Jump to content

Talk:Gladiator (2000 film)/Archive 2

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

disambiguation or whatever

There are many films called Gladiator, yet Gladiator film, comes here, and gladiator itself leads to the page gladiator with one of those links to a disambiguation page. So to get to other films called gladiator takes a very roundabout and thoughtful path. I'm sorry, I don't have the technical skill to put in a disambiguation or one of those links at the top of the page. Could someone do it pleaseBrunswicknic (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I redirected gladiator film to gladiator (disambiguation). Does that suffice? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Influences and references

Hello, in the IMDb connections section it says that "Gladiator" referenced "Planet of the Apes" (1968), "Time Bandits" (1981) and several "Star Wars" films. Does anybody know what these references are? Thank you! 188.195.181.105 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

This may seem obvious, but should the historical accuracy section contain a note that points out that the ending does deviate massively from what actually occured? I mean, the Roman Empire did not end with power returned to the Senate in the second century. It carried on in the West for another three hundred years, and in the East for at least a millenium more, with unbroken lines of Emperors the whole way down the road. Or is this all just implied by the 'Maximus is a fictional character' bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.99.107 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I added information about Commodus being unpopular in order to provide context for the power struggle after his death. --Owenskatie (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Various framerates"

Did they really shoot Gladiator at various framerates? That makes it sound like they were either undercranking or overcranking the cameras and then play back the results at 24fps (as they did, for example on The Ring), or were using speed-ramping as they did on 300. What I remember from seeing the film on DVD during Latin class, and what has been pointed out to me ever since by ardent fans (who dub that the "Gladiator effect") is none of those techniques at all. Rumors even among the cinematographers and video editors I'm working with today and who worship it as "one of the most innovative movies in history" have it that said 'innovative' "Gladiator effect" would be that they shot battle scenes at a high framerate and then in post decimated the frames, for example, they shot at 96fps, and then in post removed 3 frames out of 4 in order to end up at 24fps. Others of those rather confused rumors come down to pretty colorful new descriptions of simple slo-mos ("They, like, man, they shot fast, and then, uh, like, they slowed it down, and uh, I just dunno, man...").

However, what I'm seeing in those scenes that keep getting pointed out to me for this fabled "Gladiator effect" is that all they did was shoot regularly at 24fps and pretty traditionally raised the shutter speed rather than framerate in order to make movements look edgier (or, for my tastes, uglier), more immediate, and "more exciting", a feature certainly not invented by Gladiator. It's been a pretty common technique in action films way before Gladiator in order to make scenes look edgier and more dangerous, probably somewhat resembling the psychological effects of heightened senses due to a sudden adrenaline rush, aka a physiological "fight or flight" reaction, where everything becomes crystal-clear in your vision, and in hindsight you can recall the incident in extraordinary detail. --37.81.36.166 (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing says "Mathieson photographed the battle scenes at various frame rates and with a 45-degree shutter. This technique, employed to great effect for the battle scenes in Saving Private Ryan, helped to make the combatants appear more aggressive, and to reveal clear sword movement through the air. "We got into trouble one day with the light towards the end of the battle, so we couldn’t shoot at 45 degrees," he reveals. "Instead, we shot everything at 8 frames, which gives you two more stops, and printed that back to 6 frames. Then we stretched that back out [to 24 fps]. Of course, each exposure is really long. You’ve got these people swinging swords, and it’s no longer frenetic with all of these sharp edges you get a far more brushy stroke."

There is a good explanation of how this works here. Traditional cinema film is shot at 24 frames per second using a rotary disc shutter. 180 degrees produces normal motion blur. At 45 degrees, each frame is exposed for 1/24 X 8 = 1/192 second. This produces the staccato motion effect similar to strobe lighting and stop motion animation. Saving Private Ryan and Gladiator are the best known films that use this effect extensively, although it appears in many other films.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

  • The battle scenes in Gladiator are pretty much all 45-degree shutter. This frame from the fight with Tigris of Gaul shows the effect clearly. Although the swords are moving, they appear static in an individual frame, without any motion blur. I was going to add this to the article, but it might have WP:NFCC issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly what I've been talking about, a faster shutter speed: All that decreasing the rotary disk angle does is raise the shutter speed, which requires more light as each frame is exposed for a shorter amount of time. If there's not enough light even for your widest aperture and you don't wanna change the shutter speed, all you can do is either use electronic gain/brighten it up in post, or...you lower the framerate. So when they *DID* shoot at a different framerate that one time (when it was getting dark towards the end of the battle), it was not in order to create a special look, but simply because there was not enough light. The way it's currently written in the article makes it sound like they were doing it on purpose to create a special effect (the one that people keep talking about in relation to Gladiator) in a clever way, when in fact they were simply forced to because there was not enough light. --37.82.191.21 (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul Ashbourne, an established movie critic?

Re this edit: WP:GOOGLECHECK does not show any film critic by this name, even in the blogs. Someone seems determined to add this, but it will not be included without a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Screenplay

The original text was very accusatory towards Russell Crowe, stating hearsay as fact. I tweaked the language to sound more objective, and added Crowe's own version of filming based on his Inside the Actors Studio interview. Much was said by Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe themselves on the DVD commentary, I may add more information at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxford24 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why "Films set in Germany"?

This film article has been put into the category Films set in Germany. Since the battle at the beginning is supposed to take place near what is modern day Vienna, shouldn't this article then be in "Films set in Austria"? Or are there other scenes to the north that I don't remember?--178.203.152.74 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole of Gladiator is a loose historical adaptation, and there is a good look at the Hollywood version versus historical accounts here. The battle scene at the start of Gladiator is based on the Marcomannic Wars during which Marcus Aurelius died in 180 AD, possibly near Vindobona, modern day Vienna. Neither Germany nor Austria in the modern sense existed at this time. It would not be ideal to have "Films set in Austria" for this reason. The film isn't really set in Spain either, because Hispania covered the whole of the Iberian peninsula. I've removed these categories as "Films set in Europe" and "Films set in the Roman Empire" are more accurate.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Gladiator (2000 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article contains multiple citation needed tags. This means that there is unsourced content whose accuracy is challenged, thus this article fails criterion 2b. I will wait a week before delisting this article if the issues are not addressed. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I added references. Ionutzmovie (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment this still isn't quite up to par on referencing. I see unsourced roles in cast section (yes, they DO need citing; WP:FILMCAST doesn't provide any exemption for that) and ends of paragraphs without citations. Every paragraph should end with at least one in-text citation. If more than one source is needed to support a paragraph's content, use more citations as needed. There are definitely articles in worse shape, but this doesn't meet GA standards yet. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Resuming reassessment

FutureTrillionaire, there are over a dozen individual GA reassessments that have been open for over a year, of which yours is one. This one needs to be wrapped up in the next few weeks.

I've taken a look at the article, and SNUGGUMS has made a reasonable assessment of some of the current ways in which the article falls short of the GA criteria regarding inline citations. Other issues I've noticed:

  • The article does not meet the manual of style's lead section requirement, particularly that it fails to adequately summarize the contents of the article. There is nothing of the Production, Historical authenticity, or Influences sections in the lead, and there needs to be. Given the size of the article, the lead should be three or four meaty paragraphs (but not more than four).
  • In addition to the many uncited entries in the Cast section noted above, the first and last paragraphs of Fictionalization and the final Anachronism paragraph are completely uncited, as is the third paragraph of Influences and the bulk of that section's first paragraph, and the second paragraph under Home media.
  • There are also sections where the next listed source does not apply to the bulk of the previous text. For example, the beginning of the Music section mentions conductor Gavin Greenaway and the fact that Ofra Haza was supposed to sing but died first, but the FN54 (reel.com) citation mentions none of that; indeed, the statement on Gerrard's vocals being similar was actually someone's opinion in that source, and should not be presented as fact here. The Haza material needs a source.
  • There are occasional places where the prose is unclear. The Accolades section has a particularly confusing sentence about Zimmer and Gerrard and the Academy Awards rules that apparently prevented Gerrard from being included in the nomination; this needs to be revised. I also think it's odd that the initial text in this sentence doesn't name the Oscars won, but does name the nominations that didn't bear fruit. This needs to be restructured somehow.

I'm taking the liberty of pinging Ionutzmovie and Yashthepunisher, who did work last year answering the initial issues raised by this reassessment, in the hopes that they can address these additional issues, and work on any more that may be found as the reassessment continues. (If not, we can apply to the relevant WikiProjects.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there have been no edits that addressed the above issues, I have just posted to the Military History and Film WikiProject talk pages, letting them know about this ongoing reassessment. I plan to allow the standard seven days for these issues to be addressed by either them or any other editor, though if work is in progress, since there is a significant amount to accomplish, I will naturally extend the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing reassessment

It has been another eight days, and in the interim a few minor cleanup edits were made that did not address any of the issues listed above, and the Plot section was tagged as too long. Under the circumstances, I am closing this reassessment and delisting the article. When the issues have been addressed, I would recommend a Peer review be done to see whether there are any further issues remain, after which the article can be nominated to be relisted as a Good Article. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Gladiator (2000 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

All links work. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Inspiration for Character

I added a citation needed to the section on the inspiration for the character but it was reverted. There's no evidence the character was inspired by those historical individuals, as far as I'm aware, so it's pretty misleading as it currently stands. It makes it sound as if the character was deliberately based upon those historical figures but I think what the author of that part of the article perhaps mean is just that there's a resemblance between them, in their eyes. As it stands, though, that part of the article isn't really accurate, or at least lacks a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HypnoSynthesis (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Plot

Officers? they are called guards in film; we are told by Quintus that Caesar has spoken but no mention is ever made about destroying the farm so to join then makes the statement incorrect. If when he arrives he finds his farm burnt and family dead then why necessary to say he arrive too late. Do we really know why he collapse except through exhaustion? Never any explanation in the film for his collapsing so for us to say so is an imposition. Never any mention of Mauretania Caesariensis, only Zucchabar, a Roman province. It is not the purpose of the plot to be a history lession, only a reflection of the plot.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The mention of Mauretania Caesariensis is our imposition on the plot since it is never identified as such, instead as the fictitious Roman province of Z.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 7 external links on Gladiator (2000 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gladiator_(2000_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1240993060"