MovieChat Forums > Gettysburg (1993) Discussion > Expanding This Film With Parts of Battle...

Expanding This Film With Parts of Battle Not Shown or More Detailed

posted 10 years ago by Salmonit
15 replies | jump to latest

How about taking this epic and great film and showing it in more detail?
Keep the film as it is but show other parts of the battle not depicted or go into more detail of the parts shown.
I mean, F!ck it, make this film 100 hours long by going into more historic detail.
Especially show parts of the battle like Custer's efforts or show more of the first day etc.
Damn, watching this film, I never want it to end and I'd watch a film about Gettysburg even if it was 200 hours long!

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 10 years ago

I think a different movie would have to be made entirely. This is based on the novel The Killer Angels and does a terrific job of adapting the source material.

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

[–] indy_go_blue44 10 years ago

I'd read "Killer Angels" years before seeing "Gettysburg" and to tell the truth I wasn't terribly impressed by the movie until I actually visited Gettysburg a year later. I'm kind of with the OP on this; while rewatching it for the 20th time I tend to skip over the expository scenes to get to the battle scenes, which I think are fabulous. There's so much left out of the actual fighting, especially around Culp's Hill on the second day and behind the lines with both Stewart's and Kilpatrick's insane charge as to make a fascinating "special edition" movie. How many times, really, did we need to be exposed to the Armistead-Hancock relationship to know they loved each other like brothers?

Do you hate me because I have no avatar? Do you even give a damn?

[–] Adept34501 10 years ago

Would they really add anything outside of battle depictions. Including them as just a token nod wouldn't really have accomplished much.

[–] Salmonit 10 years ago

We all want to see more details of each part of the battle.

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 10 years ago

We all want to see more details of each part of the battle.

No we don't.

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

[–] Adept34501 10 years ago

Don't speak for everyone. Some are perfectly fine with the movie as is. Visually it might be nice to see those things but narratively it would just be crowding the field with things that don't really need to be seen. Show the Peach Orchard line collapsing, Sickles getting his leg blown off, Cross dying in the Wheat Field, Barksdale dying along Plum Run, and the 1st Minnesota charging all while Chamberlain is moving to and defending Little Round Top? That wouldn't be confusing for the viewer to introduce actions and characters all of sudden like that and expect the viewer to know what was going on and more important even care? Just like any other war movie its not about the action in which the movie takes place, they name it that to sell tickets. Its about a select few characters perspective during the battle, neither one able to see the whole battle.

[–] Salmonit 10 years ago

I understand its a movie but with the chance there, even though its impossible, it would be great to see each part of the battle. Looking at it from a historical viewpoint, not anything else.
I know the book is the film but the possibility of a combination film/documentary would be interesting to some, like myself.

[–] indy_go_blue44 10 years ago

You might enjoy this History Channel documentary. Essentially it tells the story of Gettysburg through the eyes of 8 different soldiers. It's one of the better Civil War documentaries I've watched, and I've watched a lot of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikFeQUMxIOI&list=PL4A5C092EB086DCC B

I only have one person on ignore, but I've had to ignore him 625 different times.

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 10 years ago

Is that the one produced by Ridley and Tony Scott?

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

[–] indy_go_blue44 10 years ago

Yes, it is.

I only have one person on ignore, but I've had to ignore him 625 different times.

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 10 years ago

I think you're the first person I've found that liked that one. :)

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

[–] indy_go_blue44 10 years ago

Mmm, to each his own. I found the stories fascinating and the cinematography and sfx quite good, especially that it covers a lot of things that aren't covered or are hardly mentioned in "Gettysburg", like the Union retreat through the town and the rear guard actions.

I only have one person on ignore, but I've had to ignore him 625 different times.

[–] Salmonit 10 years ago

Thanks I'll check it out

[–] greenleafie 9 years ago

Yes, the Union retreat through Gettysburg, and their taking of the hills, should have been shown.

A general overview of the 2nd day of battle would have been in order. While the 20th Maine was fighting on Little Round Top, it would be good to see some of the other action, perhaps from Lee's point of view, from across the field. I would like to see some of Sickles' advance- against orders- from the Union front, and the effect it had.

I'd also like to see a portrayal of Gen. Gibbon, who commanded at "the angle," during Pickett's Charge.

[–] indy_go_blue44 9 years ago

I think what some of us might be saying is that better source material than a novel might have been used to make this movie. That being said, with the dearth of CW movies, I'm mighty grateful to Turner, Maxwell & Co. for what we have.