'Homophobic' America to Blame for Alexander's Flop says Stone
Director Oliver Stone has blamed the bible belt of America and prejudice for the flop of his latest film Alexander. Stone thinks the film will do better on the European market because: "Americans don't read about ancient history like the Europeans."
Stone said: "From day one the Bible Belt people did not show up because there was one phrase throughout the media... 'Alex the gay'. So you can bet your a*s Americans aren't going to see a war hero who in their heads has something wrong with him."
Stone also said that he had no regrets about the way he produced the film, calling it "the epic of my life."
your movie sucked. Plain and simple. It was boring. You wasted the talents. The script was cliche-ridden and stupid. You threw homosexuality in there as your 'sex card' that oh-so-many directors use now to save their shitty movies (anyone remember cabin fever?) and it backfired, and now you're pissy. Next time, bother to write a decent script, and perhaps America will turn out to see it.
And now he has been apologizing for 'Midnight Express' and blaming homophobic American audiences for the failure of 'Alexander'. L.O.S.E.R.
He's made so few decent movies during his career...
Also, I chuckle over the 'American's don't read about ancient history like the Europeans." bit. Sorry, Ollie-- Since I've moved to Europe, I've observed that Europeans are even less interested in reading ancient history than Americans, but they do have a better overall grasp of history because they had better teachers,and less historical misinformation perpetuated by bad films and television.
An audience would rather go see a well-directed film like 'Gladiator' that has a more interesting story (Ridley Scott is one of my personal favorites), even if it is entirely-fictional and unrealistic.
I couldn't agree more. The effects were spectacular, but the movie was so damn long (3hrs exactly) that I was falling asleep during a matinee! It was a TERRIBLE script and the homosexuality was in-your-face. I'm not afraid of gay people, but I do find implications of anal sex among men disgusting and nauseating.
The director is being a baby. Doesn't he realize that 10 minute long monologues are for stage not screen? Also, attempts at emotional scenes were laughable, fake and way too long.
This movie deserves a 4 out of 10 only because of it's AWESOME battle scenes (without them, 1/10). I wish they cut the hours of crap out from between each battle. If the script had been shortened by one third, the movie could have scored big points.
I agree. Although I have to say, monologues work on screen...when WRITTEN well. Take for example...say...Kenneth Branagh's entire library of Shakespere stage-to-screen projects. I've seen his Hamlet and Othello (he was chilling as Iago) and he speaks all of the monologues and soliloquies almost verbatim, and they're fantastic.
Long and short, Stone blew it big time, and he wants US to take the blame for it. What he should really do is grow up and see this as the learning experience that it is. All of the budget in the world can't save a movie that sucks.
There is a big difference in being scared of homosexuals and being completly against a perverted lifestyle that goes against the grain of all that is good and decent. You do not have to be afraid of something to hate it.
beat - Homophobia is, by definition, having fear OR CONTEMPT for homosexuals. Many, many, many people in the south have contempt for homosexuals (among others), and are thus homophobic.
Everyone else - I saw the movie and I thought it was great. Apparently I'm no movie critic becauses I thouroughly enjoyed the movie.
They need to get it through thier skull that crap is crap. You can blame anyone for anything, but your not going to make a penny more, so they should just shut up :P
I saw it and wrote an essay on the movie for extra credit in lit class. I thought the movie was okay, and gave a good education on Alyxander. It is really hard for a 3 hour movie to do well. Maybe if he lied in the end, and had him convert to christianity (even before it exist) it would have helped the numbers... kidding of course.
stop trying to blame his failures on others and realize most shitty movies flop. Realize that his movie is shit, so it flopped. Hilarious that he says "Americans don't read about ancient history like the Europeans." seeing how his crap has little to do with real history. Just another one of Hollywood's crappy over-dramatizations.
I don't know about the rest of europe, but it was slaughtered in norwegian newspapers. I saw the movie, and it was pretty bad, stone is not the right director for this kind of movie. he did good on apocalypse now(screenplay) and platoon though, let's not forget.
Yeah! The movie deserves to become a flop and the bastard director should be ashamed for calling the people of the Persian empire "Barbaric". And WHO ever said that Alexander was gay????? Who's next? Lord Jesus?
Since you asked, the movie has received only bad reviews and a lack of enthusiastic response. 'Shrek 2' and 'Bridget Jones Pt. 2' have done much better.
What definition are you using that says contempt is part of homophobia? It certaintly isn't one that the big guys (princeton, oxford, merriam-webster) uses.
Further, the world needs to be more open minded on both ends of this issue. Homosexuality is obviously not how nature intended things, so people will be against it. And that is well within their rights, as long as they are not harming anyone.
xmorbious - http://dictionary.reference.com/ Status-Quo - Yeah, I know it's in the west. There's plenty up here in the north and I know it's in the east. But, I believe our conversation was about the South, which is why it was mentioned.
I've posted about this before. I am still amazed to hear people talking about going 'against nature' and other absurd expressions. I wonder why these narrow minded people can't get it into their heads that being gay is not a choice. People are born gay and at some point in their lives realize that they are gay. Some sooner than others.
Why would anyone wake up one day and decide to be gay? Maybe they really like narrow minded idiots hating them all the time, who knows. All I know is that is makes no logical sense for homosexuality to be a 'life choice.'
When I was a child I knew I had a greater interest in girls than boys long before I knew about sexuality. When you hear gay people talk they knew they were different than the 'norm.'
So to argue that a natural born gay person is 'against nature' is just the talk of someone filled with hatred and narrow mindedness. But if you are a biggot I would be really interested to hear a post (not using the Bible as a crutch) that logically explains why 'normal' straight people would one day decide to 'turn' gay. My assertion is that one is born gay and at some point becomes aware of this fact and eventually 'comes out.' If you think you know better please do post.
As for the movie, it probably will do a little better in Europe, I think people there have a longer attention span which is why they play and watch snooker! Either way a three hour movie is just too long. I doubt Kill Bill would have worked as one long movie as it was originally intended to be.
I cannot comprehend how a debate about an issue with serious social and legal repercussions has surfaced in the entertainment channel. Homosexuality is an issue that needs to be able to be discussed in an open and respectful manner for all parties involved, this means no gay-bashing, not labelling people as religous radicals, etc. And yes, it is a little rediciulous that Stone blamed his movie's failure on homophobic tendancies in American society, although I do believe that, in general, we are less accepting than nations in Western Europe. Seeing as how no one on her is God (in whatever sense you believe or don't believe) than no one really knows for sure if homosexuality is wrong, AND using religion in a debate about acceptable behavior in SECULAR (non-religious) society is unacceptable. All I am saying is that not everyone accepts religion on the same level, therefore it is a null argument, do not try and force religion on someone, they do not have to accept your beliefs. However, they must respect your beliefs as far as respecting your right to hold those beliefs as long as you do not act in ways that infringe on another person's rights. And saying that homosexuality goes "against the grain" of normal society seems to me a little ridiculous. Who is the arbitrator of "normal." As long as no one tries to force their beliefs, lifestyles, or even sexuality on me or other people, and they do not keep other people from living their life as they choose,they should be free to live as they choose.
***And a special note to those parents/relatives of openly gay people: Do not condemn them for their actions. First accept them for who they are, respect them with dignity as all people deserve. Accept their decision, you do not have to agree, but accept them and their decision. And then do not try to sway them from their decisions. If you think what they are doing is wrong tell them you think so. If you are religous, than pray for them. Let your prayer be not that they change, but that God, in whatever sense you accept God, may guide their actions.
It is not my job, nor is it the responsobility of anyone else to restrict how people live their lives peacfully. And for clarification, I am neither expressing an acceptance nor am I condemning homosexuality, just asking that all people approach each other with respect and dignity.
While I agree with what you say, the reason why secular societies tend to use religious values in their attitudes is because law is based on moral beliefs, and if homosexuality is seen as morally wrong (as is the case with fundamentalist Christians) then that will show in its modus operandi.
...There's too many of these types of movies out now. All the previews looked like they were made from scenes of troy, gladiator, lord of the rings, etc. They should have waited a little while, let a few more horror films and feel-good movies come out before they released. :D
