Ted Turner backs out of the Last Full Measure

[Scott Tortorice]

www.jeffshaara.com

I was checking out Jeff Shaara's website and read this quote with great disappointment:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REGARDING "THE LAST FULL MEASURE":[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many of you have written, asking if the film version of this book is being produced, to complete the Civil War trilogy. Unfortunately, because of the poor box office results for "Gods and Generals", Ted Turner has dropped all plans to finance a film version of "Last Full Measure". Someone else may yet step forward, but so far, no one in Hollywood has shown interest. Despite the many rumors to the contrary, I'm sorry to say that no film is now in the works.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jeff Shaara. [/FONT]

This makes me sad. Gettysburg was great, and while Gods and Generals was not perfect, I still thought it was a decent film (certainly better than the awful Cold Mountain :shock: ). Alas, it looks like we'll have to wait for the final installment. However, I am hopeful. As the 150th anniversary of the ACW gets closer (2011), I am sure greater interest in ACW films will be the norm (but, then again, with Hollywood as messed-up as it is, who can say?). This interest could translate into a producer for The Last Full Measure at some future date.

What say you? ​

 

[Dr Zaius]

I predicted this over a year ago.

Gettysburg was a great film. It presented the story of the battle from the unique viewpoints of the men who fought in it. The screenplay jumped around at key moments to show how the same tactical situation could look completely different depending on which side of the hill you were standing on and what information was currently available. Although the characters did rally their troops using emotional language and also talked among themselves about the war as a whole, the screenplay mostly stuck to telling the story of Gettysburg.

God & Generals failed because it wasn't a movie at all -- it was a political sermon foisted on the viewer by actors wearing the uniforms of a time long past. The characters didn't act like real people. They were wooden and hardly held any normal coversations appropriate to what soldiers of that era might have been talking about during a major battle. Instead, the entire screenplay was a series of Hollywood actors delivering highly controversial and completely one-sided political speaches exclusively from the side of the Confederacy.

In a historically inspired film it's expected that Confederate soldiers and leaders might actually have parts in the screenplay where they say or do things that contemporary viewers might find controversial. That's fine. But the screenplay writiers for Gods & Generals actually forgot to put a movie in there somewhere!

As one critic put it, Gods & Generals should have been titled, "How General Jackson Whupped Them Damn Yankees Till We Lost the War!"

Here are some selected highlights of the reviews this film received. http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1807858511/critic

More than anything, Generals needs an editor. Pompous and unwieldy, the film gives new meaning to the term “excessive” and would test the patience of even the fondest history buff. The movie drags from one monotonous speech to the next. Maxwell’s remarkably bloodless battle sequences are repetitive, and he pays needless amounts of attention to uninspired military maneuvers. So caught up in the details is Maxwell that he never establishes sentiment, no swell of pride for either side. His film is a clinical re-enactment, a big-budget documentation of the staged battles tourists can see on the side of I-95 in Maryland or Virginia.

On top of that, Maxwell’s vision is hopelessly lopsided. This Civil War epic musters only two black characters who are permitted to speak, and the actors supply exaggerated “Uncle Tom” pitches to their dialogue. The audience would be less insulted if the actors stayed quiet. When Lang’s “Stonewall” addresses his black cook Jim (Frankie Faison), he goes so far as to say that the Southern leaders opposed slavery, and would’ve released the slaves before too long. Sell crazy somewhere else!

White generals, meanwhile, speak with an air of importance, as if these powerhouses of American history somehow knew their words would land in our textbooks (seeing as movies weren't yet invented). The actors uniformly overact with a repressed zeal, leading me to blame Maxwell for his poor coaching. Also the screenwriter, Maxwell never passes up the opportunity to preach and lecture. The dusty discourse he gives to Daniels’ general mid-battle will have you howling with laughter.

http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/2a460f93626cd4678625624c007f2b46/0731a9c1e510d9cb88256cd100027bb9?OpenDocument

A soggy, baggy prequel to the flawed but nevertheless superior 1993 movie "Gettysburg," the Civil War epic "Gods and Generals" is a "how not to" lesson in period filmmaking.

At nearly four hours long, it's a shapeless, undramatic mess, dreadfully written, directed and edited, with its generally able cast hamstrung by unspeakable dialogue.

The film's staggering incompetence can be measured by the way it makes some of the most fascinating and heart-rending episodes in American history tedious.

http://www.nypost.com/movies/54924.htm

The earlier film's length was justified by the pivotal nature of the event, the evenhandedness of its storytelling and the intricacy with which it presented all aspects of the battle. "Gettysburg" felt compressed, while "Gods and Generals" feels deliberately languorous. It's a plodding, episodic film, reverent and sanctimonious, and its pro-Southern viewpoint -- a time-honored Hollywood tendency -- makes "Gone With the Wind" look like a Northern polemic.

Perhaps in order for the country to heal, it was necessary seven score years ago that everyone should adopt the pretense that the war was just a big misunderstanding, in which everyone was equally right and wrong. If the South could forgive the destruction of its cities, it stood to reason that at least Northerners could refrain from harping on the obvious, that the South fought against something sacred (the Constitution) for the sake of something profane (slavery). But "Gods and Generals" tests traditional northern etiquette to the breaking point.

If one were to watch the movie with no knowledge of history, one could be left with the impression that in 1861, a maniac named Lincoln decided to arm federal troops and attack neighboring states because he felt like it. Robert E.
Lee (Robert Duvall) turns down command of the Union army and leads the Confederacy in a decision the movie presents as the height of principle. And Thomas Jackson (Stephen Lang), the future Stonewall Jackson, watches with blue- eyed equanimity as a mob of his cadets tears down the American flag.

Jackson is the hero of "Gods and Generals," and despite some halfhearted digressions to the Northern lines to visit Col. Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels), this is essentially a Jackson hagiography. Much is made of the Confederate general's religious devotion, though the spectacle of a man fighting for a misguided cause with absolute faith that God is on his side may have limited appeal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/21/DD229571.DTL&type=movies

 

[trauth116]

I think a lot of people predicted this -I mean it really isn't finacially viable- although I'm sure Mr Turner would have loved to have found a way.

 

[Blackcloud6]

I also think a problem with Generals is Jeff Shaara. He simply does not write as well as his father and his books take on way to big a scope, Both of his Civil War novels take on a large period of the war and loose the drama and impact that Killer Angels has by focusing on one battle.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

Don,

I think you are being way to hard on G&G! Gettysburg was a better film because is was much more tightly focused, it could focus exclusively on three days of the war. G&G attempted something much more difficult, it tried to grasp three years of battle. As a result, it lost its intimate focus, and came across as a much more sweeping, and hence superficial, interpretation.

I do think that you are correct about the characters coming across as wooden. I was particularly disappointed in the portrayal of Jackson. The book showed him as a much more emotionally complex individual. The movie had him as a sort of General Patton in CSA garb. Also, I found Duvall's Lee as too removed and cold, Martin Sheen was far better.

As for the movie being too pro-CSA, I don't think that was the case. I thought Jeff Danials had some good pro-Union remarks in the film. Granted, more of the CSA perspective was in this film, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.

I think a large part of the negative reaction against G&G was driven by standard PC ideologues (anti-CSA and anti-religion) and not the true sentiments of the viewers. Look at a line from one of the reviews you posted:

"White generals, meanwhile, speak with an air of importance, as if these powerhouses of American history somehow knew their words would land in our textbooks (seeing as movies weren't yet invented)."

Why even mention the race of the generals?

I think this review is typical of the mentality behind the hostility:

"One has to wonder if bible-thumping U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft edited the script. Instead of questioning the religious rhetoric that fuelled the war on both sides, this film wholeheartedly embraces it. Aside from being poorly shot, the film reconstructs U.S. history as ultra-Christian myth ; it may be in vogue with this Bush era, but it's misleading and manipulative." ---Darrin Keene of ChartAttack.com


Also, I will point out that when G&G was released on DVD, it was a top seller for a number of weeks (according to Newsday). Somebody liked it besides me.

Again, not that the film was perfect, but it was far better than a lot of the reviews had you believe.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

I also think a problem with Generals is Jeff Shaara. He simply does not write as well as his father and his books take on way to big a scope, Both of his Civil War novels take on a large period of the war and loose the drama and impact that Killer Angels has by focusing on one battle.

I think Jeff is a good writer (I loved his Gone for Soldiers), but you are correct about the big scope mentality. All his books like to take on entire wars. I can't wait to see how he handles the complexity of WWII in his new series of books.

 

[trauth116]

I thought God and Generals was ok - and I was not all that impressed with Gettysburg - in that all of the action looked the same ( I mean I know enough about Gettysburg to have a handle on where the action was taking place - but I am not so sure that casual viewers that knew little to nothing about Gettysburg would have.) Besides those fake beards -were extremely cheezy in Gettysburg. I loved Bloody Angels though (the book it was based on -it was very well researched).

I have not had an opportunity to read any of Jeff Shaara's stuff although I have everything aside from his WWI book.

I thought Gods and Generals was an ok movie too - but then again what do you have to compare it too? North and South? Blue and Gray? Plus the beards looked far more realistic--- I kept looking at Berringer's beard in G-Burg and I swear it was crooked the entire movie -like he was wearing a dyed Santa Claus beard -- ok nm all that..

I have to watch it again - but there really isn't anything out there that competes with G & G, is there?

 

[wrongway149]

Don,

Also, I will point out that when G&G was released on DVD, it was a top seller for a number of weeks (according to Newsday). Somebody liked it besides me.

Again, not that the film was perfect, but it was far better than a lot of the reviews had you believe.

Its tough for a movie that is 219 minutes long to do well at the theater; Sure, I think it should be done properly- but I would never expect to make money until the DVD release. Many folks, including myself saw the running time listed and decided to wait.

Plus, a theater could show 'Scary Movie 4' almost two and -a-half times in the same time. At what, $8 a pop, that will certainly affect the bottom line.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

Its tough for a movie that is 219 minutes long to do well at the theater; Sure, I think it should be done properly- but I would never expect to make money until the DVD release. Many folks, including myself saw the running time listed and decided to wait.

Plus, a theater could show 'Scary Movie 4' almost two and -a-half times in the same time. At what, $8 a pop, that will certainly affect the bottom line.

Those are good points. Gettysburg didn't do that well in the theaters either and it is now a classic.

BTW: I was one of the nuts that actually did see it in the movie theater! LOL!

 

[Scott Tortorice]

Besides those fake beards -were extremely cheezy in Gettysburg...I kept looking at Berringer's beard in G-Burg and I swear it was crooked the entire movie -like he was wearing a dyed Santa Claus beard -- ok nm all that..

I have to watch it again - but there really isn't anything out there that competes with G & G, is there?

You know what is strange? For some reason, I find that those awful beards actually add to the charm of the film. I don't know why, but it makes the film more endearing to me. :nuts:

Good point about the uniqueness of G&G. Really, the only thing slightly close is Gone with the Wind. For a romance, I actually enjoyed that film. It is another one that just grows on you.

Did they ever make Uncle Tom's Cabin into a film?

 

[Stage]

Those are good points. Gettysburg didn't do that well in the theaters either and it is now a classic.

BTW: I was one of the nuts that actually did see it in the movie theater! LOL!

I was one of those guys too! It took me 45 minutes to be able to walk afterward but I still sat through it!

 

[wrongway149]

I was one of those guys too! It took me 45 minutes to be able to walk afterward but I still sat through it!

Question is: Did you bring a date, and did she sit through it with you? If so, I hope you married such a saint!

 

[King Scott]

BTW: I was one of the nuts that actually did see it in the movie theater! LOL!

Me too! My Dad is a huge CW buff, and I took him as a birthday present when it came out. It was a unique experience (for me) to have an Intermission during a movie!

Semper Fi!
Scott

 

[Scott Tortorice]

At least I am not the only one! LOL!

When it comes to movies, I like them long. I don't believe you can have a good film in under two and a half hours. :laugh: If it isn't an epic, I don't want to hear about it.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Those are good points. Gettysburg didn't do that well in the theaters either and it is now a classic.

Which to some extent invalidates your earlier comment:

I think a large part of the negative reaction against G&G was driven by standard PC ideologues (anti-CSA and anti-religion) and not the true sentiments of the viewers.

You say Gettysburg is now a classic, despite the fact that the film does have some obvious low budget aspects, like the makeup and beards. So why did the critics like Gettysburg so much, yet were nearly universal in their scorn for Gods & Generals? There was plenty of scripture quoting in the original film, and the Confederate soldiers were portrayed with plenty of zeal for "the cause."

Some of the comments from the critics may be a little unfair, but on the whole the film was dreadfully edited and directed. That much, at least, the critics got right.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

You say Gettysburg is now a classic, despite the fact that the film does have some obvious low budget aspects, like the makeup and beards. So why did the critics like Gettysburg so much, yet were nearly universal in their scorn for Gods & Generals? There was plenty of scripture quoting in the original film, and the Confederate soldiers were portrayed with plenty of zeal for "the cause."

G&G was a FAR more religious film. Sure, Gettysburg had some scripture quoting, but no where near the amount of open religiosity of G&G. Also, Gettysburg was far-better balanced in terms of pro-CSA and pro-Union, or, at least, the Union POV received as much screen time as the CSA POV. That wasn't as true for G&G. No, anyone who watches G&G is immediately struck by how unabashed it is in its old-time religious fervor and sympathetic CSA portrayals. And that was the reason why the critics went bonkers over it.

I do agree that the directing left something to be desired at times. For example, the woman who plays the CSA mother should win an award for the most over-acting EVER! Likewise, I still don't understand why we were treated to a rendition of the Bonnie Blue Flag smack in the middle of the film. But, all things considered, I still won't consider it a dreadful film in any category.

Cold Mountain...yes, G&G...no. :cheeky:

 

[Dr Zaius]

Cold Mountain...yes, G&G...no.

Do you consider Cold Mountain a war movie?

 

[trauth116]

I'm not so sure that the critics were that much more positive for Gettysburg than for G & G --- as for the scripture quotings - how much of that was supposed to be T J Jackson being T J Jackson? He was somewhat nutty when it came to religion.

I am meaning at the time..

For the record though I did go to see Gettysburg in the theater - and had a seat one the neck straining front row -- it was that crowded ... I passed on G & G -because of its length - I got the DvD instead.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

Do you consider Cold Mountain a war movie?

A war movie? No, not at all. A Civil War film? Yes.

There is an interesting article that compares G&G with Cold Mountain here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401070906.asp

 

[Dr Zaius]

There is an interesting article that compares G&G with Cold Mountain here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401070906.asp

That is an interesting article, and I highly encourage everyone here to read it. However, a far better and more enlightening article on the subject from the same author can be found on the same site. In it, the author totally smashes Gods & Generals from the standpoint that it is based entirely on falsehoods and southern folklore. The author provides convincing evidence and quotes (from sources I have quoted on numerous occasions myself) to back up his assertions.

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens022503.asp

This article is highly informative, well researched, and echoes some of the same points I have made here time and again. Gods & Generals may be entertaining at times, but it is revisionist claptrap of the worst sort. This author, a southern Republican and conservative columnist, quite correctly points it out.