Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on May 29, 2004, 10:24:07 pm
-
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/alexander/
I'm not saying Collin Farrel can't act, but well...judge for yourselves.
I don't see the necesseity in perverting history to suit the great unwashed masses. But then again, I don't think Britney Speers is the greatest thing to ever happen to music, so what do I know?
Especially since someone like Oliver Stone ought to have some outdated and unpopular notions like integrity or vision or somesuch...
-
Looks cool...
-
Well, your definately right about Britney Spears. I think this will be a great movie :)
-
So with the recent 'sucesses' of Gladiator and Troy, and the forthcomming King Arthur and AtG movies (shudder), what's next? I'm thinking Queen Boadicea, as a movie with tits and arse-kicking sells more than the sum of its parts :nod:
-
how can you say that? didn't you spot the bad acting, the cliched premise "warrior, lover, seeker blablabla", the wig that really sticks out and doesn't look natural in the least?
c'mon guys, I refuse to believe that I am the only one who isn't being fooled.
dg: don't forget the last samurai and how tom cruise saved civilization.
its only a matter of time before they get all the great conflicts of our past, and 1000 years from now, after the great nuclear war, someone will uncover a stash of DVDs and write their history accordingly.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
So with the recent 'sucesses' of Gladiator and Troy, and the forthcomming King Arthur and AtG movies (shudder), what's next? I'm thinking Queen Boadicea, as a movie with tits and arse-kicking sells more than the sum of its parts :nod:
Nothing will compare to Gladiator and BraveHeart :nod:
-
Why does Big Al' look mildly constipated throughout that trailer?
-
Well, can't be worse than the rest of the epic junk that has been thrown in my general direction.
-
it will and can get worse stu
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't see the necesseity in perverting history to suit the great unwashed masses.
When has Hollywood not perverted history in order to tell a story?
Besides what perversions of history did you see in that trailer?
-
the need to romanticize Alexander to be something he's not. The guy was a conqueror, plain and simple. C'mon now..."The greatest legend ever told...is true"
Isn't the life of one of the greatest generals and conquerors in history enough...or have we gotten to the point where invading half of Europe and Asia is not entertaining enough in and of itself, now we have to make up some crap about how he also invented the Internet and was single-handedly resonsibe for every philosophical accomplishment of the ancient Greeks.
-
Alexander conquered most of Europe by using war Elephants. He won most of his battles because European armies relied heavily on Horses, and Horses are terrified of Elephants. He was the guy with the WMD's ;)
Oddly enough, he struggled further east due to the fact the Elephants don't like the smell of camels, but then, let's face, I'd be surprised if camels liked the smell of camels ;)
He was a butcher who died leaving 2 sons, who fought over the remains of his Empire and tore it clean apart again 40 years after it was created. Hardly the greatest legend ever.....
-
If you don't want romantacizing watch a documentary. Historical films are always about romantacizing the character. They always have been.
It didn't start with film either. Or are you going to tell me that there wasn't a whole bunch or romatacizing going on in Julius Ceasar, Machbeth and all the other historical Shakespear plays.
Flip : :wtf: I'm taking that as sarcasm. Just not very good sarcasm
-
Heh, Yes, they are already romanticised, of course people say great things about large cauliflower eared thugs with big swords, it's the best way to carry on living, especially since in those times history was written largely by people in the employ of those very thugs ;)
It doesn't bother me in the slightest, I haven't watched any of these over-romanticised stories, from Pearl Harbor to Braveheart,
It's strange that Oliver Stone should do a film romanticising this sort of thing, since Platoon was excellent, still, the 'image' Hollywood are trying to project about War HAS to be glorious at the moment. If people were watching Platoon and figuring out that this is more like real life in the Army than Pearl Harbor, they might start asking some difficult questions about Iraq.
And Kara, which bit did you think was sarcasm?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
And Kara, which bit did you think was sarcasm?
The whole elephants bit not to mention the conquering Europe bit.
http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=78&keyword_id=8&title=Army
http://monolith.dnsalias.org/~marsares/history/hellen/journey.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/prm/blalexandersfirstgreatvictory.htm
I see no signs of either.
Add to that the fact that Alexander was a legend. He conquered the largest land empire ever (until Gengis Khan beat him). If that doesn't qualify you what does?
-
No, that wasn't sarcasm, that was a downright joke, hey, i laughed :)
As for the 'Legend' thing, it all depends on your point of view. He also beheaded several of his closest friends, performed several atrocities and raped several countries. Legendary? Perhaps, Great? That's in the eye of the beholder ;)
Edit : Oddly enough, it is true that Horses don't like Elephants much, and Elephants, having 4-5 foot long noses, don't really like being round camels :)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
As for the 'Legend' thing, it all depends on your point of view. He also beheaded several of his closest friends, performed several atrocities and raped several countries. Legendary? Perhaps, Great? That's in the eye of the beholder ;)
If you're going to use that as a basis then there is next to no one in history that can be called great. Almost every leader killed a few people in his court at one time or another. In those days if you didn't you tended to get it yourself.
-
Kara, you are right, but I'm not saying he did not achieve a great deal, nor am I saying that he could have done it any other way, that can't even be done today, I'm just saying that over-romanticizing him in film serves only to continue the circle.
Make an Alexander the Great film, yes, he was, at times, a tactical genius, he was excellent at administration and logistics, but also point out the fact he had an enormously inflated view of himself, thought he was related to the Gods, and, on more than a few occasions made charges into battle that were so rash and poorly thought out that his own troops and friends had to come and save him. Make it about how thousands of men died as he drove them through the deserts, fighting mutiny most of the way, and beheading anyone who complained too much, and include the nervous breakdown he had on his return to his home. Make him human, I guess that's all I'm trying to say :)
Edit : Hmmmm.... looking at Al's empire, noting the nationality of the actor playing Al, wondering how the 'baddies' are going to be portrayed......
-
ARGH!? Why do they **** up all those stories!? As a history teacher I find these stories offensive. Completely inaccurate and so overromanticised it isn't even funny anymore.
At least Gladiator had 'some' historical reference. But Troy and this piece of crap they call a movie is just a big ol' fantasy story to **** up young people's mind. I'll bet that if you ask anyone who has seen this movie about the real history they'll still reference to these movies... :mad:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
ARGH!? Why do they **** up all those stories!?
For as simple a reason as the almighty $$$ :doubt:
I've completely given up on watching hollywood 'Historic' movies, as I could actually feel myself becoming dumber watching them :rolleyes:
-
So sad, but true... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Make an Alexander the Great film, yes, he was, at times, a tactical genius, he was excellent at administration and logistics, but also point out the fact he had an enormously inflated view of himself, thought he was related to the Gods, and, on more than a few occasions made charges into battle that were so rash and poorly thought out that his own troops and friends had to come and save him. Make it about how thousands of men died as he drove them through the deserts, fighting mutiny most of the way, and beheading anyone who complained too much, and include the nervous breakdown he had on his return to his home. Make him human, I guess that's all I'm trying to say :)
I agree. It would make a better story too. But that's not the way Hollywood works or has ever worked.
I just get upset when people act like it's a new thing. I doubt that Spartacus was any more historically accurate than this is but you don't see people getting all annoyed about that.
Originally posted by Tiara
At least Gladiator had 'some' historical reference. But Troy and this piece of crap they call a movie is just a big ol' fantasy story to **** up young people's mind. I'll bet that if you ask anyone who has seen this movie about the real history they'll still reference to these movies... :mad:
Haven't seen Troy but lets face it that movie is based on the homeric myth rather than the true story so complaining about historical accuracies is a bit pointless anyway. :)
I would love to see a movie like Flipside describes about the real Alexander the Great. I doubt we'll see it though. It would be the sort of thing that only existing history buffs watch.
That said I'd rather see a movie like this made than no movie at all. Before Braveheart came out not that many people outside of Scotland had even heard of William Wallace. Sure the story was completely full of inaccuracies but at least it helped people learn who he was.
I don't know how History is taught in Holland but I've lost count of the number of times I've heard kids say that history is boring. It's not that history is boring, it's that kids don't find it intersting cause the way most teachers here teach it. If this film gets kids interested in Alexander the Great then I'm happy. Not as happy as if the movie had been historically accurate but nonetheless happier than hearing people say "who's he?" when I mention him.
Besides it will be ten times easier to just teach your pupils what the movie got wrong than to teach the whole subject from the start. :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Haven't seen Troy but lets face it that movie is based on a myth anyway so complaining about historical accuracies is a bit pointless anyway. :)
I consider mythology a big part of ancient history. Screwing up mythology also screws up your perception of ancient history.
Besides it will be ten times easier to just teach your pupils what the movie got wrong than to teach the whole subject from the start. :D
Not really... The movie stays in their heads. Getting rid of that image is hard :p They prefer fantasy over facts 99% of the time. Sadly...
-
They'll be Hollywoodising Jebus next
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Alexander conquered most of Europe by using war Elephants. He won most of his battles because European armies relied heavily on Horses, and Horses are terrified of Elephants. He was the guy with the WMD's
Oddly enough, he struggled further east due to the fact the Elephants don't like the smell of camels, but then, let's face, I'd be surprised if camels liked the smell of camels
He was a butcher who died leaving 2 sons, who fought over the remains of his Empire and tore it clean apart again 40 years after it was created. Hardly the greatest legend ever.....
How shall I say this...
1 - He didn't conquered most part of Europe, hell he didn't conquer almost any european country or state.
2 - He had much more difficulty fighting Persia than Thebes and other citys for obvious reasons.
3 - Alexander never saw Elephants until he battled in India July 326 B.C. !!!
4 - He's strong point was his phalanx infantry which gave him an edge against cavalry and other sort of mounted foes which didn't use that sort of weapons (long meele spears). Of course his strategic planning also helped.
5 - He didn't have any sons and his empire was divided by his generals which after a while ended in turmoil.
Here's a map of his empire
(http://faq.macedonia.org/images/mac.empire.alex.jpg)
-
See, but Braveheart and Gladiator were well acted. You could feel for them. Its didn't come off as one big scheme to make money. To me, it didn't smell of cliche (maybe a little with Gladiator). Same thing with Spartacus.
get someone like......Tim Roth who can act worth a damn, then we'll talk.
Of course, you can't make it 1000% historically accurate, but there is a difference between exagerating reality and making up a new reality. Not ever historic figure has fit neatly into the Hollywood good guy archetype. For a change, lets make a movie about a bad guy. A bad guy who killed countless thousands, raped and pillaged everywhere he went, killed his closest friends, had an ego that would put Tom Cruise to shame and almost certainly was not responsible for all the great strategies with which he is credited.
The connotation of course is, those who conquer have to be made out to be great, good men, because guess what that implies about our current batch of Alexanders and Caesars.
Conquerors are, almost by definition, brutal, murderous people. How about we just say "Alexander had quite an empire" and leave it at that. There's no need to glorify his acts. It very dangerous, here's why
A day or two ago, I read a column by Bill O'Reilly (popular right wing fanatic), who compared "the war on terrorism" to the wars of Genghis Khan. He said "Khan never playd by the rules, he was a tough mofo, and look how far it got him. We have to be ruthless like he was, if we ever hope to win this war". Other times, I've seen Dubya supporters liken him Julius Caesar, who in their view was a great man. Oh yeah, he liberated Gual good and proper, he did. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
This film will have nothng on Prince of Thieves, you know
-
Originally posted by Flipside
If people were watching Platoon and figuring out that this is more like real life in the Army than Pearl Harbor, they might start asking some difficult questions about Iraq.
starting to ask?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
At least Gladiator had 'some' historical reference. But Troy and this piece of crap they call a movie is just a big ol' fantasy story to **** up young people's mind. I'll bet that if you ask anyone who has seen this movie about the real history they'll still reference to these movies... :mad:
Well Troy was based on the Iliad, which is fiction to begin with, so it shouldn't upset a history teacher.
Now, a literature fan, that's a whole different story,...
-
Just Watch, 20 or so years from now they'll be makin a movie about the war in Iraq...
I cant wait :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
3 - Alexander never saw Elephants until he battled in India July 326 B.C. !!!
I believe one of the other armys he fought before Poros had a small number of elephants actually.
-
you know I'am going watch it and Enjoy it
you guys/girls can watch History Document about Alexander the Great
my point movies are for Entertaiment
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Nothing will compare to Gladiator and BraveHeart :nod:
Braveheart was a ****ing bastardisation of history - it managed to portray not one but two of Scotlands greatest heroes as traitors, not to mention making up virtually every aspect of the story - Wallce was a knight, not a poor man, he never was involved with the queen of France, it was the4 battle of Striling Bridge, etc.
-
http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html
Within the link provided
On July 326 BC, Alexander's army crossed the heavily defended river in dramatic fashion during a violent thunderstorm to meet Porus' forces. The Indians were defeated in a fierce battle, even though they fought with elephants, which the Macedonians had never before seen.
-
If Wallace didn't get some of that French poon tang I am gonna be really upset! (lord knows he deserved some)
And Robert the Bruce wasn't a traitor? I hated him for being such a pansy (choke the old pox ridden bastard and be done with his evil BS!)
This really messes with my perceptions of scotland...
BTW does this mean that the Scorpion King wasn't a documentary? I heard about this other show, but since The Rock wasn't in it I didn't bother seeing it. :lol:
Also Hellboy explains what happened to Mad monk Rasputin (if anyone was wondering)...
-
From pothos.org (http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=78&keyword_id=8&title=Army)
At Gaugamela Darius used about 200 scythed chariots, equipped with sharp rotating spikes to demolish anything that came in their way. They were no challenge however for Alexander's mobile peltasts and Agrians. Heading the army were fifteen war elephants which could not make a lasting impression either.
-
Tailer looked good
Just read about his "sexuality" on that website. think there's any chance of a hot 3 some between Ferrel, Kilmer, and Angelina since it looks like good old Alexander was Bi? (IMHO all the great ones are)
;7
-
i wonder how they're going to portray the man-sex in this movie. we can only hope for historical inaccuracies here
damn it, you posted right before i hit post :P
-
the irony is that Val Kilmer is a much better actor that pretty boy over there, but is stuck doing a secondary role because he doesn't have the instant "cool" recognition oe legions of women screaming his name.
-
since when are macedonians (greeks) blond? wtf thanks alot hollywood! :rolleyes:
val kilmer makes an awsome like guy for this kind of era style of fighting and stuff... we saw that in "willow" HE should be Alexander. :yes:
-
alexander and almost all of his army had blond hair, blue eyes, not the typical black hair of the greeks and macedonians.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Of course, you can't make it 1000% historically accurate, but there is a difference between exagerating reality and making up a new reality. Not ever historic figure has fit neatly into the Hollywood good guy archetype. For a change, lets make a movie about a bad guy. A bad guy who killed countless thousands, raped and pillaged everywhere he went, killed his closest friends, had an ego that would put Tom Cruise to shame and almost certainly was not responsible for all the great strategies with which he is credited.
Let's just make a movie about Vlad Dracula that doesn't involve vampires. I mean, come one, impaling his enemies on stakes, burning the noblemen alive, who wouldn't want to watch that movie?
-
die stupid Turks, thats for occupying Eastern Europe for 600 bloody years.
:mad2: :mad2:
bwahahahaha!!
-
I like the people of Turkey. They like to build their towns right on the old sites of the ones that got destroyed by earthquakes. That takes a special kind of stupid to do that. Or maybe they've just become really good at building stuff, and it's easier to let the Earth knock it down for them.
-
well, you can't very well move and entire population to a new place - one less prone to earthquakes. Just look at California or Japan. The best you can do is try to build quake-proof structures and hope for the best.
-
OK, I didn't see the trailer, nor will I probably see the film. Reason? Well, the best case scenario is that I will be underwhelmed. The worse case scenario is that I will want to kill Oliver Stone whose movies I have loved (so far).
Well, first things first.
We Greeks, understandably love Alexander. He is our greatest hero of all time, and I want to annotate HERO, not conqueror. He was the first to unite the Greeks under his banner in battle. It is a pity that this unity didn't last past his death. Who knows what might have been.
That is not the reason why we adore him though. It is more simple than that. Had it not been for him, we would not exist.
Let me make myself clear. Chi huang Ti was a great warrior, and for me one of the great unknown leaders of mankind (and the reason why you call CHI-NA as you do). He united the chinese under him in 224 BC. Had it not been for him, though some other leader would have done the same. China is a huge place both in territory and population. Not even Genghis Khan could make the chinese turn into Mongols. Instead quite the opposite happened.
Let us also take into account Hannibal. One of the worlds' greatest generals who led his nation into a futile war against his nation's arch-enemy and lost. What happened of his nations and all its works? It is a subnote in history books. It died.
Greece was not all that different from Carthage/Phoenicia. Embroiled with it in a bitter rivalry with Carthaginians to the west and the Persians to the east, Greece had just gone through a terrible war which included genocide, mass death due to plague, huge reversals of fate, and a spectacular traitor (Alcibiades, anyone?). Persians would play one nation against the other, weakening them for the eventual third assault that would certainly succeed. Not just that. I don't think that we would have last as long as we eventually did. Mediterranean and Europe in general is teeming with different cultures. What became of Etruscans, All the nations in Asian minor, all the nations of Italia (prior rome), the lusitans in Spain or the Moesians (who lived in what is now Bulgaria). GONE FOREVER. I believe we would have been in that list too.
Then Phillip rose in power. He created Alexander's army and enhanced his domain so much that Alexander's campaign in the east was the next logical step. History mistreated him. He wasn't a kind man. But he was a great man, (and possibly one of the few whose' tomb has been excavated in Vergina, Macedonia of Greece (the real one)-- that is the area around salonika and the land further east and west . AND A NOTE ON THAT.... The reason the other macedonia exists is purely ALEXANDER. He is the only known link to join together Albanians, Serbians, Bulgarians and Turks who live in that country, even if NO-ONE of those were in the area in the time of Alexander. Well, to each his own. They couldn't directly claim him so they claimed the name of his country. I guess we should feel flatered :rolleyes: Oh well!
Then comes Big AL. He conquers the world. Then there are Greek nations from massalia (Marseilles) to Indus river. Colonisation is underway for the 1000 cities that Alexanders' heirs founded (even if warring amongst themselves). Result? Until the Arabs, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Israel,Jordan Egypt, Lybia were greek. Not just greek descended but the population was largely greek-ified too. Ever since that period, The hellenistic era, our tongue became what is today, that is fixed vowels and consonnants, "what you read is what you get" :)
(I know it sounds hard to believe, but Greek is actually an easy language once you get used to using all the different sounds)
:thepimp:
In other words, we had been spared from the worst fate in history, oblivion. Being so large in both population and prestige, heritage, culture (also due to the enormous wealth that expansion and Alexander's raid of the Persian treasure troves), the Romans, our conquerors but mostly practical people let us be.
For what happened later with the Arabs, was fate, and with the Turks OUR FAULT. I can't imagine another empire squandering in so little time (like Byzantion did in the decade 1071-1081) what had taken eons (literally) to build. I guess it has to do with our worse disadvantage as a nation... Civil war. As a general rule, after Greeks emerge victorious from a difficult situation, they tend to fight among themselves. Happened in Byzantium, but also up untill recently (Last civil war was right after the liberation from the Germans) :blah:
As for the other "fault" other people find in us, I REALLY believe that Ancient Greeks became the posterboys for the gay community since time immemorial. I don't have any other reason for thinking the way I do, than our customs, our ways, the way we Greeks think, and the time I spent serving my country in the Greek Air Force. I don't think gays take to figthing all that well.
I may be a simpleton, I don't know. It's just that had the Ancient Greeks been Village people from yore, why should they fight in the Thermopylae, when they could turn around and bend over ? :ha:
But seriously now, They might have been or not, no way to know for sure, till someone comes back and tells us. Thing is one can only be sure for himself, and not blame others.
Oh, and do come down from your horse. We Greeks are diverse people. Southern Greeks are shorter and darker, same as us Northern Greeks are taller and lighter. Yes, Alexanders' army may well have been manned by blonde/ blue eyed Macedonians. While I am not a typical greek, I have dark brown hair, am 1.90 in height and blue eyes. A lot of Northern Greeks are of the same build as me. Don't overstereotype people. We are europeans in Greece. This isn't middle east! Come the olympiad, come down here and check it out for yourselves!
And so, to continue the story, why should Greeks survive? What makes them so different to deserve it? What have the Greeks done for you? The obvious answer, (because of the vagueness of ideas like, ÄÇÌÏÊÑÁÔÉÁ, ÅËÅÕÈÅÑÉÁ, ÉÓÏÔÇÔÁ, ËÏÃÏÓ, ÍÏÕÓ, ÐÍÅÕÌÁ and the sort) one simple thing.
Had it not been for the Carolvigians on France and Byzantines on the East, Europe now would be Sunni Arab. And Byzantium took about 80% of the assault, rather than the 20% that Charlemagne's father had to face. True, the Turks overwhelmed us, but by then Europe was ready. So, now we live in the future have a global civillisation worty of the name, who can be proud of its accomplishments. Because if we were living in a Sunni Arab continent, I don' think we would be having Freespace, let alone forums in which to discuss about Alexander.
(Not to mention Persians, and the Thermopylae thing) :)
So, to cut things short...
Alexander, being dreadfully jealous of the glory of Achilles, tried to match him in glory... and succeeded. In the process, he also saved his nation. Which in the fullness of time saved Europe. And again in the fullness of time, Europe came back to its rescue (It is well known that without European intervention in Navarin (Gr Brittain, France and Russia) in 1828, the Greek Rebellion of 1821 would wither and die).
And to end with the "fault" some of you find in us...
We Greeks, have saved your ass 2 times already! :hopping:
Stop telling lies about ours!!!
ÊÁËÇÍÕ×ÔÁ!
-
If anyone picks on Greece I will ask Carl to rip out their lungs ;7
Of course there WAS that stupid internet banning thing (something about online gaming linked to gambling hence illegal)? but being a resonable people they overturned it right?
Anyway I forgot which ones they were but one of my grandparents was pure Greek and the other pure Italian (meaning I barely understood EITHER of them!) LOL!
"It's ALL Greek to me!"
Seriously I can't pretend to have the same attachment to a land I'm barely connected with BUT I do think for his time Alexander was one heck of a general so hopefully the movie will do him justice! I still need to catch up on the latest flicks like Troy and Spartacus first...
-
No, Alexius Comnenus saved our asses from the Turks (who were much more tolerant than the Europeans at the time, it's the Shi'ites who have had the history of militanitism)
-
Originally posted by GT-Keravnos
Greece was not all that different from Carthage/Phoenicia. Embroiled with it in a bitter rivalry with Carthaginians to the west and the Persians to the east, Greece had just gone through a terrible war which included genocide, mass death due to plague, huge reversals of fate, and a spectacular traitor (Alcibiades, anyone?). Persians would play one nation against the other, weakening them for the eventual third assault that would certainly succeed. Not just that. I don't think that we would have last as long as we eventually did. Mediterranean and Europe in general is teeming with different cultures. What became of Etruscans, All the nations in Asian minor, all the nations of Italia (prior rome), the lusitans in Spain or the Moesians (who lived in what is now Bulgaria). GONE FOREVER. I believe we would have been in that list too.
See my location :p
Greece is a nice country to visit, but I found it too hot for my taste... one can only see why did the ancient greeks wore those outfits that look like white sheets once you go there :D