MovieChat Forums > Gettysburg (1993) Discussion > Hated how Longstreet was portrayed in Go...

Hated how Longstreet was portrayed in Gods and Generals

posted 10 years ago by jswhalen1
7 replies | jump to latest

The writing (or Boxlightner) made Longsteet sound stupid and unintelligent in this movie. I know that Berenger passed on it, but I wonder if he read the script, saw the writing, and passed on it for that reason. It was at Fredericksburg that Longstreet invented the "Traverse Trench", the forerunners of the trenches used in WW1. When Longstreet invited Jackson to inspect his lines in January of 1863, Jackson saw those trenches and immediately when back to his lines and had his soldiers build them. Longstreet was a brilliant soldier, not a defeatist as he was portrayed in this movie.

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 10 years ago

IIRC, the only reason Berenger passed on the role is because he had conflicting obligations.

--
Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb.

[–] pepperdog61 9 years ago

The "Trivia" section for G&G suggests Berenger passed because the Longstreet role was too small. Also he was trying for the Stonewall Jackson role that went to Stephen Lang.

[–] Darth_Qaidous 9 years ago

I liked Longstreet's role in the book, but his part in the movie was butchered as compared to how it was in the book. It may not be the case, but I would imagine that Longstreet's diminished role in the film played a big role in Berenger passing on it. In my mind, I read 'Gods and Generals' as if all the actors who played the roles in 'Gettysburg' are in it. Longstreet was one of my favorite characters in the books, Berenger was made for the role, and by extension should have been in the film. When I went to see the film in theaters I was dismayed at how different it was from the book. TPTB tried to tie the two films together, and in some ways it works, but overall I am disappointed that they didn't fit together better. Berenger playing Longstreet with all of his lines from the book would have gone part way to making the film better.

[–] nighttrumpet 9 years ago

One of the many casualties of inflating the Jackson role.

[–] mlbroberts 9 years ago

I too wished the film had stuck more closely to the book and agree, it didn't because Maxwell wanted to tell a story about Stonewall Jackson. Big mistake on his part.

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 9 years ago

I think the problem Darth Quaidous is that they should've done a whole trilogy of movies for that book. The reason Gettysburg gets a pass on that is because it only covers those 4 days of Gettysburg. 3 years worth of stuff is way too much to do justice in a 4 hour movie. I feel if they ever do the last full measure they should do it in 3 movies like Hobbit did.

Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw

[–] indy_go_blue44 9 years ago

I wasn't that impressed with "Killer Angels" so I never read the sequels, but I love Stephen Lang and thought he did a tremendous job as Jackson.

That said, there's just so many things that happened between Sumpter and Chancellorsville, and if he chose to make it about Jackson he still could have covered those things... assuming they were in the source material.

Longstreet is one of my favorite Southern generals. IMO if Lee would've listened to him on 7/1/1863 and slid south that battle would have ended much differently... but for the country's sake, I'm glad he didn't.

The UNITED States of America. July 4, 1776-June 26, 2015.
RIP.