Here's a film that I think was absolutely loaded with explosive potential, but unfortunately just sorta fizzled.  It's based on the historical novel The Eagle of the Ninth, where in 140 AD a young Roman soldier ventures into northern England to find a golden eagle standard that disappeared along with an entire Roman brigade twenty years earlier.

The film takes certain liberties with history, but then so did the novel it was based on.  Hadrian's wall represented the extreme northern border of the Roman Empire, and the lands past the wall were filled with savage tribes, including the feared Seal people, who would paint themselves with mud in combat.

Channing Tatum plays the new commander of a northern Roman outpost, whose father was a member of the brigade that disappeared twenty years ago.  Once discharged from the Army, he takes a slave and the two of them head out into the north to find the lost golden eagle.

Very cool set up, and a solid first act.  After that, the story meandered a bit and never quite regained its focus, despite some good fight scenes.  One of the big problems with this film was its truly terrible casting.  When you have American actors(Tatum, Donald Sutherland) using American accents in an ancient period piece like this, it just doesn't sound right.  It's a modern accent and it keeps taking you out of the moment.  I just think this is a case where British actors would have served the story better.  

Overall, not bad.  But, it could have been great.

Can't say I really liked too much about this one.  I agree with Ryan that it could have/should have been much better.

$25 Million budget, a wimpy $27 WWBO..  Alot of talented people came together to put this thing together with serious attention to detail...

...which leads to me to this question, echoing Ryan, again...

Why the Hell did they cast Channing Tatum and Donald Sutherland as Romans. and why did the dialogue sound so awful?

IMO, Tatum wasn't the problem here.  His performance was fine, and he even has a Roman look at times.  Not so with old Donald Sutherland though.  He acted and sounded like he has his entire career, and that's not a compliment here.

Much of the dialogue from everyone just came across like this was set in modern times...in other words, it was not remotely realistic, and the film really suffered because of it.

But it's more than just that.  Things just really didn't quite come together.  There were some good fight scenes, some great scenic beauty, and an epic story...that just didn't come off as all that epic.

Not a bad flick by any means, but nothing to write home about,a dn no reason for a rewatch.

That's too bad, because I really liked the look of this film in the trailer I saw.

Not to light a fire under the whole 3 act thing again, but you mention re-watching films. I think the films we re-watch are the ones that have really interesting characters, and I think interesting characters are a real challenge within 3 Act. Let me explain why.

We're supposed to end Act One between page 25 and 29. And we're supposed to introduce all our main characters in Act One. We're also supposed to have an inciting incident, a hinted at theme, and a clearly developed premise. All within the first act.

When you do all that in the first act, it puts a constraint on character development, especially if they are not the protag. And non protag characters are often the most interestingly drawn.

So with all the requirements for act one, something has to give. And it seems to me it's usually character development. Anyone agree?

This also leaves one option for character development in the standard STC format(IMO): story B. STC structure wants us to begin "story B" right after act one ends. That means we can intro the story B character right there, and there's plenty of time to develop him. I'm going to try to watch some movies this weekend and see if this theory holds true, if there's a really unique character introduced at the beginning of act two.

Kevin, for me, a film's re-watching a film involves cool visuals and story, more than interesting characters, but that's a completely different discussion, huh?

Part of interesting story is interesting characters. But think about it; aren't there movies you put on while surfing that once a certain scene is done, you change the channel? Like GoodFellas or Casino. The good stuff happens early, the second half of the movie you might as well put on ESPN.

You seem to get more out of cool visuals. You must have a huge flat screen TV! To me, if I want visuals, there's Discovery Channel or National Geographic.

A movie like A Few Good Men I can watch over and over. Great plot, great characters. No action, limited visuals.(they do well with the visuals they have, but those aren't many)

Quoted from leitskev You seem to get more out of cool visuals. You must have a huge flat screen TV!

Well, yeah, I guess I do...62" Samsung.

Character development is probably more important for a particular kind of film IMO. Deep dramas focusing on one individual in particular.

If one looks at the favourite characters that people have chosen in lists like this:

http://www.empireonline.com/100-greatest-movie-characters/

It's clear that what people tend to enjoy the most and find most memorable is characters with very strong, unusual personalities and this is often accompanied by a very distinctive look as well.

Top Four on that list

4. Han Solo.
3. The Joker
2. Darth Vader
1. Tyler Durden (Fight Club)

People like to watch characters who do things they would like to do, but can't...or feel they can't...or behave in some egregious way. They are often little more than Archetypes in reality.

How much character development is REALLY necessary in film?

Most of these favourite characters are established within SECONDS of being on screen...

2 bad guys, one good guy that's the bad boy, and one I don't know, bad guy that's confused(Tyler).

And yes....yes, yes, yes! Glad you said that Rick. Most character development is established within seconds...in other words, in their introduction.

This has been the dilemma I have faced, and have decided to go in a certain direction. We're supposed to intro all our main chars in act1; if you want several memorable chars, you might have to give them a little more time in their intro, which might push back the end of act1. It also might...might...delay the development of the protag.

I agree with the assessment of why people choose certain characters. Absolutely.
Ok, checking out the link.

BTW; hope you got a nice flat screen in the riots over there! Or at least a good case of beer. Just kidding, be safe.