Its become an interesting question if the color of Denzels skin matters more than his generally praised performance in a movie that's half fantasy. One side thinks Macrinus was originally white, and having Denzel play him is a diversity push. One side thinks he was Berber and it's another example of North African erasure (happened in Spartacus, Gladiator 1, 300 etc) His specific ethnic lineage is not detailed but he's from Algeria, Africa which has 1000km of Mediterranean coastline, is a day from Europe by boat. In Antiquity it was one of the most diverse regions anywhere. edit: toldinstone certainly didn't think it was worth mentioning among the other details like their drinks and writings.
The latins didn't look like the current occupants of peninsula Italy, this browning of the med only happened in the last 300 years. Pedro Pascal is a good example of the migratory class of Semite though that now presently occupies the med because he descends from them. They just wandered in in large numbers and took over 300-400 years ago. Even as far as most of France and the south of Belgium. They're actively trying to take the rest of Europe too. I am from China, I pray they will try their luck here we have no qualms about "antisemitism" if it comes to surviving an invasion.
Yeah I really was thinking he looked like the ancient depictions of Caracalla. I was a bit disappointed that both Caracalla was depicted as a bit effeminate (I can’t speak for Geta) given that he was a military figure and preferred the field of war to the politics. But I did like the movie in general, but on a few points I was disappointed, but not by much.
I watched a video recently about Native Americans in the 1200s, and they showed an illustration riding horses. I thought that was pretty bad since it was a PBS video, and they were off by 400 years, but newspapers and coffee in ancient Rome is off by over 1000 years!
There was some kind of official gazette that came out regularly (perhaps once week?) under the supervision of the Pontifex Maximus. I don't think any copies have survived.
If only they made it science fiction from a place/culture similar but not the same as what we know of history, and made it clear that is was some alternative place and not real history. Have to wait for scifi to be popular again, I suppose, and be better for income. Too bad.
@@b.a.erlebacher1139 Dune part 1 and 2 made tons of money and are basically exactly what you described. A mishmash Arab/Berber culture with echoes of Abrahamic religion and experiencing what is basically colonialism over resources except "IN SPACE!"
@@kiely4561 Thumbs down was actually a no vote on killing the victim. Thumbs up was the go ahead to finish him off. Modern audiences would be dumbfounded if presented with an accurate depiction of the real thing.
@ i know i was just using the lazy mainstream interpretation that most people would understand, although since this is a told in stone audience i probably could have added that extra nuance to the joke with the assurance most people would have still understood lol.
well, to be fair, The Duelists (his first film, where he pretty much had 100% control) is a masterpiece of rigorous, historically-accurate filmmaking. Then he made Alien, another masterpiece. Both films share a Kubrickian attention to detail that made him my favourite director (at that time), Then... something started to go wrong.
Yes! And there are so many fascinating stories from history that haven't been made into movies or TV shows yet! No reason to completely make shit up all the time, and even less reason to retell the same stories over and over.
@@frankiecooper Correct! Whoever wishes for historical accuracy in period films don't turn to Hollywood, it's not their business. Art is meant to entertain and inspire above all (and I strongly believe they can inspire people to turn to real history). There are documentaries out there and books.
The guy who plays Caracalla literally looks like he was supposed to play Elagabalus. I think the writers got the historical records of the wrong Severan ruler 😅
Gladiatorial games timeline: 275 BC Manius Curius Dentatus first displays elephants in a triumph in Rome (Italy) 264 BC First recorded public gladiatorial combat in the Forum Boarium 216 BC First gladiatorial combat staged in the Forum Romanum 206 BC Scipio Africanus holds games for his father and uncle at New Carthage (Spain) 186 BC Marcus Fulvius Nobilior stages first wild beast hunt in Rome 167 BC Elephants first used to trample Roman army deserters 105 BC Publius Rutilius Rufus turns to gladiatorial instructors to train Roman legionaries 80 BC Stone amphitheatre built at Pompeii (Italy) 73-71 BC Revolt of Spartacus 52 BC First timber amphitheatre recorded 46 BC Caesar holds games which include a naumachia (sham naval battle) on the Campus Martius 29 BC First stone amphitheatre built in Rome 2 BC Augustus stages a naumachia across the Tiber AD 21 Revolt of Florus and Sacrovir in Gaul AD 52 Claudius stages a naumachia on the Fucine Lake AD 57 Nero holds games including a naumachia in his new wooden amphitheatre AD 59 Riot at Pompeii; games in the amphitheatre there banned for ten years AD 62 Earthquake at Pompeii and the ban on games is lifted AD 70 (approximately) Timber amphitheatre built at London (UK) AD 72 Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum) inaugurated AD 75 Stone amphitheatre built at the legionary fortress of Caerleon (UK) AD 79 Amphitheatre at Pompeii buried by the eruption of Vesuvius AD 158 Galen starts work on gladiators AD 177 Limit on expenditure on gladiatorial games AD 200 Septimius Severus bans female gladiators AD 248 Philip the Arab’s Secular Games AD 404 Gladiatorial games supposedly banned in Rome by Honorius AD 1823 Amphitheatre at Pompeii rediscovered AD 1864 Gladiatorial barracks at Pompeii excavated AD 1872 Pollice Verso painted by Jean-Léon Gérôme AD 1933 James Leslie Mitchell (alias Lewis Grassic Gibbon) publishes his Spartacus novel AD 1951 Howard Fast publishes his Spartacus novel AD 1960 Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus released AD 2000 Ridley Scott’s movie Gladiator released -The source:Gladiators Fighting to the Death in ancient Rome(2017,160 pages)by M. c. Bishop.Timeline
Congratulations on your wedding and honeymoon! I often wonder why creators deviate so much from the truth, when it is so interesting. I can understand that it happens when budget constraints are an issue - but that doesn’t seem to be the case with many decisions.
The really sad part is, historical accuracy wouldn't cost more or anything at all, but these Hollywood directors don't even bother to consult real historians. Historical accuracy would add much to whatever story they want to tell, and it would bring actual history enthusiasts out to see their movies.
Often times they know something is ahistorical, but include it anyway. E.g. Hollywood's insistence that all goodly/heroic characters have ideals/morals that align with present day ideals of what makes a good/moral person. Gives us these weird 'historical' characters who feel out of place because they abhor slavery in a period where it was common place, aspire for democracy and liberty in time periods where divine right to rule was almost universally accepted and strictly monogamous/heterosexual ancient Greeks etc. They basically don't trust the audience to be willing to root for a character if he isn't ideally virtuous with modern eyes.
Ridley Scott is never one to care about historical facts. He is even crazy enough to claim that its impossible to know the truth about historical events because we weren't there ourselves or something to that effect. I think this was in response to people's complaints about his movie Napoleon.
Napoleon was another dismal failure. Dont expect to see another historical European epic that does anything other than represent historical heroes as a complicated, sex addicted mess. At least not until the texture of our modern society changes. Nothing can be a mix of European, heroic and masculine anymore.
Never mind the gladiator riding a rhinoceros, I heard there is a scene (I do not kid you kind folks) that takes place in a cafe where people casually leaf through their morning paper. It's wild.
In short, Gladiator II is gibberish posing as a historical fiction. I wasn't going to see Gladiator II, but it's good to know my instincts are on the mark.
I did not like it from the scenario and theatrical point of view. There are PLENTY of flashbacks. First our protagonist feels a victim of Rome and wants to kill as many Romans as possible. In the end, he learns he's a heir to the throne because he is a Roman aristocrat who has been hidden away. Now he loves Rome and digs out the sword of Maximus. The End.
@@Mercuryrising56627 I doubt he forgot he was the heir to the throne, as lucius was around 10 or so in the first movie, but the problem with his motivations is very well stated by you, imo, the fact that he remembered everything makes it even worse
@@Mercuryrising56627 @Enlightenedbydark it's explained in the film. Lucius has his closest person get killed and is sold into slavery, his goal is naturally to kill the man responsible along with everything they stand for. Who he ends up facing and is now dead, only after he showed him his true self and refused to fight him. From Acacius and from his mother he learns what his father was fighting for, to burn the empire and bring back the dream that was Rome aka the Republic and he does that. And it ends with him killing the guy who owns him and killed his mother (the guy Lucius also swore to kill earlier) -I really see nothing confusing about his motivations. Lucius never cares about being heir even once, and he feels a victim of Rome because he IS one, just like Macrinus was. The only thing that changed was that he was convinced to use his rage better than bringing only destruction. He still hates greedy imperial Rome, instead of becoming part of it like Macrinus he strives to fix it for good. That's the whole theme of the film and it's said explicitly when they quote Cicero: "A slave dreams not of freedom, but enslaving his master" (the difference between Macrinus and Lucius)
Caracalla was by no means a perfect emperor (extending citizenship to all freedmen was probably a mistake, but that's very debateable), but he was no elagabalus, I don't know why movies about Rome cannot have good emperors ruling, it's habitual for every Princeps to be a nero, caligula, or commodus.
By the way I want to thank for your videos featuring ancient Rome's remaining ruins in Istanbul. I was there with my wife recently and your videos were the perfect guide to find places otherwise difficult to locate.
If Maximus had watched that movie, he’d have asked for a gladius and a quick exit. A waste of time so painful, even the greatest warrior would’ve preferred a swift end.
It's so bizarre because it's 2.5 hours long, but somehow they manage to not develop a single character arc in all that time. Somehow, every scene felt rushed. They completely missed the point of the original film.
I watched the new film myself a few days ago, yes it had great visuals, special effects and fight scenes which you’d expect from a blockbuster Hollywood movie, but unfortunately thats all it had, it truly did lack the soul of the first film and the on screen charisma and presence of Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix, the original took you on this emotional journey with maximus so much so you become heavily invested in the character, its so well written and with that beautiful Hans zimmer film score it never fails to make me cry at the end even as a 41 year old man who’s watched it countless times, its a work of art that didn’t need a sequel.
I might be in the minority, but the constant digital effects completely ruined any of the visual spectacle for me. And the costumes looked cheap in a way I can't quite pin down, even compared to the original.
C’mon folks…we knew this would be a clusterf**k. Was there ever even a doubt? I gave up on ‘historically based’ films a long time ago and have been happier for it. That being said, I truly appreciate your sacrifice in subjecting yourself to this turd for our sakes.
@@Ukie88Hornblower is a true favorite of mine. I discovered it 10 years ago as an American. Then Sharpe's Rifles. Both outstanding shows. I have always loved the ships so I tend to revisit Hornblower more often.
Absolutely. It is important to understand, as a moviegoer, that movies that are historically based are always going to disappoint you. I go to the movie theater to be entertained. I watched documentaries to learn. My Moving experiences have been elevated ever since I was able to do that.
Master and Commander was pretty good, I think historical advisors just get overruled a lot if the director and executives don't care. You can forgive it if it serves the plot, but usually the plot is still trash.
Congrats on your honeymoon!! I just got back from Japan it was amazing (Kyoto and Tokyo) I also agree and think gladiator 2 should have NEVER been made
You’re not talking me out of watching this movie. The original was NOT historically accurate. Yet the movie was amazing. You’re nit picking is actually really encouraging me to watch this! Ty.
I just watched it....wow was it a mess...Terrible CGIs sharks and baboons and cheap looking costumes What you're doing is also a weird flex...you're being quite the little revolutionary by spiting a historian because of the wildly jarring historical inaccuracies in this movie (let alone the terrible storytelling)...you'd make Graham Hancock proud
I teach Greek and Roman History at university. I went to see this the opening day and couldn´t concentrate due to the fact that this movie have two historical facts: there was a place called Rome and somewhere in time it had two emperor brothers. Also my love for the first movie one stood in the way. Then I went to see it again but now ready to put aside the intelectual stuff...and I found it pretty enjoyable, specially for the spectacular scenes and the constant presence of Marcus Aurelius in the dialogues. Considering the state of today´s cinema, this was a fresh breath. I still don´t know how to feel about the message of a great empire split in two antagonistic sides...but I am not american so I don´t really have to worry about it. Congrats on your wedding!!!!!!
I have been subscribed to you channel for quite a number of years now, and I can honestly say that if it had not been for the first movie, Gladiator, I might never have found you. Remember, Gladiator II is not a documentary, it is show business - business being the operative word. Cinema-goers know thiis, and having seen the movie, many will come to the internet, read and find videos like this one.
Agree 100% , you dont need make a historical movie exactly equal to history , its not a documentary ,. But when when you change the things too much its has a effect in peoples perception , also the movie is badly written unlikely the first
Small deviations from historical truth are accepted by most history buffs like in the instance of the first Gladiator, but complete disregard for it is just insulting You could have had the same film set in space, with the same elements of empire and gladiators. People went to see Gladiator 2 to get a glimpse at Rome, not Ridley’s fantasy world
Here are the historical inaccuraties in Gladiator 1 that came out some 20 years ago......but NO ONE cared. (I wonder why?) Marcus Aurelius was not murdered by his son Commodus; he died at Vindobona (modern Vienna) in 180 AD from the Antonine Plague. The epidemic, believed to be either smallpox or measles, swept the Roman Empire during his reign.[75] There is no indication that Marcus Aurelius wished to return the Empire to a republican form of government, as depicted in the film. Moreover, he shared the rule of the Empire with Commodus for three years before his own death. Commodus then ruled alone until his death in 192 AD.[76] The film depicts Marcus seizing victory in the Marcomannic Wars. In reality, the war was ongoing when he died. Commodus secured peace with the two Germanic tribes allied against Rome, the Marcomanni and the Quadi, immediately after his father's death.[77] The character Maximus is fictional, although in some respects he resembles Spartacus, who led a slave revolt, and Marcus Nonius Macrinus, a general and friend of Marcus Aurelius.[78][79][80] Although Commodus engaged in show combat in the Colosseum, he was not killed in the arena; he was strangled in his bath by the wrestler Narcissus. Commodus reigned for over twelve years, unlike the shorter period portrayed in the film.[81] In the film, Lucilla is depicted as the widow of Lucius Verus. She has one son, also named Lucius Verus. In reality, Lucilla's son died long before the reign of Commodus, and she remarried Claudius Pompeianus soon after Verus's death. She had been married to Claudius for 11 years by the time her brother became Emperor, and her only living son during this time was Aurelius Pompeianus.[82] The real-life Lucilla was implicated in a plot to assassinate her brother in 182 AD, along with several others. She was first exiled to the island of Capri by Commodus, then executed on his orders later in the year.[83] In the film, Marcus banned gladiatorial games in Rome. The real Aurelius, however, banned games only in Antioch. No games were ever banned in Rome.[84] It is implied that the death of Commodus did result in peace for Rome and a return to the Roman Republic. In reality, it ushered in a chaotic and bloody power struggle that culminated in the Year of the Five Emperors in AD 193, as shown in the second film. According to the historian Herodian, the Roman people were overjoyed at the news of Commodus's death, although they feared that the Praetorians would not accept the new emperor Pertinax.
As someone who happens to be a history buff I don't mind when TV shows or movies take some liberties with history and I point to a show like Grimm which uses historical persons, places and events in an interesting manner. One such example being an episode where the protagonist character falls under the thralls of a creature who drives him insane. The same creature made to be the cause of Vincent Van Gogh's own madness.
As much as I dislike it when films based on history have glaring inaccuracies, I still very much enjoyed the original Gladiator, as well as 300, which was more similar to Gladiator II in its level of inaccuracy, or even worse (it also featured rampaging rhinos, lol), but is one of my all-time favorite movies, anyway. So, if the movie is good enough, I can ignore the inaccuracies. So, I might end up seeing Gladiator II, eventually. Same with Ridley Scott's previous movie, Napoleon, which I haven't seen yet and heard was also very historically inaccurate.
When Lucius enters Rome a dialogue ensues about the statue they see along the way : the bronze Roman She Wolf. They comment on Romulus and Remus suckling the she wolf. The bronze statue of the she wolf is believed to be very, very old, the Romulus and Remus figures were added in the renaissance. Another of the many, many mistakes in this picture.
Thank you for your analysis! Just one curious question...I saw a Mary Beard documentary about the ordinary life of the ancient Romans, using the bones found in Herculaneum. Dr. Fabian Kanz was talking about 10 year old twins, who had congenital syphillus. So, I guess V.D. was around in 79 a.d.
I wasn't aware of that, to be honest. From what I understand, syphilis as we know it didn't appear until the early modern period - though I suppose the virus could have had a less virulent ancient precursor.
Towards the end of the film, the "dream of Rome" is described as a kind of refuge for the downtrodden masses, and the Roman senate a kind of prototypical liberal democracy. Projecting such obviously modern ideals onto the extremely hierarchical and patriarchal past makes the ancient Romans appear doubly unsympathetic. Of course, slavery and civil war are terrible, but if everyone already knows this, and yet they still do it, how are we supposed to make sense of their motivations? It makes me question why set such a story in ancient Rome to begin with, other than spectacle and familiarity.
Expect a pop in Caracalla, Geta, and Macrinus coin prices. I am about to see the movie tonight. I don't expect anything other than for it to be visually AWESOME. I am also excited to see Lior Raz in an American film.
@@TomSeliman99 the original was a work of art, Gladiator 2 is simply a Hollywood action movie, if you go into it with that mindset you’ll have a far better experience.
@@TomSeliman99 watching a bad film doesn’t have any lasting impact on our physical health so its not quite the equivalent of eating processed food lol, i wouldn’t even say Gladiator 2 is trash, its just not comparable with the original, if you watch it as a stand alone film with no preconceived notions you might still enjoy it, some people have, and like art whats good and bad is subjective.
Also there's a big problem many haven't mentioned, linked to the plot inaccuracies of the first film, Commodus ruled from 180 to 192 and Marcus Aurelius died in 180. The new movie's action is stated to happen 16 years after Marcus Aurelius' death, so 196 (or alternatively 208, if the old emperor died in 192 in the first movie instead of 180... Or somewhere in between those dates). But by 208, Septimius Severus was still alive (as he also obviously was in 196). The brothers suceeded him in 211 jointly (Caracalla was already a co-emperor with his father since 198, ending his reign after 19 years in total in 217 and Geta also was a junior emperor since 209). The rest of the plot holes have been mostly mentioned by other people.
The original Gladiator couldn't even get Roman armor right. Why does historical accuracy matter now??? I'm not expecting a history lesson, I'm expecting escapism. This isn't a BBC documentary.
Ridley Scott ruined Napoleon also, a harlequin romance set in a historical fantasy in the Napoleonic period. With all the money behind him, you could think he could do better; but interviews with him suggest he believes his own artistic licence is superior to any historical detail. What a shame.
'woo' astrologer agrees, this is not FACT based!! & congrats on your wedding, it's so exciting to see all the things that are happening in this field & on yur channel . . .
Congratulations on getting hitched! Japan is on my bucket list too. I hope we'll get a few pics or a vid of your trip there, as well. Plenty of neat Ancient ruins to discuss, if nothing else.
Why make Gladiator 2 that nobody asked for, that is a copy/paste of the original, and not make a good TV series or trilogy of Hannibal coming to Rome, and first Punic war.
In a way, I'm rather glad Garrett's opinion of the first Gladiator remains high. That movie was captivating and I thoroughly immersed myself in the richness of dialog, action, pathos and redemption. I fully understood liberties might be taken to tell the story, but it never felt beyond the realm of believability. One part gave me chills when Maximus and his band of men first set eyes on the Colosseum. They marveled at the enormity of the structure and they must've felt a certain reverence and corresponding dread for its existence. I could imagine newcomers feeling the same way. Superb movie magic.
I’ve read that most gladiatorial combats were the equivalent of our pro wrestling. IOW, nobody died. Supposedly, there was an advert uncovered from that period, bragging that their gladiators … were actually using sharpened weapons.
Hahaha what a lovely movie review. Thanks for all the details! I can imagine you seething in the theater, sorry you had to do that during your honeymoon!
Gladiator 2 is the type of movie no one was asking to be made, historically bad, bad acting, don't let me start to talk about the bad armor AND FREAKING SHARK IN THE COLOSSEUM WHAT???, just a mess but lets not forgot what Ridley Scott say about historian who critic is movies when he made Napoleon "When I have issues with historians, I ask: 'Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the F up, then'". He should have retired at this point haha, he not make a good movie since American Gangster in 2007
There is no such thing as caucasoid and negroid. Those are totally antiquated, unscientific terms that mean nothing. The concept of dividing humans into three races, including Negroid, was introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen school of history. (When white Europeans were intent on cementing their perceived “superiority “ over other groups) However, the concept of distinct human races has become obsolete with the rise of modern genetics. Please keep up. That’s junk science
Who cares! it's a film! It doesn't purport to be a documentary! Why are you so pedantic? And Denzil Washington doesn't have a typically 'Negro' Phenotype....
Doesn't really have any bearing on the plot or character so who cares. Worth it in my book considering Denzel's performance was one of the high points of the movie
Glad to see more and more feedback about this film pouring in now. I thought at first, am I the only one who thought this film was just terrible? IMO, it's hard for me to even say if it was good even as a standalone. The Roman era is one of my historical favorites. I could still find enjoyment in the film with astronomical inaccuracies if it were written and done better. In contrast to the first film, I feel that the second film lacks those epic memorable speeches, writing, desired masculinity, creativity, environments, meaningful characters, and epic yet simple fight scenes. This film was also too flamboyant to the point that it was at times laughable during the more serious parts of the film. I felt for Maximus, and the characters surrounding him. You felt the pure hatred of Phoenix as the villian. During that era, it was common or believable that pure sadistic tyrants like Phoenix existed. In the first film, every fight scene was beautifully done that it felt poetic, mysterious, meaningful, masculine, and somewhat poetically majestical. TBH, I did not care what happened to any of these characters in the second film, which I mostly blame the writers. I understand that the director felt like this one needed to go over the top after the massive success of the first film. IMO, this resulted in it feeling forced and out of place in the second film, which didn't help its case with that terrible writing. I hate so passionately to say this but it was a film that should've been left alone. I was left feeling they need to make it a trilogy in order to preserve its integrity. For the record, it not being historically relevant had nearly zero impact towards my dislike for the film. Also, Ridley did have an interview talking about trying to make parts of the film historically accurate. He got angrily defensive when questioned about particular parts of the movies historical accuracies. So he obviously was trying somewhat for historical accuracies.
Why do movies try to change things ssoooo much when the original history is honestly just as cool?! So basically the movie didn’t try at all to be historically accurate 😢
@toldinstone Glad you spotted the graffiti! I'm pretty sure I saw "Pēdīcābo ego vōs et irrumābō" for a second in one of the underground passages! Totally agree about Gladiator I and II. I wondered: did you see the HBO Rome series, and if so what did yo think?
Remember the ancient words of Emperor Hadrian spoken before the Senate: "I would build a great wall, and no one builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great wall, and I'll have Caledonia pay for that wall."
Maybe I see what I "want" to see, but this makes me think of the US/Mexico border where it is now and where Polk wanted it to be. Further south and MUCH shorter do to geography. Sounds a teeny tiny bit like how Hadrian's wall was the end of his Empire before the Antonine wall further North and much shorter before falling back to Hadrian's wall 20 years later. Maybe Trump will push the border South and give us what Polk wanted? lol
No idea why he thought it was a good idea to pull his troops out of Parthia, yielding such resource heavy lands and ceding the initiative to the Persians, yet keeping the relatively useless island of Britannia. In many respects a fine emperor, yet his static foreign policy caused headaches for his successors.
I am an Algerian, I live 17km far from Cherchell, the city where Macrinus was born and I can confirm that I'm not black. But I'm still African.
Its become an interesting question if the color of Denzels skin matters more than his generally praised performance in a movie that's half fantasy.
One side thinks Macrinus was originally white, and having Denzel play him is a diversity push.
One side thinks he was Berber and it's another example of North African erasure (happened in Spartacus, Gladiator 1, 300 etc)
His specific ethnic lineage is not detailed but he's from Algeria, Africa which has 1000km of Mediterranean coastline, is a day from Europe by boat. In Antiquity it was one of the most diverse regions anywhere.
edit: toldinstone certainly didn't think it was worth mentioning among the other details like their drinks and writings.
Westerners hear 'berbers' or 'moors' and assume that those people will all look like sub-saharans
There is a distinction that most understand. But it's lost in American politics.
@@ConnorRoss yes it does, it's called w0ke pr0paganda
Would you be 2000 years ago though prior to Islam and Arab expansionism? Probably not
Pedro Pascal looks more like Caracalla than the actor playing him
Haha yes. The potential wasted. Why is this obsession with crazy emperors? Better to have a sane emperor as antagonist for a change
Pedro pascal is a superb actor, bags of charisma he would have done the character more justice
The casting was good in terms of the actors but all over the place when it comes to the characters
The latins didn't look like the current occupants of peninsula Italy, this browning of the med only happened in the last 300 years. Pedro Pascal is a good example of the migratory class of Semite though that now presently occupies the med because he descends from them. They just wandered in in large numbers and took over 300-400 years ago. Even as far as most of France and the south of Belgium. They're actively trying to take the rest of Europe too. I am from China, I pray they will try their luck here we have no qualms about "antisemitism" if it comes to surviving an invasion.
Yeah I really was thinking he looked like the ancient depictions of Caracalla. I was a bit disappointed that both Caracalla was depicted as a bit effeminate (I can’t speak for Geta) given that he was a military figure and preferred the field of war to the politics. But I did like the movie in general, but on a few points I was disappointed, but not by much.
Coffee and newspapers?!! Dear oh dear...
Yes its meant to be ancient Rome not 1960’s NewYork lol
I watched a video recently about Native Americans in the 1200s, and they showed an illustration riding horses.
I thought that was pretty bad since it was a PBS video, and they were off by 400 years, but newspapers and coffee in ancient Rome is off by over 1000 years!
There was some kind of official gazette that came out regularly (perhaps once week?) under the supervision of the Pontifex Maximus. I don't think any copies have survived.
Yeah, that sounds bafflingly bad! I am very curious how noticeable those things really are in the movie, though.
I'm surprised they weren't smoking cigarettes.
The problem with Hollywood films, like this one, is that some people think its factual, they leave the theater with an erroneous historical view.
The more popular the movie the more reinforced the misconception becomes and the longer we have to deal with trying to correct them.
@@laurensb1b it's the most disappointing game a telephone ever
If only they made it science fiction from a place/culture similar but not the same as what we know of history, and made it clear that is was some alternative place and not real history. Have to wait for scifi to be popular again, I suppose, and be better for income. Too bad.
@@b.a.erlebacher1139 I think the general public is too dumb to follow a great sci-fi story, a lot of people are cinematically illiterate
@@b.a.erlebacher1139 Dune part 1 and 2 made tons of money and are basically exactly what you described. A mishmash Arab/Berber culture with echoes of Abrahamic religion and experiencing what is basically colonialism over resources except "IN SPACE!"
That chalkboard says it all.
😅
Its an emperor’s thumbs down for me
@@kiely4561
Thumbs down was actually a no vote on killing the victim. Thumbs up was the go ahead to finish him off. Modern audiences would be dumbfounded if presented with an accurate depiction of the real thing.
@ i know i was just using the lazy mainstream interpretation that most people would understand, although since this is a told in stone audience i probably could have added that extra nuance to the joke with the assurance most people would have still understood lol.
@@kiely4561
Sorry, I didn't mean be a wet blanket.
Congratulations on getting married Garrett! May your love for another also be told in stone!
Much appreciated!
@@toldinstone: You'll be divorcing soon no doubt!
@@roberttelarket4934 🤡?
@@roberttelarket4934 That's not something you say to a man who just got married. Seriously smh... 🙄
@@toldinstone Congratulations on your marriage! Love your content, and hope you and your wife enjoyed your time in Japan.
Throughout Ridley Scott's cinematic career we've learned one thing: the less control Ridley Scott has over the movie, the better it is.
well, to be fair, The Duelists (his first film, where he pretty much had 100% control) is a masterpiece of rigorous, historically-accurate filmmaking. Then he made Alien, another masterpiece. Both films share a Kubrickian attention to detail that made him my favourite director (at that time), Then... something started to go wrong.
Alien was amazing as was Blade Runner when they were new. Yes, I saw them when they were new.
@@BernardLanghaml
@@BernardLanghamHe got famous. That's what went wrong.
Alien was not historically accurate. 😂
The real history is incredibly fascinating and I wish movies and TVs showed it
Yes! And there are so many fascinating stories from history that haven't been made into movies or TV shows yet! No reason to completely make shit up all the time, and even less reason to retell the same stories over and over.
Yeah someone should start a RUclips channel for it. 😂
Ever watch documentaries? You should try it! There are some really good ones out there.
@@frankiecooper Correct! Whoever wishes for historical accuracy in period films don't turn to Hollywood, it's not their business. Art is meant to entertain and inspire above all (and I strongly believe they can inspire people to turn to real history). There are documentaries out there and books.
OK professor
Someone needs to have a word with the Praetorians and make sure Ridley Scott doesnt make any more """historical"" dramas"
He's 86. Give him a break.
@@track1949 Well he should've been resonable and take one. Instead he made this bullshit, So why should everyone spare him from citicizm.
@@track1949 Let him take a break. If he doesn't, then his work is up for criticism- constructive or not...
I genuinely think ‘Napoleon’ is in my top 3 worst movies ever. He needs to retire.
@domca4617 everything’s going to be okay
The guy who plays Caracalla literally looks like he was supposed to play Elagabalus. I think the writers got the historical records of the wrong Severan ruler 😅
elagabalus did claim to be caracallas long lost son before he convinced himself he was the avatar of the sun
To paraphrase David Benioff, Ridley Scott "just kinda sorta forgot."
Omg!!! This man is beyond stunning!!! I want to put my face next to the arch of his foot!!!
They butchered the Severan dynasty. They even butchered Macrinus.
Gladiator II budget: $103 million US
Logic: Shall we employ a historian?
Hollywood: Na - it’ll just get in the way of our fantastic story 😂
Thats what Ridley said for Napoleon. Something like 'what do historians know, were they there?' ... 🙄
$300 million
Gladiatorial games timeline:
275 BC Manius Curius Dentatus first displays elephants in a triumph in Rome (Italy)
264 BC First recorded public gladiatorial combat in the Forum Boarium
216 BC First gladiatorial combat staged in the Forum Romanum
206 BC Scipio Africanus holds games for his father and uncle at New Carthage (Spain)
186 BC Marcus Fulvius Nobilior stages first wild beast hunt in Rome
167 BC Elephants first used to trample Roman army deserters
105 BC Publius Rutilius Rufus turns to gladiatorial instructors to train Roman legionaries
80 BC Stone amphitheatre built at Pompeii (Italy)
73-71 BC Revolt of Spartacus
52 BC First timber amphitheatre recorded
46 BC Caesar holds games which include a naumachia (sham naval battle) on the Campus Martius
29 BC First stone amphitheatre built in Rome
2 BC Augustus stages a naumachia across the Tiber
AD 21 Revolt of Florus and Sacrovir in Gaul
AD 52 Claudius stages a naumachia on the Fucine Lake
AD 57 Nero holds games including a naumachia in his new wooden amphitheatre
AD 59 Riot at Pompeii; games in the amphitheatre there banned for ten years
AD 62 Earthquake at Pompeii and the ban on games is lifted
AD 70 (approximately) Timber amphitheatre built at London (UK)
AD 72 Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum) inaugurated
AD 75 Stone amphitheatre built at the legionary fortress of Caerleon (UK)
AD 79 Amphitheatre at Pompeii buried by the eruption of Vesuvius
AD 158 Galen starts work on gladiators
AD 177 Limit on expenditure on gladiatorial games
AD 200 Septimius Severus bans female gladiators
AD 248 Philip the Arab’s Secular Games
AD 404 Gladiatorial games supposedly banned in Rome by Honorius
AD 1823 Amphitheatre at Pompeii rediscovered
AD 1864 Gladiatorial barracks at Pompeii excavated
AD 1872 Pollice Verso painted by Jean-Léon Gérôme
AD 1933 James Leslie Mitchell (alias Lewis Grassic Gibbon) publishes his Spartacus novel
AD 1951 Howard Fast publishes his Spartacus novel
AD 1960 Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus released
AD 2000 Ridley Scott’s movie Gladiator released
-The source:Gladiators Fighting to the Death in ancient Rome(2017,160 pages)by M. c. Bishop.Timeline
People seem to forget that a major amount of people get their knowledge from "entertainment" instead of books now
Books used to be entertainment and weren't exactly accurate anyway.
@@Uruz2012 So true! Very good point.
@@Uruz2012 history books?, not talking about romance novels and other scifi genres. was just using "books" as a blanket term.
Formal education rocks.
Thank you for the detailed review. And congratulations to the happy couple!
Congratulations on your wedding and honeymoon!
I often wonder why creators deviate so much from the truth, when it is so interesting. I can understand that it happens when budget constraints are an issue - but that doesn’t seem to be the case with many decisions.
The really sad part is, historical accuracy wouldn't cost more or anything at all, but these Hollywood directors don't even bother to consult real historians. Historical accuracy would add much to whatever story they want to tell, and it would bring actual history enthusiasts out to see their movies.
Yeah, like for an example they could have used war elephants instead of the rhino in the colosseum... Would have made a cool tribute to Hannibal also
Often times they know something is ahistorical, but include it anyway. E.g. Hollywood's insistence that all goodly/heroic characters have ideals/morals that align with present day ideals of what makes a good/moral person.
Gives us these weird 'historical' characters who feel out of place because they abhor slavery in a period where it was common place, aspire for democracy and liberty in time periods where divine right to rule was almost universally accepted and strictly monogamous/heterosexual ancient Greeks etc.
They basically don't trust the audience to be willing to root for a character if he isn't ideally virtuous with modern eyes.
It’s FICTION.
I don't think they care. They just want woke points. Fill their DIE quota and appease the activist that vote Left.
"Were you there?" - Ridley Scott
Ridley Scott is never one to care about historical facts. He is even crazy enough to claim that its impossible to know the truth about historical events because we weren't there ourselves or something to that effect. I think this was in response to people's complaints about his movie Napoleon.
Napoleon was another dismal failure. Dont expect to see another historical European epic that does anything other than represent historical heroes as a complicated, sex addicted mess. At least not until the texture of our modern society changes. Nothing can be a mix of European, heroic and masculine anymore.
Cops can't get two people standing next to each other to give the same account of a car accident that happened 20 minutes ago.
And Napoleon had the same screenwriter... that explains a lot
Never mind the gladiator riding a rhinoceros,
I heard there is a scene (I do not kid you kind folks) that takes place in a cafe where people casually leaf through their morning paper.
It's wild.
also, that's probably the biggest rhino ever, as they are usually shorter than a man on their shoulder blades, this one was over 7 feet tall
I appreciate your review. I had no plans of watching this one, and definitely will not waste my time on it.
I mean, it's not a long movie. Watch it and decide for yourself
@@Bellroysg for me gladiator ended in one movie, there was no need for a second one...
Same
If you see Pedro Pascal in any movie, you know it's going to be shit.
@@therider990although not a movie he was superb in Game of thrones, his character was killed off far too soon.
I watched _Gladiator II_ only several hours ago. This is a good review.
I wasn't planning on seeing it. Now especially given what I've heard about it.
In short, Gladiator II is gibberish posing as a historical fiction. I wasn't going to see Gladiator II, but it's good to know my instincts are on the mark.
I did not like it from the scenario and theatrical point of view. There are PLENTY of flashbacks. First our protagonist feels a victim of Rome and wants to kill as many Romans as possible. In the end, he learns he's a heir to the throne because he is a Roman aristocrat who has been hidden away. Now he loves Rome and digs out the sword of Maximus. The End.
@@Mercuryrising56627 I doubt he forgot he was the heir to the throne, as lucius was around 10 or so in the first movie, but the problem with his motivations is very well stated by you, imo, the fact that he remembered everything makes it even worse
@@Mercuryrising56627 @Enlightenedbydark it's explained in the film. Lucius has his closest person get killed and is sold into slavery, his goal is naturally to kill the man responsible along with everything they stand for. Who he ends up facing and is now dead, only after he showed him his true self and refused to fight him. From Acacius and from his mother he learns what his father was fighting for, to burn the empire and bring back the dream that was Rome aka the Republic and he does that. And it ends with him killing the guy who owns him and killed his mother (the guy Lucius also swore to kill earlier) -I really see nothing confusing about his motivations.
Lucius never cares about being heir even once, and he feels a victim of Rome because he IS one, just like Macrinus was. The only thing that changed was that he was convinced to use his rage better than bringing only destruction. He still hates greedy imperial Rome, instead of becoming part of it like Macrinus he strives to fix it for good. That's the whole theme of the film and it's said explicitly when they quote Cicero: "A slave dreams not of freedom, but enslaving his master" (the difference between Macrinus and Lucius)
I love that you're branching out with stuff man! Was so hyped to see you on Julian Dorey's podcast.
Caracalla was by no means a perfect emperor (extending citizenship to all freedmen was probably a mistake, but that's very debateable), but he was no elagabalus, I don't know why movies about Rome cannot have good emperors ruling, it's habitual for every Princeps to be a nero, caligula, or commodus.
By the way I want to thank for your videos featuring ancient Rome's remaining ruins in Istanbul. I was there with my wife recently and your videos were the perfect guide to find places otherwise difficult to locate.
I’d love to see a video on the books you have on your shelves
If Maximus had watched that movie, he’d have asked for a gladius and a quick exit. A waste of time so painful, even the greatest warrior would’ve preferred a swift end.
It's so bizarre because it's 2.5 hours long, but somehow they manage to not develop a single character arc in all that time. Somehow, every scene felt rushed. They completely missed the point of the original film.
@@bedp It is so true, noting felt developed and everything felt rushed.
@@bedp I feel there's whole sections missing as the film jumps forward jarringly
I watched the new film myself a few days ago, yes it had great visuals, special effects and fight scenes which you’d expect from a blockbuster Hollywood movie, but unfortunately thats all it had, it truly did lack the soul of the first film and the on screen charisma and presence of Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix, the original took you on this emotional journey with maximus so much so you become heavily invested in the character, its so well written and with that beautiful Hans zimmer film score it never fails to make me cry at the end even as a 41 year old man who’s watched it countless times, its a work of art that didn’t need a sequel.
I might be in the minority, but the constant digital effects completely ruined any of the visual spectacle for me. And the costumes looked cheap in a way I can't quite pin down, even compared to the original.
The visuals were terrible...the CGI baboons and sharks.. dear lord
@ yeah those monkeys definitely weren’t needed 😂
@@warbler1984 yes the monkeys were terrible lol
This didn't earn the right to use the song from the ending of the first film, at all
I can confirm Dondus becoming Emperor was historically accurate.
Insert Ridley Scott response: “you weren’t there, how do you know?”
Scary statement. Belief without evidence is intellectually dishonest and a slippery slope.
C’mon folks…we knew this would be a clusterf**k. Was there ever even a doubt? I gave up on ‘historically based’ films a long time ago and have been happier for it. That being said, I truly appreciate your sacrifice in subjecting yourself to this turd for our sakes.
Brits know how to do historical. Hollywood is Disney land .
@@Ukie88Hornblower is a true favorite of mine. I discovered it 10 years ago as an American. Then Sharpe's Rifles. Both outstanding shows. I have always loved the ships so I tend to revisit Hornblower more often.
Absolutely. It is important to understand, as a moviegoer, that movies that are historically based are always going to disappoint you. I go to the movie theater to be entertained. I watched documentaries to learn. My Moving experiences have been elevated ever since I was able to do that.
Master and Commander was pretty good, I think historical advisors just get overruled a lot if the director and executives don't care. You can forgive it if it serves the plot, but usually the plot is still trash.
IM FINISHED WITH HOLLYWOOD, my last movie was Napoleon. which was a bomb now this. im out bye bye.
Hollywood makes historical movies based on our modern perception of those times. And we get those modern perceptions from other Hollywood movies.
Its annoying to me that the general public is interested in ancient Rome but get 'educated' by hollywood
Wow, that’s literally every movie ever lol, it’s not a documentary
too true! its a complete lack of imagination to think of everyone in ancient times having the same view as ourselves.
Could listen to you all day, one day I’ll go on one of your tours! (I hope)
Congrats on your honeymoon!! I just got back from Japan it was amazing (Kyoto and Tokyo) I also agree and think gladiator 2 should have NEVER been made
You’re not talking me out of watching this movie. The original was NOT historically accurate. Yet the movie was amazing. You’re nit picking is actually really encouraging me to watch this! Ty.
I just watched it....wow was it a mess...Terrible CGIs sharks and baboons and cheap looking costumes
What you're doing is also a weird flex...you're being quite the little revolutionary by spiting a historian because of the wildly jarring historical inaccuracies in this movie (let alone the terrible storytelling)...you'd make Graham Hancock proud
I believe you may be disappointed.
@warbler1984 Chill, daddy
The screenwriter was Pliny The Elder, so there you go.
Without this video i would have never known there was a Gladiator II.
Empire builder's and Classical Numismatics also did videos about the movie and true story. Worth a watch if you haven't seen yet
I teach Greek and Roman History at university. I went to see this the opening day and couldn´t concentrate due to the fact that this movie have two historical facts: there was a place called Rome and somewhere in time it had two emperor brothers. Also my love for the first movie one stood in the way. Then I went to see it again but now ready to put aside the intelectual stuff...and I found it pretty enjoyable, specially for the spectacular scenes and the constant presence of Marcus Aurelius in the dialogues. Considering the state of today´s cinema, this was a fresh breath. I still don´t know how to feel about the message of a great empire split in two antagonistic sides...but I am not american so I don´t really have to worry about it.
Congrats on your wedding!!!!!!
What on earth are you talking about?
Huh ? I am really confused now!
Nothing like the first movie
I have been subscribed to you channel for quite a number of years now, and I can honestly say that if it had not been for the first movie, Gladiator, I might never have found you.
Remember, Gladiator II is not a documentary, it is show business - business being the operative word. Cinema-goers know thiis, and having seen the movie, many will come to the internet, read and find videos like this one.
Next: "Alien meets the Son of Gladiator."
I'd watch that
I will never understand why producers make up non-historical details when the real details are more interesting.
The Roman coin rating system is great 💥👍🏼👍🏼
Agree 100% , you dont need make a historical movie exactly equal to history , its not a documentary ,. But when when you change the things too much its has a effect in peoples perception , also the movie is badly written unlikely the first
Thanks for saving me my hard earned money! I'll wait for streaming.
Small deviations from historical truth are accepted by most history buffs like in the instance of the first Gladiator, but complete disregard for it is just insulting
You could have had the same film set in space, with the same elements of empire and gladiators. People went to see Gladiator 2 to get a glimpse at Rome, not Ridley’s fantasy world
Here are the historical inaccuraties in Gladiator 1 that came out some 20 years ago......but NO ONE cared. (I wonder why?)
Marcus Aurelius was not murdered by his son Commodus; he died at Vindobona (modern Vienna) in 180 AD from the Antonine Plague. The epidemic, believed to be either smallpox or measles, swept the Roman Empire during his reign.[75]
There is no indication that Marcus Aurelius wished to return the Empire to a republican form of government, as depicted in the film. Moreover, he shared the rule of the Empire with Commodus for three years before his own death. Commodus then ruled alone until his death in 192 AD.[76]
The film depicts Marcus seizing victory in the Marcomannic Wars. In reality, the war was ongoing when he died. Commodus secured peace with the two Germanic tribes allied against Rome, the Marcomanni and the Quadi, immediately after his father's death.[77]
The character Maximus is fictional, although in some respects he resembles Spartacus, who led a slave revolt, and Marcus Nonius Macrinus, a general and friend of Marcus Aurelius.[78][79][80]
Although Commodus engaged in show combat in the Colosseum, he was not killed in the arena; he was strangled in his bath by the wrestler Narcissus. Commodus reigned for over twelve years, unlike the shorter period portrayed in the film.[81]
In the film, Lucilla is depicted as the widow of Lucius Verus. She has one son, also named Lucius Verus. In reality, Lucilla's son died long before the reign of Commodus, and she remarried Claudius Pompeianus soon after Verus's death. She had been married to Claudius for 11 years by the time her brother became Emperor, and her only living son during this time was Aurelius Pompeianus.[82]
The real-life Lucilla was implicated in a plot to assassinate her brother in 182 AD, along with several others. She was first exiled to the island of Capri by Commodus, then executed on his orders later in the year.[83]
In the film, Marcus banned gladiatorial games in Rome. The real Aurelius, however, banned games only in Antioch. No games were ever banned in Rome.[84]
It is implied that the death of Commodus did result in peace for Rome and a return to the Roman Republic. In reality, it ushered in a chaotic and bloody power struggle that culminated in the Year of the Five Emperors in AD 193, as shown in the second film. According to the historian Herodian, the Roman people were overjoyed at the news of Commodus's death, although they feared that the Praetorians would not accept the new emperor Pertinax.
I was thinking the same thing as I watched this. Almost all the historical inaccuracies he lists in this film were present in G1
Well said. I'm struggling to think of much in Gladiator 1 that *was* historically accurate. At least they didn't have coffee and newspapers I suppose
As someone who happens to be a history buff I don't mind when TV shows or movies take some liberties with history and I point to a show like Grimm which uses historical persons, places and events in an interesting manner. One such example being an episode where the protagonist character falls under the thralls of a creature who drives him insane. The same creature made to be the cause of Vincent Van Gogh's own madness.
great analysis thanks
Thanks for taking the time away to give us your thoughts about the movie, Dr. Ryan. Congratulations on your marriage.
As much as I dislike it when films based on history have glaring inaccuracies, I still very much enjoyed the original Gladiator, as well as 300, which was more similar to Gladiator II in its level of inaccuracy, or even worse (it also featured rampaging rhinos, lol), but is one of my all-time favorite movies, anyway. So, if the movie is good enough, I can ignore the inaccuracies. So, I might end up seeing Gladiator II, eventually. Same with Ridley Scott's previous movie, Napoleon, which I haven't seen yet and heard was also very historically inaccurate.
Thanks for making this informative video!
When Lucius enters Rome a dialogue ensues about the statue they see along the way : the bronze Roman She Wolf. They comment on Romulus and Remus suckling the she wolf. The bronze statue of the she wolf is believed to be very, very old, the Romulus and Remus figures were added in the renaissance. Another of the many, many mistakes in this picture.
Enjoyed your recent interview on another channel , do more podcasts
Didnt disagree with a thing you said. Worth mentioning that the fight scenes in gladiator ii are so good
Thank you for your analysis! Just one curious question...I saw a Mary Beard documentary about the ordinary life of the ancient Romans, using the bones found in Herculaneum. Dr. Fabian Kanz was talking about 10 year old twins, who had congenital syphillus. So, I guess V.D. was around in 79 a.d.
Yep!
I wasn't aware of that, to be honest. From what I understand, syphilis as we know it didn't appear until the early modern period - though I suppose the virus could have had a less virulent ancient precursor.
There was no syphilis in the Old World until it was brought back from the Americas.
@@toldinstonesyphilis is actually not a virus. It is a bacterium. A spirochaete. Hence that it can be treated with antibiotics
Your Hokusai tee speaks loads! Appreciate your interpretation on the sequel!
Problem is many people watching gladiator 2 don’t know Roman history so they think it’s how it was.
It's been years since I've seen a new original Good Hollywood movie.
Towards the end of the film, the "dream of Rome" is described as a kind of refuge for the downtrodden masses, and the Roman senate a kind of prototypical liberal democracy. Projecting such obviously modern ideals onto the extremely hierarchical and patriarchal past makes the ancient Romans appear doubly unsympathetic. Of course, slavery and civil war are terrible, but if everyone already knows this, and yet they still do it, how are we supposed to make sense of their motivations? It makes me question why set such a story in ancient Rome to begin with, other than spectacle and familiarity.
Congratulations on your marriage! May both of you have joy, bliss and happiness!
Congrats man!
Expect a pop in Caracalla, Geta, and Macrinus coin prices.
I am about to see the movie tonight. I don't expect anything other than for it to be visually AWESOME. I am also excited to see Lior Raz in an American film.
Lower your expectations and you’ll probably enjoy it
@@kiely4561I hate when people say this quote. Just means they like low quality art
@@TomSeliman99 the original was a work of art, Gladiator 2 is simply a Hollywood action movie, if you go into it with that mindset you’ll have a far better experience.
@@kiely4561 why would we waste our time watching a trash product? Its the equivalent of eating bad and unhealthy food
@@TomSeliman99 watching a bad film doesn’t have any lasting impact on our physical health so its not quite the equivalent of eating processed food lol, i wouldn’t even say Gladiator 2 is trash, its just not comparable with the original, if you watch it as a stand alone film with no preconceived notions you might still enjoy it, some people have, and like art whats good and bad is subjective.
Thank you
Also there's a big problem many haven't mentioned, linked to the plot inaccuracies of the first film, Commodus ruled from 180 to 192 and Marcus Aurelius died in 180. The new movie's action is stated to happen 16 years after Marcus Aurelius' death, so 196 (or alternatively 208, if the old emperor died in 192 in the first movie instead of 180... Or somewhere in between those dates). But by 208, Septimius Severus was still alive (as he also obviously was in 196). The brothers suceeded him in 211 jointly (Caracalla was already a co-emperor with his father since 198, ending his reign after 19 years in total in 217 and Geta also was a junior emperor since 209). The rest of the plot holes have been mostly mentioned by other people.
As George Takei would say, "Oh MYYYYY!!!"
Thanks for the laughs, I needed that!
I enjoyed this video quite a bit
The original Gladiator couldn't even get Roman armor right. Why does historical accuracy matter now??? I'm not expecting a history lesson, I'm expecting escapism. This isn't a BBC documentary.
😂😂😂 You know why
@@torellrobinson629 because people are tw*ts 😂
bruh you don't need to be a Roman Historian to know how this pans out
Coffee, folding newspapers? Sounds like Ridley Scott was deliberately flipping-off movie-goers who care about having a little historical accuracy.
Makes me like him more. I hope he does a film about Alexander the Great and gives him an iPhone.
Thank you, Doctor!
Omg!!! This man is beyond stunning!!! I want to put my face next to the arch of his foot!!!
Get in line, pal friend!
@kevinlynch6396 yes!! The most beautiful part of a man!! His feet!!
Thanks and congrats!
Thank you for covering this 😊
Ridley Scott ruined Napoleon also, a harlequin romance set in a historical fantasy in the Napoleonic period. With all the money behind him, you could think he could do better; but interviews with him suggest he believes his own artistic licence is superior to any historical detail. What a shame.
'woo' astrologer agrees, this is not FACT based!! & congrats on your wedding, it's so exciting to see all the things that are happening in this field & on yur channel . . .
Congratulations on getting hitched! Japan is on my bucket list too. I hope we'll get a few pics or a vid of your trip there, as well. Plenty of neat Ancient ruins to discuss, if nothing else.
Why make Gladiator 2 that nobody asked for, that is a copy/paste of the original, and not make a good TV series or trilogy of Hannibal coming to Rome, and first Punic war.
In a way, I'm rather glad Garrett's opinion of the first Gladiator remains high. That movie was captivating and I thoroughly immersed myself in the richness of dialog, action, pathos and redemption. I fully understood liberties might be taken to tell the story, but it never felt beyond the realm of believability. One part gave me chills when Maximus and his band of men first set eyes on the Colosseum. They marveled at the enormity of the structure and they must've felt a certain reverence and corresponding dread for its existence. I could imagine newcomers feeling the same way. Superb movie magic.
I walked on that movie because it was so ridiculously unhistoric.
I thought the baboons, sharks and rhino in the Colosseum looked particularly realistic! I couldn’t tell them from the real thing! 🤣🤣🤣
Ridley should really stick to scifi fantasy like bladerunner.
He ruined that too. Hes lost it.
I take it you didn't watch Prometheus or Alien: Covenant?
he should retire, actually.
I’ve read that most gladiatorial combats were the equivalent of our pro wrestling. IOW, nobody died. Supposedly, there was an advert uncovered from that period, bragging that their gladiators … were actually using sharpened weapons.
Hahaha what a lovely movie review. Thanks for all the details! I can imagine you seething in the theater, sorry you had to do that during your honeymoon!
Oh don’t be sorry he was thrilled. It was the movies or yet another shrine ⛩️
Gladiator 2 is the type of movie no one was asking to be made, historically bad, bad acting, don't let me start to talk about the bad armor AND FREAKING SHARK IN THE COLOSSEUM WHAT???, just a mess but lets not forgot what Ridley Scott say about historian who critic is movies when he made Napoleon "When I have issues with historians, I ask: 'Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the F up, then'".
He should have retired at this point haha, he not make a good movie since American Gangster in 2007
Congratulations on your marriage!
Watched every minute of your 2 parter with julian Dorey! Garret you were fantastic!
You forgot to mention that Macrinus had a Caucasoid and not a Negroid phenotype when discussing how the film departs from reality.
Riding rhinos
There is no such thing as caucasoid and negroid. Those are totally antiquated, unscientific terms that mean nothing. The concept of dividing humans into three races, including Negroid, was introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen school of history. (When white Europeans were intent on cementing their perceived “superiority “ over other groups) However, the concept of distinct human races has become obsolete with the rise of modern genetics.
Please keep up. That’s junk science
Who cares! it's a film! It doesn't purport to be a documentary! Why are you so pedantic? And Denzil Washington doesn't have a typically 'Negro' Phenotype....
Doesn't really have any bearing on the plot or character so who cares. Worth it in my book considering Denzel's performance was one of the high points of the movie
Race swapped characters - automatic boycott
Glad to see more and more feedback about this film pouring in now. I thought at first, am I the only one who thought this film was just terrible? IMO, it's hard for me to even say if it was good even as a standalone. The Roman era is one of my historical favorites. I could still find enjoyment in the film with astronomical inaccuracies if it were written and done better. In contrast to the first film, I feel that the second film lacks those epic memorable speeches, writing, desired masculinity, creativity, environments, meaningful characters, and epic yet simple fight scenes. This film was also too flamboyant to the point that it was at times laughable during the more serious parts of the film.
I felt for Maximus, and the characters surrounding him. You felt the pure hatred of Phoenix as the villian. During that era, it was common or believable that pure sadistic tyrants like Phoenix existed. In the first film, every fight scene was beautifully done that it felt poetic, mysterious, meaningful, masculine, and somewhat poetically majestical. TBH, I did not care what happened to any of these characters in the second film, which I mostly blame the writers. I understand that the director felt like this one needed to go over the top after the massive success of the first film. IMO, this resulted in it feeling forced and out of place in the second film, which didn't help its case with that terrible writing. I hate so passionately to say this but it was a film that should've been left alone. I was left feeling they need to make it a trilogy in order to preserve its integrity.
For the record, it not being historically relevant had nearly zero impact towards my dislike for the film. Also, Ridley did have an interview talking about trying to make parts of the film historically accurate. He got angrily defensive when questioned about particular parts of the movies historical accuracies. So he obviously was trying somewhat for historical accuracies.
The critical drinker does a good review as well
lol
Congratulations on your marriage! I hope you two have many happy years together.
Thanks for the review! Made my morning :)
Why do movies try to change things ssoooo much when the original history is honestly just as cool?! So basically the movie didn’t try at all to be historically accurate 😢
Congrats on the nuptials!
@toldinstone Glad you spotted the graffiti! I'm pretty sure I saw "Pēdīcābo ego vōs et irrumābō" for a second in one of the underground passages! Totally agree about Gladiator I and II. I wondered: did you see the HBO Rome series, and if so what did yo think?
I was a big fan of Season 1 of HBO's Rome
I feel justified in my exhaustion over the inaccuracy of the movie. Thank you!!
I don’t understand why they would make so many pointless changes. What a shame.
Remember the ancient words of Emperor Hadrian spoken before the Senate:
"I would build a great wall, and no one builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great wall, and I'll have Caledonia pay for that wall."
Yeah except trump was right about all of it lol
Maybe I see what I "want" to see, but this makes me think of the US/Mexico border where it is now and where Polk wanted it to be. Further south and MUCH shorter do to geography. Sounds a teeny tiny bit like how Hadrian's wall was the end of his Empire before the Antonine wall further North and much shorter before falling back to Hadrian's wall 20 years later. Maybe Trump will push the border South and give us what Polk wanted? lol
make rome great again and deport them all
No idea why he thought it was a good idea to pull his troops out of Parthia, yielding such resource heavy lands and ceding the initiative to the Persians, yet keeping the relatively useless island of Britannia. In many respects a fine emperor, yet his static foreign policy caused headaches for his successors.
@@davetremaine9688 I wonder how Mexico's cartels would have developed in Polk's timeline