Talk:Gladiator (2000 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles Gladiator (2000 film) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

Are we sure that Gaius & Gracchus are based on the Gracchi? They don't really have anything in common, other than being reformers. The Gracchi didn't work together (their careers were 10 years apart), and they certainly weren't looking to increase the power of the Senate--quite the opposite. And of course, struggle against the autocracy of monarchy would be completely alien to the Brothers Gracchi. Watching the film, I rather more got the impression that Gaius was a pretty faceless minor character & Gracchus was lifted pretty directly from the character of the same name in Spartacus, like the gladiatorial motif itself.

In fact, I think the article should acknowledge these fairly major debts it owes to Spartacus, and the larger debt it owes to The Fall of the Roman Empire.

Minor trivia note: Gracchus in Spartacus was played by the actor who had previously played the title role in I, Claudius 25 years earlier. Gracchus in Gladiator, on the other hand, was played by the actor who had previously played the title role in I, Claudius 25 years earlier.

If no one has any objection, I'll incorporate my changes into the article in 72 hours. Binabik80 04:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm going to go ahead and change the article now. Binabik80 01:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Trivia

The entire trivia section is copied word for word from the IMDB site's trivia for Gladiator. Kaiser Matias 23:33 23 June 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticized CGI background

The article fails to discuss why the CGI backdrop shown in the article is often criticized. Is it because it is unrealistic in the sense that Rome didn't look like that; or that the CGI was just bad?

This brings up another point: there is no "critical response" section of the article. Highly influential film critic Roger Ebert was one of the only powerful people to dislike the film, and in his review he speaks of the murky look of the film. So it's that the CGI isn't good, in response to your question. I would agree; it's quite muddy. —qrc 01:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

I'm a newbie, so I'm not sure how to rephrase it, but The quick death of Commodus and the supposed return of republicanism to Rome at the end of the film is entirely fictional, as is the character of the noble senator Gracchus (played by Derek Jacobi) who is apparently to lead the new regime. and David Franzoni chose not to note at the end of the film that Rome did not, in fact, become a republic again, because he thought most audiences would already know that. appear to conflict... according to the film, does Rome become a republic or not? The trivia entry suggests that in the film, it doesn't - it just isn't explicitly stated because the writer assumed people would "know" - but the earlier sections says that, in showing a return to republicanism, it is historically inaccurate. Tyrhinis 15:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't really get what you're saying. I think Franzoni meant that in history, Rome didn't become a republic again. What I see is that at the end of the movie, Rome becomes a republic once more, but this is entirely fictional; however, Franzoni neglected to say that this was entirely fictional at the end of the film. Right...--Codenamecuckoo 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Rome doesn't become a republic at the end of the film; it's open-ended. As fas as I can remember it even ends with a caption saying the republic was never restored. Berry2K 02:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm Scream?

In the opening battle, there are occasions where a Wilhelm scream may have been inserted, including a Roman sergeant (?) calling on archers to loose (timecode 9:09 from title, 1:56 from chapter 2 start). Could someone confirm this please, and then update or give notice to update the page 'List of films using the Wilhelm scream' please? Sentinel75 09:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Just a note - I have removed the quotes section and added a link to the Wikiquotes page for this film. Makes more sense and reduces the length of this (already rather long) article... — QuantumEleven | (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I removed

The following section because it was original research. If this can be sourced, the information should be included in the Influences section. The text is reproduced below for those interested. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Themes

There are many important themes throughout the entire movie; however, the most significant theme is that heroic virtues end up winning in the end. Maximus loses everything sacred to him and falls into a low point of despair. Eventually, he must work his way up the ladder by fighting as a gladiator. This plays to the theme because through his strong virtues, he ends up gaining everything he once lost. By maintaining one's honor and using physical and mental skills, it is possible to conquer any task or problem in life.

[edit] Link change

I changed the link in the first plot paragraph that pointed to "Senate" so that it points to the page "Roman_Senate" instead. Aurelius wanted Maximus to give power back to the Roman senate specifically, not some conceptual senate in general. And since a page exists for the Roman senate, it made a lot more sense to have that specific link point to the Roman page. - Harperska 03:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legionary / Legionnaire

Soldiers of the legions are referred to throughout as legionaires, whereas the correct English term is legionary. [emphasis added]

Is this true? After looking up "legionary" and "legionnaire" in both Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary, I find they both claim that either word is acceptable in English for describing a soldier in an ancient Roman legion. —Gabbe 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, then the usage in the movie is not wrong, since the movie is in English and not Latin. Thoughts? —TheMuuj Talk 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
From what I know, the correct word is "legionary." - JNighthawk 03:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

They were called Legionary. Legionaire is a modern French thing. Gelston 10:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Merriam Webster legionary refers the reader to legionnaire, "a member of a legion" The other dictionaries I checked (Dictionary.com and Chambers) seem to prefer legionary for the Roman soldier, and legionnaire for soldiers of the Foreign Legion and members of the American Legion, but does not disparage the use of the latter for the Romans (legionnaire: a member of a legion). So not incorrect, but possibly less than optimal. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

Did a copy-paste move to the previously redirect page Gladiator (200 film), in light of the recent creation of Gladiator (1992 film)--SweetNeo85 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical simalarity

I have noticed that the opening battle sequence in Germania is very similar to Julius Caesar's final attack in his great victory at Alesia in Gaul. He bombards the enemy with a shower of arrows, flaming projecticles and other nasties; mounts a classic frontal infantry assault; and at the same time, charges in with cavalry to scatter the enemy and send them into chaos. I saw a dramatization of it on the Discovery Channel and read about it in the Alessia article here and found this an uncanny coincidence. I just thought I'd mention it. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos on the plot synopsis

It's gotta be the best movies plot synopsis I've read on WP. So many of them go on and on, are essentially scene by scene reconstructions, this was a great summary. Should be noted as an example for other editors in the movie articles. Anchoress 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is up with the historical deviations part, the reason why there are so many inaccuracies was because the film was made to fit today's world. If we called the Colloseum Flavian Amphitheatre people wouldnt get it. If we called the guy a Aragonian or Castillian, people wouldnt understand it thats why we call him a Spaniard.

[edit] Best Film Of All Time

Guys I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but I really have to say that this is my all time favourite film, the music is enchanting, the battles are bloody, the story line touching, I think this film will go down in history as one of the best films of all time.

Can someone please tell me the language of the strange music sung by the woman, 'Hun na Sharon'

Is it Latin?

Thank You!S Seagal 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any lyrics of "Hun na Sharon" online, but the title doesn't sound Latin to me (who has had 5 years of high school Latin). -mrbartjens 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add a Historical Inaccuracies Section

In the lead it is written that historians criticized the film for it's historical inaccuracies. Later in the Trivia section there is mention of how the Romans never used stirrups though they appear in the movie. Looks like this section almost has to exist. What are the other historical inaccuracies in Gladiator? -BiancaOfHell 04:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improve Production Section

- add more detail on the replica Colosseum. It was a combo of CGI effects and actual architecture. Describe in some detail. - How epic was the entire production? How does it compare to Ben-hur and other massive productions. Describe in some detail. -BiancaOfHell 05:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In trivia there is a fact about the area used to shoot the Germania battle scene, and how it's been used hence. Could be incorporated into Production section. As well, an overall lead section about comparable Productions would be great.-BiancaOfHell 08:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed?

No one here speaks German? We have to cite translations now? 72.144.103.202 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Google Translate comes up with "You are verfluchte dogs" when translated from german to english. But how do we know that "Ihr seid verfluchte Hunde." is actually the right German that was spoken in the movie? It seems good, just that original research is what needs to be cited most.-BiancaOfHell 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I see. So we do have to cite translations. Good to know. 72.144.103.202 00:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm nitpicking because I want to see this article eventually become a featured article. It's good enough that the information is there, but now a proof of some sort would help.-BiancaOfHell 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Watching the movie is not original research. Don't be intellectually dishonest. (And that from someone who can't translate the words anyway!) 72.144.60.229 09:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Could this be considered reliable? Gladiator screenplay transcript Chickenmonkey 10:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps Maximus was slightly based upon Roman Emperor Magnus Maximus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Maximus

This is speculation on my part, as I have no knowledge of the writer's thoughts. Furthermore, Magnus Maximus is not from the correct time periord, but neither was Cincinattus. But keep in mind that Gladiator was a fictional account.

There is some debate amongst researchers as to Magnus Maximus' origin (http://solitaire2.bravehost.com/genealogies/mm_lineage.htm). It is unclear as to if he had a legitimate claim to be emperor. In the Welsh Legend linked in the Wikipedia Article above, (http://freespace.virgin.net/r.cadwalader/macsen.htm)he was already an emperor, but I think more likely a Senator, seeking a bride he dreampt about, his messengers finding her in Brittian. He left Rome and was gone for a long enough period of time that another man was made emperor. He was incensed by this and eventually retook Rome. Outside the legend, he is commonly known as of Spanish birth.

In the Movie, Maxiumus was a Spaniard, and he did have his claim to the Emperorship taken from him, and of course, his name was Maximus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Linuxcpa (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Historical accuracy of armor

I saw a few of the characters in the movie using armor composed partly of chain mail. My understanding is that chain mail wasn't invented until the Middle Ages. Is this correct? 24.113.82.222 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on mail dates the invention to the first millenium B.C., and the article at Lorica_hamata describes its adoption by Rome, possibly acquired through contact with the Celts. zadignose 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespearean influence removed pending verifiable sources

I'm sorry to have to revert an interesting theory connecting the film to Shakespearean drama. However, the recently added section comparing this film to Shakespeare read like an essay, lacking external sources to indicate that any creative person was directly inspired by tragedies such as King Lear, or that any published critic drew a parallel between Gladiator and the works of Shakespeare. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zadignose (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image

It would be better to add this image to the mainpage. Morris Munroe 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation tag about Cincinnatus

Would any of these sources work for "...and Cincinnatus (the savior of Rome who wished nothing more than to return to his farm).":

If so, the last one could possibly be used for the trivia statement "The lead character Maximus, played by Russell Crowe in the movie Gladiator, was apparently loosely modeled on Cincinnatus." on the Cincinnatus article. --Nehrams2020 08:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poisoned Stiletto?

Recently this text was added: "Maximus appears sluggish and visually impaired during the fight which suggests the stiletto may have been laced with poison."

I admit I don't remember it clearly, but can't the fact that he's sluggish and visually impaired simply indicate that he's been critically wounded? Is there strong evidence to support the idea that the dagger was poisoned, or that this implication was intentional? Let's find some support for this idea, or strike it out of the article. It's not necessary to cover every detail of the movie's plot in any case, so we certainly shouldn't include something doubtful. That he was stabbed and ultimately died is important, whether poison "may have" been involved is unnecessary conjecture. zadignose 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there's no evidence that he was poisoned. Commodus probably stabbed him in a lung which would cause a slow, painful death. Note the way Maximus gasps for air just after it happens. Tommyt 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of gladius by gladiators

Both the article on gladius and gladiator indicate that the gladius was used by gladiators (or at least by "some gladiators"), and in fact the name gladiator is derived from the word gladius. Therefore, I removed the following until this can be definitely established as an "inaccuracy:"

  • In the movie, the primary weapon of the gladiator is depicted as the gladius. This is incorrect - only the Roman army was allowed use of the gladius. It is more likely that the gladiators would have used weapons from their homelands (i.e. the fallcuta for Maximus, who is a Spaniard).

zadignose 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched for a source for it online yesterday and couldn't find anything on it. --Nehrams2020 00:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Were Maximus' wife and son crucified or hanged?

I know this is morbid, but if the article makes mention of the way they are killed, it should be correct. As of now it says they are crucified, but to me it looked more like they are hanged. Should we change this? --Tracerbullet11 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Commodus later tells Maximus "your son cried like a girl when they nailed him to the cross". Cop 633 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Further evidence, when he kisses his wife's feet, the bodies weren't swinging as if they were hanging from nooses (you may remember there was a considerable breeze blowing...). They also may not have used full crosses, but just the crossbars. Bleah, how gruesome! Tommyt 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, thanks for clarifying this. So we can leave it like that.--Tracerbullet11 08:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Iberia"

The article states that one of the historic deviations is the calling of him by the name of 'Spaniard' and the article claims that the land was called Iberia. This is incorrect. The Greeks called the land Iberia, while the Romans (Latin) called the area Hispania. --Arithmia 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I would argue that there's no real "historical deviation" in modernizing the name Hispania by referring to it as "Spain." The film is entirely in modern language, almost entirely modern English, it's designed to communicate simply and clearly to its modern English speaking audience. Using the word "Spain" does not depend upon whether Spain was united as a nation at the time the film was set, but it is the simplest modern English word to refer to the geographic region. As I will argue below, many of the "historical deviations" that depend on language or ethnicity are misplaced, and should be removed from the article. zadignose 09:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's my point. --Arithmia 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] home releases

Just wondering if there's any thoughts on a section for DVD and VHS releases, dates and countries as well as special edition - I have a collectors edition VHS with book and soundtrack with additional footage, rare for VHS I would think. Not sure of the details of it but will try and add it soon, otherwise someone else might know about it. Peter 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be could, it's interesting to know about the different versions.Cop 633 01:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much detail for a summary

It seems our plot summary is constantly expanding, but I'm not convinced that the added details benefit the article. Long passages and detailed description of events are not necessary, and may be excessive. For example this text:

"Upon being introduced to Commodus after a gladiatorial contest, he reveals his true identity to the emperor."

has become this:

"In his first event, he skilfully leads a band of other gladiators to defeat an opposing force of chariots and archers, quickly earning the crowd's praise through his resourcefulness and heroics in the fighting. Upon being introduced to Commodus in the arena after the gladiatorial contest, he reveals his true identity to the stunned emperor, who tries to have Maximus executed on the spot, but the crowd votes for him to live and so Commodus begrudgingly backs down."

and this text:

"Commodus, however, learns of this plot and arrests Maximus on the eve of his coup. Cicero, Hagen and Proximo are killed."

has become this:

"Commodus, however, suspects his sister of betrayal and by indirectly threatening her young son manipulates her into revealing the plot. During Maximus' attempted escape, Commodus' guards attack Proximo's gladiator school, and Hagen and Proximo are killed in the resulting fight, whilst Juba and the survivors are imprisoned. Maximus makes it to the city walls, but Cicero (who was waiting for him with horses) is suddenly killed by archers and Maximus is arrested by the guards."

There was a certain economy of language in the earlier summary, which has been lost, and I'm not sure what we've gained. zadignose 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I made those edits you referred to. I thought it was odd that the first battle in the Colosseum got one mention at the start of a sentence and the prison battle got only one quick mention (both being important plot points), yet Tigris's fight got almost a whole paragraph and it doesn't really advance the plot nearly as much as the first two do. How important a problem do you think this is? What do you want to do about it? Kohran 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

After the expansion of the article with the CCOTW, I have also expanded some sections, added some, and included some more inline sources. I will probably nominate this for GAC tomorrow, but I am wondering if there is anything that needs to be fixed before doing so. If I don't get any feedback, then I'll just go ahead and nominate it. If the reviewer puts it on hold, I'll be able to fix any problems relatively quickly. --Nehrams2020 07:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the article, so we'll see how it goes. Hopefully it doesn't take too long with the backlog. --Nehrams2020 07:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed it but let's another reviewer do so. This is my opinion.
  • 1- I found its lead and structure well. It has also wikified and described the issue well. Let's a native English speaker tell us about its lingual aspects.
  • 2- I prefer to add some more references in sections which may controversial like Gladiator (2000 film)#historical. Because there is written in the lead "it has criticized by historians" and reader expects to see some of them. However I accept that It seems factually accurate and verifiable.
  • 3- Of course, it is broad in its coverage.
  • 4- It follows the neutral point of view policy. I think the neutrality of this issue is not controversial and article shows different POV.
  • 5- I checked the 100 later changes[1] and found it stable.
  • 6- There's 7 images which have fair use tag. Although there is written "there isn't any public domain picture" but using too many fair use images doesn't look good even if there are good reasons for fair use. I propose to remove the 2 last pictures. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll get to fixing these in a couple days (I'm currently going home for Spring Break!). As for the images, this is a similar amount to other GAs and some film FAs. If necessary, I could possibly remove the images of the people in the history section. --Nehrams2020 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Deviations, Language, Ethicity

It seems that many of the "Historical Deviations" listed in the article are out of place. As we all know, the Romans didn't speak modern English, but this is not listed as a "historical deviation" simply because we accept the theatrical conceit that the film is made for modern English speakers, and the language of the audience is used. So why should it be considered a historical deviation when the German is similarly modernized, or Hispania is modernized as "Spain?" There is no claim that the actors in the film will speak anything close to the language used by the Romans, and it's reasonable to accept these as part of the nature of a film set in a foreign land in a historical time.

Similarly, it seems wrong to judge the supposed ethnic appearance of the actors. It's difficult to make a reasonable judgement of what a fictional character "would have looked like." For one thing, we can't presume ethnic homgeneity in any culture, in any part of the world, at any time. For another, in theater and film, it has always been common to cast actors to play someone of another culture, period, ethnic group, etc. Casting Al Pacino to play a Cuban in Scarface, or Eli Wallach to play a Mexican in The Good The Bad And The Ugly wasn't a "historical deviation," but just a part of the theatricality of film. We don't expect the casting directors to hire only short actors because the average Roman was shorter than the average modern Western man. We don't demand that they examine Roman statues and only employe actors with a proper "Roman nose." There's a flexibility in casting, and no claim that the actors precisely resemble historical figures. zadignose 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. I already deleted one passage which complained that Russell Crowe and Richard Harris aren't ethnically Italian. The point about Juba being black when the Numidians were not is borderline, but since 'Numidian' could simply mean 'a person from Numidia' rather than 'an ethnic Numidian', this should probably go too. Cop 633 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
When Cop 633 was working on the section, I had already deleted the bottom two points, but resulted in an edit conflict with you on that, so I left the bottom one in since you were editing it. So should some of these deviations be removed? There are other inaccuracies that could replace them, or we could already have enough. I don't think we want that section going too long and mention every single inaccuracy. What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the point about the German language and Spain should definitely go, and Numidia is borderline. I would say remove all three and see if anyone cares. Cop 633 19:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the Spain one is alright as it describes it fairly well, but the German one and Numidia could probably be removed. --Nehrams2020 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

Agreement with user Sa.Vakilian; well written, broad in coverage, well cited. My main suggestion would be further referencing in the historical section. Otherwise, a definite Good article. Qjuad 15:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/a/Talk%7EGladiator_%282000_film%29_59f7.html"