Alexander-- Stone editing the DVD! (1 Viewer)

[CraigL]

If this is true, it's utter bullshit and I'm disgusted. From today's New York Post.

---------------
January 6, 2005 -- OLIVER Stone is disappointed in the response to his "Alexander the Great," and plans to alter the movie for its release on DVD. "There's a raging fundamentalism in morality in the U.S.," Stone fumed at the movie's London premiere this week. "From day one, audiences didn't show up. They didn't even read the reviews in the South because the media was using the words, 'Alex the gay.' " Earlier, Stone griped to the London Telegraph, "The gays lambasted me for not making Alexander openly homosexual, and, in the Bible Belt pastors were up in the pulpit saying that to watch this film was to be tempted by Satan." Stone said he'd change the offending scenes for the DVD: "The bond [between men] can be suggested in different ways."

 

[TravisR]

The NY Post may not be the most reliable source of DVD info. They got the title of the movie wrong. It's called "Alexander" not "Alexander The Great". So I wouldn't worry yet.

There may be two versions of the DVD too. A Wal Mart safe version and the real one.

 

[Allan^L]

I'm curious why you said that. Because he's altering the movie, or because he's adding in gay scenes?

 

[Jay Gunn]

The article doesn't say anything about adding scenes. Craig's upset because it sounds like the film is being edited down from its original theatrical presentation.

 

[Matt Czyz]

It looks like he's removing "offensive" scenes from the movie, not adding more of them.

(assuming this is true, of course)

edit-Jay beat me by a minute.

I live in the South, and maybe it's because I don't the know the most fundamentalist religious folks, but I really didn't notice that much (if any) derision towards the movie solely based on Alexander's sexuality. Maybe Stone should consider that maybe the movie just isn't that good and that many people didn't want to see it. Maybe people got burned on historical epics with "Troy". Not that many positive critic reviews couldn't have helped, either.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Actually, Stone said "The gays lambasted me for not making Alexander openly homosexual, and, in the Bible Belt pastors were up in the pulpit saying that to watch this film was to be tempted by Satan", that he was "changing the offending scenes" and "The bond [between men] can be suggested in different ways."

I may be off, but I'm pretty sure "changing the offending scenes" could mean changing them to please the offended Bible Belters or the offended gays, since both are mentioned and neither is given preference. Immediately assuming that the poster is mad because of "adding in gay scenes" is assuming too much in a forum that mostly cares about the presentation and preservation of a film, not the politics.

 

[Steve Christou]

Stone brought it on himself, there's no real proof Alexander was gay, he just didn't have to make him gay, especially if he was miscasting brooding oirish womaniser Colin Farrell as Alexander, Stone was gambling more than 100 million dollars of someone else's money on this epic, why take the risk?

The film was a mess anyway, the accents were awful, badly edited battles and the pacing was off, by the end I kept looking at my watch wondering if it was ever going to end. Music by Vangelis was interesting but echoes of Blade Runner surfaced occasionally. Audiences not surprisingly stayed away in droves. It will do better on dvd.

A future guilty favorite for some, a 'must avoid at all costs' for others.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I think the film probably did better if people didn't read the reviews!!!

 

[Steve Phillips]

If anyone is that offended by a couple of scenes of Collin Ferrel and Jared Leto hugging, they've got issues.

There is more gay content in average episode of "Will and Grace" than in this film.

If someone is avoiding the film for these tepid scenes, that's stupid. They should avoid the film because it is a bore.

 

[Benson R]

I dont think anyone should get all upset about this. Its hard to tell from those brief quotes what his intention is, and even so Stone is known to talk a lot, so just because he says so doesnt mean it will happen.

I also think the point is moot. It doesnt matter if he takes the scenes out. Everyone knows Stone intended his alexander to be bi. I think he is right that it hurt its boxoffice. Even among people that are tolerant of homosexuals, many women dont want to see a depiction of a hero that is more interested in men then women. Dont get me wrong though, the movie sucking is what really hurt its boxoffice returns, but if the whole bisexual controversy wasnt there, he probably could have gotten one good weekend out of it before it nosedived.

 

[TravisR]

I'm in a minority but I thought the movie was actually good. I'm a big Oliver Stone fan so I'm biased (and I'm sure there's plenty Stone fans that hated it too). There were definitely some problems but I thought it was worth watching. Of course I also felt like I needed a doctorate in Greek history to keep up with all the characters and their motivations during the movie too

Like I said above though, the NY Post ran this story. They got the title wrong in their article. What makes you think the edited DVD info is anymore accurate?

 

[Grant H]

To think, I didn't see it because it was an Oliver Stone film.

 

[Chad Ferguson]

Well Stone has often editied his movies after for video release, I just pray that's it's from his point of view and the not view of others that he is editing for. As for the theaterical release getting released, Any Given Sunday never did...

 

[richardWI]

I guess banking on controversy doesn't always help a movie.

I can just see the stickers on the DVD now:

"Alexander: You'll wonder where the gay went!"

"Alexander: Now 25% Less Gay!"

"Straight Eye for the Alexander Guy"

:rolleyes

 

[Kain_C]

I lost respect for Stone for his utter BS reasons why his movie failed. He blames the south and religious people and EVERYONE else but HIMSELF. Disgraceful.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

BIN-GO.

 

[Chad Ferguson]

I think it's was one of the best of year and I hope to have the edition I have falling in love with, but on the other hand, his director cuts have all been amazing!!

 

[ChuckSolo]

Well, I don't care if the movie had "gay" overtones or not, I went to see it despite what people said. I came away shaking my head at what was essentially a bad movie. First of all, not enough battle scenes. Alexander was all about conquering and WAR. The first part was OK, and the battle with the elephants in India was OK. It was all the boring crap in the middle that I took issue with. Too long winded and not enough action. This was certainly no "Platoon" or "The Hand" or even "JFK" or "Nixon" with all their innuendos. I looked forward to this movie as I too am an Oliver Stone fan, but sadly, it was just another bad movie.

 

[Brett_M]

I'm also in the minority -- I enjoyed the film. My hope is that the DVD cut is longer. The pacing may be helped in that respect.

I found it moving and interesting. Simple as that.

 

[JustinCleveland]

Exactly. And Brett, we love you, but you're right, you're in the minority on this one

Though I had problems with the pacing and length of the movie, that was one of a few qualms I had with the picture and doubt a new cut could help.