"movie Waterloo- ashame we will never see it's like again..." Topic

Am I a grognard?

I just spent Halloween night watching the classic Waterloo on the 60" Plasma (I HAD to see in on a wide screen to give my respect to the epic quality of the film) with several glasses of champagne, while consuming half a round of gouda cheese and 1/3 of a loaf of French bread dipped periodically in garlic butter…

Halloween came early for the French that year…

It's truly ashame that we will never see its like again… The movie was really only made possible with the invaluable contribution of the Russian Army of 10,000 troops as extras which added a sense of scale that none of today's CGI can ever hope to truly emulate. It is breathtaking to see the masses of men in the infantry formations and cavalry formations. The cavalry charges in particular are awesome to behold.

All the classic clichés are trotted out, all of the classic historical scenes acted out, all of the classic lines spoken, and the attention to detail especially of the uniforms has to be seen to be believed.

Today it would be prohibitively expensive to hire that many extras (not to mention the hideous cost of making all of the accurate uniforms), the story would have to be Hollywooded up with several love stories involved, and there would be no such thing as the slow build up and slow pace of the film.

Today it would be CGI, at least one love story with the movie centered around 1 or 2 key characters, history would be butchered, and the action would come fast and furious with little relation to the actual accounts…think of Troy with Brad Pitt…

Hence it was nice to settle down and watch this classic knowing that it was made in a time when a movie could be made as a labor of love without having to cater to ensure that everything was maximized for ROI.

We shall not see it's like again.

Long live the King! (or in this case the Emperor…)

Just my thoughts…

Frank

True. I feel the same whenever I watch the classic movie versions of Ben Hur, Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia or Tora, Tora, Tora.

It's why I buy an old movie on DVD/BLUERAY from Amazon or where ever every month for little more than the cost of a disk.

True story

That movie set the Napoleonic hook into me in a big way when I was a kid. Today I can watch it and quote along, like some people do with Rocky Horror Picture Show.

I shudder to think about how much of my life has been spent painting Napoleonics because of that movie.

"The movie was really only made possible with the invaluable contribution of the Russian Army of 10,000 troops as extras which added a sense of scale that none of today's CGI can ever hope to truly emulate"

I disagree. Modern CGI can look just as good, and makes these enormous battle scenes possible without 10k extras and their expensive uniforms.

EMBRACE the technology Frank!

As for Hollywood yucking it up with a cheesy love story…..

My 10th grade history teacher showed Waterloo to the class. Excellent way to hook students on history! CGI can be impressive, but it is obvious and annoying. That cornball scene in Pearl Harbor where the kid on the baseball field looks up at the Japanese planes stands out in my mind. The sky was full of planes, probably more planes then were available to the Japanese task force, and far more than flew in either attack wave. Typical CGI exaggeration and it looked so phony.

The most recent movie, I guess would be "Gettysburg" but that was back in 1992. Without the reenactors it could not have been made. I saw Waterloo in the theater when it came out. I think it was my Freshman year of High School.

But modern CGI can work miracles. Lord of the Rings was fantastic with huge battle scenes. Now if we can take that technology and apply it to famous historical battles With a great Director and cast, there is still hope.

I just spent Halloween night watching the classic Waterloo on the 60" Plasma (I HAD to see in on a wide screen to give my respect to the epic quality of the film) with several glasses of champagne, while consuming half a round of gouda cheese and 1/3 of a loaf of French bread dipped periodically in garlic butter…

I tip my bicorne to you for the splendor of your set up.

It's truly a shame that we will never see its like again…

Perhaps not. If they were going to spend that much they would certainly want to insert modern themes/bugbears.

You don't like CGI as much, but I very much like games like Scourge of War (which has a Naps mod) that give me the feeling of being involved in a big battle. I think we will see nicely done CGI renditions of major battles in the near future where you can fly through the action as you choose – even taking a command.

In fact there are already several groups who refight historical combats with people taking multiple commands on a side and using kriegspiel.

Coming up to 2015 I know that Norbsoft are working on a Waterloo campaign which should prove interesting.

Several good points being made about the incredible advances in CGI and I readily concur.

However, that is only one of several moving parts to take into consideration.

Another is the casting and the marketability in today's environment.

One of the things that greatly impressed me was the attention to detail with regards to the actor's resemblences to the actual historical personages along with their uniforms.

Very few BIG names involved with the film. Yes, you have Rod Steiger who was a medium level star at the time and you have Christopher Plummer who was also a medium level star at the time (I remember him from Hans Christian Anderson), and a very portly Orson Welles in a very short cameo…

Outside of them…mostly no name actors.

For this kind of movie to get greenlighted for production in today's Hollywood there would have to be several A-list actors with suitably large parts built specifically to cater to and enhance their Oscar ambitions.

Then you have to take the marketability factor into account. Most of the general population may have heard of the name Waterloo and the name Napoleon, but that's as far as it goes.

Also, the pace of the movie is revered by the cognoscenti because it incorporates so much of the history of the period. You can mentally check off each historical event in your mind as you see it play out on the screen.

It is very doubtful that today's crowd of an-explosion-every-minute, action-packed rollercoaster of a ride audience would have the patience to sit through a movie with the pacing and backstory such as Waterloo… Even LOTR they had to jazz up considerably and add love stories and events not in the original work to make it marketable to the masses…

Hence my opinion that it is an epic that I can't see being made in the current Hollywood environment with the historical commitment that the original brought to the table.

Too much money would be needed for what is admittedly limited public appeal in its original format. Too much would have to be altered for marketability for it to incorporate the historical accuracy and pacing of the original and still make loads of money for the studios with today's movie audience. It is what it is…

That's why I am so grateful that it was made at a time when such epic labors of love were possible.

Frank

CGI can be amazing….if it is done correctly, with the proper historical uniforms, formations etc. However, as Frank says Hollywood will not spend money on a film that will not grab the audience with action. It needs to have a good chance of success for it to be made. Having a few hundred thousand historians and gamers go see it, does not make for a successful movie.

Fury cost 68 Million to make, box office thus far is 66 million.
link

I bet Brad Pitt, who is a producer of this movie did not make his usual 20 million.

Waterloo the movie was an epic film, tough sell these days.

wrgmr1,

That is just the US domestic take so far. The film is doing well around the world and will continue to rake in money for months yet, then make more on DVD/Blue Ray, etc. Don't cry for Brad.

Dan

One of my favorites and it is true there will most likely not be any like it again. Movie creators now follow a pattern/formula and it is getting very old and predictable.

We have peaked gentlemen and now comes the downward spin…

Some of the recent Polish and Russian films give a nice feeling of scale.

Fury cost 68 Million to make, box office thus far is 66 million.

No Telly Savalas. Meh. Back in the day real men didn't need a turret.

One thing most people are missing is that it had nothing to do with Hollywood. It was an Italan/Russian production. Most of the English speaking actors may not be known in America but were household names in Britain. Also it lost a fortune at the box office.

Thanks,Chortle,I almost lost the morning coffee when I saw that!

True – It might not be a movie but HBO might pick it up as a 10 part miniseries. When you say Hollywood would not release something like Waterloo today I would point to John Adams, Band of Brothers and The Pacific and say it is being done. (Still not much chance for Waterloo since it has no ties to the US).

Maybe not in the West but check out "Red Cliff" John Woo's epic telling of of the decisive battle between Warlords Cao Cao and Liu Bei. Woo used a 100,000 extras including the Chinese Army.

youtu.be/pd0bqLQrtdE

Of course Red Cliff does have the love interests and CGI especially for the naval battles but it is epic!

I wish they would bring out Waterloo on blu-ray

I thought about the issue of CGI recently, while watching 'The Battle of the Bulge'.

Frequently and deservedly derided for sins both historical and cinematic, it does have one major plus point, at least in my estimation.

That being: there is something to be said for seeing large numbers of actual armoured vehicles onscreen – regardless of whether they're the 'right kind' of vehicles.
The real thing has a presence which CGI just doesn't convey.

Although I'd agree with the ideas that CGI 'can look as good' and 'can work miracles', let's face it… usually, it doesn't.
Look at 'Red Tails': two hours of video-game flight-sim footage.

I'd far rather rewatch 'Waterloo's wonderful through-the-telescope tracking shot of the British on the ridge than see twice that number of computer-generated cartoon redcoats.

Anybody seen "Austerlitz"? Also not made by Hollywood….

''mostly no-name actors'' ? The majority of the cast, at least on the British side, were well known to us here in the UK, where actors weren't too worried about appearing in TV series as well as films. Ref. Rupert Davies (Gordon) as Maigret, Terence Alexander (Uxbridge) in Bergerac, Ian Ogilby (was he Hay?) as the Saint (version two, etc.

Considering the facilities granted him, you have to be a generous soul, if you are to forgive Sergei B. In Dante's Inferno there are levels for those who have transgressed, at different levels. He is down with Brutus and Cassius.

He made no effort to reproduce Belgium (or indeed anywhere in NW Europe). Bit like the Telly Savalas picture above. Does look like the Ardennes, does it not? (Ah, no)

He produced that insane, self indulgent, slow motion, charge of the Scots Greys, without them achieving anything beyond attacking some guns and getting slaughtered.

He told the Waterloo story without the gates of Hougoumont, without Ewart (or the Royals) and their Eagles, without the defence of LHS (other than showing a cuirassier climbing the roof to plant a flag!!!), without Plancenoit, with not a mention of any Allied unit, whether DB, Brunswick or Nassau…

There are great scenes, despite the director, not because of him. (Mollo did the uniforms after all)

Watch his "War and Peace" and the same ideas appear. Clouds and more clouds, with badly done helicopter shots. His "Quiet Flows the Don" is mind numbing. The Don flows so slowly it is somnambulant.

Let us indeed hope for a Blu Ray version. They can only be as good as the original film quality though.

Thanks,Chortle,I almost lost the morning coffee when I saw that!

If you are going to see an epic movie, experience it in an epic fashion…
---------------------------------------------------------

''mostly no-name actors'' ? The majority of the cast, at least on the British side, were well known to us here in the UK, where actors weren't too worried about appearing in TV series as well as films. Ref. Rupert Davies (Gordon) as Maigret, Terence Alexander (Uxbridge) in Bergerac, Ian Ogilby (was he Hay?) as the Saint (version two, etc.

Forgive me, I was speaking from an American standpoint and was not familiar with the actors listed. Perhaps I should have stated "internationally known actors"…
--------------------------------------------------------

Deadhead, you point out some very valid inaccuracies…however, I think what impresses me and others the most is just how many historical tidbits that he DID incorporate into the movie.

Considering the typical movie that is based on historical events, you have only the broadest hint of actual events, whereas in Waterloo you have many, many events that wind up in the finished product.

So on balance I am inclined to forgive him for the few issues that you mentioned, though I do agree you raise some valid ones.

All in all, I believe we all love the epic quality of the movie and all of the iconic moments it contains.
--------------------------------------------------------

Again I truly shudder to think of how it would be bastardized today to make it marketable….

-Mike Myers as Dr Evil and Verne Troyer as mini-me both dressed as Napoleon and sticking his finger to his mouth when thinking and making dramatic announcements (and of course with mini-me actually being brought back to King Louis in a bird cage and King Louis rolling his eyes and saying he brought back the wrong Napoleon) , (and of course Mike Myers playing several roles such as King Louis as well as a reprisal of Fat Bastard)

-Ian McKellan as Blucher. (riding in black robes shouting "On my children!" arriving at Plancenoit lifting his staff (I mean sword) and blinding the French troops so that they cannot withstand his force which looks suspiciously like the cavalry charge at Helm's Deep…

-Samuel L. Jackson as Duke of Wellington (got to have a strong, heroic black man playing a dominant role to maximize it's audience appeal!) and Beyoncé as the countess at the ball.

-Jim Carrey as Ney (with the obligatory Dumb and Dumber haircut and chipped tooth)

"…I culd go on nad on…"
(to paraphrase LIC, a legendary banned user on tank-net. Mk1 will get the inside joke…)

Frank

"I don't need a white horse to puff ME up, by God!"

-

Some thoughts on the cost of the production in 1970…with inflation just think of the cost in today's dollars…

Production[edit]

Columbia Pictures published a 28-page, full-colour pictorial guide when it released Waterloo in 1970. According to the guidebook, Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis had difficulty finding financial backers for the massive undertaking until he finally began talks with the Russians in the late 1960s and reached agreement with the Mosfilm organization. Final costs were over £12.00 GBP million (UK) (equivalent to about US $38.3 USD million in 1970), making Waterloo, for its time, one of the most expensive movies ever made. Had the movie been filmed in the West, costs might have been as much as three times this. Mosfilm contributed more than £4.00 GBP million of the costs, nearly 16,000 soldiers of the Soviet Army, a full brigade of Soviet cavalry, and a host of engineers and labourers to prepare the battlefield in the rolling farmland outside Uzhhorod, Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union).

To recreate the battlefield authentically, the Russians bulldozed away two hills, laid five miles of roads, transplanted 5,000 trees, sowed fields of rye, barley and wildflowers and reconstructed four historic buildings. To create the mud, more than six miles of underground irrigation piping was specially laid. Most of the battle scenes were filmed using five Panavision cameras simultaneously—from ground level, from 100 foot towers, from a helicopter, and from an overhead railway built right across the location.

Actual filming was accomplished over 28 weeks, which included 16 days of delay (principally due to bad weather). Many of the battle scenes were filmed in the summer of 1969 in often sweltering heat. In addition to the battlefield in Ukraine, filming also took place on location in Caserta, Italy, while interior scenes were filmed on the large De Laurentiis Studios lot in Rome. A massive quantity of period props were built by E. Rancati and hundreds of pairs of footwear were supplied by Pompei.

Months before the cameras started filming, the 16,000 Soviet Army soldiers began training to learn 1815 drill and battle formations, as well as the use of sabres, bayonets and handling cannon. A selected 2,000 additional men were also taught to load and fire muskets. This army lived in a large encampment next to the battlefield. Each day after breakfast, they marched to a large wardrobe building, donned their French, British or Prussian uniforms and fifteen minutes later were in position. The soldiers were commanded by officers who took orders from director Sergei Bondarchuk by walkie-talkie. To assist in the direction of this huge, multi-national undertaking, the Russian director had four interpreters permanently at his side: one each for English, Italian, French and Serbo-Croatian.

What could have been: link

zaevor2000: Like you I love this movie, (I know there are inaccuracies), and even though there are parts I am not crazy about, I love the Gettysburg movie too. I am not optomistic that Hollywood could give this subject the treatment it deserves, however. John Miller

I will rarely admit that I have been wrong. But this afternoon I watched it again on a DVD and was reminded just how good is the first third. I fell asleep during Hougoumont and d'Erlon's assault etc and next thing I knew Ney was leading the cavalry up the hill. (It had been an excellent lunch in the local North Yorkshire Pub).

There are daft sequences, but it is more spectacular than I remembered. Maybe I will give his W and P another chance after all…….? Q Fs the Don went to the Oxfam shop….that was truly awful.

wrgmr1 31 Oct 2014 8:24 p.m. PST
Fury cost 68 Million to make, box office thus far is 66 million.
link

I appreciate the link. Approximately 50 hours after your post, the same link shows "Fury" as having made $98,237,000 USD worldwide. So perhaps Mr. Pitt will get his standard amount after all.

The sixties and seventies really saw some war films, that tried to replicate war books with mostly anecdotes and little stories. "Longest Day" and "Bridge too far" come to mind. I see "Waterloo" made with the same intend.

I dont see, that todays filmmaking couldnt be good either. A new "Waterloo" made in the style of "Saving Private Ryan" or "Black Hawk Down" could be very interesting. A new film would probably have a real story, maybe Ney in 1815 would be interesting and tragic and coudl appeal to a bigger audience.

If you look at "Waterloo" you see many inaccuracies, because of the problems of the time. Have you noticed, how thin the lines are in the movie. With CGI there could be very imperssing scenes and no need to care about extras.

In the meantime …

napoleon.hollowaypages.com

Amicalement
Armand

Tango

That is an amazing resource. How do they do it? Trevor Howard as Napoleon is uncredible. I was sure they would miss Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure…but no! Some work gone into this

Happy you enjoyed the link my friend!. (smile)
Marlon Brando for the winner!. (imho)

Amicalement
Armand