LOL!


...he said he was "quite taken aback by the controversy and fierceness of the reviews" which greeted its US release, including outrage at the film's suggestion that Alexander was bisexual.

"Sexuality is a large issue in America right now, but it isn't so much in other countries," he said.

"There's a raging fundamentalism in morality in the United States. From day one audiences didn't show up. They didn't even read the reviews in the south because the media was using the words: 'Alex is Gay'."


Link Here for FUll

I'm sure it's failure had nothing to do with the film being a royal piece of crap, no? Seriously, this is funny AND sad at the same time :evil:

Well, I'm almost positive it affected it a little. But, if the movie was actually good, then the movie might have done a lot better.

Hmm...I'll have to check out the article, don't have time right now. One question though, since when is morality an negative issue?!?

Directors will use anything as an excuse for a flop. Stone has dissapointed me though, i expected better from him.

Zing, F 9/11 made almost $120m with many people shunning it, The Passion made $370m with people shunning it! Heck, people who reviled both went in droves to see those films!

Whatever effect it might have had, I am positive that if Alexander was a good film, it would have made more.

Also, geared toward completely diff audience. The auds that like sandal epics want their heroes to be a certain way, and being bi-sexual isn't one of them. It's not a moral issue for them as much as a matter of them not getting what they want out of the film. Etc.

I'm sure it would have done 50-100% better without the sexuality issues. Who really wants to see that? I know tons of people who walked out on it just for that.

For me it wasn't the sexuality, but the terrible reviews and horrid word of mouth that kept me from seeing it.

You based your opinion on a movie because the homosexual undertones in it? :?

Raging fundamentalism killed this movie alright.

Fundamentally against bad movie making, that is :wink:

Stone had two choices...

1. He could make a commercial film, and skip the beats of a good movie... simplify it... he could have made his $150 million US and moved on and, although be lessened as a "serious" director, put himself in the position where he could make a project that appealed to him.

2. Make an art film, that seriously delved into the depths of who Alexander was. Openly exploring his homosexuality. Not caring (too much) about how much it makes in the hopes that his portrait was good enough that the Awards junkies would lap it up, it could at least be thought of as an Oscar contendor, and make money in a roundabout way for many years to come. All the while gaining in appreciation as time progressed.

Sounds like he tried to shoot down the middle. Too bad for him.

The audience hated it for many reasons, critics thought it was poorly structured, gay groups don't think it went far enough and historians are generally laughing at it. All he had to do was aim for one of those groups and he may have had something more.

Ironically, the film's tag line is 'Fortune favours the Brave'. That about sums it up, doesn't it? How painfully ironic...

Yeah, fundy groups would have universally loathed Baz Luhrman's Alexander but at least it would have taken the chance.