Kek they should have got Cruise or perhaps to play Napoleon reflecting on his past imprisoned on Alba and de aged him in the flash backs
Absolute armatures
I'm addicted to Cinemaphile specifically because of comments like these. They are blunt and get right to the point, and the truth within is so desirable that I cannot deny it.
i remember when SHITTED threads stopped bbc spam in it's tracks, to the point where mods had to start deleting them to protect the bbcposters who presumably have 4ch passes
Money is not the concern, it's demoralization for millennials and diluting interest among zoomers for interest in European conquests and white history. The drab color palette acts as a wet blanket barrier to future entry. It's a higher brow variation of what was done to Luke Skywalker by Disney, Kennedy, Iger.
Ridley's Napoleon perhaps overindulged in its psywar negativity, however, because people are repulsed by this film unlike few of late, they can't articulate why they hated it, more than boredom and Phoenix, they are pissed that the movie made them feel bad and robbed, rather than the more subliminal effect under an entertaining veneer that Ridley was counted on to deliver.
Most people don’t give a shit about history. Those who do care about it tend to care more about accuracy. Scott has managed to make a film with a very narrow appeal here. I have no interest in ever seeing it since I saw the battle of austeritz scene.
>Scott has managed to make a film with a very narrow appeal here. I
This, if you've ever met anyone who's actually into Napoleon they are usually a history autist. Not really sure why they gave the guy so known for his laissze-faire historical accuracy the biopic of the most documented man of modern times.
Pfff, you've clearly just bought into the propaganda that Napoleon was an effective general and leader. Didn't you know that he barely had any victories at all, that those he did have were mostly the work of others, and even those were exaggerated? The washed-up Royalist ex-Para that Scott hired as his history consultant said so, so it *must* be true.
Yes, just ignore all of the criticisms that get aimed at the movie and others on the list of flops. Don't look at things from 20 years ago, either. Everyone from back then has been dead for 5 billion years and tastes have changed so drastically that you can't use that as a gauge for what modern people like.
It's definitely just that the only historical films that people are interested in are World War movies.
I’m certain that this film would have turned a profit if Scott had just shut the frick up and stopped pissing off anyone who would have been interested in seeing it.
Fricking this. I was really irritated by his behaviour when confronted by actual historians of the accuracy of the film. If he thought acting like a child is a great way to get people to see your movie then he’s a moron.
Literally why I didn't see it in cinemas. I saw the trailer during the Oppenheimer showing and it seemed like something I'd want to watch, until I saw an article about Scott rebutting some historian's concern epic style and looked into it. Turns out the movie is dogshit so I didn't watch it.
I feel like there's been at least half a dozen historical movies that have all flopped hard in recent years
Please keep in mind that this was a Ridley Scott film. Shit was expected, and was delivered fully.
No one has liked anything he's done in at least 20 years, and really its more like 40 since he did anything worthwhile - and even then! He just was never very good.
The only pattern in this is Ridley Scott consistently being a hack and yet remaining a popular brand.
No true though I credit it being good as less due to Scott and more to the cast and crew keeping Scott's moronic bullshit deviating from the original premise in check
Do you remember the time Hollywood turned Robin Hood's righthand man from a Christian Crusader from England to a filthy Saracen. Oh, then it gets better, our based black medieval knight man trains Robin Hood and saves the day.
I hate Jamie Foxx so fricking much, he ruins every movie I see him in. From Collateral to Jarhead to Law Abiding Citizen. Immediately ruined.
>Abiding Citizen
that black homosexual ruined the movie because he wanted to outsmart the 'badguy'. Literally tanked the movie, the original ending was whats-his-name getting revenge. 100% better. Fricking Black folk man
I feel like there's been half a dozen historical movies that have all flopped hard in recent years that put all their good scenes in the trailer and everything else was complete garbage
Shit like Northman and Napoleon seem so good at first glance and then it's just two hours of homosexuals being bullied by women
This is why I don’t even bother
the movie is going to be horribly written with tepid performances and chock full of academic deconstruction of race and gender or contemporary political fetishes ham fisted in regardless of the movie
And the off chance some one manages to make a good movie I don’t really care tbqh
>le thing remind me of le thing, therefore it good!
you're no different from morons screaming and crying because they saw a tie fighter in star wars, except you're also a pseud
5 months ago
Anonymous
It's literally based on the story of Prince Amleth which in turn was the basis Hamlet you moronic Black person.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>OH and also the tie fighter was inspired by this other thing! checkmate atheists!
This is your argument minus the cultural veneer
Realism, or at least the lame interpretation of it Hollywood has, is largely to blame. People would eat up romantic history like Spartacus or El Cid. Wokeness would not allow that sort of movie to be made nowadays of course.
I really don't understand how people like you can be so moronic. This must be bait. Not only is woke a made up boogeyman for homosexuals like you that just means -things I don't like, but both of them can easily be turned "woke" - One is a fricking slave rebellion story, and the other is just a knight who worked for both Muslims and Christians. You very easily can cherry-pick his life to make a "White people are bad." story if you want to. I hope you get testicular cancer.
For real. Ridley failed to make me care about Napoleon. Joaquin's performance didn't help either.
If you're going to make a love story fine, make a love story, but do it compelling (Titanic).
If you're going to make a historic film, make it exciting (Gladiator).
If you're going to combine those two, at least make it compelling and exciting (Titanic, again).
Napoleon is just all over the place. The battle scenes are fine but he's supposed to be a master strategist and we never see such genius on screen. He just wins because...HE JUST DOES OK?
The scene of the Russians attacking the camp was nice and made him seem like a genius... but then they cut to the Tsaar meeting him and snubbing him/ treating him like a moron the entire time, which undermines it.
That's the real issue- every time you get a feeling of grandeur from the character they undercut it immediately with a gag about his height, his ego, or a scene making him come off as a weird moron who fell upwards into a position of authority.
There's the scene staging his coup and naming him Emperor then HARD CUT to him getting slapped around by governors then failing down a flight of stairs as he tries to run from them
There's the scene of him being crowned Emperor then HARD CUT to him overseeing himself painted ten feet tall in his coronation.
There's his divorce with Josephine where he gives a noble speech about how he loves her and is only doing it out of duty then HARD CUT to slapstick humor of him slapping her around to get her to sign the divorce papers.
The whole movie was fricking absurd, like they took a british political cartoon from the era and unironically thought that's who Napoleon was and actually behaved.
>That's the real issue- every time you get a feeling of grandeur from the character they undercut it immediately with a gag about his height, his ego, or a scene making him come off as a weird moron who fell upwards into a position of authority.
Because they hate him and they hate everything he represents. This movie is just more anti white propaganda. They were never going to paint him in a favorable light.
>It was fully funded by apple to be put on apple+ and the theatrical run is for bonus $ and awards eligibility.
Yeah Apple+ funding a bunch of shit is far more about them garnering some prestige. Napoleon is even getting a directors cut on Apple+
The issue with Napoleon is is his entire career from start to end of his 51 year life can not be contained in one film. Hell I couldn't be contained in 12 films.
From what I've seen of Stanley Kubrick's writing on the Napoleon film he planned, he had like 6 or 8 episodic cinematic scenes he wanted to have to Napoleon's rise, regime and fall
In this we get 90% Napoleon cucked wife scenes and maybe 5% battle scenes.
>In this we get 90% Napoleon cucked wife scenes and maybe 5% battle scenes.
I swear, none of you saying this even saw the movie. It shows him getting cucked for 10 seconds. then him comes back to France from Egypt to yell at her when he catches wind about it. And actually, he ends up divorcing her and cucking Josephine with a hot 18 year old since the 18 year old can actually get pregnant and Josephine can't.
>Maybe go watch the movie before your form an opinion on it.
We did it sucks
Waterloo 1970 and the miniseries severely raped this piece of shit film in the ass. There aren't even characters in this movie beyond napeoleon every other character is just a prop.
I agree, it wasn't very well written. and I was disappointed by it, but the contention is over the cuck scene's, which constitutes like 10 seconds of the movie and only at the very beginning.
>Maybe go watch the movie
I Don’t have to because I am an old pro, and could tell simply by a look
it would suck
How about dat then!!
Rickety hasn’t made a good film in 25 years and he’s shitting them out in a diluted boomer bid to cheat death
Don’t tell me to “just watch it bro” zoom iv seen it all.
if you're going to cast judgement and give your opinion on a movie, you SHOULD watch it first, is what I'm saying. I could also tell it wasn't going to be very good, but I still went to see it so I could form a fair opinion of where it went wrong, and how it could have improved. It was honestly better than I thought it'd be, all things considered.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>if you're going to cast judgement and give your opinion on a movie, you SHOULD watch it first
This is actually a rather old cope that you should know is ridiculous but your young and inexperienced
I don’t have any reason to watch it and in fact don’t want to watch it because I have no confidence that it will be worth my time
Wrong he fricked the 18yr old to see if his junk worked, he married an Austrian duchess who was 26. He also still loved joesephine and went to see her before his actual wife, and she got a 1million franc pr year state salary.
Apparently Steven Spielberg is working on an adaptation of Kubrick's work in a long biopic.
Maybe we'll still get acceptable or even great Napoleon kino.
Spielberg is only producing. Cary Fukunaga (True Detective S1 but also cucked last Bond film) is directing. He just finished on the sequel aviator series to Band of Brothers, said to be the most expensive thing ever made for TV / paid cable and long delayed.
We all yearn for the bright, immaculate color palettes of Kubrick's Napoleon, like a tapestry life raft that escape our neo Weimar dead mall reality.
No, but I know what to expect with capeshit so there is no risk in avoiding any. Napoleon is by itself. Another movie could come along that resembles it on the surface but is brilliant. I prefer having a movie landscape with that kind of roll of the dice.
Napoleon is worse than capeshit, I mean if you'd never seen capeshit before watching one capeshit movie isn't that tedious, it's the grating humdrum of the formula repeated over and over that makes it unbearable. Napoleon is an insult to human life from the first minute until the end.
>Napoleon is an insult to human life from the first minute until the end.
oh please, it's nowhere near that bad For starters, it's quintessential Scott visual kino. One of the most beautifully shot and designed movies I've ever seen. Scott can still build a world like no other, and frame sequences with the best of them.
The problem for me is that the story lacked focus and scope. It was trying to make the center of the movie Napoleon and Josephine, and the drama of their having a baby or not, coinciding with his rise to power, but it was hard to care about any of that, so the world felt empty. It was like a gorgeous, massive atrium with only 5 birds inside.
I think it's still worth a watch, but it's like a 6/10 in my book. Could have been way better if they had the story down. Script was not that bad, given what they ended up settling on regarding the story, but the story suffers from lack of focus.
Phoenix was horribly cast, the movie was extremely boring, and I did not watch it
>make movie about legendary charismatic general who conquered huge swaths of Europe >the movie focuses on his relationship with his wife
What kind of moron would do this?
My boomer dad read so many bad reviews that he unilaterally changed his mind about going to see this over thanksgiving. I was shocked, I’ve never once seem him turn down boomer sloppa. Ridley really fricked the pooch this time.
We ended up watching The Terror so he could have some historical kino.
part of the issue is of the movie is that its just not a good story. its unappealing rendition even to people who don't know the history of napoleon because its purpose seems to be making napoleon appear unappealing.
It seems like it was intentionally made for an audience of people whose only interest is seeing seeing napoleon depicted poorly.
twist yourself into a pretzel to tell yourself what you have to but the bottom line is that production costs aside, the massive "woke" flop that is the marvels has grossed more money than napoleon. doesnt matter who lost the least amount, more people paid to watch the marvels
>the massive "woke" flop that is the marvels has grossed more money than napoleon.
That's a poor-- actually moronic-- analogy. The Marvels was part of the once-massive MCU and it's a movie for children/fanboys (PG-13). Napoleon was a historic drama rated R.
Undue, unrealistic power given to women as opposed to making (white) men seem weak, for instance.
Trying to "deconstruct" a historical figure through the lenses of "toxic masculinity"
And assorted nonsense
It's not the subject, moron, it's how it's approached, and Scott's take tried to turn Napoleon into a simp when irl he outgrew Josephine soon after marriage, remained on friendly terms w/ her but got himself another wife and had a series of lovers.
Napoleon doesn't rise to the level of woke because there is nothing coherent or human about the events or characterisation, the same construction could be achieved by filming homeless drug addicts ramble and argue for two and half hours. Boring would only insult the viewer by wasting his time, Napoleon is actively insults the intelligence and dignity of the viewer with every scene, it is far worse than mere boring.
It's because it was marketed like shit. They put fricking Black Sabbath in the trailer.
Napoleon needs a booming orchestra and long sweeping shots. It needs to be epic as frick not some Redditor ADHD teens wet dream.
this cope would never defend a so called woke film with a female lead
I was interested in watching in, even if it was just for the battle scenes. But then from the trailer I could already tell how he'd be portrayed as such a weak man who is useless without his wife and so on...so decided to pass.
You made the correct decision but the movie is far worse than that. If it rose to the level of hen-pecked Napoleon it would be a vast improvement. In reality it's homeless clown Napoleon mumbling on benzos and throwing toddler tantrums in between animal grunts and joker laughs. The wife is there for him to dryhump while both fully clothed in weird dogogystyle sexcomedy bits.
I was very tempted to walk out but I bought recliner seats and got stuck in the middle of the row and would have had to force a dozen strangers to retract their seats mid movie to let me walk free.
It's because it was marketed like shit. They put fricking Black Sabbath in the trailer.
Napoleon needs a booming orchestra and long sweeping shots. It needs to be epic as frick not some Redditor ADHD teens wet dream.
Anyone who thought a Napoleon film was going to be successful is retreaded
The people that would have shown up for this 15 years ago have been disenfranchised for a verity of reason and have moved on
The accumulative affect of Hollywood shenanigans for more than a decade have made people simply not care about movies
This was a 200 million dollar plus vanity project and nothing more
Even if the move was good no one really cares to see it!
No I’m pretty confident I’m right
Yt has moved on to vidja and prepping
Why bother watching Napoleon when you can be Napoleons irl in the coming wars for freedom
Witness me!
Agreed. Hollywood is only now realizing it lost over half the audience (centrists/right-wing) and the other half failed to show up in the significant numbers. The latest to self-destruct was Disney animation, which has lost the essential family audience
I mean A napoleon film was a floper back in the day when Kubrick was planning to make one and that was the hay-day of historical films
What chance did this have in the age of woke Hollywood
This is simply not true. The movie was absolute dogshit and a lot of people still turned up to see it because it was supposed to be a Napoleon film and hope sprung eternal. An actually good Napoleon film would have grossed a billion.
>A lot of people showed up
But it wasn’t nearly enough for that budget lol
which was my point
The important thing here is that Hollywood has been banking on foreign markets for a while now so they felt confident in giving white males the big frick you but that’s changing and international audiences aren’t showing up for the dog shit ether now so they really are fricked
They have out right intentionally pissed of a huge demographic in their primary market and that’s never coming back
Many of you homosexuals on hear seem like your completely oblivious to this fact which is astonishing to say the least
It’s not 2004
I haven’t been to the cinema in literally about 4 years at this point and I was planning to go. Then it became obvious that Scott had an active hatred towards the subject matter he’d chosen for his own film.
Instead of making 10 fricking movies a year to keep busy why doesn't he just focus all his attention on a few good solid films
I mean I get that these homosexuals are trying hard to wring every bit of cash they can out of the movie business before it goes completely under but still why not go out with a bit of class
>why doesn't he just focus all his attention on a few good solid films
He can't make a good movie anymore even if he tried. Look up his filmography in the past decade or so, it's dogshit.
When they try to tell you that the problem is that they've taken a "quantity over quality" approach, they're gaslighting you on the fact that those movies were treated like blockbusters from the studios. They thought that they were doing quality AND quantity.
If they make a small handful of movies with the same approach of handing some woke moron infinite money, they'll just have a small handful of movies that lose hundreds of millions of dollars. They need to abandon ESG altogether and start looking at people who used to be successful to see if they've lost their minds. >They can't abandon ESG.
Great time to lobby for destroying it.
If it happens I think it'll be fine. Spielberg puts out good work when he's trying and I think their friendship will likely make him feel some obligation to get it right. My only doubt might be that Spielberg's sensibilities wont allow for Napoleon to be portrayed as much of a heroic figure, but it's supposed to be based directly on Kubrick's script so we'll see.
I don't think there was anything jaded in Kubrick's fascination with Napoleon, he shamelessly admired him. If anything what concerns me is Spielberg's very pedestrian, middle class sensibilities which are unsuited to lionizing a (atleast from the same POV) morally dubious figure like Napoleon.
Not what I mean though I’m talking about Kubrick philosophy is completely different and a big part of what makes Kubrick, Kubrick
thats well out side of speilbergs
Can you imagine him filming a rape scene where the antagonist sings singing in the rain?
That was not in the book but Kubrick added that because he understood the cynicism of the material I don’t see that in speilburg and while it may be the same script it will be a different movie
His track record with making Kubrick projects isn’t good for exactly that reason
Nothing against speilberg
5 months ago
Anonymous
Ahh my bad, I get what you're saying.
5 months ago
Anonymous
To add to my post I think speilberg is sentimental and he has a real feeling for that and his best work dives into it and are great because of it
Kubrick on the other hand is the exact opposite he toys perhaps with sentimental at times like in Barry Linden or eyes wide shut but he can never quite believe in it and the stain of humanity is never far away from the “hart” of the film
It doesn't appeal to normies because it focuses on a pointless, and terribly written relationship you don't care about for like half the movie, there are only a few action scenes and napoleon looks like a moron through the whole thing and he is the main character. There is nothing in it for people who actually like history. He made a movie for no one.
I wanted to see it, but I lost interest when I saw how grey it was and how old Napoleon was.
I don't know much about Napoleon so I have no interest in seeing a movie that takes pride in not being historically accurate and focuses on his relationship with his wife. I mean, who is the movie made for?
The historical inaccuracies were mostly timeline and battle scenes, his behavior is actually fairly accurate and the most eregions changes are to make him seem more badass like witnessing Marie Antoinette execution or actually fighting hand to hand at waterloo, or getting his horse's chest caved in at Toulon.
Every movie flops now. Flops are the new hits. No one but the 15 posters on Cinemaphile like movies. In fact, make that 14. I just remembered I also don't like movies anymore.
>Sound of Freedom >Talk to Me >Creed 3 >The Nun 2 >Equalizer 2 >Insidious The Red Door >Scream VI >Saw X >Evil Dead Rise >No Hard Feelings >Knock at the Cabin >Asteroid City
Turns out movies don't revolve around you, who are both misinformed and shouldn't have joined the discussion.
TtM, FNAF, Sound of Freedom, Insidious Red Door and Saw X were particularly successful and all of them cost 20 mil tops. The Nun 2 cost 38 mil but made 268 mil.
The Taylor Swift Eras Tour was also an enormous box office success, cost 10-20 mil and made 250 mil.
I don't believe you regarding Asteroid City. That must have had a high budget and I'm only guessing here but I'd assume it either broke even or even slightly flopped. There's no way that film did a 5-6x.
Literally no one watches movies anymore. Everyone under the age of 25 doesn't have the attention span to even watch a single 30 minute episode of a TV show. Let alone a full feature film.
Nothing longer than a tiktok or instagram reel is being consumed by the young demographic. My boomer parents only use facebook for instant gratification while fox news blares nonsense at them 24/7.
Millennials like us shitpost on Cinemaphile or reddit while jerking off to porn.
lazy subject matter which isn't topical, who asked for Napoleon? where is the money that funded W and Alexander? give audiences something highbrow in the sea of slop
Seemed incapable of telling a story in any sense, it's just kinda random moments in Napoleons life such as him getting humiliated by his wife, his wife cheating on him, a handful of battles that you aren't engaged in.
Left feeling like I learned nothing about Napoleon
I kept seeing the ad for it every time on twitch so I got mad and ended up hating the film. It might even be a good film but I'm easily irritated by repetitive ads, if I hear "I found the crown of France in the gutter" one more time I'm gonna kys myself, and the blame is solely on Joaquin and Ridley Scott alongside whichever studio made the trailers.
Most female-led movies do flop embarrassingly. Unlikely anyone told you "only" these movie's flop. The irony is that if Scott's Napoleon had less Josephine, chances are it'd be more successful, just as the annoying female side character in IJ 5 was detrimental to the movie's box office performance
>get everyone excited about Napoleon epic >big budget with tons of material, how could you go wrong? >cast an insufferable method actor who's too old >make it drama about his cuckolding wife
I really get the impression that Apple took too much control away from Scott and insisted on Phoenix and more Josephine content for the movie. Scott looked tired and bitter when interviewed about Napoleon. It's not the film he intended to make.
Even if you filter out all the Josephine stuff, you still get the impression Ridley Scott just absolutely despised Napoleon for some reason and made this whole movie with the intent of tearing him down. Par for the course for his deconstructionist bullshit, so probably wasn't that off from the original intent of the film
Maybe because they wanted to show the worst of Napoleon in the worst patethic way.
I mean he was a cuck but not like "I like to watch" more like "You frick other men when I love you, yeah I frick other women too but I don't love them! The point I want to make is that You cna only frick me because I love you" but at the time it was "normal"(not really but noble and rich people was known to have lovers at the time) they showed the most prominet parts of his life but nver got into it, they focused on his love life and personal life but only on josephine never like his hobbies who loved to read and study the roman empire, loved to talk to military people of every rank, but never showed what he liked and even with josephin they missed the point, show his love life but never show what they loved of each other only that he likes to frick like a dog, which I suppose a lto of people like that so who cares, even the historical parts it's a miss like showing his campaign in egypt they never talked about the Rosetta stone, the why fighting in egypt, the political problem of the tme, no just show a mummy and a split second of battle where he shoot a pyramid wow fricking learned something more about this historical character and period. He missed everything, he should've focused on his love life entirly or his political carrer or his war carrer and he missed everything.
The movie flopped because it had too much diversity and historical inaccuracies. However, Hollywood will BLAME a lack of diversity and disinterest in history as the reason.
Hollywood and its lackeys/parrots have little if any credibility at this point. The "diversity" obsession is an American fringe thing, the rest of the world (including nonwhite countries) doesn't care for it and several successful movies this year had all-white main casts (Barbie, Oppenheimer, Insidious Red Door, FNAF etc)
The shots with Phoenix commanding his troops and cavalry using just his voice from kilometers away was stupid. I realize its a movie but that was just dumb looking. Plus the movie looked visually disgusting.
>The film presents Napoleon as firing on the Pyramids of Giza, which never happened.[77] Cairo egyptologist Salima Ikram pointed out that Napoleon held the Sphinx and the pyramids in high esteem and used them as motivation for his troops. "He definitely did not take pot shots at them."[84] >In an interview with The Times, Scott defended his depiction of the attack on the pyramids as being "a fast way of saying [Napoleon] took Egypt."[85]
Maybe don't cast a middle aged israelite to play a young Napoleon and focus on him being a cuck
Fpbp. This is the only reason it failed.
Kek they should have got Cruise or perhaps to play Napoleon reflecting on his past imprisoned on Alba and de aged him in the flash backs
Absolute armatures
I'm addicted to Cinemaphile specifically because of comments like these. They are blunt and get right to the point, and the truth within is so desirable that I cannot deny it.
Shut up homosexual you are addicted to bbc porn that gets posted her by disgruntled chinks that may or may not be funded by CCP
>t.actual bbc coomer
i remember when SHITTED threads stopped bbc spam in it's tracks, to the point where mods had to start deleting them to protect the bbcposters who presumably have 4ch passes
Money is not the concern, it's demoralization for millennials and diluting interest among zoomers for interest in European conquests and white history. The drab color palette acts as a wet blanket barrier to future entry. It's a higher brow variation of what was done to Luke Skywalker by Disney, Kennedy, Iger.
Ridley's Napoleon perhaps overindulged in its psywar negativity, however, because people are repulsed by this film unlike few of late, they can't articulate why they hated it, more than boredom and Phoenix, they are pissed that the movie made them feel bad and robbed, rather than the more subliminal effect under an entertaining veneer that Ridley was counted on to deliver.
yep i would sooner watch the bill&ted version its way less insulting
I doubt he's high in the hierarchy, considering how stupid he is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiWxwpFyUpI
For me its the filter. I will boycott all movies with shitty filter.
But he was a cuck, should they just ignore history?
I feel like there's been at least half a dozen historical movies that have all flopped hard in recent years
Most people don’t give a shit about history. Those who do care about it tend to care more about accuracy. Scott has managed to make a film with a very narrow appeal here. I have no interest in ever seeing it since I saw the battle of austeritz scene.
>Scott has managed to make a film with a very narrow appeal here. I
This, if you've ever met anyone who's actually into Napoleon they are usually a history autist. Not really sure why they gave the guy so known for his laissze-faire historical accuracy the biopic of the most documented man of modern times.
Pfff, you've clearly just bought into the propaganda that Napoleon was an effective general and leader. Didn't you know that he barely had any victories at all, that those he did have were mostly the work of others, and even those were exaggerated? The washed-up Royalist ex-Para that Scott hired as his history consultant said so, so it *must* be true.
I'm trans from london btw
Dunkirk, 1917 and Oppenheimer were all successful, though.
the lesson here is that audiences are only interested in world war movies
The lesson is don't use a story written like a cuckhold's fever dream.
The lesson is don't make a movie about Napoleon and make it pozzed and israeliteed
Yes, just ignore all of the criticisms that get aimed at the movie and others on the list of flops. Don't look at things from 20 years ago, either. Everyone from back then has been dead for 5 billion years and tastes have changed so drastically that you can't use that as a gauge for what modern people like.
It's definitely just that the only historical films that people are interested in are World War movies.
I’m certain that this film would have turned a profit if Scott had just shut the frick up and stopped pissing off anyone who would have been interested in seeing it.
Fricking this. I was really irritated by his behaviour when confronted by actual historians of the accuracy of the film. If he thought acting like a child is a great way to get people to see your movie then he’s a moron.
I’m glad it failed just for that reason alone.
Literally why I didn't see it in cinemas. I saw the trailer during the Oppenheimer showing and it seemed like something I'd want to watch, until I saw an article about Scott rebutting some historian's concern epic style and looked into it. Turns out the movie is dogshit so I didn't watch it.
Didn't see them which makes me better than the people that did, objectively.
Better at appreciating bad movies?
Please keep in mind that this was a Ridley Scott film. Shit was expected, and was delivered fully.
No one has liked anything he's done in at least 20 years, and really its more like 40 since he did anything worthwhile - and even then! He just was never very good.
The only pattern in this is Ridley Scott consistently being a hack and yet remaining a popular brand.
Scott hasn't made a good move since Alien
No true though I credit it being good as less due to Scott and more to the cast and crew keeping Scott's moronic bullshit deviating from the original premise in check
People don't want history revisionism. Historical biopics should at least be somewhat accurate.
And most of them have been directed by Ridley Scott:
Kingdom of Heaven
Robin Hood
Last Duel
Napoleon
Robin Hood was cool up until it the amnesia reveal. Who the frick does that type of plot twist in the modern era?
wasn't it set in the medieval era?
Hood was cool up until it the amnesia reveal.
???
Kingdom of Heaven was 20 years ago, not recent.
Why are they still giving him money
Do you remember the time Hollywood turned Robin Hood's righthand man from a Christian Crusader from England to a filthy Saracen. Oh, then it gets better, our based black medieval knight man trains Robin Hood and saves the day.
I hate Jamie Foxx so fricking much, he ruins every movie I see him in. From Collateral to Jarhead to Law Abiding Citizen. Immediately ruined.
Foxx was great in Collateral, great chemistry with Cruise
Robin having a saracen buddy comes Costner's Pricne of Theves, where Morgan Feeman played the role.
Don’t forget Django Unchained 🙂
>Abiding Citizen
that black homosexual ruined the movie because he wanted to outsmart the 'badguy'. Literally tanked the movie, the original ending was whats-his-name getting revenge. 100% better. Fricking Black folk man
I feel like there's been half a dozen historical movies that have all flopped hard in recent years that put all their good scenes in the trailer and everything else was complete garbage
Shit like Northman and Napoleon seem so good at first glance and then it's just two hours of homosexuals being bullied by women
This is why I don’t even bother
the movie is going to be horribly written with tepid performances and chock full of academic deconstruction of race and gender or contemporary political fetishes ham fisted in regardless of the movie
And the off chance some one manages to make a good movie I don’t really care tbqh
the Northman was kino though
It was fine (not amazing) but the trailer misled me. I was expecting him to go to war with his uncle not sneak into his house
it's a retelling of Hamlet and it was beyond kino
are you, by chance, a complete fricking moron ?
watch that Black person and tell me how much it reflected what the actual movie was
Everything shown in that trailer was in the movie.
Maybe you're just a brainlet?
I don't watch trailers and you're a homosexual
go guzzle some more capeslop
>le thing remind me of le thing, therefore it good!
you're no different from morons screaming and crying because they saw a tie fighter in star wars, except you're also a pseud
It's literally based on the story of Prince Amleth which in turn was the basis Hamlet you moronic Black person.
>OH and also the tie fighter was inspired by this other thing! checkmate atheists!
This is your argument minus the cultural veneer
big shakespeare guy, are you?
no you havent. you have seen period dramas where the period has been misused as shallow backdrop for generic drama
Realism, or at least the lame interpretation of it Hollywood has, is largely to blame. People would eat up romantic history like Spartacus or El Cid. Wokeness would not allow that sort of movie to be made nowadays of course.
I really don't understand how people like you can be so moronic. This must be bait. Not only is woke a made up boogeyman for homosexuals like you that just means -things I don't like, but both of them can easily be turned "woke" - One is a fricking slave rebellion story, and the other is just a knight who worked for both Muslims and Christians. You very easily can cherry-pick his life to make a "White people are bad." story if you want to. I hope you get testicular cancer.
It was highly anticipated before anyone actually knew what was going to be in it.
For real. Ridley failed to make me care about Napoleon. Joaquin's performance didn't help either.
If you're going to make a love story fine, make a love story, but do it compelling (Titanic).
If you're going to make a historic film, make it exciting (Gladiator).
If you're going to combine those two, at least make it compelling and exciting (Titanic, again).
Napoleon is just all over the place. The battle scenes are fine but he's supposed to be a master strategist and we never see such genius on screen. He just wins because...HE JUST DOES OK?
The scene of the Russians attacking the camp was nice and made him seem like a genius... but then they cut to the Tsaar meeting him and snubbing him/ treating him like a moron the entire time, which undermines it.
That's the real issue- every time you get a feeling of grandeur from the character they undercut it immediately with a gag about his height, his ego, or a scene making him come off as a weird moron who fell upwards into a position of authority.
There's the scene staging his coup and naming him Emperor then HARD CUT to him getting slapped around by governors then failing down a flight of stairs as he tries to run from them
There's the scene of him being crowned Emperor then HARD CUT to him overseeing himself painted ten feet tall in his coronation.
There's his divorce with Josephine where he gives a noble speech about how he loves her and is only doing it out of duty then HARD CUT to slapstick humor of him slapping her around to get her to sign the divorce papers.
The whole movie was fricking absurd, like they took a british political cartoon from the era and unironically thought that's who Napoleon was and actually behaved.
>That's the real issue- every time you get a feeling of grandeur from the character they undercut it immediately with a gag about his height, his ego, or a scene making him come off as a weird moron who fell upwards into a position of authority.
Because they hate him and they hate everything he represents. This movie is just more anti white propaganda. They were never going to paint him in a favorable light.
Joaquin hit the wall
It was fully funded by apple to be put on apple+ and the theatrical run is for bonus $ and awards eligibility.
Ridley has his own production company and has projects lined up until he quits or dies.
>It was fully funded by apple to be put on apple+ and the theatrical run is for bonus $ and awards eligibility.
Yeah Apple+ funding a bunch of shit is far more about them garnering some prestige. Napoleon is even getting a directors cut on Apple+
There is nothing we can do.
The issue with Napoleon is is his entire career from start to end of his 51 year life can not be contained in one film. Hell I couldn't be contained in 12 films.
From what I've seen of Stanley Kubrick's writing on the Napoleon film he planned, he had like 6 or 8 episodic cinematic scenes he wanted to have to Napoleon's rise, regime and fall
In this we get 90% Napoleon cucked wife scenes and maybe 5% battle scenes.
>In this we get 90% Napoleon cucked wife scenes and maybe 5% battle scenes.
I swear, none of you saying this even saw the movie. It shows him getting cucked for 10 seconds. then him comes back to France from Egypt to yell at her when he catches wind about it. And actually, he ends up divorcing her and cucking Josephine with a hot 18 year old since the 18 year old can actually get pregnant and Josephine can't.
But he doesn’t kill her which is peak cuckold
No thanks
They have a comversation where he admits to having lovers too. He was also cucking her. Maybe go watch the movie before your form an opinion on it.
>Maybe go watch the movie before your form an opinion on it.
We did it sucks
Waterloo 1970 and the miniseries severely raped this piece of shit film in the ass. There aren't even characters in this movie beyond napeoleon every other character is just a prop.
I agree, it wasn't very well written. and I was disappointed by it, but the contention is over the cuck scene's, which constitutes like 10 seconds of the movie and only at the very beginning.
>He was also cucking her
Ahahahahahaha!
Get of my board you tourist scum
>Maybe go watch the movie
I Don’t have to because I am an old pro, and could tell simply by a look
it would suck
How about dat then!!
Rickety hasn’t made a good film in 25 years and he’s shitting them out in a diluted boomer bid to cheat death
Don’t tell me to “just watch it bro” zoom iv seen it all.
if you're going to cast judgement and give your opinion on a movie, you SHOULD watch it first, is what I'm saying. I could also tell it wasn't going to be very good, but I still went to see it so I could form a fair opinion of where it went wrong, and how it could have improved. It was honestly better than I thought it'd be, all things considered.
>if you're going to cast judgement and give your opinion on a movie, you SHOULD watch it first
This is actually a rather old cope that you should know is ridiculous but your young and inexperienced
I don’t have any reason to watch it and in fact don’t want to watch it because I have no confidence that it will be worth my time
A man cannot 'cuck' a woman. This is stupidity.
And that is already far more of his personal romantic life than I’d want to see in a film about Napoleon.
Wrong he fricked the 18yr old to see if his junk worked, he married an Austrian duchess who was 26. He also still loved joesephine and went to see her before his actual wife, and she got a 1million franc pr year state salary.
Apparently Steven Spielberg is working on an adaptation of Kubrick's work in a long biopic.
Maybe we'll still get acceptable or even great Napoleon kino.
Spielberg is only producing. Cary Fukunaga (True Detective S1 but also cucked last Bond film) is directing. He just finished on the sequel aviator series to Band of Brothers, said to be the most expensive thing ever made for TV / paid cable and long delayed.
We all yearn for the bright, immaculate color palettes of Kubrick's Napoleon, like a tapestry life raft that escape our neo Weimar dead mall reality.
I was kind of hyped for this movie. Finally something other than super heroes. But I guess it's shit, what a bummer.
It's still better than any capeshit. I would rather see failures like Napoleon than capeshit.
You don't have to see either.
No, but I know what to expect with capeshit so there is no risk in avoiding any. Napoleon is by itself. Another movie could come along that resembles it on the surface but is brilliant. I prefer having a movie landscape with that kind of roll of the dice.
Napoleon is worse than capeshit, I mean if you'd never seen capeshit before watching one capeshit movie isn't that tedious, it's the grating humdrum of the formula repeated over and over that makes it unbearable. Napoleon is an insult to human life from the first minute until the end.
>Napoleon is an insult to human life from the first minute until the end.
oh please, it's nowhere near that bad For starters, it's quintessential Scott visual kino. One of the most beautifully shot and designed movies I've ever seen. Scott can still build a world like no other, and frame sequences with the best of them.
The problem for me is that the story lacked focus and scope. It was trying to make the center of the movie Napoleon and Josephine, and the drama of their having a baby or not, coinciding with his rise to power, but it was hard to care about any of that, so the world felt empty. It was like a gorgeous, massive atrium with only 5 birds inside.
I think it's still worth a watch, but it's like a 6/10 in my book. Could have been way better if they had the story down. Script was not that bad, given what they ended up settling on regarding the story, but the story suffers from lack of focus.
SHUT THE FRICK UP YOU DISGUSTING SHIT EATING FREAK
I rarely use this latest buzzword goyslopf but that anon truly seems to be starved for this resentfully-made goyslopf.
Phoenix was horribly cast, the movie was extremely boring, and I did not watch it
>make movie about legendary charismatic general who conquered huge swaths of Europe
>the movie focuses on his relationship with his wife
What kind of moron would do this?
Honestly waterloo from the 70s has better production design, the blue filter really sucked the life out of this movie.
No it isn't, as shitty as it might be capeshit is moronic, outdated schlock
>Were you fricking there, mate? Were you?
No and I also won't be at your movie
Saw a scoped rifle and passed.
My boomer dad read so many bad reviews that he unilaterally changed his mind about going to see this over thanksgiving. I was shocked, I’ve never once seem him turn down boomer sloppa. Ridley really fricked the pooch this time.
We ended up watching The Terror so he could have some historical kino.
>The Terror
>historical kino.
Your dads weakness and ability to be influenced displayed here is exactly why he never became the Napoleon of hood generation
Freudian slip there anon?
>T. DisasterMovie watcher
learn to type, Ridley
>reading reviews
i saw this at the cinema and enjoyed it.
i know nothing about Napoleon so it didn't upset me.
Because it's a movie for ignorant morons like you.
>being historically illiterate and a gay
Well done. You are in the extremely narrow demographic of people who don’t care about history who will still go and see a Napoleon film.
part of the issue is of the movie is that its just not a good story. its unappealing rendition even to people who don't know the history of napoleon because its purpose seems to be making napoleon appear unappealing.
It seems like it was intentionally made for an audience of people whose only interest is seeing seeing napoleon depicted poorly.
Damn, should have hired a black woman director and the articles would have been positive!
>Napoleon bombing explained
I'll save you some time: the movie was boring as frick.
hilarious when an alleged "woke" film fails its because its allegedly "woke". when a white mens film bombs its because its just boring
look at what you have all become in the name of muh culture war
>when a white mens film bombs its because its just boring
Napoleon was a feminized take on the main character, hence woke
twist yourself into a pretzel to tell yourself what you have to but the bottom line is that production costs aside, the massive "woke" flop that is the marvels has grossed more money than napoleon. doesnt matter who lost the least amount, more people paid to watch the marvels
>the massive "woke" flop that is the marvels has grossed more money than napoleon.
That's a poor-- actually moronic-- analogy. The Marvels was part of the once-massive MCU and it's a movie for children/fanboys (PG-13). Napoleon was a historic drama rated R.
define woke
>define woke
Asleep to reality
Undue, unrealistic power given to women as opposed to making (white) men seem weak, for instance.
Trying to "deconstruct" a historical figure through the lenses of "toxic masculinity"
And assorted nonsense
>italians=white
kek
This, it's why Hitler chose them as his allies in his kampf against white Europe.
When napoleon returned home from the military academy, he would let his mom whip him when he displeased her. Meds are weird about their moms.
Anti-white (especially male) and pro-LGBTP+
It's literally called Napoleon. It is about a general. It is about wars.
It's not the subject, moron, it's how it's approached, and Scott's take tried to turn Napoleon into a simp when irl he outgrew Josephine soon after marriage, remained on friendly terms w/ her but got himself another wife and had a series of lovers.
Napoleon doesn't rise to the level of woke because there is nothing coherent or human about the events or characterisation, the same construction could be achieved by filming homeless drug addicts ramble and argue for two and half hours. Boring would only insult the viewer by wasting his time, Napoleon is actively insults the intelligence and dignity of the viewer with every scene, it is far worse than mere boring.
this cope would never defend a so called woke film with a female lead
look at yourselves
>Nooo! you have to watch our insulting shitty movies that take a big shit all over the audience
lol k
I was interested in watching in, even if it was just for the battle scenes. But then from the trailer I could already tell how he'd be portrayed as such a weak man who is useless without his wife and so on...so decided to pass.
You made the correct decision but the movie is far worse than that. If it rose to the level of hen-pecked Napoleon it would be a vast improvement. In reality it's homeless clown Napoleon mumbling on benzos and throwing toddler tantrums in between animal grunts and joker laughs. The wife is there for him to dryhump while both fully clothed in weird dogogystyle sexcomedy bits.
I'd have walked away then, what a waste of money. How difficult can it be to make a good movie nowadays...
I was very tempted to walk out but I bought recliner seats and got stuck in the middle of the row and would have had to force a dozen strangers to retract their seats mid movie to let me walk free.
I would have done it bro
Frick other people and frick the film
same, I was excited until I saw the trailer
It's because it was marketed like shit. They put fricking Black Sabbath in the trailer.
Napoleon needs a booming orchestra and long sweeping shots. It needs to be epic as frick not some Redditor ADHD teens wet dream.
Problem was they didnt have a black muslim lesbian playing Napoleon.
Well, I would have preferred a French actor play Napoleon. An American playing a Frenchman is patently absurd.
Joaquin Phoenix as Nappy is like casting Idris Elba as Gladstone.
So what kinds of historical inaccuracies are we talking here?
Anyone who thought a Napoleon film was going to be successful is retreaded
The people that would have shown up for this 15 years ago have been disenfranchised for a verity of reason and have moved on
The accumulative affect of Hollywood shenanigans for more than a decade have made people simply not care about movies
This was a 200 million dollar plus vanity project and nothing more
Even if the move was good no one really cares to see it!
>Even if the move was good no one really cares to see it!
Wrong
No I’m pretty confident I’m right
Yt has moved on to vidja and prepping
Why bother watching Napoleon when you can be Napoleons irl in the coming wars for freedom
Witness me!
Agreed. Hollywood is only now realizing it lost over half the audience (centrists/right-wing) and the other half failed to show up in the significant numbers. The latest to self-destruct was Disney animation, which has lost the essential family audience
I mean A napoleon film was a floper back in the day when Kubrick was planning to make one and that was the hay-day of historical films
What chance did this have in the age of woke Hollywood
Kubrick's Napoleon wasn't made for other reasons. We'll never know how it'd have fared
Abel Gance made a perfect Napoleon movie, so no need for another.
This is simply not true. The movie was absolute dogshit and a lot of people still turned up to see it because it was supposed to be a Napoleon film and hope sprung eternal. An actually good Napoleon film would have grossed a billion.
>A lot of people showed up
But it wasn’t nearly enough for that budget lol
which was my point
The important thing here is that Hollywood has been banking on foreign markets for a while now so they felt confident in giving white males the big frick you but that’s changing and international audiences aren’t showing up for the dog shit ether now so they really are fricked
They have out right intentionally pissed of a huge demographic in their primary market and that’s never coming back
Many of you homosexuals on hear seem like your completely oblivious to this fact which is astonishing to say the least
It’s not 2004
>a lot
Not really because late Ridley Scott doesn't inspire a lot of confidence
I was actually planning on seeing it when the first trailer dropped, and I only go to the theater about 4 times a year.
I haven’t been to the cinema in literally about 4 years at this point and I was planning to go. Then it became obvious that Scott had an active hatred towards the subject matter he’d chosen for his own film.
>MUH JOSEPHINE
Sir Ridley will keep making films well into his grave. Truly the wrong brother died.
Instead of making 10 fricking movies a year to keep busy why doesn't he just focus all his attention on a few good solid films
I mean I get that these homosexuals are trying hard to wring every bit of cash they can out of the movie business before it goes completely under but still why not go out with a bit of class
>why doesn't he just focus all his attention on a few good solid films
He can't make a good movie anymore even if he tried. Look up his filmography in the past decade or so, it's dogshit.
I have faith that if he called the frick down and fished for a good project with a good script he could make a good film
When they try to tell you that the problem is that they've taken a "quantity over quality" approach, they're gaslighting you on the fact that those movies were treated like blockbusters from the studios. They thought that they were doing quality AND quantity.
If they make a small handful of movies with the same approach of handing some woke moron infinite money, they'll just have a small handful of movies that lose hundreds of millions of dollars. They need to abandon ESG altogether and start looking at people who used to be successful to see if they've lost their minds.
>They can't abandon ESG.
Great time to lobby for destroying it.
I really frickin hope this doesn't nuke the Kubrick adaptation Spielberg is doing for HBO.
They need to leave stanly alone and let him rest in peace
If it happens I think it'll be fine. Spielberg puts out good work when he's trying and I think their friendship will likely make him feel some obligation to get it right. My only doubt might be that Spielberg's sensibilities wont allow for Napoleon to be portrayed as much of a heroic figure, but it's supposed to be based directly on Kubrick's script so we'll see.
Spielberg has non of Kubrick acerbic cynicism which is wasted on these kind of projects
I don't think there was anything jaded in Kubrick's fascination with Napoleon, he shamelessly admired him. If anything what concerns me is Spielberg's very pedestrian, middle class sensibilities which are unsuited to lionizing a (atleast from the same POV) morally dubious figure like Napoleon.
Not what I mean though I’m talking about Kubrick philosophy is completely different and a big part of what makes Kubrick, Kubrick
thats well out side of speilbergs
Can you imagine him filming a rape scene where the antagonist sings singing in the rain?
That was not in the book but Kubrick added that because he understood the cynicism of the material I don’t see that in speilburg and while it may be the same script it will be a different movie
His track record with making Kubrick projects isn’t good for exactly that reason
Nothing against speilberg
Ahh my bad, I get what you're saying.
To add to my post I think speilberg is sentimental and he has a real feeling for that and his best work dives into it and are great because of it
Kubrick on the other hand is the exact opposite he toys perhaps with sentimental at times like in Barry Linden or eyes wide shut but he can never quite believe in it and the stain of humanity is never far away from the “hart” of the film
Spielberg knows how to make historical movies and series. So have a little faith
Shit, that last (you) was a miss click from my part
yes, but it will be very israeli
its like expecting a israelite to make a fair retelling of the "holocaust"
So the Napoleon movie failed as hard as Napoleon himself did. Ironic
>t. nigel
It doesn't appeal to normies because it focuses on a pointless, and terribly written relationship you don't care about for like half the movie, there are only a few action scenes and napoleon looks like a moron through the whole thing and he is the main character. There is nothing in it for people who actually like history. He made a movie for no one.
This. All the remarkable things about Napoleon and the focus is on his relationship for half the movie. This movie was doomed to fail in current year.
I wouldn't watch this CGI fest piece of shit for free, much less pay for it
I had no idea it released. where were the memes made from trailer moments?
So this DOES retroactively lower Blade Runner's quality, right?
I wanted to see it, but I lost interest when I saw how grey it was and how old Napoleon was.
I don't know much about Napoleon so I have no interest in seeing a movie that takes pride in not being historically accurate and focuses on his relationship with his wife. I mean, who is the movie made for?
Right, like who gives a frick about his wife
These boomers need to take T injections Jesus!
The historical inaccuracies were mostly timeline and battle scenes, his behavior is actually fairly accurate and the most eregions changes are to make him seem more badass like witnessing Marie Antoinette execution or actually fighting hand to hand at waterloo, or getting his horse's chest caved in at Toulon.
Every movie flops now. Flops are the new hits. No one but the 15 posters on Cinemaphile like movies. In fact, make that 14. I just remembered I also don't like movies anymore.
Absolute truths
Lots of movies were succesful this year, most of them costing around 20 mil and making 6 to 10 times that, FNAF being the best example
Name 5
>Sound of Freedom
>Talk to Me
>Creed 3
>The Nun 2
>Equalizer 2
>Insidious The Red Door
>Scream VI
>Saw X
>Evil Dead Rise
>No Hard Feelings
>Knock at the Cabin
>Asteroid City
I didn't watch a single one of these movies.
Turns out movies don't revolve around you, who are both misinformed and shouldn't have joined the discussion.
TtM, FNAF, Sound of Freedom, Insidious Red Door and Saw X were particularly successful and all of them cost 20 mil tops. The Nun 2 cost 38 mil but made 268 mil.
The Taylor Swift Eras Tour was also an enormous box office success, cost 10-20 mil and made 250 mil.
literally nobody watched any of these movies
I don't believe you regarding Asteroid City. That must have had a high budget and I'm only guessing here but I'd assume it either broke even or even slightly flopped. There's no way that film did a 5-6x.
I remember liking the mini series with Clavier
>Historians won
Op is a gay
Putting a woman in it and making it lame didn't work, huh?
Did you count the money mate? No? Then shut the frick up.
Literally no one watches movies anymore. Everyone under the age of 25 doesn't have the attention span to even watch a single 30 minute episode of a TV show. Let alone a full feature film.
Nothing longer than a tiktok or instagram reel is being consumed by the young demographic. My boomer parents only use facebook for instant gratification while fox news blares nonsense at them 24/7.
Millennials like us shitpost on Cinemaphile or reddit while jerking off to porn.
Who is left to watch traditional media?
I liked it. Shows napoleon as unapologetically based. Some silliness but in an endearing way.
Now that's some good fricking news
It was too historically accurate so it scared normalgays that just wanted action scenes and muskets like "gladiator"
lazy subject matter which isn't topical, who asked for Napoleon? where is the money that funded W and Alexander? give audiences something highbrow in the sea of slop
Honestly was just a real shit movie.
Seemed incapable of telling a story in any sense, it's just kinda random moments in Napoleons life such as him getting humiliated by his wife, his wife cheating on him, a handful of battles that you aren't engaged in.
Left feeling like I learned nothing about Napoleon
>historians
you mean people that don't understand that don't understand what a biopic is
If this was the style of movie he wanted them he should have expanded even more on the relationship and simply made "Napoleon and Josephine".
The brief battle sequences could still be kept to show the passage of time and give some context as to what was going on.
A story about Napoleon needs to be one of two things, an accurate military documentary or a romantic drama.
midge
just call the movie Josephine and call it a day. Phoenix made a terrible Napoleon. he was a bad casting choice and the script for him was terrible.
life was got
Why do they insist on being divas so often with historical epics and go far off the source material or go for a radical portrayal?
Not that I think that's why it bombed. People just don't watch historical epics anymore, you have to make them lower budget.
i can tell you why it failed it looked boring as shit
>explained
>what it means
>stop doing
>start doing
>in a nutshell
>why this is a good thing
I hate it
Nobody cares about Napoleon as a historical figure beyond "lol short".
Sad thing is all hollywood will take from this is "historical doesnt sell"
I kept seeing the ad for it every time on twitch so I got mad and ended up hating the film. It might even be a good film but I'm easily irritated by repetitive ads, if I hear "I found the crown of France in the gutter" one more time I'm gonna kys myself, and the blame is solely on Joaquin and Ridley Scott alongside whichever studio made the trailers.
But the chuds told me only female led movies flop?
Most female-led movies do flop embarrassingly. Unlikely anyone told you "only" these movie's flop. The irony is that if Scott's Napoleon had less Josephine, chances are it'd be more successful, just as the annoying female side character in IJ 5 was detrimental to the movie's box office performance
>get everyone excited about Napoleon epic
>big budget with tons of material, how could you go wrong?
>cast an insufferable method actor who's too old
>make it drama about his cuckolding wife
I really get the impression that Apple took too much control away from Scott and insisted on Phoenix and more Josephine content for the movie. Scott looked tired and bitter when interviewed about Napoleon. It's not the film he intended to make.
Scott IS tired and bitter. He's a nasty fricking c**t and comes with the brash rudeness people too old and rich to care all have.
Even if you filter out all the Josephine stuff, you still get the impression Ridley Scott just absolutely despised Napoleon for some reason and made this whole movie with the intent of tearing him down. Par for the course for his deconstructionist bullshit, so probably wasn't that off from the original intent of the film
That's the impression I get reading about it: the movie's bitterly onesided/hostile against Napoleon.
>24 yr old character played by a 50 yr old israelite
no thanks israeliteywood.
Ha! Look at that Harper, ol' Boney's had a flop.
Is that fricking Norm Macdonald
Anyone else not really watch movies or tv anymore and just draw entertainment from watching and reading about said movies and tv shows failing?
Maybe because they wanted to show the worst of Napoleon in the worst patethic way.
I mean he was a cuck but not like "I like to watch" more like "You frick other men when I love you, yeah I frick other women too but I don't love them! The point I want to make is that You cna only frick me because I love you" but at the time it was "normal"(not really but noble and rich people was known to have lovers at the time) they showed the most prominet parts of his life but nver got into it, they focused on his love life and personal life but only on josephine never like his hobbies who loved to read and study the roman empire, loved to talk to military people of every rank, but never showed what he liked and even with josephin they missed the point, show his love life but never show what they loved of each other only that he likes to frick like a dog, which I suppose a lto of people like that so who cares, even the historical parts it's a miss like showing his campaign in egypt they never talked about the Rosetta stone, the why fighting in egypt, the political problem of the tme, no just show a mummy and a split second of battle where he shoot a pyramid wow fricking learned something more about this historical character and period. He missed everything, he should've focused on his love life entirly or his political carrer or his war carrer and he missed everything.
The movie flopped because it obviously didnt had enough diversity in its cast.
In fact it had too much apparently, and that too drove viewers away. Too many black people for late18th/early 19th century France
The movie flopped because it had too much diversity and historical inaccuracies. However, Hollywood will BLAME a lack of diversity and disinterest in history as the reason.
Hollywood and its lackeys/parrots have little if any credibility at this point. The "diversity" obsession is an American fringe thing, the rest of the world (including nonwhite countries) doesn't care for it and several successful movies this year had all-white main casts (Barbie, Oppenheimer, Insidious Red Door, FNAF etc)
Napoleon Moneyparte
what were they thinking with that trailer? i turned it off immediately and knew i was never going to see this shit. it offended me
The shots with Phoenix commanding his troops and cavalry using just his voice from kilometers away was stupid. I realize its a movie but that was just dumb looking. Plus the movie looked visually disgusting.
who was the demographic they were going for?
historybros, we eating good.
>The film presents Napoleon as firing on the Pyramids of Giza, which never happened.[77] Cairo egyptologist Salima Ikram pointed out that Napoleon held the Sphinx and the pyramids in high esteem and used them as motivation for his troops. "He definitely did not take pot shots at them."[84]
>In an interview with The Times, Scott defended his depiction of the attack on the pyramids as being "a fast way of saying [Napoleon] took Egypt."[85]
cue Ridley Scott asking historians "Where you there? No? Then shut up!"