Agreed!

I will probably wait for video on this one but let me say I in no way was speaking down on LOTR. It was brilliantly done, and the CGI looks great. There is just no comparing it to something like Braveheart.

All that being said, Troy was decent(well Eric Bana was great). But in the wrong hands CGI is bad. Troy is a good example of this. Not one memorable battle. The only ones that were memorable were the duels. But I agree, just to claim something is shit is without any reason is nonsense.

Even great CGI i think to my self " Why can't computers be kept out of cinema?"

From Dark Horizons:

There's something about a bleached-blond uncut Irishman playing Greek and heavily macking on a Englishman playing a Persian whose balls have been cut off that's just, at least on a curiosity level, fascinating. Still, whether the love scenes be as hot and heavy as the two "Bound" chicks or the most awkward smooching on-screen since Richard Gere and Jodie Foster in "Sommersby", the scenes apparently will be left in after all.

Late last week MSNBC reported that one of the reasons for the delay of Oliver Stone's "Alexander" would be to cut out the gay love scenes between history's most famous bisexual - Alexander the Great (Colin Farrell) and his male lover, the Persian eunuch Bagoas (Francisco Bosch).

Now, Warner Bros. Pictures President of Production Jeff Robinov said in a statement e-mailed to The Scoop - "That is completely untrue, Warner Bros. Pictures is proud of "Alexander" and thinks it is an exceptional piece of filmmaking. We've moved the release date, as we said earlier, to position it better for Academy consideration. We also want to allow ourselves more time to complete some of its ambitious visual effects. Any speculation that the Studio is trying to cut scenes from "Alexander" based on their depiction of the sexual relationships of the lead character is false and does not accurately represent the content of the film, which portrays Alexander the Great as heroic, and a man of his time and culture".

But why this hatred towards everything CG? Computers are like any other tool in filmmaking. If something is glaringly obvious as CG, then I could understand, because it would take you out of the movie. But if it is well done, then it can be almost seamless.

Why doesn't the studio just come out and tell the truth? They wanted to avoid direct competition with The Incredibles!

actually, i said anyone who thinks LOTR set the standards for epics doesnt know film. i didnt say that about bad effects. and i certainly didnt say anything about arrogance. perhaps i implied ignorance about film, but certainly not arrogance. reading comprehension... it helps :)

look, i can understand how regular users think i'm here to start some type of flame war, or whatever, cos i'm new and no one here knows me. while i may be opinionated, im certainly not a troll. you'll see.

remember, this is an alexander thread and someone came in here attacking alexander by saying it cant live up to LOTR. you remember this, right? ok, thanks. it's not as if this was a LOTR lovers thread and i came in here with the purpose to tear those down.

anyway, i apologize if i came off too strong, but that's just me.

thanks for assuming that i saw them on a 15" monitor [who still has a 15" monitor, anyway?] but i actually saw all three at the theatre.

and just cos it won a bunch of oscars, i should praise it? sorry, im not a sheep.

the awards are a joke... they pissed on kubrick several times. that speaks volumes about their ability to recognize talent & creativity.

ha. when do studios ever tell the truth? that would make too much sense. that's bad publicity, too.

Just a suggestion, a brand new member coming in with an automatic condescending attitude isn't going to fly here. Tone it down a bit, lurk more, and you'll see. Not trying to suppress any personality here, but you sound like an ass.

Even although I disagree about your LOTR statement I do AGREE about the Awards... Not sure why I mentioned them to begin with but it's one big Hollywood show with 0 cinematic meaning (well, to me at least). But that's a whole other discussion, isn't it?

You know what it is: I'm glad everyone has their own opinion and like/dislike certain movies. That's great. But make sure you come with valid arguments; to me the argument that LOTR doesn't have good effect doesn't work. About it setting a standard for Epics is debatable. However I do believe it is one of the real epics out there. I grew up with the old Star Wars Epic and the LOTR series is the only one to achieve that same level. Guess it helps that I love Tolkien’s works.

Anyway, to each his own. As long as people respect each other.

Am I the only one who's interest has been piqued by playing Rome:Total War?

If Alexander has a three hour running time, well ,more power to it.

However, I would just once like to get a sweeping epic movie from a big name director that can tell its story in about two and a half hours. Why does there seem to be a rule that if you want to make an epic worthy of Oscar contention it has to be three hours?

I'm not too worried about the battle scenes. It's the part in between the battles that I'm worried about. (Well unless it's filled with Angelina wearing little to no clothing).

Well, usually these epic stories are like...longer stories. Epic usually means large in scope, which usually translates to a story that spans a lot more than just your average movie.

Of course, 3 hour movies in general are a rarity, so I wouldn't complain. Gladiator was only 2 and a half hours, Troy only 2 hours 40 minutes.

Actually, come to think of it...3 hour epics are pretty rare. Let me think...Braveheart, Dances with Wolves, Titanic, LoTR, Gods and Generals, Alexander now. Err...Help me out here there has to be more.

Nonetheless, these are pretty sweeping and large stories encompassing many characters and events. Epic doesn't just mean big battles and widescreen shots, they also refer to the size of the story, which usually translates to a longer run time. I'd have a hard time calling a 90 minute movie epic.

Like the thread title says, I'm still waiting to be impressed by anything I've seen from this movie. I'm hoping it will be good but I'll be going in with low expectations. At least this way I won't be disappointed (unless it really sucks)!

Anywhere they will be doing some advance showings of this? Also, when does the Vangelis ST arrive in stores?

My friend works at a Regal theater and he told me that their schedule has Alexander running at 3hr 5 min. Also, have any of you seen the early reviews they have on aintitcool.com, because so far they are very, very bad reviews. I dont care, Im still going to see it and judge for my self.

Bad review don't surprise me. While Oliver Stone can make some good movies, he also tends to overindulge himself with what he can do with his budget.

All due respect to Ian Malcom, he is always so overcome with what he could that he never stops to think if he should.

Well, it's the internet. Fanboys on internet message boards such as this love to whine about CG, because they think it makes them cool. I bet they weren't whining 10 years ago when new films like Jurassic Park were made possible only because of CG. Whining about CG has become so cliche it's pathetic. Hell, it's all fake any. Puppets, miniatures, CG, even sets, are all fake. It's all just an illusion. So who should give a shit about how it's done. I don't like LOTR either, but it's not because of CG or effects.

Somehow you just knew that one of the big franchises would make it's way into this thread, whether it was Star Wars or LOTR.

As for Alexander, not impressed at all. I have no desire to see it.

Tell me about it. And don't get me started on the Jews and the blacks.

-rolleyes- Get a clue. I'm quite impressed by the technical aspects of LOTR and Star Wars. But pardon me, weren't you the one whining about how you weren't impressed by this film or CG armies charging at one another?

As for LOTR, it was the story and characters that bored me to tears. If you can't handle that, then that's your problem. But I'm impressed by Jackson's efforts and the technical aspects of the films. Doesn't mean I like the film.

As for Star Wars, anyone that's been on here knows how big of a Star Wars fan I am. I'm a bigger Star Wars fan than you are.

I've seen Alexander's trailer, and it didn't impress enough to want to see the film.

I have no idea what pissed you off, but did I put that in simple enough terms for you to understand.

As for my existence, I've never even met you. You aren't even fit to question my existence.

Pot, meet kettle.

and yet you loved The Two Towers. Weird.

The movie must really suck... all I've been hearing about it for the past few days has been Rosario Dawson's nude scene.

(Which, depending on just how nude she gets, would make this a must-own on DVD.)

Rental.....