"Which Napoleonic Battle should get a Hollywood Treatment?" Topic

Now that software like this is becoming more accessible: link

I think the 1812 Russian campaign offers a ton of narrative possibilities.

Or should Waterloo be redone?

Austerliz? Leipzig? Something in the Peninsula?

All the big ones.

Since Waterloo and Borodino (via War and Peace) have been covered already, I would like to see Austerlitz make it to the big screen, to depict La Grande Armee at its zenith.

It's been quite a while since I saw it, but doesn't the Russian version of War and Peace have an Austerlitz sequence?

Hollywood will never do it. 99% of Americans would look blankly at you if you mentioned anything except Waterloo.

Eylau or Leipzig

Do battles make good movies? I'm not convinced.

The OFM and I always say that the purpose of movies is to make money for their investors. That means that people have to want to go see it.
That usually eliminates 99% of all battles, since who ever heard of Austerlitz? Besides the nerds on TMP or other military history geeks.

However, with cheap CGI, all you have to do is scan a few Funcken or Osprey books and do a few ctrl V strokes.

Since I always count the war of 1812 as Napoleonic, even if just to annoy "those people", I would do Bladensburg. Then after 45 people who would have a vague interest in it have paid to see it, and I can now afford more propane for my computer, I might move on to Grosse Helmfarb-Koeniggratz.

Aspern-Essling and Wagram

@Pan Marek – you're forgetting this is Hollywood – they'll add Americans!

Well, we would need a steamy love story angle, lots of explosions, and a soundtrack from Hans Zimmer or Mark Mothersbaugh. The actual battle would just be backstory fluff regardless.

Egyptian campaign stands more chance: Famous names in the field actually commanding troops not sitting around at the back. An 'invasion' into ethnic minority lands. The pyramids as a backdrop to brave natives charging European squares. Nelson losing an arm and the "western powers" failing in an evil colonial enterprise whilst killing each other. And it's short enough with a beginning, middle and end that it can carry a reasonable plot story that only really has to vaguely touch base with reality.

The Bridge at Lodi-a la 'Saving Private Ryan'.

I would prefer it if Hollywood went nowhere near any Napoleonic battles thank you as they seem completely unable to tell a story without bending and twisting any semblance of history to suit US audiences. With honourable exceptions where they are dealing with American subjects. Apart from anything with Mel Gibson in though.

I still avow that the Niagara campaign of 1814 would make a splendid movie. Action (two "big" battles), intrigue, honor galore for both sides, etc. Just throw in a pointless romance between some American soldier and a Canadian woman as he recovers from wounds at the Chippewa and you've got all the bases covered.

From Europe do the 1796 campaign as General Bonaparte one-ups his detractors on the French side and teaches the enemy to dance. Throw in an American revolutionary who has a fling with a girl from Piedmont as he recovers from a wound…. oh, that's been done.

The best war films usually focus on small-unit activity, as this offers the best means of involving the main characters. The overwhelming majority of film-goers want a few folk they can relate to, or at least care about, and how men react in combat (or rather how Hollwood wants us to think men react in combat).

Big battles, except as a back-drop, need too much narration to explain them (especially to a non-historical audience) which inevitably either turns them into a quasi-documentary, or else creates stilted dialogue. For example, "Waterloo" (or as I prefer to call it "Boney's & Beaky's Greatest One-Liners") was just too focused on the battle to do more than hint at characterisation among the ordinary soldiers – who thus became stereotypes – or present major players as anything more than "familiar" caricatures.

Eylau – the scene from Colonel Chabert is just a teaser of what could be, surely

A second vote for Niagara 1814,but I'm biased. Leipzig could be fun to watch, but if you want a battle with an emotionally satisfying narrative--something where the fighting is the point and not the backdrop--I'd look at Auerstadt and at Brunswick's March to the Sea in 1809.

Depends on what you mean by the "Hollywood Treatment". Some of the comments above indicate what that might entail.
Or does it mean something more like "What I Would Do If They Gave Me the Money"? I might trust one of you guys to do it,over some Zack Snyder. I hasten to add that,if I directed it, the headlines would undoubtedly read "Studio Bankrupt"!

As far as CGI goes, I think the video is instructive: Part One, formations that, if ever attempted in "real life" we know would be utterly inert. Part Two, The Battle of the Two Worst-trained Armies Ever,or "Let's Kick Over an Ant Hill and Film That." CGI just allows more absurdities. What wargamer didn't want a big-budget remake of 300 Spartans? Look what we got. Even "historical-minded" productions will probably follow Hollywood History,rather than "real" history:think of all those all-out cavalry charges down the years,but multiplied by ten (or,why not? a hundred).

I've wondered what general audiences made of the scene in the 1968 "Charge of the Light Brigade" when the Advance was sounded,and the cavalry started--walking! That's the only film I can think of in which it happened "historically".

I don't expect to see it again.

Trafalgar

The best war films usually focus on small-unit activity, as this offers the best means of involving the main characters

Eh. Gettysburg, bridge too far and longest day. Some of the best war films made. Deal with big sweeping battles. In fact that's some of the things i miss the most in modern war films. To focused on the small scale. Sure band of brother is great. But when everything is band of Brothers and nothing is bridge too far. Then I've lost something

None please!

No, not another Hollywood massacre. I found that if you want an historical movie made (no matter the period), you allways leave it to the countries whose history it is about.
That way you do not leave much space for Hollywood to make an historical movie, which reduces the concept of alternate reality quite a bit.

Leipzig without a doubt from me, enough historical interactions that nothing needs to be made up.

BelgianRay--Hey,maybe the Italians will make Pavia! Or Adowa! Those I'd like to see!

Or Solferino!
(I'm dreaming!)

The French would like a Hollywood version of Waterloo, because Napoleon would be certain to win given Hollywood's history with history. Best war films in recent years have come from Scandinavia or the former Soviet bloc IMHO, not Hollywood.

Forget historical accuracy. Give me a rousing tale with cannons roaring, cavalry charging, and squares. The Pyramids would be nice.

@Gunfreak – While those movies contain the "big picture" you also get involved with personal characters; the Duke, Red Buttons, Ryan, Cain, Chamberlin (sorry, can't remember the actor's name), etc. They had the unique blend of getting you involved with individuals in the midst of a big battle. So it can be done, unfortunately only rarely these days.

Yes, of course you need personal stories in the bigger picture. But that's very different from bob type serie/movies.

If one makes Leipzig . There are plenty of civilians in that battle to tell a more personal "horrors of war" type things in the middle of battle.

The Battle of Eylau with 75-80 squadrons of cavalry charging. Was it Murat who said, "Heads up By God"? Would be fantastic to see……..

you're forgetting this is Hollywood – they'll add Americans!

Nah, they always use Brits for foreigners, especially the bad guys.

Craonne… Hollywood can have some fun with Marie-Louise signing the conscription orders in Napoleon's absence.

Guys, let's be fair. I wouldn't want wargaming to be judged by our worst scenarios, and I can tell a few stories there. Suppose we focus on what could be and has been done right, and not all the ways it could be screwed up?

Sometimes the big movie producers have done very well by us. When they haven't, usually they've still done pretty well on uniforms. If nothing else, a big-budget horse & musket war movie means some very nice YouTube videos. I'm not sitting through Barry Lyndon again, but three minutes with appropriate music is quite another matter.

If wishes were horses…
I saw Barry Lyndon in the theater,and have watched those clips again too. Also bought the soundtrack LP. And the lobby cards are the most lavish and beautiful set I own,which is appropriate,since in film circles,BL was known as Kubrick's "Coffee Table Movie"

As I said above, this is at least partly a "hope for" topic.
So sure,let's hope for some good movies,maybe a Hollywood guy will pick up on that.
Are you listening, Mel Gibson?

Hollywood would put Andrew jackson and the boys at Waterloo.

Austerlitz

It is time for a fresh remake of "Waterloo" and it should be directed by Peter Jackson. In fact he could do the entire 100 days. Three or four films all filmed all at once.

I heard Peter Jackson is moving on from WWI gaming and into Napoleonic, and is talking about doing the general year of 1805 as the basis for a movie trilogy. The first would be about the aborted attempt to invade England, entitled "There and Back Again: Not," then one about Trafalgar entitled "The Two Fleets," then the last, entitled the "Battle of Three Armies," would cover Austerlitz itself.

Who would get to ride the elk,I wonder?

For myself I see it this way Hollywood doesn't have the balls,guts or the money to do a decent Napoleonic movie IMHO.

Hafen von Schlockenberg you mentioned the 1968 film Charge of the Light Brigade and you're correct it was done more historically but it was dreadfully boring.

Now the 1936 version with Errol Flynn eventhough not historically accurate but pretty damm good none the less the charge of the Light Brigade in the film more reflected how the poem went and did it quite well.

As for Austerlitz I believe Abel Gance did the Battle quite well in his film.

YogiBearMinis weren't you aware that a film about Austerlitz was already made?

I'm more surprised that the British has never done films on 2 of their more famous Naval Battles Trafalgar and Jutland and with the film making of today they could do them.

And if the Japanese could do a movie about The Battle of Tsushima why can't the British do a film about Trafalgar?

But the British did film a small bit of Trafalgar in the film That Hamilton Women now eventhough the Battle was done with models it wasn't too bad although all those ships blowing up was quite over the top if memory serves only one ship the large Spanish threedecker Santissima Trinidad blew up during the battle.

But Hollywood likes to do remakes of classic TV shows and for the most part they suck big time.

As far as Waterloo goes I think the 1970 film holds up pretty well at least that's how I see it.

That's my two cents worth.

Good point re TV,Cap. I wouldn't mind a movie of "Combat!",though with what happened to Vic Morrow,they might not want to go there. And they seem to mostly pick from the "lighter" shows. There's "Hogan's Heroes", but you've got the same problem as above. ""Wackiest Ship in the Army"?

BTW, I don't remember Light Brigade as being boring,but I haven't seen it in a while.

Trafalgar. It's got a pretty good hero in Nelson, plenty of action and a tragic ending, but one with hope.

Trafalgar isn't that the battle where Hornblower and Sharpe finally meet?
No wonder the French lost.

ubercommando you're correct in what you say but when you say "and a tragic ending,but one with hope" it's the last part I don't get.

Also Trafalgar never should've happened and you can blame the French Admiral Villeneuve for the Battle because he didn't want to lose his command and he would've too if he didn't put to sea with the combined Franco-Spanish Fleet.

Seems pretty obvious to me
Tragic end = Nelson the popular hero dies
Hope = the Franco-Spanish fleet is destroyed, RN triumphant, no invasion, Blighty is saved.

Never have so many owed so much to, sorry no wrong event, same sentiment

Say what you will about Peter Jackson doing a film on a Napoleonic Battle. But after seeing the battles scenes in his movies, I think he can do them justice.

Now please commence with the sarcastic remarks. I just keep setting them up.

Something involving the 95th Rifles would be cool. Oh, wait…

Dresden 1813.

The hero, who happens to be an American employed in Napoleon's army, has left his girlfriend in Dresden while the French go chasing after Blucher. He tells her she will be safe there because no one is going to attack the city. Then they hear that Allied armies are descending on Dresden and the city looks doomed. The hero is ordered to stay with the troops chasing after Blucher while the rest rush back, but his love for his girlfriend is too strong he deserts and heads back to Dresden on one of the fastest horses that ever lived. He wants to save his girlfriend. The hero gets back in time but the city is struggling to hold back the allies. He breaks through the surrounding allies, finds his girlfriend and mans the wall. Then Napoleon and his army arrives and he is arrested for deserting his post. But then the overwhelming number of allies attack and in the chaos, his cell wall is destroyed by a shell and he tries to leave the city, with his girlfriend of course. Instead, he gets involved in the fighting and ends up heroically saving the life of the general of his regiment (or even Napoleon) and all is forgiven. Last clip would be the hero walking with his girlfriend through the main garden, perhaps talking about going back to America to start a new life.

"Egypt.. Nelson.. losing an arm..

What, the other one? I missed that.

Trafalgar seems kind of an obvious choice. CGI ships don't cost a lot.