PopcornTreeCt

Let's talk about Epics. A genre that has been on a steady decline in Hollywood as of late. Though I agree that they aren't quite like they used to be I think they still get a bad rap. Let's start with Braveheart. Some would call it the best of the modern-made epics. I think its highly overrated and terribly boring. Its good to watch once. Gladiator. Well, this movie is more of action film than an epic. While I enjoyed the film it lacked the scope of what makes an epic. Flash-forward to the last couple years with movies such as The Last Samurai, King Arthur, and Troy. I think what is missing is good well-rounded characters and a deep story. Epics, nowadays seem to focus on action scenes (which aren't even that good) and less on development. All is not lost forever though the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is a great example of well-done epic films. All three of those films surpass the greatest epic of the last 15 years. Many films could fall under the category "epic" and I'm sure I missed quite a few some of my newer favorites include Lord of the Rings and Master & Commander. Some of the ones I despise the most are Cold Mountain and King Arthur.

RyoHazuki

I think computer graphics in general have watered down the epics genre. You no longer need 10,000 extras + 10,000 costumes and 500 horses and you don't need to build gigantic sets. More epics = Decline in quality.

FinkPish

Every time one of these threads gets started everyone weighs in with what their favorite "epic" is, but no one really bothers to define what an epic really is. This thread, http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=330082, had a good list going of what characteristics an epic had to have. I only bring this up because I don't really agree with all of your choices of epics, and you are leaving out a ton of older, great epics.

That being said, I disagree with you both. To me, realism of large-scale action isn't necessarily the deciding factor in what makes an epic movie a good one. You can have one guy running around on the screen and duplicate him 10,000 times and still make a good epic.

Jackskeleton

What RyoHazuki said. You no longer need to build the backdrop that would take up a majority of the budget and time.

jaeufraser

Well, I have no idea why anyone would blame CG for the lack of quality of epics. Troy was not that good of a movie, and it had nothing to do with CG armies. The first poster hit the mark...it's weak stories, weak characters, poor directing whatever else that drags these movies down.

The truth is though, it's not like Hollywood used to churn out great epics left and right. Troy and Alexander were messes, not sure I'd say Cleopatra or myriads of other Biblical and historical epics from the 50s and 60s were necessarily better. Personally, I could care less about CG armies. Some of those classic epics had amazing scenes of extras and massive armies, followed by horrible blue screen and cheesy effects in other scenes.

As the original poster noted, it's the characters and stories that have prevented a truly great epic out of the bunch, with me agreeing LoTR is truly the best we've had, and Braveheart being another excellent one. But, like any genre, it just comes down to how the movie was made. You have to watch each film to really assess what the issue is. If your fault with modern epics is simply CG armies, then all I can think is that you were just looking for an action movie anyway, because poor writing and weak characterization kills a movie for me moreso than special effects which only are important for certain scenes. In the special effects department, Troy was damn impressive, with amazingly enormous sets (does anyone realize how big those sets were) and armies that were much bigger than any olden epic. Of course, the only saving grace for Troy WAS it's action sequences, cause the rest left me flat. It amazes me that people can see the problem with Troy or other movies being the CG armies...what about the mediocre story telling, poor character arcs and occasionally bad acting?

And I'd say there is no decline in quality...most films, in general, are not masterpieces. Why we expect that every film in the epic genre will be one is beyond me. No other genre has reached such a height, why expect epics to. I certainly don't think all the older epics are masterpieces, only a few really.

nightmaster

A personal favorite of mine that I could watch over and over is Gettysburg, but there are many others that I'm sure I would agree are good examples. As stated above, I don't think an epic needs 10,000 participents- to me, The Godfather is a story of epic proportions- and I agree that CGI has watered down the genre; at the core of any movie that is to be regarded as 'epic' you need a story that is told well, acted well, and displayed well to convey depth as well as scope.

Josh H

I agree. While CGI makes it easier than have 10,000 extras or what not, it is still incredibly expensive to do. Thus still only major studios can afford to do it.

I suspect we will see more half assed epics in coming years, and CGI will be partly to blame, because it is easier than building sets, getting armies of extras, etc.

But the main reason that there will be more is the success of LOTR. The Studios see how much money these made and want to cash in. So will see more than in past years as a result of this and the accessibilty of CGI to big studios.

Artman

This yr hasn't been a good one for epics (both critically and commercially) but I am hopeful 'Kingdom of Heaven' will give it another shot in the arm. 'The New World' should also be a great movie, but I doubt it'll do much more business than Alexander...

Still one of my fav types of films, so I say bring em on. Btw, how does 'Rob Roy' stack up? With the MGM sale at FM this wk, I am wanting to pick it up.

Dr. DVD

I agree with the original poster on may points. I too am growing tired of a studio or filmmaker putting a shot of CGI armies charing at each other and thinking that qualifies it as an epic.
I loved Gladiator, but it was not what I would call a true epic and definitely not Best Picture material. Alexander was a mess to say the least, and Troy seemed more concerned with showcasing pretty boys and showing off action than telling a story.
FWIW, I think LOTR is the only epic in the past several years that truly got it right.

Trigger

There's still some really excellent epic films coming out these days, it's just that americans don't know how to make them anymore.

natevines

Part of it for me at least is definitely CGI. That's what excites me about epics: seings thousands of extras. I wouldn't say Master and Commander is an epic: I LOVED the film, but it was just one ship vs. one ship.
2005 looks pretty good, like someone said the New World is coming out, and so is Kingdom of Heaven. Although I don't like Orlando Bloom, I've always wanted a good film set during the crusades, and Scott is a fine director.

Michael Corvin

I agree, but would word it like this:
I think LOTR is the only epic, since Braveheart, that truly got it right.

Let's face it, strong story, strong lead, strong supporting cast, a thousand extras(no CGI) in battle, a beautiful score, great direction, stunning cinematography and all loosely based on a real guy and real events. It doesn't get better than that. Everything since, LOTR non-withstanding, has been a cheap watered-down knockoff of Braveheart.

RyoHazuki

What are some non-american epics? (I'm not disagreeing, I just can't name any.)

Hokeyboy

Il Gattopardo (The Leopard) immediately pops into mind. I had never seen the film untill I reviewed the Criterion DVD. An absolutely amazing movie, and if that ain't an epic then Ryo's favorite movie is "The Hebrew Hammer".

Hokeyboy

Contemporary non-American epics? Oh...

How about The Emperor and the Assassin?

Rivero

I thought the lead was good not great, the story and writing competent but not spectacular, the supporting cast is fine(Patrick McGoohan and Sophie Marceu are wasted and one-dimensional), the direction is good but becomes haphazard towards the end. I will say that it has James Horner's last really good score, John Toll is simply one of the best cinematographers in the business and the battle of Stirling is a keeper. IMO The Fellowship of the Ring is an infinitely better film in every respect. It is also more epic despite being the exact same length(at least the theatrical version).

Terrell

Completely disagree with that statement.

With today's escalating budgets, that is an impossibility. Trying to make costumes for 10,000 extras, as well as feed them, pay them, and transport them back and forth to the set would cost such a ridiculous amount that no film as such could ever hope to make it's marketing budget back, much less it's production budget.

RyoHazuki

I was wondering about Hebrew Hammer. Dvdtalk couldn't find a single gentile to review Jesus: The Complete Story but when Hebrew Hammer gets reviewed, you are nowhere to be seen. Whats the deal?

lucasorion

I'm really looking forward to "The New World" - I've been waiting a while to see an epic with native americans (North, Central or South) in it, though I'd be more interested in one without the white man central figure a'la Dances With Wolves. Someone should adapt Gary Jennings' "Aztec".

natevines

How about The Last Samurai?
I feel like I'm in the minority, but I loved it. I thought it was beautiful, and one of Cruise's best performances.

lucasorion

I think if I'd seen it before Dances With Wolves it would have had a stronger effect on me, as it is I'd give it 3 stars out of 5 and 7 out of 10 - but not 3.5 out of 5 for some reason.