Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As a lover of studying lots of history involving military campaigns and the background to them I feel confident in saying Hollywood knows nothing about historical facts. It always seems they've sent some junior staffer to print some nonsense from Wikipedia.
This gets to me especially regarding classical Ancient or medieval history and don't get me started on that pile of crap Braveheart, I could only watch tiny bits of that before blood vessels started popping! I'm normally quite mildmannered but that rubbish makes my blood boil. Grrrr!

Ridley Scott does make historically accurate films - never claimed to have.

Looks like a remake of the first film - with much much worse music - could be forgettable fun.

Knights Tale/Plunket and Maclain are much more knowing

I have fond memories of the original. I saw it in theater on my first date ever, two weeks before I went to prom with the same girl.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Ridley Scott does make historically accurate films - never claimed to have.

I assume to meant "doesn't".

I think there is a major problem with Hollywood, and just culture in general. There is a general disdain for history. Its one thing to make a movie and inadvertantly make a mistake, like how movies in the past used to do. But these days there seems to be deliberate choices to alter history with the intention of deceiving the audience.

With special effects and easy access to experts, it is easier than ever to be historically authentic and still tell a good story. The fact that the filmmakers still fail to meet that threshold is just inexcusable. It's cultural vandalism.

Small history youtube channels with shoestring budgets and passion can absolutely destroy mainstream media for entertainment and education, its just completely unacceptable.

It's only an issue when someone tries to paint their movie as historical in a factual sense rather than a genre one.

A good example is U-571, which totally misrepresents the situation its about.

Less annoying is Pearl Harbor, which isn't a great movie but also never aspired or advertised itself as factual so much as 'inspired by.'

I don't expect Gladiator 2 to be anymore or less historical than the first film, which is commonly cited as an example of the 'Theme Park' vision of Rome which is far far older than modern culture.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Ridley Scott does make historically accurate films - never claimed to have.

I assume to meant "doesn't".

I think there is a major problem with Hollywood, and just culture in general. There is a general disdain for history. Its one thing to make a movie and inadvertantly make a mistake, like how movies in the past used to do. But these days there seems to be deliberate choices to alter history with the intention of deceiving the audience.

Are you trying to say that the Magna Carta wasn't written by a blacksmith that then convinced the nobles to go along with it but was betrayed so it wouldn't be implemented? Pretty basic grade school history right there.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think there is a major problem with Hollywood, and just culture in general. There is a general disdain for history. Its one thing to make a movie and inadvertantly make a mistake, like how movies in the past used to do. But these days there seems to be deliberate choices to alter history with the intention of deceiving the audience.

This isn't a Hollywood thing, nor is it actually a problem.

A story only needs to be historically accurate if it is intended to be an accurate portrayal of historical events. Many stories are just intended to be a cool story, and in that situation historical accuracy is of lesser importance to the needs of the story. And that's been a thing for as long as people have been telling stories... most of the myths and legends we all know today would be very different stories if their creators had been concerned with historical accuracy.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think there is a major problem with Hollywood, and just culture in general. There is a general disdain for history. Its one thing to make a movie and inadvertantly make a mistake, like how movies in the past used to do. But these days there seems to be deliberate choices to alter history with the intention of deceiving the audience.

This isn't a Hollywood thing, nor is it actually a problem.

A story only needs to be historically accurate if it is intended to be an accurate portrayal of historical events. Many stories are just intended to be a cool story, and in that situation historical accuracy is of lesser importance to the needs of the story. And that's been a thing for as long as people have been telling stories... most of the myths and legends we all know today would be very different stories if their creators had been concerned with historical accuracy.

It is a problem when it is crafted, either by design or accidentally, to be deceiving while also being presented as some sort of accurate representation. IE: Netflix's Cleopatra.

At the very least, we owe it to the great people of the past not to horribly misrepresent them unless it is crystal clear that it is a purposeful alteration for story reasons, and then you can only do it if you actually pull it off. This is my problem with Napoleon. Ridly Scott turned one of the most brilliant strategic minds in history into a craven sex crazed manlet while also managing to portray one of the greatest military triumps in history in a spectacularly meh manner.

France should ban Ridly Scott for life for that travesty.

If you're watching movies and expecting them to be documentaries, that honestly sounds like a you problem, rather than a Hollywood problem.

If it were some sort of recent development and Hollywood had previously been a bastion of historical accuracy, then you might have a point. But in a universe where The Pursuit of Happiness, Cool Runnings, and a million different movies about Robin Hood and King Arthur exist, where Elizabeth Taylor was cast as Cleopatra and John Wayne as Genghis Khan... you might be nailing jelly to a tree trying to make an actual issue out of this.

The difference is that in the past people knew movies were just movies and they had proper educations. Today people are sooo dumb. There are people who legitimately think Wakanda is a real place.

And when the Star Trek episode 'The Trouble with Tribbles ' first aired, people wrote to the studio to complain about animal cruelty due to a bunch of tribbles being stuffed in a storage locker. De Forest Kelly used to get fans writing to him asking for samples of the medicines used in the show.

So, again, not a new phenomenon.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Ridley Scott does make historically accurate films - never claimed to have.

I assume to meant "doesn't".

I think there is a major problem with Hollywood, and just culture in general. There is a general disdain for history. Its one thing to make a movie and inadvertantly make a mistake, like how movies in the past used to do. But these days there seems to be deliberate choices to alter history with the intention of deceiving the audience.

With special effects and easy access to experts, it is easier than ever to be historically authentic and still tell a good story. The fact that the filmmakers still fail to meet that threshold is just inexcusable. It's cultural vandalism.

Small history youtube channels with shoestring budgets and passion can absolutely destroy mainstream media for entertainment and education, its just completely unacceptable.

Yes sorry I meant doesn't

It depends on what film you are making - Napoleon is a film about a toxic relationship between two people who also happen to be Napoleon and Josephine (its a bit sad that they had to reverse the age difference and have Napolean as the older man). The favourite is very similar although again stuff like not having the Queens husband exist....

I do agree however that they should be historical accurate if possible and often they don;t bother

 insaniak wrote:
If you're watching movies and expecting them to be documentaries, that honestly sounds like a you problem, rather than a Hollywood problem.

If it were some sort of recent development and Hollywood had previously been a bastion of historical accuracy, then you might have a point. But in a universe where The Pursuit of Happiness, Cool Runnings, and a million different movies about Robin Hood and King Arthur exist, where Elizabeth Taylor was cast as Cleopatra and John Wayne as Genghis Khan... you might be nailing jelly to a tree trying to make an actual issue out of this.

it really depends on the movies
like Titanic had a complete fictional story build into a historical event, but the fictional story never really came into conflict with history
they did the same idea for Pearl Harbor but messed up the background

King Arthur messed it up simply by adding a "based on newest historical findings" at the beginning of the movie

Gladiator, while inspired by and the portrayal of the germanic forces being hollywood fantasy and having certain details intentionally portrayed wrong to better fit the expectations of the viewer, fit into the historical context, same as a lot of the 60/70ies movies of that kind

there is a difference between calling the main character Maximus Decimus Meridius, instead of Decimus Meridius Maximus or having a the equivalent of a smartphone there because accuracy for equipment is +/- 2000 years

The issue lies with the fact that history is in fact pretty neet and full of bonkers stories that people wouldn't expect to be real.

Hacksaw Ridge is a really good example IMO because they had to tone down the actual events of Desmond Doss's story because the filmmakers were already worried people wouldn't think it was real.
The meat of the story is still there and you get what happened even if it wasn't a perfect retelling.

Even if filmmakers don't pick real people or specific events to follow, keeping the authenticity if not the accuracy is still the better choice such as with Dunkirk or 1917.
Both films give a good insight into the setting and the people who experience the events of the film even if some historical details are fudged a little bit for plot or character reasons.

This film will be neither of these things.

The issue actually lies with Wizards First Rule. People are Stupid. They will believe a thing is true entirely based off feelings, or desire. People will see this movie, and "feel" its an accurate portrayal of history, and tell others what they have "learned". Without getting into rule breaking territory, it's why almost half of America thinks there are "two sides" to the Nazi ideology, and that Slavery wasn't entirely a bad thing.

People can't be trusted to discern fact from fiction. According to Mississippi's educational standards, they can't be trusted to learn to read either.

 Gert wrote:
Man that looks decisively mediocre.

That trailer is an overlong incoherent mess. Now, it does not necessarily mean that finalized movie is too, but...

I am bit of a weirdo in that I never thought original Gladiator was that great either. So my excitement level for this is big fat zero.

For what it's worth, The History of Everything podcast dude is so hyped he even overlooked the use of bracers.

Sword and Sandals is a genre, as is historical epic, historical drama, historical romance. As such it is more important it adheres to the genre conventions of the story type than to actual history.

I also hate to break this to you all, but Historians aren't always all that historical either. Yeah, I am looking at you Herodotus!


Edit: Navalmacchia!

Backfire wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Man that looks decisively mediocre.

That trailer is an overlong incoherent mess. Now, it does not necessarily mean that finalized movie is too, but...

I am bit of a weirdo in that I never thought original Gladiator was that great either. So my excitement level for this is big fat zero.

I thought I was the only one.

Whether the rest of you like this movie or not, I’m pretty sure it’s going to suck for me.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Backfire wrote:


That trailer is an overlong incoherent mess. Now, it does not necessarily mean that finalized movie is too, but...

I am bit of a weirdo in that I never thought original Gladiator was that great either. So my excitement level for this is big fat zero.

I thought I was the only one.

Cool, a fellow anomaly.

Now when I think of it, I actually can think of very few movies of this genre - "historical epic" or "sword and sandal" or whatever - which I like. I guess Ben-Hur is kinda good. Maybe part of it is me being a history buff and nitpicker, and getting annoyed at inaccuracies "why is Maximus leading his cavalry charge through a forest?" but I think this kind of movies are equivalent of 90s/2000s era CGI blockbusters: directors are so focused on spectacle that creating a plot which makes sense, or dialogue which is not trite, doesn't feel very important.

Trailer 2 :




Still not the least bit excited, personally. I think I'm morbidly interested in how big this will possibly fail.

Some big old memberberry dialogue in this trailer. Not sure if it was in the first, as I was too distracted by the rap music. A forced "I'll have my vengeance" and "In this life or the next" but broken up in different conversations.

Apparently the protagonist is Maximus' son?

So, reviews are coming out and it seems to be…good?

Like, not an instant classic like the original, but a damn good popcorn movie. Might give it a go with suitable expectations set.

If it leads to more Rome based media, I will take it......

 Easy E wrote:
If it leads to more Rome based media, I will take it......

Odds are it would still take someone of Scott's status to for risk averse studios to make more in this vein.

Just been to see it.

It’s bloody terrible. Horrific lead actor, stuff happening because the plot needs it to happen. A total lack of tension and spectacle in the battle scenes.

There is some clever stuff going on Character Plot Wise, so a second watch might improve my opinion. But right now? I’m incredibly disappointed.

It feels like an Asylum Mockbuster version of Gladiator.

The CGI physically hurt me...

You’re not wrong on the Asylum comment.

I did give it a fair shot, but in a world where the original lead to entertaining guff like Roman, Spartacus Fisticuffs and Rudebits and many other “sword and sandal” shows and films? This is a massive step back.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You’re not wrong on the Asylum comment.

I did give it a fair shot, but in a world where the original lead to entertaining guff like Roman, Spartacus Fisticuffs and Rudebits and many other “sword and sandal” shows and films? This is a massive step back.

Kobayashi Maru time...

Which would you rather watch?
A) Gladiator 2
B) 300:Rise of an Empire (the wonderful sequel/prequel to 300)

Neither. They’re both drivel.

Thus, the Kobayashi Maru. The no win scenario.