Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: jetengine on January 16, 2016, 11:14:46 PM
-
I'm curious as to this. It's one of the early 'world wars' has a hell of alot of participants so no one nation can really feel 'left out' outside of Asia, spiffy costumes and tons of awesome visuals. In the past i'd have said "Well it's really expensive to outfit that many guys' I mean Waterloo (the film) has 17,000 extras! However with the advent of technology (Revenge of the sith especially which headlined clone-army tech, I'm serious they duplicated ten guys in wookie suits into a several thousand strong army all looking fairly different) they could easily make a cool looking film with the 'correct' numbers for a decent budget.
-
I suspect it comes down to interest. Master and Commander was a beautifully shot, accurate, and well acted recreation of a really good Napoleonic naval story with a major Hollywood star attached and I don't think it did very well. It's a shame.
-
Because Napoleonics aren't suited to fast flashy chase scenes, lens flares and Michael Bay "Bwaaaap" noises. Plus it's hard to shoehorn in the mandatory love interest without involving camp followers, whom the modern PC-crowd would rather sanitize away... :(
That's one of the the great sadnesses of the modern day, we have all the tech to make really beautiful mass battle movies (Napoleonic, medieval*, etc.) but are stuck with an industry that doesn't do history or deeper story, just over-extended music videos for movies.
(God, do I ever sound like an old fart today!)
*: I would love to see a HYW battle done right, or a full sized Japanese battlefield in a movie...
-
Regarding the "anymore" in the topic title, was there some point at which very many of them were made (not counting the Sharpe TV features (EDIT: and Hornblower))? I honestly can't think of many existing non-TV Napoleonic movies at all.
It would be a welcome new trend, though. Any sort of European war movies from round about the League of Augsburg right through to the Franco-Prussian War would be welcome.
-
Any sort of European war movies from round about the League of Augsburg right through to the Franco-Prussian War would be welcome.
Heck, any sort of European war movie that doesn't feature Brat Pitt making funny faces would be welcome... ;)
But yeah, movies about war seem to be either WWII or (effectively) fantasy these days.
-
Without any fact checking or anything I'd presume it's because the vast majority of big budget war films are from American studios and it's a subject that doesn't interest the American public. You might get a film set in the war of 1812 if you are lucky. The only ones from Hollywood I can think of are Master and Commander and The Duellists. Most others were funded by British or Russian studios.
As already mentioned you do have the British TV shows Sharpe and Hornblower, or adaptations of stuff like War and Peace or Vanity Fair (actually wasn't there a film of that too?)
-
Whats the consensus on BBC's War and Peace anyway ? I have yet to give it a go and was kind of amused at them taking it on since the BBC is known for being something of a spendthrift with its shows, yet is adapting a legendarily long novel concerning a million man battle.
-
Don't forget The Duelist, Damn the Defiant, and Billy Budd.
-
The majority of the American public couldn't tell you what the Napoleonic Wars were, who was involved or when they occurred. Interest would be minimal. Like Master and Commander, it would likely have to be based on a book, as no one is sitting down to right a cutting edge modern film script on their own featuring the Napoleonic Wars. You're far more likely to have a European country commit to one (I'd like to see the Russians do one as they have decent films). Unfortunately, as mentioned, Master and Commander (beautiful film) was a failure and this would kill the business argument behind making one for another twenty years.
If Hollywood did do some, they'd probably be painful to watch.
You could ask the same question about a lot of genres...simple answer: money/profit. I'd like to see a fantastic sci-fi epic or two, but without going retro it simply doesn't seem to happen. There are a handful of formulas for big budget movies and even fewer plots.
-
This is maybe a bit offtopic, but is it still the case that the all-European-clischee is right, that US-Americans still think, ie Germans were still ruled by an emperor (if anyone is a bit into actual politics ... please no obvious jokes here ^^) and such?
I really thought, this has bettered quite a while ago, no?
-
The majority of the American public couldn't tell you what the Napoleonic Wars were, who was involved or when they occurred.
All they would know is that they weren't involved so it can't have been important :~}
Unless they could cast Samuel L Jackson as Wellington and have him beat Napoleon (probably a skinny British actor such as Cumberbatch, but as the villain he would have to have a British accent) in a fist fight outside a train station.
Or possibly the reverse, Cumberbatch as the villain Wellington aided by a scar-faced Prussian (probably with a monocle or a white cat) beaten by the hero Napoleon L Jackson who then sails off to retire in a tropical paradise where the uncivilised Europeans (who just don't understand him) can't reach him.
-
American public
Why should the American public be fascinated with European wars? Or Japanese wars? Or Chinese wars? Or African wars?
Asking Hollywood to make movies about European history is silly.
If Europeans want to see movies about European history, then Europeans would make their own movies, dont'cha think?
And they have:
Austerlitz (1960) - French
War and Peace (1967) - Russian
Waterloo (1970) - Russian/Italian
So if you want more European war movies... it's probably best to leave the "American public" out of the conversation.
-
Hm, that sounds a bit harsh. Hope it was not my question, which gave reason for that. In that case, sorry, I was just curious.
Every movie-maker searches for themes he deemed worthy of some sort for his favorite audience. And if the biggest chunk of his audience is coming from ie Europe or the US he will take that into consideration I guess. All the more with actual movie industry, I am sure.
However, I'd like to add another aspect. When they found out something new about the time of King Arthur, a few movies followed right away. Maybe right now, there is no new aspect to wrap new movies around regarding Napoleon. Maybe if they find new letters from Napoleon to someone ...
Some movies require new techiques, since the story.will be ever the same, as with Lord of the Rings. Many tries, but only the last one really came close to the ambiente of some sort.
As with Romeo and Julia, you can adept that subject to whatever theatre you like, so new news needed.
But with Napoleon? What's new about it? Big battles? Seen. War? Seen. Lovestory with battle background? Seen. Horses finding home? Seen.
Last but not least ... right no it is the time of fantasy and super heroes. Both not available in Napoleons time. ;)
-
Why should the American public be fascinated with European wars? Or Japanese wars? Or Chinese wars? Or African wars?
Asking Hollywood to make movies about European history is silly.
If Europeans want to see movies about European history, then Europeans would make their own movies, dont'cha think?
And they have:
Austerlitz (1960) - French
War and Peace (1967) - Russian
Waterloo (1970) - Russian/Italian
So if you want more European war movies... it's probably best to leave the "American public" out of the conversation.
I think part of the problem is that the British high-budget movie industry is to a considerable degree part of the Hollywood apparatus these days. For instance, can we call James Bond movies "British" any longer? Meanwhile, very high-budget films from the rest of Europe are quite few and far between.
That being said, I still have faith in the European movie industry, and I agree that if there's ever a new, grandiose Napoleonic film, there's a good chance it'll come from somewhere like France, Germany, Poland, Italy or Spain. Then there's Russia of course, although I personally am rather lukewarm to the on-the-nose "grim & macho" style typical of many later Russian war/warrior films. I'd hope for a good Napoleonic flick to be about more than just a bunch of blood-streaked warriors with savage grimaces bayonetting each other under an ashen sky ;)
But with Napoleon? What's new about it? Big battles? Seen. War? Seen. Lovestory with battle background? Seen. Horses finding home? Seen.
Last but not least ... right no it is the time of fantasy and super heroes. Both not available in Napoleons time. ;)
Fantasy? Seen. Super heroes? Seen seen seen.
-
Unless they could cast Samuel L Jackson as Wellington and have him beat Napoleon (probably a skinny British actor such as Cumberbatch, but as the villain he would have to have a British accent) in a fist fight outside a train station.
Or possibly the reverse, Cumberbatch as the villain Wellington aided by a scar-faced Prussian (probably with a monocle or a white cat) beaten by the hero Napoleon L Jackson who then sails off to retire in a tropical paradise where the uncivilised Europeans (who just don't understand him) can't reach him.
Sshhhh. Quentin Tarantino might see this.
-
@ Rhoderic regarding fantasy and supers
You're right. Seen, as well. And apart from the more accidential effect that I like these genres, I am waiting for some new ideas within movie industrie as well.
For instance I like Interstellar (apart from the theatralic part near the end) and Gravity. The killer is not a monster, not an alien or mutated human, nor an ominous sphere or something ... the killer is Mrs Physics herself.
There are so many themes and even books sort of waiting to be movielized ... but ... geting astray.
Say, who's that Napoleon you mentioned??? That the guy why I have to learn tables for turning meter in yard and vice versa at school?
-
There was a big budget Napoleonic movie last year guys. All about a guy called Napoleon. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. ;)
-
I liked Napoleon Dynamite but I'll readily admit that it wasn't the most accurate historical depiction and the CGI was pretty shit. Of course it had Shondrella Avery in it so I was blinded to any of the film's minor failings.
-
All they would know is that they weren't involved so it can't have been important :~}
Unless they could cast Samuel L Jackson as Wellington and have him beat Napoleon (probably a skinny British actor such as Cumberbatch, but as the villain he would have to have a British accent) in a fist fight outside a train station.
Or possibly the reverse, Cumberbatch as the villain Wellington aided by a scar-faced Prussian (probably with a monocle or a white cat) beaten by the hero Napoleon L Jackson who then sails off to retire in a tropical paradise where the uncivilised Europeans (who just don't understand him) can't reach him.
Jackson might not be a great fit for Arthur Wellesley, but how about Thomas-Alexandre Dumas?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Alexandre_Dumas_%281762-1806%29.JPG)
The Naopleonic Wars were huge, lasting decades, and have stories enough for Hollywood if anyone wants to look. Though as some have pointed out, maybe it's better if Hollywood leaves well enough alone.
-
Well it aint quite 'Napoleonic' but it's of the same general period and it is an epic. Actually it's every bit as interesting a conflict.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4CkGqclYbeo
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2387513/
-
There was also this movie about Toussaint L'Ouverture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m415YfsUBQs
And I did like Napoleon Dynamite!
-
Edit: lots of tongue in cheek here.
I am an American.
I am a war gamer.
I used to play (Tricolor era) Napoleonic games.
What are you selling?
The Revoluntionary wars?
Napoleon until he was Emperor?
Napoleon the Emperor rising until everything fell down around his ears?
The 100 Days?
And keep it in two hours. How are you planning to do any of those and have a commercial success?
How about a battle or campaign? One that would interest Hollywood?
This would justifiably be a hard sell to a movie making business like Hollywood! ::)
Sadly, I do not expect to see such in my life time? Maybe the 300th anniversary of Waterloo? Oh, wait... :P
Seriously, I do not see Hollyweird being interested.
-
Kubrick was about to make a film about Napoleon before he died (or was at least planning to).
French cinema would be your best bet for a film set during the Napoleonic wars and they have made some in the last 20 yrs.
Le Colonel Chabert (about a French cavalry officer wounded at Eylau, with Depardieu in the title role),
Monsieur N (About Napoleon on St Helena......).
Nothing recent to my knowledge though and these films have battle scenes in them, the former having an excellent cavalry charge in the snow I recall, they're not "war movies".
Be careful what you wish for, however, remember "The Patriot" and "Revolution"?
-
Be careful what you wish for, however, remember "The Patriot" and "Revolution"?
I think most of us would rather not - even those of us fortunate enough to not have actually seen them. lol
-
Why should the American public be fascinated with European wars? Or Japanese wars? Or Chinese wars? Or African wars?
Asking Hollywood to make movies about European history is silly.
If Europeans want to see movies about European history, then Europeans would make their own movies, dont'cha think?
And they have:
Austerlitz (1960) - French
War and Peace (1967) - Russian
Waterloo (1970) - Russian/Italian
So if you want more European war movies... it's probably best to leave the "American public" out of the conversation.
Maybe they should be because some of us Europeans like to see wars about the American Civil War or the War of Independence or cowboy movies! Surely American's aren't that disinterested in European History? I take the point but it isn't 'silly' for Hollywood to make films about ... well anything. However, Hollywood seem to prefer Sci-Fi and thrillers most of all these days ...
Waterloo ... 1970 ... noted .., we need to get back into gear!
-
Maybe they should be because some of us Europeans...
Hey, don't get me wrong... I love the Napoleonic era, am an American and would stand in line to see some good quality movies on the era.
I just don't think it is the kind of thing that the American public is really interested in.
-
Hey, don't get me wrong... I love the Napoleonic era, am an American and would stand in line to see some good quality movies on the era.
I just don't think it is the kind of thing that the American public is really interested in.
Sadly, Ray, I think that is exactly why European movie industry needs to get ont he stick before the 400th anniversary...
-
By the way, there was a fictitious big-budget Hollywood Napoleon movie in "Get Shorty".
(http://www.ericrosenbergdesign.com/files/gimgs/23_gsnapoleonbillboard.jpg)
Sadly, Ray, I think that is exactly why European movie industry needs to get ont he stick before the 400th anniversary...
200 years from now? :)
-
By the way, there was a fictitious big-budget Hollywood Napoleon movie in "Get Shorty".
(http://www.ericrosenbergdesign.com/files/gimgs/23_gsnapoleonbillboard.jpg)
200 years from now? :)
Okay, maybe a bit pessimistic... ;)
-
The recent BBC adaptation of 'War & Peace' had some excellent battle scenes.
Austerlitz and Borodino and the retreat from Moscow (and another small battle before Austerlitz).
-
You beat me to it 😊
-
The Pride and the Passion - Hollywood film with the story in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars. :D
European - Wellingtons Lines - about the Lines of Torres Vedras passed in Portugal
European - Legend of the Soldier - passed in Spain after the battle of El-Bruc.
-
Kinda OT, but:
Michael Bay "Bwaaaap"
This is actually originated in Inception.
-
The majority of the American public couldn't tell you what the Napoleonic Wars were, who was involved or when they occurred.
I'm a U.S. National Park Ranger and the majority of our citizens don't know their own history let alone European history. I like to think of it as job security. ;)
All they would know is that they weren't involved so it can't have been important :~}
You might want to look into the 'War of 1812."
for example, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
Historians in the United States and Canada see it as a war in its own right, but Europeans sometimes see it as a minor theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, as it was caused by related issues to that war (especially the Continental System). By the war's end in 1815 most issues had been resolved and there were no boundary changes.
It wasn't until college, and then only because I was a 19th Century major, that I learned about how the War of 1812 fit into the rest of the Napoleonic Wars.
History, at least in the U.S. is taught in sound bites and rarely are the connections explained.
Yeah, they teach us the U.S. beat the British for the second time in the War if 1812, but they don't always teach us about the burning of Washington and how close the British came to winning in spite of the fact they were in the throes of the Napoleonic wars with France.
-
The BBC has just done a very good job of War and Peace ..
MaleGriffin : not sure I would say that the United states won the war.
The plain fact is the U.S.A TRIED to invade Canada 4 times and take it from British rule and Failed .Britain never wanted to take any land from the U.S.A
Just because Britian did not take any land in the treaty does not mean they lost the war.
Would you say Germany won the Battle of Britain in 1940 or even they war as the allies did not claim any land from germany after the war..?! No we dont .Britian stopped the attackers and won in the end!
I think if you ask any Canadian they will tell you they won the war and i would agree with them..
LR
-
Would you say Germany won the Battle of Britain in 1940 or even they war as the allies did not claim any land from germany after the war..?! No we dont .Britian stopped the attackers and won in the end!
You might want to check your sources on that one. ;)
-
I think if you ask any Canadian they will tell you they won the war and i would agree with them...
Bit of a stalemate or tradeoff if we're being honest, but certainly if you ask most of us, we won, given we got to burn down the white house and who else can say that? ;) :D lol I mean sure, they also burned down Toronto, but it was brand new and barely a small town at the time. >:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QET4x2CzDOQ
A name I've used for various gaming accounts elsewhere has been "General Robert Ross", if that's any indication of my sentiments (It's really fun to kill American players in FPS games under that username lol).
The thing is, the notion of an invasion coming off was absurd. All that ballyhoo about the annexation of Canada being "little more than a matter of marching" meant the Americans committed minimal forces (where have I seen that story before...). Meanwhile, much of English Canada was only a generation removed from having fled the US Colonies in the first place due to their position as Loyalists to the crown, and for a variety of reasons (mostly due to the religious protections they'd been granted) Quebec was far more sanguine about continued rule by England than in becoming another US state, so American troops found they were extremely unwelcome by the locals almost everywhere they went (again, where have I seen that story before...).
On the other hand, Canada, even with the moderate number of British forces available, was in no position to truly threaten the US militarily. What we managed might well have been close to a best-case scenario.
So in theory the fact that we managed to avoid annexation would be counted as a victory in much the same manner as Vietnam might be counted as a victory, but in retrospect a pointless war where everything just went right back to the status quo after the fight was done, however silly it might seem, was by far the most likely outcome.
-
*cough cough* Politics *cough cough*. ;)
-
I have been seeing a lot of trailers for "War & Peace & Zombies" lately. That will get the attention of the American public. :D
-
*cough cough* Politics *cough cough*. ;)
The War of 1812? Too soon?
-
I agree it is largely down to ignorance of their own history, but then again look at the mess the american film industry made of any adaptation of the Alamo, and pretty much any ACW film.
Even Hollywood historical epics that did take the trouble to get the look right failed badly. Did anyone realise the sad gits with cloaks on horses armed with toothpicks in Taras Bulba were supposed to be Polish and Lithuanian winged hussars!? The 'historical advisor' saw woodcut illustrations of the troops and thought the truncated lances were supposed to be that short!
I tend to find the better rendered battle scenes are those peripheral to the main story - like the TYW sequence in the Gerard D Cyrano De Bergerac.
-
The War of 1812? Too soon?
No, that is okay, but I'd like to ask everybody to avoid drawing parallels to current events so I don't have to act all fascist overseer-y. ;)
-
If you take any historical period the historiography is coloured by contemporary events.
Alexander the Great has been treated by historians as a world unifier (1920s-30s League of Nations happy clappy era), a sadistic conqueror (post Hitler, Stalin and WWII) and a narcissistic mother's boy out to win approval from his father (1960s-70s psychobabble). The same goes for film making. Hollywood history is writ large with stories of Directors trying to stamp their particular visions/political agenda on film but almost always at odds with the executive producers and backers.
Despite the obvious appeal to people like us of the Napoleonic period, outside this forum, let alone outside Europe, I don't think it is that popular. I have to admit I am aware of the War of 1812 but woefully ignorant of events. I'd love to see a film made of it, but I know the treatment would end up with it being s***e even with the best of intentions.
Similarly the Wars of Liberation in South America in the post Napoleonic period is the stuff of epic story telling with colourful characters like Bernardo O'Higgins, Alexander Cochrane, San Martin et al. You just know though that while visually the film may look the part, the treatment would wind up being just as fictional as the latest Star Wars, with only the main character names being accurate.
-
Indeedy.
Last year I watched the first series of Narcos, Netflix's take on the Pablo Escobar story. Enjoyable television, well cast, well acted, nicely shot but it takes some considerable liberties with the known facts and this in a multi-hour, big budget production. It's an epic tale, with larger than life characters but it's only 20 years or so ago that the protagonist met his denouement and there's both a ready supply of eyewitnesses plus multiple written accounts, including one or two decent books on the subject.
I am reasonably familiar with Sr Escobar's story, I've even visited a few of the spots where the action takes place. I found it enjoyable television but would hardly consider it some form of historical record.
Your best hope for anything Napoleonic is a BBC serial. Of course it won't have the budget that goes with Hollywood, or HBO or even Netflix.
Personally, I'm waiting for a Bollywood or better still, Nollywood, Napoleonic costume drama.
-
Patience, this goes from Los Angeles to DC via Shanghai but it has a point.
If my history degree taught me anything it was that most European style Wars (I include USA wars as such in many ways) ended up with the results being quo ante bellum or hardly any change after all the blood and money were spent. Yes there were wars where great (sometimes lasting) changes occurred but even then one can question the cost in many cases. World War 2 is probably the one most notable in our/our parents lifetime where relatively lasting changes occurred and significant changes did occur after 1918. For many war gamers and the non-war gaming world it is more spectacle, entertainment, and being away from the more frustrating aspects of reality that drives movie attendance and war gaming.
Movies are usually a poor vehicle for teaching history for most people.
Had not considered Bollywood but dancing hordes would actually keep me away. ::)
Hang in there.
A co-worker - active in theatre for many years -converted to Islam to marry an East Indian woman he met acting in a play here in Midwest America (conversion was a necessary saving face moment for the family after the East Indian first husband had turned out to be a drunkard and other worse things.). He frequently watches Bollywood movies in her native language which he does not speak - the things we do for love - lol but he has mentioned at teaching history as opposed to cultural stories about history they might fail the fact checker approach. But he admits, under torture, that there are some very entertaining movies despite the language barrier.
Coming to the point.
But it might be a starting point for a hidden history conversation. Once I got my wife to understand that despite her otherwise excellent Roman Catholic private school 1st through 6th grade education there were other, frequently more interesting, things that happened in History she actually started enjoying the history museum in the city. So a good historically based but entertaining movie would be welcome.
The hard part would be selling the movie to a mass market.