New Custer Movie (1 Viewer)

I think I know the one you mean.It was a TNT production I think.Their was a period in the mid nineties I believe when TNT made a number of movies about the American Indian.
Mark
 
Last edited:
Yes posible,because i think that they also make a movie title Crazy Horse.I think it is produced in 1996,Crazy Horse.
 
On the subject of movies one called Geronimo with Wes Studi and Jason Patric.Studi is a great actor who plays Geronimo and Patric plays Lt. Gatewood who historically was a friend of the indians and that's why he was never promoted.A very good movie in my opinion.
Mark
Good call on this one. IMO this is a very under-rated movie. Patric, Studi, Duvall all do great jobs in their roles. Well worth the time to watch. -- lancer
 
Perhaps much ado about nothing re: this new Custer movie as any headlines I've found date to 2005 and refer to a movie pitched but never produced. It was hoped that Spielberg would make this one and rumors circulated that Brad Pitt was considered for the title role, but........that is as far as it ever got I'm afraid.

MD
 
I would like to try and tie this thread and the new thread which Dave started together. I do think that the popularity of the Western has changed over the last three decades. I feel the Western as a genre is now in terminal decline and is unlikely to ever reclaim its position of prominence in the film industry anywhere in the world.

Dave asked why there is no big move amongst toy soldier manufacturers to produce a Wild West Series? The honorable exceptions to this rule please do not take offence. I think we can all agree that Dave's observation is true. Back in the 1970's Bonanza was on TV all the time, we saw cowboy movies at the Drive In every Friday and every little boy wanted a cowboy suit for his birthday. Now most little boys want a Super Hero suit. Cowboy movies as such are few and far between and verge on the art house in terms of their distribution and audience. This thread has also revealed a bit of controversy over the treatment of the Native American people. I was at a flea market the other day when I came upon a stall selling "Faux Native American " apparel. You know dream catchers and crystals and star signs on running wolves and the like. The point is that the general public has become fairly convinced that the Native Americans were unfairly treated by the settlers and may even have been victims of a genocide.The Native Americans are now seen as heroes not villians that could be shot down by John Wayne without a second thought.

Now this feeling about the treatment of aboriginal people all around the world in fairly widespread in popular culture. Whether it was the Spanish in South America, the Dutch in the Cape, the British in Australiasia or India, the general feeling now is that colonialism was unfair and destroyed civilizations which were unique and of an inestimable value. I am convinced that this is why the Wild West as a theme is no longer a popular one with the general public. You can hardly even find a packet of plastic cowboys and Indians at Toys' R Us any more, let alone a pack of Swoppet cowboys which I longingly gazed at on my family's Sunday night window shopping expeditions down the mainstreet of Durban. Come to think of it the mainstreet has been replaced by the shopping mall now.

My previous post about changing depictions of the West in the movies I feel summarises the situation. I should also mention The Movie Little Big Man which also firmly deconstructed the traditional western and made the Native Americans the tragic heroes of the story rather than the traditional bogeymen. I think as far as a Western themed set of toy soldiers goes, the world has moved on and the heroes of yesteryear have been found a bit wanting.
 
Some very insightful remarks here Damian, and I think the death of the classic "Western" is probably good and bad in ways. Funny you should mention Little Big Man as I just watched it for the umpteenth time (though first time in many years) last night. I think this new, more PC view of Native American culture and more favorable and realistic portrayal of same in movies and so on is clearly preferable to the old Hollywood formula. Even newer "Westerns" like the Unforgiven, 310 to Yuma, the HBO Deadwood series, (and dare I say Dances with Wolves :rolleyes:) and so on, sort of take the glamour out of the whole experience and present a much more substantial and valuable picture.

I guess to me, this trend in the entertainment industry could, if anything, motivate a TS mfr. to create more realistic looking and interesting Native American figures to compliment equally decent looking soldiers, plainsmen, and frontiersmen. I am really not interested, for example, in a bunch of howling "Indians" wearing full feather head-dresses and covered from head to toe in gaudy day-glo paint waving tomahawks in both hands because it is not accurate and looks a bit silly.

A lot went down between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mtns after the Louisiana Purchase was concluded and I am surprised no one in the TS universe has been interested in considering these subjects in any serious way to date.

MD
 
I agree that western is dead for 20-30 years but that is just a little pause.Like all things everything is repeating.Like fashion,the trausers that was in fashion in 1970,it was fashion again in 2000,after 30 years and now are not fashion again.Or movies,before in the 1960 was a lot of old romans movies(Ben Hur,Qua Vadis.Spartacus,....) than nothing after 2000 it was tons of Greek and Romans movies again,like Gladiator,Troy,Aleksander,....it is just that someone need to start this.I am just asking why the USA who is leading the movie production are more interested in Greek history movies,Roman History movies,Middle east history movies like Heaven Kingdom,....but not play with their own culture and history like wild west.
I think it will be good to start with the wild west western movies but it must be a spectacular story,like some famous battle like Custer,or Sioux war,Alamo,some famous battle before the Civil war,maybe Geronimo,Or Cochise wars,maybe some fight bettwen Crow and Sioux,...because the batles,tthe indians with their wild nature,painted faces,...is something that it can make movie interesting.Without indians it will not be nice movie,because i know people hate westerns where is only one cowboy,riding his horse,come to town,than talk and talk,play some cards,kiss a bar girl,than some corupt Sherif wannt to put him in jail and than it is 5 minutes action at the end and someone die(sherif or this cowboy).Or like Open Range with Kevin Costner and Duval,they are good actors but the movies is kind of boring to watch this two cowboys with the cows,bad land owner,a lot of talking and than 5-10 minut of gun fight and over.
I wanna watch western that it is full of battles,full of gun shoots,arrows,cannons,strategy,indians,buffalos,forts,.....not just one cowboy riding a horse.
GIVE US WESTERN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D
 
I agree that western is dead for 20-30 years but that is just a little pause.Like all things everything is repeating.Like fashion,the trausers that was in fashion in 1970,it was fashion again in 2000,after 30 years and now are not fashion again.Or movies,before in the 1960 was a lot of old romans movies(Ben Hur,Qua Vadis.Spartacus,....) than nothing after 2000 it was tons of Greek and Romans movies again,like Gladiator,Troy,Aleksander,....it is just that someone need to start this.I am just asking why the USA who is leading the movie production are more interested in Greek history movies,Roman History movies,Middle east history movies like Heaven Kingdom,....but not play with their own culture and history like wild west.
I think it will be good to start with the wild west western movies but it must be a spectacular story,like some famous battle like Custer,or Sioux war,Alamo,some famous battle before the Civil war,maybe Geronimo,Or Cochise wars,maybe some fight bettwen Crow and Sioux,...because the batles,tthe indians with their wild nature,painted faces,...is something that it can make movie interesting.Without indians it will not be nice movie,because i know people hate westerns where is only one cowboy,riding his horse,come to town,than talk and talk,play some cards,kiss a bar girl,than some corupt Sherif wannt to put him in jail and than it is 5 minutes action at the end and someone die(sherif or this cowboy).Or like Open Range with Kevin Costner and Duval,they are good actors but the movies is kind of boring to watch this two cowboys with the cows,bad land owner,a lot of talking and than 5-10 minut of gun fight and over.
I wanna watch western that it is full of battles,full of gun shoots,arrows,cannons,strategy,indians,buffalos,forts,.....not just one cowboy riding a horse.
GIVE US WESTERN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D

ALes You have described virtually all Of John Wayne's movies perfectly.
I know I will get into trouble for saying this but man are they boring.
 
I'm not sure that the Western movie is dead-sure they are not so prevalent and we are not inundated with fifteen different series on TV every week but practically every year a major studio will knock out one for the fans and in the main they make enough money at the box-office that other studios feel it safe enough to dip their toe in the genre periodically to keep it alive.

Examples of a few fairly popular western movies over the last 20 years or so:-

Unforgiven
Tombstone
Wyatt Earp
Open Range
The Missing
The Alamo
Hidalgo
3.10 to Yuma
Pitt's Jesse James
No Country for Old Men

However, I doubt Ales is ever going to see any of the old type westerns of the dashing US Cavalry arriving in the nick of time to save the be-sieged settlers from the savage red-man anytime soon. I believe that was one of the reasons the Brits never made any follow-ups to their Zulu epics-would anyone feel comfortable in watching the red-coats butchering the Zulus with artillery shells and rockets that culminated at Ulundi? I doubt it.
But a movie about "the genocidal maniac" Custer getting his come-uppance at the LBH might still see the light of day as that reverse theme would still be completely acceptable today. Curious that?

Reb
 
Most of those movies shy away from the issue of the native American people. The conflicts tend to be between settlers. The open rangers vs the big bankers etc. Some of them are in fact "cops and robbers" movies with a western theme. No country for old men is set in the 1960's Texas/Mexican borderland. As an aside I enjoyed Unforgiven immensely. You also omitted the two Young Guns Movies starring the brat pack of the early 1990's. How could any of us forget when Billy the Kid said " I've killed 19 men and that ain't counting Mexicans".

I agree with you that Ales is not going to see a movie like he describes. However I also feel that Hollywood has in some ways lost its counter culture activism.
I don't think Hollywood would make a blatant anti-war movie like "Apocalyse Now" or "Soldier Blue" today. I distinguish anti-war from a "war is hell" movie.. In the 1960's the artistic community was keen to stick it to the man any way they could. I am not so sure that the same ethos pervades today. So a movie portraying Longhair as a genocidal blood thirsty maniac butchering and raping his way across the Blackhills of Dakota probably won't see the light of day either. Gay rights and anti-death penalty themes are OK for Hollywood but not anti-war themes.
 
Most of those movies shy away from the issue of the native American people. The conflicts tend to be between settlers. The open rangers vs the big bankers etc. Some of them are in fact "cops and robbers" movies with a western theme. No country for old men is set in the 1960's Texas/Mexican borderland. As an aside I enjoyed Unforgiven immensely. You also omitted the two Young Guns Movies starring the brat pack of the early 1990's. How could any of us forget when Billy the Kid said " I've killed 19 men and that ain't counting Mexicans".

I agree with you that Ales is not going to see a movie like he describes. However I also feel that Hollywood has in some ways lost its counter culture activism.
I don't think Hollywood would make a blatant anti-war movie like "Apocalyse Now" or "Soldier Blue" today. I distinguish anti-war from a "war is hell" movie.. In the 1960's the artistic community was keen to stick it to the man any way they could. I am not so sure that the same ethos pervades today. So a movie portraying Longhair as a genocidal blood thirsty maniac butchering and raping his way across the Blackhills of Dakota probably won't see the light of day either. Gay rights and anti-death penalty themes are OK for Hollywood but not anti-war themes.

But even these are only rare treats as 80% of what gets made in Hollwood these days is mindless drivel, Hacker/slasher moveis and just plain old crap in general.

MD
 
But even these are only rare treats as 80% of what gets made in Hollwood these days is mindless drivel, Hacker/slasher moveis and just plain old crap in general.
MD


And don't the kids just luv'em and there lies the rub-they put their bums on seats while most of us "old'uns" just wait for the DVD to go into the bargain bin.

Reb
 
And don't the kids just luv'em and there lies the rub-they put their bums on seats while most of us "old'uns" just wait for the DVD to go into the bargain bin.

Reb

I don't even do this anymore.....they just show up at my door in those little red Netflix envelopes. :)

MD
 
well,if i understand you all correct, you are afraid people will not watch western for two reasons:
-they do not like to watch indians get killed because they simphaty for their lost of the land,all the bad stuff happened to them
-they also do not wannt to watch indians kill white man because white man just do not wannt to see how they get killed

This is very funny,because in the 60 John Wayne movies he always win,which is boring movies.I always like indians more so i always cheer for their victory and it is not happened.I get boring when i watch how one ranger shoot one time with his rifle and two or three indians fall down from the horse at the same time,....or there was this movie when play Audrey Hepburn,Burt Lancester,...when a whole tribe of Kiowas attack one ranch with two woman and two man.And 30+ indians get killed and the ranchers have no casulties.Later the old woman die,but all other tree survive and another 20+ indians get killed.And the Audrey Hepburn play a woman that it is original Kiowa and she have problems for that and the white people wannt to hang her one day before,now the indians come to take her back to their tribe,her white "family" do not let her,even that she wannt to go,she paint her face and everything,than she kill the people that wannt to take her back because she was taken from their Kiowa tribe when the father of this familly attack Kiowa and kill her real parents.He tak ethis little baby and whol elife they are lie to her and now that her real familly Kiowas come to take her back,she also kill them,and she also kill her own Indian Brother.After the battle she kiss this man who she think he was her white brother before,but now she find out that he is not her brother so they get marryed.If this is not sick i do not know what is?
She kill her own people that come to take her away to her tribe,because she was 100 percent Kiowa.The white man exept her white familly hate her because of this,and they wannt to hang her,but still she fight with the white familly(who by the way,her white father who take her from Kiowas,kill her parents before that),she does not have problem with this,she also kill her own indian brother,and get marryed with her white brother,and she cry for her white mother that was not her real mother,but she do not cry for her 100 percent natural indian brother that she kill and 50+ other people from their tribe.
If this is not racism 100 percent i do not know what is it than?
And how unreal,50+ indians can not win in a battle with 4 people and only one die and one get light wounded.
So it will be nice for a change to see Indians win a battle like they did in Little big Horn.And i do not think it is a problem that peopel will not like to watch Indians get killed or blue soldiers get killed because in every battle people do get killed.So than the Germans do not wannt to watch WW2 movies,The French do not wannt to watch Waterloo movies,The Asians do not wannt to watch Aleksander or 300 movie,Japan do not wannt to watch last samuray,....i do not think so haha.In every battle some lost so this can not be the reason for not film a western movies with the indians theme.Believe it or not there was battles that even Indians win too,maybe not in John Wayne movies but it is hapened
 
I still like Son of the Morning Star as I think it's the closest movie to being realistic.When I look at the old movies they just don't do much for me.The exception is the Searchers which I think the character John Wayne played pretty much summed up what whites thought about white captives,especially women that had been with the indians for a long period.The older movies for the most part too black and white if you know what I mean.Either the Indians were blood thirsty savages or the very essence of nobility who knew the secrets of life and lived in harmony with nature.Life is mostly grey areas.So I like the newer movies because I think they try to portray people more realistically.I would really love to see a movie about one of the mountain men from the 1830's-40's as they lived on the edge of both societies.They might be a blood brother of one tribe but the bitter enemy of other tribe and they didn't think much of white civilization.I think Jeremiah Johnson was the closest to this but I would like to see a more modern rendition.
Mark
 
I don'y know which film that was, but I'm glad I never saw it!!
 
I watch movies for entertainment, I read books for history.
 
I watch movies for entertainment, I read books for history.

If you are trying to trivialize this discussion, it is not appreciated. If not, I apologize for suggesting so. Could you please elaborate a little more on this particular subject, which is really pretty interesting I think.

MD
 
I don'y know which film that was, but I'm glad I never saw it!!

The movie was The Unfogiven..1960 classic....... Legendary director John Huston is "at the top of his form" (Time) with this "powerful, exciting" (The Film Daily) tale of forbidden love set against America's most rugged and ruthless frontier. Starring Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn and Lillian Gish, and featuring a script by Ben Maddow (The Way West), The Unforgiven is a "tough Texas saga filled with pride, prejudiceand passion" (Video Movie Guide)! Indian by birth, but secretly adopted by whites, Rachel Zachary (Hepburn) soon becomes the target of lawless racism and brutality when her true identity is revealed. The Indians want her back, the local whites want her dead, and her only hope for survival is a man (Lancaster) who must face the most terrifying fight of his lifeto save the woman he loves!

It is a favorite movie of mine, even if Ales hates it...:DMichael
 
Well i do not have problem with that you love this movie or anyone else love this movie.I know that i hate this movie and i think they are two version of this movie.One you mention is in colour and i think it is one in white and black so it must be the old version.Anyway both versions are the same story only the actors are diferent.
Which is a problem for me is this that they wannt to show the people who watch this movie,THAT THEY WANNNT TO SAVE THIS GIRL.
Safe,from what?From the Indians?
Indians didnt come to kill her,they just search for their lost sister and their lost person from their tribe,risking THEIR HEADS for that.
If they take her back she will not be in any dangereus and she will be among their people,but in white world she is always an "dirty indian woman" that white peopel wannt to hang.So i am not sure that she was really save living in a white world.This is what it is bugging me that they say that they wannt to save her.
What about other indian woman who live with the indians.Who will save them?
And this white caracter,her brother who wannt TO SAVE HER,killing 50+ indians JUST BECAUSE HE LOVE HER,it is a mess up too.First he can easy kill "dirty indian",but when come to that that he will put his little penis into her it is not a problem,no more,even she is also 100 percent indian.
The truth is that indians also have parents,brothers,sister,familly,....that they love the same as white people.The indian mother also cry for their son being killed just like a white woman cry,the indians also have feelings when they lost someone just like white man does,....but in this movie it is show that indian feelings are not immportant and that it is only the white feelings who are immportant and that this girl stay in the white familly is save.SAVE FROM WHAT?
And i am sure that the writter of this story even think how he write the best love story ever,:D:D:D
The truth is that this story make me sick,forbiden love from a indian woman to her white brother,....before was just brother and sister but after that attack,after all the killings,the blood on their hands,they decide it to get marryed.Real romantic,happy end,who care about the indians right?
I think we need to be SAVED FROM THAT MOVIE :D:D:D:D it is hurt people inteligence
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top