Jump to content

Talk:Gladiator (2000 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Gaius & Gracchus

Are we sure that Gaius & Gracchus are based on the Gracchi? They don't really have anything in common, other than being reformers. The Gracchi didn't work together (their careers were 10 years apart), and they certainly weren't looking to increase the power of the Senate--quite the opposite. And of course, struggle against the autocracy of monarchy would be completely alien to the Brothers Gracchi. Watching the film, I rather more got the impression that Gaius was a pretty faceless minor character & Gracchus was lifted pretty directly from the character of the same name in Spartacus, like the gladiatorial motif itself.

In fact, I think the article should acknowledge these fairly major debts it owes to Spartacus, and the larger debt it owes to The Fall of the Roman Empire.

Minor trivia note: Gracchus in Spartacus was played by the actor who had previously played the title role in I, Claudius 25 years earlier. Gracchus in Gladiator, on the other hand, was played by the actor who had previously played the title role in I, Claudius 25 years earlier.

If no one has any objection, I'll incorporate my changes into the article in 72 hours. Binabik80 04:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm going to go ahead and change the article now. Binabik80 01:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand your minor trivia note. explain it please Mallerd 22:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

The entire trivia section is copied word for word from the IMDB site's trivia for Gladiator. Kaiser Matias 23:33 23 June 2005 (UTC) 

    are we sure it's not the other way around?

Criticized CGI background

The article fails to discuss why the CGI backdrop shown in the article is often criticized. Is it because it is unrealistic in the sense that Rome didn't look like that; or that the CGI was just bad?

This brings up another point: there is no "critical response" section of the article. Highly influential film critic Roger Ebert was one of the only powerful people to dislike the film, and in his review he speaks of the murky look of the film. So it's that the CGI isn't good, in response to your question. I would agree; it's quite muddy. —qrc 01:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction

I'm a newbie, so I'm not sure how to rephrase it, but The quick death of Commodus and the supposed return of republicanism to Rome at the end of the film is entirely fictional, as is the character of the noble senator Gracchus (played by Derek Jacobi) who is apparently to lead the new regime. and David Franzoni chose not to note at the end of the film that Rome did not, in fact, become a republic again, because he thought most audiences would already know that. appear to conflict... according to the film, does Rome become a republic or not? The trivia entry suggests that in the film, it doesn't - it just isn't explicitly stated because the writer assumed people would "know" - but the earlier sections says that, in showing a return to republicanism, it is historically inaccurate. Tyrhinis 15:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't really get what you're saying. I think Franzoni meant that in history, Rome didn't become a republic again. What I see is that at the end of the movie, Rome becomes a republic once more, but this is entirely fictional; however, Franzoni neglected to say that this was entirely fictional at the end of the film. Right...--Codenamecuckoo 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Rome doesn't become a republic at the end of the film; it's open-ended. As fas as I can remember it even ends with a caption saying the republic was never restored. Berry2K 02:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No it didn't end with a caption. just saw it today again :) Mallerd 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm Scream?

In the opening battle, there are occasions where a Wilhelm scream may have been inserted, including a Roman sergeant (?) calling on archers to loose (timecode 9:09 from title, 1:56 from chapter 2 start). Could someone confirm this please, and then update or give notice to update the page 'List of films using the Wilhelm scream' please? Sentinel75 09:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

Just a note - I have removed the quotes section and added a link to the Wikiquotes page for this film. Makes more sense and reduces the length of this (already rather long) article... — QuantumEleven | (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed

The following section because it was original research. If this can be sourced, the information should be included in the Influences section. The text is reproduced below for those interested. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Themes

There are many important themes throughout the entire movie; however, the most significant theme is that heroic virtues end up winning in the end. Maximus loses everything sacred to him and falls into a low point of despair. Eventually, he must work his way up the ladder by fighting as a gladiator. This plays to the theme because through his strong virtues, he ends up gaining everything he once lost. By maintaining one's honor and using physical and mental skills, it is possible to conquer any task or problem in life.

I changed the link in the first plot paragraph that pointed to "Senate" so that it points to the page "Roman_Senate" instead. Aurelius wanted Maximus to give power back to the Roman senate specifically, not some conceptual senate in general. And since a page exists for the Roman senate, it made a lot more sense to have that specific link point to the Roman page. - Harperska 03:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Legionary / Legionnaire

Soldiers of the legions are referred to throughout as legionaires, whereas the correct English term is legionary. [emphasis added]

Is this true? After looking up "legionary" and "legionnaire" in both Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary, I find they both claim that either word is acceptable in English for describing a soldier in an ancient Roman legion. —Gabbe 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, then the usage in the movie is not wrong, since the movie is in English and not Latin. Thoughts? —TheMuuj Talk 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
From what I know, the correct word is "legionary." - JNighthawk 03:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

They were called Legionary. Legionaire is a modern French thing. Gelston 10:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Merriam Webster legionary refers the reader to legionnaire, "a member of a legion" The other dictionaries I checked (Dictionary.com and Chambers) seem to prefer legionary for the Roman soldier, and legionnaire for soldiers of the Foreign Legion and members of the American Legion, but does not disparage the use of the latter for the Romans (legionnaire: a member of a legion). So not incorrect, but possibly less than optimal. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the word Legionnaire because the rank equal to general in Roman army is Legatus--Blain Toddi (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved

Did a copy-paste move to the previously redirect page Gladiator (200 film), in light of the recent creation of Gladiator (1992 film)--SweetNeo85 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical simalarity

I have noticed that the opening battle sequence in Germania is very similar to Julius Caesar's final attack in his great victory at Alesia in Gaul. He bombards the enemy with a shower of arrows, flaming projecticles and other nasties; mounts a classic frontal infantry assault; and at the same time, charges in with cavalry to scatter the enemy and send them into chaos. I saw a dramatization of it on the Discovery Channel and read about it in the Alessia article here and found this an uncanny coincidence. I just thought I'd mention it. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Kudos on the plot synopsis

It's gotta be the best movies plot synopsis I've read on WP. So many of them go on and on, are essentially scene by scene reconstructions, this was a great summary. Should be noted as an example for other editors in the movie articles. Anchoress 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is up with the historical deviations part, the reason why there are so many inaccuracies was because the film was made to fit today's world. If we called the Colloseum Flavian Amphitheatre people wouldnt get it. If we called the guy a Aragonian or Castillian, people wouldnt understand it thats why we call him a Spaniard.

I aggree that the plot synopsis was well done. But in my opinion, it should mention the implied incest. To me, it's one of the bigger contraversies reguarding the plot, and on this whole page it's mentioned once and not elaborated on at all.

Best Film Of All Time

Guys I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but I really have to say that this is my all time favourite film, the music is enchanting, the battles are bloody, the story line touching, I think this film will go down in history as one of the best films of all time.

Can someone please tell me the language of the strange music sung by the woman, 'Hun na Sharon'

Is it Latin?

Thank You!S Seagal 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any lyrics of "Hun na Sharon" online, but the title doesn't sound Latin to me (who has had 5 years of high school Latin). -mrbartjens 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Added a few important flaws

I added some important flaws in the movie that were left out they are that the Roman legionaries didnt use their javelins in close combat, they threw them and engaged with their short swords. And that the Germans were not filthy and disorganized, they were recognized by the Romans themselves as clean, groomed and moderately organized. --Steinfeld7 (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Add a Historical Inaccuracies Section

In the lead it is written that historians criticized the film for it's historical inaccuracies. Later in the Trivia section there is mention of how the Romans never used stirrups though they appear in the movie. Looks like this section almost has to exist. What are the other historical inaccuracies in Gladiator? -BiancaOfHell 04:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Improve Production Section

- add more detail on the replica Colosseum. It was a combo of CGI effects and actual architecture. Describe in some detail. - How epic was the entire production? How does it compare to Ben-hur and other massive productions. Describe in some detail. -BiancaOfHell 05:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In trivia there is a fact about the area used to shoot the Germania battle scene, and how it's been used hence. Could be incorporated into Production section. As well, an overall lead section about comparable Productions would be great.-BiancaOfHell 08:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?

No one here speaks German? We have to cite translations now? 72.144.103.202 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Google Translate comes up with "You are verfluchte dogs" when translated from german to english. But how do we know that "Ihr seid verfluchte Hunde." is actually the right German that was spoken in the movie? It seems good, just that original research is what needs to be cited most.-BiancaOfHell 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I see. So we do have to cite translations. Good to know. 72.144.103.202 00:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm nitpicking because I want to see this article eventually become a featured article. It's good enough that the information is there, but now a proof of some sort would help.-BiancaOfHell 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Watching the movie is not original research. Don't be intellectually dishonest. (And that from someone who can't translate the words anyway!) 72.144.60.229 09:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Could this be considered reliable? Gladiator screenplay transcript Chickenmonkey 10:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Maximus was slightly based upon Roman Emperor Magnus Maximus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Maximus

This is speculation on my part, as I have no knowledge of the writer's thoughts. Furthermore, Magnus Maximus is not from the correct time periord, but neither was Cincinattus. But keep in mind that Gladiator was a fictional account.

There is some debate amongst researchers as to Magnus Maximus' origin (http://solitaire2.bravehost.com/genealogies/mm_lineage.htm). It is unclear as to if he had a legitimate claim to be emperor. In the Welsh Legend linked in the Wikipedia Article above, (http://freespace.virgin.net/r.cadwalader/macsen.htm)he was already an emperor, but I think more likely a Senator, seeking a bride he dreampt about, his messengers finding her in Brittian. He left Rome and was gone for a long enough period of time that another man was made emperor. He was incensed by this and eventually retook Rome. Outside the legend, he is commonly known as of Spanish birth.

In the Movie, Maxiumus was a Spaniard, and he did have his claim to the Emperorship taken from him, and of course, his name was Maximus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Linuxcpa (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC).


Historical accuracy of armor

I saw a few of the characters in the movie using armor composed partly of chain mail. My understanding is that chain mail wasn't invented until the Middle Ages. Is this correct? 24.113.82.222 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on mail dates the invention to the first millenium B.C., and the article at Lorica_hamata describes its adoption by Rome, possibly acquired through contact with the Celts. zadignose 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Chain mail" as you call it was the original armour for Marius' legions. During the latter half of 1st century AD, Lorica Segmenta was introduced. So the mail was used by the auxiliaries (archers ect) in the big fight scene. The gladiators wore "chain mail because it was cheap and available. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakespearean influence removed pending verifiable sources

I'm sorry to have to revert an interesting theory connecting the film to Shakespearean drama. However, the recently added section comparing this film to Shakespeare read like an essay, lacking external sources to indicate that any creative person was directly inspired by tragedies such as King Lear, or that any published critic drew a parallel between Gladiator and the works of Shakespeare. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zadignose (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Image

It would be better to add this image to the mainpage. Morris Munroe 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation tag about Cincinnatus

Would any of these sources work for "...and Cincinnatus (the savior of Rome who wished nothing more than to return to his farm).":

If so, the last one could possibly be used for the trivia statement "The lead character Maximus, played by Russell Crowe in the movie Gladiator, was apparently loosely modeled on Cincinnatus." on the Cincinnatus article. --Nehrams2020 08:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Poisoned Stiletto?

Recently this text was added: "Maximus appears sluggish and visually impaired during the fight which suggests the stiletto may have been laced with poison."

I admit I don't remember it clearly, but can't the fact that he's sluggish and visually impaired simply indicate that he's been critically wounded? Is there strong evidence to support the idea that the dagger was poisoned, or that this implication was intentional? Let's find some support for this idea, or strike it out of the article. It's not necessary to cover every detail of the movie's plot in any case, so we certainly shouldn't include something doubtful. That he was stabbed and ultimately died is important, whether poison "may have" been involved is unnecessary conjecture. zadignose 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there's no evidence that he was poisoned. Commodus probably stabbed him in a lung which would cause a slow, painful death. Note the way Maximus gasps for air just after it happens. Tommyt 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Gasping for air doesn't indicate a blow to the lung, it only indicates that he has pain. Besides stabbed in the lung does not cause a slow death like Maximus' especially when fighting. Mallerd 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Loss of blood would cause the above symptoms. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of gladius by gladiators

Both the article on gladius and gladiator indicate that the gladius was used by gladiators (or at least by "some gladiators"), and in fact the name gladiator is derived from the word gladius. Therefore, I removed the following until this can be definitely established as an "inaccuracy:"

  • In the movie, the primary weapon of the gladiator is depicted as the gladius. This is incorrect - only the Roman army was allowed use of the gladius. It is more likely that the gladiators would have used weapons from their homelands (i.e. the fallcuta for Maximus, who is a Spaniard).

zadignose 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched for a source for it online yesterday and couldn't find anything on it. --Nehrams2020 00:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that Maximus was considered a Spaniard in the terms of being a true Spaniard. it was 180 AD if I remember correctly, so he probably was a fully assimilated citizen of the Roman empire with no more roots to the original Celtic, Punic inhabitants. Does anyone know where Tuijillo lies? He told him that he lived there, I guess it is more southern Spain as he is found by African slave traders and he never visited Rome. Mallerd 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tuijillo in Roman province of Lusitania and the main city is Emerita Augusta but I dont remember where I read it --Blain Toddi (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Were Maximus' wife and son crucified or hanged?

I know this is morbid, but if the article makes mention of the way they are killed, it should be correct. As of now it says they are crucified, but to me it looked more like they are hanged. Should we change this? --Tracerbullet11 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Commodus later tells Maximus "your son cried like a girl when they nailed him to the cross". Cop 633 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Further evidence, when he kisses his wife's feet, the bodies weren't swinging as if they were hanging from nooses (you may remember there was a considerable breeze blowing...). They also may not have used full crosses, but just the crossbars. Bleah, how gruesome! Tommyt 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, thanks for clarifying this. So we can leave it like that.--Tracerbullet11 08:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, Maximus mentions to Lucilla (in the prison cell scene) that his wife and son were "burned and crucified while they were still alive".--Valin Kenobi (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Iberia"

The article states that one of the historic deviations is the calling of him by the name of 'Spaniard' and the article claims that the land was called Iberia. This is incorrect. The Greeks called the land Iberia, while the Romans (Latin) called the area Hispania. --Arithmia 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I would argue that there's no real "historical deviation" in modernizing the name Hispania by referring to it as "Spain." The film is entirely in modern language, almost entirely modern English, it's designed to communicate simply and clearly to its modern English speaking audience. Using the word "Spain" does not depend upon whether Spain was united as a nation at the time the film was set, but it is the simplest modern English word to refer to the geographic region. As I will argue below, many of the "historical deviations" that depend on language or ethnicity are misplaced, and should be removed from the article. zadignose 09:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

home releases

Just wondering if there's any thoughts on a section for DVD and VHS releases, dates and countries as well as special edition - I have a collectors edition VHS with book and soundtrack with additional footage, rare for VHS I would think. Not sure of the details of it but will try and add it soon, otherwise someone else might know about it. Peter 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be could, it's interesting to know about the different versions.Cop 633 01:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much detail for a summary

It seems our plot summary is constantly expanding, but I'm not convinced that the added details benefit the article. Long passages and detailed description of events are not necessary, and may be excessive. For example this text:

"Upon being introduced to Commodus after a gladiatorial contest, he reveals his true identity to the emperor."

has become this:

"In his first event, he skilfully leads a band of other gladiators to defeat an opposing force of chariots and archers, quickly earning the crowd's praise through his resourcefulness and heroics in the fighting. Upon being introduced to Commodus in the arena after the gladiatorial contest, he reveals his true identity to the stunned emperor, who tries to have Maximus executed on the spot, but the crowd votes for him to live and so Commodus begrudgingly backs down."

and this text:

"Commodus, however, learns of this plot and arrests Maximus on the eve of his coup. Cicero, Hagen and Proximo are killed."

has become this:

"Commodus, however, suspects his sister of betrayal and by indirectly threatening her young son manipulates her into revealing the plot. During Maximus' attempted escape, Commodus' guards attack Proximo's gladiator school, and Hagen and Proximo are killed in the resulting fight, whilst Juba and the survivors are imprisoned. Maximus makes it to the city walls, but Cicero (who was waiting for him with horses) is suddenly killed by archers and Maximus is arrested by the guards."

There was a certain economy of language in the earlier summary, which has been lost, and I'm not sure what we've gained. zadignose 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I made those edits you referred to. I thought it was odd that the first battle in the Colosseum got one mention at the start of a sentence and the prison battle got only one quick mention (both being important plot points), yet Tigris's fight got almost a whole paragraph and it doesn't really advance the plot nearly as much as the first two do. How important a problem do you think this is? What do you want to do about it? Kohran 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

After the expansion of the article with the CCOTW, I have also expanded some sections, added some, and included some more inline sources. I will probably nominate this for GAC tomorrow, but I am wondering if there is anything that needs to be fixed before doing so. If I don't get any feedback, then I'll just go ahead and nominate it. If the reviewer puts it on hold, I'll be able to fix any problems relatively quickly. --Nehrams2020 07:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the article, so we'll see how it goes. Hopefully it doesn't take too long with the backlog. --Nehrams2020 07:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed it but let's another reviewer do so. This is my opinion.
  • 1- I found its lead and structure well. It has also wikified and described the issue well. Let's a native English speaker tell us about its lingual aspects.
  • 2- I prefer to add some more references in sections which may controversial like Gladiator (2000 film)#historical. Because there is written in the lead "it has criticized by historians" and reader expects to see some of them. However I accept that It seems factually accurate and verifiable.
  • 3- Of course, it is broad in its coverage.
  • 4- It follows the neutral point of view policy. I think the neutrality of this issue is not controversial and article shows different POV.
  • 5- I checked the 100 later changes[1] and found it stable.
  • 6- There's 7 images which have fair use tag. Although there is written "there isn't any public domain picture" but using too many fair use images doesn't look good even if there are good reasons for fair use. I propose to remove the 2 last pictures. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll get to fixing these in a couple days (I'm currently going home for Spring Break!). As for the images, this is a similar amount to other GAs and some film FAs. If necessary, I could possibly remove the images of the people in the history section. --Nehrams2020 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical Deviations, Language, Ethicity

It seems that many of the "Historical Deviations" listed in the article are out of place. As we all know, the Romans didn't speak modern English, but this is not listed as a "historical deviation" simply because we accept the theatrical conceit that the film is made for modern English speakers, and the language of the audience is used. So why should it be considered a historical deviation when the German is similarly modernized, or Hispania is modernized as "Spain?" There is no claim that the actors in the film will speak anything close to the language used by the Romans, and it's reasonable to accept these as part of the nature of a film set in a foreign land in a historical time.

Similarly, it seems wrong to judge the supposed ethnic appearance of the actors. It's difficult to make a reasonable judgement of what a fictional character "would have looked like." For one thing, we can't presume ethnic homgeneity in any culture, in any part of the world, at any time. For another, in theater and film, it has always been common to cast actors to play someone of another culture, period, ethnic group, etc. Casting Al Pacino to play a Cuban in Scarface, or Eli Wallach to play a Mexican in The Good The Bad And The Ugly wasn't a "historical deviation," but just a part of the theatricality of film. We don't expect the casting directors to hire only short actors because the average Roman was shorter than the average modern Western man. We don't demand that they examine Roman statues and only employe actors with a proper "Roman nose." There's a flexibility in casting, and no claim that the actors precisely resemble historical figures. zadignose 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. I already deleted one passage which complained that Russell Crowe and Richard Harris aren't ethnically Italian. The point about Juba being black when the Numidians were not is borderline, but since 'Numidian' could simply mean 'a person from Numidia' rather than 'an ethnic Numidian', this should probably go too. Cop 633 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
When Cop 633 was working on the section, I had already deleted the bottom two points, but resulted in an edit conflict with you on that, so I left the bottom one in since you were editing it. So should some of these deviations be removed? There are other inaccuracies that could replace them, or we could already have enough. I don't think we want that section going too long and mention every single inaccuracy. What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the point about the German language and Spain should definitely go, and Numidia is borderline. I would say remove all three and see if anyone cares. Cop 633 19:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the Spain one is alright as it describes it fairly well, but the German one and Numidia could probably be removed. --Nehrams2020 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, since I don't speak Arabic or any language spoken in the old African Roman provinces. But when they are preparing for the team battle for the first time, you hear a man shout something in a language unknown to me, after that a man shouts swords to the right shields to the left or something like that. Does anyone know what language the first man is speaking? If it's Arabic it could be added, no? Mallerd 23:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

Agreement with user Sa.Vakilian; well written, broad in coverage, well cited. My main suggestion would be further referencing in the historical section. Otherwise, a definite Good article. Qjuad 15:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Emperor's thumb

In the Historical Deviations section, it is stated that thumbs up is the sign for death, while having the thumb in the fist was the sign for the gladiator to live. However, the gladiator page says that the thumb gestures are still debated.

Should the information here be altered to say that it is still debated, or left as is? Raistlin11325 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another sentence can be added that it is still being debated by historians. That way readers are not believed to think that this is the only accepted thought over the hand signal used. --Nehrams2020 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Revival of Historical Epic?

Doesn't Braveheart qualify as a historical epic? It was released several years prior to "Gladiator"...

True, but it didn't "kick start" any sort of revival in the way Gladiator did. --Zagrebo 12:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But if Braveheart is a historical epic, that means that Gladiator wasn't the first historical epic in 36 years as it says at the top of the page.


Where does it say that? All I can see if "The film's success may have helped to revive the historical epic genre, with subsequent films such as Troy, Alexander, and Kingdom of Heaven, the last of which was also directed by Scott." please point out where you are reading, oh and don't forget to sign your posts! SGGH speak! 11:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rome founded as a republic

The article says that it is incorrect to say that rome was founded as a republic, but cites the last etruscan king before rome revolted and became self governing. perhaps it should mention that when the first independant government was formed, it was a republic...

141.154.155.15 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the city itself. Maybe Gaius means the empire, or well, back in the days the lands of conquest made by rome. Mallerd 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sociopath

The article refers to Commodus as a sociopath, is this how he is referred to by third parties or is it an authors own opinion? I'm fine with it if it is the former, but the latter is a little suspect because you have to remember the context. Political life in Rome was heavily conflicted; backstabbing, betrayal and double standards were certainly acceptable tactics by the aristocracy to manipulate your enemies, and while Commodus' actions are going too far they weren't unusual enough for him to be called a sociopath, was Brutus a sociopath? He assassinated his role model and possible father Caesar. SGGH speak! 09:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Greek fire and catapult

In the influences article, in the historical paragraph, it is written that during the battle at the beginning of the movie, the catapult were using greek fire to fire fiery projectile even if the greek fire did not exist at this time.

About what we can see in the movie, maybe it was not greek fire, only big jars of oil with something to ignite the oil when the jars break upon impact. Some historical documents tells us that this type of projectile has existed during almost all the Ancient Roman empire. The only thing is that it was rarely used because oil was expensive and this weapon was not that much dangerous for the enemy army even if it as a devastating effect on the moral.Profile98765 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever was used catapults were almost never used in battles by the Romans. They were reserved for sieges. Wayne (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they were onagers, not catapults. Spartan198 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Zulu

Did anyone else notice that the chanting of the Germanic barbarians before the battle is exactly the same as that uttered by the Zulus in the 1964 film Zulu, just before they attack? ComaDivine 01:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Got a citation for it though? Alientraveller 08:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've noticed it mentions Gladiator on the Zulu film page, under "Awards & Homages". ComaDivine 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Maori haka reminded me of the chanting in this film `Mallerd (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)`

some similarities and differences

I don't think the Marcus Aurelius - Maximus vs Commodus storyline is so implausible. Marcus Aurelius was the last of "The Five Good Emperors". The preceeding four had picked their successor, and adopted him, creating a meritocracy to preserve an aristocracy. Some historians consider it the high point of the Roman Empire. Therefore it is not unbelievable that Marcus Aurelius would have done the same. In addition, Commodus was only 19 when Marcus Aurelius died. Most histories recount that Marcus Aurelius brought up Commodus to be emperor. This movie takes the next step that Marcus Aurelius found him unqualified/unprepared. History shows this would have been an accurate prediction. Even though Marcus Aurelius is commonly referred to as a "philosopher king", during his reign the empire was often at war. He may have wanted a successful general to succeed him. In short, there is no evidence that Marcus Aurelius decided to dis-inherit his evil, incompetent son, and adopt a popular, successful general to be his successor, but it would have been a decision and action consistent with the predeeding 100 years of Roman history.

In the movie, Commodus is portrayed as an effete aristocrat. Once he became emperor, Commodus adopted the personification of Hercules, long-haired, bearded, carrying a club, and wearing animal skins. In short, somewhat like Russell Crowe.

74.243.26.11 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Roma victa, Roma victor, Roma victrix, Roma victoria, Roma, Roma, Roma, puke

http://www.nitpickers.com/movies/nitpick.cgi?np=29488

Roma is a feminine deity. Any phrase about her, or the city that she represents, must agree with the singular feminine.

Roma victa is grammatically correct but means "Rome is conquered". Roma victor means "Rome has conquered" but the gender is in disagreement. Roma victrix is correct but clearly not what Maximus said. Roma victoria means "Rome is trumphant" but disagrees in number. There'd have to be more than one Rome to use "victoria" in that way.

If a movie transcription you find online claims the phrase "Roma victa" was said in this scene, it is quite simply wrong. What Maximus said was "Roma victor", which is incorrect but common in English (Results 1 - 100 of about 306,000 for "roma victor").

So please don't make an attempt at changing the Latin in the article unless you know what you're talking about. Kthxbye.

--75.58.74.145 15:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

costumes?

I am missing information about the spectacular costumes and dress that were used in the movie. Are they historically correct, what about the uniforms, the armor, weapons, etc.? I do know that apparently the fabric used for Lucilla's beautiful dresses and some of the rich women was silk imported from Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. This should be mentioned somewhere. Gryffindor 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

i learned from wativhin this that maximus rules and commodus is a dick--E tac 07:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are correct--82.116.149.190 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The uniforms were historically "accurate" but not historically "correct". The armour used in the movie is called Imperial Gallic and ceased production 50 years before the movies timeframe so it is unlikely so many soldiers would have worn it. This brings up another inaccuracy, all the soldiers were wearing the same style of armour which is a misconception. Romans did not have our concept of obsolescence so their legions would wear mixed armour styles. If it was not worn out the armour worn could be many years out of date. A modern analogy would be the coalition troops in Iraq wearing a mix of WW1, WW2 and modern uniforms.Wayne (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

Any one heard about Gladiator II ?--Blain Toddi 11:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Title of this section mispelled. I corrected. Spartan198 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

How Commodos killed Marcus Aurelius ?

Broke his neck ?... slain him with dagger ?...--Blain Toddi (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember this isn't a forum for general discussion. But as it's Christmas and the season of good will, let us assume it was strangulation. Alientraveller (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Suffication Mallerd (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pannonia and Germania

The article mentions that the first Battle was in fact fought in Pannonia and the movie mentions Germania ...well the last Battle in the Marcomannic war was fought in Laugaricio near modern Trencin/Slovakia against the Quadi in greater Germania ...so the movie is correct about Germania --Blain Toddi (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maximus character

Maximus character as a general is not fictional at all ... certainly he was based on the real Roman General Marcus Valerius Maximianus who was the trusted general of Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the last five years of the Marcomannc wars 175-180 AD. Besides he was the Roman general who achieved the decisive victory in Laugaritio/ Slovakia against the Quadi Germanic tribe see Marcomannic Wars . I hope this charactor would be added to the article historical section .

--Blain Toddi (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've wondered sometimes if Maximus is meant to be a surrogate for Valerius Maximianus, but I don't think we can say anything as definite as "certainly he was based" on Maximianus. The account of the writing of the screenplay given in the article suggests Maximus was originally identified with Narcissus, and also that the writers used largely literary sources such as the Augustan History. Valerius Maximianus, if I remember rightly, leaves little or no trace on the literary record and his career is known from inscriptions etc. Cenedi (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any cite indicating if the character was indeed Franzoni's inspiration? Alientraveller (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The official home page of movie gladiator was mentioning that .. for reasons I dont know its not working any more !!

beside its logical :-

1-The name ... In movie Maximus ... In reality Maximianus

2-The battle ... The decisive battle in Laugaritio ( shown in the movie ) .. was won by Maximianus .

--Blain Toddi (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any reason for thinking the battle at the beginning of the film is intended to be the battle in Laugaritio? No such location is given in the movie, it's just a 'last battle against the barbarians' deal. I accept the parallels are there, just doubt that the writers' intentions were that detailed and specific. Cenedi (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another similarities between Maximus and Maximianus

1- The conversation between Maximus and Commodos in Vindobona :

Commodos told Maximus that he might call him soon when he become emperor ... In reality when Commodos became emperor he used Maximianus in the war against the Sarmatians in 182 AD.

2- The movie show Maximus as an experienced cavalry officer ... In reality in 175 AD when there was a revolt by Cassius , Maximianus led the auxillary Germanic and Sarmatian detachments to the East .... The Sarmatians provided 8000 cavalry men as auxillary units to the Roman army ( 5500 where sent to Britain ) but the remainings moved to the east against Cassius under the command of Maximianus this indicate that Maximianus was a cavalry officer !!!

--Blain Toddi (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created an entry Marcus Valerius Maximianus. I would still be cautious about asserting he was the model for Maximus. I'd like to think the screenwriters were that clued up, but unless we can produce a statement from them that he was the original for Maximus, we have to leave it as speculation. Cenedi (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The Maximus character's movie life and military history is a very close match to that of Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus. It is doubtful he was based on Marcus Valerius Maximianus because there were far fewer similarities than with Pompeianus. In the original script the characters name was Narcissus which was changed for obvious reasons. Wayne (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


If he was based on Pompeianus >>> he would be much older

--Blain Toddi (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman cohorts

I changed the size of cohorts from 500 men to 480 men ...for more details see Roman legion

--Blain Toddi (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

...shown in a line formation;which offered no tactical benefits...

Removed this line because, in the battle near the start of the film, the legionaries are in fact advancing in cohorts, not a single line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.19.134 (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pollice Verso painting

Did anybody else notice that the first gladiator we see in the movie looks just like the guy in the painting? Do you suppose it was deliberate? He's using a different weapon, but it still caught my eye. Ifnkovhg (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to us editors to draw comparisons, but the evidence is there if you the reader wish to add it up. Alientraveller (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quintus information correct?

The plot summary says "Praetorian prefect, Quintus is reinstated as general by Commodus" however I am not sure this is correct. Isn't Quintus portrayed as a subordinate to Maximus in the regular army prior to the assassination of Marcus Aurelius? Later we see Quintus in the purple uniform of the Praetorian, but I don't think it was correct that at the beginning of the film he was the Praetorian Prefect. Can anyone confirm this? --PIngp0NG (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed Cicero link. Felt this prudent as the Cicero in the film is fictional and completely unrelated to Marcus Tullius Cicero. (ie different time, different character, different station ect) (78.146.23.36 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Dog out of time?

Am I wrong, or was the dog Maximus looked at while kneeling before the opening battle scene a German Shepherd? Those were invented in 1899. It seems like too obvious of a mistake for such a major film. Chicopac (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of dogs look like German Sheperds. Besides, the dogs that they had back then have probably died out by now, so there would have been no alternative but to use a modern dog. Lemming42 (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Coleman's negative experience should be mentioned

As you probably know, professor Kathleen Coleman who worked as a historical consultant for the Gladiator, was so frustrated from the final result that she asked her name not to be mentioned in the credits. This is a very important part of the history of the making of the film. For more information on this and for a general discussion on the movie from a scholarly point of view, see | Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.07.40 . Btw, that article could be a nice addition to the "Further reading" section but I'm not sure on how to present it there, since it is a review of a book on the film itself Dipa1965 (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

some more military inaccuracies

The opening battle shows the use of stirrups by cavalry, and even shows maximus adjusting the emperor's stirrups after. Europeans didn't get stirrups until the 800's. Roman cavalry saddles had handlebar like saddle horns. Also the fight choreography shows the gladius being used mainly for slashing and big overhand chops. The gladius was meant to stab at the enemy from behind a shield. leadfoot808, 0645, 17 sept. 2008

Ostia Garrison

In the late Marcomannic Wars , the heavy csualties that legion II Adiutrix suffered in consequence battles ( the same legion that won the last battle of that war in Laugaricio ) , led the Romans to send detachments ( auxillaries ) from legion III Augusta in Africa to enforce that legion .... May be the Army stationed in Ostia was actually these detachments returning to Africa after the war was over.

--Blain Toddi (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevance? Alientraveller (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


The Language of the theme song of Gladiator

Most people believe that the language of the Gladiator theme song by Lisa Gerrard is Latin. However I have also heard that the language used by Lisa Gerrard for this song was one that she had made up herself and used this language only in a spiritual way (praying to God). Does anyone know for sure which language this song is written in? Wikitanoli (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical content

Content was removed from "Historical" because it had nothing to do with the film. Connections were made by looking at history books and then watching the film and noting deviations in between. Wikipedia is not a place for a thesis paper; it uses reliable sources to cover the topic at hand. There are reliable sources for this sub-topic such as Gladiator: Film and History that can be cited. Embarking on an investigation to present arguments on how this creative work deviates from actual history is synthesis. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The material has everything to do with the film and provides the adequate historical background for the film. If it is properly sourced, it should not be deleted wholesale on your whim.--drb (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not have a poll of the editors of this article before making this decision?--drb (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not "synthesis" in that it is a discussion of the content of the film, which is not something synthesized in original research. Perhaps the judgments about how the filmmakers could have portrayed the characters could be removed, which smack of OR, but the historical background is helpful, and I feel, essential.--drb (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) None of the sources in the removed content actually address the film. They address historical events, and the sources are appropriate for the articles about historical events. This is a creative work, not any of the historical events. Please read WP:SYN: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources... If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." The sources about the historical events never touch on the film, so synthesis is clear. With this support by official policy, I am removing it and raising the issue at WT:FILM. Please do not restore original research. There are completely acceptable reliable sources to use in which historians study the film itself. Let's work on doing this instead, possibly merging content from Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film). —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong in saying that it does not address the film: it does. Your quote from this "synthesis section" is irrelevant in that the information does touch on the film. I dispute your allegation that this falls under this policy section. --drb (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no touching on the film. Let's break down the original research:

  • This is only historical content, supported by Boatwright et al. The Romans: From Village to Empire. pp. 402-4 ISBN 9780195118766.
  • In some ways the age and character of Commodus are not consistent with the historical sources. Joaquin Phoenix portrays a Commodus in his mid to late twenties throughout the film, not taking into consideration that Commodus became sole emperor when he was 18 and was assassinated when he was 30. The film presents Commodus as self-centered, cold, cruel, and mentally unbalanced rather than debauched, blood-thirsty, and violent as the senatorial sources such as the Augustan History report him to be.
  • Commodus' murder of his father in the film is purely fictional. Commodus was the only Roman Emperor to fight as a gladiator (discounting reports of Caligula having done so — there is no record outside of Suetonius that Caligula did so). Commodus was assassinated (strangled) by a wrestler on 31 December AD 192, not killed in the arena during a duel as the film depicts.
  • Again, the source does not touch on the film at all. If people want to read about the actual figure himself, details can be found on the article about him. Unless there is a connection to make via reliable source, this is synthesis: Boatwright et al. The Romans: From Village to Empire. pp. 406 ISBN 9780195118766 / "Commodus". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 2007-02-19.

Conclusions are being drawn where they did not exist before. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)The analysis does not belong. You did the analysis, and therefore that qualifies as WP:OR, whether the sources you did your analysis from are properly sourced or not. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Just want to make the correction... Drb did not write the content himself. I removed it, but the editor restored it, believing that the content is okay because the film's entities has ties in history. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This material is appropriate here too:

Can you explain why the content is appropriate even after reading WP:SYN? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the material is not synthesis in that it deals with the content of the film. That section on "synthesis" is irrelevant in that the content of the film is compared with history, which informs the viewer of the film who might want information on this subject. The film is not a complete work of fiction like Alice in Wonderland; it is an historical drama, which uses actual historical personages and actual historical events. It is helpful to the person seeking information to know how this content compares with history. If I were to compare Alice in Wonderland to historical sources, that would be OR and synthesis, not the work of editors in this instance.--drb (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the material does not deal with the film at all. Look at these sources used:
These sources are completely appropriate for historical articles. The comparisons are being made are comparisons that did not exist before someone picked up these history books, thus it is synthesis. There are reliable sources that study the film and its historical roots, and these are what can be used. What's above is a connection made that starts with the editor him or herself, not with a secondary source. As editors, we write information as reported elsewhere. We don't come up with these connections on our own. That's why most of the section is synthesis. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You are making a new policy in saying that you can use certain sources for historical articles and only for those and others for others.--drb (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No new policy is being made. The wording at WP:SYN is very clear about this. These sources are being used in connection to the film, where they never mention it. They are appropriate for historical articles and do not belong here if they do not make any explicit connection between actual history and the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The comparisons did exist the moment the film was released! It is not original research to compare the historical content of an historical drama with history itself, and one is permitted to use what reliable sources he likes in any article. There is such a thing as interdisciplinary contribution between arts and sciences. May I remind you too that history is part of the arts curriculum in any university.--drb (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
People can make comparisons, obviously, but they are not worth reporting on unless there is a connection explicitly noted by a reliable source making the comparison. See my possible compromise below. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If Drb is concerned about the removal of content, perhaps we can work together to use the reliable sources where the film and its roots in history are explicitly analyzed. This may bode better than the wholesale removal. In addition, we could add a "See also" section where we can link to the relevant historical articles so the reader can learn about the actual history apart from the film. Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with this, but I think that user:Erik is making policy here with stipulating that one has to find a source that specifically compares the film's content with history. I suppose a periodical article might do that does this. My point is that the fact that this is an historical drama that deals with historical personages and events allows for the comparison with historical sources. The comparison is apparent the moment the film was released, so it is not OR. I also think that user:Erik is making policy when he insists that one cannot use the historical sources that have been used in this article.--drb (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Jauerback agrees that the content is original research. Guest9999 also said this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film), "Instances of deviations should only be included when a reliable source has explicitly mentioned them, not from: X happened in film, Y happened in textbook equals Z historical deviation." Historical sources are not forbidden from articles like this, but the bulk of the "Historical" section was made up of the XYZ connections to push comparisons forward. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
(EC)drb, you are completely wrong here. You can't do the analysis. In order for this material to be added, a source has to be found that does this analysis otherwise it is exactly a violation of WP:SYN. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:SYN states: Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. This is exactly what you are attempting to do here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
That is your interpretation of this policy as a strict constructionist. The comparison is made when the content of the film is released to the public. When articles on films are written on this website the editors that specialize in this type of article wonder why more analysis is not used in the summarization of the plots of these films. I am a strict constructionist here in that I think that plot summaries should be that and no more. Now here we have legitimate comparison between the film's apparent historical content and history itself, which is automatically there due to the film's existence. Perhaps judgments need to be avoided, but I feel that it is helpful to the reader who is seeking information to set down that comparison, which the film has already made by its content. This material is not this type of OR "synthesis" spoken of in that section.--drb (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a book by Martin M. Winkler, Gladiator: Film and History, (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004) that would be an appropriate source for this "historical" section of this article. My interest in the article might move me to acquire it. Another point of "synthesis" is that it involves a "C" conclusion which is totally novel; whereas, the comparisons between this film's historical content and history itself is evident and not a novel conclusion. There is a lot of gray area in this issue.--drb (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"That is your interpretation of this policy as a strict constructionist.". No, that's actual policy. I agree completely with JauerBack and Erik and support removal of the content. - auburnpilot talk 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between actual policy and one's application of it, but majority rules. The policy is the policy, but I disagree that it applies to this content.--drb (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just as a point of information this dif[2] shows that the section was in the article when it was listed as a "GA".--drb (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I concluded this debate with drb on our talk pages, and he complied with the consensus. Alientraveller (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gladiator (film)

Gladiator (film) redirects here. Can someone with an automated tool correct the links so that it can redirect to the dab page? (There are three films with articles that are very possibly referred to by this name) 76.66.196.229 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Gladiator "borrows heavily" from the Lone Wolf and Cub film Shogun Assassin

I've seen both films and I see very few parallels between them. I think that line should be removed.

Kryptography (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Commodus' Death

According to my history book, Commodus was assassinated by the Praetorian Guards, while dressed as Hercules, he was going to the Senate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.153.62 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

bit late but commodus-> incest *eugh* 86.165.13.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

Collapse

I watched about half of the movie ages ago, but how can you collapse on the graves of crusified bodies? you collapse on the cross? Princess Rebel (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maximus buried the bodies first. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy regarding Commodus' Hitleresque arrival

I looked at model of Rome in the Internet made under Mussolini's regime. Which historical building in Rome near the Coliseum could have accommodated that many soldiers, or was there none (besides the Circus Maximus)?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2894123&postcount=3

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Sidious (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a comment regarding the historical accuracy of the film to the opening comments. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Rome of antiquity will spot historical errors one after the other within the first five minutes. The film might be entertaining on an artistic level. Anything else, however, and it's pure garbage, is spoiled entirely in the first five minutes for anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of ancient Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.146.194 (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Add cultural references section

What about a cultural references section? For example, Jon Stewart started the March 2, 2009 episode of The Daily Show with a long reference to the film.

Achester99 —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

The chanting by the Germanians prior to the battle seems to sound remarkably like the chanting of warriors attacking the British at Rorke's Drift in the movie ZULU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Doors (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted. It is mentioned, by Ridley Scott, I think, on one of the DVDs that the chanting is a sample from the film Zulu.Apau98 (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Blu-ray

Would it be appropriate to mention the films potential release in blu-ray? link here [3] Paulish (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Word choice?

"Instinct" seems a poor word choice here: "In the arena, the weakened Maximus fights purely on instinct "... this sentence follows the description that Maximus was quickly stabbed with a stiletto, so wouldn't he be finding more on adrenaline? Isn't all fighting "on instinct" otherwise? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

History

I've added a comment regarding the historical accuracy of the film to the opening comments. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Rome of antiquity will spot historical errors one after the other within the first five minutes. The film might be entertaining on an artistic level. Anything else, however, and it's pure garbage, is spoiled entirely in the first five minutes for anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of ancient Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.146.194 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the article. In order to include that addition, you will need to include reliable sources stating so. I'd be surprised to call it "pure garbage", but if there were citations that supported that, that could be included. Inaccuracies can be found with many films, but finding sources that state so is the challenging part. Without the sources, the statement raises POV concerns. If you need assistance in contributing, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course, we should remember it is a dramatisation, not a historical documentary. I think some inaccuracies can be forgiven.Apau98 (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Maximus Decimus Meridius article seems to be duplicating large chunks, particularly plot, and it seems logical to merge into the main article. Apau98 (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that the Commodus article has been tagged for merging since last June. That also duplicates the plot of the film and needs a rewrite. If there are no objections, in due time, I'll merge them both. Apau98 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Be sure to keep a re-direct for both page names, sending people to the merged article. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know how it works, thanks. Apau98 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Seconded (thirded?) - this is basically just a restatement of the movie. --Well-Read Red (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

the claim of "shot-by-shot remake" of F.o.t.R.E." - needs adjustment

One of the (very few) inline citations for this section of the article makes no such claim; I don't have the book by Landau et al - but no page number is ref'd. Does the book actually state this, or is this the feeling of the editor?

My problem with this statement is that, while obviously influenced by the movie Fall of the Roman Empire, the film Gladiator has enormous differences with it. The "hero" of the movie FotRE is not a gladiator, the film Gladiator is totally without the subplot of what the character played by James Mason in the other movie was trying to accomplish, there is no war with 'Persia,' the subplot of the true father of Commodus is missing, etc., etc.

This statement needs to be re-worded to something much less strong. There should be many other reviews out there that can be utilized to accomplish this. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

OK, so "shot-by-shot" may be too strong; what remake is ever that exact? But in practice, it is a remake; those differences you mention aren't "enormous" at all, and the current text's claim, saying it's just "influenced", is a weasel-wordy whitewash.--CRConrad (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

non-RS used as source, speculative statement

In the Historical Accuracy section, the following statements:

Marcus Aurelius died of plague at Vindobona and was not murdered by his son Commodus.
The character of Maximus is fictional, although in some respects he resembles the historical
figures of Narcissus (the character's name in the first draft of the screenplay and the real killer
of Commodus),[32]

come from a private website that is not a Reliable Source - Gladiator, The Real Story - (http://www.exovedate.com/the_real_gladiator_one.html), and should be removed.

Additionally, no one knows what "killed" Marcus Aurelius - whether it was disease, cancer, or any number of possible complications resulting from his long-time opium addiction. Like Caracalla with Septimius Severus, rumors abounded that Commodus either murdered his father, or at least helped speed his demise after he fell ill. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

File:Now We Are Free.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Now We Are Free.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gladiator_(2000_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1142358078"