Kingdom of Heaven (Ridley Scott's Crusades film)

JesterIX · Post by **JesterIX** » 20 Apr 2005, 23:53

Perhaps you would care to furnish us with an example of what is 'realistic sotrytelling' (which strikes me as being something of a non-sequiter in its own right). It is not so much about being realistic as it is being connected to the source material.

There is a huge difference between taking inspiration from exisitng historical and fictional accounts of a certain period and writing a story that is consistent with that mythos, and making the film of an existing story that totally contradicts or contravenes what is already there.

To illustrate: Last of the Mohicans, Lord of the Rings. Two movies that vere wildly away from thier source texts yet capture the feel and spirit of them. Batman and Robin, Troy, movies that are set in an existing mythos (whether or not the mythos is based in reality) and totally crap all over it.

You are talking about these fables, myths and stories as if they are drawn at random from a disparate bunch of discontinuous ramblings. Like it or not much of our history is documented, as is the evolution of certain common story threads. This create a spectrum of 'fact' which you can pitch your tale at. You can opt for the most wildly accepted middle ground and retell a story. Robin Hood seems to get a lot of this treatment. Or you can aim for one of the ends, where newer theories are coming in that bring fresh ideas to stale established 'fact'. This is what the king Arthur movie went for. In terms of storytelling it was a pretty fresh approach to a very well used tale. It lacked something in terms of delivery but the ideas were there.

So no you are not wrong in that you can hold whatever opinion you wish. But it still remains that many of these events are better documented than you seem to care to believe, and that my drawing together all the available knowledge you can create something that is new, goes against preconcieved ideas, yet is more realistic.

I am sure two long posts in a day is very poor ettiquette, and Mordib or whoever your admin is can censure me later.

J:IX

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 21 Apr 2005, 09:43

Hey,

I'm no admin here, but I'm pretty damn sure it is not bad etiquette! We welcome your contribution here and look forward to more of it!!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 21 Apr 2005, 10:02

Agreed!

It doesnt matter how long your first (or any) posts are IMO

As for Dracula, I'm pretty sure the character (the original Bram Stoker one) was inspired by a real historical figure, a 15th century Romanian prince called Prince Vlad Dracula who would impale his victims on stakes. He became known as Vlad the Impaler for that reason.

http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/Balkan/Dracula.html

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 21 Apr 2005, 14:21

Back to Kingdom of Heaven, I saw another trailer on TV the other day, it was quite short and I didnt notice any spoilers.

Also KoH has a 15 cert, according to the BBFC.

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
Feature Film
Classified 20 April, 2005 . Run Time 144m 27s

Expected to open on 06/05/2005

Advice for consumers
Concise Contains strong bloody violence

The main spoken language in this work is English.
The BBFC has placed this work in the DRAMA, HISTORICAL genre(s).

When submitted to the BBFC the work had a running time of 144m 27s.
The running time of this film was calculated from the measured length of 13000+4 ( feet + frames ).

This work was passed with no cuts made.

At the time of classification 20th Century Fox Film Co. Ltd was the distributor of this film.

Directed by Ridley Scott
Producer(s) Ridley Scott

The cast for this work includes: Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Jeremy Irons, David Thewlis, Brendan Gleeson, Marton Csokas, Liam Neeson, Ghassan Massoud, Alexander Siddig, Velibor Topic, Jon Finch, Edward Norton, Ulrich Thomsen.

A film or video, together with associated trailers may exist in several versions and all versions known to the BBFC are listed below.

JesterIX · Post by **JesterIX** » 21 Apr 2005, 16:34

Cheers guys, and good info on the movie grim. From what I know your comments on dracula are pretty accurate. Although as well all know the REAL dracula was most accurately portrayed in the Buffy TV series...

J:IX

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 21 Apr 2005, 17:54

I dont mind you coments either, make the long and interesting to read and at least it makes people stop and look.

I just find the history side strange in that certain experts in there fields totally disagree with others, for every person that thinks something is a fact, another one steps up and says no it acctually happened this way

So really there's room for everyone as I guess as we cannot go back in time, certain opinions from experts are the only way we can tell about such things, even if they contradict each other a lot.

and Kingdom of Heaven is not as long as I was expeting at all! I was expecting well over 3 hours

I was sure Ridley said it was going to be very long.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 21 Apr 2005, 23:53

Scott seems to want to tell the truth, read the last paragraph:

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=141397

Showing the Muslim vs. Christian battles in a true light. It goes on to say the film will make people hate Muslims, he can't win. If he had made it up people would have complained it's not accurate and bashes Christians. As he says it's best to tell the truth.

JesterIX wrote:I am sure two long posts in a day is very poor ettiquette, and Mordib or whoever your admin is can censure me later.

Firstly a interesting read JesterIX and secondly IMO we need more posts like yours. Keep them coming.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 22 Apr 2005, 16:10

Persoanlly I dont care in any way if its all made up or not, if it angers people, if it tells a total different story to reality, as long as its a good film.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 26 Apr 2005, 17:05

Read this over at DVD Talk.. so I'm not surprised you expected over 3 hours Romero

"Having spent five months on location, working from a 260-page screenplay (almost twice the usual length), Sir Ridley ended up with a movie of 3 hours 40 minutes. This version will survive on DVD, but for general release he cut the film to 2 hours 22 minutes."

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=420121

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 26 Apr 2005, 17:48

It is odd, but hey he will miss out on the overpowering Big Screen

I love Big FILMS ON A big SCREEN, Not at home on a small screen from a 500 line dvd

he has seriously missed the ball on this one and thats a shame, I want the version in the cinema to be the best version, but it looks like the dvd will be his prefered cut, just a shame.

But saying all that I will be in the que and seeing it as I cannot wait for it. 8) hope its not too badly cut up.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 May 2005, 17:24

Anyone see the Daily Mail review?

"Scott's worst film"

The critic slaughters it.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 May 2005, 18:28

Some of the reviews I've read say its not as good as Gladiator but still pretty good.

No I didnt see it.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 May 2005, 18:44

The thing is Romero you're in the minority. Joe public wouldn't be happy to sit through a film over 3 hours long and it would therefore lose money, for sure.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 May 2005, 18:56

Joe Public was more than happy to sit through 3 hours of LOTR and Titanic but perhaps thats the exception rather than the rule.

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 06 May 2005, 18:59

Hey, I saw this yesterday and quite enjoyed it. Why anyone would hate muslims after seeing it I'm not sure. At least not more than the French, the English and the rest of the Crusaders...

I found it to be lacking "something" (though at times the visuals were just stunning - and no, I'm not talking about the giant battles - but scenes, angles, lighting etc. etc.). And Orlando looks like a man instead of a skinny boy! Great...

I liked it ... and I will pick it up on DVD which is not something I say often these days - as I haven't both a "new" film on DVD since... er... Return of the King

. If I were rolling dice it would end up somewhere around 4 or 5 I guess. Perhaps you just need to have liking for swords, horsies and tall legends to properly enjoy it?

And Scott's worst? Worse than G.I. Jane? Than Matchstick Men? Nah I don't think so... It'll be interesting to see a 3+ hours cut of this film though, as I really didn't feel it left much out...

And I'll just say hi to Jester aswell

Great posts, and don't mind Romero too much... his tastes are on the other side of my ass (

) and he can be a pain to "talk" with... right Romero?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 May 2005, 19:36

grim_tales wrote:Joe Public was more than happy to sit through 3 hours of LOTR and Titanic but perhaps thats the exception rather than the rule.

I knew you'd say that but LOTR at least has a huge following.

gojensen wrote:And Scott's worst?

Who said that?

I've liked all the Scott films I've seen even GI Jane, even though it's flawed.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 07 May 2005, 13:13

gojensen wrote:And Scott's worst? Worse than G.I. Jane? Than Matchstick Men? Nah I don't think so... It'll be interesting to see a 3+ hours cut of this film though, as I really didn't feel it left much out...

I disagree about Matchstick Men, I thought it was quite good. G.I. Jane was definitely crap though, Demi Moore couldn't act her way out of a bloody maze.

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 08 May 2005, 10:17

I'm not saying those are "bad" but to say Kingdom of Heaven is Scott's worst movie may be wrong... somebody quoted a review earlier in this thread.

Though truth be told... I do think those two flicks are no masterpieces, and much prefer Kingdom of Heaven... then again, Kingdom has horses, knights, swords, ballistae and much fun