View single post by Hellcat
 Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2012 05:52 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Hellcat
Person


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 680
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Look, my huge criticism of that film is it didn't remain as faithful to the source material as Gettysburg did to The Killer Angels. I wasn't expecting the book word for word, there's going to be changes made going from book to movie. But people have said that the movie Gods and Generals is more like a Stonewall love fest. It focuses more on Jackson than Shaara did in the book. Jackson was one of the main characters in the book, there is no doubt about that, but he's not the focus of the book. I was hoping for more of a set-up to the war like happens in the book, a little more of why the various characters ended up entering the war and a focus spread among all the main characters of the book. Also the directors cut added a scene of Booth that has nothing to do with the original story. The book has a lot with Hancock and his frustrations with those in command that seem missing in the movie. Lee's time in Texas and dealing with Custis' passing before the war are gone as is Chamberlain's hunting which has him questioning his life. At least the Director's Cut added back in Antietam (Sharpsburg) whichhad more of an appearance in the book than in the theatrical release. But the movie just never felt to be about the characters like Gods and Generals the book was. Gettysburg seemed to focus as much on the characters as the battle and felt like it was more faithful to The Killer Angels in doing that.