PDA

View Full Version : Gods and Generals



David Meister
05-01-2007, 02:29 PM
Does anyone know where I can find the un cut version of Gods and Generals?

huntdaw
05-01-2007, 03:27 PM
I didn't think it was ever released due to poor demand for the initial one.

Marc
05-01-2007, 03:30 PM
Why would you want one.......IMHO

David Meister
05-01-2007, 03:37 PM
I would like to see it espeacialy the battle of sharpsburg

iminthe7thWIS
05-01-2007, 08:56 PM
I would like to see it espeacialy the battle of sharpsburg


ohh... yeah.... that would be awesome...

Rob Weaver
05-02-2007, 04:39 AM
As I understand it, there was supposed to be an uncut edition that would have run something like 6 hours. Correctly noted above, it was never released. So, as it is, there is no 6-hour movie, just one that feels like it. :)

GrumpyDave
05-02-2007, 04:56 AM
Did you try amazon.com? they seem to have some of that normally unavailable junk, er, stuff from time to time. Maybe you can get a used copy for a song?

sbl
05-02-2007, 07:52 AM
As I understand it, there was supposed to be an uncut edition that would have run something like 6 hours. Correctly noted above, it was never released. So, as it is, there is no 6-hour movie, just one that feels like it. :)

"You Kids behave or I'm putting on Gods and Generals!!!!"

David Meister
05-02-2007, 08:11 AM
I already checked Amazon and they aint got it!

Micah Trent
05-02-2007, 08:26 AM
I believe there was a boot legged version of the Sharpsburg clip on YouTube. You could make out some of it, but the quality was very poor. I am not sure if it is still on there or not. You can always check there though.

Che
05-02-2007, 08:47 AM
Dame Rumor has it that Ron Maxwell decided to hang on to the Sharpsburg footage after G&G tanked, hoping to use some of it for the "Last Full Measure" and save some dough. Not that anyone would be nutty enough to bankroll the third installment of his "trilogy." :rolleyes: http://www.ronmaxwell.com/lfm_project.html

sbl
05-02-2007, 12:04 PM
Why you can't always depend on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_F._Maxwell

Ronald F. Maxwell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ronald F. Maxwell (b. 1947) is an independent film director and writer from Clifton, New Jersey. He is most famous for directing the American Civil War epics Gettysburg (1993) and Gods and Generals (2003). A New Jersey native, Maxwell graduated from New York University (NYU) Institute of Film in the late 1960s and is a member of the Writers Guild of America, Directors Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. His friendship with Ted Turner played a pivotal role in ensuring that his film, Gods and Generals, was not ruined by studio executives. The film is considered the greatest historical film epic of all time...."

I can't wait for....
Joan of Arc: The Virgin Warrior (2007)

Che
05-02-2007, 12:37 PM
I can't wait for....
Joan of Arc: The Virgin Warrior (2007) Don't hold your breath. He's had that dog in the kennel for years. The 2007 release date is either a pipedream or a typo. There seems to be some debate amongst IMDB bloggers if this movie is even really being filmed. Yes, locations have been picked, script is written and storyboards have been done and available for download on Maxwell's web site... but it's been that way for several years now.

The original actress he wanted for Joan was Mira Sorvino who is now way too old for the roll. He gave her the part as Chamberlain's wife in G&G as a consolation prize. Some prize.... more like a career-killer.

reb64
05-02-2007, 06:07 PM
Why would you want one.......IMHO


the extra footage would be interesting, like the gettysburg extras

reb64
05-02-2007, 06:09 PM
Dame Rumor has it that Ron Maxwell decided to hang on to the Sharpsburg footage after G&G tanked, hoping to use some of it for the "Last Full Measure" and save some dough. Not that anyone would be nutty enough to bankroll the third installment of his "trilogy." :rolleyes: http://www.ronmaxwell.com/lfm_project.html


reenacting has gotten stale you think, a new movie would be good right about now

reb64
05-02-2007, 06:11 PM
"You Kids behave or I'm putting on Gods and Generals!!!!"
put it on ill watch it anytime

Pete K
05-03-2007, 07:53 AM
How about Gerald McRainey (Major Dad, Jericho)? He's about the right age and his beard isn't that bad. Just throwing it out there.

Rob Weaver
05-03-2007, 08:30 AM
I, personally, would like to see "The Last Full Measure" come to the screen, any screen, including direct to DVD. It's a much better book than "Gods and Generals" and Grant is really a pretty well developed character. Shaara learned a lot in between writing the two books, and his maturity shows in "LFM." As much fun as we poke at historical movies, though, what else would you rather watch while rolling cartridges (since it's not football season)?

Che
05-03-2007, 08:54 AM
reenacting has gotten stale you think, a new movie would be good right about now Well, Harrison Ford's Manhunt is in the works... Speilberg's Lincoln is in pre-producton, both are slated for a 2009 release.

Everyone seems to think that "Saving Private Ryan" is the standard a Civil War movie should be made to. I disagree. SPR is too 1990s now. The unfiltered, hand-held cinéma vérité style for war movies has become very passé now. A biographical movie of one man's journey a la "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Ghandi" would be vastly superior to the clunky mess of G&G or the equally clunky attemp to tell the story of a battle like "Gettysburg." (Ugh... I cringe every time I hear the overblown soundtrack to "Gettysburg.")

So... look's like Speilberg's "Lincoln" is gonna be it.

But, for my part, I'll stick to the farb movies that were made to be entertaining but still had heart and soul; movies like "The Horse Soldiers" and "Shenandoah."

D'Epineuil Zouave
05-03-2007, 09:11 AM
Doesn't matter how good a future Civil War movie will be, I don't think it will turn the hobby around. Nothing will erase the image of reenacting as purile "yahooism" from the mind of the general public. And we're in the midst of an increasingly unpopular war right now. Who wants to play war when the real thing is now such a monkey on our backs?

The future of the hobby is small and localized living history events without the bang-bang, boom-boom.

jda3rd
05-03-2007, 08:28 PM
What will ensure that no reasonably accurate, somewhat authentic, Civil War movie will ever be made in the US is the refusal of the reenacting community to "prostitute" themselves by participating in it. GAG could have been much better, if we had supported it. Cold Mountain could have been made in this country.
So many reenactors were berated by their fellows for allowing the makers of Gettysburg to pay them as extras instead of holding out for the big bucks that everyone was gun-shy when GAG rolled around.
Y'all, we were a big part of the problem, when we could have been a factor in the solution.

Here is where I know I'll get torn to pieces for saying we should have been involved instead of sitting back and self-righteously saying that only farbs would let Hollywood use them like that, and not pay them anything.

Say what you will, get up on your hind legs and throw mud at me, but I believe we killed this dog ourselves.

Frank Brower

WestTN_reb
05-04-2007, 01:26 AM
What will ensure that no reasonably accurate, somewhat authentic, Civil War movie will ever be made in the US is the refusal of the reenacting community to "prostitute" themselves by participating in it. GAG could have been much better, if we had supported it. Cold Mountain could have been made in this country.
So many reenactors were berated by their fellows for allowing the makers of Gettysburg to pay them as extras instead of holding out for the big bucks that everyone was gun-shy when GAG rolled around.
Y'all, we were a big part of the problem, when we could have been a factor in the solution.
I agree with that statement 100%. Wide Awake dosen't pay us to be in their films, THC dosen't either that I'm aware of. The thing I've heard more than anything when you actually pin people down and ask why they hated GaG, is "they didn't even acknowledge the units that participated like they did in Gettysburg. I didn't receive recognition that way". I agree, that's the one drawback I could find. However, if you joined this hobby expecting fame and glory, you need to GROW UP!, that's not what this hobby is about.

tompritchett
05-04-2007, 01:27 AM
What will ensure that no reasonably accurate, somewhat authentic, Civil War movie will ever be made in the US is the refusal of the reenacting community to "prostitute" themselves by participating in it. GAG could have been much better, if we had supported it.

According to my memory, GAG was shot using reenactors. Many of the large 1rst Manassas shots were from the 140th reenactment. Jackson's farewell speech to his brigade was shot at Cedar Creek (I was in the second row). Many, if not most, of the core group of extras were reenactors. Yes, there were some suggesting that we not take part, but as a whole these indivivuals were ignored by the vast majority of the reenactors. Therefore, I am not sure where you are coming from in saying that the reenacting community did not support the shooting of GAG.

TheSignalCorpsGuy
05-04-2007, 07:49 AM
Sir,

I cannot speak for every History Channel Production but they were paying extras for Sherman's March to the Sea that priemered a few weeks ago.

The 'pay or no pay' issue depends on the production company filming FOR the History Channel - and who is responsible for casting the extras.

If you are out in the east (i take it that "WestTN_reb" is out 'west') then you can surely join Historical Extras for a small fee and then be privvy to casting call emails.






I agree with that statement 100%. Wide Awake dosen't pay us to be in their films, THC dosen't either that I'm aware of. The thing I've heard more than anything when you actually pin people down and ask why they hated GaG, is "they didn't even acknowledge the units that participated like they did in Gettysburg. I didn't receive recognition that way". I agree, that's the one drawback I could find. However, if you joined this hobby expecting fame and glory, you need to GROW UP!, that's not what this hobby is about.

josephkorber
05-04-2007, 07:50 AM
According to my memory, GAG was shot using reenactors. Many of the large 1rst Manassas shots were from the 140th reenactment. Jackson's farewell speech to his brigade was shot at Cedar Creek (I was in the second row). Many, if not most, of the core group of extras were reenactors. Yes, there were some suggesting that we not take part, but as a whole these indivivuals were ignored by the vast majority of the reenactors. Therefore, I am not sure where you are coming from in saying that the reenacting community did not support the shooting of GAG.


Yes Tom I do recall that as well. In fact I remeber the very elaborate recruiting process for reenactors for that film. Ad's in hobby publications calling for extra's, production folks were visiting all the major events in the 2001 season. Many reenacotrs were involved both in front of the camera and behind as advisors, I remeber Robert Duvall wandering around 140th Manassas and all the hype surrounding that. I can point out numerous associates of mine who took the time to be extra's in that film. Reenactors were there and they supported it.
None of that, of course, will change a lousy script, Bad editing, and poor direction...sometimes a bad movie is simply that, a bad movie.

two cents
J Korber

tompritchett
05-04-2007, 09:10 AM
None of that, of course, will change a lousy script, Bad editing, and poor direction...sometimes a bad movie is simply that, a bad movie.

On that we agree. IMHO, that is the reason the reason the movie failed rather than any lack of support from the reenacting community. If anything, the reenacting community probably helped the overall sales of the movie as most of us went to see the movie and brought others with us.

sbl
05-04-2007, 11:55 AM
"None of that, of course, will change a lousy script, Bad editing, and poor direction...sometimes a bad movie is simply that, a bad movie"

Good thing Christopher Reeves was known for Superman and not The Rose and The Jackal.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098831/

Rob Weaver
05-04-2007, 12:55 PM
He could have been known for "Deathtrap!" When I saw that in a theater, someone yelled "Say it ain't so, Superman," when he kissed Michael Caine.
G&G sold out in our multiplex for at least the first couple days. I think every reenactor in the county saw it during that time. Although I do watch it every now and then, I fast-forward more than I do with any other period movie I own. It's just so languid. Makes "Barry Lindon" looks like NASCAR. On the other hand, I think Wishbone did a great job in the "Red Badge of Courage," don't you? :)

sbl
05-04-2007, 04:27 PM
"I think Wishbone did a great job in the "Red Badge of Courage," don't you?"

http://www.wesclark.com/jw/wishbone.jpg

Rob,

Actually yes! I have kids so I have seen Wishbone.

G&G is really a collection of talking tableaux and filmed pageants. It needed more T&A (or some) The Reb that has the premonition of death dies. No surprise, no irony.

reb64
05-05-2007, 12:01 AM
"None of that, of course, will change a lousy script, Bad editing, and poor direction...sometimes a bad movie is simply that, a bad movie"

Good thing Christopher Reeves was known for Superman and not The Rose and The Jackal.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098831/


compared to many reenactments, np guides, this isn't a bad movie.

captdougofky
05-05-2007, 09:45 AM
The conversation here about the movie is better than the movie. Somebody wake me up when its over. Did anybody see the movie about Perryville that they had in Danville Ky. I'm in California right now, and missed it. I want a copy if its worth watching. I only live 50 miles from there.

Always
Doug Thomas
Lyons Battery
Kentucky

OVI
05-05-2007, 03:19 PM
"Y'all, we were a big part of the problem, when we could have been a factor in the solution.

Here is where I know I'll get torn to pieces for saying we should have been involved instead of sitting back and self-righteously saying that only farbs would let Hollywood use them like that, and not pay them anything.

Frank Brower[/QUOTE]


Frank....please enlighten us as to how greater support of the reenacting community would've made GAG a better movie?


Kent Dorr
"Devils Own Mess"

reb64
05-06-2007, 04:34 PM
"Y'all, we were a big part of the problem, when we could have been a factor in the solution.

Here is where I know I'll get torn to pieces for saying we should have been involved instead of sitting back and self-righteously saying that only farbs would let Hollywood use them like that, and not pay them anything.

Frank Brower


Frank....please enlighten us as to how greater support of the reenacting community would've made GAG a better movie?


Kent Dorr
"Devils Own Mess"[/QUOTE]


well we are all attending some event where we get on film good or bad for nothing but our personal committment. again, its not a bad movie

jda3rd
05-06-2007, 06:24 PM
There may be discussions surviving in the archives here that cover the discussions at the time GAG was in pre-production and filming. In short, the re-enacting community, with a few exceptions, did not participate in the filming.
Some folks had a bad taste in their mouths after Gettysburg, and felt they were poorly used, and should have been paid screen actors guild wages for extras, and should have been paid more for providing weapons, uniforms, horses, gear, so on and so forth. So when GAG rolled around, they yelled about how farby it all was, and said only farbs would participate in GAG, and basically badmouthed it from start to finish. As a result, there was limited reenactor participation. I feel that if there had been as much reenactor participation as there was in Gettysburg, Gods and Generals would have been a better production. If there had been a large reenactor base willing to be a part of Cold Mountain, it could have been made here, instead of Romania.

Yes there were some reeactors that worked in both films, some in advisory roles. But that doesn't make up for the fact that basically, we, the reenacting community at large, deliberately declined to support either film, and now all we want to do is tell any one that wants to watch it that Gods and Generals is a lousy film, and condemn the makers of Cold Moutain for taking it overseas, where they could get larges numbers of men to portray soldiers, cheaply.

Greater reenactor support would have made a better picture. It might still have had continuity problems, some script difficulties, etc. etc., but we wouldn't have had to watch CG Federals at Sharpsburg.

Frank

OVI
05-06-2007, 08:32 PM
Frank.....if every reenactor on the face of this planet had been in GAG, it still would not have been a good film. All the reenactors working for nothing cant make up for a lame, overlong script and some of the worst filmediting. IMHO...Ron Maxwell became overwhelmed with the scope of what he wanted to portray in this film and as a result it a horrible mess. How else do you explain that the first portion of the film is about Stonewall Jackson and then the movie focuses on the battle of Fredricksburg for a hour...a battle in which Jackson is a minor character?
How do you tell the story of Jackson and totally leave out his brilliant Valley campaign? Now that would've been an interesting movie.
No Frank...we reenactors are not to blame for the disaster of GAG. Thats on Ron. I continue to find it ironic and a little sad that the one director who was working to bring CW films to the screen destroyed his own franchise.

Kent Dorr
"Devils Own Mess"

WestTN_reb
05-06-2007, 10:21 PM
West_TN stands for West Tennessee, where I live (Dyersburg to be exact). To be perfectly honest, I don't care whether people are paid or not. What gets me is that everyone is arguing and fighting about movies that cover the Eastern theatre. What about the west?

I tell you this now, I would be willing to work for free to see a movie about Forrest or Cleburne, or even Bragg come to the big screen. It can be argued that the war was won and lost in the west, so why isn't that the focus of a major movie?

Just my 2 cents.

tompritchett
05-07-2007, 09:30 AM
It can be argued that the war was won and lost in the west,

On this we definitely agree. I have actually seen it argued that Grant's main strategy in the East in the last two years was to keep pressure on Lee so that Davis could not send reinforcements to the West, as had been done with Longstreet's Corp after Gettysburg, to spoil Grant's overall strategy for victory.

Jim Mayo
05-07-2007, 10:13 AM
No Frank...we reenactors are not to blame for the disaster of GAG. Thats on Ron.
Kent Dorr
"Devils Own Mess"

I totally agree. There were some find reenactors participating in the filming. Usually suggestions were considered and sometimes accepted by the production folks. It could have been a successful movie if not for the editing.

Che
05-07-2007, 12:25 PM
It could have been a successful movie if not for the editing. You mean lack of editing. The script didn't help either. What a hack job.

That's the Irish. What are those boys
doing fighting in blue?

Don't they know we're fighting
for our independence?

Did they learn nothing
at the hands of the English?

Sound of Irish bagpiles swells to a tear-jerking level as Irish rebs at the stone wall, both with stereotypical Lucky Charms accents, begin to weep as they continue to do their duty while mowing down Irish Yankees.

G&G is just plain embarrassing to watch.

And I'm a committed farb. You'd think I would have enjoyed such tomfoolery. Nope. Give me "The Undefeated" any day. It's a heck of a lot more fun watching John Wayne and Ben Johnson trade yucks for two hours than sitting through any five minutes of G&G.

David Meister
05-07-2007, 12:44 PM
All I wanted to know is where I could find the rumored long version of Gods and Generals. I thought it was a pretty good movie. I dont see anyone else coming out with anything better let me know when they do, I would like to be a part of it.

Rob Weaver
05-07-2007, 01:31 PM
It's something of a national passtime in reenacting to gripe about any movie made about your time period. Ask Revvy War folks about "The Patriot." G&G isn't my favorite Civil War movie, for the reasons I've written previously. Spaghetti Westerns are my guilty pleasure, so "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" gets seen more often 'round these parts. (Yes, the historicity makes me wince, but that's not why I watch it.) Frankly, nothing will ever replace the magic afternoon when I was 9 when I first saw Audie Murphy in "The Red Badge of Courage." Knowing all that's wrong with that movie, including the editing, never detracts from watching a bona fide war hero grapple with the emotions of a young man seeing the elephant for the first time.

flattop32355
05-07-2007, 03:06 PM
What gets me is that everyone is arguing and fighting about movies that cover the Eastern theatre. What about the west?

Two words: Shiloh. Perryville.

There's enough drama/comedy of errors in either battle to make an excellent feature length film. Perryville's only problem is that no one knows about it, so it has no name recognition. It's biggest strength is that much of it could be filmed on the original site. Shiloh has enough name recognition to draw people. There are obviously others, but these two stand out.

bill watson
05-07-2007, 03:48 PM
I'm pretty sure they don't make movies around actual facts; more like big-name draw for featured roles: Lee, Grant, Jackson, Hancock. And in the west we'd feature what? D.H. Hill croaking while Braxton Bragg cavils and whines in a high-pitched squeak? Forrest threating to shoot Bragg? Hood sending four generals to their death at Franklin? Johnston retreating? Fort Pillow -- be careful what you wish for, that one is something Hollywood might actually go for. It has easy-to-identify villains.

The fighting in the west never got the public relations then, and it continues today.

The best two books for movies from the west, from our standpoint, may be "Black Flower" and, although some don't care for it, "Widow of the South." I liked "Widow of the South." Unfortunately the characters might be a little too deep for Hollywood. And in each case they are books about "little people" like us and how they were changed by the war, rather than about "important people" who can be portrayed as shaping events.

tompritchett
05-07-2007, 04:29 PM
Actually I like the whole Chichamauga/Chattanooga saga. Plenty of characters, drama and elements of redemption. The plot could revolve around one of the units of Thomas's corps in the Army of the Cumberland. Start with the cockiness of the Army after Rosecrans pushed Bragg almost at will across Central and Western Tennessee, then the shock of near annilihation at Chickamauga, the rigors of being beseiged in a hostile Southern city, the scorn from their liberators of the Army of the Tenessee, all climaxed by the ultimate redemption of, without explicit orders, routing the Confederate from MIssionary Ridge - much to the pleasure and total surprise of Thomas and Grant. Even Maxwell might be able to make a decent plot from such a storyline.

OVI
05-07-2007, 06:42 PM
Tom...please. Lets leave Maxwell out of any discussion of future Civil War features.
I have to agree with Bill here. No matter how much we enjoy the great stories of the western armies, no Civil War movie without Bob Lee is going to be made. The public wouldnt understand.
Personally I would like to see The Red Badge of Courage remade with someone like Toby Maguire or Shia Labouf as Henry. The themes of the story are still relevant today.

Kent Dorr
"Devils Own Mess"

Forquer
05-07-2007, 07:32 PM
Hands down, Morgan's Raid.

After that, Franklin.

YOS,

captdougofky
05-07-2007, 08:36 PM
Hands down, Morgan's Raid.

After that, Franklin.

YOS,
I think Shiloh, then Morgan's raid. But you may be right, as the newspaper said years ago Morgan's daring raid into the Union heartland rings out in our regional memory. But I have to admit I think most people can only say Gettysburg, and Lee with Stonewall as backup. Ride with the Devil can give us all hope. Just leave the romance on the back burning. But we all know its about the money. I've been working in California the last couple of weeks and I don't think the folks out here care about the Civil War history of this country. I think a few do but the % is low. I wonder how many here even speak English.

Always
Doug Thomas
Lyons Battery
Kentucky

Parault
05-07-2007, 08:38 PM
Just like everything else that is going on here in this country..............Do it for cheap,but better if you do it for free, if not,then we send it overseas.

Better be glad wal mart didn't have anything to do with it. If wal mart did it, it would have been made in China. O....... lets not forget that Cold Mountain could have been made in Pakistan.

Charles Reynolds
05-08-2007, 04:26 PM
captdougofky
There are many fine reenacters out here in Calif, and most of the people out here do speak english.:x

Micah Trent
05-08-2007, 07:24 PM
captdougofky
There are many fine reenacters out here in Calif, and most of the people out here do speak english.:x

Chuck, if Doug is in Chinatown...he has a point;)

On the topic, there was a private independent film maker in Louisville,KY, originally from Elizabethtown, KY, as of last fall, last name of Duncan I believe, who was juggling with the idea of doing a film based on Morgan's Christmas Raid. However, the thoughts he had was that it may be to controversial, no one outside of the region...for the most part...would really know who Morgan was and what he did, and if it was really worth the investment right now to do it, especially since he had never done anything like that. He thought by doing the Christmas Raid of '62, if it was ever to do good, he could always have a sequal going into the Great Raid of '63. From what I understand, most of his movies are suspense/thrillers.
I have heard nothing more since then, but I hope this is something he is still considering doing down the road in the near future. You can only keep your fingers crossed:)

toptimlrd
05-08-2007, 07:58 PM
Remember guys, a couple of months ago there was a thread here about making a new movie on the Andrews Raiders, if done well this could be a good movie. One of the few where both sides can be viewed as heroic and the results of which eventually led to the Congretional Medal of Honor.

Am on the update list but have not heard much since then.

reb64
05-08-2007, 08:14 PM
[QUOTE=Che]You mean lack of editing. The script didn't help either. What a hack job.

That's the Irish. What are those boys
doing fighting in blue?

Don't they know we're fighting
for our independence?

Did they learn nothing
at the hands of the English?

Sound of Irish bagpiles swells to a tear-jerking level as Irish rebs at the stone wall, both with stereotypical Lucky Charms accents, begin to weep as they continue to do their duty while mowing down Irish Yankees.

G&G is just plain embarrassing to watch.

heck,many soliders couldn't speak english, and if they didn't have such quandries like the dialogue they wouldn't have been fighting. ive been to europe, guess what the irish do have "lucky charm accents". not the best but why knock it. at least someone had the @#$% to make a civ war movie with battle flags flying and not knocking the south with pc bull#$%^

reb64
05-08-2007, 08:17 PM
Two words: Shiloh. Perryville.

There's enough drama/comedy of errors in either battle to make an excellent feature length film. Perryville's only problem is that no one knows about it, so it has no name recognition. It's biggest strength is that much of it could be filmed on the original site. Shiloh has enough name recognition to draw people. There are obviously others, but these two stand out.


didn't need saying but the west is where it started and ended kansas-mo and texas