Boudica Movie

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

There is only one emperor :

[Marcus F.]

You probably know more about the current state of Hollywood screenwriting than most here, David! We might be better coming up with suitable directors. Kubrick would have been the ideal candidate - not only for Spartacus, but for proving his historical-accuracy abilities in Barry Lyndon. John Boorman would perhaps make a good job of it, although he did employ Valerio Manfredi (author of the Last Legion etc) as one of the screenwriters for his proposed Hadrian, so perhaps his judgement isn't so great in these matters... (I heard rumours that Hadrian had started shooting in Morocco last year, btw, with Daniel Craig in the lead role (!) Any news on this?)

I think this project was abandoned. The imdb-page for it was already deleted months ago.

[Narukami]

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

[Niedel]

Great post, Narukami, and sorry to hear about the Boorman movie's demise, but I had expected it. He must be pretty old by now and I don't think he probably has much allure to financers, and then tackling a cerebral, yet costly project like that, it just didn't look good...
I also enjoyed Past Imperfect, it's part of my ancient movie book collection. John Sayles is one of my favorite directors, I loved „Secret of Roan Inish“ and „Lone Star“ (although his latest has been universally panned, haven't seen it yet).

[Nathan Ross]

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.

Also the extremely poor quality of 'ancient' films since Stone. Alexander had a lot wrong with it, but was an epic story that attended closely to history. The others you listed were just fantasy hokum dressed up as history. Audiences who like that sort of thing will be more drawn to the overt fantasy of 300.

Odd thing - I notice that all the actors I listed above (slightly tongue in cheek of course) for a Boudica film work principally in TV. I think the episodic television format actually hold much more potential these days for presenting interesting, vivid and reasonably accurate stories and situations, historical or otherwise, than big budget movies. There's maybe less grandeur, but that could change. I don't know what the relative costs and takings might have been of HBO's Rome, but it was far superior to Centurion or Last Legion. And Band of Brothers was better than Saving Private Ryan, in another setting (Thin Red Line was better than borh, but that was more of an artisan product!)

[Robert Vermaat]

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.

It cost $ 155 mil and made $ 167, yet it lost money, and lots of it? Explain?

Centurion cost: $12 million Box Office gross: $7 million
The Eagle cost: $25 million Box Office gross: $27 million

That's so weird. Why did Eagle cost so much more than Centurion? I would never have expected the latter to do so much worse, either...

[joeandmich]

I agree with both Narukami and Nathan. It's been my experience that most people could care less about authenticity in the movies. They prefer excitement and drama. 300 is a perfect example.

I prefer movies that have more substance based on historical fact than the average person like I'm sure forum members here do. Unfortunately it does appeal to the majority. Point in case does anyone remember the movie Excaliber? It made a lot of money....but was it historically accurate...not an iota. But movies that have some authenticity can be financially successful there are just too few of them. It takes a really good director to make that balance. Mel Gibson comes to mind.

[Narukami]

Thank you Niedel. Sayles is a favorite around here too. Both of those films (Ron Inish and Lone Star) are excellent. Having lived in San Antonio for 7+ years (high school and university) when the Sherif visits his wife and so goes on at length about Lee High having a new quarterback, it all sounded both real and familiar. I also admire his films Eight Men Out, and Brother From Another Planet is a lot of fun, and smart Sci-Fi done on a budget.

Quite right Nathan -- I could not agree more. Indeed, you are on to something concerning episodic television having the time to do justice to a long and complex story, as evidenced by several of the successful series, past and present, on HBO (and other channels too). Yes, Band Of Brothers is far superior to Saving Pvt. Ryan which, after the first 20 minutes or so, fell into standard Hollywood WWII cliche. And indeed, The Thin Red Line was a superior film in terms of cinema as art. Although some of the narration seems a little too earnest, and I think Sean Penn is miscast as the 1st Sgt, the images Terrance Mallick presents are never short of amazing. He is not afraid to let his images speak for themselves and thus follows the first rule of visual story telling: Show, don't Tell.

Likewise, though both Rome and I, Claudius, have their issues with history, time lines, costumes, etc, I find them far more satisfying and have watched them again (several times in the case of I, Claudius) something I can not say of Gladiator or The Eagle. I even prefer the Sci-Fi Channel's production of Dune over the David Lynch feature film, even though the latter had the better cast. The TV series had time to luxuriate in the details, sub plots and minor characters, the very aspects that give the books their particular flavor.

One reason for this, I think, is that television does not have the visual impact that feature films enjoy and so must rely more heavily on plot, dialog and characterization. Perhaps this is why feature films like Henry V or Richard III (both versions of each) work just as well on television as on the big screen. They have well crafted stories with dialog that still crackles with power. (Shakespeare what a guy ... or guys depending upon your view of the authorship question.)

Perhaps the Hadrian film will find a new life on HBO, This might apply for Boudicca as well. Of course, productions on TV are not cheap. One of the reasons Rome was reduced from three season to only two, was due to the per episode cost. And indeed, the risk and cost of failure can be just a great for TV as for feature film. (Look, for example, at the Starz Channel production of Camelot -- cancelled after one season.) Just as much hard work goes into a film (or series) that fails as one that succeeds.

HBO has done some great work -- I hope we will see more, and new stories rather than the proposed re-make of I, Claudius. There is so much more history to tell.

One book you might be interested in, if you do not have a copy already, is Responses To Oliver Stone's Alexander - Film, History, and Cultural Studies edited by Paul Cartledge and Fiona Greenand (c2010). The book contains several excellent essays on various aspects of the film, and Stone himself contributes an interesting essay in which he admits to making some poor decisions in overriding the advice of his historical and cultural advisors.

Thanks again gentlemen, for the lively conversation.

:wink:

Narukami

[Nathan Ross]

It takes a really good director to make that balance. Mel Gibson comes to mind.

As you probably already know, there was a rumour some time ago that Gibson was about to make a film about Boudica. Personally I think this is an alarming prospect. Not only has he proved himself a fan of skinhead Romans in leather segmentata (Passion of the Christ), but also has a tendency to present history in a very distorted way, as a combination of myth and heavy-handed modern political allegory. Neither of these things are good, imo.

The Thin Red Line was a superior film in terms of cinema as art.

I wonder what an ancient history film by Mallick would look like? Or the Coen Brothers... Interesting, actually, that the Westerns being made today are often using the same storylines as their 50s and 60s ancestors, but leaning more towards (what I presume to be) historical accuracy. This might prove that attention to detail in these things is not necessarily a crowd-displeaser...

I even prefer the Sci-Fi Channel's production of Dune over the David Lynch feature film, even though the latter had the better cast.

Ah, got to disagree with you there! Lynch's Dune is a work of genius... But then, I've never read the books so don't have any chips in the 'authenticity' game...

Perhaps the Hadrian film will find a new life on HBO, This might apply for Boudicca as well.

TV tends to work better with more knotty and involved multiple-storyline ideas (like The Borgias, on at the moment, or Mad Men in another field), so you'd have to mix Hadrian or Boudica up with some other narratives - perhaps not a bad idea.

Incidentally, I heard there were plans to make Simon Scarrow's legionary novels into a TV adaptation. I don't know who was behind this, or what's become of it...

[Narukami]

Ah Robert, you ask the eternal question: How can a film that takes in more than it cost still lose money?

Hollywood's famous "creative accounting" is often blamed, and some of that blame is well deserved, but for the films listed above, the answer is far more prosaic.

It is important to remember that although a film might enjoy a Box Office gross of $165 million, in fact the studio does not receive all of that money. Depending upon the distribution deal made, the studio might only receive half or two thirds of that amount with the remainder going to the Theatre itself. The exact percentage of that split varies from film to film and studio to studio. I remember well that when Return Of The Jedi was released in the summer of 1983, it opened in Hawai'i two weeks after the mainland US. Why? Because Lucas Film and 20th Century Fox were asking for a higher rental fee for the first two week window and the theatre chain in Hawai'i was unwilling to pay the higher price -- so we waited.

Generally speaking, the rule of thumb is a film needs a box office gross 3X the production costs. This is a rough guide and of course does not account for all of the ancillary markets / revenue streams (DVD, TV and Cable, sales to Air Lines or On-Demand, and now, thanks to Star Wars, Action Figures, T-shirts, posters, books, cookie jars, etc. etc. etc.)

Now, your fist thought might be, "Wait a minute, are you saying that Stone's Alexander needed to gross $500 million to break even?!" Well ...

That is why so many films never pay their profit participants -- there are no profits.

Henslow: But how will we pay the actors?
Fennyman: Out of the profits.
Henslow: But there are never any profits.
Fennyman: Precisely.
Henslow: Ah, Mr. Fennyman, I think you're on to something.

But there's more.

Look, for example, at Gladiator:

Worldwide Box Office: $544 million

Worldwide Rental: $267 million (what the studio received)

Production Cost: $116 million
Prints & Ads: $59 million
Distribution Fee: $95 million
Negative Interest: $17 million (including $5.7 million paid to Russell Crowe, but not payments to gross participants)

Loss: -$20.6 million

*From George Lucas's Blockbusting edited by Alex Block & Lucy Autrey (all figures in 2005 dollars)

As Orson Wells once said, "A movie studio is the best toy a boy ever had." And certainly the most expensive.


As for Eagle Vs. Centurion... I do not know why Eagle cost nearly double but I would guess the actors cost more. (Tatum was fresh from GI Joe and perhaps could command a bigger salary.) Then too, Eagle enjoys a major advertising campaign, where as Centurion played for about two weeks in LA. It opened without any advanced fanfare and disappeared with nary a trace. I believe it has done well on DVD, but that is only a guess -- I do not have nay numbers on that. :oops:

:wink:

Narukami

[Vindex]

Very interesting stats, Narukami; thank you.

It would suggest that by far the most popular film (in terms of financial success) was King Arthur! And although I enjoyed it as a bit of escapism and some decent eye candy, it really doesn't bode well!

As for Gibson and Boudicca - I shudder to think what would happen there.

[Narukami]

There is much about Lynch's Dune that I do like, besides the cast, but because of the time constraints usually placed upon a feature film, his version felt like a Reader's Digest condensation. I also thought his addition of the "weirding modules" was a misfire. It is completely as odds with what "The Weirding Way" is in the book. Perhaps, if Lynch had enjoyed the same financial backing, and tolerance for risk taking, that Jackson did for Lord Of The Rings, then Lynch might have produced a truly remarkable trilogy. Again, there is a lot of good work in that film, but having read the books, I was disappointed.

To your larger point about story complexity working best for a TV series -- quite right and that might prove problematic for Hadrian or Boudicca. Perhaps a limited series of 6 -10 episodes, or three 2-hour episodes (to follow the standard 3 Act format). I do not envision an open ended ongoing series like True Blood or Mad Men, but something more akin to I, Claudius or the Dune series.

Gibson ... certainly not my fist choice as director. Apocalypto was a remake of Cornel Wilde's The Naked Prey, while the Patriot was, well ... what was that? Now, the Coen Brothers -- that could be interesting. I'd love to see them do a Space Opera.

When I think of an film director who is able to marry his sense of cinematic art with historical accuracy, I most often think of Akira Kurosawa. He passed on an offer to direct the mini-series Shogun because he did not feel it was accurate enough, and left Tora Tora Tora because he did not have final cut. Watching his films, particularly Ran, Kegemusha and of course, Seven Samurai, one is watching cinema at its very best.

But I digress...

In the end it is all about the "Benjamins" and the question remains: Will anyone put up the money for a film or series set in the ancient word? I hope so. :?

:wink:

Narukami

[Narukami]

Very interesting stats, Narukami; thank you.

It would suggest that by far the most popular film (in terms of financial success) was King Arthur! And although I enjoyed it as a bit of escapism and some decent eye candy, it really doesn't bode well!

As for Gibson and Boudicca - I shudder to think what would happen there.

I fear you are correct Vindex, on both points.

:?

Narukami

[Nathan Ross]

TV series -- quite right and that might prove problematic for Hadrian or Boudicca.

But now I come to think about it, a TV series based on the reign of Nero would work very well - not only Boudica but also Corbulo in Armenia, the rise of Tigellinus, the fall of Seneca, the Pisonian conspiracy, the murders of Agrippina and Poppaea, the Great Fire, Gory Executions, civil war... it's got HBO written all over it! :-D

Akira Kurosawa... Watching his films, particularly Ran, Kegemusha and of course, Seven Samurai, one is watching cinema at its very best.

OH yeah. :wink:

[joeandmich]

As for Gibson and Boudicca - I shudder to think what would happen there.[/quote]

Why do you feel Gibson would be the wrong director? Braveheart was a huge success.