I stood and clapped with a tear in my eye when Josephine proclaimed "I am a chick and I am gay and lame".

@leargamma4912

7 ай бұрын

When did this happen

@davidking6242

7 ай бұрын

@@leargamma49121:32:13 an iconic moment

@fosphor8920

7 ай бұрын

@@leargamma4912 When she had Napoleon beg I think

@a_lost_one

7 ай бұрын

Stunning, and brave! 🥲

@MAGAMAN

7 ай бұрын

@@leargamma4912 It was right after Napolean said "It's just a Pronoun, it's not a big deal".

The scene where Josephine twerked on the Pyramids, whilst Napoleon glued himself to the Rosetta Stone in protest against the British cutting down trees for their boats, was true cinema.

@leargamma4912

7 ай бұрын

I don't remember that

@davidking6242

7 ай бұрын

Truly one of the scenes!

@scottf5791

7 ай бұрын

Iconic moment in cinema 😭

@Zamkat013

7 ай бұрын

😂

Doing NAPOLEON and blaming it on people wanting to see war and tactics is like making a movie about THYSON and not adressing he "also" was a boxer...

@sivad1025

7 ай бұрын

In fairness to this guy, he's in a tough spot since he has to stick up for the movie even though he couldn't do anything about the script problems

@antraxxslingshots

7 ай бұрын

@@sivad1025 Absolutely true, it was however only a jap at defending it this way. Just say: It was not my part to deal with, i agree, or i don't, i was only there for x,y.

@DannyB1689

7 ай бұрын

@@sivad1025if he wants to keep his job for sure!

Budget and time constraints don't really answer why Napoleon was made to look like a petulant child. Phoniex's rendition was so ridiculous it almost came off as a slapstick caricature at times.

@dragonknightleader1

7 ай бұрын

And that definitely has to be the director's fault because Phoenix publicly made it clear he didn't know what his character was doing. Which tells me that he was getting ahead of the criticism of his inconsistent characterization.

I do understand Paul's point that this isn't really aiming to be a war movie, and of course not every movie has to be for everyone. But if it's supposed to be a story about a relationship between two people then it's subjects are really poorly chosen. Napoleon probably did love her, but Josephine was a widowed dilettante who pursued affairs with many high profile men before Napoleon. Historians have suggested that her previous sugar daddy, Vicomte de Barras, who was the president of the French parliament, nudged her to pursue Napoleon because she was too expensive for him. In any case, within months of their wedding Josephine was having other affairs, and Napoleon had one of his own during his time in Egypt. After that, Napoleon wanted an heir, since he was up for being king, but Josephine was in her late 30s when they married, and 40 by the time Napoleon become emperor. There is also absolutely no evidence that Josephine had any impact on Napoleon's life as a general, or political leader. She was not overtly political. And she had risen as high as she ever could hope, being empress of a global power, so she wasn't a schemer. So what is the relationship here? Napoleon spent as much time as possible away from France, winning battles. They wrote to each other, but that's it. It would have been a nice element to have Napoleon's love life quietly in the background of a proper biopic. It would create nice narrative structure if the movie is narrated by Napoleon in his letters to Josephine, which could hint at his mood and how he perceived his campaigns. But to make it a movie just about a relationship? It would have been better to make a movie about Alexander the Great and his horse.

@kingleech16

7 ай бұрын

Hooray for Bucephalus!

@Not_Bored_Enough

7 ай бұрын

WHAT?!?! She had an incredible impact on his life. We have hundreds of letters from him detailing this. He considered her one of the rays in his star of destiny and a major part of his larger plans

@fosphor8920

7 ай бұрын

@@Not_Bored_Enough Then call the movie "Napoleon and Josephine" or something so we don't get confused and can safely ignore it.

@Not_Bored_Enough

7 ай бұрын

I wasn’t confused at all. I mean all the reviews I read about it said the same thing about it leaning heavy on the love plotline. I guess you could be mislead from the trailer. I can definitely see that.

@kingleech16

7 ай бұрын

@@Not_Bored_Enough For me it was less about confusion and more about them failing at both the relationship and grand historical sides of the film.

I see France going, "Well.............go f**k yourself Hollywood" and make their own epic Napoleon movie. Reminds me of how Soviet Russia got offended that Hollywood had the temerity to make a War and Peace film, so they made an absolutely epic adaptation of the famous Tolstoy book.

@MAGAMAN

7 ай бұрын

Isn't France mostly muslim now?

@ERICTENHAG56

5 ай бұрын

France is mostly filled with Arabs and Africans they don't give a flying f about napolean and history France they are thier to build France into ismalic hidayatullah France which they have succeeded

Ridley Scott's flippant dismissal of the historical facts of the battles alone were enough to send my alarm blaring, this Paul fellow is not being honest in his reaction to the ridiculous rendering of these battles. Austerlitz and Waterloo alone have been poured over and over for 2 centuries, we KNOW how the battles went, we know where the troops where, their officers, the intricate details of them. So for Scott to say ''were you there?'' is a kick in the balls. JUST DEPICT THE KEY PARTS OF THE BATTLES, why they happened, how they were won, don't wing it with a largely fictional ''dramatisation'. The truth is waaaaaaaaaaay more dramatic than what they produced. This is not Gladiator, Maximus was a fictional character. Napoleon is perhaps the most written about, by contemporaries and since, figures in history. The failure to grasp his character on screen with such a wealth of sources is as baffling as it is unforgivable.

@zacharymcmillan2788

7 ай бұрын

👏👏👏👍

If this movie was about a relationship, I’d doubt whomever wrote it has been in one.

If the reaction has taught us anything, it's that someone should make a film about Napoleon.

Paul said that the director cannot do whatever he wants, then he said if the director has his mind set on something no one can change it. just confess that they put a chick in it and made it very lame and move on.

@MAGAMAN

7 ай бұрын

These can both be true to an extent. If he doesn't have the budget, he doesn't have the budget. So no, he can't shoot an additional battle scene if he doesn't have the budget. But, he can make one of the woman yell "Black Girl Magic" as she fires her ar-15 at Tranny Hitler.

The scene where Napoleon finger blasted Josephine through the tent flap, whilst she exclaimed 'Vive L'Empereur!', was majestic. Pure cinema.

Paul does a solid job defending him, but Ridley shot himself in the foot when he shot back at historians who criticized the film. At the end of the day a bad film is a bad film and the director has to take the blame

@Atlas018

7 ай бұрын

Sorry no excuse for defending stupidity.

@margarinesnatcher

7 ай бұрын

Scott has been a joke ever since the mid 2000s. Going from directing Blade Runner to this has to be one of the biggest fall in history, 2049 was thankfully kept far away from him.

So let's see if I got this right. According to one of the panels name who I can't remember. We shouldn't criticize this film because it was hard. Oh I almost forgot. I'm also not allowed to criticize unless I can do better. Sort of like I can't criticize a car. Because I can't make one from scratch in my garage

@martinguerra5152

7 ай бұрын

The same arguments i heard from TLJ defenders Also he got the "people's too dumb to get it"

@darthc3rb3rus22

7 ай бұрын

Which box m8 top right bottom left. I'm intrigued 🤔

@phoenixhenson3689

7 ай бұрын

2 things #1No one make a car from scratch and #2 a person having enough knowledge ,wisdom and effort can build an equal if not superior vehicle (on their own)

@stevewhite3424

7 ай бұрын

@@phoenixhenson3689 Hardly

This is just evidence that you shouldn't try to make a movie about something that you know nothing about.

@ChristianATemple

7 ай бұрын

a quality writer would research as they go, but i'm guessin' your sentiment is directed toward shit (disney ) writers, and yeah, if they can't put in the effort, stay the cluck away ...Waititit

@DeplorableBitterClinger

7 ай бұрын

@@ChristianATemple Without at least a pretty decent level of knowledge you aren't the one who should be sitting down to write a movie about a person. It's not like it's a school assignment where you are given a topic and have to do a project.

For those disappointed with the latest Napoleon movie, might I suggest people give the Russian four-part adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's War & Peace by Sergei Bundarchuk a chance. If you truly want to see the scale and scope of 1800's battlefields brought to life then these films are an absolute must watch.

@juliendunand6409

7 ай бұрын

As a French citizen and long time admirer of Napoleon, I agree. It's still the best film available on the Napoleonic Wars. "Waterloo" is fine, although it's just the last battle. It's 2023 and there still hasn't been a great film or TV series on the man. Quite astonishing.

@kenstrumpf909

7 ай бұрын

This was shown on network TV in the US in the early 1970’s and I agree, it was terrific. I only had a black and white TV at the time. I need to seek it out .

@Doomer1984

7 ай бұрын

​@@juliendunand6409Napoleon 1909. Great film. Just not historical

@gloriaallmomd4686

7 ай бұрын

Great point, and you're correct.

@alexknox814

7 ай бұрын

Napoleon was in bill and teds first movie and commanded respect. So anyone who likes seeing Napoleon as not being a cuck start there.😮

Just a note: Devastator was one of the most complex CGI characters ever made. Optimus prime has up to to 10,000 moving parts, Devastator up to 80,000. Technical masterpiece.

It should have been a miniseries depicting Napoleon's life from his rise to power, to his fall from grace. That would have been better than the movie. 🎉

@MichalKaczorowski

7 ай бұрын

Like 2002 French miniseries? ;)

Paul's comment about men not liking it was in really bad taste. But I appreciate him being charitable to his colleagues. It sounds like Scott and the producers introduced a lot of problems that everyone else had to go along with

@MTB53850

7 ай бұрын

He also threatened to assault anyone who criticized him to his face. A real tough guy on the internet it seems. I'd like to know what he did in the military because I don't recall the actual tough guys talking like that. In summary defending his colleagues seems to be his only redeeming quality otherwise he seems to be a wanker who can't handle criticism.

If Phoenix was going to improvise, it would have been nice if he'd have spent a couple of hours before he even showed up on set to maybe read up on the real Napoleon instead of showing up and saying Hey, I don't know how to play this guy. We need to work it out. The excuses from a couple of the panelists are just amazing.

@sivad1025

7 ай бұрын

Paul is being charitable to people he worked with. There's nothing wrong with that.

@samwallaceart288

7 ай бұрын

Yeah if I was inventing dialogue for a real person, I'd read every letter they ever wrote

@stevewhite3424

7 ай бұрын

@sivad1025 He is being charitable to those he worked with while slamming everyone else. Pointing out that Scott wanted a 1000 extras and only got 500 has 0 to do with showing Bonaparte on the field of battlefield day where simply didn't happen and no amount of twisting and turning will alter that fact. Just one example. Of all the turning points in napoleon's life, josephine was the least of them. So why so much time spent on her?

Uh, I thought both genders liked 1917? I don’t remember seeing a lot of men calling it boring compared to women.

@necro4258

7 ай бұрын

yeah, paul’s punching at straw here

Always love Beau on lotus eaters, hoping he doesn't hold back.

A 2 parter... one on his rise, and one on his fall would have been awesome.

@beowulfsrevenge4369

7 ай бұрын

One movie is just too short a time to cover Napoleons entire life.

@matthewlaurence3121

7 ай бұрын

Most definitely. Two 3hr films, covering the shifting political & social climate of Western Civilisation; which will require at least some insight into the French Revolution; the establishment of the Concert of Europe with Metternich, Kaiser Franz, the antics of Tsar Alexander, and the scheming Telleyrand.

@philipebbrell2793

7 ай бұрын

One film about Josephine and the other about Boney, would have been great.

@THEOUTCASTSCREATIVE

7 ай бұрын

that was the original plan

@chasehedges6775

7 ай бұрын

@@THEOUTCASTSCREATIVE Such a shame

Paul's attitude is exactly the problem and he comes off as an apologist.

@Fedorevsky

7 ай бұрын

What do you mean comes off as? He is an apologist. It's part of his contract.

@darthc3rb3rus22

7 ай бұрын

The man's gotta work. Hey, I've got an idea. I'll go up to Ridley Scott and the higher-ups paying for the film and make ultimatums. Yeah I'm sure they'll take em under advisement while thry look for his replacement. If u mean he's trying to justify the film? He's more agreeing with the panel. The guys a military advisor, not a historian what do u expect from him. Within the first 10 minutes he told you how much stuff got cut and limitations. If you could explain your comment maybe I could understand better but it just comes off as juvenile, uninformed and may I say a bit of jealously you tell me m8. Your comment just makes no sense to me??

@timetct

7 ай бұрын

@@darthc3rb3rus22 Well common issues with large company projects are lacks of accountability and explaining away problems with vague and acceptable answers. That attitude among many people working on such projects reduces their quality. "I'm a military advisor, not a historian"->Napoleonic trench warfare. Even with what I'm sure is an iron clad non-disparage clause, some responsibility must be taken there. I was frustrated particularly with the repetition of "so much was cut" when that dodged the criticism levied. Maybe I'll revisit this one day but when someone doesn't come off as genuine in a discussion, I'm disinterested and apparently this time I was annoyed enough to say so.

@darthc3rb3rus22

7 ай бұрын

@timetct Look m8 I partially see your point with accountability and such but he's not Ridley Scott he didn't make write or edit the film and in earnest was a little bit embarrassed shall I say if you couldn't tell by his what some people may call a defensive stance. Firstly, the guys in a hotel room, which, according to his ridiculously budy schedule, I can imagine when he's not working he spends most of his time so I'm happy we got his time which apart from knowledge and wisdom are my most 3 valuable commodities in life but that's just me. I'm pretty sure the guy knew the film was a dud he's probably had it off his mates, his family, and his other industry colleagues. Is he covering for Ridley hell yeah he is. Is he covering for the movie execs hell yea he is. Wots he sposed to do put all of em on blast keep his pride and sacrifice his highly payed, well travelled job to appease all us. I wouldn't, but I was just glad we received his time and expertise and got to listen about his exercises and training drills. It's not his job to be held accountable, and to be fair, if you read between the lines with a lot of what he's saying he said the film was like a longer trailer and even agreed the action scenes were too short but he can only do so much at the end of the day its not his money. I think the reason he said the film was a love story is because after watching it myself yesterday it actually is so he's not lying. The film was missmarketed to fuck tho. The trailer was specifically made to look like to be the next gladiator I saw the trailer in the cinema months ago and thought wow that looks awesome must watch. But alas we got what we got. A contrived love story about Napoleon where ironically the only main character out of the 2 that keeps their character the same was her lol at least Josephine stayed true to her character Phoenix was all over the place happy, sad, stroppy, tearful, stoic. I was just confused by the actors portrail but that's on phoenix and I think hes a big reason for the films shortcomings this wasn't no Joker and I think it's very telling when he went to Ridley and said I don't know how to portray him. If your main star comes to you and says that he's either fallen off the wagon or you've picked the wrong main lead for your film. I take on board your criticism about trench warfare and so on but again the man's a cog in a very big machine if the execs wanted it or Ridley wanted it it was happening with or without Paul and sometimes in life we have to sacrifice our morals if we want to live to fight another day. I don't think he should take responsibility for something that someone else wanted. You saw how embarrassed ge got over the scoped rife/musket smh what a dumb idea but someone wanted it in the film he didn't he even knew when the first scoped gun/rifle was seen in action. But again we got something like the trenches it in the film I agree just dumb. I don't think you're going to please everyone whatever u do and yes I will admit I'm not sure where that transformers comment came from maybe he was tired, maybe he was pissed off and missing his family and friends, maybe he'd read 142 comments about people saying shit on social media about how easy it is to be a paratrooper and I agree for the first 20 minutes or so he did seem to be on the defence a bit but when he calmed down and relaxed I enjoyed listening to his exploits the fact that Waterloo and ice battles were filmed so quickly. I was like whoa that's quick. But respect m8 I ain't got no beef with u my brother or sister (probably a bro, but it's always best to not assume I find) I just see things from the business a money side of things probably got something to do with parents owning businesses but everyone brings a different perspective and I respect yours and even agree to a point. Anyway my bad this turned into a dissertation lol you have a gd one m8 keep safe and stay blessed.

Snowball fight, awww why didn't we see that, I know what that's referencing and it tells you so much about who he was even as a child. Also the school reenactment of the Battle of Zama and him refusing to be a Carthaginian because they lost. This stuff is why it should be an 8 part mini series

@DarthPlato

7 ай бұрын

The snowball fight at Brienne is a common story, but not an accurate one.

The Russian invasion and retreat could be a entire movie on it's own. Not saying Ridley should just pointing out as per nature of a film how little of it was really shown. And again to point out how deadly Waterloo was 40 out of every 100 men who took to the fields that day was killed.

@dragonknightleader1

7 ай бұрын

Indeed, would have been just as good as Julius Caesar. A bold, charismatic leader filled with hubris gets defeated by General Winter.

My first ever happy hour and boy I was not disappointed. Brilliant panel and fascinated by Paul Biddiss, the man's a boss, so many movies, so much work and really insightful. I could gladly listen to him talk all day. The guys a hive of information not just for his military expertise but also gave a really interesting glimpse into not only behind the film industry curtain, budgets, restraints, suggestions etc but amazing stories about his job and all the intricate details he divulges into. This show passed a lot faster than the film. I could easily watch a 4 hr extended cut of this show. Awesome effort, guys.

The brother (Lucien Bonaparte) pointing at Napoleon with his sword swearing to kill him if he betrays the Republic is not at all an improvisation, it is a very well known detail of the Coup in 1799

@samlund8543

7 ай бұрын

Lucien Bonaparte. Joseph was the one put on the throne of Spain, which led to a whole section of Napoleon’s career that was absent from the movie.

@Cancoillotteman

7 ай бұрын

@@samlund8543 thanks for the clarification, i correct the initial post :)

"if you got attention span for transformers, go see one of those" What an unfortunate response from Paul in regards to the criticism of Napoleon's dialogue, structure and historical accuracy.

@nicolaslutz1955

7 ай бұрын

Honestly the more I listen to Paul’s excuses for why the movie… the more I realized people like him are part of the problem.

@alienelephantwithtitties9422

7 ай бұрын

When does he say that?

@SolarDragon007

7 ай бұрын

Yeah that statement had Ridley Scott energy. It's just pathetic honestly, but he's likely engaging in apologetics for the film to not jeopardize his career.

@cindertoffy3013

7 ай бұрын

​@alienelephantwithtitties9422 I can only tell you it's in the first hour, but he definitely did say it. A poor choice of wording, to be honest.

@SolarDragon007

7 ай бұрын

@@cindertoffy3013 It wasn't just the wording. The sentiment itself is incredibly insecure and defensive.

Let's be honest... modern funding policies would not let a movie about Napolean be made so they had to make an over emphasis on Josephine to meet the modern "diversity" quotas, which just makes compelling historical story-telling impossible.

@R2D6_10

7 ай бұрын

@@DeReAntiqua you won't hear an argument from me.

@scottf5791

7 ай бұрын

@@DeReAntiquaare you not entertained?

@bigduke2140

7 ай бұрын

​@@DeReAntiquaRidley Scott is old and that is why he would not be listened to. But his history is undeniable, Blade Runner...critical success, Alien...box office and critical success and Gladiator...box office success. There are others but three is more than many.

Not even joking, this was the funniest movie of the year for me. Not sure if the humor was intentional but it was firing on all cylinders for me 😂

@jeffhall768

7 ай бұрын

The sniper rifle in 1812 was particularly hilarious to me lol

The telescopic lens for rife wasn't developed until about 20 years after Waterloo so it highly unlikely

@jimmyfaulkner5746

7 ай бұрын

Stop talking bs . Visit the tower of London and you can see Henry Vlll hunting rifle , with a scope on top of it . Not saying it was accurate but it did exsist 200 years prior not 20 years after

@davekenny8774

7 ай бұрын

@@jimmyfaulkner5746 do you mean his breech loading carbine in the royal armouries? cause that definitely doesn't have a telescopic sight on it and thats dated before the first modern telescopic lens were even manufactured.

@jimmyfaulkner5746

7 ай бұрын

@davekenny8774 tower of London., white tower . HenryVIII collection . It blew my mind to think he would have had one on a rifle . It's there seen it with my own lying eyes

Great to see History Bro again!

Epic History TV on YT has an excellent series of animated battles on Napoleon. I was really excited for this movie, but havent gone to see it yet. I'll probably see it at home maybe..

Woah, did Paul just insinuate that the reason guys didn’t like Napoleon is because we’re too stupid to appreciate it? Maybe your movie just wasn’t very good. You ever consider that? “Guys didn’t like 1917 because there wasn’t enough action”? Bulls**t. Every guy I know that saw 1917 said it was really good. This dude is coping hard for a movie that he probably wasn’t even very involved in

@christaberit

7 ай бұрын

People wanted more detail not more action. He really doesn’t want to understand the criticism.

@Joe45-91

7 ай бұрын

I think the point he was trying to make was that most audiences don't understand how complicated it is to make a big budget historical film. All the hands that are constantly moving money and people around. It's easy to criticize how something was missed or done wrong when watching the film because people rarely will consider a lot of the points he brought up. I don't think he at all implied your just too stupid to understand it. He wouldn't of had any say in what actors say, how it was shot, or what gets edited out. It's not his movie.

@emilyrockett1774

7 ай бұрын

​@@Joe45-91there are ways if explaining the difficulties of makong and producing a movie WITHOUT insulting and patronising your audience. Paul is definitely insecure about this movie and throwing out any excuse to protect him and precious Ridley Scott. He couldn't admit that anything in this film was awfully handled. Everything had an excuse.

@R.E.-Gato

7 ай бұрын

@@emilyrockett1774 well said

@dragonknightleader1

7 ай бұрын

@@emilyrockett1774 And even then, he's more like a hired hand organizing the men, which he did well enough. Whether they were put to good use is beyond his responsibility anyways.

Simpoléon

In light of recent entertainment regarding historical figures, we should at least praise Napoleon for doing the bare minimum of keeping him white. Minimum Effort Puppies all around!

“Napoleon movie? Throw it in the trash” - OverSimplified, probably

I’m not sure who Joaquin was playing, but it certainly wasn’t Napoleon. Maybe the roll is too big for anyone because he’s such a larger than life person, but if the movie was supposed to be about the relationship and napoleons personality they whiffed on both accounts

@uic505050

7 ай бұрын

He doesn't have much range and basically only plays a version of himself.

@Brian_Boru

7 ай бұрын

"role"

@OsFanB94

7 ай бұрын

@@Brian_Boru typed it too fast. Whoops

At this point if this guy still thinks ‘there’s no such thing as bad publicity!’ … I really don’t see how his insights are that valuable.

Its funny that a video game trailer "Napoleon: Total War" managed to capture more of the essence of a titan of history more than a 200 miliion dollar production. Paul is trying to excuse some of the criticisms of the movie amd defending Ridley Scott, but i think its fair to say that this movie could have been 10 times better had Ridley done better character work and had not tried to encompass so much of Napoleons history. I doubt even the 4 hour cut is going to be much better than this

Does anybody want to admit that Ridley Scott hasn’t made a decent movie in a long long time?

@busybillyb33

7 ай бұрын

Ridley Scott has done diddly squat for a while.

@BrbWifeYelling

7 ай бұрын

In fairness I quite enjoyed The Last Duel. It seems for every gem he releases it’s followed by a complete turd

@JoJoJoker

7 ай бұрын

The Martian was a good film. House of Gucci started off okay and then trudged to a boring, terrible conclusion.

@SumDumGy

7 ай бұрын

I think most of us have admitted that. His name no longer inspires interest for me at all.

@SumDumGy

7 ай бұрын

@@JoJoJokerI love The Martian! That was what, eight years ago? I haven’t seen one from him I’ve enjoyed since.

Brie Larson as Napoleon. Rachel Zegler as Josephine. Ke Huy Quan as Wellington.

@chasehedges6775

7 ай бұрын

PERFECT CASTING!

Who still has any expectation on Ridley Scott after Medieval metoo?

@MichalKaczorowski

7 ай бұрын

And "religion of peace" in crusade movie?

Anybody who saw Ridley Scott’s last two ‘Alien’ movies and expected Napoleon to be any good, needs their brains tested. I knew Ridley was a hack historian, the moment I saw the Sutton Hoo Helmet in Gladiator. 🤦🏻‍♂️

@leargamma4912

7 ай бұрын

I never watched much of R. Scott's films so I didn't know what to expect apart from the first alien being a classic

@looinrims

7 ай бұрын

I was only worried after that ‘get a life’ comment, he’s a jackass but I held hope just for a good movie

@UnbeltedSundew

7 ай бұрын

At one point he used to be able to make good movies, ignoring historical accuracy for a moment, I just wish he would at least still do that.

@jlev1028

7 ай бұрын

He's also a hack adapter of Biblical stories given Exodus: God's and Kings.

@GuymontagFahr451

7 ай бұрын

While I agree with your overall point, when was the Sutton Hoo helmet in Gladiator? I dont think thats actually a thing...

Next to Patton, all other forms of Ridley Scott's war endeavors shrink to insignificance...Lance comes out of the gate swinging by placing Napoleon next to the towering achievement that is Patton. Perfect start to the conversation. All of the failure points of "Napoleon" are amplified when compared to "Patton."

I have seen Patton dozens of times. No film like it. Excellent score.

@samwallaceart288

7 ай бұрын

That was an early mainstay in my household. So interesting how George started off playing the character as a caricature (really well, mind you), but midway through filming he realized how complicated the guy was and figured out the arc the movie was going for, and actually apologized to the whole crew for not taking it seriously enough at first. Like he experienced the film's intended introduction to the man himself as he was playing it. Kind of how seriously I take respect for the artform and respect for character, and what difference it can make for a film.

@wingnut4200

7 ай бұрын

@@samwallaceart288 Good point. I watch it over the holidays and will do some backup research to get a deeper understanding of your observation and add that to my mental filters. Patton just cements, on another point, the efficacy of action scenes without CGI.

10:42 man’s chatting crap cos you can easily have drama and action intertwined, Dark knight good example, LOTR trilogy so don’t know what is he talking about, Napoleon is famous for being a world class military leader and is defined by his career, his battles

Ridley's Waterloo. 🤣

Napoleon leading a cavalry charge at waterloo....aaaaaand i'm out. With apple running the show - i fear about the quality of 'Master of the air'.

@scottf5791

7 ай бұрын

Expectations are very low indeed

@MAGAMAN

7 ай бұрын

Anything from Apple is lame and gay.

Watch The Duelists instead of Napoleon; you'll be much happier.

@iroscoe

7 ай бұрын

Yes Ridley Scott does much more with much less money in that one .

mortar and covid is why the put a chick in it and made it lame?

Hard to fit Napoleon's life in a 3 hour movie. Maybe they would get better result focusing on the Russian invasion and putting a couple of flashbacks to see past events. Phoenix was a miscast. They needed someone younger. And not so gloomy. I remember liking the Armand Assange / Jaqueline Bisset tv show.

I second the idea of a miniseries. Napoleon was the most influential leader of the first half of 19th century and he deserves to have a factual introduction to the modern age. Something better than British propaganda about him being short (he was of average height).

These guys are bending over backwards to excuse Scotts crappy directing. Ridley hasn't been able to make a good film in a long time he's either too old or allowing younger worse people to do his work for him. No excuses he just sucks now

@dragonknightleader1

7 ай бұрын

I mean, he made that depressing, colorless version of Robin Hood. So of course this Napolean movie was going to suck out the romanticism of these characters.

@scottf5791

7 ай бұрын

Last good film by Scott was Black Hawk Down.

I wish someone at Apple told Ridley Scott at the start you can only have 500 extras at Waterloo. He might have walked away.

Phoenix was terrible Napoleon. He mumbled every line ( that he didnt shout) and lacked the intensity & charm Napoleon was said to posess. He was also twice his age from Toulon. There was NO scenes from Italian campaign and not a mention of Spain. Most disappointing for me was being tricked from movie trailers to think we could see 20,000 mamaluke cavalry charge the French infantry squares...instead we got two cannon shots at the pyramids(🙄) and Napoleon's brother taking a spit bath. Where the hell did Ridley SQUAT spend the $200 million?!? The film was gray boring emasculation of Napoleon.

@zacharymcmillan2788

7 ай бұрын

Probably funded by "activist" investors,who cared less about making a historically accurate film,and more about pushing "THE MESSAGE."

Hope you enjoyed the episode peeps. I really appreciate the subs, most kind of everyone.

Yes, sometimes actors improvise BUT it's directors job then to decide if that was good and fitting impro or not. You cannot shift blame to actors if there is a silly or stupid lines because there are supposed to be people like director then correcting that that was not a fitting form/line/expression, let's do it again bc it did not look/sound good. What kind of production it would be if it was actors doing creative decisions how things should be said, when they have actual director whose job it's to look at the big picture.

@samwallaceart288

7 ай бұрын

Yeah seriously, how many times you heard an actor talk about a scene they loved that got cut in editing? Omission is part of the director's job.

"Fauchi Virus Martial" is the most dystopian fucking term.

This was an extremely interesting episode. Cheers all you lads, and Merry Christmas 🤠

The "relationship" part was the crux of the problem. What a load of drivel.

@samwallaceart288

7 ай бұрын

Shame too cuz I really like her as Queen Elizabeth's sister in _The Crown_

@DeplorableBitterClinger

7 ай бұрын

@@samwallaceart288 Nothing wrong with the actress at all. It just wasn't an effective way to tell the story. Maybe it could be done, but this movie didn't manage it.

I saw this with some mates a few hours (edit) ago. To be honest... bored. Saw three people walk out before Russian campaign. To me it was like having a well produced good budget game, but rather than being allowed to play it, someone else is collecting all the cut scenes for you to watch, but randomly removing about 1 in 6 of them. Big question - how does falling through the ice cause you to bust into a blood bag? Also, any notice how the bayonets appeared, disappeared, changed design and went rubbery.

@JoshuaKevinPerry

7 ай бұрын

So it's the Starfield of films

@THEOUTCASTSCREATIVE

7 ай бұрын

6 walked out of my screening

@scottf5791

7 ай бұрын

I was one of the people that walked out

Waterloo, Tora Tora Tora, Midway, good historical battle movies, but unsuccessful at the box office. Too many characters and historical details to keep up with. But movies where you put a romance plot front and centre usually do better, like the horrible Michael Bay's Pearl Harbour.

@Joe45-91

7 ай бұрын

True

@Fedorevsky

7 ай бұрын

This is true but those great historical films that didn't do as well at the box office have historical longevity mentioned in serious film discussion for the ages and new waves of people into great movies and history still seek them out and watch them to this day. Pearl Harbour and other utter tosh of its kind never gets a mention unless making a list of worst films ever made.

@nellgwenn

7 ай бұрын

​@@FedorevskyI think Waterloo failed at the box office partly because Patton sucked all the oxygen out of the room.

My girlfriend and I both did not like it. Bit sexist to assume girls only like relationship parts and boys only like war. We both wanted some actual history. Not everyone is stuck with the mind of a 12 year old. Some of us have grown.

@JoshuaKevinPerry

7 ай бұрын

Then kick rocks

@kingleech16

7 ай бұрын

Indeed. I’ve seen plenty of good flicks without a lick of derring do or buffoonery, and I’ve still got my man card.

By the way, I want to address my disgust with Denzel Washington being casted as Hannibal Barca. Jennifer Lawrence was available, she would nail the part! Damn you misogynist Hollywood.

@chasehedges6775

7 ай бұрын

Modern 2020 Hollywood SUCKS! Plain and simple.

Paul taking a not so subtle swing at history bros legitimate criticism just makes him look like a petulant child who's trying to defend the film when he knows it's a mess.

Nolan should have done it

@Dezzasheep

7 ай бұрын

As a time bending wormhole epic.

Just watch Sharpe. Historically a load of tosh but good fun and importantly entertaining. Also Drinker, I still remember your review

@frankie3010

7 ай бұрын

Bernard Cornwell, the maker of Sharpe, is an even bigger subversive then Ridley Scott.

@gathenhielm9977

7 ай бұрын

Sharpe still kicks some major ass.

Didn't love this one, was just 2 hours of that Paul fella talking like the old boy down the pub who tries to show everyone how to kill a man with a spoon. Proof even a squadie can act like a Walt

I loved 1917. I dont need action but the trailer i saw seemed more war and history. Didnt expect it to be so heavily relationship based....which im fine. Just watched game of thrones season 1 again and band of brothers, and realised there was actually very little action, it was more about how the events were effecting the characters. Thats what we got from 1917 and thats not how this movie felt to me.

Forget what they told you at School, Napoleon was black!

Paul stop the cap bro. That movie sucked.

I like superchat part, it gave Paul a bit of inside what people really think about the movie. A sort of cold shower if you will.

A great idea for a film would be the Allied Sovereigns conference at Petworth House in 1814 or possibly the congress of Vienna.

Woefully inaccurate, with some fantastic sets, costumes and battle scenes. Some really good cinematography too, but Scott really needs a script writer to do some redrafts.

Why get a guy in who worked on the movie? He literally can't criticise the movie and has to tow the line for his career.

I love Waterloo. But - Wrist watches and bolt action rifles.. Ahh. The Soviets…

Why get military advisers and then ignore everything they say?

@yumyumeatemup

7 ай бұрын

Because the military advisers give input and then the studio have to maneuver around the facts presented to them. Be it COVID restrictions, budget cuts or lack of leadership giving a defined vision, just because a military adviser gives you the facts about a battle and how it took place historically, doesn't necessarily mean the studio can rise to meet those expectations. Paul mentioned as much in the very beginning they had a lot of restrictions placed on them and couldn't just do as they pleased.

@bauer9101

7 ай бұрын

@@yumyumeatemupsurely digging trenches at Waterloo required more money and effort though? Also scope on a rifle because of Covid?

@sivad1025

7 ай бұрын

Because Hollywood is filled with egomaniacs who don't listen to people who know what they're talking about.

Really cool guestpanel, props

Love drinkers channel. I stopped watching this when the d bag said if you criticize it you are dumb and should just watch transformers. First time a guest made me go “fuck it don’t need to hear him talk anymore.”

@darthc3rb3rus22

7 ай бұрын

Well if you did u might not be do close minded because it was actually a fascinating stream with a lot of insight. But they say ignorance is bliss. Enjoy it.

@R.E.-Gato

7 ай бұрын

Same, man. I shut off right after he made that Transformers comment. Dude was coping hard. I’ve been glad to see him get blasted in the comments

Insert kung Fu panda master shifu eye twitch GIF at the tank section. Sloped armor has been around since WWI, but comes with heavy penalties on internal volume. Germany knew the benefits, but figured around 20degrees was enough, which was expected in combat conditions, so don't bother, just focus on crew efficiency. While their approach proved highly effective (including against T-34), they had a rethink after Russia yolod a full 60 degrees. The slab side sloped front of late war was a compromise to try to get best of both worlds. You can count on one hand the number of tungsten rounds available to most tank regiments in WWII, hardened steel with soft steel anti-shatter cap and explosive filler (similar to naval shells of the day) was the German standard, and yes, they would pass right through with minimal damage if the target was too soft to arm the fuse

Borodino - yep. Napoleon went full head on. One could argue Eylau was a precursor.

My nephew was in the RHA and rode in the Roman Calvary charge at the start of Gladiator. Amusing anecdotes about the loony ponies they had to ride…

Well Drinker, I feel like the film was hard to follow a bit and that is if you are a bit of a history buff. It'd been less deceptive if they'd called it Napoleon and Josephine.

in series "Battlestations" on episode about the TIGER tank ... there are few VETERANS sharing their experience ... Sherman driver said that TIGERs round went clean thru between his legs .. nobody harmed ... kept fighting

I saw some impresive cope by Paul From "people too dumb to not like a movie without action" To blaming the actors COOOOOOOOOOPE

Has France made anything decent about Napoleon in TV or film form? You would think that would be the top of the list for their entertainment industry.

@Nasfelia

7 ай бұрын

Of course. Napoleon has been adapted on screen in France a few hundreds time. The most famous of which probably being Abel Gance's Napoleon from 1927. One of the last Epic of the silent era. It's 5h30 long though. That said, recently there hasn't been a lot of French historical movies, no. Mostly because the French cinema industry is highly corrupt and in a decline very similar to that of Hollywood, but nation-wide. Not to mention the complete control over French cinema by a state-supported leftist bourgeoisie that hates patriotism with passion, which choses what kind of movies get made or not. Any historical movies that doesn't actively explain how France is the worst country ever made and its people are the worst people on the world will not find any financial suppport, and those that manage to get through the censorship and which try to give a patriotic or even at least an objective view on some part of French history are actively slandered.

@b.chaline4394

7 ай бұрын

There was a four-part miniseries made 20 years ago on French TV, I think it's available on YT with English subtitles. It's overly condensed and simplified but still better than Scott's film, I find; it also stars an international cast and while main actor Christian Clavier leaves a bit to be desired, Isabella Rosselini, John Malkovich and Toby Stephens are excellent as Josephine, Talleyrand and Alexander I respectively! I would also recommend Monsieur N, from that same era; it focuses on Napoleon's final years on St Helena. Richard E. Grant shines as his captor Hudson Lowe ;)

@philipebbrell2793

7 ай бұрын

​@@NasfeliaThis film does have event potential and has been shown live with a full orchestra. Next time I will go.

@necro4258

7 ай бұрын

@@NasfeliaThis was illuminating, thank you.

Sounds like Ridley Scott might as well have begun: The Napoleon Cinematic Multiverse. . and the Battle of Waterloo to the music of ABBA's Eurovision song!

@erichtomanek4739

7 ай бұрын

I rolled my eyes at the explanation of "covid protocols".

@erichtomanek4739

7 ай бұрын

Ridley Scott must be taking adrenochrome.

@erichtomanek4739

7 ай бұрын

I would choose Lizzo to portray Napoleon.

They should make a series on the Simon Scarrow Napoleon-Wellington quartet of books

Ridley Scott shit the bed... and out came a Crapoleon.

I can understand being defensive if you worked on the movie but it's entirely disingenuous to say the movie was always about just Napoleon and Josephine when literally all of the trailers made it out to be about the battles and the campaigns. They sold everyone on a different idea and if they wanted to make a love story or a relationship movie just call it Napoleon and Josephine. Also people are tired of boiling down complex historical characters as a mathematical equation of their relationship and emotional and sexual politics. Napoleon did not do what he did and did not make his decisions because of his weird love affair with Josephine, and frankly she was not nearly as important as modern era tries to make out. Trying to excuse it because there was so much more of the Napoleon and Josephine dynamic that got cut isn't exactly making people want to watch it more, as that was the primary reason this movie sucked. Pointing out the budget is also a bad excuse. Top gun Maverick was made during even worse COVID restrictions with higher COVID budget costs and they got that movie out at $170 million while Napoleon ran 200 million when restrictions weren't as bad. The little nitpick things that got changed as an example given by Paul, are not the primary complaint as attempted historical accuracy is. The recent Midway movie actually did a very decent job of trying to jam in a whole bunch of stuff about that battle and was very decently good with the history. It can be done and when it's a competent guy like Ridley Scott excusing it over the nuances of horse scheduling and extras being hired is ridiculous. He doesn't like historical accuracy and he doesn't care and he said so himself. The man can make a good movie and he has a lot more say in the final cut than what this dude is going to have you believe. Stop defending him. The vapid insecurity about critiques never being said to his face just came across really sad. No one's attacking him personally for that decision or any of those decisions and no one in this conversation did. None of this is an attack on his manhood or something like that and chest pounding like a 5th grader who wants to meet you on the playground afterwards is not the answer. But he gets super mad from a computer screen as if he was responsible for it. Not exactly winning people over to your side Paul

Fantastic panel!! So much info, cool guys. Unreal amount of work going into just extras-training-musket loading and firing ... ... .... WOW great one Drinker!!!!

Whoever paul is the film is crap sorry stop crying.

Dang the drinker must be loaded. Didnt think you were allowed to have spaces that big in Scotland

1:36:45 Over penetration is a real problem in modern weapons. There is a particularly dangerous russian and chinese anti ship missle that is nearly impossible to shoot down..but its traveling so fast that in tests we have managed to get film of, it tends to punch through the entire ship and explode a quarter mile on the otherside. Weapons are created to deal with specific probblems and then defences compensate. Endless circle

"budgets" when disney throws billions into a dumpster fire... the disservice done to the world is immeasurable...

This was great 👍🏻

400 million !!! Dont give that crap him not having the money

Hi! It was very interesing interview, thank you for that! It's always interesting to learn more behind-the-scenes stuff. I had high hopes for this movie but now I think I will wait for streaming premiere. BTW, I'm not sure if my comment will be read, but since you mentioned you are watching Blue Eyed Samurai and is interested in war stories - the series was animated by French Studio Blue Spirit that also animated a 10-episode TV series Long, long Holidays in 2015. It's about WWII from perspective of kids from French countryside, every 2 episodes covering one year of war. It has charming graphic inspired by French comics, it's mature but still quite family-friendly and probably my favourite animated series of 2010s. It used to be on Netflix in English, but I'm not sure if it's avaible now. :( I HIGHLY reccomend it.

Thanks for the quick upload Drinker 🙏