Ridley Scott wants to vandalize history again (Napoleon)

[Roma_Victrix]

From the still I thought he was asian

That was Napoleon in his K-Pop phase dated just before his Egyptomania, so don't judge him, Kyriakos, he was a military genius otherwise, K?

That looks like Johnny Depp as Willie Wonka. Or Matthew Broderick or something.

Haircut looks a bit too lesbian for me anyhow.

Or the half-Japanese cousin of Matthew Broderick. LOL.
He almost looks like the real-life incarnation or AI reimagining of a manga/anime about Napoleon.

[swabian]

Napoleon was from Corsica. Genetically he was something between a Frenchman and an Italian. Personality wise, he was probably an angry local islander who - more or less by accident - got a hard grip on the rightfully hated French aristocracy of the time. He probably and most definitely was also a mass murderer and a sick . How did he get such glory in life? Snowball effect. He got catapulted by the plebs to proto-socialist heights during the late 18th century and nowadays everyone thinks he was a genius. He was probably just a little murderer in truth.

[Kyriakos]

Maybe they should have gotten Eric Cantona to play Napoleon

[Roma_Victrix]

I still want Ridley Scott to explain why the whole Roman province of Mauretania Caesariensis in ancient Algeria was called "Zuccabar" (which was just a single town) in Gladiator. Well, we're all waiting, Ridley! Time's up! Now answer me, old man!

Napoleon was from Corsica. Genetically he was something between a Frenchman and an Italian. Personality wise, he was probably an angry local islander who - more or less by accident - got a hard grip on the rightfully hated French aristocracy of the time. He probably and most definitely was also a mass murderer and a sick . How did he get such glory in life? Snowball effect. He got catapulted by the plebs to proto-socialist heights during the late 18th century and nowadays everyone thinks he was a genius. He was probably just a little murderer in truth.

Uh...you mean like a psychotic serial killer who just stabbed people in the middle of the night for fun?

Honestly, if Napoleon was a murderer, then I guess so was every military leader throughout the entirety of human history? I could use this logic to say Dwight D. Eisenhower was a "murderer," no light of day between him and Genghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler (let alone Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer). You can argue Napoleon was a cynical megalomaniacal tyrant (both somewhat fair and unfair at the same time), but calling him a murderer is more than a wee bit anachronistic.

[Kyriakos]

See, Eric is an actor ^^
He even has a funny line in that movie (The Salvation), where after he asks Mads Mikelsen who he fought against, and the other says "germans", Cantona announces that he respects that and proceeds to punch him anyway because he is a thug in the movie too

[NorthernXY]

Napoleon was from Corsica. Genetically he was something between a Frenchman and an Italian. Personality wise, he was probably an angry local islander who - more or less by accident - got a hard grip on the rightfully hated French aristocracy of the time. He probably and most definitely was also a mass murderer and a sick . How did he get such glory in life? Snowball effect. He got catapulted by the plebs to proto-socialist heights during the late 18th century and nowadays everyone thinks he was a genius. He was probably just a little murderer in truth.

Genghis Kahn (30 - 60 million deaths, have seen 11% of world's population) and Timur (17 million deaths or 5% of the world's population) are moth considered national heroes in Mongolia and Uzbekistan respectively. In 500 years, Hitler will be the national hero of Europe with Stalin in 2nd place.

[swabian]

I still want Ridley Scott to explain why the whole Roman province of Mauretania Caesariensis in ancient Algeria was called "Zuccabar" (which was just a single town) in Gladiator. Well, we're all waiting, Ridley! Time's up! Now answer me, old man!



Uh...you mean like a psychotic serial killer who just stabbed people in the middle of the night for fun?

No, I didn't mean to compare the guy to modern serial killers, certainly not. That would be ridiculous on somany levels. Did I say anything the like? zzzz

Let me offer the remark that the longer back these events and the corresponding culprits lie in the past, the more we tend to emotionally discard the terror their actions have brought for some reason. I'm entirely unfazed, though. I just think Napoleon really wasn't such a great guy (neither intellectually nor otherwise). Be butthurt over it, I don't care.

Genghis Kahn (30 - 60 million deaths, have seen 11% of world's population) and Timur (17 million deaths or 5% of the world's population) are moth considered national heroes in Mongolia and Uzbekistan respectively. In 500 years, Hitler will be the national hero of Europe with Stalin in 2nd place.

Jesus, what did I even say? Ridiculous comment. But of course Djingis Kahn and his horde were, maybe in conjunction, a monstrous bunch the world certainly could have done without.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I still haven't watched this tripe.

But I don't think the West should be allowed to make history anymore. Sell the rights to China or NHK or something.

[NorthernXY]

I still want Ridley Scott to explain why the whole Roman province of Mauretania Caesariensis in ancient Algeria was called "Zuccabar" (which was just a single town) in Gladiator. Well, we're all waiting, Ridley! Time's up! Now answer me, old man!



Uh...you mean like a psychotic serial killer who just stabbed people in the middle of the night for fun?

Honestly, if Napoleon was a murderer, then I guess so was every military leader throughout the entirety of human history? I could use this logic to say Dwight D. Eisenhower was a "murderer," no light of day between him and Genghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler (let alone Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer). You can argue Napoleon was a cynical megalomaniacal tyrant (both somewhat fair and unfair at the same time), but calling him a murderer is more than a wee bit anachronistic.

Vlad the Impaler, also known as Vlad III Dacula (Dracula means "son of the Dragon" as his father was Vlad II Dracul because he was awarded the Order of the Dragon, I think by the Pope) is a national hero of modern day Romania. His impaling was suppose to be a warning to invading Ottomans to not mess with him or his country. No doubt he did kill many innocent people. He grew up a captive of the Ottomans to keep in father in line, instilling a deep hatred of the Ottomans.

If you're looking for a real monster, look no further, and not that far, than Erzsébet Báthory, Elizabeth in the West), who was a noblewoman from northern Hungary, modern day Slovakia. She was a sadistic psychopath that tortured people from the surrounding villages for fun, her husband being a lesser partner in the torturing. After his death in the early 1600s, he could no longer hold her back, giving her cart blanche to do whatever she wanted. Suddenly children and young women (virgins) began disappearing in the villages. After her death, her castle was inspected and bodies of children and young women were everywhere. It is thought that she bathed in there blood to retain her youth/beauty, though this hasn't been confirmed, I believe she did. So if anyone should be considered a vampire, it's her and not Vlad III "the Impaler" Dracula.

EDIT: Some don't believe she was a psycopath and it was all made up to arrest her and seize her lands. Coincidentally, Elizabeth I Tudor, was also obsessed with being beautiful. Requiring courtiers to compliment how young and beautiful she was, even in her later years.

Jesus, what did I even say? Ridiculous comment. But of course Djingis Kahn and his horde were, maybe in conjunction, a monstrous bunch the world certainly could have done without.

Damn, just lost my post. I think my point was that Napoleon is responsible for upwards of 6.5 million deaths, yet isn't really demonized. I think that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

[Flinn]

Did anyone actually watch the movie?

[NorthernXY]

Did anyone actually watch the movie?

Nope, the last movie I attended in theatres was Avengers: Infinity Wars. Never saw any advertising for the movie, and I'm on YouTube a lot.

[conon394]

Did anyone actually watch the movie?

Which movie? The Title one I thought it was a November release and my DeLorean is in the shop.

[Flinn]

well it's a stillborn then .. I mean a lot of negative critics for a movie no one has seen yet (and yes my question was intentionally deceiving, my bad ).

I agree with Halie anyways, Ridley Scott is a maker of blockbusters, not historical movies, so I'm not really expecting anything positive on that side from this movie.. I'm only pissed that Phoenix decided to take the role, I was expecting better from him (but maybe he will manage to give a realistic representation of Napoleone, no matter the overall historical inaccuracy of the movie)

[conon394]

Fair enough. I actually don't have a problem with Phoenix. I also agree scot is if not Bruckheimer is still doing epic blockbuster (quasi) history version first. That being said my criticism is just I don't trust him to do justice to the battles (considering how he mauled Romen war). I think what seems a the Joshene aspect is too much. One or the other

[NorthernXY]

Napoleon gets a lot of credit for being a great general, but he pretty much just copied the Romans and out marched his foes. Later in his career he pretty much just threw armies at his opponents without much strategy.

[Kyriakos]

New trailer, same garbage

[Kyriakos]

Tbh, I expected at least some reaction to the new trailer

[mishkin]

Millions of dollars for production, sets, costumes... Massive battles, Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirbi... Ridley take my money, thanks.

[Pinarius]

Ridley Scott: “Get a life.”
https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/s...05934240112918

[Roma_Victrix]

Tbh, I expected at least some reaction to the new trailer

I mean, would it be fun to watch in order to make fun of it? Sure. But that's something I can do from the comfort of home rather than wasting money in theaters, so I won't be seeing this movie until years from now if at all, as a chuckle-worthy curiosity once it is available on HBO MAX, Netflix, Amazon or whatever streaming service for free (with subscription, not paying to see this specifically).

Ridley Scott: “Get a life.”
https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/s...05934240112918

LOL. Scott is king of the moviemaker mountain and cannot be criticized. Honestly, why bother making a historical biopic if you can't take criticism for it being historically inaccurate? Especially on a subject as close to us in the present day as the beginning of the modern age. This isn't distant ancient Rome in Gladiator, where you can wiggle out of certain things, especially since it relies on an entirely fictional main character Maximus Decimus Meridius. It's the freaking French Revolution and Napoleonic Europe we're talking about.

For instance, I highly doubt Empress Josephine turned to Napoleon Bonaparte and said "you are nothing without me" and then demanded that he admit it. LOL. Really? The guy had risen in the ranks thanks to patronage by Augustin Robespierre (brother of Maximilien) and his fellow Corsican Saliceti, earned his spurs in the 1793 Siege of Toulon, and again at the Second Battle of Saorgio in 1794, and became famous due to putting down the Royalist rebellion of the 13 Vendémiaire in Paris in October 1795. Josephine had been married to Alexandre de Beauharnais, a French politician who was executed in 1794 during the Reign of Terror, and she had been imprisoned until his death in July of that year. She hadn't even met Napoleon until late 1795 and didn't marry him until March 1796, and though she was made empress in 1804, their marriage was annulled by 1810. Napoleon remarried to Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma, from 1810 to 1814 (making her the new Empress of France). Sounds like Napoleon was just fine without her, LOL, and even if he was still married to her, Napoleon would have undoubtedly still made the disastrous decisions to invade Russia in 1812, get stomped at Leipzig in 1813, get crushed during the 1814 invasion of France and exiled, and get stomped again by Wellington at Waterloo in 1815, leading to his second exile.

Is Ridley's movie seriously suggesting he had no career beforehand, owed it all to Josephine somehow, and was defeated in Russia and later battles because he had broke up with his first wife years beforehand?