Support NeoGAF

[IDKFA]

Eh it’s not a Napoleon disaster.

If you're a student of history then Gladiator 2 is an abomination. It's far, far more inaccurate than Napoleon and for me, it's up there with Braveheart as one of the most woefully inaccurate films ever made.

A counterweight trebuchet being used in the opening siege, which was a medieval invention.

People sat at a café drinking a hot beverage and reading the newspaper! That's like making a film about 1920s France and adding an internet café!

The Romans invading Numida, but the Romans took this region hundreds of years before the era the film is set in.

Sharks in the colosseum! Sharks! Somebody riding a Rhino like it's a damn horse! What were they thinking?!

Macrinus was never a slave and didn't train Gladiators.

That's just the tip of the iceberg of crimes against history committed by this film. I might actually ignore the historical butchering if the film had a soul, but it was as shallow as a puddle. It didn't have the passion or character of the first film, which I should add although very inaccurate, wasn't anywhere near as inaccurate as this garbage. Like Braveheart, this movie should be considered fantasy, because it is nowhere near historical.

 

[ManaByte]

If you're a student of history then Gladiator 2 is an abomination. It's far, far more inaccurate than Napoleon and for me, it's up there with Braveheart as one of the most woefully inaccurate films ever made.

A counterweight trebuchet being used in the opening siege, which was a medieval invention.

People sat at a café drinking a hot beverage and reading the newspaper! That's like making a film about 1920s France and adding an internet café!

The Romans invading Numida, but the Romans took this region hundreds of years before the era the film is set in.

Sharks in the colosseum! Sharks! Somebody riding a Rhino like it's a damn horse! What were they thinking?!

Macrinus was never a slave and didn't train Gladiators.

That's just the tip of the iceberg of crimes against history committed by this film. I might actually ignore the historical butchering if the film had a soul, but it was as shallow as a puddle. It didn't have the passion or character of the first film, which I should add although very inaccurate, wasn't anywhere near as inaccurate as this garbage. Like Braveheart, this movie should be considered fantasy, because it is nowhere near historical.

Yea but Napoleon is a boring slog.

 

[Ulysses 31]

If you're a student of history then Gladiator 2 is an abomination. It's far, far more inaccurate than Napoleon and for me, it's up there with Braveheart as one of the most woefully inaccurate films ever made.

A counterweight trebuchet being used in the opening siege, which was a medieval invention.

People sat at a café drinking a hot beverage and reading the newspaper! That's like making a film about 1920s France and adding an internet café!

The Romans invading Numida, but the Romans took this region hundreds of years before the era the film is set in.

Sharks in the colosseum! Sharks! Somebody riding a Rhino like it's a damn horse! What were they thinking?!

Macrinus was never a slave and didn't train Gladiators.

That's just the tip of the iceberg of crimes against history committed by this film. I might actually ignore the historical butchering if the film had a soul, but it was as shallow as a puddle. It didn't have the passion or character of the first film, which I should add although very inaccurate, wasn't anywhere near as inaccurate as this garbage. Like Braveheart, this movie should be considered fantasy, because it is nowhere near historical.

 

[SJRB]

Just finished it. Pardon the unhinged rant but I'm kinda shocked how bad this was.

The ending is literally a 10 second sequence from the first movie including the Now We Are Free music doing some insanely heavy lifting, and it's the only moment that evokes any kind of emotion because it makes you think of Maximus and his journey. Imagine sending your character off by making the viewer think of another character - what the fuck was Ridley thinking? Disgraceful.

Main character was bad (both the actor who has zero charisma but story-wise as well because he has nothing to work with), Pedro Pascal and his entire plot thread was just wasted, the twin emperors had zero introduction or development besides "the people of Rome are tired of the tyrants". Denzel's character gets an insane amount of screentime and even though I appreciate the "twist" and the faux intricacies of Roman politics it ultimately goes nowhere and gets resolved in like 15 minutes. Plus him basically doing Alonzo from Training Day was so bizarre compared to the other actors and vibe of the movie.

3/10. Absolutely dreadful for anyone who grew up with the first Gladiator and maybe even had it shape his life if ever so slightly. Perhaps a director's cut will save this like it did Kingdom of Heaven because this movie is a mess. I can't believe the first Gladiator and this one are done by the same director.

Also - whoever did the GLAD II ATOR thing in the title screen should be banned from moviemaking for life.

 

[IDKFA]

Yea but Napoleon is a boring slog.

I'll give you that. Napoleon was boring AF. Ridley Scott is on an awful run at the moment.

 

[AJUMP23]

I'll give you that. Napoleon was boring AF. Ridley Scott is on an awful run at the moment.

Ya napoleon focused on the wrong thing. Women.

 

[Hookshot]

The truth about William Wallace aka Braveheart and the film.



about 4 mins in.

 

[DeafTourette]

Most people aren't history buffs... Especially ancient Roman or Greek history... I know my cousin liked it... Other people in this thread liked it... I MIGHT like it. Depends.

 

[Kacho]

Napoleon was boring AF. Ridley Scott is on an awful run at the moment.

Agreed on both points. Napoleon should have been amazing but it wasn't. It wasn't even remotely entertaining.

Ridley Scott seems to be speed running movies he always wanted to do before he goes senile or dies. Unfortunately he isn't putting in the time or effort they deserve.

I did like The Last Duel tho. That was cleverly done with the different view points.

 

[GnomeChimpsky]

Didn't Ridley Scott say he was the master of casting recently? The main character looks like some generic gymbro streamer, I kept thinking I was watching Jake Paul or something. Plus he kept making weird faces and awkward line deliveries.
They did make me genuinely hate the retarded twin emperors though, I'll give them that. Although there were almost no stakes involved because you knew Jake Paul wouldn't die.

 

[IDKFA]

Most people aren't history buffs... Especially ancient Roman or Greek history... I know my cousin liked it... Other people in this thread liked it... I MIGHT like it. Depends.

And there is the problem. A majority of people don't have an interest in history, meaning their only interaction with the subject comes from films, TV or books.

When they see a historical film or TV show, they're not going to start researching the historical accuracy. A majority will believe what they're shown is a realistic depiction of historical events.

That's a problem when the film/show is woefully inaccurate as it paints a false view of historical figures and events.

 

[Sulaco]

People sat at a café drinking a hot beverage and reading the newspaper!

My brain did a funny turn for that scene. Lol

 

[IntentionalPun]

Watched this last night and enjoyed it. Really couldn’t care less about historical inaccuracies, it’s over the top fiction, like all of Scott’s films.

 

[SJRB]

My brain did a funny turn for that scene. Lol

Such a bizarre moment in a movie filled with bizarre moments.

Peak Ridley “I don’t give a shit about historical accuracy” Scott.

 

[DeafTourette]

And there is the problem. A majority of people don't have an interest in history, meaning their only interaction with the subject comes from films, TV or books.

When they see a historical film or TV show, they're not going to start researching the historical accuracy. A majority will believe what they're shown is a realistic depiction of historical events.

That's a problem when the film/show is woefully inaccurate as it paints a false view of historical figures and events.

They're movies meant to entertain... Does historical accuracy help? Sure. But it isn't necessary. Shoot, almost every Dr. King movie has historical inaccuracies to help make it more dramatic because the actual sequence of events is boring for a movie.

Historical accuracy is for documentaries. Movies are entertainment. With or without accuracy, it still has to have a good story that entertains.

 

[IDKFA]

They're movies meant to entertain... Does historical accuracy help? Sure. But it isn't necessary. Shoot, almost every Dr. King movie has historical inaccuracies to help make it more dramatic because the actual sequence of events is boring for a movie.

Historical accuracy is for documentaries. Movies are entertainment. With or without accuracy, it still has to have a good story that entertains.

I'll have to disagree here. Historical accuracy and entertainment are not mutually exclusive. In fact, integrating accurate details can often enhance a story's emotional impact, authenticity, and depth, making it more compelling.

Although I understand some aspects need to be dramatised (for example, conversations between people that we don't have a record of), everything else should be as accurate as possible.

Misrepresenting the past might entertain in the short term, but it can also create misunderstandings and diminish the significance of real events and people. Not to mention it's disrespectful to the people who are being portrayed incorrectly.

Balancing entertainment with accuracy is a challenge, but it is not impossible. I'd actually argue that a vast majority of historical movies would be far more entertaining if they were historically accurate.