Current Events > Oooohhhh, History Buffs pissed off about Gladiator 2 *spoilers*

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://youtu.be/PaP19zwP_zY?si=0_y6TLUWC8Kh6Suw

Love the channel, love how much he cares about the history being depicted in film and the clear passion. Sounds like Gladiator 2 is rife with like, REALLY bad inaccuracies. XD

"inaccuracy 1: Denzel Washington was not alive during the Roman empire"

chariots did not have nitro boosters

...oh wait, that was Gladiator 1

I normally let bad history go, unless it is bad writing too. Him killing the guy who didn't kill him is very bad writings , so his the sharks everything else Meh .

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.

They had technology; had actual cities. They weren't living like animals as Hollywood loves to depict.

Dio posted...

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

DrizztLink posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/ff771954.jpg

exactly depicting other cultures like this is hollywood 101

You mean a Hollywood movie depicts an ancient culture with complete inaccuracies? You don't say!

It's a movie, ya doofus.

Next you'll be bashing Superman because humans can't fly.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

It's a movie

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

AceMos posted...

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

What makes Gladiator 2 the breaking point of things being butchered? Even movies based on real people are heavily butchered.

AceMos posted...

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?

Huh. I hadn't watched any trailers or really heard much about the movie. It looks like a parody.

LightSnake posted...

Of all the targets, we're talking him being racist against....the Germans?

and the french

while glorifying pure blooded Italians >_>

look up scotts statements while he was making exodus gods and monsters

AceMos posted...

look up scotts statements while he was making exodus gods and monsters

You mean God's and Kings. Didn't that movie also suck?

personally I prefer to watch Spartacus for my accurate Roman history

AceMos posted...

look up scotts statements while he was making exodus gods and monsters

I'm aware of them. He was a 70+ year old man talking about how studios only wanted actual known names. tempest, meet tea kettle

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

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.

rick_alverado posted...

Why would that be an issue? Superman isn't a human.

Keep it in the general

AceMos posted...

considering ridley scots history of racism its a extra valid point to discuss

If I remember right, weren't you saying he was racist against Napoleon or something?

DrizztLink posted...

"inaccuracy 1: Denzel Washington was not alive during the Roman empire"

"Supposedly"

There's a Gladiator 2?

Irony posted...

There's a Gladiator 2?

No, that's why it's so inaccurate!

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.

Ulfar posted...

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?

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.

I've watched a couple of actual historians' take on Gladiator 2 that I enjoyed, though.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


ReturnOfDevsman posted...

It's a movie, ya doofus.

Next you'll be bashing Superman because humans can't fly.

This specific movie reviewer is not a normal movie critic.
He's a history enthusiast.
His whole gimmick is that he looks for historical accuracy, and tries to get the context of the actual events.
The movies entertainment value is not the point with him.

Going "it's just a movie" ignores the entire point of every single video he's made

That's not to say he's an expert of any kind. I don't know his credentials

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.

how do you know, were you there?

On a scale of Caligula to 300, how inaccurate would you say Gladiator 2 is?

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

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.

SomeUsername529 posted...

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.

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.

Baron_Ox posted...

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.

Tom_Joad posted...

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!"?

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

Did someone say "RELEASE THE KRAKEN!"?

Yeah.

Hence why the bass were so pissed, they didn't even get billing.

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

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.

Tom_Joad posted...

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?

ROBANN_88 posted...

Did he put lasers on the sharks heads?

Nah, the history buff was right, we didn't have sharks... just ill-tempered, mutant sea bass.

Tom_Joad posted...

I was. And when the Romans flooded the Colosseum, they filled the water with ill-tempered mutant sea bass.

!!!

Dio posted...

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.

They had technology; had actual cities. They weren't living like animals as Hollywood loves to depict.

The Germanic tribe was also chanting things in African when they reused the chant from Zulu

UnholyMudcrab posted...

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.

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 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.

If the naval battle (as people that speak English would say) was actually cool then I would not have given the smallest fuck whether it was truly a possibility in a colosseum. But it was a not especially well-done cgi shambles that was made very ridiculous with the presence of sharks for no sensible reason. Gladiator having Romans use catapults against fur-clad savages in the forest makes absolutely no sense but the fight is cool as hell and served a lot of purpose in establishing Maximus' character and thus I don't care how inaccurate (and simply illogical) it is.

You're such an angry person all the time, and that has to be exhausting. Why do you do it?

I wasnt really expecting it to be historically accurate.

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.

Heineken14 posted...

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 love it. Like clearly some movies are not looking to be accurate, but then I love getting the information of what WOULD have been accurate for the time period.

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

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.

I've watched a couple of actual historians' take on Gladiator 2 that I enjoyed, though.

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.