hi,
i love boudicca, and have been fascinated by her works and tales for years. Now though, ITV have screwed her up for me, why have that stupid little bit at the end wit her daughter in modern times, and why not have a bigger battle???? Cheap, anyway, apparently, Mel Gibson is making a proper one though as his new project, hope it'll be good...
Wonder if Mel Gibson will f**k this story up like the story of William Walace. But I would agree that "the stupid little bit at the end wit her daughter in modern time" was waste of time. But despite this Alex Kingston was a f**king good Boudica.
shareI could be wrong but I sincerely believe Mel Gibson will totally bastardize the story of Boudica.
Mel pretty much appears to hold the British in some not inconsiderable measure of contempt, if his other historical epics are anything to go by. Braveheart and The Patriot, aside from their cinematic qualities, acted as very effective anti British propoganda pieces.
Mel is also a very devout Christian. Boudica was a Pagan. In braveheart Edward the longshanks was described as a 'cruel Pagan', whilst the wild Scots were all nice Christians. It is actually more likely that the opposite was true. Scotland and Ireland were the last stronghold's of the Old Religion. England's druids were hunted down and killed, their religion suppressed. Morover, the richer members of society, closely followed by those living in towns and cities, were the first to convert to christianity. The Scots, as well as others in remote outlying areas, would've been pagans far longer than anyone else.
So, what can we expect given these facts? At a guess an Irish (Hollywood just love the irish) Christian Boudica. In other words a travesty of a real life legend that many of us hold very dear to our hearts.
Let us pray to the Gods for a pleasent suprise.
Well the prospect of another Boudicca film in the pipe line has well and truly pissed me off. Its painfully typical that 2 interpretations should be made when I try to pen mine. Oh cruel fate.
And for it to be from Gibson is just a huge kick in the teeth because as has been said he will undoubtably butcher the story, who knows she might even end up Roman when hes through with her.
If your watching this..HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA F*CK YOU!!! Mallrats was good!!
Oh no! I am really not looking forward to Mel Gibson's version. Knowing Mel's ridiculous preoccupation of breaking any story down into good guys vs bad (did anyone else notice this in The Passion?), we're going to be subjected to all the British shown as compassionate and innocent, and the Romans as completely evil. So we can forget about Boudicca's destruction of St Albans, Colchester and London where everyone was slaughtered, man, woman and child and the cities were burnt to the ground. The Romans astounding victory over the native army will be also, I am sure, played down (10,000 vs 250,000).
I hope against hope that Imperial Rome will be more accuratley portrayed in his production than this one. Agrippina was already murdered by the time of Boudicca's rebellion.
"It is better to die once, than to live in constant fear of death."
I could be wrong but I sincerely believe Mel Gibson will totally bastardize the story of Boudica.
Mel pretty much appears to hold the British in some not inconsiderable measure of contempt, if his other historical epics are anything to go by. Braveheart and The Patriot, aside from their cinematic qualities, acted as very effective anti British propoganda pieces.
Well I think while we can be certain that it won't be terribly historically accurate, who didn't love Braveheart? It's a *beep* awesome movie. If he gives that treatment to Boudica at least she might get some more attention and thus we might get a more historically accurate one later on.
Good point about he'll probably turn her into a nice Christian Boudica tho, he does seem to have that typical anti-pagan bias :\
Even if we assume for a moment that Mel does have some sort of anti-English agenda, I don't think it manifest itself in this film. After all the ancient Britons were a very different people, at least culturally, from the modern English. The modern descendants of the ancient Britons culturally, linguistically, and genetically are the Welsh. The English are the cultural descendants of Germanic invaders who didn't arrive until the collapse of Rome, a few centuries after the death of Boudicca. Since the Scots were the heroes in Braveheart I think it safe to say that he at least doesn't have anti-British agenda, and wouldn't portray the ancient Britons in a negative light.Apologies for the late reply - I don't know why I didn't get a notification message concerning your response, but anyhow, I'm here now after accidentally coming across it.
You are indeed very knowledgable. Actually, there really were 80,000 Britons, but it is now widely believed only half were combatants. The rest were civilian women and children Boudicca used to intimidate the Romans by making them howl those crazy Celtic war cries. Suetonius tricked the Britons into fighting in narrow quarters, and when the Iceni and their allies retreated, they crashed into their own wagons and civilians. Nonetheless, the Romans were outnumbered at least 4 to 1 when they defeated the Britons. I'd say the British more than made up for it in WWII when they wiped up the Libyan Desert with the Italian Army.
The Romans moved in and slaughtered everyone in sight. Many of the Romans had lost loved ones to the Britons, so they figured turnabout was fair play. Others couldn't take the time to distinguish combatants from civilians and no doubt most didn't care.
The ancient Romans were a courageous but brutal bunch. How they devolved into the modern Italians, the world's greatest cowards (and proud of it), is beyond me. Note: I am of Sicilian ancestry and feel free to say that. To say the performance of Italian soldiers for the last 300 years has been pathetic is being kind. Strangely enough, soldiers of Italian ancestry in the American, Canadian, Australian, and other armies have not fared that badly.
[deleted]
"Native tribal British as spoken at the time is supposedly a dead language too, from what I've read, though Welsh is, granted, as close as we'll get to it."
Knowing Mel Gibson's penchant for using historically correct languages in his films (Latin and Aramaic in The Passion of the Christ, ancient Mayan in Apocalypto), what language do you suppose the Celtic Britons would speak in Gibson's Boudicca? Do historians and linguists have any idea of what their language sounded like?
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
At a guess he'll either have them speaking English, or the closest surviving language to the original.
Knowing American trends in films they'll all be Irish.
Hunter S Thompson R.I.P, we'll never see your like again
Although still an American citizen, Mel still considers himself Australian, and the Australians have never gotten over the myth that British soldiers were having tea while the Australians were slaughtered by the Turks at Gallipoli. Also, I believe he is of Scottish ancestry and is pro-Scottish independence. This could explain anti-English agenda.
As for "Boudica", I consider her defeat, the destruction of her army, and the suicides of her daughters and herself a happy ending. Why? Because when you are of Italian ancestry, as am I, that's a happy ending. The Italians haven't won a major battle since Roman times, so we'll take what we can get. Let's face it - we couldn't beat the Ethiopians.
the romans tactics wouldn't never be efective with such huge briton advantage if Boudica wasnt proud and certain of the victory, the romans choosed the only terrain where the numbers wloudnt make diference, if she didn't acepted the battle and fought another day in another place the romans would be slaughtered, but she was so certain of the victory that she brought children and women to watch the victory
shareShe actually brought the women and children there to try to terrify the Romans with those insane Celtic war cries. They are alleged to be the basis of the "war whoops" used by the Confederacy during the Civil War. It has been said by some historians that Suetonius had his men plug their ears until he gave the signal so they would not be intimidated.
You are right in saying she was over-confident. She made the mistake of using the same tactics too many times. I disagree that the Romans would have lost eventually had she backed off that day. Suetonius was a brilliant tactician and unlike the fools she defeated, not stupid enough to underestimate a woman.
Actually, I don't find it depressing at all. I'm of Italian ancestry, so for me it was a happy ending. For all of you who will write back and say, "I'm Italian too and I think it was a sad ending," I have only one thing to say.
TRAITORS!!
[deleted]
Whatever Mel Gibson's take on the story of Boudicca turns out to be, we can be sure of at least one thing: we'll be treated to a bloody, graphic, realistic whipping!
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
[deleted]