Absolute gigachad take
this movie was made 10 years too late
Napoleon was hot shit 10 years ago?
Napoleon was defeated in 1814
1814 + 200 = ?
They are still Bonapartists roaming around in Europe, trying to put a descendant of the big cheese in the french throne, I don't know the stretch of their power but I'm sure lots of people secretly toast for the empire reborn
I think I just hate Ridley Scott now
What happened after gladiator? Did he knock his head or something?
Digital films. Notice how all his best movies were all during the age of practical effects? When you had to colour a stage purposely on the spot
Now he just lights a stage in flat colours and color corrects literally everything in post. Every fucking scene is blue or orange. I know Hollywood likes to show medieval shit blue grey and muddy but his was even more obnoxious. He's a director who needs to figure out that his movies look ugly as shit.
Movies shot on film still had a color timing process which was analog/chemical. It is true that it wasn't as flexible as a process as digital color grading is, but there was definitely still flexibility in the color timing to push the film into different kinds of exposure levels + colors. It wasn't as detailed as digital color grading is, for example you didn't obviously have power windows, really specific HSL adjustments or curves, but there was still bunch of stuff you did to the footage. One of the myths people spout constantly about movies shot on film is that they didn't have any kind of post processing (excluding sound and editing), which is just flat out false.
With film obviously there were some decisions that were more "locked" in than with digital, but even with digital film stocks you could tinker around with them quite a bit in post. Also different film stocks have different characteristics that you can enhance or negate. How you choose to expose the stocks also plays a part in the look of the film (for example pulling or pushing). Then there are also stuff like bleach bypass which has a big effect on the film as well, if that is what the DOP (and director) choose to do for a film.
Digital is another level of blah celluloid never reached and no wall of text will convince me otherwise. Shill your homosexual industry verbiage elsewhere, zoomer
yeah because most zoomers know about film cinematography, you just outed yourself you dumb homosexual
I understand that but I'm just saying Ridley Scott colors corrects the life out of all his recent films over the last 2 decades.
even in Gladiator you can see his worst tendencies creeping in
Yeah. Gladiator is really good in many ways but was already almost completely rotted through.
Gladiator sucks shit and I'm tired of pretending otherwise. So many fucking people have unironically quoted "Are you not entertained?" as if it's such a badass line that when I finally watched the movie and saw how mediocre that line was in context I got genuinely angry, like I was the victim of some joke. Phoenix's performance and the scale of some of the sets were the only thing that made it remotely watchable, overall it honest to god felt on par with tbe fucking Scorpion King yet everyone pretends it's one of the best historical movies ever made. Fuck off.
what's it like being a teenager?
u wot m8
THEY DIDN'T HAVE FLATTOPS IN ANCIENT ROME!!
They hated him because he spoke the truth.
Gladiator has a lot of glaring problems. Especially when it comes to historical accuracy.
I know we like to meme about people being 'Hack Frauds' but Ridley Scott truly is one.
he said the same thing about Gladiator 20 years ago
gladiator is a made up fantasy story like Lord of the Rings, so it's fine
this is an actual person in actual history
and yes I know Gladiator had real figures, but it didn't even pretend to attempt to take the history seriously
Historybros! How do we respond?
by seething uncontrollably
watch Waterloo (1970) instead.
I don’t respond. I just cope instead
I wouldn't respond anything, I'd listen to what he says, which no one did.
I know this is coming every time and I still laugh.
read one of the hundreds of books on napoleon. watch the film for a cool hollywood effects filled version of napoleonic wars
>Shaneequa on historians having criticisms about Black Teddy Roosevelt
>"Excuse me, senpai, were you there?"
By not watching his shitty movie.
That’s going to happen thankfully, it needs 400M to break even and will only make 46M WW first week. The seething anglos takedown of greatness will be a commercial failure
History will decide the winner.
By shitting up Cinemaphile with doom posts about peak oil
By not watching his flick and letting it flop
By watching the best Napoléon film
im just not going to watch it
I'll give this a good thinking during my next dilation
say bloody hitler 10 times at midnight and consult the fuhrer
People will either accept that all commercial product made for entertainment purposes is fiction made up of tired storytelling tropes. Documentaries, youtube dive ins, """journalism""", even some history works. The only thing that is real is professional wrestling.
I don't care if he wants to make napoleon fanfiction. The issue is that retards will treat this shit as a documentary.
The movie should be forced to open with "This is a fictional story."
No. I love how much it makes chuds seethe.
that's their problem
Won’t watch it.
go back to reading my history books
last ridley scott movie I saw was prometheus
Fucked if i know. Bring up the holocaust ?
By watching a better film.
I am the reincarnation of both Jesus Christ and Napoleon, so yes I was there.
>tfw you know you're a reincarnation of a Carthaginian warrior and one of Napoleon's marshals
Carthaginians weren't israeli.
That's fine, but what does it have to do with my post?
Yes the caainenite Phonecians from Carthage were in fact mix peoples who were semetic and celtic and also zoroastrian
>Phoenician colonization in the western mediterranean begins ≈ 900 BC.
>the zoroastrian Achaemenids enter Mesopotamia and the Levant but never bother spreading their religion - 550 BC.
Could it be? Could Ridley Scott himself be gracing the thread with his presence?
>Libshit orc glow claws typed this
Prof Eustice? Lol
You absolute brick, the pirates of the caribean, mediteranian, and madagascar were all Zoroastian all the way into the 1400. Cope and dialte glowie
Yes brainlet. He shows up with accurate historical info here but gets it wrong in his films.
did slavery really exist? no one alive today has lived through it unless you live in africa or saudia arabia
Where you there?
Damn three time loser eh?
How is Jesus a loser?
Jesus promised his followers they would be kings
Instead he died and they rationalized his death as a sacrifice to put an end to an imperceptible, immaterial curse
It's pure cope
His followers did hunt down every last person involved in his death tho, they even found out who made the nails.
How would you know that? Nobody Jesus apparently met was even alive when the scriptures were written almost a century later.
The oral traditions that became the gospels were started almost immediately after his death
They literally weren't.
The apostles were actual witnesses you moron
Nobody knows if the apostles were even fucking real, how gullible are you? We have no written accounts from any of them. Why are you people always like this?
Yes they do, deliberately insulting sectarian tart atheist bullshit like your only works if you ignore the existence of the Vatican, where St. Peter is buried ,go tip you infantile fedora somewhere else
Paul met and wrote about several of them.
No he didn't, that would make him hundreds of years old.
What the fuck are you talking about? He directly mentions debating with peter and james etc. The issue over circumcision involved several of the actual apostles. Paul didn’t live in the 3rd century
No, you mean
>someone wrote about Paul who said he directly mentions debating Peter and James
>Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:
>Galatians (c. 48 AD)
Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:
Galatians (c. 48 AD)
First Thessalonians (c. 49–51)
First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
Romans (c. 55–57)
Philippians (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
Philemon (c. 57–59 or c. 62) First Thessalonians (c. 49–51)
First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
Romans (c. 55–57)
Philippians (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
Philemon (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
Yeah, that's not a lot of documentation. What are you trying to get at?
That historians accept the dates of those letters and their authenticity
Solipsism tier autism
>the retards who think an entire universe was molded exactly for them
>calling you solipsist and autistic
Yes they were dingus, how could they not be in some form? Paul’s first letter was written 15 years after Jesus’s death and is mostly talking about policy and organization for a preexisting church that has been “preaching the gospel to them”.
>fucking christcucks don't know how dates and times work
You're a worthless moronic ill educated backward piece of shit. .
>The main source of information on Paul's life and works is the Acts of the Apostles book in the New Testament, with approximately half of its content documenting them.
>Fourteen of the 27 books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul. Seven of the Pauline epistles are undisputed by scholars as being authentic, with varying degrees of argument about the remainder. Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not asserted in the Epistle itself and was already doubted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[note 2] It was almost unquestioningly accepted from the 5th to the 16th centuries that Paul was the author of Hebrews, but that view is now almost universally rejected by scholars. The other six are believed by some scholars to have come from followers writing in his name, using material from Paul's surviving letters and letters written by him that no longer survive.[note 3] Other scholars argue that the idea of a pseudonymous author for the disputed epistles raises many problems
>The main source for information about Paul's life is the material found in his epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles. However, the epistles contain little information about Paul's pre-conversion past. The Acts of the Apostles recounts more information but leaves several parts of Paul's life out of its narrative, such as his probable but undocumented execution in Rome. The Acts of the Apostles also contradict Paul's epistles on multiple accounts, in particular concerning the frequency of Paul's visits to the church in Jerusalem.
None of your fucking letters were written by the dude and you can't prove they were. You are always so angry when this gets correctly brought up, seethe more you fucking cuck homosexual.
>None of your fucking letters were written by the dude and you can't prove they were.
What you just posted proves otherwise
>heavily disputed if most of the letters are even his
>he still was almost a century after Christ
Did Paul have a time machine, anon?
His first letter was written 15 years after and is undisputed, it speaks of a preexisting church which would have to have oral traditions by default.
You keep asserting that. But you are referring to a letter attributed to a dude that allegedly was around, based on a letter written almost 2 decades after Christ's death, cataloged by a scholar over a century after Paul died. I never know why you people have this complex cope, just admit you don't have the evidence you want, it's all faith based anyway. Not like you need it.
I assert it because no fucking historian worth their salt disputes that Paul existed and wrote these letters during this time period. If you want to reject this as evidence then you would have to throw out virtually all historical events as having fault evidence.
>I believe this Hebrew was a literal deity because someone said someone else wrote a letter about a church about him once
>I believe this Hebrew was a literal deity because someone said someone else wrote a letter about a church about him once
I only care about this retard tier view of historical cataloguing, go argue about religion somewhere else
It's proof that a guy was an early Christian and that he wrote a few letters about it, sure?
Go back to India where being an illiterate mannerless savage is an accepted profession
>christcucks forever angry that the entire foundation for their faith is second hand bullshit written a hundred years after Christ's death
>retard who doesn’t know this is how 99% of ancient history works
you also mean 40 years, not 100
If you think history is mostly "he said, she said" just to cope with the lack of any surviving documentation, then that's just you not being able to deal with reality. We have evidence of people much much older than Jesus, even their bodies. You barely have a handful of letters.
I guess spartacus didn’t exist? What evidence do you have except later accounts? The vast majority of ancient history is written centuries after the events being described.
>The vast majority of ancient history is written centuries after the events being described
I mean, that's a bit of a dodge and not necessarily true, is it?
It is actually true though. It’s not a dodge to point out your criteria about the NT excludes swathes of ancient history.
When your claim Jesus was a fucking demigod who performed magic, I'm going to be far more critical of the handful of letters written by a guy who maybe saw an apostle one time
That type of evidence is far from the norm, and secondly the temple where israelites kept all their documentation was fucking burned down by Romans
Well buddy they know that because those greedy masters of the Danube keep his tax records.
They knew because when they found out it was the Dom and Romani peoples who were among the first and second waves of migration into the roman empire were the only blavksmithing guild making the nails during the period lol, dude this is basic did you not finish general education? Did you think you only needed to know what your libshit programers decide to produce for you?
>something something libshit something something
>seetheing orc glow tears
I literally don't know what an orc glow even is it means, I'm not a zoomer christcuck.
he never said anyone would be a king, he said the world would end soon though. all the dying for sins stuff is stated by him before he died too
He sacrificed himselfnfor us. Imagine being torture and killed for the likes of these retards.
>what's a primary source
does Scott knows he did a movie about the Napoleonic wars and not a movie about the Bronze Age Collapse?
>shoots nose off sphinx
I call bs
you're dumb a s abag of hammers if you think hollywood movies are or should be accurate
Great, then watch Cleopatra
Ridley Scott hasn't made anything of note since American Gangster. The Alien movies have to showcase characters doing stupid things to progress the plot, All The Money In The World is a boring movie held together by great performances, The Last Dual is too fucking long and uses modern views to paint over medieval culture while barely dipping its toes into the court politics it uses as the backbone of the story, and Robin Hood and Exodus Gods and Kings are just awful. Is House of Gucci good? I've been so fucking disappointed by his movies I'd like to see something good as a palate cleanser before going to see Napoleon.
You another brainlet who couldn’t comprehend Prometheus/Covenant?
I had no issues comprehending it, but I had issues comprehending why someone would write characters that land on a planet no one has ever been to without a suit or anything of the sort, why Millburn tries to tame the alien facehugger despite being a biologist who should know better AND after having freaked out at an alien corpse in the previous scene, why Ridley felt it was necessary to even demystify the Xenomorph at all, David killing the Engineers in a flashback scene in the dumbest way despite making them such a strange and ancient threat in a previous movie, ect. They're fucking badly written and it shows.
I'm sorry I expect my characters to be fuckin smart you dipshit
Prometheus couldn't decide if it wanted to be an artsy sci-fi movie or a cheesy horror movie and it ends up doing both poorly. Covenant is just bad.
>le weed smoking scientists who pets black alien snakes where they fight zombies is le high iq
>it has symbolism so it is le smart
This one has always weirded me out because it seems like reddit atheists that like this movie, but it's the religious symbolism that wins people over. Maybe it's just low IQ religious people who like it, I don't know
I dragged my normie friends to Prometheus in the theater and was super pumped after it ended and my mates were like "bro, that was not good" and i swore they were wrong. then i watched it again when it came out on DVD and i released i was retarded. Prometheus was even worse. Kill yourself.
House of Gucci felt like it was 12hrs long and the only part that was worth watching was Lady Gaga in black lingerie and Jared Leto being a sperg for how ridiculously bad his performance was.
Ridely is a hack.
I'd kill not to have to watch lady gaga in lingerie.
kek, the golden mantra of King Director of Goyslop
>Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then."
>Well, were *you* there when it happened?
no but he didn't claim it was accurate in the first place
if you don't want to be subject to criticism regarding historical accuracy, then don't make a movie based on historical people and facts, you brainless retard. it comes with the territory
>historical dramas should never be made when instead only documentaries should exist
I'll be frank with you, they should be made, but if the creator has entered second childhood and physically melts when criticized for his mangling of events thye should feature the ficional lives of fictional characters to a historical backdrop.
>feature the fictional lives of fictional characters to a historical backdrop.
So....basically The Patriot
why should historical fiction be exempt from criticism? this board alone spends hours discussing harry potter plotholes and Gondor's tax policies, but historical fiction taking what people perceive as one artistic liberty too many is off limits?
>”are you talking about this historically correct movie I directed? I made it all up”
We will not rest until everyone hates him, like they should.
I thought his tomb was some crazy sarcophagus
This is begging for a /misc/ meme about the holocaust.
Why does he keep making historical movies if he seemingly hates history?
He should make films about earlier events, like Akhenaten or Cambyses II and Darius or King Cyrus or even The Iliad and The Odyssey lots of room for interpretation if you go deep into history and myth. Not giving a shit about recent history is slippery slope to propaganda. It’s like using artistic license as a Trojan horse for propaganda .
i agree with this take.
i recall going to see "public enemies" as a teen and being really intruiged by the story, going home and immediately learning it was 90% fabricated. rarely do films that are lazy with historical fact that interesting after you read the true stories... why would i care about some guy's fan fiction about a real event/person...
basically most movies are just play. directors are just playing the way children play, it's fine.
kubrick would've made a truly accurate movie, now that would've been something to witness, but this is not that era, the geniuses are extinct. enjoy your fast food (at least it really is tasty!)
i'll see this eventually. i like jokin' feenix.
Because they are 'Historical' movies which just means instead of having to create new characters and settings ol Ridley just takes actual people from history and then decides what events take place based on what his shit writing dictates for the movie rather than what actually happened. Retards will eat it up regardless since the average American consumer doesn't know what a book is beyond the menu at McDonalds, it worked with Gladiator and is only now losing steam.
I don't think the foreign market are a bunch of geniuses
As a matter of fact what you're describing is what Shakespeare was doing
Because they act as propaganda that erases the actual fact and brings forth the world they want to be real. If a generation only knows lies, lies become truth.
Films are meant to be entertainment, not history lessons. Artistic license has been a thing for hundreds of years and is nothing new.
you can warp a lot of minds with moving pictures and sounds. even the ancients knew this.
>ridley, auteur of the AlienCU
lmao he argues like a 16 year old
>makes a concious choice to make a historical films
>doesn't actually know the first thing about the discipline of history functions
This, this is genuinely pathetic.
Is is possible to contract down's syndrome late in life?
Had you never heard of Ridley Scott before, or?
>hey Ridley we probably shouldn’t make Napoleon a gay 7’ black man with no arms
>'Excuse me, mate, were you there? No?
Well, shut the fuck up then?"
I expect the movie to be shit but Ridley drug his nuts all over history fags here
What a fucking hack.
Napoleon spent his days writing and we have thousands of correspondances from his own hand, not even adding his entourage. Probably the best documented historical figure before the invention of the camera.
We even know obscure shit like the fact his father died of a stomach cancer the February 24th in 1794 because we have the autopsy report.
Normies think that anything before the invention of the camera might as well be Homeric literature
this was my line of thinking and i'm not that much into history. it was 'only' about 200 years ago. i'm okay with taking liberties, but his last few movies looked bad and were boring. Last Duel especially
>he was filtered by one of his best films of the last decade
it wasnt good. i wanted it to be. Northmam was the same. just bland
>ah you see, the insult you gave me is actually really based because something something cope cope cope
>Excuse me, mate, were you there?
Your move, Scotty.
You say 6 million died? How do you know? Were you there?
how can history be real if our eyes aren't real?
>there more than you
He's right. Historians are homosexuals just like DAT science guy stating dinosaurs had feathers.
Im gonna see this movie 3 times in theaters
> Napoleon shoots cannons at the Great Pyramid
I've lost all respect for Ridley Scott.
Nah it was just something the script writer of Ben Hur invented
So, with how much this board is seething I'm assuming it's a fantastic movie?
Giving the record of Scott's epic movies, I assume it miss the historical facts in favor of making a commentary of whatever current thing he read in the paper one morning
That's how we end up with black Cleopatra
>no Nelson movie
>no Cochrane movie
but we get
>hurr durr her shot the cannon at the triangle movie
>another Napoleon movie
Jeez, it's like he was a more popular figure or something
right, and that shouldn't be the case
Napolean is a french bitch who lost TWICE
Cochrane sunk, burned, or took 54 ships a prize with a SLOOP and that was just the introduction to his career
Nelson sunk Napoleans entire bitch fleet and gave Britain naval dominance for a century or more
And when people think of the Napoleonic Wars they think of Napoleon and sometimes Wellington, both Cochrane and Nelson had little impact on the whole scale of the wars, by either disappearing completely from the main theater of war that were the fields of Europe or die too soon
absolute retard take. Don't you me again.
I wasn't trying to shit on your heroes, just stating the fact that no one cares about the battles outside of the continent of Europe, mainly because Napoleon didn't participate on the naval battles. Again: not because they weren't significant or had little value, but because they weren't against Napoleon himself
Napoleon conquered Italy with a ragtag outnumbered demoralized army through sheer leadership energy and military knowledge. He then capitalized on that success to make himself emperor. It's an amazing story if done right (Ridley won't).
ridley scott should shut the fuck up
He lives in their heads scott free
Isn't this the board that worships that Catherine the Great show where she 360 no scopes the Ottoman Sultan?
>makes a film about a highly interesting political and military figure
>turns it into an NTR story
Ridley is a literal cuck
Ridley really is the definition of the term "based retard"
Why the fuck people are talking about Jesus all of the sudden? We are not in Cinemaphile, we are trying to discuss about a historical figure
When did he have trouble with historians?
Pretty sure one walked off the set in gladiator
but if movies arent historically accurate how will i learn anything?
That's actually a really reasonable question. A movie should either be
A good movie is both, and a bad one (which is what Napoleon appears to be) is neither.
Time travelling Wizard here. Yes i was there.
Is Robespierre going to die in this ?? :__;
No in Scott's version, he's the one who fires a cannon at the pyramids. I saw an advanced screening
The actor playing him (according to imdb) is fat.
Why would ridley scott do this?
Did you guys know Ridley Scott's bro, Tony Scott, killed himself by jumping off pic related?
It's the other way around, Ridley is Tony's brother
who is gonna act like napoleon at the theater?
is that the ultimate superpower?
Hey OP you copied my thread from /int/
>steals off topic thread
>posts it on the right board
>showered in (you)s while your pathetic thread withers
Nothin presonal kid.
Absolute gigahack take
>senile geriatric having a fit even before his flick is out
>ugly blue filter in a lot of scenes, coupled with soulless digital color grading elsewhere
>not even spoken in french
>cast a hairlip autist instead of a manlet to play napoleon
THE SOURCE IS THAT I MADE IT THE FUCK UP!!!!!
Ridley Scott was never a David Lean type of director.
He is our generation's Cecil B. DeMille.
So glad Jodie Coomer bailed on this streaming bullshit. Ridley at his peak was mid AF and he's only gone downhill since Black Rain
Where were all of these historians when they kept casting naggers to play white historical figures or figures from literature?
>Heimdall and Zeus
>white historical figures
>israelites re-write history by lying about ww2 and other atrocities their "Race" of people committed over their entire existence
>no one cares
>man makes a movie that isn't 100% accurate
>oh my god he's the fucking devil what a freak jesus christ he should be arrested for not being 100% accurate
really makes you think
Imagine being a holohoaxer tard?
>Imagine being a holohoaxer tard?
Imagine actually believing israelite... I bet you think circumcision is natural and perfectly fine for your penis, lmao!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save name for the next time I post.