Fall of Eagles on DVD

[Robert_Hall]

I also doubt very much another production of FoE will be made anytime soon. It would be  prohibitively costly and not worth it for such a limited audience. Add all the funding cuts and it is just not viable.

[Silja]

In reference to Hollywood, European and  British actors and actresses in the drama and film business, there is no one in my opinion with the talent to play the roles today,compared to the the 1974 Fall of Eagles
cast,you will probably have to scrape the barrel to find some decent actors compared to the  golden age of american,british and european films and actors from the 1930's to the 1990's.

I totally disagree. I think there would be plenty of fabulous actors and actresses who could play such parts today if only there were the producers interested in the subject.

[Robert_Hall]

I agree wholeheartedly, Silja. There are excellent actors who could fill the rolls, especially women. Just think about it.
 The producers might be interested, but they must needs find financing first and those who have it and are willing to spend it, are going to put their money into sellers that appeal to kids who eat sci-fi stuff up.   The  gangster films and  some romantic comedy. Just read  Variety, any issue, and see what is selling tickets. Historical drama is just not much of a money maker, and  this is a business, after all.

[Imperial_Grounds]

I must say that is true.... However, History is still a topic that is used on a regular base.... And being one of those young kids, and knowing a few, I can say that not all young people only watch action-filled movies and such, since my favorites are historical dramas. However, historical movies are still being made... Look at the movies/series on the Tudors from recent years, the movies on Marie Antoinette(though the coppola-version isn't that great), those on Queen  Victoria and the present Queen. Now plans are there to make a miniseries on Rasputin and the Romanovs, and a theatrical movie too, also the life of Diana, Princess of Wales, is going to be made into a movie it is said.

Grigori Efimovich Rasputin has been portrayed numerous times on film. The infamous healer who became a fixture in the daily life of the doomed Romanovs is ready for his closeup yet again. Dark Horizons reports two biopics are in the pipeline.

The first film, Raspoutine stars Gerard Depardieu and is a French/Russian language television production scheduled to start filming in Moscow and St. Petersburg in December. This version is estimated to have a price tag of $12 million.

At twice the budget of the Depardieu version is an English language version coming from Legende with Roselyn Bosch (The Roundup) writing and directing. Alain Goldman will produce the film which has a scheduled release date of Fall 2011.

The young son of  Nicholas and Alexandra suffered from hemophilia. It appeared the only one who could relieve the boy’s suffering was Rasputin. He became a close confident to Alexandra. This along with his reputation as a womanizing drunk who was gaining influence over the royal couple, didn’t exactly make him popular.

The two films will cover the last two years of Rasputin’s life when more than one attempt was made on his life. But Rasputin the man seemed to have almost as much staying power as his legend would. It took poison, gunshots and finally drowning to end his life in 1916.

There’s plenty of great material here. Alan Rickman was a notable Rasputin in an HBO film in 1996. However, there’s no information about who will take on the role in the second film.

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/two-rasputin-films-in-the-works.php
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1585270/

We will see how this turns out.

[Robert_Hall]

IG, The films you cite are all populist  "histories" with a LOT of literary license. Whereas Foe almost bordered on dramatised documentary.  Also, it was on a massive scale.  The likes of which is seen only in films like  Lord of the Rings. Of course, with computer embellishment, the current large scale dramas [Gladiator, Titanic, et al]. Although Foe does not require a "cast of thousands" so much, it  entails at least 3 elaborate courts, a fourth if we include some Victoria. I doubt the costumes are usuable so all that would have to be replaced,  for instance. Those just 2 examples of how much money  needs to be involved, sets & costumes. Would enough people  come to see this production to make it profitable and worthwhile ? IMO, the original was enough. A different smaller scale production focusing on  just one or 2  topics of the entire story might do  well. But, these things are all a financial gamble.

[Imperial_Grounds]

Well.... I get what you mean, and sadly history like they did it on the BBC back then is rare to get now, would be great to see something like that.... However, 'The Lost Prince' is the one thing that comes closes to something that is historically correct(though I disliked the portrayal of Nicholas and Alexandra).... Yet, take a look on 'Marie Antoinette -  La Veritable Histoire', not a large production, but historically much better then the Copolla-version... So, I think it is possible to have dramatic, yet correct, depictions.

[bestfriendsgirl]

I've been downloading this from frozentears.org. I like that it showed Nicholas in his Tsarevich days, but I think they portrayed him as too much of a "playa" - they didn't even go into his military service. I think Charles Kay did a good job as Nicholas, especially from the neck down - he seemed to capture that slightness and narrowness of shoulders I've seen described so often. I think he was more convincing as the older Nicholas, since he was born in 1930 and this series was made in 1974. Gayle Hunnicutt is beautiful  as Alix and I like that they emphasize some of her health problems. In some of the other films, they don't even give this lip service.

[blessOTMA]

We see what a hit,  " The King's Speech"  is...which will most likely sweep the oscars.  Imo,  not simply because it's good...but because there are so few current movies like it...which tell a story , but  no one is blown up or is a Vampire...What a relief!   Sadly  something even this good had to fight tooth and nail to get made... a sad state

[Kalafrana]

I may well have said it further up the thread, but 'Fall of Eagles' was extremely well cast - virtually everybody had a good physical resemblance to the person they were supposed to be. The one exception was the German Crown Prince.

Charles Kay was a more convincing Nicholas than Michael Jayston in 'Nicholas and Alexandra', simply because Jayston was a little too physically substantial.

Ann

[bestfriendsgirl]

I think all the screen Nicholases I've seen bring something good to the role:

Michael Jayston: Facial resemblence and elegance, although I agree, he's a lot more physically substantial than NII was.

Charles Kay: Bodily, the best one IMHO, although facially, he's a bit scruffy. And what's with the brown eyes?

Aleksandr Galibin: Physical resemblance is minimal, but, since this film is by, for and about Russians, I think he captures NII's essence and spirit more then the above English actors.

I'll have to watch Assisin of the Tsar again before I can form a real opinion ...

[Alixz]

We see what a hit,  " The King's Speech"  is...which will most likely sweep the oscars.  Imo,  not simply because it's good...but because there are so few current movies like it...which tell a story , but  no one is blown up or is a Vampire...What a relief!   Sadly  something even this good had to fight tooth and nail to get made... a sad state

In the US, I watched "60 Minutes" this past Sunday night and they had a segment on the making of "The King's Speech".  The writer? director? said that he wrote to the Queen Mother in 1977 to ask if she would approve of the movie and she told him " Please, not in my life time, the memories of that time still hurt too much."

So he waited until after her death in 2002 to begin.  But the best part is that the grandson of Logue had an attic full of papers and letters and diaries that dated from his grandfather's service to the King and he even had an original copy of the very speech that the title of the movie refers to.  

The movie is about the King's speech and The King's Speech.

I remember reading that George VI was left handed and his parents, of course King George V and Queen Mary, insisted that he write with his right hand and that caused some of his life long problems.

Talking about body types, Colon Firth was much too robust in comparison to George VI, but I thought that Helena Bonham-Carter did a pretty good imitation of the Queen Mother.

This should be in a thread about "The King's Speech" so back to "Fall of Eagles" on DVD.

[Kalafrana]

'Charles Kay: Bodily, the best one IMHO, although facially, he's a bit scruffy.'

Ah, those false beards! My version on DVD includes an interview with Charles Kay in which he says that the worst thing about playing Nicholas was a succession of dreadfully ticklish false beards. Initially, he'd grown a beard for the part, but the director then decided to 'age' him with progressively greyer false beards.

Ann

[royaltybuff]

Just borrowed Fall of Eagles from my local library. I have watched the first segment. Can't wait to get through it all.

[Clemence]

Just borrowed Fall of Eagles from my local library. I have watched the first segment. Can't wait to get through it all.

where do you live? I wish I could come there even for only a week ...

[bestfriendsgirl]

Me too ... our library doesn't have squat DVD-wise!