HeartOfDarkness wrote:Modern society values the individual and the knight and pirate are perfect representations of this. So Knights are popular among people.
Have you been an American public school lately? The individual is at the height of importence. Now I think all the points made in the last few posts are linked. What in comes down to is a heroic knight or rebel pirate is much better subject matter than the disciplined faceless roman legionnaire or greek hoplite.
Chrislad77 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like your implying US children are less intelligent therefore would not like something like this...I might have misunderstood you so sorry if I randomly exploded .
I think historical themes like this are always best in their home countries.
But I think European history/mythology is generally more popular in Europe than North America - the (mostly) Europe-set movies Gladiator, Troy, Alexander and Kingdom Of Heaven all made much more money 'overseas' than 'domestic'.
Damien wrote:Kingdom of Heaven bombed because it was not properly made for an American audience (i.e. short attention spans). The movie was oddly cut, yet making it longer (as they did with the Director's Cut, which was SO much better) would have alienated a large portion of the American audience. There was just no winning here. There was no way to save a movie designed like this unless you fill it with nudity and get it rated X. Doesn't matter if it's about the Alamo or the Crusades - if it's not properly made for an American audience, Americans won't put a lot of money into seeing it.
And frankly, what with the war, the whole Islam thing was bound to be unpopular anyway.
Any review of Kingdom of Heaven no matter how brief should mention the miscasting of Orlando Bloom for the main role. He isn't Russell Crowe , no one could understand how this skinny blacksmith all of a sudden becomes this super warrior slaying arabs with ease. Plus the movies anti-christian tone wasn't going to work in America either. The only charcter worth watching was the terminally ill King.
Damien wrote:So, surely, you can provide us with the sales figures that support such an assertion - via clearly superior sales of Castle in Europe than in America, or of the Vikings line in Denmark over Italy or South America (sales as a percentile, obviously, to avoid population discrepancy issues).
Further, Gladiator (one of your examples) grossed 187 million dollars in America, and 269 million elsewhere. Think about that. Over half of the money it made was made in America alone.
Kingdom of Heaven bombed because it was not properly made for an American audience (i.e. short attention spans).
Likewise, Americans also will see a crappy movie that flat out looks like it will be awful, because a fat guy in a chair tells them it's great.
300, on the other hand, a 'historical' movie much better geared for American audiences, grossed over 210 MILLION dollars in the US alone. Worldwide (including America), the film grossed 437 million dollars. So, almost fully half of the ENTIRE WORLD's worth of watching that movie came out of America - similar to Gladiator.
I hate Russell Crowe. I think he's a terrible actor more on the level of Keanu-Birchwood-Reeves.
Orlando, however much flack he gets, is a pretty decent actor and enjoyable, at least.
Likewise, he was far from skinny - he had the same build in that movie that most real combat men would (and do) have: slim and well-muscled. Check out the scenes when he's not wearing a shirt. He absolutely must have hit the gym for awhile before filming started.
Also, the director's cut explains his background enough to explain that he's not 'just a blacksmith' -- the whole 'blacksmith becomes uber-warrior' thing really didn't make a lot of sense. But the DC fixed that tidily.
As well - I don't think the film was anti-Christian at all. But it could have benefited from showing a bit more bloodthirstiness in the Muslims as in the Christians.
Finally, Tiberias and Guy were as worth watching as Baldwin. All three characters were cunningly-written and very well-portrayed.
Damien wrote:scenes when he's not wearing a shirt.
Next time you're going to read (and quote) one of my posts, please read it properly, in this case, take stock of the term "I think" rather than confusing it with the radically different "I know for a fact".
What am I not getting here?
So what's the big difference between America and everywhere else? You named 'short attention spans' but I'm sure there's more to it than that.
300 may as well have been a fantasy movie for all the 'history' that was in it.
Oh come on; look at that bit where he finds his wife and son's bodies and tell me he isn't a good actor.
I think it's his lines - "A diversion!" (ROTK) - and his celebrity status; until he gets a bit older he won't be seen as much more than a chick magnet.
Yes, the DC is brilliant. Probably not a good 'main-stream' action movie, but for a historical movie it's great.
It's anti-church - remember that bit when the priest guy suggests he and Balian leave the people to be slaughtered to save their own skin? This is a fair point; many churches in the Middle Ages were corrupt, bloated and stole money from the poor.
..And there you have it. The explanation of why I dislike Orlando and Hayden (the Anakin one). They seem like they were picked almost solely for their "sex appeal", rather than their acting.
Damien wrote:..And there you have it. The explanation of why I dislike Orlando and Hayden (the Anakin one). They seem like they were picked almost solely for their "sex appeal", rather than their acting.
I think that's an unfair statement. Some of the greatest actors of our time were originally chosen partially for their 'sex appeal.' Look at Sean Connery. Women -still- fall all over themselves for him. And Johnny Depp. Collin Farrel. Richard Gere. Gerard Butler. Great actors all, but were definitely handed some things along the way because women wanted to see them.
Doesn't make them bad actors. Their good looks certainly shouldn't be held against them. Nor should it be held against a movie company for wanting to get a male lead that the women in the crowd will want to look at for extended periods of time. Female leads are no different, you know. Keira Knightley didn't get her roles because she's the best female actor in all Hollywood.
Sir Kohran wrote:Likewise, Americans also will see a crappy movie that flat out looks like it will be awful, because a fat guy in a chair tells them it's great.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest