AGEOD Forums

So what is the latest on the status of this being made into a film?

I loved Gettysburg (just watched it again recently, though it is hard as heck to find the time required for such a viewing), but dreaded Gods and Generals to no end...but I still have hope that this film could be great if taken from the source material appropriately.

Gods and Generals probably killed off the last in the Trilogy Im afraid?

Brochgale wrote:Gods and Generals probably killed off the last in the Trilogy Im afraid?

Sigh...

Brochgale wrote:Gods and Generals probably killed off the last in the Trilogy Im afraid?

Wait until we get the six hour version...

Drakken wrote:Wait until we get the six hour version...

This sounds like a leg pull - 6 hours of Bible bashing solioquoys - arrggghhhh!!

Brochgale wrote:This sounds like a leg pull - 6 hours of Bible bashing solioquoys - arrggghhhh!!

It actually DOES exist Broch...though I would be shocked to see the film released on DVD, considering it got a total of 4% on RottenTomatoes...then again, in this day and age of bad films, who knows right?

The ONLY saving grace about the 6-hour version is that it reportedly DOES include the Battle of Antietam.

Brochgale wrote:This sounds like a leg pull - 6 hours of Bible bashing solioquoys - arrggghhhh!!

For your painful knowledge.

http://www.militarytimes.com/blogs/notebook/?p=78

Drakken wrote:For your painful knowledge.

http://www.militarytimes.com/blogs/notebook/?p=78

Hmmm...interesting -- is the reviewer defending the film, or creating irony out of it? Personally I would have gone to see it (though I can't stand the film, curiosity would put me in the seat as a CW buff), but they had better have a good pot of coffee waiting for me by the second intermission!

I think if Gods and Generals had have just concentrated on Jackson, cut out the Chamberlain,and that loony sergant of his stuff,put in Antietam and some of the Valley Campaign,it would have been a classic.

Ian Coote wrote:I think if Gods and Generals had have just concentrated on Jackson, cut out the Chamberlain,and that loony sergant of his stuff,put in Antietam and some of the Valley Campaign,it would have been a classic.

I disagree. It would have been worse. One of the many problems with that movie is that it was heavily defending the Confederacy and pooping on top of the Union (unlike "Gettysburg", which although it slanted towards the Confederacy it was equal in terms of defence for the cause) -- and it did this through Jackson's scenes primarily. If you remove any Union side-scenery you have a lot of preaching and heavy-handedness.

I do agree that they should have put in the Valley Campaign though, and Second Bull Run for that matter. Although Chancellorsville was among Jackson's greatest achievements, the Valley Campaign is arguably #1.

More battle scenes doesn't necessarily mean a better movie. What I really wished they had done was just follow the timeline of the campaigns a little more closely. I'd say a major sequence for the Battle of Antietam and the Battle of Chancellorsvile would have been better.

Antietam would have been a much more equal representation of the brutality of the period as was being attempted by showing the Battle of Fredricksburg. With the theatrical version, you saw too many Union guys getting killed....and not too many Confederates.

I just wish they'd have at least MENTIONED the valley campaign, because Jackson's legacy was not formed at First Mannassas...it was formed in the valley. What he did there was simply masterful.

My prefered cronology: What was historic

Character build-up prior to break-out of war
Battle of First Mannassas
Confederate troubles prior to Lee taking command
Jackson in the Valley
Quick jump to Northern Virginia Campaign with backstory about the Penninsula
Anteitam as a full battle scene (brutal)
all you have to show for Fredricksburg is 10 minutes of Union troops marching toward a wall.
Then Chancellorsville and Jackson's death.


I've heard the "Last Full Measure" has been dropped. I read the book...it is excellent and I would personally like another director with a better record to pick up the project. Perhaps the same people that did "John Adams" on HBO which I've heard is excellent. It would need to be a much more graphically violent movie. Cold Harbor, Spottsylvania, Wilderness, Petersburg...even reading about these conflicts makes me grit my teeth in disgust.

As far as Gods and Generals....it actually grew on me over time. I hated it at first....but it was alright after a few viewings.

Banks6060 wrote:More battle scenes doesn't necessarily mean a better movie. What I really wished they had done was just follow the timeline of the campaigns a little more closely. I'd say a major sequence for the Battle of Antietam and the Battle of Chancellorsvile would have been better.

Antietam would have been a much more equal representation of the brutality of the period as was being attempted by showing the Battle of Fredricksburg. With the theatrical version, you saw too many Union guys getting killed....and not too many Confederates.

I just wish they'd have at least MENTIONED the valley campaign, because Jackson's legacy was not formed at First Mannassas...it was formed in the valley. What he did there was simply masterful.

My prefered cronology: What was historic

Character build-up prior to break-out of war
Battle of First Mannassas
Confederate troubles prior to Lee taking command
Jackson in the Valley
Quick jump to Northern Virginia Campaign with backstory about the Penninsula
Anteitam as a full battle scene (brutal)
all you have to show for Fredricksburg is 10 minutes of Union troops marching toward a wall.
Then Chancellorsville and Jackson's death.


I've heard the "Last Full Measure" has been dropped. I read the book...it is excellent and I would personally like another director with a better record to pick up the project. Perhaps the same people that did "John Adams" on HBO which I've heard is excellent. It would need to be a much more graphically violent movie. Cold Harbor, Spottsylvania, Wilderness, Petersburg...even reading about these conflicts makes me grit my teeth in disgust.

As far as Gods and Generals....it actually grew on me over time. I hated it at first....but it was alright after a few viewings.

I know more battle scenes do not = a better movie...but since the film seemed to be the Stonewall Jackson Story, better to do it full justice right?

"John Adams" WAS a great miniseries -- I will probably get it on DVD one of these days. It was the first time in a long time that I made it a point in my schedule to catch the original airings when they showed on HBO. It was perfectly casted (Paul Giamani has to be seen in the role to be believed), historically almost flawless, and well-paced, considering it covered about 50 years. Highly recommended.

And I doubt G&G would grow on me -- from the fake backgrounds during the battles to the oft-complained about preaching, I can't bring myself to watch it a second time.

It would have been more enjoyable as a film if something of the valley campaign had been included.
I would have preffered a longer version of Gettysburg - it is a better film but there are aspects of the batle that the film does not do justice to?

Brochgale wrote:It would have been more enjoyable as a film if something of the valley campaign had been included.
I would have preffered a longer version of Gettysburg - it is a better film but there are aspects of the batle that the film does not do justice to?

That is most definitely true, and although I do not want a longer version (4 hours, 15 minutes is enough), I would prefer to see some of the missing elements included. For instance, why is George Meade, the commander of the Army of the Potomac, only in 2 minutes of the film?

But the lack of inclusion of the missing events can be defended justly. First of all, the film is based on the book and as I have read the source material, I can say that it is an actual depiction of the BOOK as it was written. Second, the events they did include were for the most part the major events of the Battle of Gettysburg. They dwelled too much on Chamberlain for my liking (he was only a Regimental Colonel at the time), but that is probably because he later won the Medal of Honor for his deeds on Little Round Top. Lastly, the historical accuracy with which the scenes are portrayed are to the letter as I know them, so I am happy to see what I saw there

I dont mind a longer film as long as the content is spot on and there are no extraneous threads.
Like in Gods and Generals - if you dont know that Jackson had APHill and Maxey Gregg both coutmartialed and had a reputation for court martialling his Commnaders then there horse back conversation would have floated over the heads of non ACW experts. That is just one of several scenes with totally out of kilter waste of space threads.

Now that I think about it, I'm actually completely vexed as to how they managed to leave out the Valley Campaign altogether. I remember watching the movie in the theater....anxiously awaiting how that story would unfold and being sorely dissapointed when it went from First Mannassas to

BAM

Jackson's saying goodbye to the stonewall brigade and taking his Corps command before Second Mannassas. They miss like a whole YEAR of the war.

NO mention of the Penninsula.

The more I think about it. This "movie" deserved a miniseries treatment.

Banks6060 wrote:Now that I think about it, I'm actually completely vexed as to how they managed to leave out the Valley Campaign altogether. I remember watching the movie in the theater....anxiously awaiting how that story would unfold and being sorely dissapointed when it went from First Mannassas to

BAM

Jackson's saying goodbye to the stonewall brigade and taking his Corps command before Second Mannassas. They miss like a whole YEAR of the war.

NO mention of the Penninsula.

The more I think about it. This "movie" deserved a miniseries treatment.

The biggest shocker to me was how they went completely over the bloodiest day in the war and showed the Fredericksburg debacle.

I think what the director (and perhaps the book's author) were trying to show was a completely pro-Confederate movie, tilted with Jackson as the main star. Given this, they would not want to show his part in the Peninsula Campaign (the Seven Days, AKA Jackson's worst hour), nor would they want to show Antietam (a strategic defeat of the highest degree for the South). However, this theory works only slightly. The Valley Campaign and Second Bull Run (did they show ANY of that?) were Jackson's high points in his career, along with the smashing of the flank at Chancellorsville.

OK, so the producers were on dope when they made the film. That's the only explanation...