Happy Hour #55 - Napoleon (feat. History Bro, The Outcasts Creative) 

When did this happen

@@leargamma49121:32:13 an iconic moment

@@leargamma4912 When she had Napoleon beg I think

Stunning, and brave! 🥲

@@leargamma4912 It was right after Napolean said "It's just a Pronoun, it's not a big deal".

I don't remember that

Truly one of the scenes!

Iconic moment in cinema 😭

😂

Hooray for Bucephalus!

WHAT?!?! She had an incredible impact on his life. We have hundreds of letters from him detailing this. He considered her one of the rays in his star of destiny and a major part of his larger plans

@@Not_Bored_Enough Then call the movie "Napoleon and Josephine" or something so we don't get confused and can safely ignore it.

I wasn’t confused at all. I mean all the reviews I read about it said the same thing about it leaning heavy on the love plotline. I guess you could be mislead from the trailer. I can definitely see that.

@@Not_Bored_Enough For me it was less about confusion and more about them failing at both the relationship and grand historical sides of the film.

Isn't France mostly muslim now?

France is mostly filled with Arabs and Africans they don't give a flying f about napolean and history France they are thier to build France into ismalic hidayatullah France which they have succeeded

In fairness to this guy, he's in a tough spot since he has to stick up for the movie even though he couldn't do anything about the script problems

@@sivad1025 Absolutely true, it was however only a jap at defending it this way. Just say: It was not my part to deal with, i agree, or i don't, i was only there for x,y.

@@sivad1025if he wants to keep his job for sure!

👏👏👏👍

And that definitely has to be the director's fault because Phoenix publicly made it clear he didn't know what his character was doing. Which tells me that he was getting ahead of the criticism of his inconsistent characterization.

Sorry no excuse for defending stupidity.

Scott has been a joke ever since the mid 2000s. Going from directing Blade Runner to this has to be one of the biggest fall in history, 2049 was thankfully kept far away from him.

The same arguments i heard from TLJ defenders Also he got the "people's too dumb to get it"

Which box m8 top right bottom left. I'm intrigued 🤔

2 things #1No one make a car from scratch and #2 a person having enough knowledge ,wisdom and effort can build an equal if not superior vehicle (on their own)

@@phoenixhenson3689 Hardly

These can both be true to an extent. If he doesn't have the budget, he doesn't have the budget. So no, he can't shoot an additional battle scene if he doesn't have the budget. But, he can make one of the woman yell "Black Girl Magic" as she fires her ar-15 at Tranny Hitler.

As a French citizen and long time admirer of Napoleon, I agree. It's still the best film available on the Napoleonic Wars. "Waterloo" is fine, although it's just the last battle. It's 2023 and there still hasn't been a great film or TV series on the man. Quite astonishing.

This was shown on network TV in the US in the early 1970’s and I agree, it was terrific. I only had a black and white TV at the time. I need to seek it out .

​@@juliendunand6409Napoleon 1909. Great film. Just not historical

Great point, and you're correct.

Napoleon was in bill and teds first movie and commanded respect. So anyone who likes seeing Napoleon as not being a cuck start there.😮

Paul is being charitable to people he worked with. There's nothing wrong with that.

Yeah if I was inventing dialogue for a real person, I'd read every letter they ever wrote

@sivad1025 He is being charitable to those he worked with while slamming everyone else. Pointing out that Scott wanted a 1000 extras and only got 500 has 0 to do with showing Bonaparte on the field of battlefield day where simply didn't happen and no amount of twisting and turning will alter that fact. Just one example. Of all the turning points in napoleon's life, josephine was the least of them. So why so much time spent on her?

Like 2002 French miniseries? ;)

a quality writer would research as they go, but i'm guessin' your sentiment is directed toward shit (disney ) writers, and yeah, if they can't put in the effort, stay the cluck away ...Waititit

@@ChristianATemple Without at least a pretty decent level of knowledge you aren't the one who should be sitting down to write a movie about a person. It's not like it's a school assignment where you are given a topic and have to do a project.

He also threatened to assault anyone who criticized him to his face. A real tough guy on the internet it seems. I'd like to know what he did in the military because I don't recall the actual tough guys talking like that. In summary defending his colleagues seems to be his only redeeming quality otherwise he seems to be a wanker who can't handle criticism.

One movie is just too short a time to cover Napoleons entire life.

Most definitely. Two 3hr films, covering the shifting political & social climate of Western Civilisation; which will require at least some insight into the French Revolution; the establishment of the Concert of Europe with Metternich, Kaiser Franz, the antics of Tsar Alexander, and the scheming Telleyrand.

One film about Josephine and the other about Boney, would have been great.

that was the original plan

@@THEOUTCASTSCREATIVE Such a shame

yeah, paul’s punching at straw here

Honestly the more I listen to Paul’s excuses for why the movie… the more I realized people like him are part of the problem.

When does he say that?

Yeah that statement had Ridley Scott energy. It's just pathetic honestly, but he's likely engaging in apologetics for the film to not jeopardize his career.

​@alienelephantwithtitties9422 I can only tell you it's in the first hour, but he definitely did say it. A poor choice of wording, to be honest.

@@cindertoffy3013 It wasn't just the wording. The sentiment itself is incredibly insecure and defensive.

The snowball fight at Brienne is a common story, but not an accurate one.

What do you mean comes off as? He is an apologist. It's part of his contract.

The man's gotta work. Hey, I've got an idea. I'll go up to Ridley Scott and the higher-ups paying for the film and make ultimatums. Yeah I'm sure they'll take em under advisement while thry look for his replacement. If u mean he's trying to justify the film? He's more agreeing with the panel. The guys a military advisor, not a historian what do u expect from him. Within the first 10 minutes he told you how much stuff got cut and limitations. If you could explain your comment maybe I could understand better but it just comes off as juvenile, uninformed and may I say a bit of jealously you tell me m8. Your comment just makes no sense to me??

@@DARTH-C3RB3RUS Well common issues with large company projects are lacks of accountability and explaining away problems with vague and acceptable answers. That attitude among many people working on such projects reduces their quality. "I'm a military advisor, not a historian"->Napoleonic trench warfare. Even with what I'm sure is an iron clad non-disparage clause, some responsibility must be taken there. I was frustrated particularly with the repetition of "so much was cut" when that dodged the criticism levied. Maybe I'll revisit this one day but when someone doesn't come off as genuine in a discussion, I'm disinterested and apparently this time I was annoyed enough to say so.

@timetct Look m8 I partially see your point with accountability and such but he's not Ridley Scott he didn't make write or edit the film and in earnest was a little bit embarrassed shall I say if you couldn't tell by his what some people may call a defensive stance. Firstly, the guys in a hotel room, which, according to his ridiculously budy schedule, I can imagine when he's not working he spends most of his time so I'm happy we got his time which apart from knowledge and wisdom are my most 3 valuable commodities in life but that's just me. I'm pretty sure the guy knew the film was a dud he's probably had it off his mates, his family, and his other industry colleagues. Is he covering for Ridley hell yeah he is. Is he covering for the movie execs hell yea he is. Wots he sposed to do put all of em on blast keep his pride and sacrifice his highly payed, well travelled job to appease all us. I wouldn't, but I was just glad we received his time and expertise and got to listen about his exercises and training drills. It's not his job to be held accountable, and to be fair, if you read between the lines with a lot of what he's saying he said the film was like a longer trailer and even agreed the action scenes were too short but he can only do so much at the end of the day its not his money. I think the reason he said the film was a love story is because after watching it myself yesterday it actually is so he's not lying. The film was missmarketed to fuck tho. The trailer was specifically made to look like to be the next gladiator I saw the trailer in the cinema months ago and thought wow that looks awesome must watch. But alas we got what we got. A contrived love story about Napoleon where ironically the only main character out of the 2 that keeps their character the same was her lol at least Josephine stayed true to her character Phoenix was all over the place happy, sad, stroppy, tearful, stoic. I was just confused by the actors portrail but that's on phoenix and I think hes a big reason for the films shortcomings this wasn't no Joker and I think it's very telling when he went to Ridley and said I don't know how to portray him. If your main star comes to you and says that he's either fallen off the wagon or you've picked the wrong main lead for your film. I take on board your criticism about trench warfare and so on but again the man's a cog in a very big machine if the execs wanted it or Ridley wanted it it was happening with or without Paul and sometimes in life we have to sacrifice our morals if we want to live to fight another day. I don't think he should take responsibility for something that someone else wanted. You saw how embarrassed ge got over the scoped rife/musket smh what a dumb idea but someone wanted it in the film he didn't he even knew when the first scoped gun/rifle was seen in action. But again we got something like the trenches it in the film I agree just dumb. I don't think you're going to please everyone whatever u do and yes I will admit I'm not sure where that transformers comment came from maybe he was tired, maybe he was pissed off and missing his family and friends, maybe he'd read 142 comments about people saying shit on social media about how easy it is to be a paratrooper and I agree for the first 20 minutes or so he did seem to be on the defence a bit but when he calmed down and relaxed I enjoyed listening to his exploits the fact that Waterloo and ice battles were filmed so quickly. I was like whoa that's quick. But respect m8 I ain't got no beef with u my brother or sister (probably a bro, but it's always best to not assume I find) I just see things from the business a money side of things probably got something to do with parents owning businesses but everyone brings a different perspective and I respect yours and even agree to a point. Anyway my bad this turned into a dissertation lol you have a gd one m8 keep safe and stay blessed.

People wanted more detail not more action. He really doesn’t want to understand the criticism.

I think the point he was trying to make was that most audiences don't understand how complicated it is to make a big budget historical film. All the hands that are constantly moving money and people around. It's easy to criticize how something was missed or done wrong when watching the film because people rarely will consider a lot of the points he brought up. I don't think he at all implied your just too stupid to understand it. He wouldn't of had any say in what actors say, how it was shot, or what gets edited out. It's not his movie.

​@@Joe45-91there are ways if explaining the difficulties of makong and producing a movie WITHOUT insulting and patronising your audience. Paul is definitely insecure about this movie and throwing out any excuse to protect him and precious Ridley Scott. He couldn't admit that anything in this film was awfully handled. Everything had an excuse.

@@emilyrockett1774 well said

@@emilyrockett1774 And even then, he's more like a hired hand organizing the men, which he did well enough. Whether they were put to good use is beyond his responsibility anyways.

The sniper rifle in 1812 was particularly hilarious to me lol

Indeed, would have been just as good as Julius Caesar. A bold, charismatic leader filled with hubris gets defeated by General Winter.

Lucien Bonaparte. Joseph was the one put on the throne of Spain, which led to a whole section of Napoleon’s career that was absent from the movie.

@@samlund8543 thanks for the clarification, i correct the initial post :)

@@DeReAntiqua you won't hear an argument from me.

@@DeReAntiquaare you not entertained?

​@@DeReAntiquaRidley Scott is old and that is why he would not be listened to. But his history is undeniable, Blade Runner...critical success, Alien...box office and critical success and Gladiator...box office success. There are others but three is more than many.

Ridley Scott has done diddly squat for a while.

In fairness I quite enjoyed The Last Duel. It seems for every gem he releases it’s followed by a complete turd

The Martian was a good film. House of Gucci started off okay and then trudged to a boring, terrible conclusion.

I think most of us have admitted that. His name no longer inspires interest for me at all.

@@JoJoJokerI love The Martian! That was what, eight years ago? I haven’t seen one from him I’ve enjoyed since.

Stop talking bs . Visit the tower of London and you can see Henry Vlll hunting rifle , with a scope on top of it . Not saying it was accurate but it did exsist 200 years prior not 20 years after

@@jimmyfaulkner5746 do you mean his breech loading carbine in the royal armouries? cause that definitely doesn't have a telescopic sight on it and thats dated before the first modern telescopic lens were even manufactured.

@davekenny8774 tower of London., white tower . HenryVIII collection . It blew my mind to think he would have had one on a rifle . It's there seen it with my own lying eyes

PERFECT CASTING!

He doesn't have much range and basically only plays a version of himself.

"role"

@@Brian_Boru typed it too fast. Whoops

That was an early mainstay in my household. So interesting how George started off playing the character as a caricature (really well, mind you), but midway through filming he realized how complicated the guy was and figured out the arc the movie was going for, and actually apologized to the whole crew for not taking it seriously enough at first. Like he experienced the film's intended introduction to the man himself as he was playing it. Kind of how seriously I take respect for the artform and respect for character, and what difference it can make for a film.

@@samwallaceart288 Good point. I watch it over the holidays and will do some backup research to get a deeper understanding of your observation and add that to my mental filters. Patton just cements, on another point, the efficacy of action scenes without CGI.

I never watched much of R. Scott's films so I didn't know what to expect apart from the first alien being a classic

I was only worried after that ‘get a life’ comment, he’s a jackass but I held hope just for a good movie

At one point he used to be able to make good movies, ignoring historical accuracy for a moment, I just wish he would at least still do that.

He's also a hack adapter of Biblical stories given Exodus: God's and Kings.

While I agree with your overall point, when was the Sutton Hoo helmet in Gladiator? I dont think thats actually a thing...

And "religion of peace" in crusade movie?

Probably funded by "activist" investors,who cared less about making a historically accurate film,and more about pushing "THE MESSAGE."

I mean, he made that depressing, colorless version of Robin Hood. So of course this Napolean movie was going to suck out the romanticism of these characters.

Last good film by Scott was Black Hawk Down.

Yes Ridley Scott does much more with much less money in that one .

Expectations are very low indeed

Anything from Apple is lame and gay.

Modern 2020 Hollywood SUCKS! Plain and simple.

True

This is true but those great historical films that didn't do as well at the box office have historical longevity mentioned in serious film discussion for the ages and new waves of people into great movies and history still seek them out and watch them to this day. Pearl Harbour and other utter tosh of its kind never gets a mention unless making a list of worst films ever made.

​@@FedorevskyI think Waterloo failed at the box office partly because Patton sucked all the oxygen out of the room.

Then kick rocks

Indeed. I’ve seen plenty of good flicks without a lick of derring do or buffoonery, and I’ve still got my man card.

Yeah seriously, how many times you heard an actor talk about a scene they loved that got cut in editing? Omission is part of the director's job.

Shame too cuz I really like her as Queen Elizabeth's sister in _The Crown_

@@samwallaceart288 Nothing wrong with the actress at all. It just wasn't an effective way to tell the story. Maybe it could be done, but this movie didn't manage it.

Well if you did u might not be do close minded because it was actually a fascinating stream with a lot of insight. But they say ignorance is bliss. Enjoy it.

Same, man. I shut off right after he made that Transformers comment. Dude was coping hard. I’ve been glad to see him get blasted in the comments

So it's the Starfield of films

6 walked out of my screening

I was one of the people that walked out

As a time bending wormhole epic.

I rolled my eyes at the explanation of "covid protocols".

Ridley Scott must be taking adrenochrome.

I would choose Lizzo to portray Napoleon.

It made watching almost unbearable. If after watching this movie you got the sense that you were watching one of the most powerful men of his time then you're a better man than I am Gunga Din.

@stevewhite3424 Almost makes me think he came on the stream specifically for damage control purposes.

I thought a lot of points he made were valid. It seemed like all the stuff he actually had control over are not the stuff people are complaining about. The cringe stuff was when he was getting asked about something in the writing or the editing that he can't really defend because he had no say in it. I haven't seen the movie and I probably won't because of all the reasons I've heard on this channel and others. I'm not gonna defend it. I don't think Paul should have to defend what decisions the director or actors made 🤷‍♂️

@@Joe45-91 I agree with your last sentiment. However, while he should not have to, he chose to try. And that is where he got in trouble where he started blaming the viewers and those who dared critique the movie.

@@stevewhite3424right, he didn’t HAVE to say anything. He chose to patronize people with criticism and create strawmen.