Not really, there were things Bondarchuck's production overlooked. Elements that were in the book but due to soviet marxist ideals couldnt be allowed in the film.
@@alexandercummins Bondarchuk followed the book slavishly. In fact this is a shortcoming of the movie,among others:basically you get a visualization of the text and not much else. If you are not familiar with the book the movie is a bore,and if you are the movie is underwhelming and ponderous as Bondarchuk was a noob with the camera compared to say David Lean,or Kubrick.
@@Panos-xo9rc Did we watch the same movie? All the parts are shot so beautifully by Bondarchuk and that alone makes for a very entertaining movie. I am hardly familiar with the book and i only cared to see the battle scenes but i was still so awestruck by the visuals in every part.
While the Russian 60's version is a masterpiece, the shot of an officer calling out "the enemy is there!" As if he just noticed what the camera now pans and reveals as having been there, fifty feet in front of him this whole time, will always amuse me.
90 % of all artillery on a napoleonic battlefield was SOLID IRON BALLS yet we constantly see artillery rounds depicted as impact fused high explosive shells in movie after movie frame after frame !! ridiculous !!
Austerlitz is portrayed as under-complex, but at least it involves a descent from a ridge, fog and moments of surprise. The Russians in 1805 wear 1812 uniforms, but as such they are very well portrayed. Borodino features small but well-tuned epic images. Considering it's only a TV production, it's pretty good.
I think the worst bit about this part of the movie is that it does NOTHING to explain why the Russians lost the battle or even what happened at Austerlitz. If anything, it's actually extremely misleading. There's no mention of the general strategy, to attack Napoleon's weak right flank. Nothing about how Napoleon surprised them with an attack up the Pratzen Heights. Etc. Even just a few lines and some better choreography could've helped.
Yes, Tolstoy was at some pains to explain what went wrong with the Russian/Austrian strategy, in order to make his wider point that the chaos of war defeats strategy. It is actually an important part of the story.
You hit the nail on the head with the use of effects in these things and the WW2 esque way they film it! At least they sort of tried with the uniforms somewhat compared to some other historical based productions I have seen (that battle scene in 'The White Queen' that is allegedly meant to be Bosworth has to be the worst for me!)
While i agree with some of you points regarding VFX, i actually prefer the show as a whole, The film is a historical epic, the show is a historical drama. The battle scenes in both convey the feeling Tolstoy intended, but just a different part of it. The film conveys the epic scale and drama of the battle its self, while the show conveys the personal, more intimate drama of the characters it follows, while i understand your preference to one of those sides, i don't think it makes either of the adaptations more or less successful.
I think this only shows that they were resourceful with what they got for a TV miniseries in the UK compared to what Ridley Scott did with a $200 million budget.
I never like the BBC version of War and Peace. The Soviet made W&P is epic and always will be, they don’t make how they use to and that is sad. Like a lost art of making the battlefield big and epic. Now we have all these shots which hide for “ budget” reason. I think the closest to this comes with Gettysburg and God and Generals.
It’s simple. It’s very expensive to shoot these kinds of scenes for TV. The cost of extras in Europe and USA is too high these days. Gettysburg and GAG made some epic scenes butt the storytelling was not very good. The editing was sloppy and the music overdone. In Asian films they are making a lot more epic shots work while mixing it with brilliant storytelling and great editing. Kingdom, Train to Busan and so on.
In the USA there are clubs that perform historic reenactments of Civil War battles. These associations participated VOLUNTEERLY in the shooting of Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. It does help having people who know how to march and fire rifled muskets like they did I the 1860s.
I think it’s great. War is confusing, who care what came from where and who is doing what. So the BBC scenes capture this emotion perfectly. It’s mayhem and chaos everywhere. The story itself tries to relay this.
Despite the limitations in scale and the obvious focus on what seems to be a small angle of the battle (yes misleading the uninformed viewer to think it's actually a portray of the essence of the whole thing) I happen to like this specific battle scene for the blend of music, effects and it's simplistic capture of the trap Napoleon prepared. I plan to write a summery about the battle for a circle of friends who enjoy non academic presentations. I will actually use the clip of the battle from this production as it's very catchy.
the book, the battle scene is very chaotic. you never really know what's going on, and the characters don't seem to know either. they really did get surprised out of the mist, it wasn't long columns of men marching towards each other. i think the movie scene captures it nicely. that the style is trendy is maybe an example of a broken clock being right twice a day
This is all true. CGI should HELP epic storytelling but far too often it is just a prop for really lazy, unimaginative and unskillful direction. Many and many an action movie has been totally ruined by directors who do not know how to use it properly. And yes, Napoleonic battles were experienced very differently from WW2 battles because of the radical difference in tactics. Filming/editing technques should reflect that. Kubrick got this right in Barry Lyndon.
Nice video, but I'm getting sick of people getting a pass for not using real extras because it would cost too much. NO. It wouldn't. It is sheer laziness and ONLY laziness. Productions spend fortunes, absolute fortunes, on special effects, by no means does it cost more to hire out a bunch of dudes to mill around for a few days. But it's a lot of effort, so f**ck that, have someone draw it.
I thought Borodino generally did a better job but this one was indeed very disappointing. Boring like they wanted to get it over with. The only real upside is that it goes by very quickly. One positive I will give it is that in the post-Saving Private Ryan world it was able to have a bit more terror and blood. Napoleonic Wars were far more organized than WW2 but it still doesn't mean people stayed together nicely and only occasionally fell (like in Gettysburg). The book even makes a point of that. Overall I do wish this series could have had even half of Bondarchuk's budget cause I generally consider it at least a slightly better adaptation of the book as a whole. I haven't seen the 1972 series yet so I wonder how that fares.
Hell, like the story or not, I’d even say The Patriot had better battle sequences then these movies. You always knew where the opposing forces were and you also got an idea as to how massive the armies were. In the behind the scenes, they showed that they did exactly what he said in the video, the had a fairly decent amount of people to kind of fill up the first couple ranks then filled in the rest with CGI soldiers.
I skimmed through the video, but arguably the most famous part of the battle is the "Sun of Austerlitz" cutting through the fog and suddenly revealing Napoleon's troops, which the movie doesn't seem to portray. 5:43 The Allied inexplicably only notice the enemy after they're already very close (even having to use a telescope). If that even is the moment being portrayed in that clip, it might not be. Actually it probably certainly isn't but I typed this already so here we are.
The BBC adaptation suffered the same problems as the later seasons of Gane of Thrones, by trying to cover too much in just a few hour long episodes. Why they chose to only do six rather than 8 or even 10 episodes is a mystery. Anyone who read the book could tell instantly that the battles (save maybe Borodino) were simplified greatly in the show. However I feel people were a little too harsh on the show. It got the fundamentals right and i felt they brought the characters alive with a brilliantly selected cast. Especially for how brief the show was.
One would think the 1967 Sergey Bondarchuk's production closed the War and Peace topic once and for all.
Yes, I don't think you can ever get a genuine ARMY of extras ever again.
Not really, there were things Bondarchuck's production overlooked. Elements that were in the book but due to soviet marxist ideals couldnt be allowed in the film.
@@alexandercummins Like what?
@@alexandercummins Bondarchuk followed the book slavishly. In fact this is a shortcoming of the movie,among others:basically you get a visualization of the text and not much else. If you are not familiar with the book the movie is a bore,and if you are the movie is underwhelming and ponderous as Bondarchuk was a noob with the camera compared to say David Lean,or Kubrick.
@@Panos-xo9rc Did we watch the same movie? All the parts are shot so beautifully by Bondarchuk and that alone makes for a very entertaining movie. I am hardly familiar with the book and i only cared to see the battle scenes but i was still so awestruck by the visuals in every part.
While the Russian 60's version is a masterpiece, the shot of an officer calling out "the enemy is there!" As if he just noticed what the camera now pans and reveals as having been there, fifty feet in front of him this whole time, will always amuse me.
90 % of all artillery on a napoleonic battlefield was SOLID IRON BALLS yet we constantly see artillery rounds depicted as impact fused high explosive shells in movie after movie frame after frame !! ridiculous !!
The scene from the BBC tv show is directed better than Ridley Scott's depiction of the Battle of Austerlitz!
Yeah. When it comes to battle scenes of this type scale is everything. There's a reason Kubricks Spartacus and 1970 Waterloo are so well beloved.
Austerlitz is portrayed as under-complex, but at least it involves a descent from a ridge, fog and moments of surprise. The Russians in 1805 wear 1812 uniforms, but as such they are very well portrayed. Borodino features small but well-tuned epic images. Considering it's only a TV production, it's pretty good.
The scene is good enough, they didn't have unlimited budget.
I think the worst bit about this part of the movie is that it does NOTHING to explain why the Russians lost the battle or even what happened at Austerlitz. If anything, it's actually extremely misleading. There's no mention of the general strategy, to attack Napoleon's weak right flank. Nothing about how Napoleon surprised them with an attack up the Pratzen Heights. Etc. Even just a few lines and some better choreography could've helped.
Yes, Tolstoy was at some pains to explain what went wrong with the Russian/Austrian strategy, in order to make his wider point that the chaos of war defeats strategy. It is actually an important part of the story.
You hit the nail on the head with the use of effects in these things and the WW2 esque way they film it! At least they sort of tried with the uniforms somewhat compared to some other historical based productions I have seen (that battle scene in 'The White Queen' that is allegedly meant to be Bosworth has to be the worst for me!)
While i agree with some of you points regarding VFX, i actually prefer the show as a whole, The film is a historical epic, the show is a historical drama. The battle scenes in both convey the feeling Tolstoy intended, but just a different part of it. The film conveys the epic scale and drama of the battle its self, while the show conveys the personal, more intimate drama of the characters it follows, while i understand your preference to one of those sides, i don't think it makes either of the adaptations more or less successful.
They did a great job. Show is well done
No
@@MegaFalcon13 yes
@@tomb4289 No.
Yes
I think this only shows that they were resourceful with what they got for a TV miniseries in the UK compared to what Ridley Scott did with a $200 million budget.
I never like the BBC version of War and Peace. The Soviet made W&P is epic and always will be, they don’t make how they use to and that is sad. Like a lost art of making the battlefield big and epic. Now we have all these shots which hide for “ budget” reason. I think the closest to this comes with Gettysburg and God and Generals.
It’s simple. It’s very expensive to shoot these kinds of scenes for TV. The cost of extras in Europe and USA is too high these days. Gettysburg and GAG made some epic scenes butt the storytelling was not very good. The editing was sloppy and the music overdone.
In Asian films they are making a lot more epic shots work while mixing it with brilliant storytelling and great editing. Kingdom, Train to Busan and so on.
In the USA there are clubs that perform historic reenactments of Civil War battles. These associations participated VOLUNTEERLY in the shooting of Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. It does help having people who know how to march and fire rifled muskets like they did I the 1860s.
I think it’s great. War is confusing, who care what came from where and who is doing what. So the BBC scenes capture this emotion perfectly. It’s mayhem and chaos everywhere. The story itself tries to relay this.
I think the battle of Dybol is a good example of how it should be
i love your work
Thank you!
man really just made 2 excellent videos then dipped
Despite the limitations in scale and the obvious focus on what seems to be a small angle of the battle (yes misleading the uninformed viewer to think it's actually a portray of the essence of the whole thing) I happen to like this specific battle scene for the blend of music, effects and it's simplistic capture of the trap Napoleon prepared. I plan to write a summery about the battle for a circle of friends who enjoy non academic presentations. I will actually use the clip of the battle from this production as it's very catchy.
Fantastic analysis.
well the bbc did a much better job in their 1972 version. not perfect but a lot better in the battle scenes.
the book, the battle scene is very chaotic. you never really know what's going on, and the characters don't seem to know either. they really did get surprised out of the mist, it wasn't long columns of men marching towards each other. i think the movie scene captures it nicely. that the style is trendy is maybe an example of a broken clock being right twice a day
Why isnt this popular yet?
This is all true. CGI should HELP epic storytelling but far too often it is just a prop for really lazy, unimaginative and unskillful direction. Many and many an action movie has been totally ruined by directors who do not know how to use it properly.
And yes, Napoleonic battles were experienced very differently from WW2 battles because of the radical difference in tactics. Filming/editing technques should reflect that. Kubrick got this right in Barry Lyndon.
one second we see packed ranks and a second later we see a few individual hand to hand fights with combatants a dozen feet or more apart - pitiful !
Yup
I just hope the BBC version made some people watch the suberp Russian one or even read the book.
Nice video, but I'm getting sick of people getting a pass for not using real extras because it would cost too much. NO. It wouldn't. It is sheer laziness and ONLY laziness. Productions spend fortunes, absolute fortunes, on special effects, by no means does it cost more to hire out a bunch of dudes to mill around for a few days. But it's a lot of effort, so f**ck that, have someone draw it.
In Gettisburg they got extras almost for free by getting renactors as extras
the series wasnt about the battles, it was about the characters influenced around it and in that it was superb
Yep
Soviet army made great films
what was the title of the russian movie?
War and peace (1967).
I thought Borodino generally did a better job but this one was indeed very disappointing. Boring like they wanted to get it over with. The only real upside is that it goes by very quickly. One positive I will give it is that in the post-Saving Private Ryan world it was able to have a bit more terror and blood. Napoleonic Wars were far more organized than WW2 but it still doesn't mean people stayed together nicely and only occasionally fell (like in Gettysburg). The book even makes a point of that.
Overall I do wish this series could have had even half of Bondarchuk's budget cause I generally consider it at least a slightly better adaptation of the book as a whole. I haven't seen the 1972 series yet so I wonder how that fares.
Absolutely. Fashion - right! It was absolute amateurish crap - as was BoB and SpR. Watch Gettysburg, Khartoum, Waterloo, The Alamo (1960) and Zulu.
Hell, like the story or not, I’d even say The Patriot had better battle sequences then these movies. You always knew where the opposing forces were and you also got an idea as to how massive the armies were. In the behind the scenes, they showed that they did exactly what he said in the video, the had a fairly decent amount of people to kind of fill up the first couple ranks then filled in the rest with CGI soldiers.
I skimmed through the video, but arguably the most famous part of the battle is the "Sun of Austerlitz" cutting through the fog and suddenly revealing Napoleon's troops, which the movie doesn't seem to portray. 5:43 The Allied inexplicably only notice the enemy after they're already very close (even having to use a telescope). If that even is the moment being portrayed in that clip, it might not be. Actually it probably certainly isn't but I typed this already so here we are.
The BBC adaptation suffered the same problems as the later seasons of Gane of Thrones, by trying to cover too much in just a few hour long episodes. Why they chose to only do six rather than 8 or even 10 episodes is a mystery.
Anyone who read the book could tell instantly that the battles (save maybe Borodino) were simplified greatly in the show.
However I feel people were a little too harsh on the show. It got the fundamentals right and i felt they brought the characters alive with a brilliantly selected cast. Especially for how brief the show was.
amen. But without any social justice to promote, they won't listen.