 |
Mark
Member
|
I think you are exactly right 20th MA. In the next few years we will see a lot more ACW "products." I just hope in the popular frenzy we won't lose too much of the history. Cheers!
-Mark
|
|
Back To Top
|
susansweet3
Member
|
Coly I think you have head the nail on the head. There have been some Civil War movies but they are Westerns , what happened after the War. Jesse James, 3:10 to Yuma , and a couple of others.
Susan
|
|
Back To Top
|
McFly64
Member
|
Although I *did* like GaG's and have it on DVD, I don't watch it as often as I do Gettysburg (which I watch each summer on the anniversary of the battle). It *was* a bit too long and focused too much on the Secessesh side as many of you have already said. And I too found Jackson's preoccupation w/the little girl a bit wearing, as was the concentration on 'down-time' between battles. I personally would have preferred to see the Battle of Antietam, which I understand hit the cutting room floor in it's entirety (too bad), instead of the Jackson/Little girl stuff. When I go see a war movie, whether it be about the CW, WWII or Vietnam, I want to see the WAR, not the stuff in between. That stuff is fine, but should be at a minimum.
All that aside, I would still love to see The Last Full Measure filmed, whether by Maxwell or some other capable director (imagine what Spielberg would do w/it). If it has to be a made for cable movie fine, after all that's what Gettysburg was originally if I'm not mistaken. And Andersonville, though a very bleak film, is brilliant and it too was a made for cable flick so bring it on Ted Turner. Get a new director and go back to the tube. Let's see this triology completed, and let's do it soon because I'd like to see as many of the original actor's back in their roles and they are getting OLD fast! 
|
|
Back To Top
|
Basiliximab
Member
|
McFly64 wrote: When I go see a war movie, whether it be about the CW, WWII or Vietnam, I want to see the WAR, not the stuff in between. That stuff is fine, but should be at a minimum.
Yeah, me too--all that stuff in G&G that had to do with their families and what-not was a little too much for me. Not sure if they were consciously trying to do this, but it just seemed to me that they were trying to appeal to a wider audience with those scenes. Definitely not a good idea, in my opinion.
McFly64 wrote:
I don't watch it as often as I do Gettysburg (which I watch each summer on the anniversary of the battle).
Just curious--you watch it on any particular day, or for each day watch the part of the movie that corresponds to that day?
|
|
Back To Top
|
McFly64
Member
|
<<Just curious--you watch it on any particular day, or for each day watch the part of the movie that corresponds to that day?>>
I usually will watch on 1 or 2 of those days, but you've given me an idea here. Maybe next year I'll watch it for 3 days--one day for each day of the movie. Thanks! 
|
|
Back To Top
|
William Llano
Member
|
By the way, the story of Jackson and the the young girl are true. She was the daughter of one of Jackson's favorite pupils at VMI. And he often would go to their house for the holidays. And it was true that when he received the news of her death(from scarlet fever, the same decease that caused the death of Gen. James Longstreet's daughters) was the only time that his men had seen him weep. We often forget that these men had tender feelings, we like to picture these men as tough as iron when in fact they were not, and the only man who could make Jackson laugh was J.E.B Stuart. James Longstreet was seen weeping his heart out when the news of his daughters death had arrived, he also wept when he realized George Picket and his men were basically going in a suicide charge at Gettysburg and this was the man that his men reffered to as the "Georgia Bulldog" Gen. Jackson was a deeply religious man, and an eccentric to boot. He did not like to move his corps on Sundays, as a matter of fact Gen.Longstreet wanted to bring charges of dereliction of duty in a court martial, it was only dropped at the insistence of Robert E. Lee.
|
|
Back To Top
|
Maverick
45th Alabama Inf., Co. F
|
deleted: pc problems
Last edited on Wed Sep 30th, 2009 11:15 am by Maverick
____________________
"Where this division defended, no odds broke its line; where it attacked, no numbers resisted its onslaught, save only once; and there is the grave of Cleburne." ~ Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee
|
|
Back To Top
|
IrishBrigade
Member
|
I agree with a lot of the posts citing the idea that a mini series would be far better. Even more happens in this book then in G&G, 3 hours simply would not do it justice. I actually emailed Jeff Shaara after I read it and he agreed with the mini series idea but due to the massive losses incurred it is unlikely to happen unless one of us wins the lottery of course!
I think the scene with Lee surrendering at Appomattox if done correctly would be one you could watch 1000 times.
|
|
Back To Top
|
redstatebonnie
Member
|
I can't read this string of posts without defending my favorite movie, Gods and Generals. I have had a lifelong devotion to history and great respect for the honor shown by men on both sides of Lincoln's revolution. At the same time, I realize we are discussing a movie based on a book, but it is probably the most accurate portrayal of an important side of men that is generally scourned and hidden by modern story tellers.
|
|
Back To Top
|
Maverick
45th Alabama Inf., Co. F
|
The real maggot-gagging moment in one of the movies....was when Col. Chamberlain listened as his side-kick, Irish sergeant give his rendition of 'setting men free.' What a PC moment for the ages.
And a little "Confederate perspective" was good for a change....even as corny as it was portrayed in G&G. There's certainly enough Union perspective to go around in most WBTS movies.
____________________
"Where this division defended, no odds broke its line; where it attacked, no numbers resisted its onslaught, save only once; and there is the grave of Cleburne." ~ Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee
|
|
Back To Top
|
borderuffian
Member
|
redstatebonnie wrote: I can't read this string of posts without defending my favorite movie, Gods and Generals. I have had a lifelong devotion to history and great respect for the honor shown by men on both sides of Lincoln's revolution. At the same time, I realize we are discussing a movie based on a book, but it is probably the most accurate portrayal of an important side of men that is generally scourned and hidden by modern story tellers.
The usual criticisms of G&G are- "too draggy"..."too many speeches"..."lard a-- reenactors"...but Gettysburg is just as draggy (if not more so), has about the same number of speeches, and has the same "lard a--" reenactors.
|
|
Back To Top
|
Quadrophenia
Member
|
See, I believe that GaG is somewhat appropriate, given the frame of time that the movie takes place. GaG focuses on the beginning of the war, while Gettysburg is solely a representation of the one battle.
That is to say, GaG contains the rhetoric and idealism specific to the early days of the war; when reading letters as well as speeches and first hand accounts, the naivety of the combatants and bystanders seems to be more conducive with the plot line of GaG than Gettysburg.
Therein lies the difference: the "innocent," youthful plunge into the war from both sides is represented well by GaG, while Gettysburg is more representative of the war weary, bloodstained attitude of mid-war.
I still believe that Gettysburg is the better movie, and GaG is weak in comparison. The reason being that Gettysburg has a more flowing, scripted storyline than GaG. GaG is like watching a fruit fly on blow, jumping around the historic time line without any sort of context whatsoever. Though, Stephen Lange is the tits in both movies, in each role.
|
|
Back To Top
|
ThomasWashington
Banned
|
Reb till death wrote: Okay,
So far there is no production of The Last Full Measure movie because of the poor box office results of Gods and Genrals. We have got to find a way to get this movie made it will be expanceive but I know there is same way we can get it done.
Reb till death
It's easy-- think "Pearl Harbor," set about 80 years earlier. You really want that?
Spielberg probably has an axe to grind against the South, just like he does against Germany; so it might even end up being called "Raiders of the Lost Cause," with "Illinois Abe" sneaking in atop the Merrimack in order to free the slaves, and calling down holy fire on the evil Lee and his ruthless rebels for refusing to "let the people go!"
Meanwhile the members of the press survive if they just keep their eyes shut and sing his praises... but if they look and report what they see, they mysteriously disappear.
Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 04:13 pm by ThomasWashington
|
|
Back To Top
|
csaexc1
csaexc1
|
I am going to try to get the film made if some one can get a script wrote to do so
____________________
William K. Reid II
|
|
Back To Top
|
OVVI
Member
|
First thing anyone attempting to take this on has to do is determine if the rights to LFM are available to option. IIRC, Ted Turner decide that he wasnt going to pursue it and let his option lapse.
I would guess that it would cost anywhere up to 100 million to make this film, so whoever might be interested better have deep pockets.
Kent Dorr
|
|
Back To Top
|
susansweet3
Member
|
It is such a dead issue and seems like it gets brought up here every so often to beat again .
|
|
Back To Top
|
M3_Lee/Grant
Member
|
“War means fighting. The business of the soldier is to fight. Armies are not called out to dig trenches, to throw up breastworks, to live in camps, but to find the enemy and strike him; to invade his country, and do him all possible damage in the shortest possible time. This will involve great destruction of life and property while it lasts; but such a war will of necessity be of brief continuance, and so would be an economy of life and property in the end. To move swiftly, strike vigorously, and secure all the fruits of victory, is the secret of successful war.”
Thomas J. Jackson
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 07:06 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   |
|
|
|
