Turner's Gettysburg

[Dr Zaius]

Das Boot has a greatly extended director's cut that is available on DVD. It extends the movie by two additional hours!

 

[Phil Kost]

Actually, the one thing I want in regard to Gettysburg is a DVD with the movie on ONE SIDE! I love this film, but it is a royal pain with stuff on both sides of the disk.

The same could be said for Gods and Generals.

Oh, and if they ever did "Director's cuts" or "unedited" versions. I would be one of the first in line to get them.

Phil

 

[Tom DeFranco]

I don't think they really wanted a biography on Jackson. He was the main character, but it wasn't focused exclusively on one person.

I don't know, but Bud Robertson seemed to make a bee-line for the production when he found out about Jackson's prominent role. He may have been invited, but clearly his role was to make sure that there few, if any, criticisms of Stonewall. He claimed his book was critical where it needed to be about Jackson. I don't know, but he sure didn't believe that he had bad days during the Seven Days, which he did - if for no other reason - fatigue. Politics may have figured, too, though, as Stonewall was reported to be somewhat slighted about not taking charge of the ANV.

I would have liked the movie more if it showed the triumverate of Lee, Jackson and Longstreet and how they kept the Union in check while things were generally going badly in the west. That however was not how Shaara wrote the story either.

 

[Tom DeFranco]

I looked up just about every review of this movie--from any source--that I could find, and every single one of them took the director to task. In all fairness, these same reviewers universally praised Gettysburg as a fair, accurate, and enjoyable film. For the most part, Gettysburg didn't delve too far into the underlying political issues, it simply attempted to tell about a portion of the battle. Gods & Generals opened the door on political commentary, thus it does seem fair for the critics to review that portion of the movie as well. After all, unlike Gettysburg, 3/4 of Gods & Generals involves the characters churing out their political beliefs. I don't see how the critics could not talk about that portion of the film.

I think what the majority of the critics were saying wasn't that the southern characters portrayed in the movie were covered in an unfair manner, but that the other side's views were almost completely ignored. This probably wouldn't have been such a big thing if director Maxwell had stayed away from several unnecessary sub-plots. Instead, he purposely veered away from telling the story at hand in a rather ham-handed attempt to portray the black slaves as happy and well cared for. There is no doubt that portrayal may fit certain real life situations from the era, but Maxwell was clearly using the movie as a vehicle to make a highly objectionable political statement. Black historians and moviegoers everywhere were furious after seeing this portion of the film. Throughout the entire course of the movie Maxwell portrays every southerner as absolutely oozing virtue and bravery from every pore, while northerners are portrayed as a bunch of greedy, imperious bumblers.

Again, I did manage to enjoy the film, but the film makes every attempt to substitute southern folk mythology for fact.

I agree wholeheartedly, Don. I didn't really "enjoy" the film, though, because I was tiring of the political mythmaking going on. If the movie had stuck to the military events and left politics to the viewer, it would have been much better.

 

[Tom DeFranco]

That was probably intended for the Super Duper Directors Mega Cut DVD of the film that was never released.

:flag:

That's still what I'm waiting for myself, Richard.

 

[GeorgiaDixie]

I don't know, but Bud Robertson seemed to make a bee-line for the production when he found out about Jackson's prominent role. He may have been invited, but clearly his role was to make sure that there few, if any, criticisms of Stonewall. He claimed his book was critical where it needed to be about Jackson. I don't know, but he sure didn't believe that he had bad days during the Seven Days, which he did - if for no other reason - fatigue. Politics may have figured, too, though, as Stonewall was reported to be somewhat slighted about not taking charge of the ANV.

I would have liked the movie more if it showed the triumverate of Lee, Jackson and Longstreet and how they kept the Union in check while things were generally going badly in the west. That however was not how Shaara wrote the story either.

I agree 100%! I would have loved to see more of Duvall as Lee and maybe if Longstreet had had an equal role, Tom Berenger would have been back. That would have been an excellent movie!

 

[Tom DeFranco]

If it was shot you would think Antietem might look better than Frederickburg or Chancellorsville because it is far less developed than the areas around the other two battles.

According to the preview story in North and South Magazine, Dennis Frye wrote that they used one farmer's farm to do the Antietam scenes (I'm not sure about 2nd Manassas), Harper's Ferry was Fredericksburg in the film, of course. A good portion of the film was made in Maryland, hence the name, Antietam Productions in the credits.

 

[GeorgiaDixie]

I agree wholeheartedly, Don. I didn't really "enjoy" the film, though, because I was tiring of the political mythmaking going on. If the movie had stuck to the military events and left politics to the viewer, it would have been much better.

While I don't believe with the political "myth-building" I do agree that it really weighed the movie down and made it drag even to a history buff like myself. They could have easily developed the characters during lulls in battles (or campaigns, as the scope was larger) as they did in Gettysburg. There doesn't seem to be any argument about Gettysburg because they did it perfect, with just smatterings of beliefs by the individuals, with concentration on plans and battle action!

 

[Phil Kost]

Right after I finished watching Gods and Generals in the theatre I called a friend who had also seen the film and I think he said it best. "The name of the film should have been "The Life and Death of Stonewall Jackson""

I agreed with him up to a point. There are many good things to pull from Gods and Generals, but I do think they could have broken it into two or three films and we would have gotten more non-Jackson character development and more battle sequences.

Phil

 

[GeorgiaDixie]

Right after I finished watching Gods and Generals in the theatre I called a friend who had also seen the film and I think he said it best. "The name of the film should have been "The Life and Death of Stonewall Jackson""

I agreed with him up to a point. There are many good things to pull from Gods and Generals, but I do think they could have broken it into two or three films and we would have gotten more non-Jackson character development and more battle sequences.

Phil

I agree. Hell, they could have shot a few more hours and made it a full fledged mini-series. Would have been very good. :thumup:

 

[Tom DeFranco]

Were there a lot of scenes cut out of the Gettysburg? I was unaware of that. I own the regular DVD that is out now for both and would love some big, three disc set like the kind they did for Blackhawk Down.

There were always rumors that the re-enactors received a six hour version. This seemed to have been backed up by a Confederate reenactor and artist, Henry Kidd (He was in the scene where Pickett's men were rallying around Lee before the charge. He was the second guy to shake Sheen's hands.) when I spoke to him.

There is a version that is nearly 5 hours long and was shown on TNT when Turner was running the movie on SuperBowl Sunday. It includes longer scenes of Buford and Devin riding through town, it also includes longer scenes of Reynolds and Buford together, of Lee debriefing A.P. Hill, Ewell and Early about not taking Cemetery Hill, of Pickett complaining to Longstreet that they are always last in line and a longer scene, near the hospital, where Longstreet sends Harrison out around the right, and a longer scene when Tom Chamberlain is talking to the 2nd Maine man on the march about Dan Butterfield. I still don't know if that is the version that the reenactors had. That version was never put on DVD from what I here. It was on the super duper VHS tape, though. Wish I had that copy.

 

[Phil Kost]

It includes longer scenes of Buford and Devin riding through town, it also includes longer scenes of Reynolds and Buford together,

THAT I would pay to see.

Phil

 

[Tom DeFranco]

If he has run out of funds, I wonder if that means the third movie in the series is on hold. I would buy this uncut version if it ever comes out. I would also buy a "special" extended version of Gettysburg if they ever do one.

According to Jeff Shaara, when he was on CSPAN recently, there is no truth to the rumor that there is any movement on the production or attempt to produce part three of the trilogy. It would require his signature and no one approached him yet. Apparently, Antietam Productions (a group of MD investors) would like the opportunity to recoup some money on the bath they took on G & G.

See my comments above regarding a longer Gettysburg.

 

[Tom DeFranco]

I wish you re-enactors out there would stop working for Turner. He's against every principle soldiers fought for on both sides - remember he's Hanoi Jane's husband. Yet you guys go running down there to work FOR FREE for this dirtbag, just because he puts on a great camp and donates his pocket change to preservation. It's not like "otherwise, the tribute won't be made, and the details won't be there". Let 'im hire extras and gear from the Prop companies that are authentic these days anyway, and hire consultants. Get wise, or at least demand payment. I'm not just talking through my hat: I'm a re-enactor too.

I don't know what criteria you used to choose my post, but I'm not a reenactor. That said, as Lance said above, he's been divorced from Jane Fonda for some time. Another thing, I'm no fan of Jane's, but are you going to condemn anyone who ever said "Hi" to her?

Whether you like his politics or not (and I'm not fond of them) Turner did have the guts to fund the production after ABC TV and everyone else tossed Ron Maxwell out on in his butt when he came to them about making a Gettysburg movie.

 

[Dr Zaius]

According to Jeff Shaara, when he was on CSPAN recently, there is no truth to the rumor that there is any movement on the production or attempt to produce part three of the trilogy. It would require his signature and no one approached him yet. Apparently, Antietam Productions (a group of MD investors) would like the opportunity to recoup some money on the bath they took on G & G.

See my comments above regarding a longer Gettysburg.

Wait a minute, are you saying there are no plans at all to do the third part of the series? I was under the impression that it was a trilogy. Is that not correct?

 

[Dr Zaius]

I just found this on the Ron Maxwell website:

Jeff Shaara's novel "The Last Full Measure" has recently been optioned by Ted Turner Pictures. This film will follow all the characters from 'Gods and Generals' and 'Gettysburg' from July 1863 to April 1865, with the additional characters of U.S. Grant, Sheridan and Sherman.

Additional information on 'Last Full Measure' will be posted on this page as the project advances. http://www.ronmaxwell.com/

 

[Tom DeFranco]

Wait a minute, are you saying there are no plans at all to do the third part of the series? I was under the impression that it was a trilogy. Is that not correct?

Yes it was a trilogy, of course. Shaara has to sign off on the rights first, on LFM. I think it would be great. I remain dubious as to the making of #3. Notice there was no date by the comment you quote. Maxwell had some stuff up about LFM in the event that G & G did well. Some of the info about LFM was up before G & G hit the theaters. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see it happen as much as the next ACW buff. Turner not only took a bath with G & G, but with his sale of AOL-Time Warner, too. He's got a lot of catching up to do.

 

[gus t]

Whether you like his politics or not (and I'm not fond of them) Turner did have the guts to fund the production after ABC TV and everyone else tossed Ron Maxwell out on in his butt when he came to them about making a Gettysburg movie.

He knew that if he tugged heartstrings and appealed to re-enactors about "commemorating" Gettysburg - as if that's never been done - and put on a super-encampment, as only Hollywood has the means to, plus the usual tinsel factor ("Wow! I'm gonna be in a MOVIE!) he would get re-enactors to show up free with all their gear and do the sweat work. For a guy who despises everything soldiers on both sides fought for. Do you see a touch of nerdism here on the part of re-enactors?

 

[Phil Kost]

For a guy who despises everything soldiers on both sides fought for. Do you see a touch of nerdism here on the part of re-enactors?

I don't see a touch of "nerdism" on the part of re-enactors. I see a group of people who wanted to be part of a great film and ensure that it was seen in a serious light. Or we could have had Cold Mountain where all the soldiers were Romanian and the location for the majority of the film was Romania.

Also, I am curious what Turner has done to show that he "despises everything soldiers on both sides fought for" since obviously both sides fought for very different reasons.

If you are going to bring an arguement like this then give me something to read or see.

Phil
(not a re-enactor, just a soldier)

 

[GeorgiaDixie]

Lord knows I don't agree with Turner's politics, but I do respect the man. He actually kept politics out of CNN when he owned it (it has only drifted to the left since he relinquished control) and he has made many good, historical films that otherwise wouldn't have been made. For once, somebody isn't letting their politics get in the way of good movies!