Cimarron29414

There is no doubt that the quality of motion pictures has declined steadily over the years. I feel as if a major contributor to this decline is the fee charged by good-looking, mediocre actors coupled with Hollywood's desire to continue to hire them. The $30M overpayment could be applied towards better writers, better post-production editing, and talented unknowns.

One genre that seems to feel the pains the most is the Epic genre. Based on the huge budgets, exotic filming locations, I feel as if epics should just naturally be films worth seeing. However, their quality seems to be declining at a steadier rate than other genres. Perhaps, it's because our expectations are so high?

Examples:

Gladiator - nothing more than Russell Crowe in a loin cloth. Best Actor - indeed. Phoenix's scenes were the only things worth watching.
Troy - nothing more than Brad Pitt in a loin cloth. The story was pathetic and unbelievable. How many close-ups of Brad Pitt posing can you have in a film? That would make a good drinking game: drink every time BP looks pensive.
Alexander - nothing more than Colin Farrell in a toga. This film was so disconnected, I almost quit watching it. It was like a series of really bad, short stories.
Kingdom of Heaven - while this was not terrible, it was hardly something to add to the DVD collection. Just an average film.

What do these all have in common - they are completely dependent on the leading actor's chiseled physique to attract viewers. Again, overpaid actors stumbling through a poorly written film while marketing firms bet on "Name Recognition" moviegoers.

So, what do you think are the ingredients of a good epic? Do you think the current "epics" meet your criteria? What are some of the best epics ever made?

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Siege

I beg to differ about Gladiator. I think it deserves more credit than you give it. Although they introduced weapons that they didn't actually have (they didn't have crossbows back then!) it was still relatively accurate.

The others you mention though, were inferior when compared to Gladiator. So at the very least, Gladiator is the King of Crap.

__________________
"Your name's Geek? Do you know the origin of the term? A geek is someone who bites the heads off chickens at a circus. I would never let you suck my dick with a name like Geek"

--Kevin Smith

This part just makes my posts easier to find

Willravel

As far as I'm concerned music is a huge contributing factor in an epic that is usually overlooked. While Gladiator wasn't the epics of yore, the soundtrack (Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard) was truely amazing, bringing me back to Lawrence of Arabia and such great epics. BTW, the music in Alexander, Troy, and Kingdom were terrible.

Look at 2001: A space Odyssey for example (I consider it a good example of an epic). That movie would have been a lot less impressive had it not been for Kubrick choosing such a beautiful soundtrack. Shindlers List also couldn't have possibly been as powerful without the brilliant John Williams as the composer.

I have to disagree that Epics are gone, though. Dune (2001) was one of the best miniseries I've ever seen. And what about The Lord of the Rings? Those movies were spectacular. Did you see Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith? That was classic Star Wars through and through. I loved Jet Li in "Hero" (who knew he could act?).

Dragonknight

I have to agree with Siege on Gladiator. I enjoyed that movie immensely.

Ahh the exact movies that I had in mind. The Lord of the Rings was very well put together in my mind. I enjoyed every one.

portwineboy

I think LoTR was pretty fucking epic.

I too enjoyed Gladiator but probably because I'm a Roman history geek and it was pretty neat, if not entirely historically accurate. That being said, I also own (on DVD) Spartacus for similar reasons.

__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.

Cimarron29414

I couldn't agree more with all of you about LoTR. It was an Epic and it was fantastic.

I guess my list was more "historical fiction epics"? I'm sticking to my guns on Gladiator. The story fell so short of it's potential. There were elements that were good, but I'm talking about films that will stand the test of time. Gladiator will not be used as an example of good modern epics in film classes. LoTR will.

I would like to see an epic made regarding the Napoleonic wars. Imagine the different lands he conquered. The potential is there for a great film. Tom Cruise could play Napoleon - he's the right height.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Willravel

I was thinking Danny DiVeto for Napoleon. I think it'd do well as a musical.

We need someone to deport Oliver Stone and do a REAL Alexander the Great epic. That story is just dripping with potential for greatness. Maybe someone other than a white guy can be in an epic, too.

Shadefire

Well, now that we have finished the LoTR, we can sit back and watch The Cronicles of Narnia unfold before us.

__________________
I was covered in blood, but it wasn't mine, so it was okay. - Anita Blake

Suave

I loved Gladiator, so right off the bat I think you are insane.

I do agree that Troy sucked balls, and Kingdom of Heaven was booooooooooring (plus Orlando Bloom is not the kind of guy who can carry a movie; I wish Liam Neeson had been the main character).

Don't the Lord of the Rings movies count as epics? They were all pretty damn good (progressively so).

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

Catmandu

I'm not exactly sure how to define 'epic' these days. I used to think it had to do with the scale of the project, the number of people involved, etc. Films like Lawrence Of Arabia, Spartacus, and El Cid, come to mind. Nowadays, with the increased reliance on CGI (which in my mind is still so obvious it ruins almost any film), that definition doesn't hold up. It's so much easier to make a 'big' movie today.

I'm one of the few people on the planet who hated the LOR films. I loved Gladiator. Troy would have been better if they'd just cast it correctly. How about Dances With Wolves? Maybe epics are more defined as 'artistic visions' than anything else. Don't most of these films fall under the category of 'movies the directors have waited their whole lives to make?'

Cimarron29414

Okay, so here is my beef with Gladiator. Crowe's portrayal lacked depth, creativity, passion. Any one of the Hollywood pretty boys could have played that part just as well. Now, I am no George Clooney fan, but his acting in O' Brother was incredible!That part was so out of his box and required so much skill that he overwhelmingly deserved the Oscar over "Crowe in a loin cloth." O' Brother was released the same year. Clooney won the SAG Best Actor award for it.

So, I've confessed. I simply can't forgive Hollywood for this oversight, and I project this anger onto Gladiator.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Hat

I agree with the original poster. Aside from Gladiator that is, which while not a classic, is far from cookie cutter trash ala Troy, King Arthur, Kingdom of Heaven etc...although yes, O' Brother was without a doubt the better epic.

Also, LOTR gets way more credit than it deserves. It's a good trilogy, but no more. The score is woeful, the acting is hit and miss, and the interpretation of the books is suspect at times. The only thing they truly nailed was the actual look of the movie. The characters and locations certainly look incredible, and totally nail Middle Earth and its characters, as represented in the books - but then, there was already a pretty good template for this with the loads of fantasic LOTR themed art...also, with the loads of cg that was used it's going to look pretty dated in a decade or so. Hell, in parts it already looks dated - the ghosts in Return of the King were straight out of the Ghostbusters effects basket for god's sake!

Ace_O_Spades

While I could let your other points slide with respect to personal opinion... This one strikes me as odd, do you have any justification for this?

I thought they nailed the feel of the different civilizations and locations... I found the score incredibly moving.

__________________
Feh.

Hat

Any justification? If I had the score on hand I'm sure I could give further analysis, but I don't.

Xell101

I think it's more of a general failure to produce good movies. Epics only seem to be getting hit harder becuase you had three big name let downs (Star Wars) popping up in contrast to three big named successes (Lord of the Rings) with epics of varying quality cropping up throughout, none of which are better than okay.

sailor

I think you could consider the TNT miniseries "Into the West" an epic--and I thought it was pretty good.

But yeah, I think the problem is more just a general disability to make good movies, not just epics. That and an overreliance on computer technology. It has its places--witness the massive fights in LOTR--but is all too often used where it has no place, just to take your attention away from the fact that the rest of the movie sucks.

__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato

Charlatan

I really hate this, "Blame the actors who make 30 million a picture" nonsense. Like it's their fault.

Hey! Guess what... the studios don't have to hire them. You know why they do? Because people pay money to see them. If people didn't go to see films with Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson in the numbers they do, the films would not turn a profit and these people would not get hired to make another film...

While there are a few writers and directors that a few hardcore film goers will see anything they do, these films are not making hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. It is the actors that bring in the big profits to the studios and it is the actors that can demand a fair share of that profit.

If you don't like it. Don't support it. Boycott big budget films in favour of low budget films.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

stevie667

lol!

If you listen to the audio commentary for LOTR (so far i've listened to every commentry on every movie at least twice while playing around with my lego) it becomes, in my opinion, even more epic. All the stuff that they did to make everything seem amazing (admit it, bar any greviences with acting or music, i doubt there is anyone who didn't believe 100% they were in middle earth) and the cock ups when they didn't make me pay attention even more.

All i can say is holy fuck theres alot of detail in there. Thats one of my prerequisites of an epic. Any schmoe can and will make a movie, some may make a good one from time to time, but hardly any will have the detail to make the watcher truely believe they were in the story.

Todays movies are being watered down to meet the demands (or lack thereof) eminating from the idiot brigade.

Most movies arn't vastly humungous enough anymore either, lets see some proper conquoring, none of this namby pamby historical bullshit. Lets get knights in armour vs. trees with bazookas, or star trek on steriods vs. star wars without morning coffee, that'll be fun.


Ahem, anyway, on a more serious note, we might see another epic when The Hobbit gets made a few years down the line, all the effects of LOTR and king kong, with PJ at the helm, and some good actors (hopefully).

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Ace_O_Spades

That's interesting, because I'm seeing a girl who is going on to do her masters in music composition and she found it a spellbinding score.

difference of opinion with respect to quality of score then I guess.

__________________
Feh.

Cimarron29414

Wow, bad day?

If you notice, there are many films that are being produced that the income doesn't even cover the salaries of the actors anymore! However, I think you missed my point: an unknown actor could have played any one of those roles: RC in Gladiator, BP in Troy, OB in Kingdom of Heaven, CF in Alexander - and the quality (or lack thereof) would have been the same. While I concede that the names on the film bring in the audiences the first weekend, the overall quality of the film is what causes the hundreds of millions to be made.

I think the phenomenon of the big-salaried actors is what brings overall movie making down. It goes like this:

Director: "So, you want me to direct an epic on Troy?"
Studio: "Yep"
D: "What's my budget?"
S: "$200M, but we want the lead to be Brad Pitt."
D: "Oh, so you mean my budget is $170M?"
S: "No exactly....we want the supporting actor to be Orlando Bloom."
D: "Oh, so you mean my budget is $150M?"
S: "Ummm, we want to cast Peter O'Toole as well......"

The best actor in Troy was Eric Bana, playing Prince Hector. He was mostly unknown before that film. There were 2 other "unknowns" that could have been used for Achilles and Paris - and the savings could have been applied elsewhere.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Charlatan

No, just grumpy because, I can't afford a big name actor for my film.


You won't get any argument that better films would have been made with unknowns. In fact, you could have made great films with no cast and a much, MUCH smaller budget.

Great films that would go directly to video in the US and would have little to no distribution in the International market.

The fact is there are two types of studio pictures today... the big-budget blockbuster in the 70 to 150 million dollar range and the small budget 10 to 50 million range. Anything else (i.e. 10 million and down) are produced by independents that hope to maybe get a theatrical release and recoup their budgets.

The bigger budgets that are required by epic films have to become larger to cast the bigger named actors because they will never turn a profit without those names.

I can make you a great film that would rock your world for under 2 million. The problem is the studios will not risk the P&A (prints and advertising) money required to release that film unless it has one of two things (preferably both): cast or a money making genre (action or horror).

For example: Saw was made for very little money (less than 2 million) it had some solid A- or B actors that if they appeared on a video box customers would recognize them. Lion's Gate picked it up after it was produced and gave it a theatrical release. It did well in the cinemas but then doubled that business in dvd/video sales. Now, if Saw had have gone directly to video, it would have maybe made 1 to 2 million in video sales.

It is also a hollywood given that if you do not open strong you will not finish strong. Everything hangs on that opening weekend. Big star actors deliver this.



Again, if you don't like it... don't support it. Boycott big budget films. Don't complain about the actors making the salaries they are making, it isn't like their salaries are regulated... they earn what the market will bear.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Charlatan

It also occurs to me that the death of Epics occured a long time ago and that what we've seen recently is just a recycling of a genre...

Furthermore, one of the biggest money losers of all time was Cleopatra (starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton - very big stars in 1963). Made for 44 million in 1963 it was WAY over budget and came nowhere near to recouping.


Edit: $44million in 1963 is roughly $236million today when adjusted for inflation... you also need to remember that people paid a lot less for cinema tickets, there was no video/DVD market and television license fees were almost non-existant. Box office was where you would make you money and that was really it.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

sapiens

Initially, I thought you were arguing that Clooney would have been better in Gladiator than Crowe. That would have been a nightmare! Clooney was hilarious in O' Brother. He was great in Out of Sight. I don't think he is very good in roles that require him to be "darker". Batman and Robin (or was it Batman forever), for example. He was awful.1

I liked Crowe in Gladiator. I like Crowe in nearly everything he does (The Insider, A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander, etc). I think he's a good actor. (Though he would have been awful in Clooney's O' Brother role).
I did not like Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator - a scenery chewing performance. I have liked him in other films.

I don't think that epics are dying. There always seem to be a few a year. I also do not think that the quality of motion pictures has declined steadily over the years. So many awful movies have been made over the years. Only the decent ones survive to be seen today. This gives the perception that movies were once of higher quality.

Also, epics that I have enjoyed:

Captain Blood
Dr. Zhivago
Lawrence of Arabia
I'm sure there have been others.

Kostya

David Lean...

I just can't get over how the fuck good Lawrence of Arabia is...

Ridley Scott...

You made Blade Runner, and Alien, so I will let you live for now, but ONE more Kingdom of Heaven and you're going on The List with Lucas...

Hat

Hahaha, seriously, I was shocked to find Ridley Scott could direct such a turd.

Oh I'm sure it's technically very sound, as I'm sure Santana's guitar wankery is technically sound. Unfortunately, both sound like shit to me. Uninspired, boring shit. I should add that I don't mean any disrespect in regard to your girl's opinion, but music is such a subjective thing, and doing a masters in composition may...well let's just say that it all comes down to the question of whether or not it sounds good, and having a masters in music composition doesn't add any weight to one's opinion regarding this; perhaps if we were dicussing the merits of Beethoven in opposition to say, Mozart...

Cimarron29414

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to create a PAC against Big Actors - in most cases, big actors are that way BECAUSE of their talent and because of what they DELIVER. The group I pulled out doesn't mean that those actors aren't good, Crowe was incredible in A Beautiful Mind, Pitt was great in Fight Club, Snatch, 12 Monkeys, etc. Farrow and Bloom....the jury is still out.

If I rephrase my point, I guess it would be: Recent epics have been weak on many levels (primarily the script/plot) and it is a shame that Hollywood's approach at rectifying this seems to be hire a big actor and hope noone notices. It seems to me they should invest in improving the film at its particular weakness, rather than tacking a pretty face on the movie poster and crossing their fingers. No actor in the world could have played the Achilles or Alexander roles and made those films worthwhile - so why pay for the big guns? It's like hiring the Rock (only big, strong guy I could think of) to dig the Grand Canyon and handing him a spoon to do it.

Does that make better sense (although you still probably disagree)?

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Charlatan

I don't disagree. To me, the biggest problem in both small films and large films is a lack of script development.

I don't know how many films I have seen (and I have see many independant films in my job) that were very low budget, had no cast BUT could have been better if the script didn't suck.

Interestingly, I think both high and low budget producers seem to suffer from the rush to get into production. Some high concept, high budget films don't even have a complete script when they go into production. They piece it together as they go along.

Usually, it has more to do with scheduling and financing than anything.

• Pitt is free to shoot between these dates. If you don't shoot then you have to wait until 2007.
• Fox will give us the money to shoot now but we have to open on Memorial Day weekend

Sometimes the studios don't care. They know what kind of profit they will get back if they put a big star in the film. Even if it barely breaks even at the box-office they can still turn a profit in the ancillary markets. In this case, they are looking a lines on a spreadsheet and it has little to do with creativity.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Cimarron29414

You are definitely spot on regarding scheduling. Did you see the Oscars last year and Chris Rock's statement regarding this: (paraphrasing)

"If you are shooting a movie, you want Russell Crowe and he isn't available - you don't go get Jude Law. You wait til you can get Russell Crowe!"

It's only funny because it's true. I am sure Hollywood took the hint.

I used to have a link to a web site that showed the total amount any film had grossed since its release. It included the "to video/DVD" sales. I wish I still had it. That was an interesting site.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Charlatan

I know when I am making a film, we make a list of actors for various roles. We put them in order of perference and work through the list until someone agrees to make the film.

I am going through this right now and it sucks. Each actor brings something different to a role and can change the tone an meaning of a film entirely... not to mention their value in terms of their box office or video sales draw.

Just imagine any role writen for a woman in her late 20s. Think about each one of these women in that role and you will see what I mean.
Elisha Cuthbert
Eliza Dushku
Maggie Gyllenhaall
Heather Graham
Laura Prepon
Claire Danes
Mena Suvari
Jill Hennessey
Amanda Peet
Michele Monaghan
Rose McGowan

Casting really is everything. Your actor is your film (when it comes down to it). It's one of the reasons they get paid so much.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Cimarron29414

I'm sorry. Halfway through that list, all of my blood rushed from my head to my lap. What was the question?


A good actor can make a good script. But a good actor can't save a bad script, right? Allow me to enter into evidence:

Academy Award Winner Halle Berry in Catwoman
or
Future Oscar Winner Tom Hanks in Joe vs. the Volcano (In my opinion, the worst major motion picture ever made)

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Willravel

This is a disease that the whole entertainment (agruabally the entire commercial industry) is dying from. Marketing is basically in charge. Now, I am partially in marketing (as VP of the company, I oversee the marketing division), but I know that they are also inside of their own little marketing world that doesn't take into acocunt things like loyalty to consumers and buisness ethics, consistancy or originality. If you let marketing run your company, you lose your soul (see MTV). When great pictures do make their way through (recently "Goodnight and Good Luck"), it usually has to have massive backing from fans/consumers, or massive pushing and politisizing from actors/producers/directors/etc, or a combination of the two. Making money the sole reason for buisness is symptomatic of a rotting buisness.

ShaniFaye

Ok, now that I have seen all three of the one mentioned in the OP, I can say Kingdom of Heaven is the only one that kept me awake, I've tried and tried to watch Gladiator and Troy and I've yet to see either one in one sitting because I fall asleep. I enjoyed the cast they put together for KoH, ( cept for Orlando, I cant stand him) BUT it had Liam Neeson, David Thelwis, Brendan Gleeson and Jeremy Irons....all of whom I love dearly. The only thing that saved the beginning for me was Liam I really didnt get into it until King Baldwin died and Guy became king.

Question though.....wouldnt Braveheart be considered an epic? (its described that way in all the film descriptions, but I didnt know if it fit the criteria for this thread) That one gets my vote for my favorite, no way I can fall asleep during that one hehehehe and the score was awesome, I actually listen to that one at work and the casting was awesome as well.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Coppertop

It may not be quite Hollywood, but I'd say the Band of Brothers series is pretty fucking epic.

Kingdom of Heaven an ok movie? Ugh. Even my girfriend, who loves Orlando and could stare at him all day long, had trouble keeping interest in that movie.

I cannot believe I never noticed the crossbow(s) in Gladiator - I am so fired. I guess I was too busy looking for stirrups (don't remember seeing any).

Siege

Haha, I remember seeing the crossbow and thinking "woh, what the hell? They had those?" A little googling revealed, that no, they did not.

__________________
"Your name's Geek? Do you know the origin of the term? A geek is someone who bites the heads off chickens at a circus. I would never let you suck my dick with a name like Geek"

--Kevin Smith

This part just makes my posts easier to find

Justsomeguy

Gladiator was a very good film. Especially for 2000 in my opinion. Ridley Scott is amazing in most of his pieces. You can always count on him to actually tell a story with his similar pieces. I think that is why you have to appreciate Gladiator and even Kingdom of Heaven on a certain level. Most movies dump you into the action and you see one perspective with no alternative intepretation. I have no problem with this. Some movies are supposed to just be fun. Those two films, however, are not.

Wanted to add that Troy was very uninspiring to me. It really didn't do anything more than made for tv movies other than throw in big name actors. Alexander was a shitfest with broken transitions. It seems like everything Colin Farrell touches immediately turns to shit. I feel the same about Oliver Stone.

Willravel

I was glued to the screen from start to finish durring KOH. I really loved that movie. Edward Norton was particularly brilliant.

stevie667

Where abouts were these crossbows? I don't have the movie to hand, and i can't remember anything beyond general details.

Were they handheld or mounted on bases? If they were hand held dealys, then stupid movie-makers, if they were mounted on frames, those are called balistas, and were used by the romans.

*tries to find the damned movie to see for himself*

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Siege

I believe it is when Russell Crowe manages to rally all the other gladiators to work as a team. One of the guys that decides not to join the team (or the team was made at that point) gets shot by a crossbow.

I'm almost done finals (tommorow at 4pm to be exact) so I won't be able to check the movie until tommorow night.

__________________
"Your name's Geek? Do you know the origin of the term? A geek is someone who bites the heads off chickens at a circus. I would never let you suck my dick with a name like Geek"

--Kevin Smith

This part just makes my posts easier to find

Lasereth

I have to agree that Gladiator is waaaay overrated. Everyone likes seeing Crowe go through painful scenes where he gives the Russell Crowe-Look® and automatically think it's a great movie. In between the fight scenes, the movie played incredibly slowly and awkwardly boring. I did love those fight scenes though.

I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven, but I heard it was severely underrated. I still wanna see it.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

Willravel

You can borrow my copy the next time you're near San Francisco (that's right I liked the movie so much I BOUGHT IT!!!).