08-30-2011, 10:17 PM
Thanks Nathan, for your most generous comment. In truth I mostly dance around the edges of the film industry (as is true for many who live here in LA) but it is a fun spectator's sport. :oops:
As for the Hadrian film project, I believe Marcus is quite right -- The Boorman project is, once again, back in limbo. Not surprisingly, it is all about the timing.
Like the Roman Polanski film based upon the Harris novel, Pompeii, Boorman could not round up the right combination of stars and money at the same time. At first he had Antonio Bandaris in the lead role of Hadrain, but could not put together enough financial backing for the project with that star. Then Daniel Craig was attached -- more star power so conceivably more money, but time worked against them. This year alone Craig has three films due out (Dream House, Tin Tin and The Girl Dragon Tattoo) and is now in pre-production for the next James Bond film. This is not to say he could not also do the Hadrian film, but given that schedule I have my doubts.
It is a tough time for films set in the ancient world, and this is due, in large part I think, to the failure of Oliver Stone's Alexander.
While many on this site thought Stone did better than most in presenting an accurate portrayal of the Hellenistic military, film critics generally were not impressed with the film and neither was the public. The film cost $155 million to make and took in only $35 million in the US. It did perform better outside of the US and ended with a total box office of $167 million. Of course, it made additional money with the numerous DVD versions (Theatrical cut, Director's Cut, Final Cut) and sales to TV, but essentially, Alexander lost money, and lots of it.
On the other hand, Zack Snyder's 300, did much better, pulling in $456 million on a production budget of only $66 million. But therein lies the rub. This success spawned not only Watchmen and Sucker Punch but also Immortals and Xerxes, the "sequel" to 300. (The title has changed a couple of times now, and will no doubt change a couple times more before it is finally released.)
While perhaps noteworthy from a "Art of the Cinema" standpoint, these films are worthless as history, and perhaps even as mythology. (Though I must say that in Sucker Punch, Snyder captured perfectly how ten-year-olds play with their toys -- "I have a dragon." I have some knights." "I have a Tiger tank." "I have a B-17 - Let's play!")
Meanwhile, over the past couple of years, films set in the ancient world, particularly those attempting some level of historical fidelity, have been forced to work with "modest" budgets, and all of them have lost money.
Centurion cost: $12 million Box Office gross: $7 million
The Eagle cost: $25 million Box Office gross: $27 million
Agora cost: $70 million Box Office gross: $40 million
Last Legion cost: $67 million Box Office gross: $25 million
King Arthur cost: $120 million Box Office gross: $203 million
The trend is both obvious, and not surprising. And it is no longer Hollywood simply catering to the taste (or lack there of) of US movie goers. Hollywood fully realizes that the box office outside of the US is now even more lucrative, and thus many films are made with that in mind. Indeed, the bloom is off the rose of 3D with US audiences, however studios continue to produce 3D films because it remains popular overseas. (The gods alone know why -- 3D ... Bah!) I should also note that, when I say "Hollywood" I use the term to refer to commercial films generally, and not to that place a couple of miles south of where I live. Indeed, here in Burbank we have several major studios within a stones through of my backyard. Bad films are made everywhere.
So it is, that we continue to be bombarded with more fantasy and less history. But this is nothing new.
I have posted this quote on the AW Magazine website, but it bears repeating here:
"If historical accuracy were the thing people went to the movies for, historians would be the vice presidents of studios. Every studio would have two or three historians." - John Sayles.
"There is nothing duller on the screen than being accurate but not dramatic." - Darryl F Zanuck
(For those who may not be familiar with the work of John Sayles, he is a novelist, recipient of the so-called MacArthur Genius Grant and an independent film maker of some note. When he did a film about Green Berets fighting in Latin America, Salyes taught himself Spanish so he could write the dialog and direct the cast in Spanish when necessary.)
All this is by way of saying that the struggle between history and Hollywood has been going on now for more than a hundred years, and of course predates the invention of film by hundreds more. Do any of us believe Shakespeare's depiction of Henry V at Agincourt is historically accurate, appealing though it may be?
This is not to say that I do not agree with what Ghostmojo writes about the distortions film has wrought on the history of WWII. He makes several good points and I still feel that history will always trump fiction. (Besides, U571 was a terrible movie, on many levels besides the lack of historical accuracy.)
For those interested in this eternal struggle between History and Hollywood, I can recommend no better book than Past Imperfect - History According To The Movies (c1995 ISBN: 0-8050-3759-4) The intro discussion between historian Eric Foner and director John Sayles alone is worth the price of the book.
My apologies for going on at length -- one tends to was long, if not eloquent, when they are passionate about a topic as I am about both cinema and history. :oops:
:wink:
Narukami
As for the Hadrian film project, I believe Marcus is quite right -- The Boorman project is, once again, back in limbo. Not surprisingly, it is all about the timing.
Like the Roman Polanski film based upon the Harris novel, Pompeii, Boorman could not round up the right combination of stars and money at the same time. At first he had Antonio Bandaris in the lead role of Hadrain, but could not put together enough financial backing for the project with that star. Then Daniel Craig was attached -- more star power so conceivably more money, but time worked against them. This year alone Craig has three films due out (Dream House, Tin Tin and The Girl Dragon Tattoo) and is now in pre-production for the next James Bond film. This is not to say he could not also do the Hadrian film, but given that schedule I have my doubts.
It is a tough time for films set in the ancient world, and this is due, in large part I think, to the failure of Oliver Stone's Alexander.
While many on this site thought Stone did better than most in presenting an accurate portrayal of the Hellenistic military, film critics generally were not impressed with the film and neither was the public. The film cost $155 million to make and took in only $35 million in the US. It did perform better outside of the US and ended with a total box office of $167 million. Of course, it made additional money with the numerous DVD versions (Theatrical cut, Director's Cut, Final Cut) and sales to TV, but essentially, Alexander lost money, and lots of it.
On the other hand, Zack Snyder's 300, did much better, pulling in $456 million on a production budget of only $66 million. But therein lies the rub. This success spawned not only Watchmen and Sucker Punch but also Immortals and Xerxes, the "sequel" to 300. (The title has changed a couple of times now, and will no doubt change a couple times more before it is finally released.)
While perhaps noteworthy from a "Art of the Cinema" standpoint, these films are worthless as history, and perhaps even as mythology. (Though I must say that in Sucker Punch, Snyder captured perfectly how ten-year-olds play with their toys -- "I have a dragon." I have some knights." "I have a Tiger tank." "I have a B-17 - Let's play!")
Meanwhile, over the past couple of years, films set in the ancient world, particularly those attempting some level of historical fidelity, have been forced to work with "modest" budgets, and all of them have lost money.
Centurion cost: $12 million Box Office gross: $7 million
The Eagle cost: $25 million Box Office gross: $27 million
Agora cost: $70 million Box Office gross: $40 million
Last Legion cost: $67 million Box Office gross: $25 million
King Arthur cost: $120 million Box Office gross: $203 million
The trend is both obvious, and not surprising. And it is no longer Hollywood simply catering to the taste (or lack there of) of US movie goers. Hollywood fully realizes that the box office outside of the US is now even more lucrative, and thus many films are made with that in mind. Indeed, the bloom is off the rose of 3D with US audiences, however studios continue to produce 3D films because it remains popular overseas. (The gods alone know why -- 3D ... Bah!) I should also note that, when I say "Hollywood" I use the term to refer to commercial films generally, and not to that place a couple of miles south of where I live. Indeed, here in Burbank we have several major studios within a stones through of my backyard. Bad films are made everywhere.
So it is, that we continue to be bombarded with more fantasy and less history. But this is nothing new.
I have posted this quote on the AW Magazine website, but it bears repeating here:
"If historical accuracy were the thing people went to the movies for, historians would be the vice presidents of studios. Every studio would have two or three historians." - John Sayles.
"There is nothing duller on the screen than being accurate but not dramatic." - Darryl F Zanuck
(For those who may not be familiar with the work of John Sayles, he is a novelist, recipient of the so-called MacArthur Genius Grant and an independent film maker of some note. When he did a film about Green Berets fighting in Latin America, Salyes taught himself Spanish so he could write the dialog and direct the cast in Spanish when necessary.)
All this is by way of saying that the struggle between history and Hollywood has been going on now for more than a hundred years, and of course predates the invention of film by hundreds more. Do any of us believe Shakespeare's depiction of Henry V at Agincourt is historically accurate, appealing though it may be?
This is not to say that I do not agree with what Ghostmojo writes about the distortions film has wrought on the history of WWII. He makes several good points and I still feel that history will always trump fiction. (Besides, U571 was a terrible movie, on many levels besides the lack of historical accuracy.)
For those interested in this eternal struggle between History and Hollywood, I can recommend no better book than Past Imperfect - History According To The Movies (c1995 ISBN: 0-8050-3759-4) The intro discussion between historian Eric Foner and director John Sayles alone is worth the price of the book.
My apologies for going on at length -- one tends to was long, if not eloquent, when they are passionate about a topic as I am about both cinema and history. :oops:
:wink:
Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Burbank CA
