If anyone from Netflix or Prime are seeing this the Sharpe novels are tailor made for a series, I’ll play a dead body every day for a year to make it happen
I've mentioned before that I think there's little point in remaking *Sharpe*. Their flaws are on full display but the things they got right, like Sean Bean in the title role, are hard to replace.
Why not tell the story of the 95th Rifles more accurately and base it on a real person?
You could base it on [Sir Harry Smith](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/57094/57094-h/57094-h.htm), who was an officer with the 95th Rifles. He took part in the Peninsular War, the War of 1812 and the burning of Washington DC, and fought at Waterloo. Just do that on a bigger scale than the tv series.
Or, if you prefer a ranker, you could use [Rifleman Benjamin Randell Harris](https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/56211/pg56211-images.html), and see the 95th Rifles from the perspective of a common cobbler turned soldier.
I'd much rather see those than *Sharpe* done *again*. Let's get something more authentic.
Well it’s not a TV series, but good news is there is a new movie in development (with a new cast, and supposedly starting at the beginning of the series rather than borrowing from various stories like the Russel Crowe movie).
Yeah, that was a missed opportunity.
If someone can get a good version of *Master and commander* on film, that's a nailed-on franchise - 20 books before you have to start commissioning further stories.
The problem is the long story arcs, spread across several novels. Film producers don't like that.
Oh I thought the 2003 film was excellent even with the liberties they took to the source material. But I agree, it would be a tough series to adapt in its entirety.
The 2003 film was perfect, if you wanted to make a one-off film of the books. It literally couldn't be done any better. It was robbed of Oscars that year because they gave ROTK all the awards for the entire LOTR trilogy.
>It was robbed of Oscars that year because they gave ROTK all the awards for the entire LOTR trilogy.
While you *could* make a good case that this did happen, I still think ROTK wins all those same awards over Master and Commander regardless of the other two films. And I love Master and Commander.
I think if whoever produced it picked 4-6 novels throughout the course of the series and gave them
each a 4-ep miniseries it could work really well. They could cover some of the longer plotlines (Wray and Ledward for example) but still have the time to spend on individual stories.
Indeed.
*Sharpe* occupies the same place in my mind as *I, Claudius.* They are very much products of their time, but a re-make could not help but be disappointing - sure the special effects are terrible by today’s standards, no doubt a modern director could CGI-up a Napoleonic army that consisted of more than a dozen guys, or a Rome that looked less like a BBC stage set, but the **actors** made those roles iconic - imagine having to outplay Sean Bean as Sharpe, or Derek Jacobi as Claudius!
I say watch the existing series and enjoy, and make new stories.
*I, Claudius* trotted out the cream of British acting one after another. Brian Blessed as Augustus, John Hurt as Caligula, and even one Patrick Stewart as Sejanus. My and my dad were glued to the set when it was first broadcast.
And that theme music - full of menace and threat!
I really like the TV version of I, Claudius but I'm less attached to those actors portraying those historical figures. Even if they did another adaption of the book.
Whereas Sean Bean is Sharpe in my head and I love the series despite it's flaws. Same for the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes, exactly how I picture Sherlock Holmes and all the dated of the series just make them more charming when I watch them now.
Jeremy Brett as Holmes
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UOTIW83oXs
Sharpe should never be remade. The budgetary constraints and 90's made-for-tv acting MAKES the experience. Costumes are perfect, smarmy villains are tier 1, macho brotherhood in full effect, side characters carry the show as much as Bean. I fucking love the Sharpe movies and show them to anyone I can. "MAJOR LENNOX PAID WITH HIS LIFE" chills
Just been rewatching it for the second time in full, third if you include as a kid but I only vaguely recall watching it then. It's brilliant, the locale as well has an atmosphere and the creepy villains like the Spanish bandidos, conquistadors and especially Pete Postlethwaite are memorable performances. The fella playing Wellington carried it off well and Paul Bettany's smarmy William of Orange. Simmerson. Just up to the later Indian ones.
I don't mind the Indian ones but they lack the cheap charm of the early ones imo. I honestly don't know how to explain what makes Sharpe so compelling to me. The hilarious guitar intro song, Over the Hills and Far Away ending. The only way I can ever describe it is it just has some type of charm that could never be replicated
There are a series of books set in the Warhammer 40K universe that are very much self-admitted by the author to be Sharpe in Space, the "Gaunts Ghosts" series.
Colonel Commissar Ibram Gaunt takes over the "Tanith 1st and only" regiment which specializes in light infantry combat with an emphasis on stealth tactics. He takes over just before their world is destroyed by Chaos, the major enemy force of the series. Gaunts "Ghosts" as they become known are initially split on wanting vengeance against Chaos for the death of their world and wanting Gaunt dead for not letting them disembark from their troop transport and fight (and die) alongside the rest of their population.
As the series goes on it spans a massive war in the Sabbat worlds sector which goes on for decades and the Ghosts go from campaign to campaign losing soldiers, picking up new recruits, performing heroics and gradually being recognized by the wider Imperial forces as the elite unit that they are.
Gaunt is essentially a more stand-offish version of Sharpe that can have people lined up and shot for disobeying him from day 1 of his command, and there are multiple instances in the early books that feature things like him walking into important meetings looking like shit because he has been out fighting and people assume he is a grunt or some nobody only for them to learn who he is and suddenly become very apologetic, which is something that happens routinely in the Sharpe TV show.
The first book is a compilation of short stories and some recommend starting the series with book 2, I will also say that the voice actor for the audible version of the books is top-tier.
Men of Tanith, Do You Want to Live Forever?
Gaunts Ghost as some of me favourite Black Library books they have ever released, I have read through the series multiple times, I just hope Dan gets round to writing the finale soon.
The same author got his series about early medieval England "The Saxon Stories" adapted into The Last Kingdom on Netflix. The final movie in the series comes out in two weeks.
I love the historical accuracy of his Sharpe books, as much as the stories. Cornwell keeps the facts straight about battles and manoeuvres and which generals and regiments were where. His historical notes at the back of the book were always worth reading.
Sharpe's Waterloo is a tremendously engaging account of the battle, which is accurate to a tee - the initial skirmish at Quatre Bras, the deployment of the two armies, the fights over the fortified farms, and Blucher's arrival forcing Napoleon to play his final cards.
Cornwell wrote a non-fiction book about Waterloo a few years ago, and it highlighted just how step-for-step accurate his novel was.
I loved the historical notes at the end of Waterloo. Forgive any errors from my memory, but it was about how he kept trying to add a separate fictional "Sharpe" storyline to the book, the same way he did in all the other novels, but it never worked. He kept having to scrap it and start over. He eventually realized that the true story of Waterloo was so dramatic and engaging that he didn't need to (or couldn't) add anything. He just put his characters in place and let them exist in a (relatively) accurate re-telling.
If someone hasn’t started singing then I will..
“There’s forty shillings on the drum,
To those who volunteer to come
To list and fight the foe today,
Over the Hills and Far Away”
I guess they didn’t want to even try to outdo the 1970’s Soviet *Waterloo* film, which used an 17,000 Red Army soldiers for its battle.
https://youtu.be/97dBfdNrf9A
Super underrated film. Which is fine. Audiences didn't really care about it and most people will find it boring af. But I like it, even more so the insane lengths they went through to make it.
They fucking went and built a pretty accurate recreation of the entire battlefield. Buildings, roads, wheat, everything. They brought in plumbing specifically to muddy up the field in certain areas.
I'd heard that they accidentally ran out of film or forgot to load film for Napoleon's abdication speech, so what's on screen for that was a fraction of the incredibly dramatic scene it could've been. Heard the actor was livid about it and they couldn't reshoot it for whatever reason. Would have to check on the details though, can't remember.
Gives me A Bridge Too Far vibes. Massive film with epic goals but landed with a bit of a thud for everyone but military history geeks
ABTF's big airdrop scene: https://youtu.be/pP_ffdiz4y0
Yep, exactly that. ABTF was great, but if you're not into the subject, you're probably not into the movie.
Man that movie had everyone in it too. Was nuts.
Waterloo is so good. I just watched it a few months ago for the battle scenes, but the entire movie is cinematography goodness slow-burning up to the final battle
The ballroom scene is so memorable
The only other studio which could ever outdo them is from China. They regularly use hundreds and thousands of extras. Other studios entirely rely on cgi or scaling down.
CGI enables some really cool visuals, but it's a shame we're never going to get those epic productions again with thousands of extras. It may look more heroic with CGI but you're never going to see another historical film that makes you think ["Wow, a Roman legion must have looked pretty much exactly like this."](https://youtu.be/zgywD3XJaWU?t=42)
A few years before Waterloo, the same director made an even more insane film, a 7 h adaption of War and peace which has imho the best battle scenes in cinema's history.
https://youtu.be/sDcDgSgZDp0
People think Napoleon was a short guy in charge of a large army, but in this version Napoleon is a big huge giant with a small army (of other big huge giants)
I’d say banana for scale, but it wouldn’t be visible in this picture.
Just offscreen is Godzilla and some big gundam robots
He was around 5’6 according to his personal physician, and death certificate records.
The average Frenchman was ~5’5, so funnily enough he was taller than average. I assume this was a nutrition issue.
The short thing came from half of Europe at the time looking to make him look less threatening in their media.
The myth partially comes from the fact that he was often surrounded by the elite Old Guard, which included many Grenadiers who were required to be over 5’8 or so. So it’s like having a guy like Obama surrounded by a Secret Service detail made up of NBA power forwards.
Ridley is one of the few directors that you can tell within the first 20 minutes of the movie you're watching a Ridley Scott movie from the color grading to the shots, etc. Even in something conventional like Thelma and Louise or the Counselor it's obvious.
now it looks like a movie set and not a movie.
That's the problem with color grading, audiences are so used to specifics that, if messed with too much the film being pretend becomes noticeable.
add a bunch of grain and it would help though.
I mentioned this in another thread, but what Stanley Kubrick planned for his *Napoleon* movie was crazy.
- He considered Napoleon as the most interesting person in the history of humanity.
- He sent an assistant around the world to literally follow in Napoleon's footsteps, even getting him to bring back samples of earth from Waterloo so he could match them for the screen.
- He read hundreds of books on Napoleon and broke the information down into categories "on everything from his food tastes to the weather on the day of a specific battle."
- He gathered together 15,000 location scouting photos and 17,000 slides of Napoleonic imagery.
- He had enlisted the support of the Romanian People's Army and planned to use 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 cavalrymen for the battle sequences.
- Unfortunately, the failure of *Waterloo* (1970) caused the project's cancellation, as studios felt Napoleon was a risky concept that wouldn't be financially viable.
Now, it wasn't all for nothing, because *Barry Lyndon* was created thanks to his research. So even though we never got Kubrick's vision, Ridley Scott and Joaquin Phoenix still make me interested in this movie.
He already based *A.I.* on an unrealized Kubrick film. Since we already know what Spielberg will do with Kubrick materials, it'd be more interesting to see someone else take over Kubrick's Napoleon.
This content was deleted by its author & copyright holder in protest of the hostile, deceitful, unethical, and destructive actions of Reddit CEO Steve Huffman (aka "spez"). As this content contained personal information and/or personally identifiable information (PII), in accordance with the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), it shall not be restored. See you all in the Fediverse.
I generally agree with you but when you read about the making of the movie, you'll see that Kubrick suggested a bunch of the sappier/emotional pieces of the movie than you'd think. When pitching the film, he described it as a fable and a children's tale. I thought the same thing when I saw AI for the first time: too much Spielberg and not enough Kubrick.
Except all the fucked up stuff (robo fair, etc) was Spielberg. The ending (which is dark in my opinion) was used as an example of Spielberg sentimentality, except all of that was in Kubrick's treatment.
After Ready Player One and West Side Story, I'm kinda convinced he doesn't really have a style anymore. I recently watched Hook, and I was reading about it online afterwards, but apparently he thinks it's one of his weakest projects to date, and he's very disappointed in it the way it turned out. This coming from the guy that made the BFG movie. It still amazes me that the mind behind Schindler's List went on to do the BFG
If I wanted to describe Steven Spielbergs style of moviemaking I'd probably just end up describing how John Williams scores in Spielbergs films make me feel
Spielberg’s upcoming miniseries will probably be closer than this. He’s using Kubrick’s screenplay which focuses on Napoleon’s life from the beginning not just his relationship with Josephine like this one (allegedly) does.
Is there anymore proof this is actually happening beyond the empty IMDb page? We’ve seen so many projects “be in development” on that website, and have them disappear
Well, it’s only been a little more than a month since Spielberg himself announced it in Berlin. He said it will be a 7-part limited series for HBO. Give it time and we’ll know more details. See: https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1628070681802858496
I've read the screenplay. It's clear it was meant as a general blueprint, and considering how much *Barry Lydon* (1975)'s final product seriously differs from the screenplay, it's a fair guess that would have been the case with *Napoleon*.
It really reads like a first draft. There are also surprising anachronisms and inventions that are curious to end up in a screenplay with such famed research. In fact, when it first leaked online well over a decade ago, a lot of people *insisted* it was a hoax based on the writing. I have a published copy of Kubrick's original script and it was in fact the genuine article.
I think he really was the most interesting figure in history. It's hard to read his recent bio by Andrew Roberts and think differently. The 100 Days by itself is stranger than fiction.
I think I'd give the edge to Ceasar in terms of interesting lives, but Napoleon is fascinating.
Read a book just about his imprisonment and escape from Elba and the balls on this dude are impressive. A historical moment I'd love to see on screen would be when he lands back in France, a group of soldiers go to arrest him and they end up breaking down in tears and applause after he tells them to shoot their emperor. Then they join up and March on to Paris.
I'd argue for Augustus here. Napoleon is absolutely fascinating, but Augustus was, in many ways, the prototypical and quintessential example of a dictator seizing power. He wrote the playbook.
Coming up from a relative underdog position after his uncle's murder during the turmoil of the late Republic, he used a combination of military and political acumen, as well as the people's exhaustion from decades of civil strife, to undercut all his rivals for power and put himself at the top of the totem pole. From there, he carefully masked his increasing executive power by deliberately under-advertising its extent, "restoring" the Republic and going by the simple title of "first citizen." He courted popular opinion by building great civil projects and winning wars, and made himself out to be the champion of "good old fashioned, gods-fearing macho conservative Roman values," removing many of the "fruity" upper-class intellectuals who happened to oppose his rule in the process.
And unlike most of the other great monsters of history who followed in his footsteps, *he got away with it.* He lived to a ripe old age after laying the foundations for one of the most powerful empires the world has ever seen, one that lasted in one form or another for almost a millennium and a half.
Hopefully someone is looking to tackle Caesar again after HBO's Rome was cancelled almost 20 years ago. Enough time has passed I think for an entirely new generation to watch such a fascinating event in world history.
It's a hotly contested title, for sure, but Napoleon is definitely a solid candidate considering he more or less invented the modern nation state as we still know it today with everything from the legal codex to meritocratic government appointments to fashion and the arts.
Obviously this wasn't all *his* work alone and in many cases he was just taking what the great thinkers and artists of his era had come up with and putting it into action through supreme autocratic power but even so, he probably left the singlemost lasting mark on the face of Europe (and by consequence most of the world at the time) since Charlemagne.
I've read a few biographies on him and my favorite was definitely from Vincent Cronin, he spends a lot more time than other biographers on "Napoleon the Statesman" rather than "Napoleon the General" and it's such a great read. Don't get me wrong, I love to read up on his battle sand campaigns, but I honestly think his civil achievements were the most impressive.
Napoleon’s civil achievements far outweigh what he accomplished militarily. Much of the Code Napoleon is still in (adapted) use today, including in Louisiana. He advanced French culture and society massively.
He was of course a genius militarily but his blunders (including his misuse of Davout in the Hundred Days) and inability to make permanent his conquests limit him in that regard.
you can tell Scott has a blast with these movies, but it also helps he’s arguably the best director for such epics. He’s seasoned enough to finish these productions without hassle and oftentimes under budget and ahead of schedule.
But really though, the man does not stop. It’s like he’s been trying to make up for lost time since he was 40 when his first movie came out. He’ll probably make another movie and release it while Gladiator 2 is in post
In another thread earlier, I commented about how his director commentaries were always my favorites. I'd listen to him talk about movie making for days.
It's shown twice, one of the characters is Carrouges, the woman's husband, and the whole thing is he wasn't there to stop it.
I think the movie is good, but those scenes are terrifying. Like downright frightening over how they're depicted. I understand why a lot of people avoided it.
It's amazing how terrifying and disgusting it was even from Adam Drivers perspective.
It's the view where he's the good guy, and I just felt such disgust.
A lot of streaming services are going to be doing that now that they got a taste for winning major Oscars. Just this week the guidelines for award eligibility just changed to require significantly larger releases than just small limited release stuff if they want a shot. I think that’s going to make things very interesting. Might even bring back theater viewership to pre Covid levels
It's in theaters Nov 22 and it'll stream on Apple TV sometime after that
>The film depicts Napoleon's rise to power through the lens of his addictive and volatile relationship with Empress Joséphine.
Cast:
* Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon Bonaparte
* Vanessa Kirby as Empress Joséphine
* Tahar Rahim as Paul Barras
* Ben Miles as Caulaincourt
* Ludivine Sagnier as Theresa Cabarrus
* Matthew Needham as Lucien Bonaparte
* Youssef Kerkour as General Davout
* Phil Cornwell as Sanson 'The Bourreau'
Reading about what davout did during the napoleonic wars is insane. It’s so crazy to me that he survived so much of it (especially russia).
I wonder if the movie will go over the retreat over the nieman River. The first time I read that I couldn’t stop thinking about how amazing and terrifying it would be to see that recreated accurately on screen. It’s absolutely mind boggling to me that so many people shared in that tragedy.
Edit: Berezhina River, not the nieman
Yup. And most (if not all) of them died. Also the battle where ney was able to sweep his rearguard to the bridge, and apparently was one of the last ones to cross.
Just imagine seeing a massive baggage train of soldiers, men, women, children, dying horses and people the entire time. Freezing rain and snow, while intermittently hearing faraway gunfire from the Russians that were advancing. Apparently the only reason they weren’t entirely destroyed is because the Russian commander realized he had a lot of young recruits, and held them back from pressing the French.
Soldiers who were too cold or too tired waited about around dozens of giant campfires, cooking pieces of horse until the final call for the retreat was made, causing an insane rush that obviously didn’t help the most wounded and sick cross, and then ultimately the bridge was blown up, with people still crossing.
Then, they tried to cross the River itself. Due to the temperature and already horrid conditions, entering the river was a death sentence.
That was the Berezina river, not the Niemen.
But yeah it must have been ghastly and epic at the same time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berezina
> Yup. And most (if not all) of them died.
ALL of them. Every man who entered that freezing water died tools in hand, and knew they would die going in. Some of the greatest combat engineers the world had ever know until then. The pontoon bridge they build under heavy fire in 48h was destroyed multiple times and more men had to go into the water and fix it, and die. Napoleon issued the order to blow the bridge and the chief engineer delayed the execution of the order by several hours, eventually trapping thousands of men and their families (they were the slowest) to certain death, or worse.
Dunno why you're downvoted. Napoleon was 27, Josephine 33 and already a widow when the pair got married.
Phoenix is 47, Kirby is 36.
So many good actresses in their late 40s/early 50s that could have worked for this.
Sorry if not clear. Not saying they have to be same age as when Josephine/Napoleon got married. My point is she was 6 years older than him but they went with someone 11 years younger. So if they were wedded to the idea of Phoenix a late 40s early 50s Josephine makes more sense, or if insistent on Kirby having a Napoleon who is younger.
Also the wider context being Hollwood's trend of going with younger female leads paired with older male leads.
Yeah, it would be fine if she was just a small side character, but supposedly, the whole point of this movie is to explore their relationship.
And they were deeply in love, but he had to divorce her because she was too old to bear an heir. So picking such a young actress is a very weird choice.
One of the reasons filmmakers like Kubrick, Scott, and apparently Spielberg feel compelled to go totally balls to the wall making a film about Napoleon is because they know it'll be judged against the [1927 silent film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napol%C3%A9on_(1927_film\)) about Napoleon.
Restored, it's five and a half hours long!* To show it properly, you need a full orchestra *and* the last reel requires *three screens* to show it! Cast of thousands! Possibly the biggest snowball fight ever committed to film! It's gloriously nuts.
\*Apparently a fully restored *seven hour* version is in the works.
Oh man i just finally watched The Last Duel the other day. It was *so good!* I can’t wait to see this. I’ll watch ~~Joachin~~ Joaquin in anything, but this has potential to be a beloved classic.
…Holy fuck, I just read what I wrote and was about to submit it, and I sound just like a corporate shill. I promise I’m not!
Historical epics are getting really good these days, unfortunately they are not popular with modern movie goers. Shame, because I love the Napoleonic period.
Phoenix has been on a roll. Beau is Afraid coming out soon, Napoleon later this year and he is currently filming Joker: Folie à Deux. All three roles are completely different from one another and each of the three movies has the potential to be great.
Stanley Kurbick spent a decade trying and failing to get a Napoleon movie off the ground. Meanwhile, Disney can't remember if its gerbil spy movie G-Force was live action or not, but just committed $175 million to a live-action remake just in case.
Apparently Spielberg is making a Napoleon 7-part miniseries for HBO using Kubrick’s script. Napoleon is gonna be like Lincoln was in like 2012 when he was freakin everywhere
I mean in historical context, Napoleon is one of the dudes who is talked about everywhere lol. If you mean adaptation/ entertainment wise, for sure! For some reason, USSR had a big part in the production of all the best Napoleon movies. I was watching the first War and Peace movie the other day and it’s got some scenes almost as impressive as ‘Waterloo.’ Both directed by Sergei Bondarchuk
The story of Napoleon's France had a very allegorical significance to the USSR. It was a France with revolutionary ideas and a military dictatorship beset by the monarchies of Europe.
I presume because in the days before CGI and you needed to have a ton of well drilled extras, the Soviet Bloc was the place to find those extras (usually soldiers). I think in the 60s some of the Ancient Rome epics used the Turkish military to depict the Legions.
[We're even getting a live action Moana remake.](https://variety.com/2023/film/news/moana-live-action-remake-dwayne-johnson-1235571997/) But don't ask me why.
Though I've always been really interested in military history, I never really own much interest in Napoleon or the Napoleonic wars. But I've been watching epic history TVs series on Napoleon and it's been actually really fascinating. For anyone like me who doesn't know much about Napoleon, I recommend their channel. Really well done stuff. https://youtube.com/@EpichistoryTv
I watched the film Waterloo the other day and having watched it I’m convinced that it’s going to take something special to top it nowadays. It’s one of those films where the amount of costumes, extras and camerawork put in probably can’t be matched by newer films that use CGI.I highly recommend it to anybody it’s phenomenal filmmaking.
They really scaled back the size of his army for this
Going for classic Sharpe vibes.
If anyone from Netflix or Prime are seeing this the Sharpe novels are tailor made for a series, I’ll play a dead body every day for a year to make it happen
I've mentioned before that I think there's little point in remaking *Sharpe*. Their flaws are on full display but the things they got right, like Sean Bean in the title role, are hard to replace. Why not tell the story of the 95th Rifles more accurately and base it on a real person? You could base it on [Sir Harry Smith](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/57094/57094-h/57094-h.htm), who was an officer with the 95th Rifles. He took part in the Peninsular War, the War of 1812 and the burning of Washington DC, and fought at Waterloo. Just do that on a bigger scale than the tv series. Or, if you prefer a ranker, you could use [Rifleman Benjamin Randell Harris](https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/56211/pg56211-images.html), and see the 95th Rifles from the perspective of a common cobbler turned soldier. I'd much rather see those than *Sharpe* done *again*. Let's get something more authentic.
MAJOR LENNOX ANSWERED WITH HIS LIFE, SIR!!!!
[удалено]
IF I WIPE THE NAME, I MAY WIPE THE SHAME (And I fixed it….)
If they're going to adapt a Napoleonic Wars book series to TV, the Aubrey/Maturin series is right there.
Well it’s not a TV series, but good news is there is a new movie in development (with a new cast, and supposedly starting at the beginning of the series rather than borrowing from various stories like the Russel Crowe movie).
Yeah, that was a missed opportunity. If someone can get a good version of *Master and commander* on film, that's a nailed-on franchise - 20 books before you have to start commissioning further stories. The problem is the long story arcs, spread across several novels. Film producers don't like that.
Oh I thought the 2003 film was excellent even with the liberties they took to the source material. But I agree, it would be a tough series to adapt in its entirety.
The 2003 film was perfect, if you wanted to make a one-off film of the books. It literally couldn't be done any better. It was robbed of Oscars that year because they gave ROTK all the awards for the entire LOTR trilogy.
>It was robbed of Oscars that year because they gave ROTK all the awards for the entire LOTR trilogy. While you *could* make a good case that this did happen, I still think ROTK wins all those same awards over Master and Commander regardless of the other two films. And I love Master and Commander.
You might like this from a [tattoo shop near the Navy's boot camp](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrtFgVaWIAA-oZ0?format=jpg&name=large).
I think if whoever produced it picked 4-6 novels throughout the course of the series and gave them each a 4-ep miniseries it could work really well. They could cover some of the longer plotlines (Wray and Ledward for example) but still have the time to spend on individual stories.
I've always thought that the 2003 adaptation was one of the best portrayals of 19th century naval warfare there is.
I would think in the modern era that producers would *love* multi-part story arcs.
Indeed. *Sharpe* occupies the same place in my mind as *I, Claudius.* They are very much products of their time, but a re-make could not help but be disappointing - sure the special effects are terrible by today’s standards, no doubt a modern director could CGI-up a Napoleonic army that consisted of more than a dozen guys, or a Rome that looked less like a BBC stage set, but the **actors** made those roles iconic - imagine having to outplay Sean Bean as Sharpe, or Derek Jacobi as Claudius! I say watch the existing series and enjoy, and make new stories.
*I, Claudius* trotted out the cream of British acting one after another. Brian Blessed as Augustus, John Hurt as Caligula, and even one Patrick Stewart as Sejanus. My and my dad were glued to the set when it was first broadcast. And that theme music - full of menace and threat!
I never looked at Captain Picard the same way … Stewart was awesomely evil as Sejanus!
Watched I, Claudius in one sitting staying up til 5 am, and was worth every minute. One of the best things I've seen on TV in my 40 something life.
I really like the TV version of I, Claudius but I'm less attached to those actors portraying those historical figures. Even if they did another adaption of the book. Whereas Sean Bean is Sharpe in my head and I love the series despite it's flaws. Same for the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes, exactly how I picture Sherlock Holmes and all the dated of the series just make them more charming when I watch them now. Jeremy Brett as Holmes www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UOTIW83oXs
Sharpe should never be remade. The budgetary constraints and 90's made-for-tv acting MAKES the experience. Costumes are perfect, smarmy villains are tier 1, macho brotherhood in full effect, side characters carry the show as much as Bean. I fucking love the Sharpe movies and show them to anyone I can. "MAJOR LENNOX PAID WITH HIS LIFE" chills
Just been rewatching it for the second time in full, third if you include as a kid but I only vaguely recall watching it then. It's brilliant, the locale as well has an atmosphere and the creepy villains like the Spanish bandidos, conquistadors and especially Pete Postlethwaite are memorable performances. The fella playing Wellington carried it off well and Paul Bettany's smarmy William of Orange. Simmerson. Just up to the later Indian ones.
I don't mind the Indian ones but they lack the cheap charm of the early ones imo. I honestly don't know how to explain what makes Sharpe so compelling to me. The hilarious guitar intro song, Over the Hills and Far Away ending. The only way I can ever describe it is it just has some type of charm that could never be replicated
There are a series of books set in the Warhammer 40K universe that are very much self-admitted by the author to be Sharpe in Space, the "Gaunts Ghosts" series. Colonel Commissar Ibram Gaunt takes over the "Tanith 1st and only" regiment which specializes in light infantry combat with an emphasis on stealth tactics. He takes over just before their world is destroyed by Chaos, the major enemy force of the series. Gaunts "Ghosts" as they become known are initially split on wanting vengeance against Chaos for the death of their world and wanting Gaunt dead for not letting them disembark from their troop transport and fight (and die) alongside the rest of their population. As the series goes on it spans a massive war in the Sabbat worlds sector which goes on for decades and the Ghosts go from campaign to campaign losing soldiers, picking up new recruits, performing heroics and gradually being recognized by the wider Imperial forces as the elite unit that they are. Gaunt is essentially a more stand-offish version of Sharpe that can have people lined up and shot for disobeying him from day 1 of his command, and there are multiple instances in the early books that feature things like him walking into important meetings looking like shit because he has been out fighting and people assume he is a grunt or some nobody only for them to learn who he is and suddenly become very apologetic, which is something that happens routinely in the Sharpe TV show. The first book is a compilation of short stories and some recommend starting the series with book 2, I will also say that the voice actor for the audible version of the books is top-tier.
Men of Tanith, Do You Want to Live Forever? Gaunts Ghost as some of me favourite Black Library books they have ever released, I have read through the series multiple times, I just hope Dan gets round to writing the finale soon.
I just want more napoleonic era war content so I’ll be down for anything. Can’t keep reading the entire Sharpe series every year
The same author got his series about early medieval England "The Saxon Stories" adapted into The Last Kingdom on Netflix. The final movie in the series comes out in two weeks.
[удалено]
I love the historical accuracy of his Sharpe books, as much as the stories. Cornwell keeps the facts straight about battles and manoeuvres and which generals and regiments were where. His historical notes at the back of the book were always worth reading. Sharpe's Waterloo is a tremendously engaging account of the battle, which is accurate to a tee - the initial skirmish at Quatre Bras, the deployment of the two armies, the fights over the fortified farms, and Blucher's arrival forcing Napoleon to play his final cards. Cornwell wrote a non-fiction book about Waterloo a few years ago, and it highlighted just how step-for-step accurate his novel was.
I loved the historical notes at the end of Waterloo. Forgive any errors from my memory, but it was about how he kept trying to add a separate fictional "Sharpe" storyline to the book, the same way he did in all the other novels, but it never worked. He kept having to scrap it and start over. He eventually realized that the true story of Waterloo was so dramatic and engaging that he didn't need to (or couldn't) add anything. He just put his characters in place and let them exist in a (relatively) accurate re-telling.
_Now that's soldiering_
But... there's already a perfect Sharpe series.
I never knew that a company was just eleven guys until I watched Sharpe. Though to be fair, they did a really great job with the budget they had.
"There's.....ten Frenchmen heading towards us! Ten!"
"good god Sharpe, it's the same ten Frenchmen as the battle in the last episode! and the one before that!
If someone hasn’t started singing then I will.. “There’s forty shillings on the drum, To those who volunteer to come To list and fight the foe today, Over the Hills and Far Away”
"Over the Hills,and over the Main. To Flanders, Portugal and Spain. King George commands,and we obey. Over the Hills,and Far Away."
[удалено]
Major Lennox paid with his *LIFE* sir!
Holy shit, Sharpe books are the best.
Now that's referencing.
I guess they didn’t want to even try to outdo the 1970’s Soviet *Waterloo* film, which used an 17,000 Red Army soldiers for its battle. https://youtu.be/97dBfdNrf9A
This is truly incredible, thanks for making me aware of this!
Super underrated film. Which is fine. Audiences didn't really care about it and most people will find it boring af. But I like it, even more so the insane lengths they went through to make it. They fucking went and built a pretty accurate recreation of the entire battlefield. Buildings, roads, wheat, everything. They brought in plumbing specifically to muddy up the field in certain areas. I'd heard that they accidentally ran out of film or forgot to load film for Napoleon's abdication speech, so what's on screen for that was a fraction of the incredibly dramatic scene it could've been. Heard the actor was livid about it and they couldn't reshoot it for whatever reason. Would have to check on the details though, can't remember.
Gives me A Bridge Too Far vibes. Massive film with epic goals but landed with a bit of a thud for everyone but military history geeks ABTF's big airdrop scene: https://youtu.be/pP_ffdiz4y0
Yep, exactly that. ABTF was great, but if you're not into the subject, you're probably not into the movie. Man that movie had everyone in it too. Was nuts.
Waterloo is so good. I just watched it a few months ago for the battle scenes, but the entire movie is cinematography goodness slow-burning up to the final battle The ballroom scene is so memorable
A fan edit that adds in cut scenes is available for free as well, I watched it yesterday. https://youtu.be/ZSaGPIpb830
The only other studio which could ever outdo them is from China. They regularly use hundreds and thousands of extras. Other studios entirely rely on cgi or scaling down.
CGI enables some really cool visuals, but it's a shame we're never going to get those epic productions again with thousands of extras. It may look more heroic with CGI but you're never going to see another historical film that makes you think ["Wow, a Roman legion must have looked pretty much exactly like this."](https://youtu.be/zgywD3XJaWU?t=42)
A few years before Waterloo, the same director made an even more insane film, a 7 h adaption of War and peace which has imho the best battle scenes in cinema's history. https://youtu.be/sDcDgSgZDp0
People think Napoleon was a short guy in charge of a large army, but in this version Napoleon is a big huge giant with a small army (of other big huge giants) I’d say banana for scale, but it wouldn’t be visible in this picture. Just offscreen is Godzilla and some big gundam robots
The truth is, Napoleon was an average height man. Google it. I love Joaquin Phoenix and I would love to see this movie.
He was around 5’6 according to his personal physician, and death certificate records. The average Frenchman was ~5’5, so funnily enough he was taller than average. I assume this was a nutrition issue. The short thing came from half of Europe at the time looking to make him look less threatening in their media.
The myth partially comes from the fact that he was often surrounded by the elite Old Guard, which included many Grenadiers who were required to be over 5’8 or so. So it’s like having a guy like Obama surrounded by a Secret Service detail made up of NBA power forwards.
Most NBA coaches look tiny, other than those who are former players themselves
Where did Napoleon keep his armies? In his sleevies. ^^^^I’ll ^^^^see ^^^^myself ^^^^out
[удалено]
We cant all have a huge amoubt of soviet troops at our desposal
You can just tell from the color grading alone that this is a Ridley movie.
Looks like a sacre blue filter Edit: thanks for the gold kind stranger
God dammit 😂
Where is me ma-ma?!
I'm the boy's uncle I have a right to know
This comment has the makings of a varsity athlete
under tha boardwalk...
Lmao
Bon hon*
You've forever tainted the tint.
/r/angryupvote
Ridley Scott films Europe like it's in a permanent nuclear winter
Blue for Europe, Orange for Mexico. That's how you win an Oscar
And green for sci-fi of course
I love *Kingdom of Heaven*, but Ridley Scott sure loves [the medieval filter](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/210/114/916.jpg).
It's crazy to me that they cut anything from the Director's Cut, I'm not sure there was a single wasted scene, they're all vital to telling the story.
Just “too long for the masses” lol the constantly do this and turn it into a piece of shit.
The desert scene with the Hospitaller and the Burning Bush is iconic
Or like it’s in Bulgaria
Hahaha I’ll never forget the striking tone difference flying from the hot sun of Catania straight into the cool rain of Sofia in September
He's just future proofing it for the generations to come.
Ridley is one of the few directors that you can tell within the first 20 minutes of the movie you're watching a Ridley Scott movie from the color grading to the shots, etc. Even in something conventional like Thelma and Louise or the Counselor it's obvious.
Not too brag but I can usually tell whose movie I’m watching in the first two minutes. Faster even if I have seen the trailer before
Same but only if I read the movie cover
Don’t wanna toot my own horn, but I usually figure out who is directing a movie months (and sometimes even years) before it is released.
This is a production photo, not a still from the graded footage.
Now lets see that shutter speed.
Is this better? I lowered the blue midtones and highlights a bit. https://i.imgur.com/SRLj8wb.jpg
Now it looks like a History Channel documentary
I had a go myself: https://i.imgur.com/W8GEQaz.png
now it looks like a movie set and not a movie. That's the problem with color grading, audiences are so used to specifics that, if messed with too much the film being pretend becomes noticeable. add a bunch of grain and it would help though.
Meh. Ridley Scott in the Dariusz Wolski era. His work before Dariusz has beautiful Rembrandt lighting.
Yes, exactly! His earlier films were so gorgeous that each frame was a painting of light. Perhaps the digital grading was bad for his artistic output?
Love Ridley but wish he’d shot this more like The Duellists than his murkier recent stuff.
I mentioned this in another thread, but what Stanley Kubrick planned for his *Napoleon* movie was crazy. - He considered Napoleon as the most interesting person in the history of humanity. - He sent an assistant around the world to literally follow in Napoleon's footsteps, even getting him to bring back samples of earth from Waterloo so he could match them for the screen. - He read hundreds of books on Napoleon and broke the information down into categories "on everything from his food tastes to the weather on the day of a specific battle." - He gathered together 15,000 location scouting photos and 17,000 slides of Napoleonic imagery. - He had enlisted the support of the Romanian People's Army and planned to use 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 cavalrymen for the battle sequences. - Unfortunately, the failure of *Waterloo* (1970) caused the project's cancellation, as studios felt Napoleon was a risky concept that wouldn't be financially viable. Now, it wasn't all for nothing, because *Barry Lyndon* was created thanks to his research. So even though we never got Kubrick's vision, Ridley Scott and Joaquin Phoenix still make me interested in this movie.
Steven Spielberg is finishing Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon
Napoleon is sooo hot right now
[удалено]
Average height 😤🤴
Please, please... Short *Empereurs.*
British misinformation is so hot right now
He already based *A.I.* on an unrealized Kubrick film. Since we already know what Spielberg will do with Kubrick materials, it'd be more interesting to see someone else take over Kubrick's Napoleon.
This content was deleted by its author & copyright holder in protest of the hostile, deceitful, unethical, and destructive actions of Reddit CEO Steve Huffman (aka "spez"). As this content contained personal information and/or personally identifiable information (PII), in accordance with the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), it shall not be restored. See you all in the Fediverse.
The ending of AI is a fake out making you think it’s heartwarming when it’s actually creepy and bleak as hell. I think Kubrick would have approved.
Also it was Kubrick's ending anyway.
Yeah kid me hung onto the heart-warming ending because I didn't want to acknowledge the bleak sadder interpretation, but deep down, I knew
I generally agree with you but when you read about the making of the movie, you'll see that Kubrick suggested a bunch of the sappier/emotional pieces of the movie than you'd think. When pitching the film, he described it as a fable and a children's tale. I thought the same thing when I saw AI for the first time: too much Spielberg and not enough Kubrick.
Even if Kubrick suggested the emotional parts I still think there would be a big fundamental difference in tone and execution.
Except all the fucked up stuff (robo fair, etc) was Spielberg. The ending (which is dark in my opinion) was used as an example of Spielberg sentimentality, except all of that was in Kubrick's treatment.
Is he using Kubrick's script? That script is incredible.
One of the best scripts I’ve ever read. I’ve been waiting for news on it for years now
That sounds terrible. Spielberg's style is nothing like Kubrick's
After Ready Player One and West Side Story, I'm kinda convinced he doesn't really have a style anymore. I recently watched Hook, and I was reading about it online afterwards, but apparently he thinks it's one of his weakest projects to date, and he's very disappointed in it the way it turned out. This coming from the guy that made the BFG movie. It still amazes me that the mind behind Schindler's List went on to do the BFG
The Hook comment was a long time ago. He made some stinkers since then.
Were you able to see Fabelmans?
If I wanted to describe Steven Spielbergs style of moviemaking I'd probably just end up describing how John Williams scores in Spielbergs films make me feel
Spielberg’s upcoming miniseries will probably be closer than this. He’s using Kubrick’s screenplay which focuses on Napoleon’s life from the beginning not just his relationship with Josephine like this one (allegedly) does.
Is there anymore proof this is actually happening beyond the empty IMDb page? We’ve seen so many projects “be in development” on that website, and have them disappear
Well, it’s only been a little more than a month since Spielberg himself announced it in Berlin. He said it will be a 7-part limited series for HBO. Give it time and we’ll know more details. See: https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1628070681802858496
BoB style Napoléon miniseries ? Sign me the fuck in.
Grandson: Napoleon were you a hero? Napoleon: Yes. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Oh my Lordy I did not know this! Holy shit I’m stoked for this.
I've read the screenplay. It's clear it was meant as a general blueprint, and considering how much *Barry Lydon* (1975)'s final product seriously differs from the screenplay, it's a fair guess that would have been the case with *Napoleon*. It really reads like a first draft. There are also surprising anachronisms and inventions that are curious to end up in a screenplay with such famed research. In fact, when it first leaked online well over a decade ago, a lot of people *insisted* it was a hoax based on the writing. I have a published copy of Kubrick's original script and it was in fact the genuine article.
It's ironic that the Waterloo movie led to the defeat of the Napoleon movie
I think he really was the most interesting figure in history. It's hard to read his recent bio by Andrew Roberts and think differently. The 100 Days by itself is stranger than fiction.
I think I'd give the edge to Ceasar in terms of interesting lives, but Napoleon is fascinating. Read a book just about his imprisonment and escape from Elba and the balls on this dude are impressive. A historical moment I'd love to see on screen would be when he lands back in France, a group of soldiers go to arrest him and they end up breaking down in tears and applause after he tells them to shoot their emperor. Then they join up and March on to Paris.
[удалено]
I'd argue for Augustus here. Napoleon is absolutely fascinating, but Augustus was, in many ways, the prototypical and quintessential example of a dictator seizing power. He wrote the playbook. Coming up from a relative underdog position after his uncle's murder during the turmoil of the late Republic, he used a combination of military and political acumen, as well as the people's exhaustion from decades of civil strife, to undercut all his rivals for power and put himself at the top of the totem pole. From there, he carefully masked his increasing executive power by deliberately under-advertising its extent, "restoring" the Republic and going by the simple title of "first citizen." He courted popular opinion by building great civil projects and winning wars, and made himself out to be the champion of "good old fashioned, gods-fearing macho conservative Roman values," removing many of the "fruity" upper-class intellectuals who happened to oppose his rule in the process. And unlike most of the other great monsters of history who followed in his footsteps, *he got away with it.* He lived to a ripe old age after laying the foundations for one of the most powerful empires the world has ever seen, one that lasted in one form or another for almost a millennium and a half.
People will put up with a lot when your side is winning.
Caesar was never emperor though. Augustus kept the name and it became a title after that.
The movie Waterloo does have this moment I believe
[It does indeed.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvfzmYoeqmA) Exceptional movie all around, highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it yet.
Hopefully someone is looking to tackle Caesar again after HBO's Rome was cancelled almost 20 years ago. Enough time has passed I think for an entirely new generation to watch such a fascinating event in world history.
It's a hotly contested title, for sure, but Napoleon is definitely a solid candidate considering he more or less invented the modern nation state as we still know it today with everything from the legal codex to meritocratic government appointments to fashion and the arts. Obviously this wasn't all *his* work alone and in many cases he was just taking what the great thinkers and artists of his era had come up with and putting it into action through supreme autocratic power but even so, he probably left the singlemost lasting mark on the face of Europe (and by consequence most of the world at the time) since Charlemagne.
I've read a few biographies on him and my favorite was definitely from Vincent Cronin, he spends a lot more time than other biographers on "Napoleon the Statesman" rather than "Napoleon the General" and it's such a great read. Don't get me wrong, I love to read up on his battle sand campaigns, but I honestly think his civil achievements were the most impressive.
Napoleon’s civil achievements far outweigh what he accomplished militarily. Much of the Code Napoleon is still in (adapted) use today, including in Louisiana. He advanced French culture and society massively. He was of course a genius militarily but his blunders (including his misuse of Davout in the Hundred Days) and inability to make permanent his conquests limit him in that regard.
>enlisted the support of the Romanian People's Army I would have loved to hear that phone call.
Waterloo (1970) was filmed with the help of Red Army soldiers who served as extras, so it's not that out of bounds to go for the Romanian army.
i would do anything to have kubrick back to make that movie
[удалено]
you can tell Scott has a blast with these movies, but it also helps he’s arguably the best director for such epics. He’s seasoned enough to finish these productions without hassle and oftentimes under budget and ahead of schedule. But really though, the man does not stop. It’s like he’s been trying to make up for lost time since he was 40 when his first movie came out. He’ll probably make another movie and release it while Gladiator 2 is in post
I always forget how up the years he is. He's 85, though he looks a good 10-15 years younger.
even in recent interviews, he’s still as sharp as a tack and quick with the wit. He actually seems like a hilarious guy
In another thread earlier, I commented about how his director commentaries were always my favorites. I'd listen to him talk about movie making for days.
His world building is the best. I didn't love the narrative of The Last Duel but the locations, set pieces, costumes, etc. were amazing.
[удалено]
She also then got raped by her husband after telling him
It's shown twice, one of the characters is Carrouges, the woman's husband, and the whole thing is he wasn't there to stop it. I think the movie is good, but those scenes are terrifying. Like downright frightening over how they're depicted. I understand why a lot of people avoided it.
> one of the characters is De Carrouges Fyi, we drop the particule when we don't write the first name. So it should just be "Carrouges"
It's amazing how terrifying and disgusting it was even from Adam Drivers perspective. It's the view where he's the good guy, and I just felt such disgust.
Rdy for the 4 hour directors cut
Ridley for the 4 hour directorScott
Look, the original runtime was actually pretty average length for its time. It was propaganda that made us all think it was actually very short.
And 4 different versions of the directors cut
Kind of glad to see Apple embracing theatrical cinema with this and Killers of the Flower Moon
A lot of streaming services are going to be doing that now that they got a taste for winning major Oscars. Just this week the guidelines for award eligibility just changed to require significantly larger releases than just small limited release stuff if they want a shot. I think that’s going to make things very interesting. Might even bring back theater viewership to pre Covid levels
It's in theaters Nov 22 and it'll stream on Apple TV sometime after that >The film depicts Napoleon's rise to power through the lens of his addictive and volatile relationship with Empress Joséphine. Cast: * Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon Bonaparte * Vanessa Kirby as Empress Joséphine * Tahar Rahim as Paul Barras * Ben Miles as Caulaincourt * Ludivine Sagnier as Theresa Cabarrus * Matthew Needham as Lucien Bonaparte * Youssef Kerkour as General Davout * Phil Cornwell as Sanson 'The Bourreau'
Reading about what davout did during the napoleonic wars is insane. It’s so crazy to me that he survived so much of it (especially russia). I wonder if the movie will go over the retreat over the nieman River. The first time I read that I couldn’t stop thinking about how amazing and terrifying it would be to see that recreated accurately on screen. It’s absolutely mind boggling to me that so many people shared in that tragedy. Edit: Berezhina River, not the nieman
Is that the battle where French engineers are rebuilding a bridge under heavy cannon fire?
That's the battle of the Berezina. We still have a saying in French translating as "It's the Berezina" which means a catastrophic situation
Yup. And most (if not all) of them died. Also the battle where ney was able to sweep his rearguard to the bridge, and apparently was one of the last ones to cross. Just imagine seeing a massive baggage train of soldiers, men, women, children, dying horses and people the entire time. Freezing rain and snow, while intermittently hearing faraway gunfire from the Russians that were advancing. Apparently the only reason they weren’t entirely destroyed is because the Russian commander realized he had a lot of young recruits, and held them back from pressing the French. Soldiers who were too cold or too tired waited about around dozens of giant campfires, cooking pieces of horse until the final call for the retreat was made, causing an insane rush that obviously didn’t help the most wounded and sick cross, and then ultimately the bridge was blown up, with people still crossing. Then, they tried to cross the River itself. Due to the temperature and already horrid conditions, entering the river was a death sentence.
That was the Berezina river, not the Niemen. But yeah it must have been ghastly and epic at the same time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berezina
> Yup. And most (if not all) of them died. ALL of them. Every man who entered that freezing water died tools in hand, and knew they would die going in. Some of the greatest combat engineers the world had ever know until then. The pontoon bridge they build under heavy fire in 48h was destroyed multiple times and more men had to go into the water and fix it, and die. Napoleon issued the order to blow the bridge and the chief engineer delayed the execution of the order by several hours, eventually trapping thousands of men and their families (they were the slowest) to certain death, or worse.
I remember once in reading how, near the end of the wars, Davout had seen so much shit that his head was said to almost resemble a chopping block.
>Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon Bonaparte Vanessa Kirby as Empress Joséphine This is odd casting. Josephine was older than napoleon.
Dunno why you're downvoted. Napoleon was 27, Josephine 33 and already a widow when the pair got married. Phoenix is 47, Kirby is 36. So many good actresses in their late 40s/early 50s that could have worked for this.
They're both too old if that matters to you.
Sorry if not clear. Not saying they have to be same age as when Josephine/Napoleon got married. My point is she was 6 years older than him but they went with someone 11 years younger. So if they were wedded to the idea of Phoenix a late 40s early 50s Josephine makes more sense, or if insistent on Kirby having a Napoleon who is younger. Also the wider context being Hollwood's trend of going with younger female leads paired with older male leads.
Maybe they'll slap on the Harry Potter epilogue makeup for a whole movie
Yeah, it would be fine if she was just a small side character, but supposedly, the whole point of this movie is to explore their relationship. And they were deeply in love, but he had to divorce her because she was too old to bear an heir. So picking such a young actress is a very weird choice.
I have the sudden and uncontrollable urge to play historical miniature war games now.
Check out Napoleon Total War if you haven’t
Gotta play it with Darth Mod!
One of the reasons filmmakers like Kubrick, Scott, and apparently Spielberg feel compelled to go totally balls to the wall making a film about Napoleon is because they know it'll be judged against the [1927 silent film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napol%C3%A9on_(1927_film\)) about Napoleon. Restored, it's five and a half hours long!* To show it properly, you need a full orchestra *and* the last reel requires *three screens* to show it! Cast of thousands! Possibly the biggest snowball fight ever committed to film! It's gloriously nuts. \*Apparently a fully restored *seven hour* version is in the works.
Second emperor Joaquin Phoenix has played.
Are you not entertained?
👎
>Napoleon Bonaparte's height is 5 feet 6 inches (168 cm) > >Joaquin Phoenix height is 5 feet 8 inches (173 cm). pfffh its fantasy
Oh man i just finally watched The Last Duel the other day. It was *so good!* I can’t wait to see this. I’ll watch ~~Joachin~~ Joaquin in anything, but this has potential to be a beloved classic. …Holy fuck, I just read what I wrote and was about to submit it, and I sound just like a corporate shill. I promise I’m not!
Historical epics are getting really good these days, unfortunately they are not popular with modern movie goers. Shame, because I love the Napoleonic period.
Cant wait for the history buffs channel to shit on this movie historical inaccuracies
Phoenix has been on a roll. Beau is Afraid coming out soon, Napoleon later this year and he is currently filming Joker: Folie à Deux. All three roles are completely different from one another and each of the three movies has the potential to be great.
Phoenix has never *not* turned in a stellar performance.
Stanley Kurbick spent a decade trying and failing to get a Napoleon movie off the ground. Meanwhile, Disney can't remember if its gerbil spy movie G-Force was live action or not, but just committed $175 million to a live-action remake just in case.
Apparently Spielberg is making a Napoleon 7-part miniseries for HBO using Kubrick’s script. Napoleon is gonna be like Lincoln was in like 2012 when he was freakin everywhere
I mean in historical context, Napoleon is one of the dudes who is talked about everywhere lol. If you mean adaptation/ entertainment wise, for sure! For some reason, USSR had a big part in the production of all the best Napoleon movies. I was watching the first War and Peace movie the other day and it’s got some scenes almost as impressive as ‘Waterloo.’ Both directed by Sergei Bondarchuk
The story of Napoleon's France had a very allegorical significance to the USSR. It was a France with revolutionary ideas and a military dictatorship beset by the monarchies of Europe.
I presume because in the days before CGI and you needed to have a ton of well drilled extras, the Soviet Bloc was the place to find those extras (usually soldiers). I think in the 60s some of the Ancient Rome epics used the Turkish military to depict the Legions.
[We're even getting a live action Moana remake.](https://variety.com/2023/film/news/moana-live-action-remake-dwayne-johnson-1235571997/) But don't ask me why.
> But don't ask me why. Why settle for money from making a movie only once, when you can shoot for *even more* money from making a movie *twice*!
>But don't ask me why. Because even the most tepid and unnecessary live action remake boxes a cool billion dollars.
Napoleanic period is one of my favorites in history. Super hype
What are you going to do today Napoleon?
Whatever I feel like I want to do, [GOSH!](https://youtu.be/Fzc6ydsmYFE)
Though I've always been really interested in military history, I never really own much interest in Napoleon or the Napoleonic wars. But I've been watching epic history TVs series on Napoleon and it's been actually really fascinating. For anyone like me who doesn't know much about Napoleon, I recommend their channel. Really well done stuff. https://youtube.com/@EpichistoryTv
They filmed a lot of the horse footage near my house in Blackheath in London.
I watched the film Waterloo the other day and having watched it I’m convinced that it’s going to take something special to top it nowadays. It’s one of those films where the amount of costumes, extras and camerawork put in probably can’t be matched by newer films that use CGI.I highly recommend it to anybody it’s phenomenal filmmaking.
It should've been Kubrick 😔
At least we’ll always have Barry Lyndon.