What went so horribly horribly wrong?

What went so horribly horribly wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iYRi-Hbi2Sg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagoas_(courtier)
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

casting a 30 year old irish man to play a teenage greek boy

It's not nearly as bad as everyone said it was. The part with drunk Val Kilmer at the party was quite intense.

nothing

>Oliver Stone

There's your problem.

>We need Brad Pitt but we just don't have the budget

It's much much worse.
Every line of dialog is a cringe fest. But more importantly the film is about nothing. Too speculative for a biography, not actiony enough for a war flick, not interesting enough for an epic. The film is about Oliver Stone not Alexander.

also a thicc african playing an indian princess

I unironically love this movie and prefer its longest cut

it seems like a fitting idea that you have a character who is both an effective warrior on the field as well as a raging idealist faggot with mommy issues as a person who is able to both conquer and unite lands and cultures to the best of his abilities. Until people got tired of his shit, at least

But they never showed how people grew tired of him. They just were once the plot needed them to.
It failed horribly in it's characterization and just went off the list

It was alright but the main problem was the heavy propaganda, trying to make antiquity looks like LGBT heaven. Homosexuality then and now being not the same at all.
>tfw no barbarian gf tho

He didn't seek out a kingdom worthy of his soul

It's been a while since I've last watched, but iirc he gave his men too little incentive to care anymore and Alexander was also antagonizing them.

In the beginning they found that shit cool and rewarding, but after a while his men got weary of all the fighting, and dealing with the new cultures. He also gave the newly conquered people too much freedom, which pissed them off even more. After a bunch more of such 'idealistic' decisions in his reign, they decided to get rid of him. Also I'm just iterating the story of the movie: I have no fucking clue about the real history about him.

Roxanne most likely looked nothing like that, though. Back then most of the Iranic nobles in central Asia still looked like Scythians aka white.

acquire speed, user

She is attested by contemporary sources as being dark skinned though.

Nothing? It's a great movie.

I've never seen anyone point out why it's bad.

Any big epic modern historic non-cucked kino though?

>inb4 games of TROY

went to see it with a buddy in theatres and it turned out to be the most homoerotic movie ever made

nothing, 10/10 film and completely in the spirit of Alexander

It wasn't the sword and sandals adventure/action epic that everyone thought and expected it was going to be. Ended up being a character study and an examination of the mythologizing and glorifying of past politicians.
It wasn't what the public or critics wanted and was met with scorn.
It's actually quite a good film.

The sex scene with the native girl turns me on every time.

That's just trash pop history. The real history of Alexander the Great is that he went from badass Macedonian warrior king to megalomaniac Persian God King sating his own ego, which pissed off his generals who were of the independent badass Greek warrior fashion, which forced Alexander to to turn back. Then he died in Babylon and his subordinates divided the empire among themselves and started fighting each other. Ptolemies, Selucids, Attalids, etc.

give me a contemporary source that would attest to that, since it doesn't make sense in context

How about the soundtrack using casio keyboard sounds?

It wouldn't have sounded out of place in one of the original MK games.

i thought it was super gay then and it's actually not that bad, they just give each other longing looks

WE

>no budget to properly represent battles
>blatant shoehorned faggotry meme

iirc one of the opening scenes is his twink bf in a transparent dress with his nipples perking against the fabric crying over him as he dies

>that scene where the guy screams as they drag him off to get raped and everyone's laughing
it wasn't that bad back then, was it?

So basically literally what happens in the movie then...

t. watched the uncut long version personally

You have shit taste then

The Iranian tribes that invaded central Asia in successive waves from around 1000BCE till around 200BCE were from the same general area as the Scythians. Both written and archaelogical evidence supports the fact that they were pretty much northern/central European in phenotype. The original Persians, and the aristocracies of places like the Indian empires, Bactria, Parthia, etc, were descendants of these steppe invaders from what is now southwestern Russia.

They're the people who called themselves "Aryans". Iran, for example, means "land of the Aryans". This is why I doubt a Bactrian noblewoman could have been dark skinned. Even today most afghans are relatively light skinned compared to other brown people, let alone back when the invasions were just a few generations earlier.

>Macedonians are Hellenic but not greek. They're slightly different from the ancient Greeks. More backwater followers of Greek culture until King Philip
>Let's display this as an Irish accent

I mean, it makes so much sense. But it just doesn't work right in execution for some reason. It's weird how you can do everything for the right reason and it still comes out wrong.

what does it matter?

>northern europeans

Sintashta and andronovo clustered with Russians, Ukrainians, and poles, and as such would have looked like eastern europeans aka slavs.

She's from Bactria, not Iran. Mostly modern day Afghanistan.

Also Scythians are hinterland savages.

>WO NIDZ FACTZ IN IZ EEZTORICALL KEENO PLEB

But Macedonians were Greek, you stupid faggot. Dorians, to be precise. Ancient Greece was populated by 4 layers of settlers - the pre-indoeuropean Pelasgians, the first IE wave of Achaeans (the lads who burned down troy), the Ionians (those who settled Asia Minor and Athenians), and Dorians (most prominent example - the Spartans). Macedonians were a branch of the Dorian Greeks who settled in the modern Greek region of Macedon. They were viewed by the more southern Greeks as semi-barbarous, but they spoke the same language as everybody else, followed the same gods and were of the same genetic stock.

The term "hellenic" only describes what came after the conquest of Persia by Alexander. It was less of a conquest and more of a coup d'etat of the Persian empire, so naturally a lot of the features from the subjugated cultures came to influence the Diadochoi - successor states. Those were Hellenic because they were ruled by Greeks, but were populated mostly by non-Greeks, and utilized social and cultural structures from the prior occupants.

TL;DR: Macedon was Greek, but the Diadochi were hellenic.

>blatant shoehorned faggotry meme
There was also the not so subtle message that Alexander was kind of trying to make that sweet multicultural heaven way before our actual paradise.

The current population of southwestern Russia has heavy Turkic and Mongolic admixtures that were not there 2500 years ago. Even then, you will find a lot of stereotypical """Aryan""" looking people in slavistan
>the Bactrians were not Iranic because Bactria is not Iran
>the Goths were not Germanic because they never stepped foot in modern day Germany
Are you illiterate? As I said in , the Iranic tribes originate from roughly southwestern Russia.

>They were viewed by the more southern Greeks as semi-barbarous, but they spoke the same language as everybody else, followed the same gods
Which is why I said they were Hellenic

>and were of the same genetic stock.
Oh god this is some stupid WE thing for you, isn't it?

>The term "hellenic" only describes what came after the conquest of Persia by Alexander
The Greek city states never thought of themselves as a unified people or ethnicity. But they did have a concept of people following Greek culture vs. Persians. Hellenes. Or any other word for it you like.

The Macedonians were particular outsiders. Every account I've ever read of Alexander's time makes not of this. They're like Trojans. Greekish, but definitely not mainline.

Could you tell us what are for you the less shitty historical movies, from a realism point of view?

Roxanne was not a nigger. She could have been modern afghan looking at the very worst. I'm only discussing this because someone said historical sources attest to her being dark skinned, and I don't think it's very plausible.

west Asia was the white man's playground back in 320s BCE

Alexander is about the most accurate historical movie I've ever seen. Nothing before the modern era comes even remotely close.
>Which is why I said they were Hellenic
But that's not the correct term. Hellenic is for the hellenized cultures that were influenced by Greece, whereas Macedon was GREEK. Rome and the Seleucid Empire were Hellenic, Sparta and Macedon were Greek.
>Oh god this is some stupid WE thing for you, isn't it?
I'm about as far removed from this geographical region as one can be in Europe.
>The Greek city states never thought of themselves as a unified people or ethnicity. But they did have a concept of people following Greek culture vs. Persians. Hellenes. Or any other word for it you like.
They could definitely tell the difference between a Greek and a non-Greek, just as folks in medieval Europe could tell the difference between a German and an Italian.
>The Macedonians were particular outsiders. Every account I've ever read of Alexander's time makes not of this. They're like Trojans. Greekish, but definitely not mainline.
They were ancient Greece's version of rednecks or wiggers. The rest of Greece viewed them as brutish, primitive and rural, but they were still Greek as opposed to the Thracians and Illyrians whom they constantly fought.

>bce

oh no no NO NO

>rome
>hellenic
Can't wait to see how this discussion goes.

it's honestly quite good given what a difficult task it is to create just one film based on all of alexander's life

youtube.com/watch?v=iYRi-Hbi2Sg
the battles were good but they should've been longer

yeah they totally came up with the hoplite concept on their own

Oh, and their aristocracy just HAPPENED to use Greek as their language of communication, completely by accident. Rome was definitely heavily hellenized, even if it wasn't outright Hellenic. All that is besides the point, though, considering the fact that Macedon was simply Greek.

You got a problem with that, Seamus?

No they weren't, retard. Rome was founded long before Hellenic was even a thing, by what were probably Greeks, but they were absolutely not Hellenic.

"Common Era" is revisionist Jew garbage.

>thread derailed by historyfags

The soundtrack is 10/10 just like everything else Vangelis has done.

Rome was heavily influenced by the Greek world. The Roman army adopted Greek tactics, the Roman aristocracy spoke Greek. They were not a successor state but they definitely fell under the hellenization umbrella.

Again, this is a tangent. Macedon was an original Greek state, not a Hellenic state like TSE, Ptolemy Egypt, Bactria or Pontus.

nothing.

amazing movie, totally underrated

As far as I am concerned it makes no difference. I just typed it out of habit, since most of the internet gets triggered by the obverse.

it was christcuckery that allowed the jew to get to where he is today

Colin Ferrell has been the star of zero good movies.
He's been a supporting actor in like 3 or 4 good movies tops.

>Not being in Chronological order

Nigger, the Hellenic period starts with the death of Alexander and includes only the successor states. The Roman Republic was a thing 200 years before Alexander and the Hellenic period. True history of Rome isn't understood, because it's considered legendary, and while Romulus was reportedly an ancestor of some legendary Trojan Prince, they were most likely Greek. I'm not even disputing that Rome wasn't influenced by Greek culture, but they were simply not Hellenic. They were far removed from Greek culture by that point and considered there own.

>weeb faggot is sad there is historic talks for a historic flick
So sad.

>thread about Oliver Stone's Alexander
>derailed by history
fuck off, use the "hide thread" feature if this upsets you so much

>Colin Ferrell has been the star of zero good movies
kys

>zero evidence that Alexander was gay/bi
>ehhh lets make him and Hephaestion gay for each other anyways

>zero evidence that Alexander was gay/bi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagoas_(courtier)

Ancient Greece had prison rules. At least by 4th century BC(E)look seamus,
happy now?

What's this kike's problem with the Irish?

kys retard

Just want to point out that you're both retarded and arguing semantics, and that Hellenization isn't a term restricted exclusively to the Hellenistic period, and also that "Hellenized" can refer to the Greeks themselves, starting with the Pelasgians.

All of this is moot anyway, because the Latins were tribes of Italy that later conquered and united the Roman world, so even if some ancient Romans were Greek, they weren't Greek anymore.

So that's your argument? I'm disappointed, kid
It doesn't make any sense to call the Macedonians less Greek than, say, Thessalians, Aetolians or Spartans. They were a borderland people, yes, but they were still well within the group that we could now consider the Ancient Greeks.

>talks that have very little to do with the content of the film but rather the equivalent of "BUT MUH COMICS!"
>good

Macedonians were Greek. Anyone saying otherwise is a fucking retard and memeing for the sake of trolling.

Nobody's saying that Romans were Greek (they weren't), but that they were heavily influenced by Greek civilization. Rome became the driver of culture in its own right later on, but in the 6th-4th centuries BCE it was a minor central Italian city state emulating the Greeks wherever it could. Sort of like France became the core of western civilization after a long time of absorbing ideas from Rome.

It's not a question if they were Greek or not, it's a question of if they were influenced by Greek culture, which is a clear "yes". Even after Rome took control of Greece (and most of the Greek world for that matter) they still used Greek as their 'lingua franca" until well into the Imperial period, as well as most Patricians going to school in Greece.

Yeah, I've said that like a dozen times in this thread. Well there is a lot of misinformation floating around. Consider the general population of this site and this board in particular. They might prove a little slow sometimes.

If you are the same retard saying Rome was Hellenic, then
>Nobody's saying that Romans were Greek
is absolutely wrong.
They spoke Latin, you dumb fuck.

The Greeks didn't even consider the Macedons true greeks.
It makes perfect sense to call them less Greek, because they came from a fuckin backwater compared to true Greeks.
They orbited the Greek world but to put them in the same classification as Aetolians or Ionians is delusion.

hivemind lel

nice to meet a fellow patrician among the dregs

>They spoke Latin
No shit kid, its also an undeniable fact that the Patricians, as well as most non-Latins, for the first several centuries of the Republic and early Empire, spoke Greek either as their primary or Academic language.

What is this? Conan the Barbarian?

>wikipedia
lol

What the fuck are you even arguing? That conquered lands spoke the language before they were conquered? Well, no fucking shit sherlock. Just like Roman Egypt no doubt mostly spoke Egyptian. The Roman Kingdom was Old Latin. The Roman Republic was Latin. The Roman Empire was Latin.

Saka king

They were definitely a backwater, but they were still fucking greeks you dense cunt. They spoke greek, were culturally greek and most importantly, were GENETICALLY greek. The only thing that set them apart from other Greeks was their more rural nature which led to city state snobs to think them as inferior. But they clearly had no problem working together against the rest of the world under Alexander.

The literate (so essentially - Athenian) view of Macedon was more like how somebody in New York might view Kentucky.

As they are conquering one world after the next, the movie depicts these events as a fraternity crashing house party after house party

You clearly didn't know about Bagoas so I gave you introductory rundown material. Nobody's asking you to take it on faith, the page lists its sources at the bottom.

Fucking teenagers I sware on me mum

The Argead dynasty, the one Alexander belonged to, and the one that founded Macedon, was Greek. That should be the end of the fucking argument about whether or not they were Greek.

>The Roman Kingdom was Old Latin. The Roman Republic was Latin. The Roman Empire was Latin.
But that's the thing. It wasn't. Roman patricians used Greek as the language of high culture in the republic and imperial periods. Before, during and after conquering the Greeks.

Where the fuck are you coming up with this bullshit, out of your ass, theory?

Actually, I don't care, because nigger, you are god damned retarded.

>the Vikings founded the Kievan Rus, therefore Russia is Scandinavian
Nice strawman, they were still greeks but less so than the Athenians, they were always somewhat culturally distinct. I didn't say they were fucking Bulgarians.

>The emperor Claudius tried to limit the use of Greek, and on occasion revoked the citizenship of those who lacked Latin. Even in addressing the Roman Senate, however, he drew on his own bilingualism in communicating with Greek-speaking ambassadors.[40] Suetonius quotes him as referring to "our two languages,"[41] and the employment of two imperial secretaries, one for Greek and one Latin, dates to his reign.
You're an idiot.

>they were still greeks but less so than the Athenians
they fit the Athenian ideal of what Greeks supposedly were less, but they were STILL GREEKS

Which you just admitted

Which was the whole point of this debate. Good to see you agree. I consider the matter resolved.

Very comfy.

>they fit the athenian ideal
The anthenians didn't consider them true greeks fuck off retard

>less
learn to read you imbecile

the only good thing about this thread is that all the balkanfags are asleep, or we'd be at 300 replies by now.

You're fucking kidding me, right? You pull up one bullshit quote from one Emperor in a period that had long since conquered Greece and made it a major Roman province? Fuck off, faggot.

>less
So you agree with me.
They were still 'technically' Greeks but less so.

>What is in Bruges

You're right. We should ignore the fact that prior to the maniple system, the Romans fought using the Greek phalanx, who they got from the Etruscans, who they got from the Greeks. We should also ignore that every major settlement south of Rome on the Italian peninsula was a Greek colony, and of course they threw their culture and language away overnight, an of course had nothing to do with the development of the Republic, it was all the Latins and the Latins alone. The Romans never had contact or cultural exchanges with the Greeks prior to them conquering them, the Romans definitely didn't at least partially base their architecture, philosophy, and religion off of what they saw in those colonies they took.

We were never arguing about the extent of their "greek-ness". we were arguing whether they were Greeks or not. I consider an ethnic group as:
>common genetic origin
>common culture
>common language
So long as all three are mostly satisfied, they're the same nation. The Athenians who wrote most of the shit down back then were super snobs and would arbitrarily look down on all kinds of other Greek polities. But as I said, if you consider Spartans, Athenians, Ionian coast, Aetolians and Thessalians all to be Greeks, then you can't make a case that Macedonians weren't Greeks. They were no more distinct from any of these groups than they were among themselves.