Support NeoGAF

[DeafTourette]

It’s a fictional story, so historical accuracy isn’t the problem. What we want is some level of authenticity to the period.

I get that, but the majority of people watching these movies don't know about the types of armor a gladiator vs a soldier would wear. Thats bordering on the obsessive. As long as things LOOK like the time period, 99% of the audience will accept it. They aren't knowledgeable about the granular details of the period.

These movies aren't for historical scholars.

 

[Billbofet]

Denzel is in this, so I have to watch it now.
I just assumed Pedro is in it since he's in everything. I also assume Awkwafina is in this as the voice of a talking, annoying, animated bird.

 

[P:axMagellanic]

Gladiator came out at a time when the historical epic had been dead for decades. We've had the likes of HBO's Rome since then where they tried their damnedest to recreate the Roman forum.

 

[isual]

Gladiator is my favourite movie of all time; however, Ridley Scott's last few movies besides anything Alien has been, not so good.

I don't know; maybe he's just using his name and previous legacy to make movies and the money that comes with it, since he is getting old. Same thing with Bruce Willis making all the dogwater movies for more money; albeit, Scott doesn't have alzheimers; he is just maximizing his gravitas.

Who would blame him though? He will still be remembered for the OG gladiator movie.

 

[EviLore]

I get that, but the majority of people watching these movies don't know about the types of armor a gladiator vs a soldier would wear. Thats bordering on the obsessive. As long as things LOOK like the time period, 99% of the audience will accept it. They aren't knowledgeable about the granular details of the period.

These movies aren't for historical scholars.

The casual observer might not be conscious of all the effort the the creators put into something, but it still tends to be the difference between disposable fast food junk entertainment of the week and an all-time classic.

Peter Jackson and his team obsessed over the Lord of the Rings production. Craftsmen made all the individual links of chainmail on the armor sets, it wasn't rubber with metallic paint. They all became Tolkien scholars effectively and struggled greatly with every choice they made in the adaptation. They understood the characters deeply. The result is that even though it's not a 1:1 adaptation of the books, the LotR trilogy is held in very high regard by film fans and fans of the source material.

You don't have to do any of that. You can crap out some mediocre garbage and still potentially find an audience and get renewed for season 2. But it will only ever be disposable junk entertainment.

Do casual audiences understand that the songs in LotR hold a lot of meaning and a lot of effort was put in to fit them in? Do casual fans understand all of the lore and history and subtle references? No, generally not, but when you experience all those details, even casual fans are immersed by them, want to learn more, and understand they're watching something special. It elevates the material.

I am strongly against the idea that we should just shrug and consume the next thing with low standards. You can only create something truly great by deeply caring about your work.

 

[P:axMagellanic]

We only have to look at his last film which was complete crap and nonsense and waffling all over the place. No excuses for bad historicity anymore. Real history is a far more interesting story.

I didn't see The Duel because it had gammy looking armour, I'll try and get around to it though at some point.

 

[JCK75]

I hope it's amazing.... but I'll never understand the appeal of Pedro.

 

[DeafTourette]

The casual observer might not be conscious of all the effort the the creators put into something, but it still tends to be the difference between disposable fast food junk entertainment of the week and an all-time classic.

Peter Jackson and his team obsessed over the Lord of the Rings production. Craftsmen made all the individual links of chainmail on the armor sets, it wasn't rubber with metallic paint. They all became Tolkien scholars effectively and struggled greatly with every choice they made in the adaptation. They understood the characters deeply. The result is that even though it's not a 1:1 adaptation of the books, the LotR trilogy is held in very high regard by film fans and fans of the source material.

You don't have to do any of that. You can crap out some mediocre garbage and still potentially find an audience and get renewed for season 2. But it will only ever be disposable junk entertainment.

Do casual audiences understand that the songs in LotR hold a lot of meaning and a lot of effort was put in to fit them in? Do casual fans understand all of the lore and history and subtle references? No, generally not, but when you experience all those details, even casual fans are immersed by them, want to learn more, and understand they're watching something special. It elevates the material.

I am strongly against the idea that we should just shrug and consume the next thing with low standards. You can only create something truly great by deeply caring about your work.

But we haven't seen the movie NOR a trailer yet. All we have to go on are these images. The original Gladiator wasn't historically accurate either BUT they took care with the costuming and the world building to make it feel as "real" as possible. I can only assume they did the same with this.

LOTR was unlike anything historical... They made it feel real and like it was actually a stylized history drama rather than fantasy with weird costumes that made no sense. That is what separated LOTR from Gladiator and the like.

As I said, we have no idea how everything else looks or what the story (the most important part) is like... We'll get a taste when the trailer drops and then when the movie drops. All anyone is doing is performing supposition with out of context images because like Jon Snow, we know nothing (relatively).

 

[j0hnnix]

Sad, we can not have a fat Russell Crowe

 

[DAHGAMING]

This is what I came for

 

[Musashipan]

That Pedro guy sux
Worst actor ever

 

[Represent.]

This movie has a $310 MILLION dollar budget. I hope they put it to great use.

Screens look great.

 

[AyraSutoraifu]

It looks good. All of his films look spectacular. Whether it will be good is another story. I did like that last historical film he did with Matt Damon. Some minor complaints aside.

Yeah, i really liked that movie...

 

[Badlucktroll]

Phew, thank god it's got Pedro in it. It's been at least five minutes.

He should also play Mr Freeze and Solid Snake

 

[newtypepilot]

the biggest crime these movies make is the continual spreading of misinformation regarding history. Most people don't know that not only are Scott's films grossly inaccurate but also almost always trying to push modern day narratives or outright falsehoods. Scott doesnt' respect history.

 

[Rentahamster]

I did like that last historical film he did with Matt Damon.

The Martian was great!

 

[SpiceRacz]

He can still put out quality movies. The Last Duel was only 3 years ago.

Last Duel was a pleasant surprise. His most recent run of movies have been pretty good, I thought. I just wouldn’t go into Gladiator 2 expecting it to be on the level of the original though.

 

[Sakura]

I don't know why anyone is looking for complete historical accuracy in movies like this.

I can understand if you're looking at more recent history like Malcolm X or MLK or JFK or Watergate or The Vietnam War or something like that.... But 99% of the viewing audience won't know what any of you lot are talking about ... They don't care about the historical accuracy of the type of armor any of them are wearing or what troop formations they're forming or anything like that. They just want an immersive and captivating story and viewing experience. Do they look cool? Do they remind people of what they THINK ancient Romans dressed like?

Shoot, Denzel is too dark to have played Malcolm X and not skinny enough... But he pulled out a great performance as El Hajj Malik El Shabazz.

You can have a cool looking immersive and captivating story while also being rather historically accurate.
I would also argue it is more important to be historically accurate when the vast majority of the audience has no knowledge on the subject. Otherwise people end up thinking certain portrayals or events actually did happen as shown/are accurate, which does a disservice to the people from the place and the history.

 

[Come On Tars]

Scott’s movies are at least still visually incredible so there’s that.

 

[DeafTourette]

the biggest crime these movies make is the continual spreading of misinformation regarding history. Most people don't know that not only are Scott's films grossly inaccurate but also almost always trying to push modern day narratives or outright falsehoods. Scott doesnt' respect history.

They're not historical documentaries! The story is fiction and it's not meant to be historically accurate! Gladiator wasn't and it was a huge hit! Easily one of Scott's best!

A wise man once said, "don't go into a movie expecting historical accuracy or realism... You'll come away uninformed"

Even the most historically accurate movies have a level of fiction or juggling around key events in the timeline to make narrative cohesion.

That said, Malcolm X is one of the most historically accurate movies released that isn't from The History Channel.

 

[DeafTourette]

You can have a cool looking immersive and captivating story while also being rather historically accurate.
I would also argue it is more important to be historically accurate when the vast majority of the audience has no knowledge on the subject. Otherwise people end up thinking certain portrayals or events actually did happen as shown/are accurate, which does a disservice to the people from the place and the history.

Ok, for arguments sake, what parts need to be historically accurate for Gladiator 2? We know very little about the story except that a soldier is being forced to fight in gladiatorial arenas, Denzel is a former slave and now rich man, and Quinn is co-ruler.

Do the people need to know that the armor of a gladiator is different from the armor of a soldier? Even though the soldier is being forced to fight in gladiatorial arenas?

What historical accuracy is needed other than the look of Rome in that time period?

 

[DaciaJC]

Look at Ridley's track record. Every historical movie he's made has been woefully inaccurate where they're borderline offensive. Not Braveheart levels of inaccuracy where the film might as well be fantasy, but not far off.

His first film, The Duellists, is quite good, but it's very much an exception to the rule with him.

 

[Sakura]

Ok, for arguments sake, what parts need to be historically accurate for Gladiator 2? We know very little about the story except that a soldier is being forced to fight in gladiatorial arenas, Denzel is a former slave and now rich man, and Quinn is co-ruler.

Do the people need to know that the armor of a gladiator is different from the armor of a soldier? Even though the soldier is being forced to fight in gladiatorial arenas?

What historical accuracy is needed other than the look of Rome in that time period?

I was responding to the apparent general handwaving of historical accuracy for films set in older time periods in your post. You seemed to be implying that as long as it looks cool, then who cares?
Obviously this movie isn't out yet, so I can't really point to all the things in it.

 

[DeafTourette]

I was responding to the apparent general handwaving of historical accuracy for films set in older time periods in your post. You seemed to be implying that as long as it looks cool, then who cares?
Obviously this movie isn't out yet, so I can't really point to all the things in it.

That last sentence is my point... Wait for the movie to come out first before anyone says "this is wank!"

I mean I can't be a hypocrite... I get just as frustrated when the science is not actual science ... Or they're explaining something like the multiverse (many worlds theory) but actually describing higher dimensions or string theory or complete gobbledygook. Or even that there was actual equality in 1950s Mississippi.

 

[IDKFA]

Ok, for arguments sake, what parts need to be historically accurate for Gladiator 2? We know very little about the story except that a soldier is being forced to fight in gladiatorial arenas, Denzel is a former slave and now rich man, and Quinn is co-ruler.

Do the people need to know that the armor of a gladiator is different from the armor of a soldier? Even though the soldier is being forced to fight in gladiatorial arenas?

What historical accuracy is needed other than the look of Rome in that time period?

Yes. They should have the correct armour, clothing, buildings historical figures etc. otherwise it's not history and borderline fantasy.

Why set a film in the Roman Empire if it's not historically accurate?

The only things that should get a pass are the language (would be great, but getting the cast to learn Latin would be a pain) and the story, but only if that story doesn't contradict history.

Otherwise we get offensive nonsense like Braveheart, Gladiator or Vikings.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

Also, not a scholar here, so forgive me if this is a question from a place of ignorance, but like....was it part of accepted combat etiquette at the time to fucking lob your sword at your opponent like you would a remote to your bro on the other side of the room?

That just sounds ill conceived on multiple levels.

 

[48086]

This is updated for modern audiences?

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Do you like movies about gladiators?

 

[VaultBoy101]

Needs Anya Taylor-Joy to round out the "actors who are just in everything now" list.

 

[Audiophile]

Wish he'd pick up a film camera again, this looks like a TV show. Tack sharp digital just looks wrong for something set 1800yrs ago; trying to get some texture and sort of visual coherency with the original would be nice.

 

[ManaByte]

Paul Mescal vs. Pedro Pascal: A First Look at the Epic ‘Gladiator II’

In Ridley Scott’s sequel, a new generation of warriors clashes in a savage Rome: “It’s pretty gnarly.”

www.vanityfair.com

As Gladiator II picks up her story, decades have passed and Lucius has come of age far away from his mother. While he was still a child, Lucilla sent him to the northern coast of Africa, to a region called Numidia that was (at that point) just outside the reach of the Roman Empire. He never fully understood why, and as he grew stronger, so did his resentment—even if his mother’s reasons had been pure.

As Gladiator II begins, Mescal’s Lucius has a wife and child, and lives a relatively peaceful life with them until conquerors from his homeland begin to encroach. “He’s taken root in a seacoast town in Numidia. He’s a blue-eyed, fair-skinned man with red hair, and he couldn’t be more different from the inhabitants,” Scott says. “It’s one of the last surviving civilizations, as the Romans begin to descend in North Africa and take it all over.”

Leading that charge is Pedro Pascal’s Marcus Acacius, a Roman general said to have trained as a junior officer under Crowe’s character, although he wasn’t seen in the first movie. This is one of the threads the filmmakers created to link the sequel with Maximus. “This movie has an identity that is shaped by his legacy. It wouldn’t make sense for it not to,” says Pascal. He describes Acacius as a fighter who “learned from the best, so of course this code of honor is ingrained into his training and into his existence. But at the end of the day, he’s a different person. And that can’t change who he is. Maximus is Maximus, and that can’t be replicated. That just makes Acacius capable of different things.”

Both men made their trade in brutality, but while Crowe’s warrior was a master of control, Pascal says his character is someone who finds himself carried away by circumstance. “I think that a lot happens before you can stop and question what you’ve done. And then of course there’s no changing it,” he says. “He’s a very, very good general, which can mean a very good killer.” To Lucius, Acacius is a symbol of everything he detests. “The film begins with the raiding party of the Roman fleet, which comes in from the sea and decimates Numidia,” Scott says. “It’s pretty gnarly.”

Lucius, once the grandson of the emperor of Rome, finds himself a prisoner of it. “When you’re a POW in Rome, if you are damaged, you are killed. If you are fit, you’ll get put into some kind of service, as in slavery, or you would go into the arena to die,” the director says. That leads to a twist the filmmaker is willing to reveal now: “The wrinkle is, when he gets to Rome as a prisoner and has a first round in the arena, he sees his mother—to his shock. He doesn’t know whether she’s alive or not. How would he know? You don’t have telephones. There’s no press. And there’s his mother in the royal box looking pretty good after 20 years. And she’s with the general who he came face-to-face with on the wall in Numidia.”

 

[SirKicksalot]

I have a PhD in history so I am the definitive authority in this thread. I'll watch this day one in IMAX.

If you liked the first movie watch Demetrius and the Gladiators (the sequel to The Robe so watch that first). It has awesome arena scenes and the guy playing Caligula is best described as a walking talking nuclear explosion.

 

[violence]

Oh god damnit. The images say it all.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Wish he'd pick up a film camera again, this looks like a TV show. Tack sharp digital just looks wrong for something set 1800yrs ago; trying to get some texture and sort of visual coherency with the original would be nice.

I had the same issue with the latest Mad Max movie. Everything was just too clean.

Will go see this because of Mr Washington but keeping expectations low. Gladiator is one of my favourite movies of all time.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The casual observer might not be conscious of all the effort the the creators put into something, but it still tends to be the difference between disposable fast food junk entertainment of the week and an all-time classic.

Peter Jackson and his team obsessed over the Lord of the Rings production. Craftsmen made all the individual links of chainmail on the armor sets, it wasn't rubber with metallic paint. They all became Tolkien scholars effectively and struggled greatly with every choice they made in the adaptation. They understood the characters deeply. The result is that even though it's not a 1:1 adaptation of the books, the LotR trilogy is held in very high regard by film fans and fans of the source material.

You don't have to do any of that. You can crap out some mediocre garbage and still potentially find an audience and get renewed for season 2. But it will only ever be disposable junk entertainment.

Do casual audiences understand that the songs in LotR hold a lot of meaning and a lot of effort was put in to fit them in? Do casual fans understand all of the lore and history and subtle references? No, generally not, but when you experience all those details, even casual fans are immersed by them, want to learn more, and understand they're watching something special. It elevates the material.

I am strongly against the idea that we should just shrug and consume the next thing with low standards. You can only create something truly great by deeply caring about your work.

Can G2 at least do some post production editing to fix mistakes?

Watching G1 in the theatre, the big chariot fight in the arena had it falling over and a big gas tank could be seen pumping out the smoke and stuff. When the movie ended, all of us were like WTF? Did you guys notice the steel tank?

 

[CGNoire]

I'll give a chance. Any excuse to see Connie Nielsen and Denzel Washington act in anything! Those two are national treasures IMO!

And in that one shot, my goodness! Joseph Quinn really DOES look a bit like RDJ! He was the best thing about Stranger Things season 4.

Yep they had me at Denzel. Connie is awesome too.

 

[Hemingwayoffbase]

I am not entertained.

 

[Rentahamster]

Do the people need to know that the armor of a gladiator is different from the armor of a soldier? Even though the soldier is being forced to fight in gladiatorial arenas?

What historical accuracy is needed other than the look of Rome in that time period?

You have a point, but there is always going to be a spectrum of acceptability within the context of an audience member's ability to suspend their disbelief. People who aren't familiar with the intricacies of ancient Rome might not have an issue, but people who are familiar will have an issue according to how much value they place on historical accuracy within historical fiction. It's where the subjectivity of one's personal preferences and knowledgebase collide with the objectivity of historically accurate facts.

If, for example, Ridley Scott were to make a war movie set during World War II, yet their soldiers are wearing uniforms that have tunics from the World War 1 era and boots from the Vietnam era, while shooting guns that weren't necessarily used by the particular group or class of soldiers depicted, then that might be weird for a large portion of the audience who would notice such things.

 

[Rentahamster]

When is this movie coming out? I'll give it a shot.

 

[violence]

“You will hate me gladiator.”​

 

[winjer]

I get that, but the majority of people watching these movies don't know about the types of armor a gladiator vs a soldier would wear. Thats bordering on the obsessive. As long as things LOOK like the time period, 99% of the audience will accept it. They aren't knowledgeable about the granular details of the period.

These movies aren't for historical scholars.

That is true, but consider that using leather for armor was rare, as it's ineffective. So if ever we see a movie with leather armor, there is a high probability that it's not realistic.
The most common types of armor have been linen or wool, such as linothorax or gambeson, mail armor, that the romans used extensively, and plate armor, such as lorica segmentata. Though this last one was only used for around 300 years.
People don't need to have a degree in Roman history to see those armors look like complete trash.

But the thing is, there reason not to use accurate armor. Leather armor or mail armor will have similar costs. For a movie, it's not even needed to be riveted mail, making it even cheaper.
And if they just want something stylish, they could have just used lorica musculata. This was used mostly for parades and such, but it's something a high ranking officer would use. And it looks much better than brown/black leather.
This production of Gladiator 2, just looks too amateurish. It's plainly obvious that the director, the producers and the costume department don't give a flying fuck about what they are doing.

 

[EviLore]

That is true, but consider that using leather for armor was rare, as it's ineffective. So if ever we see a movie with leather armor, there is a high probability that it's not realistic.
The most common types of armor have been linen or wool, such as linothorax or gambeson, mail armor, that the romans used extensively, and plate armor, such as lorica segmentata. Though this last one was only used for around 300 years.
People don't need to have a degree in Roman history to see those armors look like complete trash.

But the thing is, there reason not to use accurate armor. Leather armor or mail armor will have similar costs. For a movie, it's not even needed to be riveted mail, making it even cheaper.
And if they just want something stylish, they could have just used lorica musculata. This was used mostly for parades and such, but it's something a high ranking officer would use. And it looks much better than brown/black leather.
This production of Gladiator 2, just looks too amateurish. It's plainly obvious that the director, the producers and the costume department don't give a flying fuck about what they are doing.

Meanwhile, the budget is $310 million.

 

[winjer]

Meanwhile, the budget is $310 million.

Really? $310 Million and they can't even be bothered to have accurate equipment. This is one very impressive level of slacking off.
FFS, there are reenactors doing a better job than a major Hollywood production.

 

[AJUMP23]

Really? $310 Million and they can't even be bothered to have accurate equipment. This is one very impressive level of slacking off.
FFS, there are reenactors doing a better job than a major Hollywood production.

well they have to launder 250 mil to all their production companies and other various businesses.

 

[Insane Metal]

Denzel Washington's in this?? I'm in too.

Also, Pedro Pascal looks goofy as fuck in this.

 

[SirKicksalot]

Really? $310 Million and they can't even be bothered to have accurate equipment. This is one very impressive level of slacking off.
FFS, there are reenactors doing a better job than a major Hollywood production.

Why is historical accuracy better than an art style based on classic paintings?
This painting is the inspiration for Gladiator:

Are these movies the only portrayals of ancient Rome? Do they have a duty to be accurate?
Is being true to real life really that important, and if so, were the Romans stupid for making cartoonish art?

Would a movie based on Caesar's own book be realistic if it shows his army killing 430000 Gauls with zero Roman casualties, and then the rest of the Gauls in the area commit suicide?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

As for you guys talking authenticity of gear in movies and such, for me as long as it’s close enough it’s fine. It does look funny if you really notice it or do a post movie mistakes check and people grill a film. But as long as it’s close it’s good.

When people point out stuff like… hey that guy can’t use that gun because it wasnt invented till 5 years later. You can tell because the colour of the handle is a different shade of grey…. Ok the viewer might be right. But who cares.

You shouldn’t put too much into authenticity for Hollywood anyway because even national geographic and documentaries are faked and edited to hell to create a narrative. And these shows are supposed to be as real as it gets.

 

[Madserb2023]

Rarely anything set during the Roman period is accurate from buildings that didn't exist at the same time to not having date accurate clothing. You always get something set in 200 AD but the armor will be from 300 years earlier because the earlier Roman Centurian just looks cooler. As long its not like a drama I watched where half of London in 1850 appeared to be Chinese then it's fine. As long as it is relatively accurate I don't mind.

 

[winjer]

Why is historical accuracy better than an art style based on classic paintings?
This painting is the inspiration for Gladiator:

Are these movies the only portrayals of ancient Rome? Do they have a duty to be accurate?
Is being true to real life really that important, and if so, were the Romans stupid for making cartoonish art?

Would a movie based on Caesar's own book be realistic if it shows his army killing 430000 Gauls with zero Roman casualties, and then the rest of the Gauls in the area commit suicide?

That portraying a Murmillo looking at the audience for the decision to kill or spare, is as realistic as anyone in the XIX could portray a roman gladiator.
There is a lot of effort and art in that painting. Something that is very lacking in this Ridley Scott movie.

The rest of your questions are silly. As if being realistic in this movie in any way would contradict some high level artistic vision.
This movie is just being made by incompetent people, with no appreciation for art or realism, to to a cash grab on an unneeded sequel, to a popular movie from 2 decades ago.
The reality of matters, is that they are making this movie for the money, not for the art, nor the history.

 

[nkarafo]

Wait, what character Denzel is supposed to be?

Edit: Already answered.