If you took offense, I'm sorry. I did not mean it as "all Christians are silly" as you might be thinking, I meant that his specific post (especially granting that it's Dalvin, who has had whole threads dedicated to trying to spark responses from people) was silly. And I'd say it again. It was, and is, silly, inasmuch as it contains several things which contradict other things within the single post, often within single sentences. This has nothing to do with intolerance, religion, or red-state blue-state stuff, but since it also has nothing to do with 'Alexander', I'll leave it at that. I just didn't want anybody offended by me.

I bet he'll re-edit it at least a little, but I doubt it'll change anything significant.

I was actually hoping for a director's cut, but this isn't what I had in mind.

My understanding is that the relationship between Alexander and Herecles had a lot more footage in the original version, but was cut pre-release because the test audiences didn't like all that "gay stuff". I was hoping to see a director's cut with that material put back in because I think the relationship between those two was one of the most interesting parts of the movie.

Was the movie good? No, it was a disaster. But it was an interesting disaster, and far more of interest to me than whatever Owen Wilson/Ben Stiller movie is in theaters this week.

I thought it was 10%?

Anyway, even if it was 50% gay population, I doubt they'd like the movie any better than the rest.

Which is, I think, the point of both this thread and the one in MT. Stone is blaming the movies poor performance on the fact that the "religious right" (a.k.a. "church-goers", apperantly) didn't go see the movie. What most people are posting is that Stone is full of crap and taking a pretty pathetic way out of the situation. The poor performance had nothing to do (or little to do, at most) with the opinions of the religious right and everything to do with the overall poor quality of the movie.

I am a "church-goer" and I haven't seen this movie yet, but that is because 1) I haven't seen a lot of movies in the theater recently, 2) there was never a big rush to see it to begin with because of greater interest in other movies out concurrently, and 3) the more reviews/comments that I heard about it as time went on, the farther down on the list it went because it doesn't sound like a real winner. I do plan on renting it at some point down the line and will decide at that point whther or not I am interested in buying. Never has (or will) the "gay stuff" -eek- been an issue in deciding whether or not to see it.

Don't tell anyone, but I even own movies that depict homosexuals in them. :eek:

so when can we expect this Alexander: The Extreme Homophobic Collector's Edition to hit store shelves?

I think we need to create a custom made cover with the title "Alexander: The 'My Name Is Oliver And I'm A Tool' Edition".

Yeah Oliver, gay movies always do poorly because of fundamentalists. (See Philadelphia, Boys Don't Cry, Monster, etc.) Yeah, it wasn't that your movie just plain sucked. Pass the pipe Oliver, you've had enough.

Meh. I am a huge Greek history fan, but I didn't go to see the film because it was reportedly so BAD. I don't believe that good films with controversial politics get 14% on rottentomatoes. BAD FILMS do.

If Stone had used the DVD as an opportunity to completely re-edit the film - cut out bad stuff - maybe I'd consider renting it. As it stands, I don't want to waste my time watching that reported train wreck of a film.

Actually... having seen this two nights ago, i have to say that IMHO Alexander is more gay than bisexual. Let's face it, all we see is a pretty strange scene with Roxane. The guy appears more gay than hetero...

But that's not the point. Alexander reminded me strongly of Event Horizon. It could've been a good movie, but something went wrong about it, it feels disjointed, and rather inequal in its pacing.

An interesting film, nonetheless, and I hope the DVD will offer more, not less.

I agree, if anything he needs to add to the relationship of Alexander and Hephestian (I have no idea how to spell that name). Considering how important that relationship was supposedly to the life of Alexander in Stone's film, him actually building that relationship to something beyond wispy looks at each other would've been very helpful. Honestly though, I doubt he's got anything on the cutting room floor that could save this movie. He might as well just include the battle footage and Dawson's boobies and he'd probably have a better movie.

A few thoughts:

1. The original article everyone is responding to is pretty vague, and it's only a couple of rant-like comments from Stone to the foreign press. We really don't know what is being planned.

2. Alexander the Great wasn't "gay" like we'd think of "gay." In ancient Greece, sexuality was different than it is today in America. It was more fluid, and bisexuality was openly practiced. It doesn't have anything to do with being gay, it's just the way the society operated.

3. The movie bombed because it received a bad buzz, bad reviews, and a bad ad campaign. The commercials and trailers all looked boring as fuck. If anything, the film wasn't gay enough.

4. Maybe, since the movie bombed, Warner Brothers is planning several different releases to recoup their investment.

5. If Stone is indeed planning on heterosexualing "Alexander" up, maybe we'll get more naked Rosario Dawson. (please please please)

Stone was interviewed Friday night on the BBC2's Newsnight art show.

He said he would recut it and he made no bones about why he was doing it. He said the "American people" weren't smart enough and as a director he wanted his film to be seen by as many people as possible. Therefore if he had to cut his film to get "Americans" to watch it he would. Why's he telling people in the UK this?

What a fucking idiot and a fool. I could not believe what I was hearing.

The problem is he must have some control over the film (or maybe just the DVD) and this allows him to revist it (like George Lucas has done).

I hate that. I'll not be watching the film in any version (if he puts a bit of anal in it I might reconsider).

BTW, Colin Farrell was interviewed a few weeks ago here and he seemed angry people (in the US) weren't going to see the film.

So Stone and Farrell are really quite annoyed people stayed away. I think it may be down to the fact it's a bad film, people have had too many 'big films' or it was marketed wrongly. I don't know, but it does look poor.

For the record, I enjoyed Troy (for what it was). Not a great film but I liked it.

Alexander had its defects OK....but overall it was a great movie
& didn't have to recieve all the bad press...& comparing it to the crappies TROY & KING ARTHUR is a CRIME.

Yes, I just love this. When something fails in America, always blame it on the VRWC (Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy). :rolleyes: And Bush was re-elected because the American people are stupid. :rolleyes: And Bush caused the 10.0 earthquake and resulting tsunami so that he could get the news off of Iraq. :rolleyes:

Com'on Stone, just admit it...your movie sucked. Which is ashame too, because I was all pumped to see/buy it, but now I don't know.

You are pathetic.

Care to disproove me before you launch an ad hominen attack, jerk-off?

You can't tell me that most women don't have a bit of a lesbianism in them to begin with. With all their comments about how "gorgeous" or "pretty" other women are. You don't see men going around telling each other how "handsom" their peers are.

And neither are pro-Castro ducumentaries either... ;)

Maybe he'll digitally alter Alexander's ding dong to look like a walkie-talkie.

Stone just can't seem to accept the fact that he made a horrible movie. Regardless of the homosexual aspect, it was poorly made. I doubt what he changes will make any difference.

That said, as a liberal Democrat, I don't think I've ever seen a more stereotypical Republican poster than Mr. Lowrey here.

So then, I guess you would disagree with the guy who posted earlier that "<i>it's a <u>chosen</u> lifestyle, especially on the lesbian side of things.</i>"

Oh ..... wait ........ that was <b><i><u>YOU!</u</b></i>.

All I meant by that was that it doesn't take much for women to go the other way...

Yeah, I'm sure that all girls that get into the porn industry were <i>born</i> lesbians or at the very least bi-sexual.... :rolleyes:

Yeah, tell me another good one...

I'm just being a realist here.

And for further visual reference, I believe this commercial illustrates my point perfectly.

Considering that just 3 years ago, I was a Democrat too. A socially conservative Democrat, though. And so when the post-2000 Democratic Party began shifting so far to the Left under the presumed leadership of Michael Moore and his ilk, it was easy to jump ship. Even rats know when to abandon a sinking ship. If and when the Democratic Party becomes relevant again, by getting some new ideas and dropping the 40-year old play book, and quite frankly...the liberalness, then perhaps I may consider voting for some again.

20% of America consider themselves Liberal, 40% consider themselves Conservative, and the other 40% are basically the Moderates. So the more and more the DNC decide to focus on their base of 20%, they're always gonna be a minority party. Me? I go with the winners....aka, the real mainstream.

What's that saying?

"If you're under 30 and not liberal, you don't have a heart. And if you're over 30 and not conservative, you don't have a brain."

I found my brain at 28. I was ahead of my time.

No, what's pathetic is Oliver Stone blaiming the failure of his movie on a certain demographic of people.

Replace "raging fundamentalism in morality" (or church-goers) with say, "Black people" and you'll see just who the pathetic person is here.

Besides, I fail to see what exactly is wrong with "fundamentalism in morality". I'd rather be moral than immoral. And because Stone used that terminology, he subconsciencely admitted that bisexuality or homosexuality is indeed immoral.

Sorry, didn't realize that in addition to being the resident expert on lesbianism, you are also qualified to probe the subconcious, and god-like enough to determine what is moral and what is immoral.

Too bad this is a <i>movie</i> forum rather than a pulpit for self-rightous social philosophers.

Many conservative thinkers make many valid points, and present them in a logical and considered manner. I just love it, however, when some go so far over the top that they destroy their own credibility. It is a joy to behold.

What's the popcorn mean? Sitting back and enjoying the show?

Now THAT is the film I want to see!!! Colin Farrell + anal = me buying the DVD! :P

You are in violation of forum rules.

And, you are too.