"Most ignorant mistake in Didley Squot's Napoleon?" Topic

'A Bridge Too Far' suffered from being a two-dimensional series of overlit set-pieces and vignettes, portrayed by actors in uniform, and seemingly cobbled together with sellotape. Other than that…

As I recall, Anthony Hopkins' Johnny Frost was the one convincing thing in the whole concert. Dirk Bogarde, I mean really. And-… never mind.

I'm not sure what made 'The Longest Day' work better. God knows it creaked in places but it had a brio that ABTF lacked. Victory as against failure? I dunno. Perhaps being shot in black and white gave a smidge of authenticity. Curiously, the best bit in TLD also involved British airborne- the glider assault on the Orne bridges. Kieffer's assault on Ouistreham was pretty well done,too, till the nuns got involved.
And of course, Robert Mitchum. "Take me up the hill, son."

Watched a video on Longest Day recently, one B&W was used because they used bits of real news footage, 2nd stuck fairly well to Cornelius Ryan's book
BTF was done before CGI so wonder if some things could have been fixed, maybe Battle of Britain was very good as they sill had some resemblance of actual aircraft still flying.
But Scott has no excuses for not doing a better job in historical accuracy. I have no problems in movies doing what needs to move the movie along but making a Napoleonic Fantasy is wrong.

Ah, you guys convinced me not to see it; I can take a lot, but trenches at Waterloo is, well, an idiocy too far.

42F, when your ensemble cast includes John Wayne and Robert Mitchum, that takes some work to top. Incidentally, I did not realize Arletty was in the cast until I glanced at IMDB – no doubt she was able to give the guys who played the Germans some advice on how their predecessors behaved. Strange to think one career can include collaboration horizontale and "The Longest Day."

I never liked seeing the famous actors looking so old in these movies. It just killed it for me, especially Wayne who was the same guy in every movie. An army of Waynes would swagger around for a bit and then collapse at his age. Too many icons. I can't even remember who they were supposed to be playing.

As for Napoleon, I had hopes, but now I cringe just thinking about it after all this. Leaping out of trenches to form square…..

I'd agree ABTF was an incoherent film but that's not the same as, and wasn't caused by, having nonsensical battle scenes. As far as those went they were not bad. You got the sense of the immensity of the paradrop very well, although it was surprising they dropped unarmed.

There are some actors who shouldn't be in anything and Sean Connery ish one shuch. With all the money he'sh made you'd ekshpect he could afford shome better denturesh. Hesh martini ish shtill dry at leasht.

"Not noticing the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire."
How could they be so "ignorant"?
That's lost them the entire "Marvel" demographic.

Sir Ridley's film is an absolute masterpiece compared to most of the utter twaddle being written about it.

Naw, come on. His movie (fillum in Ireland or fillem in India) is entertaining ( a family of four adults, three quarters male) has spent hours over the dinner table discussing the errors. All competing with the other. Great laughter. We would not have missed it!

It was what we expected. It was awful, except for the uniforms, the wine glasses and the carriages.

But I go back to why I cursed S Bandarchuk. There are scenes in Waterloo which are stunning and showed the potential he was offered. In this we have CGI (I guess) but it is pathetic. I expected to see Dan O'H leading thousands of cavalry, which is now so cheaply done.

Play with history for dramatic effect, but would any director get away with a scene with Hitler personally leading an SS counter attack in Berlin in April 45?

Think about it. It is the world we live in and folk who walk out into the road pushing their kid's buggy while they text, with a BMI twice their age, with brain in neutral. That is the target audience now. I am an old fart I suddenly realise. I have been for decades, even as a Grateful Dead frantatic.

I have not seen the movie yet.

I am told the skit on Monty Python with Hitler planning to attack 1970's London is more historical then this movie.

My wife says I'm a little off. I blame it on Monty Python.

"Cool it, mein Fuhrer baby!"

ConnaughtRanger, I resent that "Marvel demographic" slander. I bought my copy of Avengers #4 off the rack in 1964, and have seen and enjoyed a number of the Marvel movies. Knowing military and political history is not incompatible with enjoying a good superhero story, any more than it's incompatible with enjoying detective stories or romances.

If Lee & Kirby had done a 12-issue "Napoleon" series, it could hardly have been less accurate than Scott's contribution, and I'll guarantee it would have had a more coherent plot.

Prussians arrived on the wrong side of the battlefield.

Mythic heroes are fine and Hollywood suits their stories. I think most people know so little about Napoleon that the only question is whether this entertains them. For us here, that's a tall order.

The problem is many people who saw this movie might believe that is how it happened.

Up to $190 USDM in revenue now. Minus the $100 USD or so denied to the film by this thread.

I genuinely laughed out loud at this. The New Yorker did an interview with Diddly in which they reproduced a couple of his hand drawn story boards. Scroll down to the first one, have a long look, and see if you can see what's wrong with this picture.

link

What's even funnier is when you scroll down to the second one. He's dimly apprehended that the first one didn't look quite right, so he's….changed it.

Absolute bladder-bursting comedy gold.

As I recall, Anthony Hopkins' Johnny Frost was the one convincing thing in the whole concert.

Johnny Frost was a consultant on BTF. He did not like Hopkins' portrayal of himself, largely due to the scene where Hopkins dashes across the street under fire. Frost insisted that he would walk upright in such situations to show his disdain for the enemy.

$th Cuirassier.

I do see modern Netherlands' flags behind Boney, not the French Tricolour, but I doubt that was the only howler

Did you notice they changed in the second lot of storyboards??

How many of those are actual mistakes, and how many are deliberate liberties?

Both I think, in the storyboards at least. Not knowing the difference between the national flags of France, the Netherlands and the Republic of Chile – a non-existent country at that time – is definitely ignorance. Littering the set with them because Didly thinks it looks cool is a deliberate liberty.

I am seeing it tonight. Don't have high hopes, especially after what I have read on here. I would though say that I am taking my two teenage sons with me and giving them only a basic understanding, even if inaccurate can only be a good thing? They did get me for Fathers Day back in 2015 Waterloo on DVD which we watched on the 200th anniversary.

Storyboards. I liked the hub to hub guns. In his own way, Mr. Scott is providing me with hours of free entertainment.

For the record, I try always to listen respectfully when a historical novelist or a producer of historical films says He knows this or that isn't accurate, but changing a couple of dates, merging some historical characters, or introducing a minor anachronism makes things easier for the audience to understand, heightens the drama or otherwise makes for a better story.

But that's not what's going on here. For one thing, not even the film critics--bone-ignorant of military history--are calling it any sort of good story-telling. For another, it's breath-taking arrogance. If you were making a movie about a great teacher, doctor or politician, you'd spend time finding out how classes were taught, the state of medicine or how period politics was conducted. Scott here thought he could make a movie about a man who was above all one of the great generals, but it wasn't worth his time to spend a week understanding Napoleonic warfare. These aren't the errors of a man trying to improve a story: they're the behavior of a man who didn't care.

And Au Pas, given the cost and the percentage the theaters take, a revenue of $190 USD million is train wreck bad. Evidently Apple is hoping to make it up in streaming, but I doubt they'll even be able to tell. If you want a box office take of $190 USD million to be a success, make your movie for $40 USD-50 million.

My bad. Make a movie for $95 USD million, and you break even at $190 USD million at the box office. Sadly for Apple & Mr. Scott, the reported production cost was $200 USD million.

"that's a tall order."

5'7" ?
(heh-heh)

@ robert piepenbrink

I have never suggested that the film would be a financial success. Only that it is making more money than if it had been tailor made for wargamer approval.

4th cuirassier has introduced data into his rant that doesn't sync up with real connections between the quality/accuracy of the film and financial success.

Films like Waterloo, Gettysburg, Zulu and A Bridge Too Far were far from financial home runs and yet are beloved by wargamers.

It isnt new that he is stitching together inconsistent events to try to synthesize a self serving result but the film's financial success has no correlation to whether the film is accurate or not. Thus, 4th Cuirassiers odd morale judgment is a connection he is stitching together solely for his own narrative.

AFAIK no film has ever been 'tailor made for wargamer approval', so it is very difficult to judge how much money such a film would have made, or might be expected to make, at the box office.

i dont think a film has to get wargamer approval if by that you mean the hardcore purists – i think most wargamers would be happy with a film that just gets some aspects reasonably accurate.

I really dont see why they couldnt have just done a more accurate looking waterloo – rather than CGI army camps on the frontline, better to have some cgi armies – that worked for Kingdom of Heaven so why not here. – is that really so expensive to do anymore?

it would have been also far more compelling with napoleon commanding his marshalls rather than riding headlong into battle himself – why would he be doing this even when he at other times is portrayed so feebly. The choices are just awful.

I think one can get away with butchering facts the further back in the past the events are set and where historical records are fewer and fact and myth are mixed, but not the 19th century.

Perhaps Scott should have made the movie a bit like 300 where it could be Napoleon retelling the period to a child on st Helena and embellishing the history and perhaps history and myth could be contrasted throughout the film, and which also that means things might get glossed over deliberately

I have never suggested that the film would be a financial success. Only that it is making more money than if it had been tailor made for wargamer approval.

Your comment is a non sequitur. You have no idea how a tailor made movie for wargamers would fair in the movie world. It couldn't be much worse than Scott's Napoleon and I think it could be a lot better based on the comments on this thread. I read that this movie has to gross a total of $600,000,000 USD to break even. $190 USD million at this point is a complete disaster.

Perhaps Scott should have made the movie a bit like 300 where it could be Napoleon retelling the period to a child on st Helena and embellishing the history and perhaps history and myth could be contrasted throughout the film, and which also that means things might get glossed over deliberately

I think that is a brilliant idea. It could be Napoleon reflecting on certain events that got him to St. Helena. Then you could string together a series of scenes that would explain the outcome. Another movie that comes to mind is Slumdog Millionaire where each reminisce explains how the game participant came to know the answer to the question. I think this kind of approach could work very well for making interesting story arch for Napoleon's life.

Rashomon

@ Marcus Brutus

It couldn't be much worse than Scott's Napoleon and I think it could be a lot better based on the comments on this thread.

It's hard to disagree. Didly's effort is not the worst film I have ever seen. That accolade is shared among every film made by Roland Emmerich, with Stargate probably "winning" for me as the very worst film of all.

Squot's fiasco is certainly the worst quasi-historical film I can recall seeing though. Battle of the Bulge (1965), The Battle of El Alamein (1969), Pearl Harbor, and Inglourious Basterds were all more historically accurate, informative, and entertaining, even though the first three are extremely poor.

There seems to be an oddly pervasive view among film directors, whether arising from ignorance or arrogance I know not, that it is somehow unreasonable for any part of an audience to expect historical dramas to be in any way historical.

I actually wonder why Didly did not have Spitfires strafing the French at Waterloo while they were being engulfed by Tiger tanks. It would have looked really cool. He could have had scenes of the Chilean flag being shredded by 0.303" bullets. If anyone tried to suggest that there were no tanks or aircraft at Waterloo, he could just snort "Were you there?" or "Get a life" or something.

It would have been no stupider than what he did show, and it probably would not have bombed any worse.

The only important detail is surely whether he used the middle guard in the final French Waterloo assault?

Lol!

You haven't seen the film, have you?

"The only important detail is surely whether he used the middle guard in the final French Waterloo assault?"

Or the ammo shortage at La Haye Sainte.

But what you seem to be ignoring is that it's one thing to deviate from history because you just don't have the money for, say, accurate-looking German tanks in Patton, another thing so do so for a better story, as in 1776's reduced-size Continental Congress and date-switching, and yet a third thing to spend heaps of money and deviate from history to make your story actually LESS interesting. This seems to be Scott's current approach. He appears to be past the point of learning from his mistakes, but you'd like to think someone in Hollywood is that smart.

How bright do you have to be to (a) read a script before you write a $200 USD million check, and (b) if the story is reality-based, pay someone to tell you where it deviates from fact, so you can decide whether those deviations save you money or improve the story? Evidently brighter than any decision-maker at Apple.

As per thread title, absolute worst mistake is the British leaving entrenchments in front of them to make a infantry square.

Lol!

You haven't seen the film, have you? evil grin

No, I havent. I am just enjoying the rant. Maybe the OP can convert this into an open letter to Ridley Scott?

"Maybe the OP can convert this into an open letter to Ridley Scott?"

We have no evidence at this point that Mr. Scott is literate.

"Maybe the OP can convert this into an open letter to Ridley Scott?" We have no evidence at this point that Mr. Scott is literate.

I think that is too harsh. I think there is no evidence that Mr. Scott is historically literate. And based on his responses to historical criticisms I don't think he cares. Which means any letter would be pointless. But there is one "open letter" of sorts that he is listening to. And it is the box office returns. People are communicating with Ridley Scott in the only way that really matters. Through the wallet.

"Too harsh?"

Scott may very well have ensured that there will not be another horse & musket movie in my lifetime, while he sits smirking on a bag of money and going out of his way to mock anyone who ever seriously studied history. I have not even approached the limits of appropriate verbal abuse.

OTOH, given that Sir Ridley is 86, it seems unlikely that there will be another horse and musket movie in his lifetime, which should be some consolation.

I hope Santa puts some nice lead figures in your stocking to cheer you up, merry Christmas!

I don't know, all this moaning and complaining – about a movie! I knew it would have a negative effect. It is too many bad vibes man! No more horse and musket movies! See what you've all done now. I guess it'll be more zombie and Barbie type films. You get what you deserve. LOL

Happy Christmas! Ho Ho Ho

Oh it is nothing compared to "The Crown". I am getting through the final series on the Crosstrainer at 40 minutes each night, but I am suffering. Something that bad, like Napoleon, you have to experience, or how can you comment?

But that "The Crown" is in another league. It is even, far, much, worse. Be grateful

In contrast I've just seen Godzilla Minus One, which is off the scale good in its historical accuracy. It depicts Japanese WW2 destroyers, a cruiser, a Zero and a Shinden. They are all CGI. The destroyers ard shown in post-war decommissioned condition with guns removed and their names painted on the side in English letters. The Zero's undercarriage compresses as it lands. The colours are correct. It's flawless.

This film was made for 7.5% of what Carry On Napoleon cost.

If a director can include completely accurate period detail in a monster flick (a very superior one), it bespeaks total contempt for the audience that Didly couldn't be bothered to do the same in a film costing 14 times more. And I bet the monster flick will take more money. Meanwhile Didly's tripe looks set to lose around a third of a billion. Why is this guy a highly regarded director exactly? His films are, nowadays, both stupid and loss making.

The Crown series is not a topic I have the slightest interest in but appeared to be watched by millions around the world and I believe has run for several series (a bit like the Sharpe series but more popular) Could it be it is considered bad by some people, probably royalists, because it annoyed members of the monarchy. How dare they! Off with their heads! LOL

Godzilla minus one is a very good film – you'll believe a Shinden can fly.

Really enjoyed that one, and the detail is great.

You get what you deserve. LOL

Doubtful. If we got what we deserved we would have gotten a decent movie that struck a reasonable balance between being historically correct and the requirements of movie making.

The irony is that when Hollywood produces grossly inaccurate movies that people attend it is taken as proof that the movie going public does not care about historical accuracy. If OTOH attendance is weak it is taken as proof that people don't want to see historically accurate movies.

Incidentally, another error in Carry On Napoleon is the French tents. The French army did not use tents except for senior officers. Everyone below general slept in the open with his feet to the fire.

@Deadhead. I thought the 1958 Dunkirk was a pretty decent film. The B&W version starring John Mills. The military kit is very accurate even down to the 18/25pdr guns for the RA battery. Stock footage for Stuka attack, but no CGI in 1958 so forgivable.

@4th Cuirassier Not sure I would agree with your choice of worst film. You have not seen "Escape from Athena" then?! :-)
As far as the director's comments in response to criticism that is par for the course in Hollywood these days. Criticism, however well founded, just causes them to double down on the nonsense. Not sure any of this is a tax write off though. Both Warner Brothers and Disney are reported to be in financial trouble, with WB said to be one more big flop away from disaster.

It could have been worse. Imagine if Oliver Stone made Napoleon. 3 hours of mommy issues AND Napoleon has an Irish accent.

You obviously failed to appreciate Olly's brilliant insight that the Macedonians WERE the Irish of the Greek world! :-)
As for mommy issues it was a Greek, Sophocles, who came up with the whole Oedipus thing.

I read somewhere that the historical advisor to Oliver Stone's Alexander requested that he be allowed to ride with the Companions in the big battle scene so he could get as close as possible to the reality of what he had studied for so many years – and did!