Alexander the Great: A Two Part Movie?

Post here about Alexander in film, TV, radio, other websites, YouTube etc.

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
rocktupac
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:52 am
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Alexander the Great: A Two Part Movie?

Post by rocktupac »

First of all sorry if this got your hopes up; that was not my intention. But I just graduated from college with a history degree and now plan on going to grad school for film. I am obsessed with Alexander the Great, as many of you are, and would one day love to make a movie about his life.

It would have to be a two-part movie, each probably being close to 3 hours each. I know because of the recent Oliver Stone movie this might sound mad or impossible, but it has been done in the past many times with historical epics: e.g. Troy, Gladiator, Braveheart, Spartacus, etc. (Now i happened to like Oliver Stone's "Alexander" and thought the critics and audience were too harsh on it.) But there were a lot of things that I think Stone could have done differently, and that is the reason for my wanting to make TWO Alexander movies. His story by itself is far too interesting not to tell.

The first would tell of his birth, then probably end right before the battle of Gaugamela, or right after it. The the second would be from that point to his death. This isn't terribly important right now, just to give you an idea.

My question is: how many of you think this is possible? Or if audiences would be interested if it was done right? I just want to hear your feedback. Try not to let too much of the Hollywood process get in the way of criticism here, or the difficulty it takes to make a movie. I'm not too worried about production costs, etc. at this moment--only opinions and ideas. Thank you very much.
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

To be honest I think Alexander is a specialised subject anyway. I think this can be blamed mostly on the Way as Marcus has rightly said the lack of Ancient History taught within Schools.

I think Movies like Gladiator and Troy become popular because of the action and battle scenes. maybe im in a minority but aprt from the Brilliant fight Scenes i found Gladiator pretty borring and much prefered an earlier take. The fall of The Roman Empire.

Stone failed because he failed to grab the imagination. Deny it it as much as one likes the the viewing audience go for action and bllod and guits and then would maybe have an interest in the Character. I think Stone put the cart before the Horse.

The strange thing that was missed is that Alexander The greats story. Is as exciting and as full of action and history as 300. Troy and Braveheart put together. There was no need for invention or making stuff up Alexanders story had it all. The gay tendencies Im sure put many off wether the pro gays like it or not. And i doubt any director will ever go near Alexander again.

The Lord of The Rings Trilogy were fantastic. But I believe the risk was less there are hundreds of thousands of Avid Tolkien readers so the basewas already there. Peter Jackson Already had the audience. Alexander does not.

Ironically and ive said it many times Alexanders story is as full magic and heroism and war,action blood and guts etc etc.

kenny
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

I don't know that any subject matter is made untouchable on account of perceived box office failure. Given a decade or more, I'm sure Alexander could be re-attacked from another angle.

I think the Pothosians know my opinion on this subject from earlier threads. I would personally prefer a trilogy of movies--youth, conquest of Persia, and the journey to Afghanistan, India, and back.

I'd also be willing to concede that "Rome" showed it's qualitatively possible for a TV series to do the subject justice, but the money simply isn't there. Rome got cancelled without even the second season given the full distance... And Alexander would demand exponentially more sets and much better battle scenes.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

A trilogy even? That would allow for much detail and might well work better as an HBO style thing.

Problem is, if the deatil is rendered, will audiences like it? By that, I mean, how would items like the rape, sack and murder in Persepolis; the wholesale sack and slaughter of cities in Bactria and the Punjab and the slaughter and crucifixions that ended Tyre and Gaza play to a 21st century audience?

One could, in no way, theme it on the concord of races could one?
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

A good question.

I think it all depends on whether a director can show us that one can be Great without necessarily being Sympathetic at all times. That is, can he translate Alexander's actions through the moral lens of the time without being apologetic about them?

That would be an amazing challenge, in my humble opinion. And it's one that I don't think any of the directors of "Alexander" movies have really tackled.

I personally would welcome it. Would anyone else? I don't know. Way too many people are quick to equate "Μεγας/Great" with "Good". Alexander III was probably the most dangerous person of his time... but that doesn't mean that this should make his story any less fascinating... or a movie about it any less enjoyable.

I mean, my God, popular film-makers have won acclaim, accord, AND box office success making us care about everything from Mafiosos to cannibalistic serial killers with a penchant for fine wine. Even if the worst we suspect about Alexander was true, it is not only plausible for his undiluted story to make for a good and universally well-received flick... it's damnably frustrating to me that it hasn't happened already! :lol:

Where the "concord of races" and such is concerned? I doubt anyone interested in veracity could film the movie in a way Tarn would have loved. Yes, I have always seen Alexander's ruthlesness tempered by what I believe were his grander designs for the future (see our discussions about whether they were "frontier garissons", "exile posts", or "cities of the future", for example :) ), but that's a different think altogether, I think.
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

I think as a whole the film goers like butchery.

I think the audiences liked the Spartan Butchery. Slasher movies. Gangster Tortures etc etc.

That kinda stuff draws in the numpties and to be realistic the common a gardener film goer aint got much upstairs. Teen Flicks Cartoons, Slasher Movies. Need I say more.


Kenny
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Isn't that a bit of a generalization, though?

There are tons of "high-brow" films that have both enjoyed critical success and the embrace of mass audiences.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

Phoebus wrote:I'd also be willing to concede that "Rome" showed it's qualitatively possible for a TV series to do the subject justice, but the money simply isn't there. Rome got cancelled without even the second season given the full distance... And Alexander would demand exponentially more sets and much better battle scenes.
I agree that Rome showed what could be done on TV. While it's true that there will be no more, they did make an entire second series - at least, the entire series was shown in the UK.

It's a shame they won't do any more. I think there's probably an element in the decision of the fact that, if they were to make any more now, they'd be treading on "I, Claudius" toes.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

How many episodes did you get?

I don't have the article on me, but the information we got in the States was it was decided to end after season 2--and to make season 2 shorter--due to the cost involved.

What we did get from season 2 showed that the Triumverate, the infighting, and Anthony's decadence were do-able. I have no doubt that they could have easily stretched on for 1-2 more seasons if they wanted to.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

Phoebus wrote:How many episodes did you get?

I don't have the article on me, but the information we got in the States was it was decided to end after season 2--and to make season 2 shorter--due to the cost involved.

What we did get from season 2 showed that the Triumverate, the infighting, and Anthony's decadence were do-able. I have no doubt that they could have easily stretched on for 1-2 more seasons if they wanted to.
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, there were fewer episodes than in Series 1. I read your earlier post as implying that they "didn't finish" Series 2, which they most definitely did - although it was indeed shorter.

They certainly could have made 2-3 extra episodes in order to end up at the same place (the deaths of Cleopatra and Antony). There was quite a large time-jump from the time that Octavian left Rome as one actor, and arrived back as another. Admittedly not much happened in that time; but they could have filled in with more of Pullo and Vorenus; and certainly they could have done more with Antony and Cleopatra, and the whole Eastern Question.

It is a shame they aren't doing more - it was fantastic!

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

We had the Actor who plays the big Roman Guy been interviewed on a daytime TV programe. He was asked why there would be no more.

The Actor basically said they were too expensive and there was no money made from them.

kenny
User avatar
Theseus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:58 pm
Location: USA

Post by Theseus »

marcus wrote:
Phoebus wrote:I'd also be willing to concede that "Rome" showed it's qualitatively possible for a TV series to do the subject justice, but the money simply isn't there. Rome got cancelled without even the second season given the full distance... And Alexander would demand exponentially more sets and much better battle scenes.
I agree that Rome showed what could be done on TV. While it's true that there will be no more, they did make an entire second series - at least, the entire series was shown in the UK.

It's a shame they won't do any more. I think there's probably an element in the decision of the fact that, if they were to make any more now, they'd be treading on "I, Claudius" toes.

ATB
I have to admit that I was sad when Rome ended. I bought the first season on dvd and am waiting for season II to go down a bit in cost. They did an amazing job with that mini-series. The actor who played Verenus, his last name is Kidd is now on a show in the US. He's a really good actor. There were so many good actors in that series.

I would love to see something similar done with Alexander because I think more details could be shown on Alexander's life than in Stone's film. I do think the final cut was quite a bit better. I know Stone mentioned his hands were sort of tied to keep the film to a certain length for movie goers, but the film suffered a bit with doing so. I was a little dissapointed that they didn't show more depth to Alexander and Hephaestion's relationship. The film just seemed to "hint around" about it.
I long for wealth, but to win it by wrongful means I have no desire. Justice, though slow, is sure.
"Solon Fragment 13" poem
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Well... what are you going to do? There's not much you can besides "hinting" at something we only had "hints" about. :)

If you ask me, Stone took liberties in depicting as much as he did between Alexander and Hephaestion. Much more room for work existed for Bagoas if you want to get technical about it.
User avatar
Vergina Sun
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: USA

Post by Vergina Sun »

Stone took a lot of liberties in his movie in general, and that's fine. After all, it is his movie, and he never claimed it to be completely factual. I personally would have like him to either go all the way with Hephaestion and/or Bagoas, or not hint at it at all. The hinting left me, and others, quite frustrated.

Getting back to the original topic now, I would definitely go see any movie on Alexander the Great, especially if it is one made by someone who has spent a great deal of effort researching him and is truly passionate about it. Maybe it won't be a best seller movie. As Kenny said, all people look for nowadays are slaughter and blood. Of course, there are intellectual people out there as well, and we can never forget them either. Take "The Fountainhead' (one of my favorite books) for example. It was rejected 12 times for being too serious and intellectual but after it was published, it became quite a famous book. Despite what the majority might want, I would say take the chance to make a movie on Alexander the Great (excuse me if I'm sounding like a character from Disney or something :) ). I'm sure I'm not the only one on this planet who would go see it.
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Virgina


The only way an Alexander movie would geta chance. Is make it as gun ho and as brutal as they can...Lets face it with extremities regarding Alexander really isnt artistic licence. He was proficient at seperating people from there lives.

Start with a real mnovie entitled Alexander The Great. Id say people as a a whole would be interested in what made him be called great. The every daypunter doesnt give a rats arse about his sex life eye make up etc etc.

A movie that hits hard from the start and shows the greateness and legends and from there the intelects would have an interest and read books.

Do you really think the general public want to watch a so called Great leader Crying like a baby. Spat at by his mother and having as much leadersship Qualities as Bungle From rainbow. And who could you really have to play him. All the Actors who would be convincing are really too old.

Butler Played a 40 year old Leonidas Brilliantly.

Who amongst our late teen aerly 20 actors can really be Alexander... I cant thinkof anyone.

Kenny
Post Reply