Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Nov 21, 2023, 07:17:23 AMGoodness gracious man, he's not failing. He didn't want to create a Napoleon documentary. He wanted to create his own tale, his own spin on Napoleon. Is a man not allowed to do that?
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Nov 21, 2023, 11:31:49 AMIt's not a matter of "excuses" or dichotomy of success/failure at being historically accurate – it's a matter of artistic intent. Ridley Scott is clearly approaching the material that he is working with from a very different perspective than Nolan and Scorsese did with their films (which are both among my favorites of the year, mind you).
Anyways, seeing this tonight!
Purposely missing my point. I'm not asking for 1,000% accuracy, its that he claims he has no idea if it's accurate or not but then dismisses historians that answers his thoughts on subjects. Blurring the lines on historical and artistic license. Did Napoleon blow up the pyramids he asks? No said the historians but then he curses them out cuz he is an arrogant asshole who hadn't made good films in years when he thinks he is tough shit? That's my point. So then what in the f**k is he on about then? Walks around talking shit but then any form of criticism and somehow he acts like a victim?
The thing that comes with these types of films is the difference between Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter and Oppenheimer. One is purposely artistically done historic fiction and the second is mostly historic with a touch of fiction. He is presenting this like it was the real deal, which is really idiotic and damaging to what really is and what is not. It's like how 300 painted Spartans as heroic defenders of freedom when in reality they were slave hunting assholes that mostly lost every battle they ever been in. The film is purposely telling a mythical spin on real events but culturally made Spartans are seen in a noble light then people with very questionable actions. At least the director said he aimed for a more artistic presentation of the Spartans so I can't even get mad at him or anything as he went out of say this firstly and not purposely dismissive of anyone presenting questions or criticism of the film. It's done with intent in mind, that Ridley outright is not doing. There's a huge difference between anachronism in STYLE and anachronism in CONTENT. Marie Antoinette is a solid biopic, but also had a TON of anachronistic style in the costuming and soundtrack specifically. Those anachronisms were chosen because they added to the artistic merit of the film, but Sophia Coppola didn't do anything egregiously ahistorical, nor did she act like an indignant little baby when she was confronted about her anachronisms. Ridley Scott seems to really want to have his cake while never having to justify not eating it. I'm not a fan of courting falsehood.
Which leads with my beef with this f**k personally. He can f**k off when he acts likes he is and done better, when others had done MUCH better. Robin Hood, Gods of Egypt, the previous two Alien films were all shit and any form of criticism he gets his way, he has to act all defensive know it all about it. F**k off Ridley and don't touch Aliens anymore. Knowing is involvement in the new Alien series and film has already gotten me looking at the worst coming ahead. The arrogance of that idiot will never stop pissing me off.
Like I get he made Alien and Blade Runner but there is a point where sometimes you just gotta say no, this is dumb, what the hell, stop acting like a man child.
