Re: OK, Second time round!

justme · Post by **justme** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:28 pm

Phil, I see your point on wanting to give examples as a writer. I thought differently of the two examples and simply expressed an opinion. I didn't intend to intrude or cause any issues. Sorry if I offended.I'm also not intending to say that everyone should like it or feel as I do (though some have very firmly stated that no one should like it). No one should feel belittled for their opinions just because someone else has a different one. As I've said in several posts, people really do have to see it and judge for themselves. That said, I think it's good for each person to write about their own feelings and thoughts not as an argument, but as a discussion. That is where I am coming from in my posts.It's true that there is way too much of Alexander to fit into a 3 hour movie. However, I'm not certain it's fair to compare this movie with LOTR, which had the benefit of 9+ hours for character development and a firmly defined plot to follow. Sources can't even agree on Alexander's hair or eye color, so how can there be a definitive character to follow? I agree that the *average* audience may get completely lost. However, I also think that not telling the whole story can actually be good. Hopefully people will walk away wanting to figure out what Stone was trying to say and be led to more in-depth research. But then, I'm usually optimistic about human nature. I certainly could be wrong. But if just a few doGÇªthe effort of creating this movie is worth it. Respectfully,
Lois

karen · Post by **karen** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:33 pm

I'm a writer also but still haven't seen the movie... but I have to say I was disappointed and confused to find out that the story is not told in chronological order, and Philip's assassination is near the end. For those who've seen it, what is the apparent reason for that placement? What was Stone trying to do with that?It's an event that informs the entire rest of Alexander's life, and *starts* his career, so that it needs to be already established in viewer's minds as they watch his career unfold... at least that's what I think.Perhaps other novelists would like to comment?Warmly,
Karen

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:44 pm

Lois, your opinion that you liked the movie is fine, and I'd say to everyone, go see it for yourself. You might like it, you might not. That isn't the point."It's true that there is way too much of Alexander to fit into a 3 hour movie."This is the point. Stone tried and failed. "However, I'm not certain it's fair to compare this movie with LOTR,"It's what audiences are doing, fair or not. The moment Stone chose to show Alexander charging an elephant in the trailer and told them that the greatest legend of them all was real, a lot of people started to expect something along LOTR lines."which had the benefit of 9+ hours for character development and a firmly defined plot to follow."Stone isn't an amateur. He's a professional who is fully capable of making good movies. He knows how to define a character and how to tell a complex story. This one was just too much for him. That's all we're saying. If all he had was 3 hours, then he should have approached Alexander's life differently. That he was frantically editing right up to the release date gives an indication that he had lost control of his story-telling vehicle. I would still like to see his original vision for this movie, the full 5 hours if that's what it needs.

ruthaki · Post by **ruthaki** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:22 am

I also was disturbed by the flashback of Philip's assassination being so close to the end and didn't understand why when I saw the movie first. Second time round, I realize that it had a lot to do with Philip telling Alexander that Cleitus was someone to heed and be loyal to. There were some other things in that scene also that seemed to connect in some perhaps vague way with Alexander's killing of Cleitus. I'll look again on the weekend when I go for the third time, and see if it makes any more sense to me. For someone not knowing the story it would certainly be vague and somewhat jarring.

justme · Post by **justme** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:59 am

"'It's true that there is way too much of Alexander to fit into a 3 hour movie.'This is the point. Stone tried and failed."That he failed is your opinion and you're as entitled to it as I am of mine that he did well (not perfect, but well) within the time limit.

Maybe we simply need to agree to disagree on this. We do agree that it'd be great to see what's on the cutting room floor. Hey, that's a plus. Peace,
Lois