Lanista Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Hi PP - thanks for your email, btw - I'm awaiting some advance copies at the moment, so I can't send any out *lol* However, most of us take offense when something we know as fact and/or consensus probability is altered in order to entertain the masses. I think "for the masses" is the key thing here. As we know these films aren't made with students of the history in mind - and the masses either don't know "the facts" or don't care. But I do think that we should go and see these films and judge for ourselves - I often find that the "buzz" is not representative of my tastes. And, really - if we don't go and see these movies...even the bad ones....then the studios will stop making them. Heh, we'll be harkening back to the good old days of "Last Legion" and "Empire!" Just on that - was Empire a failure? We didn't get it in the UK, but I ordered if off Amazon and quite enjoyed it - the guy that played Mark Anthony was just how I imagined Mark Anthony would have been - albeit a bit more sober, if the commentaries are anything to go by. Gladiator I think thumbs its nose at we students....after the most historically innaccuate gladiator ruck of all time, Maximus struts around shouting "Are you not entertained?" Cheers Hister the Lanista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Empire actually started with some hope. The pageantry and visualization was excellent in the early going, despite a few liberal interpretations of history. I was enjoying it until three little words... Arkham gladiator dungeon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Manicus Posted December 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Arkham gladiator dungeon. Is that the Ancient Roman equivalent of the place where all of Batman's villains were sentenced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Empire actually started with some hope. The pageantry and visualization was excellent in the early going, despite a few liberal interpretations of history. I was enjoying it until three little words... Arkham gladiator dungeon. Was Cthulhu chained up in the Arkham gladiator dungeon? Coz, that would've been coooool. Nah. Not really. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 I might be in a minority here, but I think 'Quo Vadis' is about the worst I've seen. Plastic helmets and Scuta the size and thickness of A4 paper do not a legionary make, and the infantile - yet widely believed - depiction of anti christian persecutions has perpetuated this Victorian myth well into, and beyond, the late 20th century. Caligula, for me, was good for the performance of an immediate post - Clockwork Orange Malcolm McDowell, and the skimpy costumes worn by the female cast. And in any case - was this film any more vulgar or tasteless than the person who inspired it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanista Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Arkham gladiator dungeon. Hah, yes, I'd forgotten about that name - *lol* Classic... Cheers Hister the Lanista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 My vote goes for one of the earliest Dr Who serials (starring William Hartnell), which was called "The Romans" (first broadcast 1965). I've seen it. It's pretty bad. Wow, Neph, thats really digging the deep. One might suspect you're a closet Who fan? Don't worry, your secret is safe with me. However, you might like to know that there's rumours the modern doctor (David Tennant) is due to revisit Rome. Believe you me, its going to make the 1965 episode look like a fly on the wall documentary. Order your popcorn now while stocks last! For an atmospheric depiction of the Roman Empire, Caligula has to be the absolute worst. Wooden acting, cheap sets, and a cast of actors who look uncormfortable at having to pay the bills by appearing in a soft *or* movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Wow, Neph, thats really digging the deep. One might suspect you're a closet Who fan? I've been a DW fan for a long time, through an intimate association with someone who's written a number of the DW television novelisations and original stories. There's one original story in the "New Series Adventures" that has been written by Jacqueline Rayner, titled The Stone Rose, which finds the Doctor (David Tennant) and his companion, Rose, in Rome in the time of the Emperor Hadrian. I haven't read it, myself, so can't really tell you much about it. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 Has anyone here seen some of those old 'peplum' films of the 50/60's? Anything like Demetrius and the Gladiators, The Robe, Barabbas? I saw a few on TCM many years ago, but I can't seem to remember them very well. I do have some vague memories of a film set around the Colossus of Rhodes - with a Greek soldier being tortured by being put in a bell. I can't recall the film's name though. As for historical accuracy, I can over look it if the film is entertaining. My problem with Attila is that it has so many historical inaccuracies it might as well have been a fantasy film. The film simply does not look or feel like the Roman Empire in the mid fifth century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 Has anyone here seen some of those old 'peplum' films of the 50/60's? Anything like Demetrius and the Gladiators, The Robe, Barabbas? I believe I saw "Barabbas" a long time ago. Was just another bad 60's movie, but it wasn't horribly soulless like the productions discussed above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted January 1, 2008 Report Share Posted January 1, 2008 Has anyone here seen some of those old 'peplum' films of the 50/60's? Anything like Demetrius and the Gladiators, The Robe, Barabbas? I believe I saw "Barabbas" a long time ago. Was just another bad 60's movie, but it wasn't horribly soulless like the productions discussed above. There are copies of Barabbas available on DVD. I might get it one day if I have any spare change. While reading this thread I remembered a film that was even worse than USA network's Attila. If you ever come across 'Boudica' starring Alex Kingston floating around somewhere on the TV schedules then avoid it like the plague. It was dire in almost every way - from the plastic sets and costumes to the utterly nonsensical story. The film is more fantasy than history, with druids using magic powers to defeat the Romans, Boudica's daughter travelling through time to 21st century London, and children defeating Roman legions in battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adelais Valerius Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Why is historical accuracy such an issue? Things like "Empire" are entertainment first and foremost, though with that particular period of history, I can't really understand why there's a need to dramatise or alter the facts, it was pretty torrid time after all! Films are rarely accurate - Braveheart, Patriot, Gladiator, 300 - the list goes on, and it's always been the same. I can't see it changing, either. I'm just pleased that the past few years have seen a renaissence of the sword and sandals movie - whilst we can slight films for not being accurate, wouldn't we be slighting hollywood if they weren't making these types of movies. I'd rather have them with their inaccuracies than not have them at all. Cheers Hister the Lanista I agree with Primus that posted right under yours. If you leave out the historical truth, it seems to me that your just borrowing an idea, and then creating a sotry from it? Where's the art in that? So in my opinion, you should just stick to the facts if your going to recreate a scenerio based on an actual event. Also, I think, even though this isn't necessarily about Rome, that Alexander was a HORRID movie and a humiliating portrayal of Alexander. especially the part where he tames Bucephalus, omg how corny they did that. Val Kilmer was definitely not the right choice either. The only good thing that came out of that was Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy and Angelina Jolie as Olympias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Yes, maybe we take all this inauthenticity and cornyness too much to heart. I know WWII addicts who cringe at the plethora of war films which depict things wrongly - including the more modern ones ( High level fighters such as mustangs conducting ground attack missions in Saving Private Ryan when in actual fact rocket - bearing RAF typhoons and USAAF P-47's did all that stuff - for instance!) As a motorcyclist, I see discrepancies in 'The Worlds Fastest Indian' even though I love the film. Nelson's Navy fanatics rip the recent Hornblower series to shreds, whilst fans of the American West constantly shake their heads and tut at all movies from 1920 to date. The fact is, going to see Ben Hur when I was 8 years old fostered an interest in this subject which has never left me. Richard Egan's 300 Spartans, Spartacus and even the awful Quo Vadis reinforced it. I am sure many others on this forum can say the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanista Posted March 14, 2008 Report Share Posted March 14, 2008 The fact is, going to see Ben Hur when I was 8 years old fostered an interest in this subject which has never left me. Richard Egan's 300 Spartans, Spartacus and even the awful Quo Vadis reinforced it. I am sure many others on this forum can say the same thing. My feelings are precisely captured in this statement. To me it smacks of intellectual snobbery to come onto a Roman forum for Roman historians who know a lot about Roman history and point out all the flaws in a Roman film from the wrong sandals to the bad outfits to the fact that gladiators didn't do this that or the other. Most people who subscribe to these forums know all this already. So, for me, sitting with a pen and paper gleefully noting down the fact that it's the same old Tunisian extras on the telly again is pretty pointless. But that's just me. The fact is that films and TV productions are first and foremost entertainment. The argument that "people will learn incorrect facts from watching the movies" is flawed. Anyone that is inspired to "check out" Roman history will soon discover the facts. And if they don't care to, then they don't care to. In addition, accuracy in some cases is pushed aside due to scheduling, budgets, locations, pressure from the production company and a zillion other reasons: whilst critics on Roman forums are teaching Roman historians to suck eggs, I suppose I should do my own and say "Making a film isn't a cheap or easy task." If there are any directors and producers on here, I 'd ask them to support that statement. It's also true to say that fact is often omitted or changed because of pacing and expedience in the script. I'm sure that there are many scriptwriting experts on here who will support that statement too. So things like the Heroes and Villains series that are castigated by forumites aren't really as bad as they're made out to be. No, they're not 100% accurate, and I'm sure that members of forums like these don't expect them to be(indeed, one of the reviews here started with something like "I knew I was going to hate this programme" or something like that - hardly giving the show a fair crack of the whip). These shows are made with the advice of contemporary historians: I'm sure that Prof Mary Beard wouldn't allow the BBC to put her name on a production if she wasn't happy with the result. Before we say "Oh, she was paid", well maybe she was, but she's an eminent academic - would she really support something that she knew was 100% balderdash. Or, to put it another way- do you really, honestly believe that the production company went to the expense of hiring historical experts and researchers just to deliberately ignore them with the express point of annoying people on internet forums. I'm not convinced that's the case. You have to realise that these shows/films aren't made for historians - they're made as mass-entertainment and they're damn expensive projects. Now, either you know that - in which case you should stop complaining about the fact that they re-use cheap leather instead of on-the-money lorica, each aspect of Caesar's life isn't examined in Bergmanesque detail and that certain facts are changed or omitted due to various production reasons. Or if you don't know that, then you're not as smart as you're making yourself out to be, and you should hang out ons some film and tv forums to better understand what you're criticising. It's a really great time for historical epics in the cinema and new documentary/drama-documentary on the TV - this is something that should be celebrated and not castigated. If these programmes and films inspire a new legion of historians then that's great. I'd hazard that most people on here were not inspired to study Rome by reading the Gallic Wars when they were eight. Most of us,as Neil rightly points out saw Ben Hur, Spartacus, 300 Spartans or whatever on the TV and were inspired us to learn "the truth." Ultimately, the only people I see complaining about these films are people who should be really pleased that the productions are being made in the first place. We'd all be bitching at Hollywood and the BBC if nothing "historical" was being made - if not, why are threads like "What historical epic would you like to see?" perpetually popular on this forum as they are on others. I really fail to see why forumites savage every single production that comes out: Is it a possession issue - Roman history is "our" thing, it's not for everyone...is it a snobbery issue - look how clever I am and how thick these stupid Hollywood folk are...I really don't know, but I'll ask the question again - why are you coming on to Roman forums listing the inaccuracies in a show when a simple "not all the facts were correct" will suffice? No one is trying to say that every film/programme/documentary is going to be a fantastic effort...for every "Spatacus" there's "Last Legion", every "I, Claudius" a "Caesars" - as with all such endeavours there are varying degrees of quality. But, as I've said, I'm happy that films are being made, television is producing documentary and drama and more books are being written. The last thing I have to ask or contribute to this topic is Are you not entertained? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Manicus Posted March 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2008 Appears some of you haven't actually seen"Empire" yet! LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.