MovieChat Forums > Son of the Morning Star (1991) Discussion > I Heard Oliver Stone is remaking it

I Heard Oliver Stone is remaking it


I heard the other day that Oliver Stone is remaking this and even though I do like a bunch of Oliver Stones pictures, this one has been done before and done well. The only good thing this might bring is a release of the old one on DVD.

reply

Well, the remake of "Son of the morningstar" is now removed from imdb. A shame really that it didn´t get a greenlight. Would it have been 100% historically accurate? Probably not. But it could, and probably would have been an entertaining movie, and a big-budget Custer-movie in the theaters is unfortunaley not a common thing.
One could only hope that they release the dvd of this underrated movie some time soon.

"I´d wake up and there´d be nothing"

reply

I'd like to see a remake of "Son of the Morningstar" or even a better movie than it of the prelude and the battle.

Given that we have had two great books the last two years about it, The Last Stand by Nathaniel Philbrook and A Terrible Glory:Custer and The Little Big Born by Jim Donavan, it's about time for the best movie ever about the battle. It should incorporate all the latest evidence (the Sioux and Cheyanne had close to 300 repeating rifles).

Custer probably knew he was doomed once Reno retreated if he didn't get reinforced by Benteen. Custer also probably knew his 210 men weren't enough to cross the river and capture Sioux women and children, the village was too large as he discovered. At least two troops reached the river along with Custer at Medicine Tail Coulee (at the middle of the village), but any potential captives had already fled further north of the village. He thus went back up the coulee and along the ridge before spotting another ford north of the village which would give him access to where the potential captives had fled, but he chose to wait for about a half hour for Benteen to come up before attempting to cross. In the meantime the Sioux and Cheyenne were coming up to the ridge, mostly undetected in multiple protected gullies, firing high arching arrows before they got in range to use their sixteen shot repeating Henry and Winchesters. They were also reinforced by 750-1000 Sioux and Cheyanne who left Reno once Reno reached Reno Hill. They probably didn't mass charge any of Custers five seperated troops (two on Calhoun Hill, one with Keogh 1/4 mile north of Calhoun Hill along the Battle Ridge, and two troops with Custer 1/2 mile further north of Keogh on Last Stand Hill) until the horses were scattered and the amount of troops were cut down in half. Maybe 20-30 remaining troops from Last Stand Hill fled down towards the river at the very end of the battle, they ended up Deep Revene just short of it before being wiped out.

reply

Well, it's 3+ years since your post and no Stone movie. That would be doubtful, btw, given the liberal slant already on this one. Stone has other Americans to destroy, I'm sure Custer is pretty far down on his list

reply

I have to admit that Stone has made some fantastic movies, however, he's not really a director I would trust too far when it comes to historical accuracy. He always has to throw in some big conspiracy theory in most of his "historical" movies. While this makes his films more entertaining and gives the viewer interesting things to ponder, it does a disservice to the true facts most times. This film would be better served by a "neutral" type director who doesn't feel compelled to put their own personal stamp or point of view on the subject. That being said, kudos to Stone for Natural Born Killers. I love that flick! I was introduced to Leonard Cohen's music through that movie, for which I'll always be grateful! :o)

reply

Liberal slant....hmmmm...Custer was a Dem.

reply

... which was the more conservative of the two majors in 1876. You might recall it was the Democrats who wanted to preserve and even expand slavery, and the Republicans who wanted it ended.

Things change!

--If they move, kill 'em!

reply

I love how you assume that slavery is a conservative value. You are obviously biased, just listen to yourself. Conservatives are about freedom; freedom from others, including government. Conservatives now are very similar to conservatives, or republicans back then. Just because CNN tells you that conservatives are racist doesn't make it true.

Things have very much NOT changed.

Liberalism is a mental illness, and it's the only one that's contagious.

reply

Slavery sure wasn't a LIBERAL idea! A Southern conservative in the context of the 1860s WOULD have fought to maintain slavery. Republicans were always sympathetic to big business but were FAR more socially progressive in the 19th Century.

reply

@nancyminpins-1... The 19th-century Democrats were hardly "liberals" by our standards.

reply

Republics. Democrats. Conservatives. Liberals. Two sides of the same corroded coin. Two heads of the same monster.

Originality needs a reboot.

reply