|
Post by michigander1 on Aug 2, 2005 9:30:48 GMT -6
;DYes it is...
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 2, 2005 17:38:27 GMT -6
Actually . . . the original script for THEY DIED . . . was a far more hard-hitting, realistic view of Custer and the "Indian Problem."
However the US had just entered WW II and the producers decided to change the theme to a more "patriotic" view of the US and Custer and thus we have the gallant, heroic, fight to the end Custer . . . aka United States. . . so many people wanted to believe in.
|
|
|
Post by Scouts Last Stand on Aug 2, 2005 19:56:08 GMT -6
Well now, let's see....I think Shaw was awful, looked nothing like Custer....was much more enjoyable when being eaten by Sharks. Cole...was ok. Horton...another ok. Mulligan was hilarous...Little Big Horn was a farce. But it's gotta be Flynn....he was so likable, and yet had a bad boy quality about him as I think Custer did and any guy that can play Custer and Robin Hood is ok in my book. I think he captured the persona. But the best battle scene has to be Son of the Morn....followed by LBM.
''You go down there General...if you got the nerve!"
Scout
|
|
|
Post by Scout7 on Aug 2, 2005 20:02:34 GMT -6
Interesting fact....Kevin Costner was originally offered the role of Custer in 'Son of the Morning' Star but turned it down.
Scout
|
|
bhist
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by bhist on Aug 2, 2005 20:56:53 GMT -6
Well, it looks like Hollywood is definitely going to do a new movie on the LBH -- a friend of mine took the producer on a tour of the battlefield and its environs just recently.
I’ve asked for more details, but email exchanges are sometimes slow. Interestingly, it looks like (this is all very early to say for sure, so don’t quote me) that it might play closer to the book because they're planning to tell the story from the viewpoint of the village. I haven't looked at SOMS for over a decade but I think it opened up in the village, right?
|
|
|
Post by IBScout on Aug 3, 2005 6:19:21 GMT -6
Writer and Director are so important, they can together make a great film. The whole film needs to revolve around the Reno Court of Inquiries....as each officer testifies, cut to the battle topic at hand. They need to focus first on the personality conflicts of the regiment and then on the battle and the aftermath....not Custer's relationship with his wife or some obscure things in the book.....we don't need twenty minutes of Belknap hearings.
But if they intend, as you say, to tell the story from the village viewpoint only.....I smell trouble a comin'. I've had all the 'evil' Custers I can stomach. Remember....NEVER TRUST HOLLYWOOD...they are known for re-writing history many times. Keep your hopes down until they announce a writer and director....then we will be able to tell where this thing is going.
Scout
|
|
|
Post by custerstillstands on Aug 3, 2005 7:37:27 GMT -6
Ten dollars that this thing is going in the wrong direction...
|
|
|
Post by michigander1 on Aug 3, 2005 11:59:57 GMT -6
Agreed. Let's wait Custer the monster, as call Brice Custer the image that Hollywood make of him today....
|
|
|
Post by guidon7 on Aug 3, 2005 13:39:15 GMT -6
Hi Elizabeth,
Re your mention of Custer's "high-minded pomposity". The dictionary's definition of pomposity is: "characterized by an ostentatious parade of dignity or importance". I rather think that the subject in question would be "self-esteem" in regard to Custer, something attained by relatively few and which we all strive for, and which most of us falling flat on our faces trying to reach. When I hear "pomposity" I think first of some Oriental potentate, but if I had to fix this tag on individuals with whom we are familiar, I would name Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, and, IMHO, George W. Bush. And, not to selectively choose Americans only, I would also mention your countryman, Winston Churchill. I must temper this negative appraisal by saying that three out of these four, MacArthur, Patton and Churchill, certainly had their admirable traits. pomposity notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 3, 2005 16:43:26 GMT -6
Guidon7
All the men you mention were flamboyant, not only in the manner but dress. MacArthur had the corn-cob pipe and aviator glasses and Patton had his six guns. Churchill had his fedora, cigar, and the "V" sign. Except for Churchill, these men had big egos and thought they were holier-than-thou. Remember Mac wanted to Nuke Korea and got canned by Truman. Patton wanted to attack Russia after WWII and I believe got "reassigned." Churchill saved England than got voted out of power after WWII!
Bush . . . well, let's not go there!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 4, 2005 2:40:22 GMT -6
Guidon7, I was thinking really of the kind of solemn and grandiose language he goes into sometimes -- contrasting totally with his 'real' voice as we hear it in some of his letters ...
|
|
|
Post by My Dawg Got Et on Aug 5, 2005 1:02:29 GMT -6
Elisabeth
Custer tended to use what I call "High Victorian" english when he wrote for publication. Not uncommon then. Makes for a difficult read, though.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 5, 2005 1:29:46 GMT -6
He goes a bit 'high-minded' sometimes in letters to Libbie, too, when he's lecturing her on some misdeed. (Especially when she's been making him jealous.) Quite entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by guidon7 on Aug 9, 2005 15:55:38 GMT -6
CRZHRS,
True, Patton wanted to have a go at Soviet Russia with the help of Germany's defeated armed forces. Interesting. Perhaps there would have been no cold war for half a century! He also installed former Nazis as mayors and officials of towns. I suspect his purpose here was to keep communists from the offices. His actions were countermanded shortly afterward. I believe he was reassigned then, but almost immediately under suspicious circumstances, died from injuries sustained in an automobile crash, certainly convenient for some powerful people strongly in opposition to him.
Your comment, "Bush......let's not go there". I do so agree with you here.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 9, 2005 16:12:11 GMT -6
The only source of info I have on Patton is from documentaries and, of course, PATTON, starring George C. Scott. How much of the movie was factual and represented Patton, I do not know. But there couldn't have picked a better actor for the part!
Apparently, Patton was used as a decoy for D-Day, because the allies felt the Germans would think anywhere Patton was, would be trouble for them. So they put him far away from Normandy and in the end the D-Day invasion worked for the allies.
|
|