Film about him apparently in development at Netflix. Hope they do him justice, has the potential to be a truly epic film.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Film Hannibal (Carthage)
- Thread starter Welsh Wonder
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Should be good.
I'm loving the renewed interest in historical epics. Apparently a Cleopatra movie is in the works too with Zendaya allegedly cast to play her.
The Hannibal movie should be at least 2.5 hrs imho bc it's a lot of story to tell.
The Hannibal movie should be at least 2.5 hrs imho bc it's a lot of story to tell.
Finally!! Been waiting for thats badass to get a movie for years now. Though I was hoping they get the Big Man from that Sweet show. He'd be awesome.
Last edited:
If Denzil is playing Hannibal does that mean we'll be subject to another Netflix de-ageathon 
Denzel, who is 68, having to age down to 35 is going to be a problem. And they'll have to make an African American actor look like he's Lebanese - Tunisian while they're at it. I don't know about this project, sounds ridiculous to me, but then again, I don't like anything Antonie Fuqua does. Southpaw was a punishing, unrelenting watch full of human misery. Not sure why it was made other than to show Gyllenhaal could get ripped. Didn't see anything from there to Bullet Train. Bullet Train, I jumped from it after about 10 minutes.If Denzil is playing Hannibal does that mean we'll be subject to another Netflix de-ageathon
Training day was exceptional. But his films since havent been out of this world.
Just take the Ridley Scott approach.
If you want Hannibal to be a 68 year old Denzel Washington, go for it.
If you want Hannibal to be a 68 year old Denzel Washington, go for it.
Variety have confirmed DW is playing Hannibal.
Hannibal's estimated age of death suggests Denzel could be playing him at the end of his life, looking back on his achievements?
Hannibal's estimated age of death suggests Denzel could be playing him at the end of his life, looking back on his achievements?
That would make sense. Hannibal was 65 when he died (pretty dang old considering the time period and what he survived!). So question would be - who plays the younger version. I really hope they won't pull a Harrison Ford in Indy using CGI bc it's so obvious.
I have a problem with cavalier attitudes towards facts in historical movies. What's the point of making a historical biopic and then getting basic facts wrong? Either make it accurate, or go the Amadeus route and fulfill the "spirit" of the subject but don't pretend it's historical. What's the point of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make a gritty movie about Napoleon, if they can't get their basic facts right?Just take the Ridley Scott approach.
If you want Hannibal to be a 68 year old Denzel Washington, go for it.
A bad example is The Patriot, where Mel Gibson played a character not entirely unlike the Swamp Fox, a real person with a real, interesting story, and they turned into whatever mishmash nonsense it was. Or I suppose you go the 3rd route, which is Tarantino's way of doing things, and you turn in something ahistorical and nonsensical but ostensibly full of laffffs (Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds).
Get a life
I used to think like that but I've mellowed on it. They still need to make a movie or TV show that entertains. I think generally many folks probably either already know it plays with the facts or at least are curious to find out if it does. Even as a self proclaimed history buff myself I've learned a lot more about actual events because I started reading much more than I even did before it. I also like that documentary makers nowadays feed off the popularity and generates new documentaries that again focus more on historical accuracy. I feel like I know a lot more about some of these things now, then I ever did going to museums and sitting in class.
Yes, they are entertainments, first and foremost. I think there's a duty to be accurate, though, since a lot of people will use this as their version of history. Especially if you're watching a movie about a real person and you're hoping to learn something about them. Covering up inconvenient details (like Nash being bisexual in A Beautiful Mind) are understandable. In First Man, a movie obsessively dedicated to accuracy, they have Armstrong leave a bracelet with his daughter's name on it in a crater on the moon, for emotional reasons. But it didn't happen. To me it feels like you're being manipulated when things like that happen.
Surely Napoleons life in itself is entertaining enough to not make up stuff?
Love myself a good historical epic movie and the napoleon one looks good, looking forward to them.
Would love to see a proper epic of two of favourites, Caesar and Genghis Kahn, be made - probably too much to fit into one movie though (could say the same about Nappie)
Would love to see a proper epic of two of favourites, Caesar and Genghis Kahn, be made - probably too much to fit into one movie though (could say the same about Nappie)
Yep. Bizarre casting.
Hannibal is probably the greatest general of antiquity (debatable but in terms of sheer intelligence there's very few that match his tactical brilliance) but I predict we'll be having a repeat of the Cleopatra outrage with Tunisians being particularly unhappy if a black actor is playing the North African general. A bit tiresome that those debates will rage again.
I hope they show the ambush at Lake Trasimine which must be the greatest ambush in history-far greater in my opinion than Teutoburg Forest which took a lot longer to execute and the battle of Cannae is one of the greatest use of military tactics of all time, still studied to this day.
It's absolutely astonishing that Rome was able to hold for sixteen years and finally beat him
I hope they show the ambush at Lake Trasimine which must be the greatest ambush in history-far greater in my opinion than Teutoburg Forest which took a lot longer to execute and the battle of Cannae is one of the greatest use of military tactics of all time, still studied to this day.
It's absolutely astonishing that Rome was able to hold for sixteen years and finally beat him
How do we know the facts of these battles? In other words, how do scholars research these things? Did people at the time who witnessed Cannae write it down?
It's passed down into writing by the likes of Livy, Plutarch and Polybius some years after the events. I mean, I guess you can be skeptical about some things but it's the best evidence we have and the Romans never denied that Hannibal embarrassed them time and time again.
Regarding Cannae ,Hannibal's masterpiece was a variation of an older tactic- the crescent formation- and also his own tactics were used against him for his final defeat by the Romans so it kind of suggests that military figures studied former battles and improved upon and learnt from them.
The battle of Zama- Hannibal's final defeat- will be pretty cool if done right. It ends up just being a complete infantry brawl for most of the battle.
Yes, because, ironically, they could take the strain.
Why is it bizarre? A lot of assumptions are Hannibal looked darker skinned African or otherwise it was a definite possibility he did since his people were known to be of very mixed african descent. Its less of a stretch than making Cleopatra pale white imho.
Last edited:
The Carthaginians were a Semitic people, originally from Phoenicia who colonized a part of modern day Tunisia and were intent on securing lucrative trade routes along the Mediterranean. I've honestly never heard of anyone saying he was a darker skinned African. Obviously he wouldn't be pale white either but i can see it might cause some upset among Tunisians, similar to the Cleopatra controversy.
There was a lot more mixing back then though - look at the Cleopatra debate raging now as you stated. Netflix documentary is implying she was black but many obviously disagree on that and think she looked more Greek. However it mostly universally assumed that especially Northern Africa in those days (incl Egypt) had a lot of darker skinned people in society as well. In that debate as well no one really knows for sure. What we do know however is that white skin, or lighter skin - was a beauty ideal like it has perservered thru the ages. There are stories of people in antiquity using makeup to make themselves paler. That also means it is highly likely that depictions of certain individuals were purposely portrayed as more Caucasian in features than otherwise. If only because that's how others wished them to be portrayed.
Regardless, I don't think we re far apart. Point is I guess - none of us really know.
Last edited:
Well the Cleopatra thing was a bit different because she was a very inbred Greek-Macedonian. The Ptolemies-her family- took up the practice of royal inbreeding to prevent outsiders grabbing power, particularly the Seleucid Greek empire in Syria, and they practiced 'keeping it in the family' a lot over a few hundred years.
Denzel Washington is a brilliant actor but aside from the probable backlash and the woke vs anti-woke debate that we'll have to endure, he's also a bit old to be playing a man who invaded Italy in his twenties/thirties. I hope it's good though and it reignites interest in Hannibal.
You're not the boss of me!
Yeah I hope Denzel if anything just plays an older Hannibal like Salt suggested. But- if he s also producing the movie he ll probably give himself a much bigger part. Who knows I guess. Wouldn't shock me if they do a 180 and cast someone else still in the runup to filming. I just hope it's not cheesy. Thing that concerns me more with Netflix is that they do well creating historical epics on a smaller scale (i.e. the King and Outlaw King) - movies that keep their focus relatively narrow and clearly didn't have huge budgets. With Hannibal though - I don't think you really can, unless they strictly focus on his battles in Italy and even then they probably have to pick whether to focus mostly on the victories or the eventual defeat(s).
So jesus wore makeup too? Would love to know who his hairdresser was. Hair model level hair.
They have to make money and a lot of the time the truth is really boring and people won't watch it, very few historical films are accurate, and tghe ones that people think are accurate are works of fiction!
HuhSo jesus wore makeup too? Would love to know who his hairdresser was. Hair model level hair.
Besides how accurate are historic 'facts'? Inaccuracies are as fatal as information left out.
Cleopatra was most likely white-ish though, how pale is debatable. Her lineage is Macedonian Greek with plenty of inbreeding on her father’s side, the only possibility for a darker skin tone comes from her mother’s side with her maternal grandfather being Mithridates, and even then he or the concubine who he fathered Cleopatra’s mother on were very unlikely to be sub Saharan dark skinned.
It’s much less contentious with Hannibal, because while the Carthaginians were Semitic in origin, they didn’t have anywhere near the discrimination against more native inhabitants like the Ptolemaic Greeks and you can feasibly argue that through intermarriage, Hannibal could have a darker skin tone than his ancestors. Of course, that’s still stretching historical fact a bit to fit artistic license, but it’s not ‘my grandma told me Cleopatra was black’ kind of artistic license.
He looks white in most pictures
It will be Will Smith as Old Hannibal and Jaden Smith as conquering general Hannibal. Win win lose lose lose.
Then they should follow the example set in Amadeus, is my point.
Not the example from, say, Malcolm X, JFK, Hoffa, etc.
Not the example from Tarantino.
A good middle ground between accuracy and flights of fancy to show the spirt of the topic is Miles Ahead, about Miles Davis, or even Velvet Goldmine which depicts an Iggy Pop - David Bowie relationship without actually being Pop and Bowie.
This is more than enough if you want facts. I'm amazed as to how they get the timing and the details right to the very in depth tactical analysis.
History is written by the "winners" so usually not very accurate!
I had a day of relaxation planned when I came across this. My plans were flanked and routed by your tactical link-sharing. Thank you!