And Jim Lovell didn't walk on the moon.
How can you enjoy a movie where the goal is a miserable failure that leads to generations of poverty and backwardness?
As I said previously, Walt. Contrary to your assertion, Jackson had a goal in that movie. You just don't like what that goal was. The above statement proves this to be the case with you. It also proves that you do not dislike the movie on merited reasons but rather because it does not bash the south.
Remember in "Apollo 13" when Deke Slayton said, "If he can't dock that thing, we don't have a mission." It was plain how that incident (docking the command module/lunar module) in the movie tied into the goal.
Yep, but that goal - getting to the moon - went nevertheless unachieved for other reasons that happened later.
How did the battles of First Manassas and Fredericksburg support Jackson's "goal"?
If the goal was to "drive the yankees from our land," both battles were thwarts upon the yankee invasion of that land that halted it and pushed it back. Same goes for Chancellorsville.
How did skipping Antietam altogether help exposit how the goal was to be accomplished?
The very nature of the movie did not permit time to cover all major battles, Walt. You know that. Had they done so it could have easily been six or seven hours instead of four. I am not certain, but have read that some of the others will be on the extended DVD version.
And Jim Lovell didn't walk on the moon. No, and as "Apollo 13" is an excellent example of the movie story paradigm, he later says, "let's just try and get home." His goal changed.
I didn't see the end of G&G, but did Jackson ever say anything like, "I don't so much care about the outcome of the war, as I have done my duty," or "I've done God's will," or something like that? Did he say such in real life?
If he only said the goal was to drive out the Yankees, it's hard to make much positive out of that, because the Yankees were not driven out. Unless you love the USA, of course.
Things are a bit different when you have historical figures, but the rules of story telling are immutable. Remember in "Patton", Patton says, "All my life I've wanted to lead a lot of men in a desperate battle. Now I am going to do it."
And he did. And he continued to do that for the rest of the movie, and it was effective and "Patton" is a great movie. G&G is a poor movie.
You'd argue with a sign post.
Walt
If the goal was to "drive the yankees from our land," both battles were thwarts upon the yankee invasion of that land that halted it and pushed it back. Same goes for Chancellorsville.
But the exposition, the give and take between the characters did not show that. Remember in "Gettysburg" how General Buford said, "we have to hold the high ground or there will be the devil to pay." Characters in a story are artistic constructs (even if they are real people -- Buford apparently did say as much) and they have to move the story forward. General Lee saying, "that's where I met my wife," might be interesting, but it doesn't move the story forward -- it doesn't help Jackson reach his goal. I'd still say that Jackson got a lot of screen time without carrying the weight as the story's protagonist. Here's another example. Remember the Episode II of Star Wars. The one with the baby Darth Vader. Some young friends of mine thought it was a great movie. I asked them, "who was the main character?" They didn't have an answer. How was Jackson's goal (as stated by you) any more valid as the main idea of the film than Lee saying he wanted to defend his home? It's not. As a story, we should be be able to say, "okay, this is how Lee is defending his home." Oh wait, Jackson is the main character. It's tough to have split protagonists, although "buddy" movies are a staple of Hollywood. Witness the success of "Thelma and Louise", the original "Star Trek" crew, the four "Lethal Weapon" movies. But G&G was a hodge podge, a mess.
Walt