PDA

View Full Version : Ridley Scott's KINGDOM OF HEAVEN Trailer


RobertoOrtiz
12-24-2004, 06:00 AM
Check it out
http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/kingdomofheaven.html
-R

Stimpy
12-24-2004, 08:44 AM
after troy and alexander and king arthur and lord of the rings and hero this movie somehow arrives 2 years two late. i bet im not the only one bored to death of those epic battle sequences. though they do look a bit more natural here it still kind of same old same old.

also, whats up with always having some kind of dust/snow particles floating around in the air. thats like the asian easy way out to turn a scene "atmospheric". bleh.

maybe the story as such is good, i dont know, but the trailer overall was rather bleh imo.

ChrisDNT
12-24-2004, 09:13 AM
I read that the story was a little bit "arranged" according to the historical accuracy, to serve some hidden agenda!

playmesumch00ns
12-24-2004, 09:23 AM
The effects in the movie are going to be great.

MartinGFoster
12-24-2004, 09:31 AM
[QUOTE=Stimpy]after troy and alexander and king arthur and lord of the rings and hero this movie somehow arrives 2 years two late.
QUOTE]

yeah, but it's a Ridley Scott film. So that pretty much gives it a good chance that it will be awesome, in my view.

Alexander was OK. I'd give it 6 out of 10. Haven't seen Troy, but I will watch it on DVD. I don't easily tire of historic epic films. They are often from quite different periods of history, so I think it's a bit silly to generalize all films before the 20th century as being competitive in the market.

ChrisDNT
12-24-2004, 09:32 AM
Found the link again, in the Daily Telegraph:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/18/wcrus18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/18/ixworld.html


Academics, however - including Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, Britain's leading authority on the Crusades - attacked the plot of Kingdom of Heaven, describing it as "rubbish", "ridiculous", "complete fiction" and "dangerous to Arab relations". Prof Riley-Smith, who is Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, said the plot was "complete and utter nonsense". He said that it relied on the romanticised view of the Crusades propagated by Sir Walter Scott in his book The Talisman, published in 1825 and now discredited by academics. "It sounds absolute balls. It's rubbish. It's not historically accurate at all. They refer to The Talisman, which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."

Prof Riley-Smith added: "Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin against Saladin, yes, but he wasn't any badder or better than anyone else. There was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense."

He said: "The Templars as 'baddies' is only sustainable from the Muslim perspective, and 'baddies' is the wrong way to show it anyway. They are the biggest threat to the Muslims and many end up being killed because their sworn vocation is to defend the Holy Land."

Dr Philips said that by venerating Saladin, who was largely ignored by Arab history until he was reinvented by romantic historians in the 19th century, Sir Ridley was following both Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad, the former Syrian dictator. Both leaders commissioned huge portraits and statues of Saladin, who was actually a Kurd, to bolster Arab Muslim pride.

Prof Riley-Smith added that Sir Ridley's efforts were misguided and pandered to Islamic fundamentalism. "It's Osama bin Laden's version of history. It will fuel the Islamic fundamentalists."

Amin Maalouf, the French historian and author of The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, said: "It does not do any good to distort history, even if you believe you are distorting it in a good way. Cruelty was not on one side but on all."
So, another Hollywood-revisionism crap-movie. Story perfectly resumed in the Rotten Tomatoes forum:

"white man's guilt" scenario based on the works of Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong and other looney lefties. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=304952&mode=hybrid

Cheers,

ChrisDNT
12-24-2004, 09:36 AM
I just thank God Peter Jackson made his magistral trilogy in New-Zealand, far far away from Hollywood system!

Solothores
12-24-2004, 10:00 AM
Well I am eager to see it, I really appreciate Scott's visual style and I am sure it won't be that bad. Even if it's not historically accurate, I mean who really cares if some Professors are pleased, it's movie time and not history lesson. ;)

ChrisDNT
12-24-2004, 10:34 AM
I don't agree with you. I'm a George Orwell fan and in "1984", there's a sentence like that: "who controls past, can control present and future" ;)

halo
12-24-2004, 10:50 AM
"featuring Orlando Bloom"...

thats enough to avoid for me ;)

Bentagon
12-24-2004, 12:21 PM
Well I am eager to see it, I really appreciate Scott's visual style and I am sure it won't be that bad. Even if it's not historically accurate, I mean who really cares if some Professors are pleased, it's movie time and not history lesson. ;)true, but everytime I watch a movie, and some historical things are wrong, it distracts me... just because I know all these things ;)
If I don't notice it, fine by me, but if I do, I feel the film isn't good enough. Gladiator made me forget about the historical flaws (the first time I saw it) because I was really loving the movie, so I hope this film will do the same. Unfortunately, this trailer does have that "been there, done that"-feel to it...

- Bentagon

mikecarry
12-24-2004, 12:24 PM
Come on, Ridley. Give the people what they want. Either a prequel to the Alien movie, or Alien 5, so that the series has a proper ending.

loopdreamz
12-24-2004, 01:16 PM
The film looks really good, and one that will hopefully correct a number of assumptions about the Crusades. If anything, it should balance out the centuries of pro-Crusader mythology in the West.

There's bound to be critics, but the reality of the Crusades wasn't one of Europes/Christendoms best moments.

dotTom
12-24-2004, 01:16 PM
Dunno, I think I've seen enough Massive or similar crowd sims, shots of armies stretching off to the horizon is kind of wearing thin now. Stylistically this does seem a bit like Ridley by Numbers. When I compare this trailer to Sin City I know which I find the most visually arresting and it isn't the Ridley chocolate-box one.

That said, Ridley is a master of his art and I'm sure this movie will be very well done. Brave choice of subject matter.

elam
12-24-2004, 03:55 PM
You can't please anyone with history. One man's hero is another's Hilter as they say. The only thing you can definitivley say about the Crusades is that they were Holy wars. Wars to recapture Christian lands lost to Islamic conquest. What is righteous (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=righteous) is debatable.

But I dig Ridley Scott. I could watch his movies without the sound turned on. They're beautiful.

Ckerr812
12-24-2004, 04:17 PM
after troy and alexander and king arthur and lord of the rings and hero this movie somehow arrives 2 years two late.
It's never to late for a ridley scott movie.

Phrenzy84
12-24-2004, 05:41 PM
well if you think about it, all these types of movies started coming out after studios saw the success of Gladiator, and who directed that ... of course Ridley Scott, so infact he was the frist to do modern adaptations of old tales and such.

rendermania
12-24-2004, 05:53 PM
That said, Ridley is a master of his art and I'm sure this movie will be very well done. Brave choice of subject matter.
I like Ridley Scott's films a lot as well, his use of visual language especially. As for the subject matter being 'brave', dunno. Somehow I doubt it'll seriously offend many people, aside from a few bible nutters perhaps. :) Guess it serves them right after hyping 'the Passion' to high heaven.

talos72
12-24-2004, 06:04 PM
None of the scholars bother mentioning that the whole idea behind the crusades might not have been all that wise to begin with...it was really about conquest of a foreign land.


I still want to see this film, because, as said, Ridley Scott is a great visualist. And I don't thing anyone will be disappointed from that angle. I pretty much gave up on historical accuracy in most epics.

Anyone cares to see how to make historical films should check out Werner Herzog's "Aguirre: Wrath of God"!

elam
12-24-2004, 06:09 PM
Somehow I doubt it'll seriously offend many people, aside from a few bible nutters perhaps. http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif Guess it serves them right after hyping 'the Passion' to high heaven. 'Bible nutters'? What?
" Muslim Scholars Denounce Upcoming 'Kingdom of Heaven

12 August 2004 (StudioBriefing) (http://us.imdb.com/news/sb/2004-08-12#film6)

Several prominent Muslim-American scholars are expressing anger over the script of 20th Century Fox's Kingdom of Heaven (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/), directed by Ridley Scott (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000631/) and starring Orlando Bloom (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0089217/), Eva Green (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm1200692/), Liam Neeson (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000553/), and Jeremy Irons (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000460/). It is scheduled for release in May. Dealing with the 12th Century Crusades, the film describes the roots of the modern Middle East conflict. Laila al-Qatami, a spokeswoman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, told today's (Thursday) New York Times, that there are "a lot of words flying around, with prominent figures talking about Islam being incompatible with Christianity and American values. This kind of movie might reinforce that theme in the discourse." UCLA professor Khaled Abu el-Fadl told the newspaper: "It's really annoying at an intellectual level, and it really misrepresents history on many levels. ... In this climate how are people going to react to these images of Muslims attacking churches and tearing down the cross and mocking it?" But Christy Lohr of the Multifaith Ministry Education Consortium in New York, remarked that part of the appeal of the movie for Hollywood was its controversial nature. "I think it's going to cause a firestorm of criticism and free publicity in the Op-Ed pages," she said. "It is cynical, but I think they enjoy stirring up a hornets' nest."

" Suspected Terror Attack Halts Bloom's Filming

26 April 2004 (WENN) (http://us.imdb.com/news/wenn/2004-04-26#celeb8)
British Hollywood star Orlando Bloom (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0089217/) was rushed off set amid suspected terror attacks whilst filming Ridley Scott (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000631/)'s new film Kingdom Of Heaven (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/). The 27-year-old actor who was shooting in Morocco when he had to be ushered to safety after blasts were heard. An insider says, "We all thought it was a bomb at first, we were terrified. Orlando, director Ridley Scott (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000631/) and the rest of the crew were evacuated immediately." The Lord Of The Rings (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/) star was quickly back on-set after a fire was discovered containing three bottles of liquid. The insider continued, "A smoldering fire was discovered among storage equipment, we're still waiting to hear the results of the investigation."


" Hollywood Director in Death Threat Scare

23 March 2004 (WENN) (http://us.imdb.com/news/wenn/2004-03-23#celeb2)
Movie director Ridley Scott (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000631/) is being guarded by hundreds of soldiers on location in Morocco - after receiving death threats from Islamic extremists upset about his new movie. The 'terrorists' are offended by battle scenes in Scott's new movie about the Crusades, Kingdom Of Heaven (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/), particularly those between Christian King Richard The Lionheart and Muslim Saracen soldiers. A crew member reveals, "There is concern, but everyone is getting on with the job in hand." King Mohammed of Morocco has ordered increased security for the Gladiator (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/) director and the cast which includes Liam Neeson (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000553/), Kiera Chaplin (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm1009390/) and Jeremy Irons (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000460/). "

tevih
12-24-2004, 06:38 PM
Jewish organizations were up in arms over "The Passion", so now Arabs/Muslims are jumping up over this. I guess it's a scary situation to be in. It'll all be forgotten when the movie is out of the theaters.

ChrisDNT
12-24-2004, 06:48 PM
So, the historians are not happy, the muslims are not happy, probably the christians will be not happy. What a start for a movie in this nervous period!

Btw, it's an historical fact that the muslims attacked Jerusalem first, then the Copt Egypt, the Orthodox Turkey, the Christian Algeria and the Catholic Spain. That's simply history and it's revisionism to deny it:

http://img75.exs.cx/img75/724/islam3.jpg


But as Ridley Scott is a great director, the movie will be for sure great to see!

kursad_pileksuz
12-24-2004, 07:23 PM
moneymakers do not care about anything except making money, Thus i do not think Scott or his masters would care about either christians or muslims or religion , hollywood was never interested in facts and would be wrong to expect them to rise to such high degree of humanity, and to degree of as some called "professors" in this topic.
We should distinguish between "art" and "fart" to begin with.
starwars, lord of the rings, king arthur, alexander etc etc are all same movie you just do not see the resemblance.

it would be wrong to talk history over the things hollywood movies bring in the first place.

lets not forget that a movie is not done by one person in general in a big movie a giant army of creative professionals work, whose task are to impress and shock audience as hard as they can, thus saying that ridley scott makes great movies is misleading.

anyways movies are done for entertainment and fast consumption (90 min average of shock and awe) , lets not take them too serious

So, the historians are not happy, the muslims are not happy, probably the christians will be not happy. What a start for a movie in this nervous period!

Btw, it's an historical fact that the muslims attacked Jerusalem first, then the Copt Egypt, the Orthodox Turkey, the Christian Algeria and the Catholic Spain. That's simply history and it's revisionism to deny it:

http://img75.exs.cx/img75/724/islam3.jpg


But as Ridley Scott is a great director, the movie will be for sure great to see!

ChrisDNT
12-24-2004, 07:43 PM
I don't agree about "The Lord of the Rings" which succeded to fly under the "Hollywood radar". Just try to find what John Rihs-Davies said about it.

But you're right for the other movies, except perhaps for the first Star Wars.

Ckerr812
12-24-2004, 07:43 PM
anyways movies are done for entertainment and fast consumption (90 min average of shock and awe) , lets not take them too seriousThe film medium as an art form is maturing, and movies such as passion, 9/11 and countless others show that this art form has more power then any other form of art we have on this planet. Films today are making statements, and leaving an argument/impression for an agenda of the film maker more and more...

To simply dismiss it as mindless entertainment is naive to the core, the next bible will be recorded in real time, not written in books or painted on canvas.

kursad_pileksuz
12-24-2004, 08:04 PM
well as you read i just targeted one spesific area of film makers. Filmmaking is an art form noone can deny it, and making a artistic film with a statement requires a hybrid understanding of visual and literature arts. But even understanding some stuff does not make you artist in case of hollywood, because technique can be learned and they have enough money people and time to perfect it

And lets not limit film making to american film making there are whole genre of russian, french, japanese, mideast, asian film makings thatare quite different from the stuff listed here. Americans maybe perfected the technique of making certain kind of film but lets not undermine power and creativity of individuals and groups who are passionate about film making around the world.

What i said is that hollywood lacked and lacks and will lack real art and thought. And Michael moore and Mel Gibson is not going to save the fact. Even they can be considered independents compared to hollywood standarts.

it is good to see that some audience care about filmmakers`s agenda as well



The film medium as an art form is maturing, and movies such as passion, 9/11 and countless others show that this art form has more power then any other form of art we have on this planet. Films today are making statements, and leaving an argument/impression for an agenda of the film maker more and more...

To simply dismiss it as mindless entertainment is naive to the core, the next bible will be recorded in real time, not written in books or painted on canvas.

noisewar
12-24-2004, 08:12 PM
How has everyone already seen this movie but me?

kursad_pileksuz
12-24-2004, 08:44 PM
i guess it is about saving time and money


How has everyone already seen this movie but me?

vfx
12-24-2004, 09:29 PM
Um, I posted this yesterday! But hey Robert has had more replies, so you might as well delete my post. Hmmm, suspicious goings on at CGTALK.

percydaman
12-24-2004, 10:40 PM
why is it suspicious?

Per-Anders
12-24-2004, 11:41 PM
well, aside from the historical revisionism which is fairly typical for america and hollywood (remember enigma anyone?), we're the heroes... we underline misconceptions paraded as fact to show that we're right and justified in our views, therefore once again we're the heroes... ad infinitum doctrine. this looks pretty good. although the first few shots really do remind me of gladiator in a "we'll just put in the same emotive riffs again, some wheat fields, the wife and kids down the dirt track lane..."

Lunatique
12-25-2004, 06:02 AM
after troy and alexander and king arthur and lord of the rings and hero this movie somehow arrives 2 years two late.
What are you talking about? Historical epic films with huge battles have been with us since the beginning of cinema.

Stimpy
12-25-2004, 08:05 AM
but only recently thanks to the advances in cgi have we been able to witness them from a birdseye view, then swoop down to some individual battles, go up again, etc.

its turning into a cheap gimmick just like bullet time and whatnot.

yes, story counts, yes its ridley scott, yes yes yes, but i for one just feel that lately theres just been too many epic battle scenes in too short of a time. just getting a bit stale.

Lunatique
12-25-2004, 09:19 AM
but i for one just feel that lately theres just been too many epic battle scenes in too short of a time. just getting a bit stale. So, the bank heist thing isn't stale? How about romantic comdedy thing? What about the family drama thing? Cop and robber thing? What you're talking about is just what comes with a genre. Epic films about historical war/political figures are bound to have epic battle scenes. If you tried to pitch an epic historical screenplay without one, the studios would probably blacklist your ass for being completely out of step with today's cinematic climate, and you'll never ever get funding again for the rest of your ended-too-early career in film. (Unless your film is limited to only a few aspects of that historical war/political figure, like his love story, the inner struggles within his government, or his life as a family man. But guess what, they aren't going to sell tickets like the ones with epic battle scenes. You don't have as much say in the film industry as you might think you do, even if you are famous, have won awards, or have broken boxoffice records.)

Stimpy
12-25-2004, 10:06 AM
sure its a genre, and i dont mind it having epic battle scene. im just saying that after a year where nearly every six weeks some epic war movie came out this one is rather late.
how would you react to having another vampire flick every 2 months...

Lunatique
12-25-2004, 10:51 AM
sure its a genre, and i dont mind it having epic battle scene. im just saying that after a year where nearly every six weeks some epic war movie came out this one is rather late.
how would you react to having another vampire flick every 2 months...
Ok, think about it this way. In the recent years, historical epics are raking in the boxoffice numbers, and there's also a certain amount of prestige associated to directing a high-budget historical epic. For many directors, it's a dream come true. So, when studios see that no only do these films rake in the boxoffice numbers and win awards, the best directors in the industry would also kill to direct such films, as many of them might never get another chance at directing a high-budget epic. Let's say you are a feature film director, who's never had such a chance, or even if you have directed big budget films in the past, can you honestly say the allure of being the director on an epic historical film does not intrigue you?

Trenox
12-25-2004, 12:23 PM
The way I see it: Ridley created both Alien and Blade Runner, who are by far his 2 best movies ever (imo). They are also, by coincidence, the 2 greatest scifi movies ever (imo). So that raises the inevitable question: Why the **** isn't Ripley making more scifi !? :p

stop all this epic nonsense, and start doing some more Philip K Dick, Asimov or Gibson (or alien ofc). Something original would also be great.. as long as its scifi :)

please!

PixelVampire
12-25-2004, 01:00 PM
This movie looks promising.

ChrisDNT
12-25-2004, 02:51 PM
Btw, too much colored filters for the skies!

jussing
12-25-2004, 04:18 PM
I'm with Stimpy here... there's been a wave of post-LOTR "historical epics" telling "the true story behind the legend", and every time a new of these trailers hit, it's like, "didn't I see that movie three times this year already?"

And all these trailers focus on how wonderful it looks when their huge armies crash, and when a cloud of arrows are launched. But after LOTR, they need a lot more than that, and most of these movies don't.

This movie looks like a crossover bewteen Gladiator, Alexander and Troy, though it looks a lot better than Alexander and Troy. But most of all, the imagery of medieval battle looks so recycled. If it had come just a year ago, at least it would've been the first of the post-LOTR epics. I'll definitely go see it, though. I hate Conquest of Paradise like the plaque, but I like Gladiator. :shrug:

And, speaking of tedious epics, to have Colin Farrel star in another "the true story behind the legend" historical epic (The New World) so short after Alexander, is involuntarily funny, I think. It looks like they're trying to do a "Colin Farrel's greatest history epics" collection... and the tagline, "Two Worlds - One Destiny", is like right out of Tarzan's "two worlds, one family". But then again, most tag lines are recylced.

Cheers, folks.

jussing
12-25-2004, 09:25 PM
Arg... not related to Kingdom of Heaven, so sorry about the OT, but it's related to the recycling of trailer material... Check out these new trailers at apple.com, and check out how completely unoriginal they are:

Rebound (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/rebound/large.html) - School of Rock, but with basketball
Kicking and Screaming (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/kicking_and_screaming/) - School of Rock, but with soccer
Bride and Prejudice (http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/bride_and_prejudice.html) - My Big Fat Italian Wedding
The Wedding Date (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/the_wedding_date/) - Pretty Man (Pretty Woman with the genders reversed)
Coach Carter (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/coach_carter/cc-lrg.html) - Dead Poets' Basketball Society
The Pacifier (http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/the_pacifier.html) - Kindergarten Cop with Vin Diesel as Arnold
Guess Who (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/guess_who/) - Guess Who's Coming To Dinner - but with black and white reversed
Million Dollar Baby (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/million_dollar_baby/) - Girlfight (girl wants to be a boxer)
Hostage (http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/hostage/) - Die Hard with Bruce Willis trying to get in, not out
The Pink Panther (http://www.apple.com/trailers/mgm/the_pink_panther/) - Steve Martin as Peter Sellers (EEEEK!!!)

(and I even left out all the sequels and "official" remakes on the site)

Lunatique
12-26-2004, 06:01 AM
I'm with Stimpy here... there's been a wave of post-LOTR "historical epics" telling "the true story behind the legend", and every time a new of these trailers hit, it's like, "didn't I see that movie three times this year already?"

And all these trailers focus on how wonderful it looks when their huge armies crash, and when a cloud of arrows are launched. But after LOTR, they need a lot more than that, and most of these movies don't.

Ok, let's say a studio comes to you and gives you enough budget to make a historical epic. How are YOU going to make it any different so that it doesn't look/feel like the ones that came before it? How will you depict the military manuevers, and the act of archers launching a rainstorm of arrows? There really aren't a lot of different ways to depict a rain of arrows, as dynamic camera movement/angles are dynamic because they differ from the norm. But you can only differ it so much, because there's a set language of cinema and it has limits. If you get too cute with your camera movements, it'll either confuse or irritate the audience (Tony Scott, for example), or it'll look too much like a free-flying virtual camera in a CG set, and therefore losing that touch of reality.

I think you guys are being unnecessarily picky, because the truth is, none of you can do any better, or even have ideas as to how to improve the formula. Epic war films are shot a certain way because that's what's required for the look and feel of epic scale. You can deviate from that, but have any of you ever dealt with a studio or investors? Any of you ever tried to convince the money-people that your "innovative and fresh" way of doing things is worth their financial risk, when the proven formula has already been established by previous successes? It's so damn easy for armchair quarterbacks to sit in the comfort of their homes and pick apart the hard work of others who are far more experienced, recognized, respected, talented, intelligent, and successful. These big name directors are not idiots. They are highly knowledgeable and experienced, and they understand cinema in ways that armchair quarterbacks would never be able to fathom, unless they get off that armchair and actually walk in the same shoes as these long-time directors.

jussing
12-26-2004, 10:25 AM
none of you can do any better, or even have ideas as to how to improve the formula. Whoa, easy! :) Don't get personal... We are consumers, and consumers can complain if they are not satisfied. To say "we can't do better" is totally irrelevant. None of us - at least not me - have tried to make you change your mind, don't try to change ours. Opinions, remember. ;)

I am bored with the monotony of historical epics today, and neither your opinion or the possibility that I can't do better, can "un-bore" me.

Actually, I thought I was being quite nice to Kingdom of Heaven, I said I think it looks better than the rest, I am just saying the epic imagery would have more wow and less yawn if the movie had come out before Troy, Alexander and Arthur.

So there. I sounds like there's a quarrel here, but I really don't know what it's about. :D

Cheers,
- Jonas

EDIT: Contrary to what you might believe, I actually like historical epics very much. The only problem is, there's been a whole handful of bad historical epics lately (movies that change historical facts for the sake of their own story and entertainment, which really isn't very good), so the potentially good ones drown. Kingdom of Heaven might be very good, I hope it is, but even if it is so, it looks totally "been-there, done-that (FOUR times this year already)". You want an idea how to improve the formula: Don't make all those bad historical movies! That'll make the good ones more enjoyable.

kursad_pileksuz
12-26-2004, 11:51 AM
knowing and understanding are all technical matters one can learn. Do not undermine power of learning.

"let's say a studio comes to you and gives you enough budget to make a historical epic. How are YOU going to make it any different so that it doesn't look/feel like the ones that came before it?"

well those studios with money will never want you to challenge the genre anyways, remember they want to make money not love. Thus directors who bow to studios are not artists. Being technically good does not make you artist. calling them directors is swearing at those who are real directors-artists. some respect please.

if you understand formula of film making and have 100 million dollars to hire people who are more talented than you to make rest, yes you can do better than them. I believe most of the kids on these boards can be better directors at least more creative than those hollywood directors, if they are to not to use studio budget and teams.

if you want to see real movie watch tarkovsky or svankmajer
if you want to consume 3 pounds popcorn watch ridley scott or george lucas, even oliver stone is a good popcorner




Ok, let's say a studio comes to you and gives you enough budget to make a historical epic. How are YOU going to make it any different so that it doesn't look/feel like the ones that came before it? How will you depict the military manuevers, and the act of archers launching a rainstorm of arrows? There really aren't a lot of different ways to depict a rain of arrows, as dynamic camera movement/angles are dynamic because they differ from the norm. But you can only differ it so much, because there's a set language of cinema and it has limits. If you get too cute with your camera movements, it'll either confuse or irritate the audience (Tony Scott, for example), or it'll look too much like a free-flying virtual camera in a CG set, and therefore losing that touch of reality.

I think you guys are being unnecessarily picky, because the truth is, none of you can do any better, or even have ideas as to how to improve the formula. Epic war films are shot a certain way because that's what's required for the look and feel of epic scale. You can deviate from that, but have any of you ever dealt with a studio or investors? Any of you ever tried to convince the money-people that your "innovative and fresh" way of doing things is worth their financial risk, when the proven formula has already been established by previous successes? It's so damn easy for armchair quarterbacks to sit in the comfort of their homes and pick apart the hard work of others who are far more experienced, recognized, respected, talented, intelligent, and successful. These big name directors are not idiots. They are highly knowledgeable and experienced, and they understand cinema in ways that armchair quarterbacks would never be able to fathom, unless they get off that armchair and actually walk in the same shoes as these long-time directors.

Lunatique
12-26-2004, 12:06 PM
We are consumers, and consumers can complain if they are not satisfied.

EDIT: Contrary to what you might believe, I actually like historical epics very much. The only problem is, there's been a whole handful of bad historical epics lately (movies that change historical facts for the sake of their own story and entertainment, which really isn't very good), so the potentially good ones drown. Kingdom of Heaven might be very good, I hope it is, but even if it is so, it looks totally "been-there, done-that (FOUR times this year already)". You want an idea how to improve the formula: Don't make all those bad historical movies! That'll make the good ones more enjoyable.
Well, It's kind of like saying, "There are all these coffee shops opening up around here lately in the last several years. Now there's another coffee shop opening up--it's probably going to be just like the others and I'm sick of it." Well, TRY the coffee first, then make a judgement.

jussing
12-26-2004, 12:16 PM
So we're not allowed to talk about trailers, ever? :rolleyes:

I've said three times now, that I think Kingdom of Heaven looks better than the other coffeeshops, and that I'm gonna try it out. But, statistically, based on my own opinion about the other coffeshops, this one has a 75% chance of sucking. Just an observation.

Lunatique
12-26-2004, 12:19 PM
Thus directors who bow to studios are not artists. Being technically good does not make you artist. calling them directors is swearing at those who are real directors-artists. some respect please.

I believe most of the kids on these boards can be better directors at least more creative than those hollywood directors, if they are to not to use studio budget and teams.

ridley scott or george lucas, even oliver stone is a good popcorner You sound like someone who is either very young, or have no idea how the real world works. Answer me this: if a so-called "artist/director" wants to go and make a big historical epic film, WHERE do you think he's going to get the funding from? Private sources? Raise it on his own? Grants? No, the only way a filmmaker can get that kind of big-budget funding is through the studio system. And guess who you have to answer to if that's your only realistic option of getting funding?

And let's be honest here, as much as I love cgtalk and the people here, 99% of the members do NOT have what it takes to be great feature film directors. Sure, anyone can direct--a piece of crap movie. But to be a great director take so much of the knowledge, discipline, and talent that most people here do not possess. Your average cgtalk member is someone who has a very narrow focus in life. They love CG, do CG, watch CG, and buy CG, and that's pretty much it (yes, this is a generalization, but nonetheless it's an accurate one. If you are different from that, then you are an exception). A great director must have a vast amount of knowledge about many things--someone who is well-versed in multiple creative disciplines, well-read, understands science, politics, philosophy, psychology, art, music, literature, photography, theater..etc, and have the confidence and self-control needed to lead an entire crew, gain their respect, and handle any problems that would come up during shooting. To say "most of the kids on these boards can be better directors at least more creative than those hollywood directors" is just completely delusional. Most kids here never even had a girlfriend, lived away from home, had a real job, or any real life experiences, and you're comparing them to working feature film directors who are not only successful, influential, respected, but also award-winners of some of the most pretigious awards in film industry?

Lunatique
12-26-2004, 12:21 PM
So we're not allowed to talk about trailers, ever? :rolleyes:

I've said three times now, that I think Kingdom of Heaven looks better than the other coffeeshops, and that I'm gonna try it out. But, statistically, based on my own opinion about the other coffeshops, this one has a 75% chance of sucking. Just an observation.
I'm just saying give it a chance before you jump to conclusions. I could understand if someone wants to bash crappy trailers like Cat Woman or Alone In the Dark--they beg for it. But this is something very different, done by highly respected and talented people, who have more than proven their worth based on past performances in their career.

TorbjornO
12-26-2004, 12:30 PM
Complain if you get too little, not too much :) What´s the point of complaining about getting too much, all you have to do is don´t watch it. Easy!

jussing
12-26-2004, 12:41 PM
I'm just saying give it a chance before you jump to conclusions. I think the mistake I made was to walk peacefully into a thread that was already riled up. As you may recall, I gave Kingdom of Heaven a chance in my very first post, and deliberately didn't jump to any conclusions.

...it looks a lot better than Alexander and Troy....
(snip)
I'll definitely go see it, though. I hate Conquest of Paradise like the plaque, but I like Gladiator. See? ;)

Cheers everybody,
- Jonas

Lunatique
12-26-2004, 12:52 PM
I think the mistake I made was to walk peacefully into a thread that was already riled up. As you may recall, I gave Kingdom of Heaven a chance in my very first post, and deliberately didn't jump to any conclusions.

See? ;)

Cheers everybody,
- Jonas
Sorry, I didn't mean to come down hard on anyone specifically. I'm just a bit irritated lately with all the young kids at cgtalk shooting their mouths off and bashing things that they could never accomplish in their lifetimes. It's one thing to make fun of Cat Woman, Alone In the Dark, House of the Dead..etc, but you really have to think twice when you are talking about highly talented and respected filmmakers. These people are some of the most brilliant creative minds on this planet, and some of the very best in their chosen fields. The naivety and arrogance of youth can grate on the older folk's nerves a little. :D

ChrisDNT
12-26-2004, 03:44 PM
Btw, a great quote from "1984" which is perfect to describe Hollywood "revisionim", especially about its latest "historical" movies, full of hidden agendas:

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.

mushroomgod
12-26-2004, 05:08 PM
trailer looks good, I will go and see it, and quite frankly I cant get enough of historic epics like this.

titaniumdave
12-26-2004, 05:15 PM
The trailer looks pretty good. As for history, who cares? Its a movie and going to a movie theater for a history lesson is like watching mtv for music videos, utterly stupid and a waste of time.

francescaluce
12-26-2004, 06:05 PM
if you want to see real movie watch tarkovsky or svankmajer
if you want to consume 3 pounds popcorn watch ridley scott or george lucas, even oliver stone is a good popcorner ahah... I'm with you and stimpy !!
ridley scoot is a betrayer.. he has no more inspiration but continue to make films... I could without a glich sentence that he's a poor retainer of the status quo (also technically)... a monkey for the mass... a real talented idiot if you want.. and more talent he has.. and more a monkey he is.. for our lucky his last films are so silly and harmless that can impress just Lunatique. :)

it is true that the genre 'film', actually.. means all of this in general, and this is so true that when we go to the cinema it is just to waste a bit of our time... but at least for me, I prefer in this sense not to be bored by stupid epic films (that always try to tell you something.. 'epic' comes from 'epos' that means 'discourse'..) but at least to have fun with film that are made for that.


ciao
francesca

slaughters
12-26-2004, 06:09 PM
... to describe Hollywood "revisionim", especially about its latest "historical" movies, full of hidden agendas:A pet peeve of mine. There is no "Hollywood". There are just several corporate entities, each with their own agenda, the main one being to make huge gobs of money in a few films to make up for the huge gobs of money that they loose in all the others.

Incompetence is responsible for more bad things than all the evil conspiritors combined since the begining of human civilization.

superlayer
12-26-2004, 08:07 PM
I think the trailer looks great and I myself cant get enough of epic scale battles and dramas to match them.

Rasmus Pultz
12-26-2004, 08:15 PM
@francescaluce

While I repect your opinion about Ridley Scott's lateste movies, I wouldn't say that they only impress Lunatiq - both Matchstick Men and Black Hawk Down have an average over 7 on IMDB. :)

ridley scoot is a betrayer.. he has no more inspiration but continue to make films... I could without a glich sentence that he's a poor retainer of the status quo (also technically)... a monkey for the mass... a real talented idiot if you want.. and more talent he has.. and more a monkey he is.. I respect that opinion, but just because you don't like his latest movies, doesn't mean he has lost inspiration.

but at least for me, I prefer in this sense not to be bored by stupid epic films (that always try to tell you something.. If I prefered not to be bored with movies I didn't like - I certainly wouldn't bother writing in this thread. Oh well, each his own. :)

[EDIT]
I think the trailer looks decent - a must see for me :)

kursad_pileksuz
12-26-2004, 08:18 PM
well i try to understand real and unreal word thus i am trying to challenge conventional thinking here.In the end i just underlined the facts.

also lets be honest here, hollywood is working as ministry of propaganda or better than them if there was one . In times of wars they make more heroism and war movies.uhmm i am not sure if you guys look at this way. But this is kind of blood money to me.And unfortunately those directors never taught wisdom and understanding of simple humanism facts as i see

A good director and a good artist challenges himself or herself and challenges matters that deals with mankind and beyond. What are mr Ridley scott`s challenges in his last movies? What is his political standing, what is his vision for himself and for others? what good is he bringing when he makes a movie, except the fact that entertainment?

genuine creativity is not something you learn from academy of consumptionism. And knowing more can kill the genuine kid inside of you as well, more you know more technical you will get. You can ask joan miro or paul klee or even picasso why they have choosen to do abstraction rather than spending a year to render paris and helen? That is why i said kids can be more creative directors than those. But i did nto mean that they can direct a better battle scene ( thou i do not know why they call those movies epic, there is nothing epic about them)
here is from wikipedia

"One factor that distinguishes epics from other forms of narrative poetry is scale: epic poems tend to be too long to be read or performed in a single sitting. A second distinguishing factor is stylistic: epic poems are written in what might be termed high style, avoiding popular metres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre) and verse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse) patterns. For example, an epic written in English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) would not use the ballad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballad) form"



anyways, ridley scott and others are popularists, and if they accept that fact too i have no problem , at least they would be honest popularists.

what is bad about popularism and popularists? well they do not deal with real matters, rather they choose to ones they can manipulate, distort, exaggarate , bend and make money out of it.Because it is EASIER.







You sound like someone who is either very young, or have no idea how the real world works. Answer me this: if a so-called "artist/director" wants to go and make a big historical epic film, WHERE do you think he's going to get the funding from? Private sources? Raise it on his own? Grants? No, the only way a filmmaker can get that kind of big-budget funding is through the studio system. And guess who you have to answer to if that's your only realistic option of getting funding?

And let's be honest here, as much as I love cgtalk and the people here, 99% of the members do NOT have what it takes to be great feature film directors. Sure, anyone can direct--a piece of crap movie. But to be a great director take so much of the knowledge, discipline, and talent that most people here do not possess. Your average cgtalk member is someone who has a very narrow focus in life. They love CG, do CG, watch CG, and buy CG, and that's pretty much it (yes, this is a generalization, but nonetheless it's an accurate one. If you are different from that, then you are an exception). A great director must have a vast amount of knowledge about many things--someone who is well-versed in multiple creative disciplines, well-read, understands science, politics, philosophy, psychology, art, music, literature, photography, theater..etc, and have the confidence and self-control needed to lead an entire crew, gain their respect, and handle any problems that would come up during shooting. To say "most of the kids on these boards can be better directors at least more creative than those hollywood directors" is just completely delusional. Most kids here never even had a girlfriend, lived away from home, had a real job, or any real life experiences, and you're comparing them to working feature film directors who are not only successful, influential, respected, but also award-winners of some of the most pretigious awards in film industry?

jussing
12-26-2004, 08:24 PM
On an objective side note, I just want add how ironic it is to talk about unoriginal Hollywood popcorn products -- in a CG forum. :D Not saying the bad parts come from CG, of course they don't, but CG does have a lot in common with Hollywood at its worst. :D

Be careful out there,
- Jonas

baby
12-26-2004, 08:56 PM
Bloom...
him...again...
pfffff



I really love when music stops and you have only sound fx !!!

I wish Scott picked another actor...but well...


edit : I love Jermey Irons and Liam Neeson 2 real actors... :)
they both played together in one of my fav movie of all time : Mission

francescaluce
12-26-2004, 11:01 PM
While I respect your opinion about Ridley Scott's lateste movies, I wouldn't say that they only impress Lunatiq - both Matchstick Men and Black Hawk Down have an average over 7 on IMDB.ah no, c'mon.. I'm a bit extreme with those I really loved.. if I try to compare something like The Duellist to this last one.. I'm going to be a little sad. Black Hawk Down was an incredible film.. technically, but while watching it I forgot it was by RidleyScott, to forget also the suspect I have about this kind of war films..
He remains probably a great producer.. but no one reviewer will exclaim looking at the trailer.. Ridley is back!!, not last.. all the good critics outhere well know what means for a director not really young doing an epic film. Artistically I think he's boiled and I think also he knows something about this..
http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/57/15/22m.jpg


but as himself said "the key.. is to step back and be your biggest critic".. maybe 'kingdom of heaven' will be just a turn, or just what we see.. a commercial movie, and once he will have seen his last production he will be ready and proud to move on.

and for us.. after seen the film, maybe, we will happy to say how we're stupid to judge a film just by the trailer... :)


ciao
francesca

Solothores
12-27-2004, 02:35 AM
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past: Fortunately there are many, many "records" besides hollywood cinema, which are more relevant an credible in terms of accuracy and truth, when it comes to history. So, to get back at my first post in this thread. As long as you see cinema as entertainement and not as a provider for a potential history lesson that needs to stay factive, there won't be any danger at all that it will become a spinned truth. But if you are captive to marketing slogans, and really fall into the "based on a true story/the true story/historical blabla" tags it is not my fault at all... I will never accept entertainement becoming a credible source for facts of life. ;)

Now if we move over to the newsmedia spin, that is another story, far more dangerous, since it changed from providing truth based on factum to truth following the rules of quotetainement. Then I would even agree to place Orwells quote at that very moment. But that is a topic for another thread in a different board. :D

So I will watch Scott's movie just for entertainement reasons, and if it entertaines me well, I will be happy. If some Profs have deliberate problems accepting the historical unaccuracy of this movie, me just thinks those Profs really should chill down and enjoy themselves. It's a movie and not a dissertation. And I guess there are a helluva lot more important problems waiting for their valuable attendance.

Cheers
Solo

Natethor
12-27-2004, 11:48 AM
I know it will be good.Just how good,that I cant quess now.I am quessing from very good to excelent,oh about a 8.5 from 1 to 10.My prediction.:) hey orlando Bloom is a fine choice,plus the other actors as well,common now.:)

RayenD
12-27-2004, 12:53 PM
Great trailer and I think it will be great movie. I am very interested how Ridley Scott will portarit Templars.

P.S. And I am never tired of epic battles! More of them please.

BillB
01-02-2005, 08:50 AM
So I will watch Scott's movie just for entertainement reasons, and if it entertaines me well, I will be happy. If some Profs have deliberate problems accepting the historical unaccuracy of this movie, me just thinks those Profs really should chill down and enjoy themselves. It's a movie and not a dissertation. And I guess there are a helluva lot more important problems waiting for their valuable attendance.
I gotta disagree. I have no problem with a fictional story being placed in a historical context - there's no potential harm there, as long as you don't abuse the history. But if you grossly distort the actual history, be it for dramatic licence, hidden agenda, or for the sake of controversy to generate box office, you do a great many people a great disservice, and potentially (in these times and with this topic!) a dangerous disservice.

How many people are in any way educated about the Crudades in any meaningful way? I know if it was me, I'd feel some responsibilty to my audience and my integrity.

ChrisDNT
01-03-2005, 12:09 AM
But there's a justice: Alexander is a big flop :)

47Gut
01-03-2005, 09:10 AM
I figured it wouldnt be too long before someone did a crusades movie, It was almost inevidalbe. But the trailer looked pretty good and history or no if it has a good story then thats enough for me.

As far as the bloom thing is concerned, it means that men will bring there wives with them to a battle movie. That means more Dollar bills.

SUB7NYC
01-04-2005, 01:00 AM
How much more Orlando Bloom can the world take.

Darknon
01-04-2005, 09:46 AM
I'm Eating it all with no problems. Gladiator was great. LOTR was cool. Havent seen troy or alexander, But I sure will... I love King Arthur, it does some things better that LOTR, like the close-ups of the big battles, one-on-one battles, much better than LOTR... Imo.

I'll have to see this one... But why does olando bloom have to be in all of these films? He doesn't exactly look like a warrior.

titaniumdave
01-04-2005, 01:39 PM
How much more Orlando Bloom can the world take.
I guess we'll find out in may. :shrug:

SuperMax
04-13-2005, 12:08 PM
funny this movie slipped past my nose. I just learned of it today while driving to work. There was a big billboard poster.

First thing i though was they got the name wrong "the kingdom of heaven" Its supposed to be Battle at Minas Tirith. Thats exactly what the poster looked like.

Orlanda Bloom is seriously giving the Pope a run for his money as the man whos seen more humans than any other in the history of this planet. Almost everyone movie his in his fighting an army with and again a million men. His got an awesome film collection under his name. Good on him. Although his aint my fav actor. But nice to see Tom Hanks taking a break. Every 2nd movie that came out used to have Tom Hanks.

As for the trailer and movie...Meh, seen one youve basically seen them all. but i will go see it, Theres nothing else on and i havent been to the movie lately. Ill still go see it even if there was other good movies on. You cant stop yourself.

CGTalk Moderation
04-13-2005, 12:08 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.