Which Alexander the Great pic would you rather see?

Started by Satcho9, January 18, 2003, 03:42:02 PM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User actions

©brad

#75
August 09, 2003, 08:21:29 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: Baz LurhmanIt's very hard to manifest humanity in a character that's an icon

I hope that means he's going to be tough on Alexander. I just don't want a Braveheart-esque glorification.

me too.

good news on stone's casting. the beautiful rosario dawson joining up. and jared leto now, makes for quite the intriguing cast.

modage

#76
October 27, 2003, 10:00:29 AM
bad news for Baz's Alexander Project...

Alexander: The quiet burial of Baz Luhrmann's project has begun - AICN-D indicating the film has been delayed again for at least six months to "undergo script revisions".
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

modage

#77
November 12, 2003, 11:58:39 AM
Baz Luhrmann Gives Alexander the Great Update
Source: BBCi Films Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Director Baz Luhrmann has given an update on his Alexander the Great project which will star Leonardo DiCaprio and Nicole Kidman. He says he will start filming next September, despite the fact that Oliver Stone's Untitled Alexander the Great Project is already filming.

"I think you might want to see that [Stone's film] but it's not much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine mine's going to be different," he told BBCi Films, adding, "I never do anything on anyone else's schedule and I make things when I'm ready, basically."

In the meantime he's directing what he calls "a one minute movie" and everyone else calls "a pretentious commercial" for a perfumer. It'll star Nicole Kidman.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

NEON MERCURY

#78
November 12, 2003, 12:03:01 PM
..baz=blah....

he's whack....
and his films are whack...

stone's Alexander will make Baz's look like Ishtar....

modage

#79
November 12, 2003, 12:44:30 PM
i'm probably in the minority but i'm much more excited about the Baz version.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

godardian

#80
November 12, 2003, 05:02:01 PM
I think they're both (Luhrmann and Stone) crackpots with ADD and not much inspiration. For me, the question is which film do I want to see LEAST... if I HAD to choose between Stone and Luhrmann, I'd choose Stone, but I don't think either of them are any great shakes.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

pinkerton310

#81
November 12, 2003, 05:16:00 PM
Quote from: themodernage02i'm probably in the minority but i'm much more excited about the Baz version.


I must be in the minority as well.
They say we all lose 21 grams at the exact moment of our death... everyone. The weight of a stack of nickels. The weight of a chocolate bar. The weight of a hummingbird...

Kal

#82
November 12, 2003, 10:50:37 PM
me too... but I actually want to see both movies and then Im sure we'll get some great things from both... two great directors with very different style should make two totally different movies even though the topic is the same

Ghostboy

#83
November 13, 2003, 01:03:49 AM
I just wish there was more space in between them.

I'm looking forward to Stone's more, though.

Pedro

#84
November 13, 2003, 01:31:47 AM
Stone's is my choice...

©brad

#85
November 13, 2003, 10:25:15 AM
Quote from: Pedro the WombatStone's is my choice...

:yabbse-thumbup:

Quote from: godardianI think they're both (Luhrmann and Stone) crackpots with ADD and not much inspiration. For me, the question is which film do I want to see LEAST... if I HAD to choose between Stone and Luhrmann, I'd choose Stone, but I don't think either of them are any great shakes.

:shock:

have u seen a lot of stone's work?

Jeremy Blackman

#86
November 13, 2003, 10:33:58 AM
Godardian, have you seen Romeo + Juliet?

I'm kind of looking forward to Baz's version more...

RegularKarate

#87
November 13, 2003, 01:24:48 PM
Quote from: godardianI think they're both (Luhrmann and Stone) crackpots with ADD and not much inspiration. For me, the question is which film do I want to see LEAST... if I HAD to choose between Stone and Luhrmann, I'd choose Stone, but I don't think either of them are any great shakes.

Gordardian... for once, you and I are in total agreement.

Except that if I had to choose between the two I would choose Luhrmann just because he's not quite stale yet.

godardian

#88
November 13, 2003, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanGodardian, have you seen Romeo + Juliet?

I'm kind of looking forward to Baz's version more...

I have, and I didn't like it (though I never complain too loudly about a chance to see Paul Rudd on screen...)

I haven't seen Strictly Ballroom, but I'm not really inclined to, now. I hate to say it, but I liked Chicago much better than Moulin Rouge, which I found both much too full of its own pounding postmodernism, and awfully empty and harried for something that obviously wanted very badly to be beautiful. Hint to Luhrmann: No need to spend millions on gorgeous sets when you're just going to rollercoaster your camera recklessly through them and barely let us see them. I prefer him to the detested Guy Ritchie, but they both suffer from the same thing: They have a surplus of energy, but no real eye.

Cbrad- I have seen quite a bit of Stone's work. I appreciate the earlier stuff a lot more, and there's a lot of technical proficiency in the later, razzle-dazzley stuff (esp. Natural Born Killers, but again, there's this hamster-wheel frenzy to much of it, which makes it seem pointless if it wasn't already. At his best, he does pretty well at a sort of melodramatic, Samuel Fuller-esque, overripe hyper-movieness, but when it comes to that, I can always just go to Stone mentor Brian de Palma, who does it even better and is more fun. I certainly don't think Stone is capable of the profound political statements he seems to think he is, though I'm sure I agree with him on much to do with the political.

Apart from their work, both Stone and Luhrmann have personalities I could do without.

Anyway, give me Full Metal Jacket before Platoon, and give me Chicago (or better yet, the wonderful Cabaret) before you give me Moulin Rouge. [/i]
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

©brad

#89
November 13, 2003, 09:04:43 PM
JFK? Nixon? have u seen those?
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User actions