Gladiator,Lord of the Rings,Troy and Arthur.

[iskander_32]

I think with all the above mentioned films and if any more come out the viewers will assume that Alexander was somekind of fairy story.Alexanders story is full of lets say miraculous deed by an actual person, the viewers are surely to believe,hey This Alexander guy must be a fary story or fantasy most thre above movies had elements of Alexander in and I hope thae battle scenes do justice to match what we have already seen, I hope they in a way demonstrate the military genius that was his and missing from the other films.regards kenny

[dean]

Hello,
Yes I also think that it is important that everybody who actually goes into watch the film is aware that it is based on a true story.Best,
Dean.

[Kit]

I think Oliver Stone is trying to establish that with the film's hookline "The greatest legend of all was real". Lets hope it works!Kit.

[jona]

What I read about the movie is intriguing, but I can not help thinking about *JFK*, which has done more than anything else to create new myths about the death of Kennedy. There's a nice BBC documentary explaining all Stone's errors.Jona

[dean]

Let's hope that with the specially recruited help from Robin Lane Fox- we will find a nice synthesis of most of the most credible accounts from the sources.Dean.

[biekie]

He also made a story about "the doors" & Jim Morrison. He had the help of the surviving doors members & he f*cked up completely.
I don't think we're gonna see the movie where we're all hoping for. Unfortunate.
Not real.

[jona]

Ahem, I liked Lane Fox's book on Alexander, which is nice to read, but many of his interpretations are, in my opinion, a bit too fanciful (Bosworth's *Conquest and Empire* is a lot better). I can imagine the anger of a Badian when he had to write his famous review. But perhaps Lane Fox's fantasy makes him an excellent adviser for a movie.Lane Fox also wrote *Pagans and Christians*, on the rise of Christianity. This belongs to my favorites.Jona

[marcus]

I think it was Brian Bosworth who said that Lane Fox's book "reads like a Boy's Own adventure story".He was quite right - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's always refreshing to go back to someone who isn't trying to find ways to attack Alexander, too. (Although, last time I read it, I decided that Lane Fox is more objective about Alexander than I had previously thought).I do with he'd do a revised version, though - the book is now 30-odd years old, and it would be interesting to see what Lane Fox would add in the context of the intervening years.All the bestMarcus

[xxx]

Lane Fox's book is not at all bad. Conquest and Empire is only good because Bosworth doesn't put much opinion into it.The 'evil' Alexander scholars of our day, Bosworth, Badian, Worthington and to a lesser extent Green to name a few, are not necessarily any more correct than someone like Renault. They use far too much modernistic thinking to attempt to analyze the ancient world.