When was the last time we did one of these? Been awhile since this was done on a large scale. I feel like this is what it would be like if we took a look at the life of Commodus in Gladiator.
Definition:
Large scale film, usually set in ancient times, which uses high tech and production values, and emphasizes visual spectacle, especially based on large-scale battle scenes and action set-pieces.
Usually set in some historic period. The late 18th-early 19th century is hardly "ancient".
shareYou couldn't even take a train trip till 1808. No telegraph. The movie is set in the horse and wind power era, little different from Roman empire.
shareWell Gone With the Wind is considered a "historical epic." But I get what you're saying.
shareI don't know, in the broader sense of the term, sure, but Gladiator wasn't the rebirth of that either and honestly I am not sure what people expect. Just because we do not get these sort of movies every other year like the mass-produced Marvel trash, doesn't mean epics are "dead" in the first place. They are special because they are rare, otherwise they would not be epics. I am absolutely convinced that rarity plays a factor here when we speak definition.
But anyways, trailer looked good. I am expecting a historically questionable but highly bombastic film that will not fail to impress... and give historical YouTube channels hours worth of content to pick apart in detail. Ridley Scott's idea of history is usually very eh... unique. Gladiator was flat out hilarious if we purely speak historical accuracy, so was Kingdom of Heaven. He did way better with The Last Duel, though, some quirks aside.
I am sure looking forward to it!
One thing we never see anymore are the TRUE epics of yesteryear that were not just epic in scope and grandeur but also in length. I am thinking of films like Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Cleopatra, Gone with the Wind (not set in ancient times but still epic!), Spartacus, The Ten Commandments are so forth. Some of the more modern iterations, like Gladiator or Troy, are of the same spirit but we never see four-hour films anymore.
In any case, I love films like that and always welcome a renaissance. I'm looking forward to Napoleon. It's amazing that Ridley is 85 now and still making films like this.
It was pretty cool when you’d get an intermission in the middle of a movie to go to the bathroom or get more pop corn.
shareYes, and don't forget the overture that many of the epics gave us at the beginning! That is certainly something that is now lost.
Regarding an intermission, I would swear my screening of Dances With Wolves had one. But I have never experienced one since.
I always thought Ridley's 1492: Conquest of Paradise should have been 4 hrs long with an intermission. And also his Exodus: Gods and Kings suffered from too short running time. He has a tendency to cut his movies too short, this started with his disastrous experience with Legend (1985).
shareIt is very ironic that, as you posted that and as I type this, I am watching 1492 for the first time. I'm about 45 mins in.
What was the deal with Legend? I only watched it once, about 20 years ago.
Legend was totally butchered, especially for the American market where they even changed musical score. Jerry Goldsmith was the original composer and he delivered one of his best scores for the movie, but in panic they swapped it to Tangerine Dream. The original running time was well over 2 hrs, 2hrs and 20 minutes if I recall correctly and it was amputated down to 95 minutes. People who worked in the movie said that something special was lost for good when they started to cutting it down. Even the so called director's cut (1hr and 50 minutes) which is available on blu-ray and dvd is scarred because of this cutting. The complete full length cut is probably lost for good. We're lucky to have even this slightly under 2hr version. If you want to dig deeper into this matter, check the Legend FAQ in the net: https://www.figmentfly.com/legend/
shareInteresting. I saw the film only once, in the early 2000s, and I have no idea what version I saw. However, I remember being underwhelmed by the movie. Maybe I should seek out the Director's Cut and give it a fresh eye and see what I think.
BTW, I finished 1492. It's certainly a better film than the RT scores would make you think (33% critics' score / 50% audience score), at least in my opinion, and I'm surprised by the rather chilly reception that it has gotten. It is at least a well-made and relatively lavish picture, if not necessarily a great one or one of Ridley's best.
It seems that some people have a problem with historical inaccuracies and that Ridley should've presented Columbus as a much more brutal man. I am frankly too ignorant of the facts to assess the film's historical accuracy, but I suppose whether a film should even be rated on its accuracy is debatable in itself. (It is not a documentary, after all.)
I'd give it a 7/10.
You're not wrong!
share
Probably depends upon how financially successful it is. If Apple make big bucks from it, I'm sure someone at Warner Bros will suddenly be willing to sink $100m into... I dunno... a Genghis Khan movie, or something.
That'd be terrific. They did try to revive it almost ten years ago with stuff like Pompeii, 300: Rise of an Empire, and hell, even Ridley Scott's own biblical epic Exodus: Gods and Kings.
sharePlease, no.
share