"Epic Movies" where have they gone?
Discussion
I was listening to a piece on the radio this morning about the re-release of Zulu at the cinema and it made me think that they don't make "Epic" movies any more.
Films with huge casts, massive setpieces and battles (where appropriate) and epic struggle themes.
The last REAL epic I can think of is "A Bridge Too Far", but that must be 40 years old now.
"Gladiator" had a bold stab, but a lot of it is CGI, as are the later Star Wars and Lord of The Rings films (perhaps the original ones qualified before Lucas started meddling too much), although they all fall down on the 'star count'.
So, have I missed anything or are the true "Epics" a thing of the past?
M
Films with huge casts, massive setpieces and battles (where appropriate) and epic struggle themes.
The last REAL epic I can think of is "A Bridge Too Far", but that must be 40 years old now.
"Gladiator" had a bold stab, but a lot of it is CGI, as are the later Star Wars and Lord of The Rings films (perhaps the original ones qualified before Lucas started meddling too much), although they all fall down on the 'star count'.
So, have I missed anything or are the true "Epics" a thing of the past?
M
I think they are probably something of the past as you and I know them, especially as regards CGI; The days of some monomaniacal director/studio head rounding up thousands of locals to feature in their pet epic are probably history like the subjects they portrayed e.g Cleopatra, El Cid etc. Having said that some of the budgets are still pretty epic!
They cost too much and the system has changed. Studios would rather flush $40 million down the loo on 'stars' than size. With another $100 million on CGI. Bit silly really.
What would it take? Lucas has the wedge to fund his own epic...just don't ask him to write or direct it in any way, shape or form.
What would it take? Lucas has the wedge to fund his own epic...just don't ask him to write or direct it in any way, shape or form.
I get what you man but the term has changed a bit now, I believe they call them 'Event movies' )Shudder).
The most recent big film that could be classed as an old style Epic was Avatar, big set pieces, decent bad guy, and segueing into an other Epic, Dances with wolves is probably one of the more recent big epic films (but that was in the 80's).
The new star wars may come into the category in terms of how they are going old school to make it with proper large sets and extras but remains to be seen.
The most recent big film that could be classed as an old style Epic was Avatar, big set pieces, decent bad guy, and segueing into an other Epic, Dances with wolves is probably one of the more recent big epic films (but that was in the 80's).
The new star wars may come into the category in terms of how they are going old school to make it with proper large sets and extras but remains to be seen.
Mastodon2 said:
They cost too much to make, they'd need astronomical box office figures to be considered a success these days. Much easier and cheaper to make money spinning out generic Adam Sandler comedies.
Funnily enough, statistically speaking, films with a huge budget have more chance of breaking even. In fact, so much so, a big budget film which does not break even is very rare.Also, counter-intuitively, the most risky 'bet' is the mid to low range budget film ($50m for example) which will just slip under the radar and only be viewed by fans of the start whose wages ate up all the scriptwriting budget.
Even supposedly disastrous films break even. Cleopatra did, even if it took 20 years of worldwide re-runs. Remember 'Waterworld'? That's more than broken even, and the Waterworld attraction with jet-skis was still going strong a few years ago when I went to Universal Studios.
The most modern example is World War Z - the author disowned it as it was so far divorced from the book, and it was well known that it ran over budget as they went back to refilm the whole third act.
Still - the fact that there was so much money pumped into it became the spectacle and drove the press which in turn drove the spectacle, and from a supposed unmitigated disaster, there will no doubt be a sequel.
marcosgt said:
"Gladiator" had a bold stab, but a lot of it is CGI, as are the later Star Wars and Lord of The Rings films (perhaps the original ones qualified before Lucas started meddling too much), although they all fall down on the 'star count'.
Why does CGI rule them out? Does it really make a difference if it's a few thousand underpaid locals or a few thousand computer generated images running around in the background of the battle scenes? Although I'm not a LotR fan, I think you'd struggle to class them as anything other than epics.Mr Will said:
marcosgt said:
"Gladiator" had a bold stab, but a lot of it is CGI, as are the later Star Wars and Lord of The Rings films (perhaps the original ones qualified before Lucas started meddling too much), although they all fall down on the 'star count'.
Why does CGI rule them out? Does it really make a difference if it's a few thousand underpaid locals or a few thousand computer generated images running around in the background of the battle scenes? Although I'm not a LotR fan, I think you'd struggle to class them as anything other than epics.I guess it's cinematography that rules out the 'large scale CGI movies' as what I think of as epics.
I can see they were all done on computers and that makes a scene with 10,000 characters a lot less impressive than a few hundred REAL people running/fighting/lying-down in a field.
I'm not discounting these films outright as they make some previously impossible scenes seem credible (I mean, walking trees? You couldn't have done that with men in suits, could you?), but I think, as with most technology, they'll look a bit clunky in 20/30/40 years time.
M
Edited by marcosgt on Wednesday 11th June 15:33
JustinP1 said:
Funnily enough, statistically speaking, films with a huge budget have more chance of breaking even. In fact, so much so, a big budget film which does not break even is very rare.
Also, counter-intuitively, the most risky 'bet' is the mid to low range budget film ($50m for example) which will just slip under the radar and only be viewed by fans of the start whose wages ate up all the scriptwriting budget.
Even supposedly disastrous films break even. Cleopatra did, even if it took 20 years of worldwide re-runs. Remember 'Waterworld'? That's more than broken even, and the Waterworld attraction with jet-skis was still going strong a few years ago when I went to Universal Studios.
The most modern example is World War Z - the author disowned it as it was so far divorced from the book, and it was well known that it ran over budget as they went back to refilm the whole third act.
Still - the fact that there was so much money pumped into it became the spectacle and drove the press which in turn drove the spectacle, and from a supposed unmitigated disaster, there will no doubt be a sequel.
But the bean counters aren't too good at the long term. They normally think about getting a quick return and things like opening week figures.Also, counter-intuitively, the most risky 'bet' is the mid to low range budget film ($50m for example) which will just slip under the radar and only be viewed by fans of the start whose wages ate up all the scriptwriting budget.
Even supposedly disastrous films break even. Cleopatra did, even if it took 20 years of worldwide re-runs. Remember 'Waterworld'? That's more than broken even, and the Waterworld attraction with jet-skis was still going strong a few years ago when I went to Universal Studios.
The most modern example is World War Z - the author disowned it as it was so far divorced from the book, and it was well known that it ran over budget as they went back to refilm the whole third act.
Still - the fact that there was so much money pumped into it became the spectacle and drove the press which in turn drove the spectacle, and from a supposed unmitigated disaster, there will no doubt be a sequel.
Exodus Gods & Kings, BR sitting near me but I've not seen it yet. It's a biblical epic perhaps of the old school type, the type Charlton Heston would have starred in. Cast of thousands.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528100/
Christian Bale as Moses...............oh..............ok
Aaron Paul as Joshua..........................um, right
Joel Edgerton as Ramses....say who now?
Directed by Ridley Scott.........oh for fks sake.
It still sits on my desk.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528100/
Christian Bale as Moses...............oh..............ok
Aaron Paul as Joshua..........................um, right
Joel Edgerton as Ramses....say who now?
Directed by Ridley Scott.........oh for fks sake.
It still sits on my desk.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff