Talk:Alexander (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alexander (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents

[edit] Succesful Movie??

$167,298,192 worldwide gross on a 155,000,000 movie (according to Boxoffice Mojo) is success? I don't think that even breaks even after everyone gets their cut...?

--24.130.61.61 07:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not even close, as advertisement investment for a movie that is this big usually costs around 30-100 million dollars. At most the movie broke even, with tv broadcasts and dvd sales and rentals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.28.199.121 (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Extended, third version

Does anyone have any other information about this bit of news? I'm intrigued beyond all measure! --164.107.92.120 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] historical accuracy

Just a little observation that propably is not important enough to be mentioned in the article: when Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) tells the story of Alexander's fathers death (after about 34 min. of the movie) there is a statue of a sitting Buddha on the table. But at that time (about 280 BCE) the Buddha had not been depicted in human form yet (see Buddhist art for details). The oldest statues date from the 1st century CE. --80.109.63.190 01:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, its no documentary. Also, was anyone mad that the so called gay or bi-sexuality of Alexander was actually depicted on a very boring way?. Farrell looked at Leto with dreamy eyes (wich you knew he was badly faking) and then... they huged... and they hugged a lot through all of the movie (yet when Alexander goes straight, its all steamy and sexual). Now, were those 2 the most boring homosexuals in history or what?.

Oliver Stone must be very fascinated by homosexuality since it's his main topic of a film which should be about the greatest military srategy in history. Very sad indeed, malaka Stone.

I'm suprised no one has mentioned the issue of race in the "criticisms" section. I know for a fact that many Persians were deeply offended over the casting of Rosario Dawson, an Afro-Hispanic as Roxanne.

This site goes more into detail: http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/farrokh6.htm

Juan

Now who's confusing his races? Roxanne wasn't Farsi, she was Bactrian! 129.11.76.216 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Alexander is slightly more true to the life of Alexander the Great than The Great Dictator is to the life of Adolf Hitler. --Chr.K. 11:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change Some Things

From: ~Even prior to its release, there was controversy about the film's depiction of Alexander as bisexual - in the film, Alexander and his friend hug a lot and exchange longing looks.~

To: ~Even prior to its release, there was controversy about the film's depiction of Alexander as bisexual.~

-from Taalo

[edit] Box Office Performance and Critical Reception

I find it odd there isn't more about either of these in the article. Alexander is already in category with The Postman and Ishtar as far as legendary bombs go.

tis weird indeed. The article is a little bit too "pro Alexander", wich is actually very interesting, mainly because that means that it has a reduced number of loyal followers, considering that the movie is not a "good one" per se, one could almost say it has cult status.
It was a failure in the U.S. but quite successful worldwide. That said, the U.S. domestic failure of such a big project certainly merits more mention, along with the contrast to worldwide performance.
yes but not successful, but "successful", as it garnered bad reviews worldwide.

[edit] Death of Bucephalus

I think the sentence in the original article:

Completely contrary to primary source history, Bucephalus is killed at the Hydaspes.

is both a wrong interpretation from historical sources, and simply displaced in the discussion of a film that chose to stick to Plutarch, 61.1, or e.g. when (contrary to Wikipedia's Bucephalus) Arrian, 5 isn't sure himself what to believe, 5.19 contradicts 5.14.

If whoever wrote this means the statement by the Onesicritus of Astypalaea, who Arrian called incompetent and in other cases his account absurd (Arrian, 8), and falsely claiming he was an admiral (Arrian 6.2) – Strabo even called him the "master fabulist ... of Alexander" (Strabo, 15.28):

If such a source is believed to be trustworthy, yet dismissing the majority of authors including what Plutarch considered, or Gellius 5.2 citing Chares of Mytilene (which is primary), then Stone might as well including Onesicritus as Alexander's admiral, or shooting Colin Farrell against Amazon Queens (Plutarch, 46.1) – this would happen, if every "primary source" accounts are taken for granted,

The film might have a R. Lane Fox handwriting, but in light of the ancient authors, his reasoning that an officer's memoire would be undoubtly biased isn't that farfetched to refrain from overvaluing Onesicritus' version (Alexander the Great, Chapter 25, in the 1986 edition on p. 361, line 13):

"Buchephalas had been gravely wounded and within hours of the battle the old horse was reported dead; others, loyal to his invincibility, maintained that he had only collapsed of extreme old age."

Therefore I think the initial conclusion is wrong, and also missing the point how people are warned regarding the primary sources, whether this is Onesicritus, or Callisthenes, or Ptolemy I Soter, all of them not completely trustworthy. And then it is not that wrong for a film to prefer what Plutarch called as the version of the majority. – Ylai 11:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC) [corrected: Ylai 15:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] Ring

Does anyone know what kind of ring was given to Alexander by Hephaistion and possibly the name of the stone? (Looks like a sunstone to me, but I'm not sure).

oh its just a symbolism, thats all, the ring didnt really had anything else to go for. Usually rings mean infinity or allegiance, so in that scene Hephastion gives him a symbolic present of his love to Alexander, letting him know that he would love him forever despite the fact that he married Roxana (or something much around those lines).


[edit] Game

How come Wikipedia don't have an article - or at lease some information - about the game based upon this movie? --apoltix 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ive read some reviews about the game, and aparently in the game you commanded an already made army in Alexander's most famous battles. So far so good, except that the game is boring and easy, accorindg to what i read, all that was needed for the win was to attack-move with all the troops, thus, battles required no micro-management whatsoever.
The game is as boring as the movie's boring parts. However if you're looking for a more action packed game and a challenge based on Alexander's conquests, better get the 2006 expansion pack Rome: Total War Alexander. In fact, GameSpot said that in this expansion,"This latest, download-only addition to The Creative Assembly's long-running series of historic epics is so spectacularly difficult that even the legendary Macedonian conqueror would have a rough go of subduing those pesky Persians. The game provides an illuminating lesson on just how tough of a task the monarch set for himself when he journeyed out to conquer the known world in 335 BC, and it's a splash of cold Grecian wine in the face of Total War-series veterans who think they've done it all."InGenX 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Historical criticism of apparent neanderthals in the film

I've read multiple articles criticle of Alexander because one scene depicted Neanderthals living somewhere in Southeast Asia and how that would be impossible. Include this?

Well, the movie takes place in south-west Asia, not southeast Asia. The Neanderthal theory comes from Mary Renault in The Nature of Alexander. She - and others - have also said that the Centaurs of Greek Mythology were really Neanderthals. Das Baz 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] River should have been Alexander

River Phoenix would have been the perfect Alexander. In face, body, mind and spirit he was ideal for the part. He would have been much better for it than Colin, or Richard, or Leonardo, or anybody. Alas, it never happened, unless they make movies in Heaven. Das Baz 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Movie

This movie in my honest opinion is the most underrated movie of all time. It's one of my favorite movies. I think many people that hated the movie (especially from America) are to homophobic for their own good. It wasn't perfect but if you say this movie was horrible or one of the worst films, in my opinion it is because you were nitpicking at the little bit that you didn't like. That's my opinion. Zachorious 08:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

im not homophobic, and i like the movie a lot actually... but its a bad movie, Stone mixes sappy soap opera acting with battles, and an overall message that doesnt really fit well with the story (plus, someone didnt passed symbolism 101). In my opinnion its a movie to watch, but its probably the most boring epic picture in year, you actually gotta know your Alexander to understand anything that happends on the screen.

I have a real problem versus the 'films critics' about Alexander. My answer could be something like this: 'OK, and you how do wuold made it'?

I have watched this movie just at home (with the huge handicap to not have the big screen of the cinema) and even with this handicap, i have enjoyed it. It's a complicated movie, and even if i have at the first not been really impressed, re-wathicing x-times the 2 DVDs of Alexander i have started to respect and like it really very much. In other words. it's perhaps a movie that cannot be deeply appreciated by all, and often not in a single time.Make a movie with over 20 characters, with a lot of situations, dialogue, battle, is a great problem to solve.

But: to make a film on historical person is never easy. I look to a lot of other 'historical movie', and i really fail to see another movie so full of history like Alexander is.

Now we must consider, that a movie isn't a documentary. The cinema don't work on that manner. And given the immense work needed to adapt a life like Alexander in a movie, how hell one could expects to see 'all the true, and only the true'?.

Stone wasn't 100% on the story? Yes, already heard XXX times. Cinema is working differently. If Stone had realized a trilogy of Alexander, now we could have seen also the battle of Isso, Egypt and so on. Matrix, Lord of Rings, Star wars had have it. But if you cannot have enough money to put Alexander in several films it's un-pratical.

As for the history, yes there are several changes respect to the original history, and so? Bravehart, The Gladiator, The Last Samurai also did this. We must understund that this is the cinema way to show the reality. Don't like hte plot, the movie, the bi-sexuality looked in the film? Your problems. Few days ago i whatched a movie of Ceasar and the Gaul conquering. It was a famous movie in it's days. Compared to Alexander it's just rubbish in every sense.

Alexander is, in my opinion, and despite the 'defects' and 'teh historical inaccurancies' , the most accurated historical movie ever made, perhaps toghever with Tora-tora-tora.

But wait, when guys like Tarantino made their movie they are so genius that nobody shouldn't criticize them, right? --S.M.

[edit] It sickens me

to think that this movie says that Alexander the Great, was in a love relationship with Hephaistion, and that he is greek. Greece didn't exist back then. They just want to change history to their liking, even saying the Aristotle was greek, he was macedonian.

And don't tell, "your speaking gibberish", 'cause any Macedonian will tell you THE real story.

Pece Kocovski 03:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What upsets u the most? that he had an affair with Hephaistion or that he was Greek? lol Hectorian 03:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

HE was never a greek, he was a Macedonian. Pece Kocovski 03:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, i know... he was a Greek Macedonian... Hectorian 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/e/Talk%7EAlexander_%28film%29_e1cd.html"