"Historical movies & TV shows" Topic

I was talking to my girl, who works on the production side at Amazon Prime, about the casting for the new James Bond film.

Idris Elba is a name that often comes up when people discuss Bond and, in my opinion, he'd be excellent. She immediately dismissed the idea. Not because of race, acting ability or star power—but because he's 53. He's old, she said. Sigh.

I challenged that and cited Sean Connery. Her response was interesting: as a rule of thumb, the youth market is the only market that really matters. They're the people who go to cinemas, subscribe to streaming services and binge-watch series. If you're spending hundreds of millions on a production, you aim it at them, not at older viewers. Her prediction was that the next Bond will be somewhere around 30, give or take a few years.

That takes us onto topics like the Odyssey thread.
TMP link

Virtually every response ends with the poster declaring they won't watch it. From the producers' perspective, that's expected—and largely irrelevant.

We are not the target audience.

Our desire for historical accuracy, period casting, faithful adaptation or respect for source material is simply not a major factor in the business case. Mostly not a factor at all. Studios aren't trying to sell these productions to people who already know Homer, Regency England or the history of the Napoleonic Wars. They're trying to attract viewers who may know little or nothing about the original material but will spend money to see it.

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another debate entirely.

But if we're wondering why so many historical films and TV series seem to ignore the wishes of history enthusiasts, the answer may be quite simple: we're no longer the customers they're designing them for.

"Hollywood studios do not publicly disclose a singular "net loss," but financial reports estimate that major U.S. entertainment companies have seen their net incomes collapse by over 60% compared to a decade ago. This stems from systemic, multi-billion-dollar shifts in revenues, high-budget theatrical flops, and a massive loss in studio market valuations."

…

"When "wokeness" is perceived as forced, heavily ideologically driven, or disrespectful to legacy franchises, audiences frequently rebel. [1]

* Franchise Fatigue and Alienation: High-profile blockbusters that aggressively swapped out legacy characters or prioritized social commentary over tight storytelling—such as The Marvels, Lightyear, or the Ghostbusters reboot—suffered catastrophic box office returns. [1, 2, 3]

* Severe Backlash and Boycotts: Beyond Hollywood, corporate giants that launched hyper-targeted progressive campaigns alienating their core demographic experienced immediate financial trauma. A prime example is Bud Light losing its title as America's top-selling beer after an influencer controversy, alongside Target losing billions in market cap following a Pride merchandise backlash. [1]

* The "Tokenism" Rejection: Audiences of all political spectrums increasingly see through superficial corporate activism, viewing lazy casting changes as cynical cash grabs rather than meaningful representation. [1]"

Maybe an attempt to get back to basics, quality and appeal instead of virtue signaling to themselves and specific demographics would save them.

People go to be entertained, not preached to, either directly or indirectly. They go to escape the realities of real life. Sadly Hollywood has been failing that for a LONG time.

We are not the target audience.

A point I've been making for years.
I haven't "been to the movies" for years. Had The Odyssey been done "right", this hermit might have gone to see it. That would have been +1 to the overall take! But they blew it! 😄
Methinks they won't miss me.

It opens July 17. At an IMAX 13 miles from me. I've never been there, by the way. That will be the real test. Whether or not it impresses a bunch of middle aged (or older) cranks will be irrelevant.
Whether anyone, besides us, cares that Achilles has ridiculous casting is irrelevant. Whether anyone really cares if Helen is black is also irrelevant.
It opens on Blockbuster Weekend in July, when the real bucks are made.

OUR "Harrumphs" are irrelevant.
What will be relevant for my area is that it will be at the ONLY theater in Northeast Pennsylvania. One theater for Scranton and Wilkes Barre. There might be one in Allentown, 100 miles away.
That will certainly limit revenue a lot more than serial malcontents.

@35th
Your reasons are valid, but irrelevant. 🤷
It's Date Night. Not "Impress Senior Citizens" movie night.

Nolan is a genius. Just ask him. He'll tell you. Ask his favorite actors. They think so. He made a fortune with a 3 hour Oppenheimer. If he can do that, he's bulletproof.

Only irrelevant if you are attempting to make a profit.

Alienating a small group who play with soldiers, just loses a small amount of additional money, true.

But they are alienating a much larger group of people… hence the income loss of 60% in 10 years.

How many still watch the Academy Awards show? Look at the audience drop on that 💩.

Actually any award show?

It's not "just" this little group.

I will also say, even if they make a profit… how much more so, if they did not alienate sooo many?

I don't think Nolan is panicking.
I've seen one obviously fake video where he is.
He's a genius. Ask him.
And he's already planning his next movie that will cost millions.
We're only fooling ourselves if we think our opinions matter.

"They" in this case is Hollywood as a whole.

As someone pointed out in the other thread, AI may soon replace most of Hollywood (actors, directors and the rest) and that might actually be a positive thing.

SB's AI trailers were definitely better than the original trailer for the Odyssey.

Has no one pointed out how painful it's become to go to an actual movie theater? 20 minutes of ads before you get to watch the movie you paid to see? The last time I went, there was a summary ad that reviewed the previous 5 ads.

Movie theaters have done a fine job shooting themselves in the foot.

They have to do that to make up lost revenue from declining numbers for many reasons. I haven't been to a movie in a theater since Scott's "Napoleon", and that may have been my last. Lots of alternatives out there now.

Overall, I agree with you. But I am not so sure that is true of movies that are historical or based on classical literature. Look at the movie Pressure that is coming out. It is not focused on a 30 yr old. Older people appreciate WW2 more than younger people do. I think the same may be true of The Odyssey. This one would likely draw an older crowd. Plus, Matt Damien is not that young anymore either.

On Friday evening I went to the cinema for the first time in years. I only went to make it convenient to bring our nephew home after the movie he went to with his buddies. What I observed from the crowds was interesting.
The movie that I attended I saw by myself. Almost all of the other attendees were older. I mean retirees. I saw only one family with children. My movie got out before my nephew's. While waiting I saw the viewers from the movie "Pressure" come out. That crowd was older than the crowd I sat with. When my nephew finally came out of his theatre, the attendees were definitely younger. He saw a horror movie.
The crowds coming in were plentiful and age wise balanced for the next wave of start times. Families with younger children, teens doing teen things, adult couples doing date things, and a good swath of older folks as well. All seemed normal to me

Watched recently many movies based on History but really are probably historical fiction, since no one is sure who said what. Even The Great Escape is admitting its characters are composite, there were many scroungers, the Americans worked on the tunnels yet were seperated out of the camp before the break out. 3 did escape, 50 were murdered.
Recently watched
Anthropod- assassination of Reinhard Heydrich
Eternal Winter- German Hungarian women in 1944 sent to a Gulag, kept well after the war was over
The Pianist- a Jewish master Pianist survives the Warsaw Ghetto and Warsaw uprising. From a book but sure the movie didn't get every scene perfect.

I, for one, am very grateful they do not cater to the harumphing crowd. That would kill all sorts of entertainment value.

Interesting that most of the replies are discussing whether cinema attendance is declining, whether older viewers still go to films, or whether historical dramas attract a different audience.

I don't disagree with any of that.

My point was narrower: when a studio is spending blockbuster money, the first question isn't "Will history enthusiasts approve?" It's "Will enough people buy tickets?"

myexmail:"On Friday evening I went to the cinema for the first time in years." That's the point.

Whether we like it or not, the answer they're pursuing is usually found among younger audiences rather than among those of us debating Homer, Waterloo or Overlord on TMP.

Look at Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu. It's entirely aimed at Gen Z… and it's bombing. Now, that may be the lead actor telling people who didn't vote for *his* preferred candidate not to buy tickets to his films,* but I think it more speaks to the absolute dearth of quality of Disney's Star Wars films, along with market saturation. Ironically, the Disney Star Wars films *are* relying on fans noticing details, "Easter eggs," and links to other productions— even productions that themselves bombed. It's a royal mess— and the external politics doesn't help them, even if it's not in the film.

(*For the record, that's some 75 million US adults and parents that he wants to keep their money in their pockets. So at $30 USD a pop, that's $2.25 USDbillion he doesn't want the studio to receive (or to get his share of). And that doesn't even count tickets for kids of these same voters. What an idiot.

No expert here, but it seems if a movie upsets the young parents crowd, for whatever reason, they aren't buying their merch either.

But we never were the target audience. Two ways:
1) Historical accuracy, whether in script of visuals, was always the icing on the cake, never the primary focus. Take a good look at The 300 Spartans, The American War and Peace, the costuming in the MGM Pride and Prejudice, the tanks in Patton and The Battle of the Bulge, the completely reversed winning side in Chissum…Do I have to go on? I'm always glad to see historically accurate movies, but they've never been Hollywood's favorite approach.
2) Appealing to kids--by which I mean children and courting couples--is a desperation move. In Hollywood's prime, it attempted to appeal to whole families--the so-called "four quadrant" approach. They still should: if Mom and Dad aren't going to the movies as much, they're generally picking up the tab for streaming.

We haven't aged out, and Hollywood hasn't lost interest in history. Hollywood has narrowed its focus--not just to the young, but to the young in complete ideological conformity. And they never cared about history much.

Enjoy historical films for either overall accuracy of plot or accurate visuals, and let us all know about them. Bonus points if you find both in one film. Same thing for "all ages" appeal, and a lack of lecturing. Both are rare, but both can be had--and the old stuff is showing up remastered on DVD, often better than cinematic re-releases and always better tha late night commercial television.

As for Nolan and company, if I had to recover a quarter-billion production budget--I'm guessing--I'd want to make a movie everyone would come to, even classicists. But I'd have thought that about the Ridley Scott Napoleon, too. We'll see how it goes.

Nolan has always been arrogant. "Arrogant director" is a redundancy. Not an oxymoron. 😄
He made the movie for himself. Studio? You mean the people who throw money at an arrogant (albeit successful in the past) director, expecting a bountiful return?

We will see come the weekend of July 17.
How many people are actually influenced by the likes of The Critical Drinker? People like me who haven't been to the movies in years. My reaction so far is "Oh, gee. That's too bad." That's not the reaction of the bulk of the movie going audience. So, instead of making $960,000,000 USD, it will only make $940,000,000. USD 🤷
The Bad News is spreading, but only to those who are already prone to be uncertain.

As I said above, I have ONE IMAX theatre within 12 miles. The next one is 90-100 miles away. Oh, wait. Maybe 60… 🙄
That's a tiny amount of screens to get a profit from $250 USD million in production, and another $500 USD million in promotion, graft, mob ties, graft…

Nolan will be back. He's a genius. Just ask him. What's his next project? Google says "uncertain".

Before all the streaming options we have now I probably went to the movies 2 or 3 times a month. Maybe its because I worked at a drive-in when I was young. This doesn't even count how many movies I took my children to.

Now days, I wait till a movie comes to streaming usually free, unless it is something I am really interested in. I got suckered into "Napoleon" and have not even watched it for free a second time. Did go see "Hail Mary" as it was written by the same author that wrote "The Martian" which I really like.

Might go see 'Pressure", but nothing else looks like I would waste my time, let alone money to go see this summer.

Agree with Robert, lots of movies we loved and still watch have plenty of historical inaccuracies yet we still love them because the are just good movies.

Kim

Because "what really happened" does not jibe with the auteur's vision.

I think most of the harrumphing audience wants a movie that at least takes the history seriously enough while still being entertaining. You can have a good historical movie that doesn't mangle the history so much that it is throws history buffs right out.

Patton is an awesome movie, even if some of the facts run roughshod. A Bridge Too Far is mostly accurate and a ripping good movie. Napoleon was garbage through and through, even if you knew nothing about Napoleon. We will see if Odyssey is another Nolan triumph or his first major failure. I don't expect much- I was very disappointed by Dunkirk.

The problem for Hollywood is that movies are dying. Can they really afford to ignore or anger swaths of their ticket buying audience? Will it matter if traditional movie theaters go the way of Drive Ins?

The problem in Hollywood is, too many there are making movies that will be praised and lauded by their own inner circle. Those who think and believe as they do. Those who praise their artistry and enlightenment. Dam# the public!

Money is secondary to virtue signaling.

Don't believe me, watch the awards shows and listen to the artists themselves. Than look at the losses and disastrous box officers.

I, too, went to see Project Hail Mary based on seeing the Martian. IMO, it was a crackin' good movie. The plot engaged you, the characters were solid, and it ended on a high note. That's the kind of movie I like. Why doesn't Holly wood make more of those kinds of movies?

I've heard project Hail Mary bucked the current Hollywood trend. Purposefully.
Had a positive story line. Didn't try and preach to the audience. It assumed the audience was intelligent. Most of all, it meant to "entertain".

"The film adaptation of Project Hail Mary did not actively "buck" political correctness through intentional provocation or controversy; rather, it sidestepped modern culture-war politics entirely.

By completely ignoring the typical contemporary social commentary found in standard Hollywood fare, it earned praise from certain audiences as an "anti-woke" blockbuster simply by remaining resolutely focused on escapism, science, and universal human themes. [1, 2]

The film bypassed modern socio-political tropes in several ways:

* Complete Absence of Social Grievance: Author Andy Weir and the filmmakers purposefully avoided inserting modern political, gender, or racial commentary. The film does not feature heavy-handed lectures on social issues, opting instead to keep the focus strictly on survival, science, and entertainment. [1, 2, 3, 4]

* Merit and Competence Over Identity: Characters like Eva Stratt (played by Sandra Hüller) and Ryland Grace (Ryan Gosling) are defined entirely by their extreme competence, intelligence, and flaws rather than their demographic identities. [1, 2, 3]

* Global Unity Instead of Division: Rather than portraying governments or specific factions as inherently corrupt or villainous based on modern political alignments, the narrative features a unified global effort—where nations put aside geopolitical squabbles to save the planet. [1, 2]

* Escapist Entertainment: The film satisfied an audience segment fatigued by Hollywood's recent tendency to use blockbusters as vehicles for contemporary political messaging. By offering pure, high-stakes science fiction adventure, it allowed viewers to escape social media arguments entirely. "

…

"The treatment of religion in Project Hail Mary aligns closely with its subversion of modern Hollywood tropes, opting for a respectful, character-driven approach rather than treating faith as a punchline, a villainous trait, or a tool for heavy-handed social commentary.

The narrative achieves this neutral, refreshing balance in several distinct ways:

* Sincere Representation: Characters with religious backgrounds are portrayed with dignity. For example, Dimitri Demidov, the Russian scientist, is depicted as a deeply devout Russian Orthodox Christian. Rather than making him a caricature, the story highlights his faith as an extension of his integrity, dedication, and morality as he works to save humanity. [1]
* Agnostic But Respectful Protagonist: Dr. Ryland Grace is essentially agnostic, leaning strictly on scientific rationalism. However, his worldview is entirely devoid of the cynical, anti-religious condescension often found in modern sci-fi. He respects his colleagues' beliefs and views science as a unifying truth rather than a weapon against faith.
* [1, 2, 3]"

With all the big screen smart TVs now available for home theatre, I'm not surprised fewer and fewer people are opting for a compromised experience at a proper theatre where it costs a fortune to take a family out, ticket buying is now an online hassle, snacks and drinks are exorbitantly priced, your neighbors might be asterisk-holes, and the ads and previews can consume nearly half an hour.

Why not stay home and watch what you want to watch in the comfort of home and with all the trimmings on hand? Doesn't even have to be a new poopy movie either!

I just read Project Hail Mary, and look forward to the screen adaptation. (I also loved The Martian, both novel and film, and I think the film should be required viewing in high schools across America.

We need more truly smart, inspiring films like these.

On a side note, Weir made one huge scientific mistake in PHM that would have obviated the whole novel. But you just ignore it and go on.

One interesting development, aside from the issues about Movies are Not Made For Us, is the potential of AI to make those movies for us. There was an AI modified trailer, that added in historical costumes, ships, & other details, to the Oddysey movie. Imagine what an individual, or group of individuals could do, to a movie FREX like Patton, using AI to replace the WTS (Wrong Tank Syndrome), with historical & appropriate examples? Would it make the movie better? For most, they have no idea the difference between an M47 & a Tiger II. But for a select audience, they do.

Most of the AI content I've seen is utter crap. Some of it is pretty well done, so the potential is there.

Damon.

Well, Ill be going to see the Odessey. I like Nolans films and I'm a regular cinema goer. Having three chain cinemas and an independent one with an over 55 film club within walking distance helps.

I've seen many adaptations of Homer, some better than others. If you hate a black Helen, you'll really hate the TV series with a black Achilles. But it was fab way better than Brad Pitt and his 'big arm'.

"TV series with a black Achilles"

🤔

Curious for those with no issue with this.

Would you host a game of Waterloo at a convention, using your Seven Year War French and seven year war British? I mean French are French and British are British.

How about a Little Big Horn battle using your Mayan army as the Plains warriors and your U.S. 9th Cavalry (Buffalo Soldiers) as Custer's. Indians are Indians and cavalry are cavalry.

Would you paint your French Old Guard with black and brown skin?

Your Zulu's as white men?

Your Roman army as all women?

Would you buy from a company that sculpted ww2 Germans in U.S. uniforms and sold them as Germans? WW2 is WW2.

John Wayne as Genghis Khan. 🤮 it was horrible casting and a bad movie.

Wait until the movie about the life of Barrack Obama comes out with Tom Cruise as Barrack and Meryl Streep as Michelle. Actors are interchangeable, right?

There's a scenario in the 2nd edition of Warfare in the Age of Reason that is the 1815 Battle of New Orleans featuring Prussians vs Austrians.

As for the rest, no. I'm not offended to the extent of marching with torches and pitchforks. I'll just roll my eyes and not pay money to see them or purchase the figures.

Remember the Dylan Mulvaney fiasco with Bud Light? I just rolled my eyes. But since I never bought Bud Light anyway, based on taste and cost. If I never had any intention to buy BL anyway, it would be silly to say I was boycotting it. At my local convenience store, a 15-pack is $3 USD more expensive than my usual cheap dregs.

British TV watchers were treated to a Black Anne Boleyn.

Would there be outrage over a White Othello in blackface or a White Mahdi in blackface? Oh wait! They were both played by Olivier!
Let's not forget Shakespearean productions at the Olde place with boys playing Juliet or Goneril, Regan or Cordelia. Since I don't live in New York, and don't care for Lear anyway, my lack of attendance would hardly be considered a boycott.

John you've said it. You would not buy and you would not participate.

And that is what those of us are saying. We will not buy and we will not participate.

It cost Anheuser Bush much!

It's cost Hollywood much!

By the way, you know if they made a Barack Obama story with the casting I portrayed, the outrage would be unbelievable. 😏

We currently have:

"The Hollywood trend of only casting homosexual (or LGBTQ+) actors for homosexual roles is a movement toward authentic casting"

Can't any "actor" portray someone who is homosexual? Isn't that the same logic that allows Anne Boleyn to be black (everyone has a head, right? 😏).

So we must have authentic casting for homosexuals, but not characters playing heterosexuals?

We have:

"Native Americans are actively demanding that Indigenous roles in film and television be played by Native actors. This movement seeks to correct over a century of harmful stereotypes, "redface" casting (non-Native actors in Native roles), and systemic exclusion of Indigenous voices from the creative process."

No more Jews as Indians?! Mel Brooks will be shocked.

Then we have:

"While there is no strict legal mandate, industry norms strongly dictate that historical Black characters must be played by Black actors. Casting white actors in these roles is widely condemned today as a form of "whitewashing" that erases marginalized talent and distorts cultural narratives"

What?! No more Olivier!? 😂

So it seems that ONLY white western heterosexual parts are open to being portrayed by all races and sexual identities. 😱

It is all just VS! (No I did not mean BS). 😉

35th, I'd have to disagree about The Conqueror. The casting choices for the leads were poor, but I think at a script and costume level it was a good movie, though a bit of a downer. Some of the dialogue is first-rate. I'd love to see someone use AI and CGI to give us a version with different leads. Lucy Liu as the Tartar Princess, perhaps? Open to suggestions for Genghis. Truth is, I think it might even have worked with a different Caucassian. Imagine a young Arnold Schwarzenegger in the role.

On the larger question, I repeat: historical purists may not be a large percentage of the population, but if you want people to spend a billion dollars on tickets--probably the break-even point--you should not be asking "who can I afford to offend?" but "how can I offend as few people as possible?" or perhaps "how can I make a movie EVERYONE wants to watch?" Hollywood hasn't been asking those last two questions much lately.

Robert, on your last paragraph, I agree. It is not just the purist.

Just make films to "entertain". As in sports, we don't need to know what you believe in, or your identity. We watch to be entertained and to escape from the realities of life.

I love how Lawrence Olivier once pithily responded to some similar criticisms about acting and actors and why it was alright for him (or anyone else) to play so many disparate roles that did not match their background or ethnicity -- "It's called acting, dear boy!"

I think that puts a lot of things into perspective.

Rich Eisen and his wife Susie (ESPN NFL mouthpieces) were offended OFFENDED! when the Chiefs kicker said very conservative Christian things about marriage at the Commencement at a very Christian college.

Neil McDonough (? Spelling) was fired as an actor because as a devout Catholic he would not kiss another woman. He was devoted to his wife. Now, he plays villains.

Jaxson Dart, QB for the Giants had to apologize to his team for supporting Trump.

So, entertainers suffer for their views. But most still get work.

Was it Anne Coulter who said "Shut up and sing!" (Looking at Bruce S.)

Of course, it's hard to find conservative singers. Kind of stuck with Ted Nugent or Kid Rock. 🙄

Olivier was also challenged why he played MacArthur in "Inchon", financed by the Moonies. "For the money, dear boy. For the money!"

John they were not ON the field doing it. But the list of sports personalities making statements like that OFF the field are nearly endless.., with most being on the other side.

Nah there are other conservatives, but they hide it. Why? Because they get blacklisted. They prefer to stay quiet and work.

But when you are making a TV show, a movie, on the field of play, don't give us your political views, tell us your sexual preferences or preach to us. Just entertain us.

Did he not say it best?

Subject: Are you not ENTERTAINED!? 🗣️ #Gladiator – YouTube


YouTube link

Has anyone else heard references to "Schroediger's Fans?" A group SIMULTANEOUSLY so small they can be disregarded when scripting, casting and giving interviews and so large that when the show tanks, it's their fault. I suspect that if Mr. Nolan's current effort disappoints at the box office, they (we) will once more be blamed.

Holy smokes, RP!
That explains The Acolyte, Starfleet Academy, Snow White, and all the other movies I didn't go to!

And Almost every movie Disney has fostered upon us all, since taking over Star Wars and the Marvel Universe.

Little did Luke know, Disney was the true source, of the dark side. 😏

Nah, 35th. Disney is but a single arm of Hydra. Consider also Paramount (Star Fleet Academy in particular) Netflix (The Bridgerton adaptations) and Amazon (The Rings of Power & Co.) Somewhere on Hydra Island, Baron Strucker is rubbing his hands in glee.

(You didn't believe Hydra's been running on autopilot since 1945, did you? Someone had to take over, and who better?)

Yes they're all doing. Ain't none them clean. 😉

But "the mouse", now he is the true source of pure evil. 😈

Mickey (6 letters) 6
Minnie (6 letters) 6
Disney (6 letters) 6

The Three Circles: The world-famous Mickey Mouse silhouette—three perfect black circles—is actually a hidden sigil. It represents a corrupted eclipse: a total blackout of the sun, the moon, and the earth, meant to trap human perception inside a manufactured reality.

One by one, the pillars of human imagination—fairytales, sci-fi epics, and classic dramas—were dragged into the dark belly of the Mouse House, stripped of their edge, and rebuilt as hollow, commercial clones.

😉

All true Villains should rub their hands in fiendish glee.
It's Evil Overlord 101!
Learn to cackle.

Yes, OFM, it's generally offered the same semester as the course on quickly summarizing your plan for the hero you're about to kill.

But you're wrong, 35th, about hollow commercial clones. As we're seeing more and more, the clones may be hollow, but they're no longer commercial.

So how are they going to explain away the fact that Bond died in the last movie? Time machine? Just ignore it?

The same way as they did in Midsomer Murders, a UK TV detective series the central character of which was Chief Superintendent Barnaby. When John Nettles, who played him, left the show his role was taken over by Neil Dudgeon, playing his cousin who was also CS Barnaby.

So, the 007 number is taken over by James Bond's cousin, Jim Bond, formerly in MI5…

Actually, that is more credible than the idea that a man who looked like Sean Connery when he was young, matured into Roger Moore and then ended his career resembling Daniel Craig!