@@brucetucker4847 ... story about the guy insisting a guy who never set foot in the US, nor did his parents, must be "African-American" and all other terms are impermissible ...
@KaiHenningsen I remember at least hearing about an interview where a reporter was asking a black British athlete about his experiences, but kept referring to him as African American.
As you are one, I was sort of wondering if you consider us racist if we have trouble telling a Xenomorph, a Zerg, and a Tyranid apart. When I'm dropping onto planets and removing hostile predatory species for the waves of colonists, I don't want to think I'm some kind of bigot while looking through my scope. Just so I can rest easily, as I'm letting out streams of HEAP ammo, is there some kind of slant to the eyes of curve to the teeth that you can be told apart by? I mean I wouldn't want to be thought a bigot as I misidentify a head before I crush it under a servo assisted boot..... Tyranids are the ones with the acid blood, right? :)
my history prof had a doctorate in Egyptian history. she said she was consulted for several movies and tv shows. she said they tell them what they need to know but whether or not they use it or even listen to you is up to them, but they can still say they consulted historians.
yeah if it isn't in line with the director's "Vision" the director will discard it for some made up bunk. Clothing historians go through the same battle. Especially with "Of Corset hurts!" scenes where actresses get laced in a corset without a chemise. Corsets historically never was worn without a chemise. The chemise is there to protect the corset from the wearer's oils, and the wearer from the corset. Oh and directors who have actresses tightlace corsets in the 1700s. A thing that wouldn't exist till 100 years later. Looking at you, Pirates of the Caribbean!
@@zombiedoggie2732 My first thought exactly. I remember reading some article where the main costume designer of Vikings said she consulted various experts or something of that sort. All I could think was: "You may have consulted them, but you sure as hell didn't listen to their counsel..."
It's an *old* quote: "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov (sometime prior to 1970, I think) I believe Carl Sagan repeated the quote in the original COSMOS as well.
I used to know a guy who always tried to win every argument by saying, "Were you there?" It was such an ignorant, arrogant and hypocritical way to argue his point since he obviously wasn't there either, and would ignore all evidence and testimony from people who actually were there.
How did he think juries work? The whole point is to gather people to determine whether a crime took place. They examine evidence, listen to witnesses, and make a decision based on the thing called "reason."
I got into it with a Western History professor regarding the Berlin Wall coming down and surrounding events. Apparently his academic credentials trumped my first-hand direct experience from being in the military and stationed in West Germany at the time.
@@timothyfreeby1031 nisonatic is right. It is true that first hand experience is important but Academics do not go of one singular persons experience. They need an overview with as many sources as possible, which would include you and your perspective. A thing you'd need to understand is that there are a whole lot of other first hand Accounts which may claim different things from you or your group. Historians need to navigate all of that.
This is literally an informal logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance". You can't prove me wrong with definitive evidence, therefore I'm right.
Historians know details scientifically correct but the overarching stories they tell are mostly speculation. The actually verifyable facts also play a secondary role in what is taught as "history". Being from Germany and critical both of the industry around it and its instrumentalization as well as of the "deniers", from my expirience most people around the world have completely skewed ideas about the "history" and the crimes of the 3rd Reich
Scott is very good a one very specific thing. He can make very good looking movies. And the results are great when that's all he has to do. But the man can't recognize a good story if it walked up to him and punched him. He needs to work with good writers and good producers to keep him in line. That's why his movie started going downhill after Gladiator gave him enough clout to do whatever he wanted to do.
It's a subset of the Dunning Kruger effect, where if you know a little bit about something you think you know a lot more than you do, but when people are famous or have expertise in a high profile field that gives them high social status they think they know EVERYTHING about it, more than the experts. This is why a doctor will tend to think they know more about cars than a mechanic for example. It's also why we men tend to think we know more than women about subjects even when they're experts in them, it's because we're fooled into thinking social superiority equals expertise. Everyone does this to varying degrees though so it's pointless to single out a person or a group.
@@fattiger6957"Raised by wolves" is not a very good looking film (OK, TV series). It looks like a low budget crap from 60s. The rest you said I agree with.
@@TheduckwebcomicsI'm sorry but your understanding of the Dunning Kruger effect is skewed. DKE tells nothing about assessing of the competence of others but only about self-assessment. And even more: it was demonstrated that low competent people correctly estimate their competence with regard to the competence of high competent people.
The question might work if we were talking about something far more distant but Napolean was early 1800s mostly if I remember correctly. It isn't like he was a mystery lost to time. The guy had the relevancy of the US president has had since post WW2 in his time.
@@jacquelineking5783 Totally, in Napoleon case, there are tons of contemporary books talking about his achievements, comportement and all the important figures around him. It can even be boring as some testimony talks about his day to day life.
In Ridley Scott's defense, he did cut the scene where Napoleon used his alien spaceships discovered under the Sphinx to beam up some his troops during the siege of Moscow. Scott figured people would consider it historically inaccurate the spaceships couldn't save all Napolean's troops.
As someone who enjoys cinema, and loves history, I'm so tired of the 'it's a movie, its entertainment not a documentary' excuse for bad historical filmmaking. Master and Commander is fiction, historical fiction but still. And yet it stands as one of the most historically 'AUTHENTIC' pieces of cinema ever made. Not accurate, but authentic. And it is a great movie. Ridley Scott looks and history and just presumes he can do better. Even when he actually just makes history look smaller, and less significant.
@@Blisterdude123 Alexandre Dumas (writer of the Three Musketeers) had a great saying for that : "You can rape history, at the condition to give her beautiful children" Although the rape allegory might be ill-suited to the modern times, i like the idea : you can change history for your fiction, at the explicit condition that what you show is more interesting than what actually happened.
From The Duellists to this, I think he got too confortable. With that confort came laziness and arrogance. Since Gladiator was a success and an entertaining film, despite its many historical innacuracies, it seems he started thinking he could crap out whatever and the audiences would swallow it. More concerning is that this ignorant little man now believes his opinions are as valid as the knowledge academics have accumulated over the centuries, more so even, since it's his movie and what he says goes. Spreading a little education along with entertainment in his movies would cost him nothing, but the thundering choir of his own ego must mute all dissention. Shame on him.
Yeah, he seemed to forget - or perhaps just miss entirely - the fact that Gladiator wasn't good because it totally ignored history but rather because its historical inaccuracies still served to build the setting in a cinematic and satisfying way. It also helps that Maximus himself was a fictional person. Historians can nitpick things like the Romans wearing lorica segmentata at a time when they wouldn't be wearing much of it, but all Scott has to say is, "It's THE iconic Roman armor. It looks cool, everyone knows that it's 'Roman armor,' and anyone who's wearing it on-screen is clearly a Roman. The barbarians are all in fur and hide with shoddy axes because they're the *barbarians.* You see them, you know who they are. I'm telling a story, not filming a reenactment." Boom. Done. He nails the 'vibe' of ancient Rome and tells a good story at the same time without pretending he's recreating history on-screen. It seems like he really got a bit full of himself as, as you said, too comfortable. He missed the fact that the inaccuracies in something like Gladiator still contributed to the setting. It made the Romans look and feel like *Romans.* The barbarians look like *barbarians.* Rome looks like Rome. The characters act, at least in the average person's mind, like Romans. The praetorians look like praetorians. On and on, accurate or not. Napoleon just... doesn't act like Napoleon, from all the reviews and summaries I've heard.
"Since Gladiator was a success and an entertaining film, despite its many historical innacuracies" I don't think that Gladiator had anything accurate, it was all historical inaccuracies. He should stick to fiction, his greatest hits were Alien and Hannibal
As a history prof. there are a lot of movies I have a hard time watching because they are so far off the mark of what we know about an era, event, or personality that I have to constantly remind myself that it is supposed to just be entertainment but then I find even schools sometimes using such silly movies to teach kids a "history lesson." It is very frustrating. I have to correct a lot of stuff. I have even heard some young people say it has to be true or they wouldn't have it in the movie as an objection to an actual historical account. So, I completely understand your frustration with this stuff.
As an ex-teacher I apologize for showing movies in the classroom, we just get so tired sometimes and need a break. LOL Esp now during the Christmas season it's going to be either a Christmas quiz or a movie that is remotely related to whatever topic we are going through. We do point out that it's not accurate, but I have to admit, not every student understands or remembers that. Also many students forget absolutely everything they have learned after a while, it's really depressing.
The education system uses movies with zero educational value and pretends they're educational a LOT. When I was in high school, some public school kids I knew were shown the Percy Jackson movies in class as part of the Greco-Roman unit in social studies...meanwhile, I was reading actual Greco-Roman literature through my Great Books homeschool curriculum. My dad is a schoolteacher and says another teacher at his school showed the kids Hamilton as part of their American Revolution unit. Hamilton has barely any educational value and Percy Jackson may have *negative* educational value. The teachers know as much as the kids do if they think these movies belong in a classroom.
For this case, it's probably more leaning into Ridley Scott's British's anti-French biases and anti-historical sentiments, making Napoleon an emotionally malleable military general with the film very specific angle to undermine his military achievements throughout DECADES OF ABLE TO CONQUER EUROPE, undermining his double-edged sword of his legacy with blatant biases on a film based of a historical figure, it's giving me reminiscence to the more recent and seemingly unrelated kind of USA lying about WMDs in Iraq or the incubator babies in Kuwait to brushing out the highway of death alongside Saddam's role in stabilising Iraq into national order, relative growth and notable anti-terrorism containment in the Middle East (so mass immigrations to The West are minimised to teeth), in spite of Saddam's many flaws and crimes (especially letting Uday's deranged antics existing) but I digress Making Napoleon being so submissive to his wife while not focusing on the actual women that's waaay more instrumental to Napoleon's life (namely his very own mother which he highly respected and loved so much) are akin to making an Ottoman series where Suleiman I's military and administrative achivements being reduced to him simping for Roxelana/Hurrem, it's historical revisionism into absurd degrees
To some extend, making the action more spectacular can be okay if it doesn't break the logic. An example I often use is the ice breaking under the Teutonic Knights in Alexander Nevsky, which didn't happen during the real battle.
Alexandre Dumas (writer of the Three Musketeers) had a great saying for that : "You can rape history, at the condition to give her beautiful children" Although the rape allegory might be ill-suited to the modern times, i like the idea : you can change history for your fiction, at the explicit condition that what you show is more interesting than what actually happened.
@@ohamatchhams Well congratulations on rambling from Scott's Napoleon bias to your own about Saddam and the U.S. in one long and barely comprehensible sentence.
Well, our race has have been a top contributor to innovation in the neutralization of hostile groups. Howver, its balanced out by all the contributions white men and some women have made to the betterment of the race and humans as a whole.
Ordinarily I'd agree but honestly, Ridley Scott IS just that incompetent. Never attribute to malice what can be attiributed to incompetence. Ridley Scott genuinely thought a 'clever' piece of imagery to communicate Napoleon's conquest of Egypt was to have him shoot cannons at the pyramids.
Funny how the real person who tried to destroy the pyramids hundreds of years earlier than that was actually Saladin’s son, but we can’t say shit about Muslims
My dad made fun of me for not wanting to go see Napoleon with him(I already had plans anyway). But once he came back, he congratulated me on deciding not to go because it was awful.
I'm 45 now. I saw countless movies and tv-shows in my life. I was really entertainted when GLADIATOR came out in the year 2000. Yes, that one was as historically accurate as Star Trek, but it was at least very entertaining. By God, I watched Naploeon on Sunday and I felt Nothing, NOTHING. Ridley Scott might be just too old and stubborn now - he's 86... many people don't even live that long. And usually people get more and more stubborn and entitled in old age. He made some masterpieces, but WTF was Napoleon!
@@beyondlimitationsvideo Scott began his downfall in 2005, with Kingdom of Heaven. Since then, he made a few decent films here and there, but most of them are atrocious.
As a historian, Scott's words were like a stab. Fortunately, I have a certain ability to separate the work from the artist, although sometimes it becomes very, very challenging.
@@alihenderson5910You kids are so obsessed with your phones you're still texting your emoticons over the web behind Heaven's pearly gates. P.S. My condolences, I am praying for your departed soul.
Sadly we live in a time when ignorance and arrogance are worshipped. We live in a time when people honestly think that they can make up their own reality, and that their personal fiction overrides history and science.
When someone tries the whole “we YOU there?” I say “yes, I was, I saw it all….and if YOU weren’t ALSO there then you can’t tell me I wasnt”. That usually gets them to realize how dumb they are being. Usually. Not always.
I have a degree in History. While I certainly don't consider myself a historian, I have to say that not understanding how historical research works, to this degree, is kind of shocking. Good video.
The Napoleon movie looks like an absolute farce of a film. I honestly fear its the beginning of the bastardization of history for entertainments sake and I'm terrified with the possibilities it could result in.
Unfortunately, history has been treated this way for decades. Look at the likes of Braveheart, regarded as one of the most historically inaccurate movies ever made.
@@akl2k7yup also the movies Titanic , Pearl Harbor, and The Patriot (especially the scene of slaves defending their slave owner against joining the British army)
@@Chuck_ELI have to defend Titanic here. The love story aside, its a good representation. Cameron knows his stuff, and did some serious research. And on top of that you got of course some dramatisation
As a Czech, I was kind of surprised how it looked in the movie in Austerlitz (Slavkov in Czech), there are no bigger hills and that massive lake was just a pond, but I respect that it's just a movie, what I don't like is when creators know how it should be correctly and they don't do it on purpose to make historians angry.
He filmed it in an old quarry in Surrey where he filmed the battle scenes for Gladiator...very lazy especially with what you can do with CGI now. It was in the interview he had with Dan Snow for History Hit.
I live in Brno. When I saw the trailer I remembered a moment in cinema years ago where in the movie "Wanted" with Angelina Jolie the protagonist is on a pendolino train in "Moravia" that goes through a tunnel and than it goes straight to a bridge over a massive ravine where it crashes... At that moment one guy in the cinema shouted "Ty vole, Macocha" and the whole audience started laughing. After seeing Scot's depiction of Austerlitz, I must admit Wanted was the second worst depiction of Moravia in US cinema.
Ridley Scott's first feature film was about two officers in Napoleon's Army who carry a grudge and demand 'satisfaction' across a few decades. Released in 1977 it is called 'The Duellists'. Favorably critiqued and highly rated it comes with this note from its wikipedia entry "The film is lauded for its historically authentic portrayal of Napoleonic uniforms and military conduct, as well as its generally accurate early-19th-century fencing techniques as recreated by fight choreographer William Hobbs."
The question is, did he write and direct both movies or only directed both or wrote and directed one? Not all directors write their own films and many are essentially hired guns. The studio has a script that they like and so they look around fr someone to direct and that director may or may not have much or any input in wat the final shooting script is like. But giong by his statement, it sounds like maybe he either wrote the script or screenplay for Napoleon or, at the very least, had considerable input in the script/screenplay.
Ridley was only ever a good director, i hope people finally unglue their mouths from his rear and realize that all of his greatest movies had a stellar cast of scriptwriters and producers that have been overshadowed by him.
The fuckin' EGO of Hollywood as a whole has grown beyond anything I thought I'd ever see. We all know that celebrities have an inflated sense of self-importance, but the whole town has just gone off the rails with narcissism.
Basically, the way I see it, Ridley Scott entered this stage of movie creator's life cycle where he is intoxicated by illusion of his own grandeur induced from sniffing his own farts.
@@Minions91113 He _was_ a good director. Other than The Martian, he hasn't made a good film since 2010. He's just another George Lucas now. Insisting Jar Jar Binks is cool.
@@KathrynsWorldWildfireTrackingGeorge Lucas doesn’t even pretend to be like that. The prequels had direct homages and parallels to the works of early cinema. Lucas is no hack… I’d also say Ridley works a whole lot at his late age and he does have great work after the Martian. Raised by Wolves has his son and Ridley directing a few episodes and also producing…
Ridley Scott would probably walk into the airplane’s cockpit and yelled at pilots “can you fly on your own? do you have wings? Well then shut the eff up!” 😂😂😂😂😂
the irony is Scott's first film, his directorial debut, "the Duelists" is one of the best historical films ever made. I have no idea why/how he forgot to make good/accurate films when he made "the Last Duel" or potentially "Napoleon"(haven't seen it yet).
Once famous creators aging out of their field of employment to the point that they have no idea anymore what their target demographic wants, or even considers a good idea, is a thing. I wish they wouldn't pretend it wasn't.
seems like we're seeing that same sort of thing play out across the world really. Politicians are getting older, many people cant get promoted because people above them arent retiring even after they've aged to the point that their abilities have degraded (which often leads to those under them doing their superiors job for them without a raise OR promotion), and overall it seems like older generations are just refusing to relinquish control even after they've grown out of touch with the modern world like boomers yelling at Gen Z service workers about how things were so much harder in their day back when a high school drop out could afford to buy a house while that Gen Z worker is making slave wages to pay off his college degrees that he needed to work at McDonalds.
Black Hawk Down is another one of his films and that was an excellent and extremely accurate portrayal of the events it was based on. This is just embarrassing.
@@elian958 I like some of his films as well. I actually really liked Robin Hood and he created some classic films like Alien and Blade Runner. But yes, I think this is bad. First, it’s too short for the amount of time he’s trying to show. If Scott wanted to show the entirety of Napoleon’s rise and fall, he needed at least two, maybe three films. Second, he completely rewrites parts of well documented history and doesn’t do anything interesting in the film to justify it. You can edit history in certain ways, and still be authentic but he apparently did it just because he could. Third, his general attitude towards people raising concerns about the film was (and still is) completely dismissive and arrogant. He seems to have such a inflated opinion of himself and blames others for his failures. He basically told everyone who criticized the changes to history that he was right and that everyone should shut up and deal with it which, unsurprisingly, angered a lot of people and immediately turned them against the film. I highly recommend looking up some other reviews of the film as they do a much better job at explaining its flaws than I can but to sum it up, this film was a massive disappointment.
Scott was leagues better when he was: a) younger and not as spoiled by fame as he is now b) restrained by limited budgets and kept in check by studio execs (yes, they DO sometimes work as a healthy boundaries setters for overambitious buffoons) an actor/director getting over their heads throughout their career is a story as old as that industry itself.
I just was thinking about his first movie The Duellists that was also set in Napoleonic times. That one was really good. But, well, like many artists before... after a certain time, they lose their Mojo.
To be fair, he is not the only one; in the film King Arthur, one of the Roman was using a bow and arrow while riding a horse that did not exist until centuries later with the Mongols of Genghis Kahn, a bow and arrow used by the Roman, would have been too long to be used while riding the horse, and of course barbed wire, also seen in the film did not exist either. Norman Freeman plying a black Muslim, warrior moving to cold Nottingham with Robin Hood, (Kevin Costner) who presumably joined the Crusades to kill Muslims.
I wrote this a month ago, in response to a video I saw, where he talked about the behind the scenes of the movie; _While I'm certainly intrigued by his perspective as a film maker, I do question his simplistic thoughts on the books about him (Napoleon/ historical figures)- yes, sometimes the earliest accounts come from eyewitnesses/ people who had access to eyewitnesses/ information, & later accounts might be written long after eyewitnesses are dead- but beyond authorial bias, the information available can change over time, too._ _Some writers have a role that allows them access to information that others simply aren't privy to. For others, Government documents become accessible after a certain amount of time- people leave hithertofore unknown artefacts & private papers to museums & whathaveyou._ _So long as a writer applies a rigorous standard (knowing the background of the sources, & so on) - there's no reason a newer work can't be just as valid as the first._ _And saying 'Were you there?' is a foolish retort; No, I wasn't there for Marie Antoinette's execution, but there is documentation for it- we know the date, the month & the year (& thus, the likely weather)- preceding events are also known (she attracted a great deal of sympathy during her trial, due to the vileness of some of the accusations leveled at her, struck a chord with mothers in the gallery when she appealed to them)- so that can give a stronger impression of her attitude & mindset (unlikely she was haughty & arrogant, & that the _*_entire_*_ crowd was screaming abuse at her)_ _We also know what she was wearing- because she'd _*_requested_*_ to wear black, & the revolutionary authority _*_*forced*_*_ her to wear white; her hair was cut short at the prison & she was made don a mobcap._ _We also know how she came to her execution (the route, means, & company)- as well as the process for it._ _I'm not trying to sh*t on the movie, or anything- but if so much was gotten wrong in such a small section, then I do have to wonder how so much of Napoleon's life & reign, & campaigns can be accurately depicted in a movie, rather than a mini-series..._ While my comment got more than 100 likes- I got 4-5 responses with some variation of 'It's just a movie, bro- it's entertainment, not a history book!' - but I responded to a person who politely engaged with me, & was mostly agreeing with my comments. I then added to this later response, my thoughts *after* seeing the movie: _I find this {changing _*_history_*_ to suit a film} frustrating; I agree that some _*_small_*_ changes, to benefit the smoothing of the directorial narrative, can prove necessary (& the film medium can helpfully establish in seconds & minutes- what a book takes paragraphs & pages to describe) - I feel the same way with novel series being adapted: I'm not a 💯% purist-type- I do understand that some things may get left out, but that should be a carefully made series of choices- not just for sh*ts & giggles- or because the scriptwriters/ showrunners were too stupid to craft the plot, a la Dumbarse & Dipsh^t of GoT infamy._ _But it absolutely went _*_beyond_*_ judicious choices in 'Napoleon' - my brother won tickets for the premiere, but wasn't able to go- so my mother & I did._ _Overall, it didn't feel worth it: it looked ok (Mum thought the palette & lighting for the battles/ uniforms was too muddy to follow things clearly, & all sides speaking English* didn't help) & was decently shot - the costumes & sets were good._ _But it was the story & characterisation predominantly, that let it down- Pheonix is too old to play Napoleon across a near 30-year period (1793-1821, 28 years to be precise), & Kirby, too young for Josephine; their wedding had _*_both_*_ their ages altered- aging him up, & her down- she was like 6-9 years older than him, I believe. It was certainly a choice to cover so much of Napoleon's life in a single film, as opposed to a series or trilogy- & split the story so sharply between his military career, & personal life._ _I feel like the portrayal maybe could have worked, had Scott really gone for it, in terms of Napoleon being single-minded- that would have paired better with a military focus- or, his penchant for cruelty, & sense of exactitude & internal inferiority to the elder royal houses of Europe, had the focus been more on his personal life. There was also the lack of detail within his administration/ relationships with people- the lack of personality - Pheonix looking tired/ bored did not help._ _When we left, Mum said, & I quote: "I would have no interest in paying to see this- he seemed so juvenile for so much of it." And she also felt the multiple sex-scenes were over-the-top (& after the first one, pointless). Aesthetically, it's quite reasonable- but even in generalities, let alone closer details- it absolutely falls over..._ *We had a good-natured debate on the way home, over the choices in historical/ foreign topic films- of native language/s, subtitled- accented English- & the actor's own English - in something like 'The Death of Stalin', for instance- everyone speaking English worked- because it was utilised as a way of emphasizing the differences between people of a larger geographic area - Scott could have used that similarly, to show the difference between Napoleon/ his family (Corsicans), the aristocrats like Josephine- & others, to give the audience a stronger sense of place/ alienation, & so on- but there's no focus on that aspect. We get no real sense of these people, their background, nor their journey- or, _we_ didn't, at least...
Everything I’ve heard about Ridley Scott’s perspective on making this movie and the following criticism. Just makes me wonder why no one said to him “you know you don’t _have_ to make this movie?” Like he seems to not give a shit about any of the subject matter at all.
Suppose one were to claim that the Romans were Aboriginal Australians and that there were no genocides of any kind in history and that the alleged victims of such were just left under the sofa cushions, would Ridley still say "Were you there? No, so shut up!"
Remember the Rosetta Stone? It might have not even been discovered if Napoleon and his peeps weren’t trying to conquer Egypt. They cared more for ancient Egypt than the descendants who lived there. That Scott had the artillery use the Sphinx as target practice was over the top. It was not necessary for the story line. What was he trying to portray?
One thing that seems to have changed since The Last Duel, is that we millenials are no longer the intergenerational whipping boy. Thanks GenZ (and in Scott's case historians, as well as the French, apparently). I'd dance a dance of joy, but my back has been acting up lately...
The problem with "this is a fictional film, not a documentary" is that 1000 people will see the film (if it's successful) for every ten people who read a book or even watch a documentary about the real history. So it's one thing to change a few minor details but if you give a false impression on a larger historical point that's going to be the "history" that 99% of the public thinks they know.
I think social media overall has massively overreacted to Napoleon, since many of the historical inaccuracies fall well within the standards for “good” directors like Kubrick and even Scott himself. There’s a lot of time compression adding people to scenes where they were not present and having characters talk who never met. That’s all standard movie stuff, and not particularly egregious. However, Scott himself also completely overreacted. He could have just said, “Who cares? We changed a few things to help with narrative and pacing. If we’d covered everything the movie would be 12 hours long and only of interest to war buffs. “
I agree, though I have to add something. He could’ve turned the movie concept into a 12 episode single season series since TV is much bigger and creatively freer than the film landscape. The director of Australia turned his film into a mini series, so it’s not unheard of. His overreaction turned me off of him for the moment.
You may be right about "the patriot", but I think the freedom Mel Gibson took for braveheart are allright. It was clear to me that the aim of that movie was to just tell a story, like a semi-fantasy. Anyway, the hustorical accounts we hve for Napoleon are incredibly more accurate than tose on William wallace.
@@francescoporcari8597 I don't know much about Braveheart, I don't remember why but I never finished watching the film, but I remember one of the critisisms, which is think is really valid, was that Gibson decided to go something like 500+ years wrong for the Scottish constumes...in both directions.
@@francescoporcari8597I think it’s fair to give a film about events that are further in the past and less well documented more leeway. I doubt Braveheart was more accurate than The Patriot, but since there are fewer certainties about the events that’s okay.
His first movie "The Duelists" was well done with correct uniforms and event chronology. I still have to see the movie, but seeing Napoleon leading a cavalry charge makes me skeptical. By the way, latters were used to storm Regisburg in 1809, and Napoleon was shot in the foot leading the assault.
Ridley's anti-intellectual, _bullying the nerds_ attitude has made me lose even more respect for him. I loved Blade Runner, Alien and enjoyed Gladiator. He's had more flops than masterpieces. Maybe he's not as good as I once thought.
To be completely honest? The Alien series stopped really being his thing after James Cameron and so on took it over. So that’s one franchise. And most of the things he’s done since were never really on my radar. Though I did like Robin Hood. Prometheus was just awful to me and I wrote him off ever since especially any of his older work I didn’t see. I don’t see the hype over him, personally. If he didn’t act like an arrogant twat and admitted he wanted to do something fun with it like the Death of Stalin or Jojo Rabbit, there’d be nothing wrong. But whatever. People like him make the rest of Hollywood look like assholes and are why I don’t blame people for wanting them to lose their jobs from the extended strike. I certainly feel sorrier for the lower people on the tentpole like the caterers and the crew who lost money, smaller actors, writers and directors, etc.
I'm actually really glad you pointed out that radio carbon dating has issues as well. When I went for my Anthropology/Archaeology degree we were trained on RCD and other forms as well and I was stunned to learn that the error correction pretty much boils down to 'the community decided these were good ranges and anything outside of it is null'. More surprised to learn that null points are FAR FAR more common than 'correct' data points.
I watched the movie last week. It's basically what you'd expect from a Ridley Scott movie: good action/battle scenes but little to no reference to reality. For example - SPOILERS! - the battle of Austerlitz was shown to be won by Napoleon using his canons to break the ice of a frozen lake. This actually happened as far as I know but it wasn't as significant to the victory as shown in the movie. The battle of Leipzig on the other hand was left out entirely. For the entire movie Napoleon was shown to be a man which I feel would've been called weird in his time and today as well... there's a scene in which he wails like a dog in front of his servants because he wants to sleep with his wife Josephine. I expected to see a demonstration of the most powerful man in France but instead I got this... it was rather disturbing to witness.
Concerning Austerlitz, from what I read the whole part with the ice happened when the battle was essentially already won and a small group of Austrians and Russians (around 200 I think?) were retreating across a frozen body of water. The idea of the entire coalition army just marching onto a frozen lake they didn't know was there is unfathomably retarded; this is literally their home turf. I recommend Tolstoi's War and Peace for a dramatic yet historically accurate fictional depiction.
Woah, woah, woah! Dan Snow is not a TikToker - he’s a highly respected historian who has worked hard to introduce historical content to newer generations through contemporary media (TH-cam, TikTok etc). Take it back, Metatron!
@@aralornwolf3140 don't be disingenuous when, we say TikToker you know we are refering to someone whose career revolves around making TikTok content. If a TH-camr happens to occasionally use TikTok, you would still call them a TH-camr and Demetrios Johnson is still described as an MMA fighter and not a Twitch Streamer. Metatron described Dan Snow as a TikToker which is incorrect as he is a historian with a First Class Honours Degree in Modern History (1450 onwards). Secondary to this he is a TV presenter who has presented over 2 dozen history TV shows and he is also a published author (8 books), the tiny portion of his work that is on TikTok which is informed by his actual profession and only been going on for around a year, does not get to be stated as his profession.
I've seen parts of the interview with Ridley Scott. If this person is really a historian, he totally sold out. How could he listen to Scott's answers and not immediately challenge him on his attitude? The way I see it, that interview was nothing but promotion for the movie, and ass-kissing par excellence.
There is a 4 episode series from 2002 with Christian Clavier as Napoleon and John Malkovich as Talleyrand, there are reuploads posted here on youtube (I've even seen someone posting version upscaled to 4k)
Quentin Tarantino should have done it. Then at least it would have been a cool movie and nobody would have had any expectations of it being realistic, much like Inglorious Bastards or something. The problem is when a work exists in the uncanny valley of historical fiction and fictionalized history.
The whole "make europe dark blue and depressing" only really worked in Kingdom of Heaven because it was an artistic decision to show a simple contrast of the locations....now doing it in The Last Duel and Napoleon....that has zero reason to be like that. The Napoleon costume looks amazing in the backstage photos.
I hadn't watched "Napoleon", but had heard criticism about the desaturated colours. It is a (lamentable) trend in modern filmmaking, so I didn't give it much regard. And then I took a look into the movie. For God's sake... this is only inches away from doing it in black and white! If people want to do that, for artistic reasons, they should just do it!
I saw Napoleon. Let's just say he didn't come off as the most feared man in Europe. Funny thing about shooting the pyramid (that didn't really happen) is that they could have shown soldiers shooting the nose off the Sphinx to even greater dramatic effect and at least he would be repeating a popular lie instead of inventing one. You were hilarious in this one, Metatron! I almost peed myself when I heard that scream while Napoleon was holding his ears! Love it!
I know it's a tiny bit off-topic for "Napoleon", but if they wanted to add an interesting tidbit about the Egyptian campaign, they could have shown the discovery of the Rosetta Stone by a French soldier.
@@simpsondr12 yeah, that would have been great. Of course, there's no explosion in that story, and it's a true story, so that's a big "NO" from Hollywood!
I have no problems with historical movies, because I know how to separate out most of the bulls4it that's shown. My heartburn is the folks who watch these movies and take it as TRUTH. They're the once being poorly served by the material.
I had to stop watching movies that were "based on a true story" or "inspired by real events" with certain family members because they'll believe it was portrayed with 100% accuracy.
@@johnandrewserranogarcia7223 The movie "Fire in the sky" did that with Travis Walton's story...he said the aliens he met were nice and that he was the aggressor In the film the aliens were the studio basically "read the room" and said that alien abduction angles were popular at that time so they decided to fabricate his story Since he gave them the rights he had to accept but it He said he does hope his actual story gets told
As a member of Generation X, I would like to acknowledge the fact that in Metatron's rant about generations not liking Mr. Scotts film, we (Gen X) were in fact not acknowledged, as is almost always the case when generations are brought up. (Don't get me wrong. We literally don't care. But we do think it's funny that everyone almost always forgets about us). Love the channel, by the way.
I can imagine Ridley Scott as a defence lawyer. Defence: Your Honour, the prosecution would have you believe that this man murdered his neighbour. But I ask were they there? did they see if not then my client is innocent. Judge: Fair enough, case dismissed.
Ugh...so I have an undergrad degree in History. I can't tell you how many real life conversations I've had with people along these exact lines...."history books lie." "History is just written by the victors." And I'm like, you don't have the foggiest idea of what historical research actually is, do you?
If some Pharaoh made a giant monument detailing his great victory over the Hittites during the Battle of Kadesh, it is an indication that such a battle probably happened. If you then find Hittite clay tablets claiming they nearly won the battle, you get a second point of view!
Paying attention to real history sets the limits on historical fiction. I remember a TV movie on Peter the Great, which cast an average size actor as Peter, when one of the distinguishing things about that Czar was his great height. BTW, Bonaparte was not all that short for his era. Austrian and English cartoonists lampooned Napoleon as a malign dwarf, and that libel stuck.
To be fair, it's probably a bit unfair to describe Dan Snow as a "Tik Toker", considering his lengthy career in television. I remember as a tenager really enjoying his TV programme that he made with his father on Battlefields.
The problem with Dan Snow on the BBc is that he's trundled out now whenever the BBc does some sort of history programme despite the fact that in many of the history periods he has no particular expertise in. Once upon a time the BBC actually got specialist historians to write and present history documentaries. They still do occasionally but not often. But at least he's not that ghastly Starkey; hideous man.
On the topic of helmets, despite it's many historical inaccuracies, I have to say that the show Spartacus: Blood and Sand tackled the obfuscation of the characters faces due to the helmets really well. In one of the fight scenes where Spartacus and Crixus are fighting while wearing gladiator helmets, they used a technique where it looks like a camera was located inside the helmets themselves, showing the characters faces in jump cuts between the sword strikes and blows. Personally I loved that. It really took you as a viewer into the very thick of the fighting in a very intimate manner. Hundreds of times better than having silly half helmets on the heads of the actors
Jokes on you there are still some veterans alive Germany was defeated by pure military means in the First World War Where are use there ? Then I’m right
one of my favorite examples to use is the historian Marc Bloch's tracing of nordic words in legal documents and law books to disprove the assertion by english kings of the time that they had complete or total control over the area, and to show the expanse of Nordic influence in the region. its a great example of how historians DON'T just take the dude who wrote it down word's for it.
There are legends of Napoleon shooting the nose off of the Sphinx with cannons, however, these have been shown to be apocryphal (by actual historians, who were able to discover sources that showed the nose was already long since missing by the time the French reached Egypt).
I DID see this. I'm an historian (Byzantine, but I am addicted to Central European history as well), and went with several fellow historians - including a professor (from Quebec) of French History AND a retired combat strategy instructor from West Point. We were ALL really looking forward to seeing this - and had no illusions it would be mistaken for a documentary. SORRY METATRON... but I enjoyed Gladiator - despite the glaring issues, it gave a good FEEL of what Roma was like, and it got the battle scene in in the beginning RIGHT. Napoleon... oh my. I would've enjoyed it far more if I had no idea of any Napoleonic history. The French professor literally spent half the film pointing at the screen going "NON! NON! NON! C'est merde!" and the West Point instructor literally shouted "There were no berserkers then, WTF IS THAT?" during the battle scenes. If they wanted to make it a study of the relationship between Napoleon and Josephine, then they should've done it like "Fall Of Eagles" did situations like that, not attempt to mix an "epic" with a talkfest. The biggest sin that anyone watching will notice... it's sooooo dull in sooooo many place. How can a movie about Napoleon be dull? Well... here you have it. And sorry... SPOILER ALERT: Napoleon's horse during the battle of Toulon LIVED in actual history.
No, Gladiator did not get the battle at the beginning right at all, not the slightest little bit. If you think it did it just shows how little academics who don't specialize in military history are expected to know or understand military history. It's not terribly important to the rest of the film, which I also enjoyed, but it gives an extremely misleading impression of what a battle between Roman legions and barbarians would have been like. And also FIRE ARROWS.
I LOVE YOU MAN!!!! I LEFT THE CINEMA BEFORE THE ENDING!!!! I WAS ANGRY FOR 2 DAYS AND DIDNT MANAGE TO SLEEP AFTER THE FILM.... THE MAN MADE A REDICULE OF HISTORY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY OF NAPOLEON.
Waterloo was a decent battle we at least got to see some Napoleonic tactics such as square formation by the British being used against Calvary. The rest of the ending part of the movie was bland only redeeming part was the Duke of Wellington whose actor portrayed excellently and actually got the feeling of him being a military man.
"Get a life" he says to the people who's life and career it is to understand the past. Meanwhile what does he do as a director? Sit there as other people who do all the work come and ask him what to do next.
For the history fans out this, I think this is pretty funny. I like Dan Snow and respect his passion. Scott, on the other hand, should retire. I hope this movie flops, the pompous, arrogant ar$e. I’ll go watch a documentary. Or more Metatron. Significantly better use of my time. PS I hate Gladiator. Would have been a cool story, but the egregious abuse of history means I loathe it. I enjoy historical fiction, but you have to get it mostly right, or why bother?
Now don't be muppets, and come check out my patreon page
www.patreon.com/themetatron
Metatron you should collect roman coins now that you can legally cause you live in the US also you can get many coins for under $15
Hitler was Black.
Where did you get the funny hat, I need one.
Till this day, "Waterloo" is still the best Napoleon movie in my opinion, and it was filmed 53 years ago, ironically.
Dan Snow isn't a "TikToker".
He may utilise TikTok, but his career goes well beyond that.
Imagine a criminal going to the judge: "Well were you there? No? So stfu and get a life!"
It's more akin to the criminal telling the investigators who spent days collecting data, leading up to his arrest.
Judge: “ understandable. Have a nice day”…
You won the Internet today 🤣🤣🤣
Imagine how cool for the criminal to be asked "well were you there?"
"No judge. I wasn't."
"Great. No guilty. You are free to go. Case dismissed."
@@williamshelton4318 Wouldn't peers mean that they would be criminals as well?
As an alien I can assure you that Ridley Scott knows nothing about us either.
Also, Dude, "alien" is not the preferred nomenclature. Xenomorph-American, please.
@@brucetucker4847 ... story about the guy insisting a guy who never set foot in the US, nor did his parents, must be "African-American" and all other terms are impermissible ...
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle😂
@KaiHenningsen I remember at least hearing about an interview where a reporter was asking a black British athlete about his experiences, but kept referring to him as African American.
As you are one, I was sort of wondering if you consider us racist if we have trouble telling a Xenomorph, a Zerg, and a Tyranid apart. When I'm dropping onto planets and removing hostile predatory species for the waves of colonists, I don't want to think I'm some kind of bigot while looking through my scope. Just so I can rest easily, as I'm letting out streams of HEAP ammo, is there some kind of slant to the eyes of curve to the teeth that you can be told apart by? I mean I wouldn't want to be thought a bigot as I misidentify a head before I crush it under a servo assisted boot..... Tyranids are the ones with the acid blood, right? :)
my history prof had a doctorate in Egyptian history. she said she was consulted for several movies and tv shows. she said they tell them what they need to know but whether or not they use it or even listen to you is up to them, but they can still say they consulted historians.
yeah if it isn't in line with the director's "Vision" the director will discard it for some made up bunk. Clothing historians go through the same battle. Especially with "Of Corset hurts!" scenes where actresses get laced in a corset without a chemise. Corsets historically never was worn without a chemise. The chemise is there to protect the corset from the wearer's oils, and the wearer from the corset. Oh and directors who have actresses tightlace corsets in the 1700s. A thing that wouldn't exist till 100 years later. Looking at you, Pirates of the Caribbean!
the historians working for babrians on netflix made video why they quit season 2 😅
th-cam.com/video/tnsrb6povuE/w-d-xo.html
@@zombiedoggie2732 My first thought exactly. I remember reading some article where the main costume designer of Vikings said she consulted various experts or something of that sort. All I could think was: "You may have consulted them, but you sure as hell didn't listen to their counsel..."
Well, you get an A for your thesis but you get an F for spelling, grammar and coherent sentence structure.
@@feedigli Heh he's a History major, not an English one. Even History majors have proofreaders for their books.
"My ignorance is as valid as your expertise." is the most modern statement of the year.
I don't know about that.
Also don't forget "It's my emotional truth"
I dont like how its modern to use „ignorance“ instead of „unawareness“.
And as we know, modern is not the same as good.
It's an *old* quote:
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov (sometime prior to 1970, I think)
I believe Carl Sagan repeated the quote in the original COSMOS as well.
I used to know a guy who always tried to win every argument by saying, "Were you there?" It was such an ignorant, arrogant and hypocritical way to argue his point since he obviously wasn't there either, and would ignore all evidence and testimony from people who actually were there.
Ken Ham?
How did he think juries work? The whole point is to gather people to determine whether a crime took place. They examine evidence, listen to witnesses, and make a decision based on the thing called "reason."
I got into it with a Western History professor regarding the Berlin Wall coming down and surrounding events. Apparently his academic credentials trumped my first-hand direct experience from being in the military and stationed in West Germany at the time.
@@timothyfreeby1031
nisonatic is right.
It is true that first hand experience is important but Academics do not go of one singular persons experience. They need an overview with as many sources as possible, which would include you and your perspective.
A thing you'd need to understand is that there are a whole lot of other first hand Accounts which may claim different things from you or your group. Historians need to navigate all of that.
This is literally an informal logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance". You can't prove me wrong with definitive evidence, therefore I'm right.
Ridley Scott told me everything I need to know about this film when he decided to relegate historians to fairy tale peddlers. Hard pass.
Wise choice. The movie it most reminded me of was actually Alexander...except without the close adherence to history.
Unfortunately, Hollywood is also re-writing the fairy tales, too. The Grimm brothers were serious about being accurate with their stories.
@@antontaraskin8727 Same thing with Snow White.
Historians know details scientifically correct but the overarching stories they tell are mostly speculation. The actually verifyable facts also play a secondary role in what is taught as "history". Being from Germany and critical both of the industry around it and its instrumentalization as well as of the "deniers", from my expirience most people around the world have completely skewed ideas about the "history" and the crimes of the 3rd Reich
A wise person once said, "Just because you're famous does not mean you're smart."
Scott is very good a one very specific thing. He can make very good looking movies. And the results are great when that's all he has to do. But the man can't recognize a good story if it walked up to him and punched him. He needs to work with good writers and good producers to keep him in line. That's why his movie started going downhill after Gladiator gave him enough clout to do whatever he wanted to do.
It's a subset of the Dunning Kruger effect, where if you know a little bit about something you think you know a lot more than you do, but when people are famous or have expertise in a high profile field that gives them high social status they think they know EVERYTHING about it, more than the experts.
This is why a doctor will tend to think they know more about cars than a mechanic for example.
It's also why we men tend to think we know more than women about subjects even when they're experts in them, it's because we're fooled into thinking social superiority equals expertise. Everyone does this to varying degrees though so it's pointless to single out a person or a group.
@@fattiger6957"Raised by wolves" is not a very good looking film (OK, TV series). It looks like a low budget crap from 60s. The rest you said I agree with.
@@TheduckwebcomicsI'm sorry but your understanding of the Dunning Kruger effect is skewed. DKE tells nothing about assessing of the competence of others but only about self-assessment. And even more: it was demonstrated that low competent people correctly estimate their competence with regard to the competence of high competent people.
you just demolished all the "celebrities" preaching morals theatre
The whole "were you there?" argument makes about as much sense as asking a quantum physicist whether they have actually seen a boson particle.
The question might work if we were talking about something far more distant but Napolean was early 1800s mostly if I remember correctly. It isn't like he was a mystery lost to time. The guy had the relevancy of the US president has had since post WW2 in his time.
@@jacquelineking5783 Totally, in Napoleon case, there are tons of contemporary books talking about his achievements, comportement and all the important figures around him.
It can even be boring as some testimony talks about his day to day life.
Religious people often say it. Ken Ham uses it basically in every reply to every comment that a scientist says to him.
You're implying the average person even knows what those things are 🤦♂🤦♂
@@MarcelNLDon’t lump wappies like Ken Ham with all of us normal humans.
In Ridley Scott's defense, he did cut the scene where Napoleon used his alien spaceships discovered under the Sphinx to beam up some his troops during the siege of Moscow.
Scott figured people would consider it historically inaccurate the spaceships couldn't save all Napolean's troops.
🤧 I cri for the lost.
…and I really missed that scene; I was really looking forward to it, since I’ve always heard so much about it…
Napoleon would have won Waterloo, but SG1 blew up his Al'kesh
Scot has never been told "no" as a child. Ego is insane.
As someone who enjoys cinema, and loves history, I'm so tired of the 'it's a movie, its entertainment not a documentary' excuse for bad historical filmmaking. Master and Commander is fiction, historical fiction but still. And yet it stands as one of the most historically 'AUTHENTIC' pieces of cinema ever made. Not accurate, but authentic. And it is a great movie.
Ridley Scott looks and history and just presumes he can do better. Even when he actually just makes history look smaller, and less significant.
@@Blisterdude123 Alexandre Dumas (writer of the Three Musketeers) had a great saying for that : "You can rape history, at the condition to give her beautiful children"
Although the rape allegory might be ill-suited to the modern times, i like the idea : you can change history for your fiction, at the explicit condition that what you show is more interesting than what actually happened.
or as an adult .
@@Cancoillotteman Love it! Should be placarded on every historical show as a reminder.
@@CancoillottemanBetween Dumas and Hugo I think we have a good insight that Scott has no idea wtf he is talking about.
From The Duellists to this, I think he got too confortable. With that confort came laziness and arrogance. Since Gladiator was a success and an entertaining film, despite its many historical innacuracies, it seems he started thinking he could crap out whatever and the audiences would swallow it.
More concerning is that this ignorant little man now believes his opinions are as valid as the knowledge academics have accumulated over the centuries, more so even, since it's his movie and what he says goes.
Spreading a little education along with entertainment in his movies would cost him nothing, but the thundering choir of his own ego must mute all dissention. Shame on him.
Yeah, he seemed to forget - or perhaps just miss entirely - the fact that Gladiator wasn't good because it totally ignored history but rather because its historical inaccuracies still served to build the setting in a cinematic and satisfying way. It also helps that Maximus himself was a fictional person. Historians can nitpick things like the Romans wearing lorica segmentata at a time when they wouldn't be wearing much of it, but all Scott has to say is, "It's THE iconic Roman armor. It looks cool, everyone knows that it's 'Roman armor,' and anyone who's wearing it on-screen is clearly a Roman. The barbarians are all in fur and hide with shoddy axes because they're the *barbarians.* You see them, you know who they are. I'm telling a story, not filming a reenactment." Boom. Done. He nails the 'vibe' of ancient Rome and tells a good story at the same time without pretending he's recreating history on-screen.
It seems like he really got a bit full of himself as, as you said, too comfortable. He missed the fact that the inaccuracies in something like Gladiator still contributed to the setting. It made the Romans look and feel like *Romans.* The barbarians look like *barbarians.* Rome looks like Rome. The characters act, at least in the average person's mind, like Romans. The praetorians look like praetorians. On and on, accurate or not. Napoleon just... doesn't act like Napoleon, from all the reviews and summaries I've heard.
"Since Gladiator was a success and an entertaining film, despite its many historical innacuracies" I don't think that Gladiator had anything accurate, it was all historical inaccuracies. He should stick to fiction, his greatest hits were Alien and Hannibal
You go and make your own movie then
@@oscaralegre3683 No thanks. I'll just not see his anymore.
@@oscaralegre3683, any creator who blames the consumer/audience for not liking their product is wrong, we decide what content we enjoy not him.
As a history prof. there are a lot of movies I have a hard time watching because they are so far off the mark of what we know about an era, event, or personality that I have to constantly remind myself that it is supposed to just be entertainment but then I find even schools sometimes using such silly movies to teach kids a "history lesson." It is very frustrating. I have to correct a lot of stuff. I have even heard some young people say it has to be true or they wouldn't have it in the movie as an objection to an actual historical account. So, I completely understand your frustration with this stuff.
Haha, yeah its just entertainment but nowadays movies arent even entertaining... :-(
As an ex-teacher I apologize for showing movies in the classroom, we just get so tired sometimes and need a break. LOL Esp now during the Christmas season it's going to be either a Christmas quiz or a movie that is remotely related to whatever topic we are going through. We do point out that it's not accurate, but I have to admit, not every student understands or remembers that. Also many students forget absolutely everything they have learned after a while, it's really depressing.
The education system uses movies with zero educational value and pretends they're educational a LOT. When I was in high school, some public school kids I knew were shown the Percy Jackson movies in class as part of the Greco-Roman unit in social studies...meanwhile, I was reading actual Greco-Roman literature through my Great Books homeschool curriculum. My dad is a schoolteacher and says another teacher at his school showed the kids Hamilton as part of their American Revolution unit. Hamilton has barely any educational value and Percy Jackson may have *negative* educational value. The teachers know as much as the kids do if they think these movies belong in a classroom.
People are getting tired of altering history for the sake of either diversity or sensationalism.
For this case, it's probably more leaning into Ridley Scott's British's anti-French biases and anti-historical sentiments, making Napoleon an emotionally malleable military general with the film very specific angle to undermine his military achievements throughout DECADES OF ABLE TO CONQUER EUROPE, undermining his double-edged sword of his legacy with blatant biases on a film based of a historical figure, it's giving me reminiscence to the more recent and seemingly unrelated kind of USA lying about WMDs in Iraq or the incubator babies in Kuwait to brushing out the highway of death alongside Saddam's role in stabilising Iraq into national order, relative growth and notable anti-terrorism containment in the Middle East (so mass immigrations to The West are minimised to teeth), in spite of Saddam's many flaws and crimes (especially letting Uday's deranged antics existing) but I digress
Making Napoleon being so submissive to his wife while not focusing on the actual women that's waaay more instrumental to Napoleon's life (namely his very own mother which he highly respected and loved so much) are akin to making an Ottoman series where Suleiman I's military and administrative achivements being reduced to him simping for Roxelana/Hurrem, it's historical revisionism into absurd degrees
To some extend, making the action more spectacular can be okay if it doesn't break the logic. An example I often use is the ice breaking under the Teutonic Knights in Alexander Nevsky, which didn't happen during the real battle.
Alexandre Dumas (writer of the Three Musketeers) had a great saying for that : "You can rape history, at the condition to give her beautiful children"
Although the rape allegory might be ill-suited to the modern times, i like the idea : you can change history for your fiction, at the explicit condition that what you show is more interesting than what actually happened.
Always write die-worse-ity.
Do it.
Let us bark back a bit.
@@ohamatchhams Well congratulations on rambling from Scott's Napoleon bias to your own about Saddam and the U.S. in one long and barely comprehensible sentence.
What's insane is Scott directed The Duelists, which is an awesome film that had a lot of attention to detail regarding the Napoleonic period.
Ridley Scott is a hit or (very) miss director. No consistency at all with the man.
he is an old man now, with more fame and more money, and more ego
I guess we can contribute it to the writers who kept the script right.
not really 'insane' that an artist in his 80s is less inspired than he was in his 20-30s
Had to watch some P's and Q's still at that time. Stick to the book.
Ridley Scott seems to be such a strong narcissist and an as***le. Imagine how his staff likes to work with him.
The Pyramid scene is just more fuel to make Europeans look like the "destroyers of cultures" we're always accused of being.
Well, our race has have been a top contributor to innovation in the neutralization of hostile groups.
Howver, its balanced out by all the contributions white men and some women have made to the betterment of the race and humans as a whole.
Ordinarily I'd agree but honestly, Ridley Scott IS just that incompetent. Never attribute to malice what can be attiributed to incompetence. Ridley Scott genuinely thought a 'clever' piece of imagery to communicate Napoleon's conquest of Egypt was to have him shoot cannons at the pyramids.
Not much different to how Ridley Scott depicted (demonized) the crusaders in KoH.
[Edit: but at least KoH was actually a fairly entertaining movie.]
Dont tell them that archeology and anthropology were almost entirely created by Europeans
Funny how the real person who tried to destroy the pyramids hundreds of years earlier than that was actually Saladin’s son, but we can’t say shit about Muslims
Once again, metatron suffers for both our entertainment and education against the forces of inaccuracy. Hats of to you, sir
“Forces of inaccuracy”
*puts on glasses*
(Forces of liberalism)
My dad made fun of me for not wanting to go see Napoleon with him(I already had plans anyway). But once he came back, he congratulated me on deciding not to go because it was awful.
I'm 45 now. I saw countless movies and tv-shows in my life. I was really entertainted when GLADIATOR came out in the year 2000. Yes, that one was as historically accurate as Star Trek, but it was at least very entertaining. By God, I watched Naploeon on Sunday and I felt Nothing, NOTHING. Ridley Scott might be just too old and stubborn now - he's 86... many people don't even live that long. And usually people get more and more stubborn and entitled in old age. He made some masterpieces, but WTF was Napoleon!
@@beyondlimitationsvideo Scott began his downfall in 2005, with Kingdom of Heaven. Since then, he made a few decent films here and there, but most of them are atrocious.
Is your dad a boomer?
@@ArseneGray He's on the older end of Gen X, with a couple older siblings who are Boomer.
@allisk8001 so we have evidence of at least one person who is not a millenial who does not like ridley scott's movie 😅
As a historian, Scott's words were like a stab. Fortunately, I have a certain ability to separate the work from the artist, although sometimes it becomes very, very challenging.
As a Historian I always wonder how many of us actually have sheep skins that claim this. lmao
As AN Historian!!!
He's pissed us VFX artists off as well by saying "it's all practical" when over 360 digital artists worked on the film.
@@jaredmccormickHuh?
@@jaredmccormick A 'oop! An Hoop!
Monty python, great sketch.
The moment the alien burst out of Napoleon's chest, i knew Scott had gone astray.
He held it back as long as he could. (Hand in coat)
When Josephine declared she was non binary, it killed me.
That was the most historically accurate scene in the movie….
@@alihenderson5910You kids are so obsessed with your phones you're still texting your emoticons over the web behind Heaven's pearly gates.
P.S.
My condolences, I am praying for your departed soul.
Sadly we live in a time when ignorance and arrogance are worshipped. We live in a time when people honestly think that they can make up their own reality, and that their personal fiction overrides history and science.
So sad but so true
When someone tries the whole “we YOU there?” I say “yes, I was, I saw it all….and if YOU weren’t ALSO there then you can’t tell me I wasnt”. That usually gets them to realize how dumb they are being. Usually. Not always.
I'm using that lol 🤔.
Peter Weir directed Master and Commander and did a great job with his research, a great film of it's period! A great director
I’m still sad that the planned sequel(s) never happened. One of my favorite films.
M&C is an outstanding film!
Now, this one should be an absolute reference
Indeed it is. I wish we’d gotten sequels too.
@@staggerlee7301 If you haven't read the books then do yourself a favour, a great read!
I have a degree in History. While I certainly don't consider myself a historian, I have to say that not understanding how historical research works, to this degree, is kind of shocking. Good video.
The Napoleon movie looks like an absolute farce of a film. I honestly fear its the beginning of the bastardization of history for entertainments sake and I'm terrified with the possibilities it could result in.
Its a bad love story, with "highlights" so to speak of Napoleon's life scattered without any explination.
Unfortunately, history has been treated this way for decades. Look at the likes of Braveheart, regarded as one of the most historically inaccurate movies ever made.
@@akl2k7yup also the movies Titanic , Pearl Harbor, and The Patriot (especially the scene of slaves defending their slave owner against joining the British army)
@@Chuck_ELI have to defend Titanic here. The love story aside, its a good representation. Cameron knows his stuff, and did some serious research. And on top of that you got of course some dramatisation
@thepubknight6144 you do know not all slave owners were hated by slaves don't you?
As a Czech, I was kind of surprised how it looked in the movie in Austerlitz (Slavkov in Czech), there are no bigger hills and that massive lake was just a pond, but I respect that it's just a movie, what I don't like is when creators know how it should be correctly and they don't do it on purpose to make historians angry.
He filmed it in an old quarry in Surrey where he filmed the battle scenes for Gladiator...very lazy especially with what you can do with CGI now. It was in the interview he had with Dan Snow for History Hit.
I'd like a movie/series in period about skirmish and probe units. Similar to the Sharps' series.
That would be cool.
I live in Brno. When I saw the trailer I remembered a moment in cinema years ago where in the movie "Wanted" with Angelina Jolie the protagonist is on a pendolino train in "Moravia" that goes through a tunnel and than it goes straight to a bridge over a massive ravine where it crashes... At that moment one guy in the cinema shouted "Ty vole, Macocha" and the whole audience started laughing. After seeing Scot's depiction of Austerlitz, I must admit Wanted was the second worst depiction of Moravia in US cinema.
@@neverstopschweiking It looked like some Norway or something. 😀
Were when draining the pond after the battle they found several bodies and dead horses
Ridley Scott's first feature film was about two officers in Napoleon's Army who carry a grudge and demand 'satisfaction' across a few decades. Released in 1977 it is called 'The Duellists'.
Favorably critiqued and highly rated it comes with this note from its wikipedia entry "The film is lauded for its historically authentic portrayal of Napoleonic uniforms and military conduct, as well as its generally accurate early-19th-century fencing techniques as recreated by fight choreographer William Hobbs."
Age is getting to Ridley Scott.
A fall from grace.
The question is, did he write and direct both movies or only directed both or wrote and directed one? Not all directors write their own films and many are essentially hired guns. The studio has a script that they like and so they look around fr someone to direct and that director may or may not have much or any input in wat the final shooting script is like. But giong by his statement, it sounds like maybe he either wrote the script or screenplay for Napoleon or, at the very least, had considerable input in the script/screenplay.
Ridley was only ever a good director, i hope people finally unglue their mouths from his rear and realize that all of his greatest movies had a stellar cast of scriptwriters and producers that have been overshadowed by him.
@@T-h-a-t_G-u-y It was his first film. He was not a big shot then. It may be age but also ego and its a bad combination.
Scott was obviously "there", so he's totally qualified to depict Napoleon as an eight-legged Martian gas crab if he wants to!
Scott's refusal to address Napoleon's three day disappearance to San Dimas, California is unforgivable.
I want to congratulate you. I actually googled that as I hadn't seen the movie in a couple decades.
Was honestly a bit excited.
So bogus, dude. 😂
😂 awesome comment 😂
Was staring at San Dimas for a good 5 seconds. Gears turning. Then I got it.
Bogus.
th-cam.com/video/6GmNwR3rQ0I/w-d-xo.htmlsi=64s2fCFupbjFkMuJ
The fuckin' EGO of Hollywood as a whole has grown beyond anything I thought I'd ever see. We all know that celebrities have an inflated sense of self-importance, but the whole town has just gone off the rails with narcissism.
Its because normal people like us keep telling how awesome they are, asking for signatures, paying money to see them etc etc..
Basically, the way I see it, Ridley Scott entered this stage of movie creator's life cycle where he is intoxicated by illusion of his own grandeur induced from sniffing his own farts.
He is a very good director. Knows absolutely nothing about history though
Very well summarized.
@@Minions91113 He _was_ a good director. Other than The Martian, he hasn't made a good film since 2010. He's just another George Lucas now. Insisting Jar Jar Binks is cool.
@@KathrynsWorldWildfireTrackingGeorge Lucas doesn’t even pretend to be like that. The prequels had direct homages and parallels to the works of early cinema. Lucas is no hack… I’d also say Ridley works a whole lot at his late age and he does have great work after the Martian. Raised by Wolves has his son and Ridley directing a few episodes and also producing…
I love when casuals try to use the “were you there?” argument. Absolute classic.
I can say that Riddley Scott does not exist according to him. I was never there ......
Also: don't like, don't read. And of course "don't criticize if you can't make it better yourself". 🙄
Simple reply to such cretins - ask them if they believe Alaska, Antarctica, Africa, or Australia exist.
Shocking part is that this "argument" wasnt made by kindergarten kid but a grown up man...
That reminds me of religious apologetics. Many apologists use the schtick.
Ridley Scott would probably walk into the airplane’s cockpit and yelled at pilots “can you fly on your own? do you have wings? Well then shut the eff up!”
😂😂😂😂😂
the irony is Scott's first film, his directorial debut, "the Duelists" is one of the best historical films ever made. I have no idea why/how he forgot to make good/accurate films when he made "the Last Duel" or potentially "Napoleon"(haven't seen it yet).
Too much money and too few constraints are the twin assassins of relevant art.
He loves to take creative liberties, Gladiator was innacurate in pretty much all of its portrayal of Roman history.
@@johnandrewserranogarcia7223 Sure, but that was decades after The Duelists, and after he cut his teeth on Aliens et al.
I just watched Waterloo (1970). Brilliant film and the portrayals of Napoleon and Wellington were terrific!
A fantastic film
Once famous creators aging out of their field of employment to the point that they have no idea anymore what their target demographic wants, or even considers a good idea, is a thing. I wish they wouldn't pretend it wasn't.
seems like we're seeing that same sort of thing play out across the world really. Politicians are getting older, many people cant get promoted because people above them arent retiring even after they've aged to the point that their abilities have degraded (which often leads to those under them doing their superiors job for them without a raise OR promotion), and overall it seems like older generations are just refusing to relinquish control even after they've grown out of touch with the modern world like boomers yelling at Gen Z service workers about how things were so much harder in their day back when a high school drop out could afford to buy a house while that Gen Z worker is making slave wages to pay off his college degrees that he needed to work at McDonalds.
Scott knows his target demographic and it isn't anyone interested in truth.
This is how Mr Scott pais respect to the work of others. This behavior speaks volumes about the character of a person.
Scott telling a historian to get a life...history is a historian's life, so Dan Snow really does have a life!!!
Compare Napoleon to Ridley Scott’s “The Duelists” and the drop in quality, historic accuracy and attention to detail is undeniable.
Black Hawk Down is another one of his films and that was an excellent and extremely accurate portrayal of the events it was based on. This is just embarrassing.
@@robertwalker5794 I havent watched Napoleon, I am a Scott fan. Is it really that bad? I loved the duel, I thought it was very original.
@@elian958 I like some of his films as well. I actually really liked Robin Hood and he created some classic films like Alien and Blade Runner. But yes, I think this is bad.
First, it’s too short for the amount of time he’s trying to show. If Scott wanted to show the entirety of Napoleon’s rise and fall, he needed at least two, maybe three films.
Second, he completely rewrites parts of well documented history and doesn’t do anything interesting in the film to justify it. You can edit history in certain ways, and still be authentic but he apparently did it just because he could.
Third, his general attitude towards people raising concerns about the film was (and still is) completely dismissive and arrogant. He seems to have such a inflated opinion of himself and blames others for his failures. He basically told everyone who criticized the changes to history that he was right and that everyone should shut up and deal with it which, unsurprisingly, angered a lot of people and immediately turned them against the film.
I highly recommend looking up some other reviews of the film as they do a much better job at explaining its flaws than I can but to sum it up, this film was a massive disappointment.
@@robertwalker5794 well, nobody is perfect I guess
Over the years he’s stopped knowing how to develop a narrative. “the Duellists” captured the Napoleonic era so much better
Scott was leagues better when he was:
a) younger and not as spoiled by fame as he is now
b) restrained by limited budgets and kept in check by studio execs (yes, they DO sometimes work as a healthy boundaries setters for overambitious buffoons)
an actor/director getting over their heads throughout their career is a story as old as that industry itself.
"The Duelists" is a gem of a movie, and way more historically accurate. Scott lost that touch along the way.
I just was thinking about his first movie The Duellists that was also set in Napoleonic times. That one was really good. But, well, like many artists before... after a certain time, they lose their Mojo.
Usually, the main thing is getting old, and thus, not as good as the arts and making a story.
The simple truth@Thsnk you friend
To be fair, he is not the only one; in the film King Arthur, one of the Roman was using a bow and arrow while riding a horse that did not exist until centuries later with the Mongols of Genghis Kahn, a bow and arrow used by the Roman, would have been too long to be used while riding the horse, and of course barbed wire, also seen in the film did not exist either. Norman Freeman plying a black Muslim, warrior moving to cold Nottingham with Robin Hood, (Kevin Costner) who presumably joined the Crusades to kill Muslims.
The Last Duel was disgusting. I can see why Disney didn't spend a dime to market it.
3:54 Ridley Scott thinks Napoleon lived in the 1600s 💀
This reminds me of when I was in school back in the seventies a teacher saying that Napoleon and his army shot the nose off the Spinx.
He did
No, it was broken off by a Sufi Muslim in 1378 who was outraged that local peasants were making offerings to the Sphinx.
@@charlespayne1707 Same Egyptologists that say that claim Egypt was white.. they have no credibility. white supremacists ALWAYS lie.
Im gonna spread that myth to my local preschool
An alien ate the nose
This is like a detective pulling out all the evidence and getting a "but were you actually there" from the defense.
Crazy how the new Godzilla movie cares more about history than the Napoleon movie.
And it is also an all around better film.
I heard right down to the Japanese war ships involved.
Godzilla Minus One was so good!
I wrote this a month ago, in response to a video I saw, where he talked about the behind the scenes of the movie; _While I'm certainly intrigued by his perspective as a film maker, I do question his simplistic thoughts on the books about him (Napoleon/ historical figures)- yes, sometimes the earliest accounts come from eyewitnesses/ people who had access to eyewitnesses/ information, & later accounts might be written long after eyewitnesses are dead- but beyond authorial bias, the information available can change over time, too._
_Some writers have a role that allows them access to information that others simply aren't privy to. For others, Government documents become accessible after a certain amount of time- people leave hithertofore unknown artefacts & private papers to museums & whathaveyou._
_So long as a writer applies a rigorous standard (knowing the background of the sources, & so on) - there's no reason a newer work can't be just as valid as the first._
_And saying 'Were you there?' is a foolish retort; No, I wasn't there for Marie Antoinette's execution, but there is documentation for it- we know the date, the month & the year (& thus, the likely weather)- preceding events are also known (she attracted a great deal of sympathy during her trial, due to the vileness of some of the accusations leveled at her, struck a chord with mothers in the gallery when she appealed to them)- so that can give a stronger impression of her attitude & mindset (unlikely she was haughty & arrogant, & that the _*_entire_*_ crowd was screaming abuse at her)_
_We also know what she was wearing- because she'd _*_requested_*_ to wear black, & the revolutionary authority _*_*forced*_*_ her to wear white; her hair was cut short at the prison & she was made don a mobcap._
_We also know how she came to her execution (the route, means, & company)- as well as the process for it._
_I'm not trying to sh*t on the movie, or anything- but if so much was gotten wrong in such a small section, then I do have to wonder how so much of Napoleon's life & reign, & campaigns can be accurately depicted in a movie, rather than a mini-series..._
While my comment got more than 100 likes- I got 4-5 responses with some variation of 'It's just a movie, bro- it's entertainment, not a history book!' - but I responded to a person who politely engaged with me, & was mostly agreeing with my comments.
I then added to this later response, my thoughts *after* seeing the movie: _I find this {changing _*_history_*_ to suit a film} frustrating; I agree that some _*_small_*_ changes, to benefit the smoothing of the directorial narrative, can prove necessary (& the film medium can helpfully establish in seconds & minutes- what a book takes paragraphs & pages to describe) - I feel the same way with novel series being adapted: I'm not a 💯% purist-type- I do understand that some things may get left out, but that should be a carefully made series of choices- not just for sh*ts & giggles- or because the scriptwriters/ showrunners were too stupid to craft the plot, a la Dumbarse & Dipsh^t of GoT infamy._
_But it absolutely went _*_beyond_*_ judicious choices in 'Napoleon' - my brother won tickets for the premiere, but wasn't able to go- so my mother & I did._
_Overall, it didn't feel worth it: it looked ok (Mum thought the palette & lighting for the battles/ uniforms was too muddy to follow things clearly, & all sides speaking English* didn't help) & was decently shot - the costumes & sets were good._
_But it was the story & characterisation predominantly, that let it down- Pheonix is too old to play Napoleon across a near 30-year period (1793-1821, 28 years to be precise), & Kirby, too young for Josephine; their wedding had _*_both_*_ their ages altered- aging him up, & her down- she was like 6-9 years older than him, I believe. It was certainly a choice to cover so much of Napoleon's life in a single film, as opposed to a series or trilogy- & split the story so sharply between his military career, & personal life._
_I feel like the portrayal maybe could have worked, had Scott really gone for it, in terms of Napoleon being single-minded- that would have paired better with a military focus- or, his penchant for cruelty, & sense of exactitude & internal inferiority to the elder royal houses of Europe, had the focus been more on his personal life. There was also the lack of detail within his administration/ relationships with people- the lack of personality - Pheonix looking tired/ bored did not help._
_When we left, Mum said, & I quote: "I would have no interest in paying to see this- he seemed so juvenile for so much of it." And she also felt the multiple sex-scenes were over-the-top (& after the first one, pointless). Aesthetically, it's quite reasonable- but even in generalities, let alone closer details- it absolutely falls over..._
*We had a good-natured debate on the way home, over the choices in historical/ foreign topic films- of native language/s, subtitled- accented English- & the actor's own English - in something like 'The Death of Stalin', for instance- everyone speaking English worked- because it was utilised as a way of emphasizing the differences between people of a larger geographic area - Scott could have used that similarly, to show the difference between Napoleon/ his family (Corsicans), the aristocrats like Josephine- & others, to give the audience a stronger sense of place/ alienation, & so on- but there's no focus on that aspect.
We get no real sense of these people, their background, nor their journey- or, _we_ didn't, at least...
Like Scott, I used to believe historians only read older history books and summarised them in their own. Then I turned 12.
I’d like to thank Ridley Scott for making me feel so much better about choosing not to go see his movie.
Everything I’ve heard about Ridley Scott’s perspective on making this movie and the following criticism. Just makes me wonder why no one said to him “you know you don’t _have_ to make this movie?” Like he seems to not give a shit about any of the subject matter at all.
The Apple money they got for the movie helped a lot to not think about stuff like that.
Suppose one were to claim that the Romans were Aboriginal Australians and that there were no genocides of any kind in history and that the alleged victims of such were just left under the sofa cushions, would Ridley still say "Were you there? No, so shut up!"
Flat Earth has entered the chat.
Maybe it used to be flat and then became round. 🤪
@@Dowlphin "We live inside the Hollow Earth" now joins to give it's two cents. Disc World will soon follow.
Remember the Rosetta Stone? It might have not even been discovered if Napoleon and his peeps weren’t trying to conquer Egypt. They cared more for ancient Egypt than the descendants who lived there. That Scott had the artillery use the Sphinx as target practice was over the top. It was not necessary for the story line. What was he trying to portray?
Just for reference, Dan Snow isn’t just a “Tik-Toker” him and his dad have been doing documentaries for the BBC for years.
One thing that seems to have changed since The Last Duel, is that we millenials are no longer the intergenerational whipping boy. Thanks GenZ (and in Scott's case historians, as well as the French, apparently). I'd dance a dance of joy, but my back has been acting up lately...
It's beyond me why Scott did not add an epic sword fight between the Xenomorph and Napoleon.
A fight between Napoleon and the predator would have been better. The predator had a flintlock.
The problem with "this is a fictional film, not a documentary" is that 1000 people will see the film (if it's successful) for every ten people who read a book or even watch a documentary about the real history. So it's one thing to change a few minor details but if you give a false impression on a larger historical point that's going to be the "history" that 99% of the public thinks they know.
Oh don't worry they know what they're doing.
Thing is? They know exactly what they are doing.
thats on people tho, not the directors fault if they are stupid
Wait, so Abraham Lincoln wasn’t a Vampire Hunter?
Absolutely!
I think social media overall has massively overreacted to Napoleon, since many of the historical inaccuracies fall well within the standards for “good” directors like Kubrick and even Scott himself. There’s a lot of time compression adding people to scenes where they were not present and having characters talk who never met. That’s all standard movie stuff, and not particularly egregious. However, Scott himself also completely overreacted. He could have just said, “Who cares? We changed a few things to help with narrative and pacing. If we’d covered everything the movie would be 12 hours long and only of interest to war buffs. “
I agree, though I have to add something. He could’ve turned the movie concept into a 12 episode single season series since TV is much bigger and creatively freer than the film landscape. The director of Australia turned his film into a mini series, so it’s not unheard of.
His overreaction turned me off of him for the moment.
I come away from this video thoroughly convinced that Christmas crackers should henceforth contain authentic 15th century style hats.
You owe everything to your viewers! Thanks for remembering us, and thank you for all your hard work. I love your channel!
Between them, Ridley Scott and Mel Gibson have managed to make Ben Hur look like a documentary.
You may be right about "the patriot", but I think the freedom Mel Gibson took for braveheart are allright.
It was clear to me that the aim of that movie was to just tell a story, like a semi-fantasy.
Anyway, the hustorical accounts we hve for Napoleon are incredibly more accurate than tose on William wallace.
@@francescoporcari8597 I don't know much about Braveheart, I don't remember why but I never finished watching the film, but I remember one of the critisisms, which is think is really valid, was that Gibson decided to go something like 500+ years wrong for the Scottish constumes...in both directions.
@@francescoporcari8597I think it’s fair to give a film about events that are further in the past and less well documented more leeway. I doubt Braveheart was more accurate than The Patriot, but since there are fewer certainties about the events that’s okay.
As a person near 100 they tend to revert to infantilism. Saying “were you there?” is pure deflection used by a 5 year old in a school yard argument
His first movie "The Duelists" was well done with correct uniforms and event chronology. I still have to see the movie, but seeing Napoleon leading a cavalry charge makes me skeptical. By the way, latters were used to storm Regisburg in 1809, and Napoleon was shot in the foot leading the assault.
Ridley's anti-intellectual, _bullying the nerds_ attitude has made me lose even more respect for him. I loved Blade Runner, Alien and enjoyed Gladiator. He's had more flops than masterpieces. Maybe he's not as good as I once thought.
To be completely honest? The Alien series stopped really being his thing after James Cameron and so on took it over. So that’s one franchise. And most of the things he’s done since were never really on my radar. Though I did like Robin Hood. Prometheus was just awful to me and I wrote him off ever since especially any of his older work I didn’t see. I don’t see the hype over him, personally.
If he didn’t act like an arrogant twat and admitted he wanted to do something fun with it like the Death of Stalin or Jojo Rabbit, there’d be nothing wrong. But whatever.
People like him make the rest of Hollywood look like assholes and are why I don’t blame people for wanting them to lose their jobs from the extended strike. I certainly feel sorrier for the lower people on the tentpole like the caterers and the crew who lost money, smaller actors, writers and directors, etc.
I'm actually really glad you pointed out that radio carbon dating has issues as well. When I went for my Anthropology/Archaeology degree we were trained on RCD and other forms as well and I was stunned to learn that the error correction pretty much boils down to 'the community decided these were good ranges and anything outside of it is null'. More surprised to learn that null points are FAR FAR more common than 'correct' data points.
I watched the movie last week. It's basically what you'd expect from a Ridley Scott movie: good action/battle scenes but little to no reference to reality. For example - SPOILERS! - the battle of Austerlitz was shown to be won by Napoleon using his canons to break the ice of a frozen lake. This actually happened as far as I know but it wasn't as significant to the victory as shown in the movie. The battle of Leipzig on the other hand was left out entirely.
For the entire movie Napoleon was shown to be a man which I feel would've been called weird in his time and today as well... there's a scene in which he wails like a dog in front of his servants because he wants to sleep with his wife Josephine. I expected to see a demonstration of the most powerful man in France but instead I got this... it was rather disturbing to witness.
Concerning Austerlitz, from what I read the whole part with the ice happened when the battle was essentially already won and a small group of Austrians and Russians (around 200 I think?) were retreating across a frozen body of water. The idea of the entire coalition army just marching onto a frozen lake they didn't know was there is unfathomably retarded; this is literally their home turf. I recommend Tolstoi's War and Peace for a dramatic yet historically accurate fictional depiction.
@@KitteridgeStudios that's precisely what I read as well.
We appreciate your accuracy. They should consult you for historical input! Hats off! 🎉
Woah, woah, woah!
Dan Snow is not a TikToker - he’s a highly respected historian who has worked hard to introduce historical content to newer generations through contemporary media (TH-cam, TikTok etc).
Take it back, Metatron!
Glad you said this. 😊👍 I couldn't have said it better !!
If he uses TikTok, that makes him a TikToker. :p
@@aralornwolf3140 don't be disingenuous when, we say TikToker you know we are refering to someone whose career revolves around making TikTok content. If a TH-camr happens to occasionally use TikTok, you would still call them a TH-camr and Demetrios Johnson is still described as an MMA fighter and not a Twitch Streamer. Metatron described Dan Snow as a TikToker which is incorrect as he is a historian with a First Class Honours Degree in Modern History (1450 onwards). Secondary to this he is a TV presenter who has presented over 2 dozen history TV shows and he is also a published author (8 books), the tiny portion of his work that is on TikTok which is informed by his actual profession and only been going on for around a year, does not get to be stated as his profession.
@@nathanthom8176 Thanks for the context.
I've seen parts of the interview with Ridley Scott. If this person is really a historian, he totally sold out. How could he listen to Scott's answers and not immediately challenge him on his attitude? The way I see it, that interview was nothing but promotion for the movie, and ass-kissing par excellence.
Maybe we'll get a good historically accurate Napoleon mini series one day.
Everyone knows Napoleon was a nine foot tall Moor from Tanzania with skin as dark as night! Lol.
@jed-henrywitkowski6470 so Netflix picked it up..... lol
I'm a fan of the one from Bill & Ted.
There is a 4 episode series from 2002 with Christian Clavier as Napoleon and John Malkovich as Talleyrand, there are reuploads posted here on youtube (I've even seen someone posting version upscaled to 4k)
Quentin Tarantino should have done it. Then at least it would have been a cool movie and nobody would have had any expectations of it being realistic, much like Inglorious Bastards or something.
The problem is when a work exists in the uncanny valley of historical fiction and fictionalized history.
As a non-historian, I have to say that helmet was absolutely stupid ... in concept, execution and appearance.
The whole "make europe dark blue and depressing" only really worked in Kingdom of Heaven because it was an artistic decision to show a simple contrast of the locations....now doing it in The Last Duel and Napoleon....that has zero reason to be like that. The Napoleon costume looks amazing in the backstage photos.
It was stupid there too. That movie is overrated, Salah ad-Din and Baldwin IV were the only good parts.
@@fiddlesticks7245the extended cut is beautiful tho, I love their was some Hema sword fighting going on in the beginning as well.
I want to see a medieval film with 1938 Robin Hood style colors. Ironically it got the colors right.
I hadn't watched "Napoleon", but had heard criticism about the desaturated colours. It is a (lamentable) trend in modern filmmaking, so I didn't give it much regard. And then I took a look into the movie.
For God's sake... this is only inches away from doing it in black and white! If people want to do that, for artistic reasons, they should just do it!
@@GroffiliThis is not a complaint of historical accuracy but artistic depiction.
Colour coding always has visual storytelling purpose
I saw Napoleon. Let's just say he didn't come off as the most feared man in Europe.
Funny thing about shooting the pyramid (that didn't really happen) is that they could have shown soldiers shooting the nose off the Sphinx to even greater dramatic effect and at least he would be repeating a popular lie instead of inventing one.
You were hilarious in this one, Metatron! I almost peed myself when I heard that scream while Napoleon was holding his ears! Love it!
I know it's a tiny bit off-topic for "Napoleon", but if they wanted to add an interesting tidbit about the Egyptian campaign, they could have shown the discovery of the Rosetta Stone by a French soldier.
@@simpsondr12 yeah, that would have been great. Of course, there's no explosion in that story, and it's a true story, so that's a big "NO" from Hollywood!
The line on the poster wound me up..."Came from nothing, conquered everything"...No he didn't, not even remotely !
Ye, it should have been “defeated the Romans at first, then he paid for it with his life when he faced Scipio”
I have no problems with historical movies, because I know how to separate out most of the bulls4it that's shown.
My heartburn is the folks who watch these movies and take it as TRUTH. They're the once being poorly served by the material.
I had to stop watching movies that were "based on a true story" or "inspired by real events" with certain family members because they'll believe it was portrayed with 100% accuracy.
@@johnandrewserranogarcia7223
The movie "Fire in the sky" did that with Travis Walton's story...he said the aliens he met were nice and that he was the aggressor
In the film the aliens were the studio basically "read the room" and said that alien abduction angles were popular at that time so they decided to fabricate his story
Since he gave them the rights he had to accept but it
He said he does hope his actual story gets told
Proud of you. Scott made a movie labeled Napoleon, to make money. He will not get any from me. Thank you.
As a member of Generation X, I would like to acknowledge the fact that in Metatron's rant about generations not liking Mr. Scotts film, we (Gen X) were in fact not acknowledged, as is almost always the case when generations are brought up.
(Don't get me wrong. We literally don't care. But we do think it's funny that everyone almost always forgets about us).
Love the channel, by the way.
I didn't know people still said "Get a life."
The fact that anyone thought that movie was going to be "art" is hilarious.
I can imagine Ridley Scott as a defence lawyer.
Defence: Your Honour, the prosecution would have you believe that this man murdered his neighbour. But I ask were they there? did they see if not then my client is innocent.
Judge: Fair enough, case dismissed.
It might be interesting to see a film based off Scott's life with his type of "liberties" taken as he does.
😂 and then ask him: Were you there? Get a life
Ugh...so I have an undergrad degree in History. I can't tell you how many real life conversations I've had with people along these exact lines...."history books lie." "History is just written by the victors." And I'm like, you don't have the foggiest idea of what historical research actually is, do you?
If some Pharaoh made a giant monument detailing his great victory over the Hittites during the Battle of Kadesh, it is an indication that such a battle probably happened. If you then find Hittite clay tablets claiming they nearly won the battle, you get a second point of view!
I was so looking forward to seeing that movie. I'm so sad now that it has fallen so short of my expectations
Paying attention to real history sets the limits on historical fiction. I remember a TV movie on Peter the Great, which cast an average size actor as Peter, when one of the distinguishing things about that Czar was his great height.
BTW, Bonaparte was not all that short for his era. Austrian and English cartoonists lampooned Napoleon as a malign dwarf, and that libel stuck.
To be fair, it's probably a bit unfair to describe Dan Snow as a "Tik Toker", considering his lengthy career in television. I remember as a tenager really enjoying his TV programme that he made with his father on Battlefields.
The problem with Dan Snow on the BBc is that he's trundled out now whenever the BBc does some sort of history programme despite the fact that in many of the history periods he has no particular expertise in. Once upon a time the BBC actually got specialist historians to write and present history documentaries. They still do occasionally but not often. But at least he's not that ghastly Starkey; hideous man.
On the topic of helmets, despite it's many historical inaccuracies, I have to say that the show Spartacus: Blood and Sand tackled the obfuscation of the characters faces due to the helmets really well.
In one of the fight scenes where Spartacus and Crixus are fighting while wearing gladiator helmets, they used a technique where it looks like a camera was located inside the helmets themselves, showing the characters faces in jump cuts between the sword strikes and blows.
Personally I loved that. It really took you as a viewer into the very thick of the fighting in a very intimate manner.
Hundreds of times better than having silly half helmets on the heads of the actors
Ridley wants an excuse to keep making films without having to come up with new things
The IJN used lazer powered flying saucers during ww2 and ended up winning by using gravayon torpedos. "Were you there? Then im right"
Jokes on you there are still some veterans alive
Germany was defeated by pure military means in the First World War
Where are use there ? Then I’m right
I think I've seen that animated documentary.
one of my favorite examples to use is the historian Marc Bloch's tracing of nordic words in legal documents and law books to disprove the assertion by english kings of the time that they had complete or total control over the area, and to show the expanse of Nordic influence in the region. its a great example of how historians DON'T just take the dude who wrote it down word's for it.
As a history buff, and HEMA enthusiast , the half helmet in the last duel had me WEAK😂
There are legends of Napoleon shooting the nose off of the Sphinx with cannons, however, these have been shown to be apocryphal (by actual historians, who were able to discover sources that showed the nose was already long since missing by the time the French reached Egypt).
I DID see this. I'm an historian (Byzantine, but I am addicted to Central European history as well), and went with several fellow historians - including a professor (from Quebec) of French History AND a retired combat strategy instructor from West Point. We were ALL really looking forward to seeing this - and had no illusions it would be mistaken for a documentary. SORRY METATRON... but I enjoyed Gladiator - despite the glaring issues, it gave a good FEEL of what Roma was like, and it got the battle scene in in the beginning RIGHT. Napoleon... oh my. I would've enjoyed it far more if I had no idea of any Napoleonic history. The French professor literally spent half the film pointing at the screen going "NON! NON! NON! C'est merde!" and the West Point instructor literally shouted "There were no berserkers then, WTF IS THAT?" during the battle scenes. If they wanted to make it a study of the relationship between Napoleon and Josephine, then they should've done it like "Fall Of Eagles" did situations like that, not attempt to mix an "epic" with a talkfest. The biggest sin that anyone watching will notice... it's sooooo dull in sooooo many place. How can a movie about Napoleon be dull? Well... here you have it. And sorry... SPOILER ALERT: Napoleon's horse during the battle of Toulon LIVED in actual history.
No, Gladiator did not get the battle at the beginning right at all, not the slightest little bit. If you think it did it just shows how little academics who don't specialize in military history are expected to know or understand military history. It's not terribly important to the rest of the film, which I also enjoyed, but it gives an extremely misleading impression of what a battle between Roman legions and barbarians would have been like. And also FIRE ARROWS.
@@brucetucker4847Funny, the fire arrows made me mad. I was cranky for the rest of the movie.
Thank you for the excellent rant. I will avoid.
@@mctrustsnoone3781 But at least you weren't on fire. ;-)
Not to mention the cringe line: "Unleash Hell!" What kind of commander talks like that? @@brucetucker4847
"Were you there? Then STFU." Oof.
I LOVE YOU MAN!!!!
I LEFT THE CINEMA BEFORE THE ENDING!!!! I WAS ANGRY FOR 2 DAYS AND DIDNT MANAGE TO SLEEP AFTER THE FILM.... THE MAN MADE A REDICULE OF HISTORY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY OF NAPOLEON.
Waterloo was a decent battle we at least got to see some Napoleonic tactics such as square formation by the British being used against Calvary.
The rest of the ending part of the movie was bland only redeeming part was the Duke of Wellington whose actor portrayed excellently and actually got the feeling of him being a military man.
@@jacobm3445
The British being the only redeeming thing in the movie speaks volume about the intent.
Go see Godzilla, it legit has better history 😅
"Get a life" he says to the people who's life and career it is to understand the past. Meanwhile what does he do as a director? Sit there as other people who do all the work come and ask him what to do next.
I quit watching TV four years ago. The entertainment value has fallen so very far since I was a kid in the 1950's and 1960's.
I would love to hear your commentary on the historical accuracy of "Master And Commander: Far Side of the World."
The shooting of cannons on the piramids was the least hurtful moment of the movie. So... That's that.
Dan Snow is a really knowledgeable historian and a great presenter; you would like him, he is not just a tik tokker. He presents History Hit.
He's extremely bad with food though
Agreed, I've worked with him, very professional, very knowledgeable and humble too.
I like Dan Snow too, enjoy his documentaries on youtube. not sure but didn't he help find the ship of Shackelton?
He's insufferable and woke.
He's a good presenter, but he can be a bit slapdash with his history. Maybe he spreads himself a bit too thin.
I appreciate Matatron’s respect for historical accuracy and logical analysis.
Historians like him are precious for keeping history based in fact and findings
@@grayfox1471but he's a linguist, not a historian.
The Dan Snow thing is much worse than that. He is an actual (popular) historian and TV documentary presenter of decades of experience.
For the history fans out this, I think this is pretty funny. I like Dan Snow and respect his passion. Scott, on the other hand, should retire. I hope this movie flops, the pompous, arrogant ar$e.
I’ll go watch a documentary. Or more Metatron. Significantly better use of my time.
PS I hate Gladiator. Would have been a cool story, but the egregious abuse of history means I loathe it. I enjoy historical fiction, but you have to get it mostly right, or why bother?
Probably the only time Dan Snow has been described as a Tik Toker, not that he'll mind at all. 🤣