Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I liked Gladiator, but i didnt like the lack of accuracy! In anycase, it did potray Gladiators somewhat real....and Russel Crowe was good in this...i have to admit..
Kes, are you serious about writing the pages on the day? That doesnt seem right....its impossible to that..they must have had a script before tey started! 😑
No I saw a documentary cant remember about what exactly but the writer said so himself.
The director also said that the original writer had been fired by Russel Crowe because he didnt like him and the new writer wrote stuff that was shot the same day. Sometimes he had to write them again because Russel didnt like what he read.
Russel didnt like that speech he has when he shows his real face...but they didnt have time to re-write it so Crowe said something like:" This is crap but I'm the best actor in the world so I'm going to make it sound great!"
Man is full of himself.
yeah just a little bit. i dont know though i like the bad boy type movie actors it seems there wrapped up in there own world, they cant see what real life is. So every movie you see with theese people in them there actually believeing their the role there acting, and its fun to watch sometimes. ONe day long ago these actors were nothing without us the fans .
gladiator was so bad. it just combined the worst aspects of braveheart and sparticus and mixed them together, then threw in an over rated actor. a sequel wouldnt even make sense because he is dead.
And if you think about it, gladiator is basically remake/sequel to sparticus, they both have the same exact premise.
well if you say that, then you can say every movie has the same exact premise, theres only twelve possible genres of writing, they all borrow from one another. maybe gladiator was used as inspiration. It still pulled off a movie of its own. A man with everything, Power, Glory, knowledge, Nobility, passion, respect,heart, and faith. on top of a twenty year service in the roman army, he was facing a place amongst the greats with ceaser. plus he had a wife and child he loved, then suddenly it was all taken away from him, so why did he fight, for the will of life, for revenge. the movie is about vengeance and cleansing your soul more than anything else,. So if you want to compare this to movies or books it more of a premise along the lines of "the counte of monte cristo" than anything else. it took nothing from sparticus but inspiration.
You are being overly literal. I didnt mean they had a vague similarity, i meant they have the exact same story.
A gladiator who rises up from slavery to over throw a king (this is what it steals from sparticus)
A man going after the king who is responsible for killing his love (stolen from braveheart)
The obvious similarities are too great to deny.
its full of cliches, that is not a good thing.
it is NOT coincidental, this is wishful thinking at its worse. It was indeed taken, call it what you will, borrowed, inspired, whatever you want, it was stolen, simple as that. The movie was nothing special and does not deserve its praise.
Ebert said it best, "its just another movie about gladiators'
ebert...LOL he doesnt appreciate good movies. only movie's that he percieves as good. everything is garbage. This movie is not stolen i think now maybe people are just looking for too many wrong things with this movie because it did so well and is so great. your using harsh words such as stolen then we need a little more evidence than speculation, or over cross analyzing. Eigther way im always up for a challenging debate when movies clash. if i can be proven theres just not again, cross-over-analyzation
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
ebert...LOL he doesnt appreciate good movies. only movie's that he percieves as good. everything is garbage. This movie is not stolen i think now maybe people are just looking for too many wrong things with this movie because it did so well and is so great. your using harsh words such as stolen then we need a little more evidence than speculation, or over cross analyzing. Eigther way im always up for a challenging debate when movies clash. if i can be proven theres just not again, cross-over-analyzation
ebert likes many great movies, he is the only big name critic that still has any credibility in my eyes, for he does not simply comply with what other people percieve as good movies, he has no problem saying that a movie tha tmany people mistake as good is actually bad, and he gives many good and truthful reasons.
Again, teh movie was stolen, it is factual. same story exactly, not vaguely at all.