"New Napoleon film - first trailer" Topic

The first trailer of the Ridley Scott 'Napoleon' has just been released.

YouTube link

Looks good.

B

TMP link

It does look good.

That looks promising!

The cannon actually recoil when fired!

Grelber

Grelber !! Mega ditto to that. The first thing I noticed. A movie with that attention to detail cannot be all bad.

I have seen just about every Napoleon movie from Abel Gance's to BBC Napoleon in Love, to Waterloo and War in Piece (3), 'Désirée', even Time Bandits and Love and Death, on the lighter side. Looking more forward to Spielberg's mini-series.

look at the cannons in the "whiff of grapeshot" scene, there is a small flaming pot near each piece where the match can be lit. I dunno much about the accuracy but it looked authentic to me.

I'm half expecting another Alexander, but… I'll watch it.

You're joking aren't you? It's stuffed to the gunnels with 21st century mannerisms. And some tart who looks like she's been computer generated.

I hoped that it would be a tour-de-force. But it seems, more like a tour-de-faible

The scenes all look so dark. Those in Africa are not, but they all have a tinted look to me.

Of course I will have to see it.

Tom

with a more then dramatic opening trailer i have to say it looks an impressive piece of cinema.and one im looking forward to,Ridley Scott rarely gets the tone wrong..and of course there will be some moments that are not authentic to the ent degree,,who caresif they whip off dust sheets for the Australitz frozen lake "ambush"..it will be a tour de force im sure!

The tone looks very much like his earlier work in the period, The Duelist, which is a classic.

Although I am pretty sure Napoleon did not participate in any cavalry charges!

Although I am pretty sure Napoleon did not participate in any cavalry charges!

Not the man who was described as Riding like a Butcher.

So where else would people like to start?

Cannon Ball hitting a Pyramid when the Battle was what? Nine miles away?

Hiding Artillery under a tarpaulin to surprise an enemy who were actually running away and I don't believe went down like victims of the Titanic.

Something odd about the aforementioned cavalry charge where everyone is left handed and has no scabbards. Could be image reversal I'm told. Hope the final print isn't like that.

Dear Old Ridley. Still got to be better than the Barbie Movie, I guess.

And some tart who looks like she's been computer generated.

Oi! dibble!

Leave Vanessa Kirby alone! 🙂

Did you watch to the end of the trailer? She is also the one at the end with the long hair. Looks pretty real to me!

Movie fans – She appears as the Blond Baddie in Mission Impossible – Fallout and in both parts of Mission Impossible – Dead Reckoning. Just so you can place her.

They were at a party where the young hipster girls cut their hair short and wore red ribbon around their necks where a guillotine would cut. That part is accurately portrayed, maybe the rest is fantasy but who cares? I don't care that the pyramids were a dozen miles away in the distance and neither would the general public, it looks cooler that they fight underneath them.

Sometimes the grumbles on here really get to me, bitching about everything. I bet if they made an "accurate" movie it would be so dull that nobody would show up. I was happy to have Waterloo to watch growing up for Pete's sake. This movie may draw more interest in the era and may spawn another generation of Napoleonic wargamers. Be happy for that. Rant over!

Mike, good points about the pyramids and the grumbles. I agree.

Mike and WarWizard; +1.

Me coming into this thread or better yet, the other one about the movie thinking there would not be grumbling and bitching about everything proves that Einstein was right.

As Mike pointed out, the "average" movie goer will not be sitting there in an ascot, silk robe and pajamas with a pipe and a monocle taking copious notes about all the historical inaccuracies in the movie and again as you pointed out, maybe, just maybe, it will draw a lot of interest in the era and may spawn another generation of Napoleonic wargamers.

ANY Napoleonic War movie at this stage is a win.

I agree with Double G. Considering some of the historical efforts of recent years, we should be grateful for anything half-way accurate. What we want and what the director wants are not the same. There is a great account by the military/historical advisor to Tony Richardson while he was making 'The Charge of the Light Brigade'. He managed to stave off British infantry in blue but could not save the Light Brigade from all being trousered in red. The director wanted to send 'messages' while the adviser wanted accuracy. At one point they had a head to head on the matter and Tony Richardson growled 'When I am finished you can make your own beastly accurate film. In the meantime leave me alone!'

Get past that and you can forgive the 'plain' tricolour regimental standards, the 'ambush' at Austerlitz, the prevalence of tented camps and the field fortifications at Waterloo.

Enjoy!

Ted Turner tried to make accurate ACW films with Gettysburg and Gods and Generals and they were flopperoos.

Both made on the cheap (relatively) and were originally heading straight to TV.

Gods and Generals was just an awful movie, accuracy or otherwise.

Get past that and you can forgive the 'plain' tricolour regimental standards, the 'ambush' at Austerlitz, the prevalence of tented camps and the field fortifications at Waterloo.

No you can't. Missing details, leaving things out that don't serve the script, muddling up who did what, etc. are just what happens in Movies. No problem with that at all.

Having flags that everyone associates with France, because the lozenge pattern is for geeks and the tricolours everyone knows are plain, I can live with. Tented camps likewise.

There is however, no need to add rubbish in. Like the Austerlitz sequence, like the Field Fortifications. What is the point? They are not true and no one would miss them if you didn't do it!

but where does rubbish start and end, the woman walking to the Guillotine, ?unfortunate Marie Antoinette? in a pandemonium – they were transported by tumbrils, the hair was cut short well in the prison and not at the scaffold, Antoinette in case that woman should be her, did look differently, see the portrait of David and also compare such scene with that one in the two part film Revolution made in France – of course you can excuse everything by the purpose to enhance drama.

@Trajanus

Those movies were expensive to make.

von winterfelt: but where does rubbish start and end, the woman walking to the Guillotine, ?unfortunate Marie Antoinette? in a pandemonium – they were transported by tumbrils, the hair was cut short well in the prison and not at the scaffold, Antoinette in case that woman should be her, did look differently, see the portrait of David and also compare such scene with that one in the two part film Revolution made in France – of course you can excuse everything by the purpose to enhance drama.

I think when I watch that scene, I'll be eating cake.

Trajanus

She's doing a good job at acting like a 21st century take of a superhero showing Nappy the future of the other great ideology, 'Wokeism'…An animated one at that!

Josephine??? Oh! the accuracy…Not!

At least she isn't portrayed as being black considering where she was purported to have been born.

I still like the movie "Gettysburg" we watch it every July 4th. When I saw it in the theater it was sold out. Jeff Daniels should have received at least an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor. I make no apologies, it is a damn fine movie. So there.

Gettysburg? Absolutely! (Apart from the fat Confederate infantrymen.)

Gettysburg was expensive?

It cost $25 USD million to make, the "cast of thousands" furnished all their own kit and paid their own way.

If you go on You Tube you can see cast members speaking of how the production was so strapped for cash, that the infamous Beards were so poor because the Makeup Department had no money. The guy who played Jeb Stuart had to use the beard made for another actor who dropped out and had a totally different face shape!

dibble,

While you are finding woke in odd places, Josephine was not black so would never need to be "Portrayed" that way.

Creole in terms of the time and place she lived was a term used for white people born in French West Indies and not in France proper.

It's only in later times it's meaning changed.

Gettysburg was expensive?

It cost $25 USD USD million to make, the "cast of thousands" furnished all their own kit and paid their own way.

Without getting mired in the pedantic nitty gritty here. If you follow what I said, you'll see that the important part is they were both box office failures. Incidentally, the cost of Gettysburg was probably high for 1993. And even if it wasnt, that isnt the issue, the issue is no one makes movies for wargamers because there's only a handful of them and they're impossible to please.

Trajanus

Anne Boleyn? Cleopatra?

Isnt this series dedicated to the idea that George III had a wife with African heritage?

link

@Old Contemptible "Apart from the fat Confederate infantrymen."

And the laughablyy naff Coldstream Guards officer, Colonel Fremantle, in a painfully bad cap with scarlet tunic – wandering about sporting a fecking cup of tea.

This debate sees to be repeated about twice year with almost the same points made verbatim.

Surely star directors of expensive period films have the option not to make gratuitous innacuracies and unforced errors or to insert glaring, juvenile anachronisms.

Of course, most of the general public don't notice or care about these things, but that can become an excuse for laziness and mediocrity- which would arouse comments at the gaming tables of many who post here.

I'm sure I've made that point before.

(I thought that in 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' Tony Richardson wanted all the British cavalry in scarlet jackets like the infantry, so as not to confuse the audience and enable them to distinguish between friend and foe. Clothing all regiments of the Light Brigade in 'cherrypicker' overalls was the compromise)

Richardson's starting point was apparently the blue of the 11th Hussars and by extension the light cavalry. He wanted everything tied together so that the audience would see that it was all one army though he was prepared to conceded that infantry officers could be in scarlet coats to emphasise the class difference. The military adviser, John Mollo I believe, got together with the wardrobe manager and campaigned for the red coat urging Richardson to imagine the effect on the audience of the 'Thin Red Line' in blue. The director then conceded brown for some reason but changed his mind when he saw an illustration produced of brown clad British infantry going up the slopes at the Alma.

The cavalry were still all in blue though, even the 'heavies'. There are shots of the 'Charge of the Heavy Brigade' with them in blue with accurate helmets. Fortunately(?) it never made the final cut, though you can see the Heavy Brigade in the background when Lucan is discussing one of Raglan's orders with Scarlett.

The whole Light Brigade got 'cherry bums' to show that they were all Cardigan's command though even the shade of red was inaccurate. In the whole film, Mollo claims he only managed to 'slip in' one totally accurate regimental uniform.

When they can get it right, why do they get it wrong? Maybe some details in Napoleon will have changed by the time it is released … (he said with blind optimism).

It really shouldn't be that hard to make these movies look *right* (isn't that what certain people get paid to do?) and still be successful (at making money, which is all the studios and investors want).

I withhold judgement so far but I am NOT a fan of Ridley Scott's historical movies.

"And, if Meghan Markle's experiences as part of the royal family are any indication, they're not accepted among British nobility now."

Absolute bulls excrement! Markel's 'plight' isn't because of her so-called 'Blackness' But because she's a narcissistic freak.

Several women, who were not black, married into The British Royal Family, found the constraints it required not to their taste and regretted it.

One can only wish they had done a bit more research, seen beyond the glitz and glamour and realised it was not for them before the wedding ceremony.

"Napoleon" will be in theaters too. I saw a preview for it when I saw "Oppenheimer" which I highly recommend.

For those in the UK, there's an article in this month's "Empire" magazine which includes interviews with Scott, Phoenix and Kirby. Quite informative about the thrust of the film. There's a still from a meeting between Napoleon and Wellington onboard a ship (apparently filmed onboard HMS VICTORY) Hopefully the magazine isn't available in the USA as Scott's comparison of Bonaparte with Hitler and Stalin might give our most esteemed contributor a seizure?

ConnaughtRanger

For those in the UK, there's an article in this month's "Empire" magazine which includes interviews with Scott, Phoenix and Kirby. Quite informative about the thrust of the film. There's a still from a meeting between Napoleon and Wellington onboard a ship (apparently filmed onboard HMS VICTORY) Hopefully the magazine isn't available in the USA as Scott's comparison of Bonaparte with Hitler and Stalin might give our most esteemed contributor a seizure?

Nothing wrong with comparing a John Smith's to a Boddington's