Oliver Stone's "Alexander" Trilogy

MerryPrankster

In a thread in Chat about Oliver Stone's 2004 film "Alexander," RGB suggested it could have been a three-parter.

I thought that was a really good idea and suggested the first movie cover Philip's conquest of Greece and the revolt after Philip died, the second movie the conquest of Persia, and the third movie the stuff that happened later.

So what if Stone decided to make it a trilogy instead?
 

Axeman

MerryPrankster said:
In a thread in Chat about Oliver Stone's 2004 film "Alexander," RGB suggested it could have been a three-parter.

I thought that was a really good idea and suggested the first movie cover Philip's conquest of Greece and the revolt after Philip died, the second movie the conquest of Persia, and the third movie the stuff that happened later.

So what if Stone decided to make it a trilogy instead?
Click to expand...

It either flops or succeeds behind his wildest dreams based on the first part. The story of a young ambitious boy rising to rule a nation and eventually conquer a superior one is a decent enough plot, execution is what will matter.

That said, Stone should stay away from Alexander's sexuality at all costs. Not only is it needlessly controversial, but it didn't really add much to the storyline.
 

JSmith

Banned
Axeman said:
That said, Stone should stay away from Alexander's sexuality at all costs. Not only is it needlessly controversial, but it didn't really add much to the storyline.
Click to expand...
Well I agree that people who saw it as controversial contributed to tanking the movie.I think it would be less controversial today of course-at least in the United States. But this issue is definitely relevant,even central, to Alexander's life even if only looked at through the prism of him marrying and producing heirs- which we know he was somewhat tardy at doing.
Good idea about a triology otherwise-Id watch.
 
Last edited:

MerryPrankster

It'd be kind of hard to avoid Hephaiston, who was his childhood best friend, chief of staff, one of his generals, and a bunch of other stuff on top of being his boyfriend.

And Bagaos was kind of a big deal as well.

One can avoid dwelling on it overmuch or going about it in a really goofy way though.
 

RGB

Axeman said:
That said, Stone should stay away from Alexander's sexuality at all costs. Not only is it needlessly controversial, but it didn't really add much to the storyline.
Click to expand...

So Merry - as you can see - it's not like I'm at all incorrect or that it wasn't a factor.

It only took a second thread to show it, didn't it.

As for me - I would cut Philip as much as I could, especially all that dirty slanderous Theopompus stuff. First part would start shortly after the death of Philip with appropriate throwbacks to the most memorable episodes where required. In fact, the first part would focus on the post-Philip power struggle, with Alexander's childhood being an explanation WHY he wins in the end (he is inspirational and extraordinary because Bucephalus etc.)

All the generals would get introduced.

It would close with the invasion of Persia.

Second part would open and close with a battle. I would work in the siege of Tyre if possible, I personally think the whole "I'm Achilleus" mania he had turned Alex into a rare monster. I wouldn't necessarily make him too positive. This is his climax but also his pinnacle of hubris.

Third part would start with the pages' plot, Roxanne would be brought in, Bagoas would be brought in, Parmenin gets assassinated etc. Treat him sort of like Napoleon - he's pushing not because he is a maniac, but because he doesn't even know how to do anything else at this point. Blah blah Indus, returns home, dies.

Since we introduced the generals at some length, the division can be covered shortly in a summary and we'd know what's going on.

----

Thinking of it, it would be even better as an HBO miniseries. And it could handle all the other "controversial" (ha!) stuff just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top