Why don't they make Napoleonic movies anymore ?

[jetengine]

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.

[The Red Graf]

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.

[Modhail]

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...

[Rhoderic]

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.

[Modhail]

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.

[Sir_Theo]

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?)

[jetengine]

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.

[The Red Graf]

Don't forget The Duelist, Damn the Defiant, and Billy Budd.

[Elbows]

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. 

[Drachenklinge]

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?

[fastolfrus]

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.

[Ray Rivers]

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.

[Drachenklinge]

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.

[Rhoderic]

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.

[Vermis]

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.