Talk:Spartacus (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spartacus (film) article.
Article policies
Peer review Spartacus (film) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Spartacus (film) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Spoiler Alert

Does anyone else agree that a "spoiler alert" on this film is unwarranted (it's not a twist-ending thriller or mystery whodunnit).

This, to me, is tantamount to putting a "spoiler alert" on Oliver Stone's JFK to reveal that he was asassinated or on The Passion to reveal HE was hung at the end. -- Zosodada

[edit] Dialogue Issue

By rhetorical I was trying to say that the discussion as a whole was (on one level) a logical argument. Since we can't agree on where the word rhetorical fits in, I'm happy to leave it out.

Regarding this being an "attempted seduction", that seems like a strong interpretation. The scene seems to me more like Crassus feeling out Antoninus to see if there is any interest, not as a full-on attempt to woo Antoninus into bed.

The interpretation that it is a seduction scene is pretty widely held. I agree with you that the discussion involves a "logical" argument, but that does not make it rhetorical. In no way is the discussion as a whole rhetorical. Slrubenstein
Fair enough. I don't feel strongly enough to try to find another way to rephrase this. I do feel the article is improved by quoting the dialogue in question, as it lets the reader interpret what is going on for themself.
It had be be left open to interpretation due to then-current censorship practices. Mkweise
I have no objection to including the dialogue -- and it is true that the scene works through innuendo. But it really is a common interpretation: I just used google to find online reviews and these were the first two:
From TVGuide online: "The restorers took advantage of this opportunity to insert some footage that was considered too suggestive for the film's initial release, a thinly-veiled attempted seduction of Curtis by Olivier."
From Epinions review: "The bloodiest battle scenes were restored as were the scenes of Laurence Olivier doing the infamous homosexual seduction in the baths."
and this was maybe the fourth or fifth review: From Thebigpicturedvd.com: "This attempt at seduction provides Antoninus urgent incentive to flee from Crassus and join the revolt against him." Slrubenstein
The soundtrack to the seduction scene was lost. For the reissue Curtis had to re-dub the lines alongside another actor whose name I've forgotten impersonating Olivier. Anyone happen to remember who? --Lee M
It was Anthony Hopkins. RickK 02:11 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Right. Now how could I forget that? Lee M 01:59, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Snails and olives

I remember dragging the SO to see the full version in London some years ago. I remember the comparison being made between green and black olives. Perhaps there were several version? ExpatEgghead 11:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy?

At present the article says under trhe deading "Historical inaccuracies" - In the opening of the film, Spartacus is shown performing labor on what appears to be a rock quarry. Most slaves in ancient Rome worked in agricultural environments. - If most worked in agircultural environments then by implication some worked in other environment including breaking rocks. Is the author suggesting that slaves weren't used in quaries? I can't see how this can be called an historical inaccuracy. I'm removing it. Jooler 23:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Versions/Plot

I added a section header for "Versions" that seems appropriate. It could use a Plot description, don't you think? I would do it, but film buff that I am, this is one I haven't seen. John 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] other

Now in the Plot Summary they, like, call Sicilians Cicilians. Which happen to be a type of bug or crestacion or wha-ever (it really doesn't matter. Bt I don't want to change because it might have, like, some sort of reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.16.183.162 (talk • contribs)

Because they're not Sicilians. They're Cilicians. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

This article failed the GA noms due to lack of references and wikification. Tarret 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gracchus

Was Gracchus a real historical figure? If not his inclusion in the movie can probably be labled a historical inaccuracy. --YankeeDoodle14 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No, he wasn't real. But the film wasn't trying to be real. And the article points out that he's fictional. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing inaccurcy

I took this out

Spartacus' original escape plan did not involve Cilician pirates, but rather fleeing north to Gaul and heading to Spain to join forces with another Roman rebel, Quintus Sertorius, a partisan of Gaius Marius's still fighting the government instituted by Sulla. It is widely believed that the German and Gallic parts of the army (under their own leaders) wanted to keep fighting the Romans, and that his own men wanted to turn south and loot the Roman countryside further.
  1. The deal with the Cilician Pirates is mentioned in Plutarch's Life of Crassus, 10:1-3. It may not have been the orginal plan - but given that Plutarch also describes the slaves defeating several armies, being clear to escape north over the Alps, and not doing so but going back to southern Italy, we don't know what the slaves' plans were. We don't have any accounts from their perspective after all.
  2. No historical source mentions the desire of Spartacus to join Quintus Sertorius, who was assassinated about the time that the Third Servile War was ongoing
  3. Sulla died before the events here, so it is doubtful that Sertorius was still fighting Sulla's government. Sertorius was in fact trying to avoid being re-conquered by Pompey.
  4. There is no historical account which mentions the "German and Gallic parts" under Crixus specifically "split off" and wanted to stay and keep raiding. This is an interpretation of several mentioned events (including a mention by Plutarch that some of his men wanted to stay and keep raiding), but this is nowhere specifically stated - other interpretations also exist.

Vedexent 22:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "I'm Spartacus"

I've heard that there is a parody of the "I'm Spartacus" scene in the movie In & Out, in which a high school English teacher is revealed to be homosexual, and when he is making a speech (or something) all of the students and parents start shouting out, "I'm gay!" Anyone seen this and can add it to the article? --Kainino 07:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Worth including the 'No, I'm Kirk Douglas' son' heckle?: http://qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=3334

What is the best heckle you've ever seen?

A: Clearly there is no ‘right’ answer to this, however top points must go to the audience at London’s Comedy Store when faced with a dire routine by the late Eric Douglas, son of Spartacus star Kirk and half brother of Michael.

According to an eye witness, comedian Mickey Hutton, (who mentioned the experience in a Sun newspaper article on 14 May 1999), Eric Douglas ‘lost it on stage’.

"I'm Kirk Douglas' son," Eric screamed in retaliation to the audience’s heckles. In response one audience member stood up and said: ‘No, I'm Kirk Douglas's son!", then another, and another until the whole audience where shouting: ‘No, I’m Kirk Douglas’s son!’.

137.222.142.27 (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "I'm Spartacus" section

Is there any reason to keep the "I'm Spartacus" section out of the article? Most kids and teens, today, have the first contact with the movie by watching the parodies and asking their parents why they are laughing - and then they can be motivated to watch the movie (been there - done that). Albmont (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are referring to this deletion, which I agree is excessive. The section contained far too many "in popular culture" spottings, but the Spartacus moment is an identified trope which is now referred to outside of fiction, and it is at least demonstrated (if not adequately sourced) in the Prince Harry story. I'm restoring the top half of this section, but leaving out the IPC spottings, which are unencyclopedic trivia. (TV Tropes Wiki would be a good place for this stuff.)
Incidentally, a Google search on "I'm Spartacus" points to this article—redirects to this article from Spartacus moment, I'm Spartacus!, I'm Spartacus and I am Spartacus probably help—so those kids & teens will have little trouble looking it up. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

"Critics such as Roger Ebert have argued that the film has flaws which have caused it to become severely dated." If the critical argument is not given, nor a reference, the claim that the film is "severely dated" does not make any sense. The 'authority' of an 'acclaimed' critic is not enough. --Olaf g (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Spartacuscast.JPG

Image:Spartacuscast.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Strode spartacus.JPG

Image:Strode spartacus.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Action-adventure-Biography...

I understand this film falls into a number of different genres, but the number of categories in the first line of the article is ridiculous. It's absolutely comical, and looks as if it was a vandals doing just for the long-windedness of it. Any solutions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.128.49 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we just call it an Epic / Historical Epic (that sort or covers everything). Tomgreeny (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)