They had technology; had actual cities. They weren't living like animals as Hollywood loves to depict.https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/ff771954.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/ff771954.jpg
It's a movie
yes and that dont make it immune to criticisms of treating other cultures like savagesWhat makes Gladiator 2 the breaking point of things being butchered? Even movies based on real people are heavily butchered.
considering ridley scots history of racism its a extra valid point to discuss
yes and that dont make it immune to criticisms of treating other cultures like savages
considering ridley scots history of racism its a extra valid point to discuss
Of all the targets, we're talking him being racist against....the Germans?and the french
look up scotts statements while he was making exodus gods and monstersYou mean God's and Kings. Didn't that movie also suck?
look up scotts statements while he was making exodus gods and monsters
It's a movie, ya doofus.
Next you'll be bashing Superman because humans can't fly.
Why would that be an issue? Superman isn't a human.Keep it in the general
considering ridley scots history of racism its a extra valid point to discussIf I remember right, weren't you saying he was racist against Napoleon or something?
"inaccuracy 1: Denzel Washington was not alive during the Roman empire"
There's a Gladiator 2?
Seeing as the first Gladiator is quite bad and ahistorical it should be no surprise the sequel is too, along with all his movies that are based on actual events.Were you not entertained?
It's a fictional story based in a historical era. I don't see anything wrong with taking liberties.
It's a movie, ya doofus.
Next you'll be bashing Superman because humans can't fly.
Also i will say that I'm somewhat confused by how bothered people are by historical inaccuracies in Gladiator 2. It always struck me as a kind of double standard how lenient people were on G1. A lot of the shit that film pulls was very similar to shit that everyone was rightly upset about in Braveheart.Gladiator 1 is a good movie and has a somewhat coherent vision that can at least pass for the majority of people that don't think too hard about it. Gladiator 2 is not very good and anyone over the age of 8 can figure out that flooding a colosseum and filling it with sharks is nonsense.
Gladiator 2 is not very good and anyone over the age of 8 can figure out that flooding a colosseum and filling it with sharks is nonsense.We do have historical records that indicate that the Flavian Amphitheater was used on two occasions for staged naval battles. The big issue concerning the movie is that the emperor Domitian constructed the series of walls and tunnels underneath the arena that we see today, which would have prevented any further naumachiae from occurring, and that happened a bit more than a hundred years before the film takes place.
how do you know, were you there?
I was. And when the Romans flooded the Colosseum, they filled the water with ill-tempered mutant sea bass.Did someone say "RELEASE THE KRAKEN!"?
Did someone say "RELEASE THE KRAKEN!"?Yeah.
Did someone say "RELEASE THE KRAKEN!"?
No, the Emperor wanted to hold the world ransom for 1 million dnri. If he didn't get it, he'd release the kraken.
Did he put lasers on the sharks heads?
I was. And when the Romans flooded the Colosseum, they filled the water with ill-tempered mutant sea bass.!!!
It's pretty bad but, so was Gladiator. Sometimes I wonder why Hollywood doesn't do the barest of research. The Germanic tribes of that era were not savage in the slightest and had actual armies. Hell even during the Republic era Gaul and Germany were not savage unwashed stone age people.The Germanic tribe was also chanting things in African when they reused the chant from Zulu
They had technology; had actual cities. They weren't living like animals as Hollywood loves to depict.
We do have historical records that indicate that the Flavian Amphitheater was used on two occasions for staged naval battles. The big issue concerning the movie is that the emperor Domitian constructed the series of walls and tunnels underneath the arena that we see today, which would have prevented any further naumachiae from occurring, and that happened a bit more than a hundred years before the film takes place.I think this is a perfect example of why nobody actually gives a shit about the historical inaccuracies of either movie. Its great that you are either a passionate hobbyist or studied this in school but "umm ackshully naval battles (or naumachiae as the Romans would have said) were possible but the true inaccuracy is that they were not possible during the era depicted! That there were sharks is the immaterial complaint of a nitpicking boor" honestly just makes you sound like a huge condescending nerd that I don't want to listen to.
The sharks are whatever. We don't have any records of them having been used in a naumachia, but there are more important things to get upset about.
I think a lot of you people are just looking too far into this. This is the entire dude's channel. He makes entertaining videos discussing historical movies and shows. He has one about the first Gladiator as well.
I don't really enjoy that History Buffs guys's channel. The way he talks about the history strikes me as if he doesn't know that much about it, like he doubled checked something from a movie against wikipedia or a pop history book, saw it didn't fit and declared it history unbuffed or whatever he does. I think in the past I've also seen people who comment on history youtubers rate him very low. Like Extra Credits low, but I don't remember too much about that.was he wrong about anything? how do you know he isn't an "actual historian"? what makes someone an "actual historian" to you? you just going on vibes, or what? i just don't understand this criticism.
I've watched a couple of actual historians' take on Gladiator 2 that I enjoyed, though.