleion, overlooking the fields of the football club where he went every Sunday. I believe he was also a philosopher, right? I remember seeing some essays by Kazantzakis on Socrates and Heidegger.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I realise I will have to see Alexander before I take this any further. I'll bow to your judgment.Totally agreed. I think Crowe is excellent in that movie. Unsurpassed, really; his character is far better than any (would-be) Hornblower I have ever seen.

Agreed. While Crowe did not fit the "physical type" of O'Brian's Lucky Jack Aubrey, he brilliantly brought the other aspects of that character to life -- and I don't blame Crowe for wanting to avoid the acquisition of extra weight. ~;)


One of the things I liked about his performance is that he obviously loved his ship. He was too old and too good as a commander to be in charge of a frigate. At his age and ability (and having fought under Nelson) he should have commanded a ship-of-the-line. But he wouldn't because he is in love with this particular ship and also because a frigate is his natural habitat. It shows, throughout the movie.

Any of you out there who have not read the series this is taken from are missing one of life's little joys. Pat O'Brian was a "master and commander" of the sea yarn and his Aubrey and Maturin one of, if not the, best "buddy" teams in literature.


There is no way that this man would do just as well if he commanded an amorphous mass of 800 men on a 68-gun SOL.

To begin with, England had -- as far as I can recall -- only 1 68-gunner, Monarca, acquired from the Dutch at one point. Most Napoleonic era Brit SOL's were of 74 guns, with a few 64's and the odd 50.

A crew of 800 was a rare thing in the English Navy. Even Nelson's 100-gun flagship at Trafalgar was crewed by only 820 -- including her complement of 140-odd marines. Moreover Nelson, unlike most, was able to get a lot of volunteers and his flagships did not suffer the crew shortages which other ships suffered. The "ideal" complement of a 68 would be several hundreds of people, but ideal complements were virtually non-existent. The close familiarity evidenced by Aubrey for his crew would have been more difficult with a group of 570 or so, but not impossible. Cruises often lasted years, giving them plenty of time to know one another.

Seamus

[Geoffrey S]

Well, I finally got to see Alexander recently. I really liked the sense of place and the effort gone into bringing the period to life, excellent work there. What bugged me was the extreme selectiveness of the makers in chosing what to include in the movie; basically they ended up with a couple of episodes from Alexander's life recreated in detail, and a lot of equally important sequences passed over. The most notable of these was Philip's murder and Alexander's subsequent conquest of Greece. What was in the movie was quite good alot of the time (though some of the acting was rather poor), but it ended up feeling very patchy and incomplete. Certainly it shows that a case can be made for making this kind of film in a series rather than cramming stuff into one movie; either that, or dramatically change events or perspective to make the story more suitable for cinema, like in Gladiator.

[Steppe Merc]

Seamus Fermanagh, I agree, the books are quite good, though I don't think I want to read all of them.

Adrian, I think you and I agree more than we disagree, when it comes down to it. We both think acting is extremely important, and sense of place. But I just think that a better movie would result in not just having excellent actors, but having realism and as much accuracy as possible. Because, at least to me, when I see say a stirrup in the BCs, I lose the sence of realism, and get pissed. And we both agree that having a fictional character, as long as it acts like it could have been in that time period, is good.
Or am I reaching here? ~;)

[Adrian II]

And we both agree that having a fictional character, as long as it acts like it could have been in that time period, is good.
Or am I reaching here? ~;)You've reached me! ~;)
Yes indeed, and I think fictional characters are often more real than real characters. After what you and I wrote above, I think I can safely make such a statement without being accused of wordplay.

[Adrian II]

To begin with, England had -- as far as I can recall -- only 1 68-gunner, Monarca, acquired from the Dutch at one point. Most Napoleonic era Brit SOL's were of 74 guns, with a few 64's and the odd 50.

A crew of 800 was a rare thing in the English Navy. Even Nelson's 100-gun flagship at Trafalgar was crewed by only 820 -- including her complement of 140-odd marines. Moreover Nelson, unlike most, was able to get a lot of volunteers and his flagships did not suffer the crew shortages which other ships suffered. The "ideal" complement of a 68 would be several hundreds of people, but ideal complements were virtually non-existent. The close familiarity evidenced by Aubrey for his crew would have been more difficult with a group of 570 or so, but not impossible. Cruises often lasted years, giving them plenty of time to know one another.

SeamusI could shoot some holes in your hull, but my mistake about the 68 guns is unforgivable. Of course the workhorse of the British Navy was the 74-gun ship-of-the-line.
:bow:

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=AdrianII]... I think fictional characters are often more real than real characters...

Why using fictional characters when you have so many real and amazing characters to do movies about them ?
Just think of Herod the great , a real story that no writer could write . the reality is more interesting and more intriguing than any fiction (imho) .

[Adrian II]

Why using fictional characters when you have so many real and amazing characters to do movies about them ?Because their reality detracts from reality. Welcome to the movies.

[Steppe Merc]

Caesar, with real characters we aren't always sure how they would act. I mean, I think Shapur the First would be an excellent source of a movie. This guy defeated 3 Roman Emperors! But do we have enough information on his personal life, how he acted, what he felt in order to make a convincing movie?
It is possible that a more interesting story would be about a fictional Savaran commander who served in all of Shapur's campaigns, since the author could just invent how he would act (as long as he acts like a true Sassanian might).

Of course, the public is far too ignorant to know about who the Sassanians were, much less about Shapur, despite him being just as interesting if not more as the Western military heros...

[Geoffrey S]

I'd like to see a movie about Hadrian or Xenophon's tenthousand.

[caesar44]

Because their reality detracts from reality. Welcome to the movies.

???

If Alexander took Tyre in 8 months , just show it in the movie , we don't want to see the 8 month siege...give me a break

[caesar44]

Caesar, with real characters we aren't always sure how they would act. I mean, I think Shapur the First would be an excellent source of a movie. This guy defeated 3 Roman Emperors! But do we have enough information on his personal life, how he acted, what he felt in order to make a convincing movie?
It is possible that a more interesting story would be about a fictional Savaran commander who served in all of Shapur's campaigns, since the author could just invent how he would act (as long as he acts like a true Sassanian might).

Of course, the public is far too ignorant to know about who the Sassanians were, much less about Shapur, despite him being just as interesting if not more as the Western military heros...

Steppe , are you talking about the Sapur (I think with out the "s") who took Valerianus as a prisoner un 262 ce ? the first time ever for a Roman emperor to become a POW . well , you can make a film about him that includes everything that we know about him , it is still going to be 4 h' movie...yet , you can fill the gaps with a reasonable anecdotes , it is still will be a realistic movie .
Btw , you are right , never saw a movie about a "Barbaric" Eastern hero like a Persian king of kings .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Double

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I could shoot some holes in your hull, but my mistake about the 68 guns is unforgivable. Of course the workhorse of the British Navy was the 74-gun ship-of-the-line. :bow:

Don't stress yourself. Only an old WS&IM junkie like me is likely to know such obscure info. The 68 was a key element for the Nederlunders/Batavians -- though apparently it could not withstand a cavalry charge. ~:)

Seamus

[Pindar]

Oliver Stone knows how to make a good movie. Platoon is an example. He also knows how to make a really bad movie. Alexander is an example.

I saw both the theatrical and director's cut versions. Both were poorly done. I think if I were to try and put all the error into a simple statement it would be: Stone did not understand his topic.

[Steppe Merc]

Steppe , are you talking about the Sapur (I think with out the "s") who took Valerianus as a prisoner un 262 ce ? the first time ever for a Roman emperor to become a POW . well , you can make a film about him that includes everything that we know about him , it is still going to be 4 h' movie...yet , you can fill the gaps with a reasonable anecdotes , it is still will be a realistic movie .
Btw , you are right , never saw a movie about a "Barbaric" Eastern hero like a Persian king of kings .
I just know him as Shapur the first (how can it be without the s?) And yeah, he took Valerian captive. But he also defeated Gordian the 3rd (not sure if he died in the battle), and the armies of Philip the Arab. Then Shapur took Valerian captive along with many senators and officers.
Quite an impressive resume. And I agree, it would be a long movie. But my point is, is their enough from the Sassanian sources and from the Roman sources to say what sort of man Shapur was? Could he be made into a believable person? And having him win the battles he did and look Iranian (most idiotic directors would probably get an Arab to play him...) would only go so far, is what we are trying to say.

[Adrian II]

Don't stress yourself. Only an old WS&IM junkie like me is likely to know such obscure info.Ehm, I am an old WS&IM junkie... or was, twenty odd years ago. That's why I got my tunic in a twist over that stupid mistake. I could of course try to explain that I merely mistook lbs for gun numbers, but I believe 68 pounders in those days would typically be carronades mounted on halfdecks and forecastles. No use hiding behind them then.

Good grief, I'm a Jonah... :embarassed:

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Steppe Merc]I just know him as Shapur the first (how can it be without the s?)


Ask them...http://www.beastcoins.com/Sasanian/Sasanian.htm
or them - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Labyrinth/2398/bginfo/geo/anatolia.html
or them - http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/courses/535/Harnack/bk4ch3-3-182.htm
or them - http://www.turkeyjourney.com/southeast_zeugma.htm

and many more ~:cheers:

[Steppe Merc]

The first link spells it like I do: Shapur I.
And how could it be without the S? Hapur the First?
Or do you mean without the H?

[caesar44]

The first link spells it like I do: Shapur I.
And how could it be without the S? Hapur the First?
Or do you mean without the H?


Yes yes , with out the "h"... :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: sorry :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed:
Sapur...(it is 01:25 here in the Middle East...)
No , not Hapur...sorry again...
so Shapur or Sapur ?

[sharrukin]

Just to confuse things further.
Other spellings of the same name.

Parthian šhypwhr
Sasanian šhpwr-y
Manichean Pahlavi š'bwhr
Book Pahlavi šhpwhl
Armenian šapowh
Syriac šbwhr
Sogdian š'p(')wr
Bactrian aßor(o) and aßoro
Greek Sapur, Sabour and Sapuris
Latin Sapores and Sapor
Arabic Sâbur and Šâbur
New Persian Šâpur, Šâhpur, Šahfur

The š is SH

[Adrian II]

Just to confuse things further.
Other spellings of the same name.

Parthian šhypwhr
Sasanian šhpwr-y
Manichean Pahlavi š'bwhr
Book Pahlavi šhpwhl
Armenian šapowh
Syriac šbwhr
Sogdian š'p(')wr
Bactrian aßor(o) and aßoro
Greek Sapur, Sabour and Sapuris
Latin Sapores and Sapor
Arabic Sâbur and Šâbur
New Persian Šâpur, Šâhpur, Šahfur

The š is SHJeshush. :dizzy2:

[King of Atlantis]

This movie was great and was rather historical...

Sure they mixed battles, but common this is a movie, and everything need s to help the movie progress foward. It was meant to portray alexanders character and it did a very fine job of that...

[Soulforged]

This movie was great and was rather historical...

Sure they mixed battles, but common this is a movie, and everything need s to help the movie progress foward. It was meant to portray alexanders character and it did a very fine job of that...

I agree. ~:cheers:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ehm, I am an old WS&IM junkie... or was, twenty odd years ago. That's why I got my tunic in a twist over that stupid mistake. I could of course try to explain that I merely mistook lbs for gun numbers, but I believe 68 pounders in those days would typically be carronades mounted on halfdecks and forecastles. No use hiding behind them then.

Good grief, I'm a Jonah... :embarassed:

It was a blast of a game. Remember re-fighting Trafalgar and the Saintes with my dad for weekends in a row. Good fun. Jeez, I think it was almost 30 years ago now, 27+ for sure....damn, I'm an old poot :help:

You were right about the smashers. 68 was the big brit carronade of choice.

Seamus

[Adrian II]

It was a blast of a game. Remember re-fighting Trafalgar and the Saintes with my dad for weekends in a row.'I've grappled successfully, Dad. And I've loaded grape...'
'Ughhh...'
~:cheers:

I won as Nelson in a huge MP Trafalgar scenario. Two teams of six players each. We used the hand-painted models and an enlarged hex map about 3 x 3 metres. Communication was done by flag signal and sealed orders. Great stuff. That day De Villeneuve was last seen boarding a bus under cover of darkness, dressed in a skirt and high heels.
You were right about the smashers.Not sure about the halfdeck though. Could you confirm, master Seamus?

*Beats to quarters*

[caesar44]

Just to confuse things further.
Other spellings of the same name.

Parthian šhypwhr
Sasanian šhpwr-y
Manichean Pahlavi š'bwhr
Book Pahlavi šhpwhl
Armenian šapowh
Syriac šbwhr
Sogdian š'p(')wr
Bactrian aßor(o) and aßoro
Greek Sapur, Sabour and Sapuris
Latin Sapores and Sapor
Arabic Sâbur and Šâbur
New Persian Šâpur, Šâhpur, Šahfur

The š is SH


~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek: So lets call him just happy Sapi ~:)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

'I've grappled successfully, Dad. And I've loaded grape...'
'Ughhh...'*

Actually, he was normally vexed at my seemingly insane luck at notching critical hits. :furious3: ~D ~D


I won as Nelson in a huge MP Trafalgar scenario. Two teams of six players each. We used the hand-painted models and an enlarged hex map about 3 x 3 metres. Communication was done by flag signal and sealed orders. Great stuff. That day De Villeneuve was last seen boarding a bus under cover of darkness, dressed in a skirt and high heels.*

Hope Villy was a lass going home -- and not just humliated ~:) That scenario sounds like a blast -- and the team effect would definitely add to things. Was your "Collingwood" equally as good as you?


Not sure about the halfdeck though. Could you confirm, master Seamus? *Beats to quarters*

Well, there was no set policy. A captain could mount the guns of his ship more or less as he chose, within the limitations imposed by structure. I have never read about them being mounted anywhere aside from the forecastle (widest possible zone of fire), though they would have been mountable (weight-wise) anywhere you could mount a long 18 or short 24. WS&IM cheated them on range -- they could hit targets well just as far out as standard 12 or short 24.

Seamus

P.S. Clear for action if you can before you beat to quarters -- extra partitions and such only add to the splinters. ~D

[Pindar]

I used to play WSIM all the time. I liked the Battle of the Nile.

[Kraxis]

I'd like to see a movie about Hadrian or Xenophon's tenthousand.
Ohhh yes the Ten Thousand!!!!
It is a perfect subject for a movie. It has more than enough action, it has intrigues, it has the scenery for great visual effects (I mean an army crossing high mountains in winter) and it has all too much of human foolishness.

Now who would be a good Xenophon? I'm pretty sure that Ewan McGregor would be up to the task, but would he fee like the man? Jude Law??? The other way round I think...

Xenophon would be tough to cast. A young man who is very fit, shows bright intelligence and has a commanding air about him, while a streak of hurt when not listened to.
Several older actors could do it, but they wouldn't be able to look 25 years old at most. And without that he would become unbelieveable.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It was a blast of a game. Remember re-fighting Trafalgar and the Saintes with my dad for weekends in a row. Good fun. Jeez, I think it was almost 30 years ago now, 27+ for sure....damn, I'm an old poot

You were right about the smashers. 68 was the big brit carronade of choice.

Seamus

Are we talking Avalon Hills Woodenships and Ironmen? The computer or the board game? Man I played that like forever. ~;)

[Adrian II]

Are we talking Avalon Hills Woodenships and Ironmen? The computer or the board game? Man I played that like forever. ~;)Pindar and Gawain were WS&IM junks, too? We are in good company, Seamus! :bow:

*Change tack, Mr Fermanagh, and keep a close haul if you please*

[Pindar]

Pindar and Gawain were WS&IM junks, too? We are in good company, Seamus! :bow:

*Change tack, Mr Fermanagh, and keep a close haul if you please*

It's a game for quality people.

[Adrian II]

Hope Villy was a lass going home -- and not just humliated ~:) That scenario sounds like a blast -- and the team effect would definitely add to things. Was your "Collingwood" equally as good as you?He was excellent, though rather peculiar. Actually my 'Collingwood' was British by birth, but for some reason his atomic scientist Dad was spirited out of the UK in the 1960's after some military experiment involving huge fuses and nuclear loads went horribly wrong. A scandal was averted (this was the heyday of the Cold War) and he sued for divorce and lived in Franco's Spain whilst his ex-wife lived in The Netherlands where she brought up my 'Collingwood'. His Dad was quite a character. I never learned the whole truth about that turning point in his career though. Pity, with me being a journalist and all...

Anyway, I knew of his capacities from previous scenarios (he was my commander as Brueys in an Aboukir Bay game - indeed, Pindar) and I had noticed that he was passive aggressive, to the point of calculating his ships' moves with exquisite precision to obtain good firing angles yet preserving his own hulls. That is the right stuff for a vanguard commander, so I put him in charge of our vanguard in the Trafalgar monster scenario and issued a sealed order that in case something untoward would befall me (as Nelson), 'no Captain can do very wrong by steering his ship in the wake of the His majesty's Vanguard'.

Apart from commanding the entire fleet, I also commanded the four British frigates at Trafalgar and by combining their firepower managed to take a huge Spanish SOL (can't remember which anymore) and tow it out of harm's way.

Hmm heady days...

EDIT
I forgot to tell.. we gave up the two column idea (that was too predictable anyway) and I just let my 'Collingwood' split the enemy line behind Bucentaure. With most of my ships following in his wake, he went right through their line intact (no unpleasant drifters disturbing our line) and turned north, close to the wind, so the southern part of Villeneuve's fleet could not come to the rescue of the northern part, and they wouldn't have got there anyway because my Rear was covering us. Once 'Collingwood' had made his move and turned north, there was an audible gnashing of teeth on the opposite side of the table, bottles of Cognac were popped open in despair... ~D

SECOND EDIT
This was twenty years ago, but I remember Collingwood eventually lost one of his ships (Mars or Tonnant most likely) and sent it into the enemy line whilst burning and on the verge of exploding... That was when they seriously hit the Cognac -- imagine a live bomb floating around your flagship beating up wind...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gawain:

Played the computer game, but adored the old cardboard navies more.

Adrian2:

Sounds like your group was a great "blast" of fun to play with.

Pindar:

I agree!


All:

...very good sir. I'll have them take a reef in the mizzen t'gallant to put a little more pressure up forward, maybe we can lay her a quarter point closer on the new tack. Hands to stations! Step lively!...


Seamus

[Adrian II]

...very good sir. I'll have them take a reef in the mizzen t'gallant to put a little more pressure up forward, maybe we can lay her a quarter point closer on the new tack. Hands to stations! Step lively!...Steady helm! He's hauling up the main course for battle and won't keep the wind of us now. Well done Mr Fermanagh!

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I personally think the movie was awsome! I think it had a few flaws ("for the freedom...and glory of greece). I think it is mostly historically accurate.

By the way, you guys are reading books that are made way too far after Alexander's death. You need to read the Arrian's book. It was written 300 years after his death... ~D