Gladiator 2

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Cleveland

Cleveland

<Silver Donator>
1,048
3,465
TheBeagle said:
Nero wasn't even really that bad when it came to actually managing the empire. He kept in place a lot of the good stuff Claudius did and the Empire was in good shape for Vespacian once the dust settled at the end of the Year of the Four Emperors. But he was quite literally insane and enjoyed watching people tortured in the most horrific ways imaginable.
Click to expand...
was Nero the one that found some nobleman's kid looked like his dead wife and forced him to cut his dick off and live as his wife?
 
Cleveland

Cleveland

<Silver Donator>
1,048
3,465
TheBeagle said:
Lol, not sure about that but he did have hisown mother killed.
Click to expand...
I was close, it was a slave boy

1731684401869.png
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Rabbit_Games

Rabbit_Games

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,388
3,220
Rajaah said:
I think when it comes to "bad" leaders, Caligula and Nero pretty much soak up all of the attention.
Click to expand...

I think that's most of us. It's like when The Bible goes into all the "This is the son of..." shit. Just give me the important people and what they accomplished. heh
 
Drinsic

Drinsic

privileged excrementlord
5,797
6,207
Cleveland said:
I think twice was my limit, I never understood the mass appeal on that one
Click to expand...
Revenge films are satisfying. Crowe and Hounsou had good chemistry, Reed stole every scene he was in, Phoenix played a wonderful villain, the action was fun, Maximus getting his vengeance at the end is very satisfying, plus you know, the speech when he removes his helmet. Not sure how many years it's been since I watched it, but if my wife was ever like "hey let's watch Gladiator" I'd be down.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
26,538
41,319
Burns said:
Dude (director) made it clear with the statement on Napoleon, that he doesn't give a fuck about history. Don't take anything in this movie, or the previous one, as anything but a fictional story that uses the same names.

This guy does a pretty good job of going over the historical accuracy of movies and some TV shows. I watched this years ago, but don't remember enough to give cliff notes:


That said, I liked Gladiator for what it was, a historical fiction. Not something I would or have watched a bunch, but it was good enough to watch more than once.
Click to expand...

I don't really consider it historical fiction, it's just fiction set in the past, or alt history. To me, historical fiction is a story that coexists with history, or a dramatization of an historical event.

For example, Inglorious Bastards isn't historical fiction.
 
Burns

Burns

Avatar of War Slayer
7,445
14,662
Palum said:
I don't really consider it historical fiction, it's just fiction set in the past, or alt history. To me, historical fiction is a story that coexists with history, or a dramatization of an historical event.

For example, Inglorious Bastards isn't historical fiction.
Click to expand...
I would considered alt history a sub category of historical fiction. They are all a fictitious story using historical settings. Alt history movies just go further and change major events as well, when inventing the fictitious story they wish to tell.

If anything I would lump movies like Gladiator and Braveheart in with Inglorious Bastards as alternative history, because all those movies really care nothing about historical accuracy outside of loosely using it as a setting to make their own characters that have little to do with real life characters or events.

Even my favorite "historical" TV shows like Rome and Wolf Hall are still historical fiction because they are changing the events that happened, even though they are much closer to what happened historically and as such, it's important to label them as fiction.

There are few movies I would label as just straight historical movies, without any sub labels, where they try to stick to historical events and characters, as they happened. Asshole Hollywood types have corrupted the moniker of "based on real events" type movies, but it's what I think of when the most fictitious part of the movie is the dialog and minor changes to character interactions. Gettysburg is by far my favorite of these types of movies (and movies in general), but it would also include movies like Midway (1976) and Dunkirk, not to mention TV shows like Band of Brothers.
 
Bald Brah

Bald Brah

Trakanon Raider
1,143
1,486
Burns said:
I would considered alt history a sub category of historical fiction. They are all a fictitious story using historical settings. Alt history movies just go further and change major events as well, when inventing the fictitious story they wish to tell.

If anything I would lump movies like Gladiator and Braveheart in with Inglorious Bastards as alternative history, because all those movies really care nothing about historical accuracy outside of loosely using it as a setting to make their own characters that have little to do with real life characters or events.

Even my favorite "historical" TV shows like Rome and Wolf Hall are still historical fiction because they are changing the events that happened, even though they are much closer to what happened historically and as such, it's important to label them as fiction.

There are few movies I would label as just straight historical movies, without any sub labels, where they try to stick to historical events and characters, as they happened. Asshole Hollywood types have corrupted the moniker of "based on real events" type movies, but it's what I think of when the most fictitious part of the movie is the dialog and minor changes to character interactions. Gettysburg is by far my favorite of these types of movies (and movies in general), but it would also include movies like Midway (1976) and Dunkirk, not to mention TV shows like Band of Brothers.
Click to expand...

Rome is like Forest Gump. It's a historical highlight reel that tries to present a bunch of important historical events in a convenient time frame using a fictional character as a reference. Kind of a historical travelogue. I do appreciate how they teach and entertain.

Scott's stuff is pure fantasy and outside of Gladiator 1, not very good fantasy.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.