Why does Hollywood lack the courage to make a proper Napoleon epic?

So is this a good flick?

>falling for British propaganda

Kubrick would’ve done it but the studio fucked him over

Eternal anglo can't stop seething even after two centuries that such great man has existed and that he was french

Downfall shows Hitler as a human being, I would argue.
*breathes in through nose*

>t. souf fc

Napoleon was slightly above average height for the time.

>Nooo you can't be a benevolent dictator who transitioned the law law from feudal to modern while attempting to overthrow ((the Anglo's)) monopoly on trade

Because history is written by the winners and they have dictated that he's supposed to be a villain.

Attached: Napoleon depressed.jpg (715x450, 39.15K)

Pick one to be the focus of the next biggest hollywood production

>Napoleon
>Attila
>Genghis Khan
>Saladin
>Alexander the Great
>Charlegmane

Hitler and Caesar have had enough already

Napoleon. Charlemagne should have a show with GoT budget or more

What was the last big film about Ceasar?

I can't even think of a single one about Hitler either (starring Hitler)

Attached: 09e6f8628883950e4ced18ba6dc44b32.jpg (470x310, 31.67K)

Because no one under 50 even knows who he is anymore or the history surrounding him? No one would care or pay to see it enough to make such an expensive film worth it. Maybe you'd have to make some faggy Les Miserable to romanticize a massacre into a cheery musical. And half the cast must be female and mulatto naturally to get anyone to distribute your film.

>Maybe you'd have to make some faggy Les Miserable to romanticize a massacre into a cheery musical. And half the cast must be female and mulatto naturally to get anyone to distribute your film

This logic never works in real life though. The film would unironically sell a lot more tickets if they focused on making it well-made and historically accurate.

The main issue is that Napoleon's life is so huge scale and has so many dramatic turns that to do it justice we're looking at the most expensive miniseries in history.

Does that include the yellow peril and malnourished serfs in Russia?

Good thing HBO and Netflix excel at those

>Netflix
>expensive
Amazon and HBO more like

Because the Soviets already beat them to it, and they know they will never top Waterloo

Attached: 202194e37eba738c3a0a7178b0fea5e7.jpg (826x1024, 85.47K)

I have a feeling if Hollywood did it they would somehow shove America into it. they are so self-centered

Because they can't do it without making him literally Hitler.
And you can't make someone else like Hitler, because it makes Hitler seem less bad.

The entire napoleonic era is underrated. Brits can make films about Nelson or Wellesley at least but they still don't. The fact that 1917 exists is already a mircale and i doubt we'll see another big budget film set in WW1 anytime soon.

based deleted scene poster

That is blatantly untrue. Only the Brits like to brag about defeating him, as usual, but that's it.

America is relevant to Nappy tho.

The one where he was played by Christian Clavier? That was pretty fucking good.

1917 was a big hit so I really hope studio's get their shit together soon

It would make one instance where it would be justified

At the very least it would be cool to see Thomas Jefferson or something

Yeah and John Macovich as Talleyrand. Too bad it was medium budget with shitty cgi battles.

Because even Jews aren't so bold yet as to fill a movie about Napoleonic Europe with niggers.

Give it another few years.

Because, like almost every other prominent figure prior to the 1950's, he fucking hated jews.

Modern Cinema isn't a good enough art form for a Napoleon biopic. Only books and a Beethoven symphony can make it justice.

>Napoleon is a dictator
>the Russian Czar, the Austrian Kaiser and the King of Prussia are good guys
Go kill yourself.

only in Britain.

Talleyrand could have a miniseries of his own, what a story.

Well since the US only joined at the end of the war i doubt the hollywood will be that much interested in making films about the brits or the french. The Harlem Hellfighters is the only thing i can think of them doing. I think it's mostly up to brits at this point.

He was friendlier to Jews than any of his contemporaries.

keksmeister

Closed the ghettos, he did.

>Mosfilm contributed more than £4 million of the costs, nearly 17,000 soldiers of the Soviet Army, including a full brigade of Soviet cavalry, and a host of engineers and labourers to prepare the battlefield in the rolling farmland outside Uzhhorod, Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union).[10][11]

>To recreate the battlefield authentically, the Soviets bulldozed away two hills, laid five miles of roads, transplanted 5,000 trees, sowed fields of rye, barley and wildflowers and reconstructed four historic buildings. To create the mud, more than six miles of underground irrigation piping was specially laid. Most of the battle scenes were filmed using five Panavision cameras simultaneously – from ground level, from 100-foot towers, from a helicopter, and from an overhead railway built right across the location.[12][13]

>Actual filming was accomplished over 28 weeks, which included 16 days of delay (principally due to bad weather). Many of the battle scenes were filmed in the summer of 1969 in often sweltering heat.

Too bad it was about the meme Waterloo and not some of his victories that show his genius. Of course you could hardly get the Soviet army as extras for an Austerlitz movie.

Epic shit. Too bad about the nonsensical dialogue.

>The battle sequences of the film include about 15,000 Soviet foot soldiers and 2,000 cavalrymen as extras and 50 circus stunt riders were used to perform the dangerous horse falls. It has been joked that Sergei Bondarchuk was in command of the seventh-largest army in the world.[14] Months before the cameras started filming, the 17,000 soldiers began training to learn 1815 drill and battle formations, as well as the use of sabres, bayonets and handling cannons. A selected 2,000 additional men were also taught to load and fire muskets.

>This army lived in a large encampment next to the battlefield. Each day after breakfast, they marched to a large wardrobe building, donned their French, British or Prussian uniforms and fifteen minutes later were in position. The soldiers were commanded by officers who took orders from director Sergei Bondarchuk via walkie-talkie. To assist in the direction of this huge, multi-national undertaking, the Soviet-Ukrainian director had four interpreters permanently at his side: one each for English, Italian, French and Serbo-Croatian

Americans lack the willpower to pull it off properly.

Damn son!

>russian production
>making a film about Napoleon's triumph
At least it wasn't >muh Borodino

This. I couldn’t understand a word they were saying.

>Because no one under 50 even knows who he is
In what world are you living??

Overwhelming majority of actors are in the 5’4-5’8 range. Well over 90%.

"They're the best cavalry in Europe and the worst lead.
-That may be, but we'll match them with our lancers."

America, probably.

>the moral ambiguity of the character. they are afraid of turning him good and people backlashing them because they made a movie about a dictator, etc.

Napoleon IS the good guy. Even Napoleon got taken in for questioning and almost executed during The Terror. The First Republic was unstable and erratic and his mellow leadership saved the country. Almost all of France's longest lasting and effective institutions derive from Napoleon's reign. If Britain didn't have such a bug up its ass the continent wouldn't have had to go through decades of unceasing warfare, Napoleon had no designs on the continent until Britain started making coalition after coalition. At that point making a barrier of nations between you and your adversaries is pragmatic, the buffer states would be churned up and devastated by the warfare and your home would only bear the loss of manpower

I don't even think your average American knows what Prussia was