# Gods of Egypt...



## WaylanderToo (Jun 8, 2016)

Gods of Egypt one or 2 nice touches and a couple of good special effects do not a good movie make, nor do they outnumber the many more poor touches and sack load of bad special effects. As an aside a film set in Egypt with a predominantly white cast?


----------



## lynnfredricks (Jun 9, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> As an aside a film set in Egypt with a predominantly white cast?



Wait -- according to Hollywood bean counters, the movie watching public is too dumb to notice those details. Did they include a nice big praxis explosion to let you know the good guys won? ;-)


----------



## WaylanderToo (Jun 9, 2016)

I watched it yesterday and already can't remember it was that forgettable! To put it another way The Brothers Grimsby was far less bad (I wanted to say superior but while I really enjoyed it I couldn't claim it was a good film)


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jun 9, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> Gods of Egypt one or 2 nice touches and a couple of good special effects do not a good movie make, nor do they outnumber the many more poor touches and sack load of bad special effects. As an aside a film set in Egypt with a predominantly white cast?



I have largely forgotten details of the movie, too. Maybe the best touch, for me, was the fact that the gods were portrayed as much larger than the average human being in the film -- thank you, special effects!
But it was a prime example of how a lot of money for fx can be wasted with a bad script.

(As for the white cast: true, but! -- it's not at all clear what color the Egyptians of 5,000 years ago might have been; despite what some political activists of this era like to claim, the fact is that surviving paintings on tomb walls seem to show Egyptians, over the years, as coming in black, brown, red, and white skins. And this may be accurate, when you consider that Egypt was well-positioned to be a cross-roads, located as it was at the northern end of Africa, the southern side of Europe, and west of Arabia, Syria, Persia, and India.)(I do wonder about those red skins, though...sunburn?)


----------



## WaylanderToo (Jun 9, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> I have largely forgotten details of the movie, too. Maybe the best touch, for me, was the fact that the gods were portrayed as much larger than the average human being in the film -- thank you, special effects!
> But it was a prime example of how a lot of money for fx can be wasted with a bad script.
> 
> (As for the white cast: true, but! -- it's not at all clear what color the Egyptians of 5,000 years ago might have been; despite what some political activists of this era like to claim, the fact is that surviving paintings on tomb walls seem to show Egyptians, over the years, as coming in black, brown, red, and white skins. And this may be accurate, when you consider that Egypt was well-positioned to be a cross-roads, located as it was at the northern end of Africa, the southern side of Europe, and west of Arabia, Syria, Persia, and India.)(I do wonder about those red skins, though...sunburn?)




oh I have no issues with there being white people _*in*_ the cast just not being predominantly the cast. I would imagine that the only people you'd not have would be Oriental since I would doubt that they would have found their way there. Otherwise African, Mediterranean, possibly a (very small!) handful of Nordic types, Asian would be (I would imagine) more representative of the ethnic make-up


----------



## SilentRoamer (Jun 9, 2016)

I haven't seen this one yet - I am always drawn to these sorts of films and then normally always disappointed.

The things that annoy me are usually in the details. Exodus: Gods and Kings drove me mad for it - wrong metal swords: check, out of place modern language: check, no one of the correct colour: check, driving bloody chariots around before they were in that region: check, modern mindsets applied to ancient peoples: check.

I care less when there are open fantasy elements - like in the film above or something like Clash of the Titans. I can take less realism if its done well but when something is supposed to be historical then I expect, well, some actual historical understanding and context.

Sorry rant over!


----------



## WaylanderToo (Jun 9, 2016)

SilentRoamer said:


> I haven't seen this one yet - I am always drawn to these sorts of films and then normally always disappointed.
> 
> The things that annoy me are usually in the details. Exodus: Gods and Kings drove me mad for it - wrong metal swords: check, *out of place modern language: check*, no one of the correct colour: check, driving bloody chariots around before they were in that region: check, modern mindsets applied to ancient peoples: check.
> 
> ...




this is the complaint that always surprises me TBH - unless you're going for the whole Apocalypto or The Passion of The Christ al Mel Gibson then, IMO, it's a nonsensical complaint... less so modern mindsets or mores


----------



## svalbard (Jun 9, 2016)

SilentRoamer said:


> I haven't seen this one yet - I am always drawn to these sorts of films and then normally always disappointed.
> 
> The things that annoy me are usually in the details. Exodus: Gods and Kings drove me mad for it - wrong metal swords: check, out of place modern language: check, no one of the correct colour: check, driving bloody chariots around before they were in that region: check, modern mindsets applied to ancient peoples: check.
> 
> ...



I agree with all your points apart from the chariots. They were the used in that period with Ramsees winning(or drawing) a famous battle against the Hittites at Kadesh. The Exodus is also believed to have occurred around the time the Myceneans were dominant in Greece and they also used chariots.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jun 10, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> Gods of Egypt one or 2 nice touches and a couple of good special effects do not a good movie make, nor do they outnumber the many more poor touches and sack load of bad special effects.



Just FYI: today's newspaper listed GODS OF EGYPT as Redbox's no. 1 film of last week.
No comment on meaning; just sayin'.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Jun 10, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> this is the complaint that always surprises me TBH - unless you're going for the whole Apocalypto or The Passion of The Christ al Mel Gibson then, IMO, it's a nonsensical complaint... less so modern mindsets or mores



I understand what you mean and I don't mean matching grammar styles and exact duplication of ancient speech patterns. More of a stylistic choice than actual lexicon. An example (to once again use Exodus);  “From an economic standpoint alone, what you’re asking is problematic to say the least,” is what Rameses says to Moses - I mean really! Could they not think of better wording to say the same thing that doesn't make Rameses sound like a Finance Minister? I understand the necessity for 21st Century mind sets but sometimes just the stylistic choice of language needs to be on point. Gladiator and Braveheart both did this excellently IMO.



svalbard said:


> I agree with all your points apart from the chariots. They were the used in that period with Ramsees winning(or drawing) a famous battle against the Hittites at Kadesh. The Exodus is also believed to have occurred around the time the Myceneans were dominant in Greece and they also used chariots.



They were supervising the building of the Pyramids with Chariots, so either they have the Chariots to early in time or the building of the Pyramids too late. Not to mention there is no historical interpretations that place Moses at the battle of Kadesh. However you are right that Chariots were in use around the time of the Exodus - I guess the movie can't make up its mind as to the historical setting.


----------



## lynnfredricks (Jun 10, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> this is the complaint that always surprises me TBH - unless you're going for the whole Apocalypto or The Passion of The Christ al Mel Gibson then, IMO, it's a nonsensical complaint... less so modern mindsets or mores



Both were excellent though because of it. Hollywood can now make highly authentic films. It is much, much easier to hire actors that physically resemble characters in the stories. In entirely original stories, it bothers me less that they are speaking in English than in movie renderings of classic works. Id love to see movies of The Iliad or The Odyssey with original languages and actors who closely physically resemble the characters - rather than that awful movie Troy.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Jun 10, 2016)

SilentRoamer said:


> I understand what you mean and I don't mean matching grammar styles and exact duplication of ancient speech patterns. More of a stylistic choice than actual lexicon. An example (to once again use Exodus);  “From an economic standpoint alone, what you’re asking is problematic to say the least,” is what Rameses says to Moses - I mean really! Could they not think of better wording to say the same thing that doesn't make Rameses sound like a Finance Minister? I understand the necessity for 21st Century mind sets but sometimes just the stylistic choice of language needs to be on point. Gladiator and Braveheart both did this excellently IMO.




this is what amused me with the complaints made about Colin Farrell in 'Alexander' - his Irish accent! _*Seriously*_?!?!?!?! The film may have been cr.... errrm somewhat sub-optimal but to complain about the fact that someone has an Irish accent FFS!


----------



## svalbard (Jun 10, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> this is what amused me with the complaints made about Colin Farrell in 'Alexander' - his Irish accent! _*Seriously*_?!?!?!?! The film may have been cr.... errrm somewhat sub-optimal but to complain about the fact that someone has an Irish accent FFS!



That was deliberate by Stone. He wanted all the Macedonians to have Irish accents to differentiate them from the more 'civilised' Greeks.


----------



## Khuratokh (Jun 28, 2016)

Apparently Ridley Scott's excuse not to use Egyptian actors was something along the lines of "I can't expect people to show up for a movie with actors called Abdul Ali Whatever..."

Apocalypto was a nice attempt. Although if you're familiar with the Maya, the things they got wrong, range from cringeworthy to deeply insulting.

Also the pyramids were not built by slaves and certainly not by hebrew ones.

The Mummy films were also a heap of dung beatles. But they were so much fun to watch. Has this a similar feel?


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jun 28, 2016)

Khuratokh said:


> Apparently Ridley Scott's excuse not to use Egyptian actors was something along the lines of "I can't expect people to show up for a movie with actors called Abdul Ali Whatever..."



I am reminded of Hollywood in the blacklist years, when writers used pen names to sell their scripts...it would have been fun to see Scott give credits to obviously middleeastern physiognomies under names like "Joe Bowen," "Hiram White..."

You asked: "The Mummy films were also a heap of dung beatles. But they were so much fun to watch. Has this a similar feel?"

Alas, no. Nothing here to see except the fx... (Except that I can see it happening that some other filmmakers looks at this and thinks "hmmm...I could do that better...")


----------



## WaylanderToo (Jun 28, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> You asked: "The Mummy films were also a heap of dung beatles. But they were so much fun to watch. Has this a similar feel?"
> 
> Alas, no. Nothing here to see except the fx... (Except that I can see it happening that some other filmmakers looks at this and thinks "hmmm...I could do that better...")




the Mummy films were pure popcorn with a good supporting cast and (above all!) a (within context) believable story... Egypt was just a mess, there were some cracking SFX which sometimes make you forget how much of a dog this film is but then there are some shocking SFX to drag you right out of it. Jamie Lannister does his best but overall give this a miss


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 4, 2016)

I skipped this one.


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 7, 2016)

It was quite fun with a glass (or four) of wine, I really didn't get the Gerard Butler casting though. It was just odd and he seemed to think the script was for a completely different movie. Maybe something involving a punch drunk boxer auditioning for his kids school play as an Egyptian god.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jul 8, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> I skipped this one.



Wise.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 8, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> Wise.



It reminded  me too much of *Immortals  *which was a really wretched piece of filmmaking.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jul 8, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> It reminded  me too much of *Immortals  *which was a really wretched piece of filmmaking.



NICE analogy!


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 8, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> NICE analogy!



With all the money they spend on actors ,special effects and production, why can't they spend money on a good writer ?


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jul 8, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> With all the money they spend on actors ,special effects and production, why can't they spend money on a good writer ?



Several possible explanations come to mind:
(1) the person in charge of all decisions for the film wrote the script himself and thinks it's just dandy! or
(2) the person in charge (are those the ones called the "producers?") doesn't understand the need for a good story, and thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the audience with sfx; or
(3) the good writers they originally hired walked off the film after seeing the wretched decision-making; or
(4) they bought a good script and were well on the way with making the movie when their lawyers discovered that their story was too close to that of another movie, opining that they'd get sued unless they changed the story -- so they did, on the fly...

(Say, this is kind of a fun game...!)


----------

