If you bring up the word epic, most people are going to think of LOTR. But that got me thinking: what does epic mean? I've compiled a random assortment of movies, and you tell me if you think each one is Epic or Not Epic (if you want, you can shorten it to E and NE).
Below is the list with my own choices.
The Matrix (trilogy)- E
Indiana Jones (trilogy)- NE
Last Samurai- E
Star Wars (original trilogy)- E
The Mummy (dualogy)- NE
The Scorpion King- E
Alien (Quadrilogy)- NE
Titanic- NE
Pirates of the Caribbean- NE
Kill Bill (Vol. 1)- (haven't seen it, but I thought I should include it anyway)
Gangs of New York- E
Dune- E
A Knight's Tale- NE
Gladiator- NE
Signs- NE
Mission Impossible (Dualogy)- NE
The Musketeer- E
Jurassic Park (original)- NE
The Wizard of Oz- NE
Minority Report- NE
I believe that one of the main theme's of an EPIC is that it is a "time piece." Even Star Wars, episodes 4-6, are a time piece (time being the future). I really haven't seen any EPIC that has been dipicted in present time..... Maybe when "West Side Story" first came out.
__________________ "The ONEitude is directly preportional to the COLDitude of the One."
Here is the Webster's Dictionary definiton of 'epic:' [COLOR=blue]a long narrative poem in elevated style recounting the deeds of a legendary or historical hero So anything recounting the explots of a single character in one ongoing story would be considered an epic. In that respect, I disagree with you about Indiana Jones. They were all about one character, sure, and each movie by itself could be considered an epic, but together they are 3 different stories, unconnected to each other.
I must also disagree with you on Gladiator. The story follows one character, one storyline, one quest, which ends in an identifiable resolution (another element of the epic: the ending is always rather final; one that canot be continued further). I agree with all others, however
Sorry, but the definition of 'Epic' in a film is rather more specfic. Here is a handy identifying quote:
"Epic Films often take an historical or imagined event, mythic, legendary, or heroic figure, and add an extravagant setting and lavish costumes, accompanied by grandeur and spectacle and a sweeping musical score. Epics, costume dramas, historical dramas, war film epics, medieval romps, or 'period pictures' are tales that often cover a large expanse of time set against a vast, panoramic backdrop. In an episodic manner, they follow the continuing adventures of the hero(s), who are presented in the context of great historical events of the past."
Gladiator is most DEFINITELY an epic, and the fact that it follows a single charatcer with one plot makes no difference to that.
Other recent epics include films one would not immediately associate with the name- like Titanic and Schindler's List.
LOTR counts, even though it is not historical, because it does the exact same thing, simply with an imagined history.
Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind are the films that other films are judged by as far as epic status is concerned.
Indiana Jones is NOT epic. It is an adventure film. George Lucas would be very upset to hear it called an epic, as he based it on Saturday Morning cinema adventure films which were created inndirect contrast to epics- The Adventures of Robin Hood, for example, was the adventure film of its day compared to the epic Gone with the Wind.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Ush is pretty much dead on, Gladiator and Tatinic are indeed epics because they both fall into the exact definition of an epic film. Of course this just shows that not all epics are good films. Many are simply over rated, as these two clearly show.
I didn't see any. Titanic was a pointless movie since we all knew how it would end, plus it was extremely over rated, and any movie that is vastly over rated and gets more credit then it deserves automatically goes on my garbage list.
Gladiator...that was just a bad ripoff of sparticus, combined with some aspects of braveheart, with some crap thrown into the mix for good measure. It did nothing special or unique in any way...as Ebert put it.. "it's just another movie about Gladiators"
You just pointed out one of my big problems with movie critics. While watching a movie (and sometimes even before they watch it), critics already have it compared to other movies of similar content, therefore not giving it a fair chance. I myself have not seen Spartacus or Braveheart, but even if I had, I would more than likely feel the same about Gladiator, that it's a brilliantly crafted film.
(Note: This wasn't directed at anyone in paticular, I was just commenting)
__________________
Last edited by Strangelove on Jan 15th, 2004 at 04:47 AM
Well it's hard not to compare it to a movie with the exact same story line and premise (Sparticus) and a movie with a similar message and outcome (Braveheart)
Agreed, but what I mean is that critics are spending too much brain power comparing, instead of devoting attention to the movie itself. Which results in a bad review, because they weren't paying attention. You need to let the story wash over you instead of building a dam
KMC Community Forums
Epic or Not Epic
Jan 13th, 2004 11:58 PM
