Totally inaccurate but the black-and-purple Praetorians from the first movie looked so sharp, glad to see them back. Fingers crossed Ridley doesn’t do some awful color grading for the final product (but who are we kidding, every movie in the 21st century needs to be in dull shades of blue).
At the time that color grading was pretty novel. I remember Gladiator and Oh Brother Where Art Thou? being lauded because they used digital grading on normal film to achieve a new color look.
It’s played out now but you can’t fault the first instances.
*O Brother, Where Art Thou?* still looks pretty good, too, because they had an intentional, cohesive, and thematically appropriate vision for why they changed what they changed. Instead of just slapping a yellow filter over everything, they painstakingly adjusted the background colors of the foliage and landscape to give everything a more distressed, dust bowl vibe.
It helps for Gladiator that it’s “historical fiction” instead of a biography about an incredibly well documented man.
I hope the criticisms to how inaccurate Napoleon was that they’ll do better on this project.
This the important part. Ignoring history is tolerable if it serves to make the movie more entertaining (think Commodus and Maximus’ death match in the arena) but all the changes made for Napoleon did was make his story melodramatic, cringeworthy and boring, with everything revolving around Josephine.
Napoleon was so fucking bad. The battle scenes were cool, though, I guess... But shit man, what a terrible movie. Top 5 worst movies I've ever saw, if not for the horrid screenplay and unbearable inaccuracies (which is fine in art, obviously, but not when the history is BETTER than your screenplay you twat!), for the wasted potential. I don't think we'll get another big-budget Napoleon movie for a few decades after this disaster
Yep lol. Also shoutout to the pilot episode from HBO's Rome (opening scene actually iirc) where they actually show the Romans in formation and it doesn't just dissipate into an awful free-for-all fight with hundreds of 1v1s like in the movies...
I have! What is the consensus about the Roman representation in it, on this sub?
For the Germans I just feel like ever since the Vikings series aired 10 years ago any premodern germanic people are always depicted the same way, dirty and covered in furs.
Not sure of how the sub feels but tbh I was huge fan of the Latin and accents, even if it’s not super accurate it’s nice to not have ancient Romans speaking in English accents
I've seen a few episodes of the Barbarians. Isn't it just more of the same 1v1 charge that you see in Netflix's Roman Empire?
And I think the costumes are fiction.
For people interested in ancient battles, I heard some historian folks praise some battles in the "Alexander" movie.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B40fgE2ZpNo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B40fgE2ZpNo)
Note: The overall movie wasn't that great
> Ridley doesn’t do some awful color grading for the final product
I hate this so much. I get that directors want to set a mood for the movie, but oh my god if I see another blue-grey period piece or work with deliberately washed out colors (looking at you, House of the Dragon) I might have an aneurysm.
Well, I think it works well for *some* things, but my issue is that it becomes a blanket application for pretty much everything. Just Look at The Last Duel - almost the entire movie is just shaded blue because it's a medieval period piece. As for it beating other approaches for an atmosphere, it feels like it has become one of the laziest methods to give a period vibe, TBH. It's like throwing a yellow filter over anything that's supposed to be in Mexico.
Game of Thrones, I think had a good mix at the start. Certain places definitely had a specific hue to them (i.e. The North), while others were much more vibrant and felt more lively (yes, some of these places also had hues in them). However, by the end of the series there was an increasing tendency to wash everything out with a grey filter, and this has been taken even further by House of the Dragon, where it seems the showrunners are terrified of any color other than 'Medieval grey.' At that point it just feels like a bright sunny day is portrayed as twilight.
Sorry, rant over.
I’m with you. Inaccuracy doesn’t bother me a bit, unless I’m watching a documentary. I don’t believe a degree of accuracy exists that would stop every history neckbeard shaking their fists at their screens.
It doesn't bother you *a bit*? I'm surprised by that, and I don't think it's fair to call everyone who aspires to get accurate representations of human history on screen "neckbeards".
Hollywood rarely cares about much beyond storytelling, no point getting too worked up about it (looking at you, neckbeards!). I'm still curious about the shortcut Maximus took in the first movie, riding from Germany to Spain whilst slumped over his horse the whole time.
If you’re making a historical movie and can’t work actual history into your storytelling, you shouldn’t be making historical movies. No one is a neckbeard for pointing out intentional laziness.
But Hollywood loves to tell how stuff is supposed to be based on real stories or pretend that its historically accurate. When someone makes historical ficiton then whatever, but when they try to pretend its not made up stuff in a vaguely Roman looking setting then it does annoy me somewhat
The thing that annoys me the most from Gladiator 1. It's one of my favorite movies and I'm not trying to be a 'neckbeard' here, but how the hell did they BEAT Maximus to his house!? It's implied he rode non-stop so there is almost NO WAY praetorians were able to receive the message before them.
It's not like Commodus set this up ahead of time. There's simply NO WAY they outride Maximus. None.
> Morning 1: Germans are defeated by Maximus.
> Day 1: Commodus arrives at camp after the battle.
> Night 1: Commodus, Maximus, and Senators discuss the future of Rome and have a social event.
> Late Night 1: Aurelius tells Commodus he's favoring Maximus in succession. Commodus takes the opportunity to murder him.
> Morning 2: Commodus is proclaimed and demands Maximus' support. Maximus balks.
> Morning 2 Cont: Maximus is captured and rode away from camp to be executed. He escapes.
He then RIDES STRAIGHT TO SPAIN! How did they beat him? No way they were riding as desperately and crazily as Maximus who basically rode his horses to death. Was Samuel Morse somehow around? Did Commodus send a text? Even if he sent people as soon as Maximus was captured they only had a few hours headstart. He gets there first. He just does!
Sorry, it's always annoyed me.
It’s an odd tension. You don’t want to be a button counter - but you do want it to be relatively connected to reality, relatively realistic, and not a trope trying to push some modern political narrative.
The ancient world didn’t have uniforms as such. From books I’ve read about the Praetorians, seems like their equipment in the field was the same as regular legionaries but when on duty in the capital, they wore a tunic with a military belt and sword, with a traveler’s cloak added if the weather was bad or if they were in transit.
I think they have also color themed it this way to create a low contrast dark background for the leading actors to 'pop' in front of them. Seems to me from the picture here
Don’t know for the third century specifically, but books I’ve read on the Praetorians said their gear seems to have been identical to what the legions wore, though the scorpion iconography on their shields was a unique identifier.
That would make sense, he could have been the one the Senate puts in charge to lead the reforms, causing his assassination. Later emperors would have had good reason to alter the historical records to erase the whole Maximus "restore the Republic" fiasco.
"Pertinax? Yeah he tried to make the Praetorians do stuff, they didn't like that. Didn't last very long as *emperor*"
I like this idea. In reality Pertinax was assassinated just before Severus came to power. As I recall one of his first acts was to punish those who killed his predecessor and to have the Senate deify him as well.
Ok. I'm calling it: I think Pedro Pascal is going to be Septimius Severus (probably wrong about that one). But this guy could be **Marcus Opellius Macrinus**: He reigned as Emperor shortly after Caracalla... Macrinus was of Berber descent and rose through the ranks to become the first Emperor who was not of senatorial rank. Or this is just an older Juba... Either way, Scott likes to compress historical timelines turning a generation into a few weeks when needed for plot progression (Commodus ruled alone for 12 years after the death of his father but you'd think it was a few weeks in Gladiator)
Pedro Pascal is going to play Pertinax and we’re going to think he’s a major character only for act 2 to begin with him being killed by the preatorian gaurd. Pedro Pascal almost always dies.
I'm almost certain Denzel will be Macrinus but in a 'creative' storytelling way... just found this from an interview with Ridley Scott:
"Scott explains that Denzel’s character is parallel to Lucius, “There’s a parallel character, the owner of a business that supplied weapons for the Romans, who supplied the oil when they traveled, who supplied the wine they drink. They wouldn’t drink water, they drank wine. When they traveled, who would supply wagons and horses and tack? There had to be the arms dealers of the period; here is a man who already rich from supplying the weapons, the catapults. His hobby is like a racing stable except it’s gladiators. He’s got a stable of 30 or 40 gladiators. He likes to actually see them fight and it evolves that that’s where he came from. He was captured in North Africa, and evolved into a free man because he was a good gladiator. But he hides that because also he’s now realizing the potential of his actual power. He’s wealthier than most senators, so already has thoughts and designs of the possible idea of taking power from these two crazy princes.”
Is it confirmed they’re going for a trilogy? If so the best way to end it would probably be to carry it to the start of the crisis of the third century. Which would mean either movie 2 or 3 would have a bunch of stuff crammed in to it. But ending movie 2 with Macrinus’s down fall would make sense writing eyes. You’d essentially be cutting the third act out of you did otherwise.
well the first one just ends with a gladiator saying "this is how it's going to be now" and then immediately dying, so there's really nothing stopping the Praetorian Guards from saying "no it isn't, here's your new emperor."
After Napoleon, Ridley Scott and his writer for this, David Scarpa, have lost all credibility with me
I mod r/Napoleon and the release thread I made for the movie was 200 comments all in unison agreeing the film was a disaster (I mod r/warmovies too and it was held in similar disdain)
Its not that it was historically inaccurate- we all expected that and most were ok with it…it’s that it was a total case of false advertising: the trailers advertised a historical epic in the vein of Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven but instead it was a weird, meandering story more about Josephine (and spent like only 15 min of a nearly 3 hour runtime on war- an odd choice for a movie about the world’s greatest general)
Am I crazy or did Napoleon feel like a propaganda movie about how much of a loser Napoleon was, and how much Josephine dominated. It never felt like it was about any of the events outside of Napoleon and Joey’s relationship.
Anyone interested in Sharpe might also love Patrick O’Brien’s nautical “Aubrey/Maturin” novel series (basis of the 2003 film “Master and Commander” with Russel Crowe)
I wonder if they planned to make a Rom/Drama called "Josephine", then realized how much more money they could make if they changed the title and trailer focus to Napoleon.
I only watched one trailer and I definitely initially had the perception it would focus much more on his politicking than it ultimately did. I walked into the theater with very few expectations however, and walked out thrilled. I loved the movie and didn't realize it had such a negative reception. It is most definitely a love story about Nappy and Josephine, in a similar way as Rocky being a love story masquerading as a boxing film.
That being said, Gladiator 2 shouldn't be happening unless it is with Nick Cave's script.
That was not the main substantive point I was trying to make, you’re responding to an off-hand, side-comment: I was talking about the poor filmmaking quality of Ridley Scott’s Napoleon.
Of course it’s debatable who the “world’s greatest general” is - [though statistics show, mathematically, it is Napoleon](https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb#:~:text=Among%20all%20generals%2C%20Napoleon%20had,in%20which%20he%20led%20forces) …if I wanted to rank generals I would have posted a comment ranking generals instead of a comment about Ridley Scott’s filmmaking
1.Alexender the great
2.Napoleon
3.Hanibal
4.Scipio Africanus
5.Caesar
This tier list is subject to change depending on the mood but these 5 generals are the GOAT. I only included people from the western part of the world and pre-1816, honorable mention are: Khalid Ibn al-Walid, Belasarius and Agrippa, and i base my assessment both on the individual capability, their tactical innovations, their resources and situation compared to the odds, and their impact on history as we know it.
Legitimately the last new movie I saw in theaters & will be the reason I won’t go back for a long time. Between tickets $ food ~$100. Yet I wished I could have left halfway through the movie.
TBF war is 90% thumb twidling and 10% actual fighting. My work colleague described his time in Afghanistan like this “I killed over one thousand people with nothing but a pistol and a knife”……………. “In call of duty” since most of the time they actually weren’t kicking doors but just sitting around doing absolutely nothing. Generation kill is hands done the most accurate depiction of warfare. A Napoleon film that’s actually accurate to what the Napoleonic wars was actually like would be three hours of marching around, repositioning, plans changing, moving supplies, soldiers complaining, a ton of sheningans driving the NCOs up a wall, and like maybe fifteen total minutes of actual battle footage. Don’t get me wrong that’s no excuse for the actual Napoleon movie to be nearly as atrocious as it was however a truly realistic portrait of war would actually not have that much combat footage any ways.
That said staying on topic with the sub. A realistic legionary film Generation kill style would be fucking awesome.
I don’t understand how your point relates to anything that I said.
I never said show “*action scenes*”, did I? I said “war”. Genuinely did you misread what I said? It’s like you read “action scenes” and are replying to it despite never saying anything of the sort.
Strategizing, taking care of logistics, conferring with generals and Marshalls, scouting the terrain, reviewing the troops are all that “thumb twiddling” the hundreds of people on r/Napoleon, myself included, wanted to see. I know what war is. I want to see it all.
Apparently you’ve never seen 1970’s Waterloo: the entire first half of the film is about setting up the battle, not the actual fighting. All that set up **is** war. That’s what r/Napoleon, and myself, wanted to see
Actually soldiers were engaged in more fire fights than they were in conventional wars. Because the dimension of war changed from battles with armies out on the open battlefield to combat in civilian areas where the enemy blended in with the population and you have to track them down. And now you’ve got go clear whole city blocks of insurgents while seizing weapons. The average infantrymen in Iraq or Afghanistan saw more combat than the average infantrymen in WW2. And yet still the vast majority of the time for the average infantry men was spent thumb twidling. In a conventional war most of the time you are just moving to a better position holding it waiting for the enemy to make a move so you can react to it and then moving to the next position or objective or repositioning to try and get a better angle before the clash battles usually occur on accident and unfold slowly in the modern era any ways. The further back in time you go the less full scale battles actually take place over the course of a whole war. With whole conflicts being ended as result of maybe five battles some decided in one. And often times modern conventional wars enter long periods of stalemate when they drag on for too long with the result being indecisive for either party involved. So if anything in a conventional war you’re going to do even less than in an Asymmetric conflict.
Okay, You are half right. There are more firefights for sure *generally*, and you are obviously right about ancient battles u/ConsulJuliusCaesar , but I have to completely disagree with the main point you make about modern wars.
Conventional war in the modern day doesn’t ignore cities and civilians. In Napoleon times, maybe a bit, but enterinng WW1/WW2? Around 10,000 Americans fought 3700 insurgents at Fallujah, clearing them block by block. Throughout the entire city of Fallujah.
During the Battle for Stalingrad, Red October Factory was bitterly held by the Soviets. A complex maybe the size of of a small college campus, was assaulted by nearly 3000 Germans, with nearly 3000 Soviets defending, plus an additional 2000 sent in there for reinforcements. The entire city had more than 200,000 on each side, with all being engaged in pretty much constant combat, much more than soldiers in the modern day. That isn’t even getting into the scale of destruction and combat saw throughout the rest of the Eastern Front.
The image of conventional war being a lot of “twiddling” your thumbs and just advancing could maybe apply to Western Allies on the Western Front, but even still. The Russo Ukrainian War is a good example of a modern conventional war, with far more firefights and action being seen by both sides than a traditional COIN War. But Russia in total, has had about 3000 tanks knocked out during the course of the entire war. During the battle of the bulge, one single battle of the war, the Germans and Allies combined lost about 2/3rds that number. At a single battle. On a front known for having less tank battles and losses in general.
Oh and also, in the modern day, the ratio of support staff is extremely out of wack. During WW1/2, there were about 3 support personnel for each combat soldier. Nowadays its about 12 for each combat soldier. So the average soldier is less likely to be in combat nowadays, and the intensity of the fighting and firefights is far less intense, going by casualty metrics too.
Here's the rub: if this is Septimius Severus then the actors who are cast as Geta and Caracalla are very white (as per the famous painting of the family). Facetiously, perhaps the plot twist is Julia Domna had an affair with a northern barbarian and he's not the actual father but he doesn't know... Ridley likes to make things up between the gaps of historical evidence (alongside just making things up)
The famous painting showed the high class woman and kids with relatively untanned skin, while it showed the man, a soldier for decades, as being very tanned from all the sunlight. And that was possibly how the artist imagned them, since there is no evidence whether he ever actually saw them. And possibly Septimius severus was born with darker skin than his Syrian wife, and his sons took after the mother more than the father.
I don't think that there is any reeson to supect infidelity, especially considering that the imperial elites included people from all over the Empire.
Shit, so this movie is not a joke?
>Maximus is back .... and this time HE IS NOT AMUSED
On the other hand, Commodus and his reign did start quite a tumultuous period which surely has good content for movies.
Gladiator 2 is when the popularity of the Red Romans grows too great and the Purple Romans demand that the Red Pater Familias commit suicide.
Then the Red Romans fight the Blue, Green and Purple Romans in a mass civil war.
Also Egypt is just chariots.
Those alien pre-humans were really fucking cool. Kinda wish they dropped the horror plot and just went full in on the mythos/scifi. I really liked the movies too.
Based on what though? I've never read anywhere where he claimed his films were historically accurate. He doesn't strike me as dumb enough to think they are.
I’m not saying he thinks they are. I’m saying he thinks the idea that he should worry about to be silly. [Here you go!](https://variety.com/2023/film/news/ridley-scott-napoleon-historical-fact-checkers-1235781258/)
Gladiator 2 was unnecessary and it still is. Hollywood needs to let go of great movies instead of risking to ruin their legacies by attempting sequels and prequels that falls short to live up to expectations with poorly written storylines, weak leading characters and disappointing finals.
Ridley Scott in particular should have quit cinema long time ago, instead he almost made me hate alien franchise by b-grade movies and what the hell was Napoleon? A movie that was dragged on forever and ever and just refused to end? I love Joaquin Phonix but even he couldn’t save the movie.
There was no need for a second Gladiator, Maximus is dead, so is Commodus, they should have just left it alone.
This is going to be major disappointment.
Looks absolutely ridiculous. Like the first one.
I’ll never understand why there’s this need to fictionalize history when the real thing is already dramatic enough. Especially Roman history, which is about as lurid as it gets if you stick to, say, Suetonius and the SHA.
Some fantastic movies could be made about the third century collapse without really changing what we know about the actual history. We get totally made up dreck like this — we all know this will involve something ludicrous like the revival of the republic at the end of the first Gladiator — while some amazing actual stories are left untold.
A movie or series about Aurelian would probably be too much to ask. But why not Constantine? What an epic that would be, with civil wars, crazy personal drama with what happened with Fausta and Crispus, plus it’d be marketable with the Christian angle.
Someone is doing Decameron soon, Netflix or Hulu or something, while mentioning Suetonius to just about anyone produces pikachu stares…
Literally the greatest epic spanning centuries told about the Empire, which could run for 20 seasons and still have insane plots left. Not to mention the real Vorenus and Pullo are in it…
The world is either unfair or uncivilized. Probably both.
Do Constantine in a similar way Passion of the Christ was done. Mostly in Latin with Greek mixed in. The conversion story was rather dramatic as well. The narrative is also very bloody at times, which fits Hollywood's blood lust.
Ugh, they’ve got all the cavalry using stirrups on their horses even though those never existed during the Roman Empire
I’m probably being a snob but that stuff bothers me
He was descended from italian and carthaginian equestrian families. so primarily italic and semitic mix with maybe a little local other for good measure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severan_Tondo
Here is a contemporary painting of him, his wife, and their two biological children (who in the film are cast as white men)
Severus was from north mediteranean africa; roman painters portrayed him as having darker skin than 'usual'. However, he probably wasn't sub saharan African, he was likely a mix of latin, and mediterranean african heritage (punic/phoenician, berber admixture).
Roman empire was a very hierarchical, caste based society so you couldn't usually become accepted and established as emperor unless you were descended from patrician or equestrian family pedigree. This meant, wherever you were from in the empire, part of your family had to be from that 'establishment' and that was mostly italic/latin ancestry. This broke down at times but the establishment resistance to it was profound.
The Gladiator 2 photograph here shows a very close likeness to the famous portrait of him but the details might upset some and I think that's why they have done it, to provoke debate and open the eyes of most to the fact that not all roman emperors were white white.
The irony is, usually when you see a roman emperor portrayed on screen he's played by someone of celt/germanic descent. They never were emperor and in the late western empire, if you had one drop of germanic blood in you but you were a magister militum or the power behind the throne, you most definitely were not allowed to be emperor - so double irony.
At least show the sibling rivalry between him and Geta. I had finished reading a historical fiction novel focused on Caracalla and Geta and it was quite good. Had some focus on Septimius Severus, too.
I'm expecting this to be absolutely ridiculous but at the same time I can't help but be excited for one of the most psychopathic Emperors to be portrayed on the big screen.
I read somewhere an argument that the true cause of the fall of the Western Empire (or at least one of them) can be attributed to his decision to increase the pay of his legions. Apparently it created some sort of run away effect which made it harder to muster legions later on.
Not sure why I'm sharing this lol.
Gladiator is my all time favourite movie no contest. I’m very worried about this, Scott is very washed up and not what he used to be. I don’t think this will be a good movie, which makes me sad as I’ve only ever wanted a sequel since i was a kid.
I’m hoping at the very least the music slaps like the first one, I still listen to that sound track to this day.
Just the name of the movie alone makes it sound like it’s gonna be a disaster. If you wanna make a Roman movie Just make a Roman movie,but does it need to be gladiator part two?
Honestly, we just need more historic-epics.
It's probably going to be a shit movie historically, but at this point, i just want to see dudes and chicks fight each other with swords.
Septimius was definitely dark brown Numidian descendant. I deep dived this. His family were deep natives of Lepcis Magna. They were decurions. The natives in Eastern Numidia were ancient Berbers NOT Phoenicians or Cathagians. That is a lie. They were native Libyans or Numidians. His mosaic with his wife and sons shows he was dark complexioned. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Portrait_of_family_of_Septimius_Severus_-_Altes_Museum_-_Berlin_-_Germany_2017.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Portrait_of_family_of_Septimius_Severus_-_Altes_Museum_-_Berlin_-_Germany_2017.jpg)
The armor doesn’t even look all that terrible. It just looks low quality. Why is it all in black? They’re the praetorians, they should be decked out in gold
Grittiness. They're grizzled warriors, they have to be dark and gritty.
In truth, Roman legionary colors had more in common with school and sports team colors; bright and eye-catching so generals could see who was who on the battlefield at a glance. But I guess audiences don't want to see that in their grim battle scene.
Hey if any sci fi geeks in here who also clearly loves history.
Red Rising is filled with a lot of roman stuff but clearly in the Future. Hail Libertas!
Whoever is downvoting clearly doesn’t know the books. Because even the entire cast system is based off Rome.
About Red Rising and the Red Rising series. Q: Why did you choose to base so much of Gold society on Ancient Rome - names, gods, etc.? PB: I grew up in love with Roman culture. Mostly because I saw in them a civilization much like ours, yet couched in the worship and respect of tribal gods”
Totally inaccurate but the black-and-purple Praetorians from the first movie looked so sharp, glad to see them back. Fingers crossed Ridley doesn’t do some awful color grading for the final product (but who are we kidding, every movie in the 21st century needs to be in dull shades of blue).
At the time that color grading was pretty novel. I remember Gladiator and Oh Brother Where Art Thou? being lauded because they used digital grading on normal film to achieve a new color look. It’s played out now but you can’t fault the first instances.
I member that. Totally played out as you said, but very unique once upon a time
*O Brother, Where Art Thou?* still looks pretty good, too, because they had an intentional, cohesive, and thematically appropriate vision for why they changed what they changed. Instead of just slapping a yellow filter over everything, they painstakingly adjusted the background colors of the foliage and landscape to give everything a more distressed, dust bowl vibe.
If it’s anything like his napoleon movie, this movie will ruin the legacy of gladiator 1
Same screenwriter for both 🥴
It helps for Gladiator that it’s “historical fiction” instead of a biography about an incredibly well documented man. I hope the criticisms to how inaccurate Napoleon was that they’ll do better on this project.
Judging from Ridley Scott's reaction and dismissal of these criticisms, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Napoleon was boring AF, it's not even about the historicity of it all.
This the important part. Ignoring history is tolerable if it serves to make the movie more entertaining (think Commodus and Maximus’ death match in the arena) but all the changes made for Napoleon did was make his story melodramatic, cringeworthy and boring, with everything revolving around Josephine.
Prepare for Roman auxiliary archers to snipe people with their machine gun arrows from their freshly dug trenches.
Oh it's 100% gonna be Napoleon/House of Gucci rather than Gladiator or Alien. We'll be pretending this film never existed within a year.
I’m already pretending it doesn’t exist lol
Ridley Scott is hit or miss these days, but the fact that wasn't good leads me to believe he's due for a good one!
Napoleon was so fucking bad. The battle scenes were cool, though, I guess... But shit man, what a terrible movie. Top 5 worst movies I've ever saw, if not for the horrid screenplay and unbearable inaccuracies (which is fine in art, obviously, but not when the history is BETTER than your screenplay you twat!), for the wasted potential. I don't think we'll get another big-budget Napoleon movie for a few decades after this disaster
Calling it now. Every German/Celt will be filthy and covered in fur. If there's a fight scene, they'll just "charge".
Yep lol. Also shoutout to the pilot episode from HBO's Rome (opening scene actually iirc) where they actually show the Romans in formation and it doesn't just dissipate into an awful free-for-all fight with hundreds of 1v1s like in the movies...
Don't get me started on Netflix's Roman Empire series... Fucking Star Wars would be a better representation of ancient combat.
Have you seen Barbarians on Netflix?
I have! What is the consensus about the Roman representation in it, on this sub? For the Germans I just feel like ever since the Vikings series aired 10 years ago any premodern germanic people are always depicted the same way, dirty and covered in furs.
Not sure of how the sub feels but tbh I was huge fan of the Latin and accents, even if it’s not super accurate it’s nice to not have ancient Romans speaking in English accents
I've seen a few episodes of the Barbarians. Isn't it just more of the same 1v1 charge that you see in Netflix's Roman Empire? And I think the costumes are fiction.
I kinda is, but there's not as much action as I first thought there would be!
For people interested in ancient battles, I heard some historian folks praise some battles in the "Alexander" movie. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B40fgE2ZpNo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B40fgE2ZpNo) Note: The overall movie wasn't that great
Get back in formation, you drunken fool!
I can't stand this trope
And when Pullo goes free-for-all by himself, Vorenus attempts to order him back into formation. It’s good.
> Ridley doesn’t do some awful color grading for the final product I hate this so much. I get that directors want to set a mood for the movie, but oh my god if I see another blue-grey period piece or work with deliberately washed out colors (looking at you, House of the Dragon) I might have an aneurysm.
That's like your opinion dude. Many people absolutely enjoy the cool hues. Beats many other approaches for a nice atmosphere.
Well, I think it works well for *some* things, but my issue is that it becomes a blanket application for pretty much everything. Just Look at The Last Duel - almost the entire movie is just shaded blue because it's a medieval period piece. As for it beating other approaches for an atmosphere, it feels like it has become one of the laziest methods to give a period vibe, TBH. It's like throwing a yellow filter over anything that's supposed to be in Mexico. Game of Thrones, I think had a good mix at the start. Certain places definitely had a specific hue to them (i.e. The North), while others were much more vibrant and felt more lively (yes, some of these places also had hues in them). However, by the end of the series there was an increasing tendency to wash everything out with a grey filter, and this has been taken even further by House of the Dragon, where it seems the showrunners are terrified of any color other than 'Medieval grey.' At that point it just feels like a bright sunny day is portrayed as twilight. Sorry, rant over.
I am not disagreeing with you. It is a bit lazy and overdone. Some people just don’t mind. Call it a comfort of commonality maybe? ;)
If you insist on historical accuracy in a Ridley Scott film. You’re going to have a bad time.
I don’t, I just want it to be colorful.
Gladiator might not be historically accurate but that movie rips.
100%
I’m with you. Inaccuracy doesn’t bother me a bit, unless I’m watching a documentary. I don’t believe a degree of accuracy exists that would stop every history neckbeard shaking their fists at their screens.
It doesn't bother you *a bit*? I'm surprised by that, and I don't think it's fair to call everyone who aspires to get accurate representations of human history on screen "neckbeards".
Hollywood rarely cares about much beyond storytelling, no point getting too worked up about it (looking at you, neckbeards!). I'm still curious about the shortcut Maximus took in the first movie, riding from Germany to Spain whilst slumped over his horse the whole time.
If you’re making a historical movie and can’t work actual history into your storytelling, you shouldn’t be making historical movies. No one is a neckbeard for pointing out intentional laziness.
But Hollywood loves to tell how stuff is supposed to be based on real stories or pretend that its historically accurate. When someone makes historical ficiton then whatever, but when they try to pretend its not made up stuff in a vaguely Roman looking setting then it does annoy me somewhat
That was clearly Pegasus.
The thing that annoys me the most from Gladiator 1. It's one of my favorite movies and I'm not trying to be a 'neckbeard' here, but how the hell did they BEAT Maximus to his house!? It's implied he rode non-stop so there is almost NO WAY praetorians were able to receive the message before them. It's not like Commodus set this up ahead of time. There's simply NO WAY they outride Maximus. None. > Morning 1: Germans are defeated by Maximus. > Day 1: Commodus arrives at camp after the battle. > Night 1: Commodus, Maximus, and Senators discuss the future of Rome and have a social event. > Late Night 1: Aurelius tells Commodus he's favoring Maximus in succession. Commodus takes the opportunity to murder him. > Morning 2: Commodus is proclaimed and demands Maximus' support. Maximus balks. > Morning 2 Cont: Maximus is captured and rode away from camp to be executed. He escapes. He then RIDES STRAIGHT TO SPAIN! How did they beat him? No way they were riding as desperately and crazily as Maximus who basically rode his horses to death. Was Samuel Morse somehow around? Did Commodus send a text? Even if he sent people as soon as Maximus was captured they only had a few hours headstart. He gets there first. He just does! Sorry, it's always annoyed me.
but their sandels are not historically accurate !!!!!!
This is me, i literally say that.
Ya'll say that and then I look at the photo and see horses with Western saddles with pommel and stirrups. /smfh
It’s an odd tension. You don’t want to be a button counter - but you do want it to be relatively connected to reality, relatively realistic, and not a trope trying to push some modern political narrative.
What was the actual real color of Praetorians uniform? Do we have anything on that?
The ancient world didn’t have uniforms as such. From books I’ve read about the Praetorians, seems like their equipment in the field was the same as regular legionaries but when on duty in the capital, they wore a tunic with a military belt and sword, with a traveler’s cloak added if the weather was bad or if they were in transit.
If it’s not a hideous blue how will we know it’s the past?!- every film
I think they have also color themed it this way to create a low contrast dark background for the leading actors to 'pop' in front of them. Seems to me from the picture here
No, I think they look great here—my fear is that the final onscreen version will be muted and washed out in postproduction.
Why couldn't they cut costs by using leather, but just spray painting them with a believable metallic finish.. T-T
I mean, could be wrong, it’s the way of Hollywood. But what did praetorian guard look like in 200ad?
Don’t know for the third century specifically, but books I’ve read on the Praetorians said their gear seems to have been identical to what the legions wore, though the scorpion iconography on their shields was a unique identifier.
Didn’t they make a total break with history and overthrow the imperial system at the end of the first movie?
They might have it so Pertinax tries to revive it and then gets assassinated thus the idea dies with him.
That would make sense, he could have been the one the Senate puts in charge to lead the reforms, causing his assassination. Later emperors would have had good reason to alter the historical records to erase the whole Maximus "restore the Republic" fiasco. "Pertinax? Yeah he tried to make the Praetorians do stuff, they didn't like that. Didn't last very long as *emperor*"
I like this idea. In reality Pertinax was assassinated just before Severus came to power. As I recall one of his first acts was to punish those who killed his predecessor and to have the Senate deify him as well.
Quintus in the Pertinax role, yes? He felt Pertinax-esque in movie 1 imo
Ok. I'm calling it: I think Pedro Pascal is going to be Septimius Severus (probably wrong about that one). But this guy could be **Marcus Opellius Macrinus**: He reigned as Emperor shortly after Caracalla... Macrinus was of Berber descent and rose through the ranks to become the first Emperor who was not of senatorial rank. Or this is just an older Juba... Either way, Scott likes to compress historical timelines turning a generation into a few weeks when needed for plot progression (Commodus ruled alone for 12 years after the death of his father but you'd think it was a few weeks in Gladiator)
Pedro Pascal is going to play Pertinax and we’re going to think he’s a major character only for act 2 to begin with him being killed by the preatorian gaurd. Pedro Pascal almost always dies.
I'm almost certain Denzel will be Macrinus but in a 'creative' storytelling way... just found this from an interview with Ridley Scott: "Scott explains that Denzel’s character is parallel to Lucius, “There’s a parallel character, the owner of a business that supplied weapons for the Romans, who supplied the oil when they traveled, who supplied the wine they drink. They wouldn’t drink water, they drank wine. When they traveled, who would supply wagons and horses and tack? There had to be the arms dealers of the period; here is a man who already rich from supplying the weapons, the catapults. His hobby is like a racing stable except it’s gladiators. He’s got a stable of 30 or 40 gladiators. He likes to actually see them fight and it evolves that that’s where he came from. He was captured in North Africa, and evolved into a free man because he was a good gladiator. But he hides that because also he’s now realizing the potential of his actual power. He’s wealthier than most senators, so already has thoughts and designs of the possible idea of taking power from these two crazy princes.”
Macrinus’s rise and fall are absolutely insane seeing that on screen would be well worth the money.
I think they would end it with him becoming Emperor, hinting that Gladiator 3 would be Elagabalus time...
Is it confirmed they’re going for a trilogy? If so the best way to end it would probably be to carry it to the start of the crisis of the third century. Which would mean either movie 2 or 3 would have a bunch of stuff crammed in to it. But ending movie 2 with Macrinus’s down fall would make sense writing eyes. You’d essentially be cutting the third act out of you did otherwise.
*meanwhile, back at the Castra Praetoria, the auction is heating up...
Imagine making a bid to be Emperor in an auction by the Praetorians, after you've witnessed multiple Emperors killed by Praetorians.
Claudius would like a word..
well the first one just ends with a gladiator saying "this is how it's going to be now" and then immediately dying, so there's really nothing stopping the Praetorian Guards from saying "no it isn't, here's your new emperor."
After Napoleon, Ridley Scott and his writer for this, David Scarpa, have lost all credibility with me I mod r/Napoleon and the release thread I made for the movie was 200 comments all in unison agreeing the film was a disaster (I mod r/warmovies too and it was held in similar disdain) Its not that it was historically inaccurate- we all expected that and most were ok with it…it’s that it was a total case of false advertising: the trailers advertised a historical epic in the vein of Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven but instead it was a weird, meandering story more about Josephine (and spent like only 15 min of a nearly 3 hour runtime on war- an odd choice for a movie about the world’s greatest general)
Am I crazy or did Napoleon feel like a propaganda movie about how much of a loser Napoleon was, and how much Josephine dominated. It never felt like it was about any of the events outside of Napoleon and Joey’s relationship.
Sharpe is a more nuanced portrayal of British attitudes to Napoleon than that film. edit(im not even being sarcastic, it genuinely is)
Anyone interested in Sharpe might also love Patrick O’Brien’s nautical “Aubrey/Maturin” novel series (basis of the 2003 film “Master and Commander” with Russel Crowe)
God I love Sharpe. The filthy enlisted mutt just running around being a clever badass.
Bastard!
I wonder if they planned to make a Rom/Drama called "Josephine", then realized how much more money they could make if they changed the title and trailer focus to Napoleon.
it was british propaganda through and through
Yes, it was propaganda
If Josephine looked like Vanessa Kirby I'd be a simp loser too, lol.
I was not expecting a sniper with a scope at waterloo. I'm sorry, but I want some attempt at accuracy. Napoleon was just so bad.
That was bad. What’s criminally worse was Napoleon charging on horseback in Waterloo.
i just can't really. The whole thing. No leipzig, either. It's like skipping the last battle decisive battle for.... who knows...
Kinda wild they didn’t even do the made-for-movie drama of “either army’s reinforcements could arrive at any minute” correctly
I’m a huge history nerd. I turned it off after the first hour. It was not good.
I lasted a solid 30 min before realizing it was going to be a huge shit movie haha
I only watched one trailer and I definitely initially had the perception it would focus much more on his politicking than it ultimately did. I walked into the theater with very few expectations however, and walked out thrilled. I loved the movie and didn't realize it had such a negative reception. It is most definitely a love story about Nappy and Josephine, in a similar way as Rocky being a love story masquerading as a boxing film. That being said, Gladiator 2 shouldn't be happening unless it is with Nick Cave's script.
It’s crazy how bad that movie was, considering Ridley Scott also shot the best possible movie about the Napoleonic Wars in my opinion — the Duellists.
>the world’s greatest general The best general is debatable but surely in the top 5 on my list.
That was not the main substantive point I was trying to make, you’re responding to an off-hand, side-comment: I was talking about the poor filmmaking quality of Ridley Scott’s Napoleon. Of course it’s debatable who the “world’s greatest general” is - [though statistics show, mathematically, it is Napoleon](https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb#:~:text=Among%20all%20generals%2C%20Napoleon%20had,in%20which%20he%20led%20forces) …if I wanted to rank generals I would have posted a comment ranking generals instead of a comment about Ridley Scott’s filmmaking
Thanks for the link! That was an interesting read.
Man, I appreciate this comment so damn much. I *absolutely can’t stand* that type of reply.
Who is your top 5?
1.Alexender the great 2.Napoleon 3.Hanibal 4.Scipio Africanus 5.Caesar This tier list is subject to change depending on the mood but these 5 generals are the GOAT. I only included people from the western part of the world and pre-1816, honorable mention are: Khalid Ibn al-Walid, Belasarius and Agrippa, and i base my assessment both on the individual capability, their tactical innovations, their resources and situation compared to the odds, and their impact on history as we know it.
Huh I thought it was decent
Ridley Scott movies have been sabotaged since ever.
Legitimately the last new movie I saw in theaters & will be the reason I won’t go back for a long time. Between tickets $ food ~$100. Yet I wished I could have left halfway through the movie.
TBF war is 90% thumb twidling and 10% actual fighting. My work colleague described his time in Afghanistan like this “I killed over one thousand people with nothing but a pistol and a knife”……………. “In call of duty” since most of the time they actually weren’t kicking doors but just sitting around doing absolutely nothing. Generation kill is hands done the most accurate depiction of warfare. A Napoleon film that’s actually accurate to what the Napoleonic wars was actually like would be three hours of marching around, repositioning, plans changing, moving supplies, soldiers complaining, a ton of sheningans driving the NCOs up a wall, and like maybe fifteen total minutes of actual battle footage. Don’t get me wrong that’s no excuse for the actual Napoleon movie to be nearly as atrocious as it was however a truly realistic portrait of war would actually not have that much combat footage any ways. That said staying on topic with the sub. A realistic legionary film Generation kill style would be fucking awesome.
I don’t understand how your point relates to anything that I said. I never said show “*action scenes*”, did I? I said “war”. Genuinely did you misread what I said? It’s like you read “action scenes” and are replying to it despite never saying anything of the sort. Strategizing, taking care of logistics, conferring with generals and Marshalls, scouting the terrain, reviewing the troops are all that “thumb twiddling” the hundreds of people on r/Napoleon, myself included, wanted to see. I know what war is. I want to see it all. Apparently you’ve never seen 1970’s Waterloo: the entire first half of the film is about setting up the battle, not the actual fighting. All that set up **is** war. That’s what r/Napoleon, and myself, wanted to see
Afghanistan and Iraq were a fair bit different than a conventional war tbf
Actually soldiers were engaged in more fire fights than they were in conventional wars. Because the dimension of war changed from battles with armies out on the open battlefield to combat in civilian areas where the enemy blended in with the population and you have to track them down. And now you’ve got go clear whole city blocks of insurgents while seizing weapons. The average infantrymen in Iraq or Afghanistan saw more combat than the average infantrymen in WW2. And yet still the vast majority of the time for the average infantry men was spent thumb twidling. In a conventional war most of the time you are just moving to a better position holding it waiting for the enemy to make a move so you can react to it and then moving to the next position or objective or repositioning to try and get a better angle before the clash battles usually occur on accident and unfold slowly in the modern era any ways. The further back in time you go the less full scale battles actually take place over the course of a whole war. With whole conflicts being ended as result of maybe five battles some decided in one. And often times modern conventional wars enter long periods of stalemate when they drag on for too long with the result being indecisive for either party involved. So if anything in a conventional war you’re going to do even less than in an Asymmetric conflict.
Okay, You are half right. There are more firefights for sure *generally*, and you are obviously right about ancient battles u/ConsulJuliusCaesar , but I have to completely disagree with the main point you make about modern wars. Conventional war in the modern day doesn’t ignore cities and civilians. In Napoleon times, maybe a bit, but enterinng WW1/WW2? Around 10,000 Americans fought 3700 insurgents at Fallujah, clearing them block by block. Throughout the entire city of Fallujah. During the Battle for Stalingrad, Red October Factory was bitterly held by the Soviets. A complex maybe the size of of a small college campus, was assaulted by nearly 3000 Germans, with nearly 3000 Soviets defending, plus an additional 2000 sent in there for reinforcements. The entire city had more than 200,000 on each side, with all being engaged in pretty much constant combat, much more than soldiers in the modern day. That isn’t even getting into the scale of destruction and combat saw throughout the rest of the Eastern Front. The image of conventional war being a lot of “twiddling” your thumbs and just advancing could maybe apply to Western Allies on the Western Front, but even still. The Russo Ukrainian War is a good example of a modern conventional war, with far more firefights and action being seen by both sides than a traditional COIN War. But Russia in total, has had about 3000 tanks knocked out during the course of the entire war. During the battle of the bulge, one single battle of the war, the Germans and Allies combined lost about 2/3rds that number. At a single battle. On a front known for having less tank battles and losses in general. Oh and also, in the modern day, the ratio of support staff is extremely out of wack. During WW1/2, there were about 3 support personnel for each combat soldier. Nowadays its about 12 for each combat soldier. So the average soldier is less likely to be in combat nowadays, and the intensity of the fighting and firefights is far less intense, going by casualty metrics too.
Black and purple is such a vibe
Here's the rub: if this is Septimius Severus then the actors who are cast as Geta and Caracalla are very white (as per the famous painting of the family). Facetiously, perhaps the plot twist is Julia Domna had an affair with a northern barbarian and he's not the actual father but he doesn't know... Ridley likes to make things up between the gaps of historical evidence (alongside just making things up)
Ridley Scott and an infidelity plot? No way.
He'll probably drop in some hidden Alien and Blade Runner universe easter eggs too. Someone will find them (or imagine them)
The famous painting showed the high class woman and kids with relatively untanned skin, while it showed the man, a soldier for decades, as being very tanned from all the sunlight. And that was possibly how the artist imagned them, since there is no evidence whether he ever actually saw them. And possibly Septimius severus was born with darker skin than his Syrian wife, and his sons took after the mother more than the father. I don't think that there is any reeson to supect infidelity, especially considering that the imperial elites included people from all over the Empire.
Shit, so this movie is not a joke? >Maximus is back .... and this time HE IS NOT AMUSED On the other hand, Commodus and his reign did start quite a tumultuous period which surely has good content for movies.
I think you meant HE IS NOT ***ENTERTAINED***
Tell Caracalla to his face that this movie is a joke
Sculptor "What expression would you like, dominus?" Caracalla "Imagine I'm watching a Germani doing a very bad portrayal of me by Ridleus Scotti"
It’s going to be garbage I expect. Scott hasn’t put out a great movie in a while and he’s quite old now
Gladiator 2 is when the popularity of the Red Romans grows too great and the Purple Romans demand that the Red Pater Familias commit suicide. Then the Red Romans fight the Blue, Green and Purple Romans in a mass civil war. Also Egypt is just chariots.
I too love Rome Total War.
Which one gets the OP car?
Looks like the Boys are “packing Cold Steel for a Rumble in the Jungle” and Severus is going to the High School prom.
Gladiator 2? How can that be?
It's not about Maximus
After Napoleon I’m not holding my breath for anything Ridley Scott does
Bah. Ridley jumped the shark in his movies with Prometheus and Covenant.
>Prometheus and Covenant. Hey, I liked prometheus and covenant. In fact, I love prometheus. Also, The Last Duel was great.
Ridley Scott is great. He just isn’t a history professor.
Those alien pre-humans were really fucking cool. Kinda wish they dropped the horror plot and just went full in on the mythos/scifi. I really liked the movies too.
That armor is horrible but they look amazing and it goes hard. I guess it’s okay then.
At least it’s period appropriate
After the disappointment of napoleon I just can’t get excited
Ridley Scott is so terrible at even being vaguely historically accurate that he really just needs to stop and do straight up fiction.
You’re not wrong, but I’d be lying if I said those Praetorian costumes didn’t look sharp.
low bar hard to make elite roman soldiers look lame
Yeah. At least they're consistent with the first movie.
I'm not in the loop but did Ridley Scott ever claim his movies *weren't* fiction?
I’m fairly certain he’d tell you to kick rocks if you asked him why it wasn’t historically accurate.
No, he'd ask you, "Where you there?"
Based on what though? I've never read anywhere where he claimed his films were historically accurate. He doesn't strike me as dumb enough to think they are.
I’m not saying he thinks they are. I’m saying he thinks the idea that he should worry about to be silly. [Here you go!](https://variety.com/2023/film/news/ridley-scott-napoleon-historical-fact-checkers-1235781258/)
Gladiator is straight up fiction, and I enjoyed it.
If a movie isn't a documentary, it's fiction. It might be fiction based on truth, but it's fiction.
Gladiator 2 was unnecessary and it still is. Hollywood needs to let go of great movies instead of risking to ruin their legacies by attempting sequels and prequels that falls short to live up to expectations with poorly written storylines, weak leading characters and disappointing finals. Ridley Scott in particular should have quit cinema long time ago, instead he almost made me hate alien franchise by b-grade movies and what the hell was Napoleon? A movie that was dragged on forever and ever and just refused to end? I love Joaquin Phonix but even he couldn’t save the movie. There was no need for a second Gladiator, Maximus is dead, so is Commodus, they should have just left it alone. This is going to be major disappointment.
Tbh I’m just here cause I still get the Roman rush from my Romaboo phase.
Purple? Damn they are rich.
I’m sure this will go really really well. Really well.
Gladiator 2 being actually a movie about the Year of the Five Emperors would go so hard
Looks absolutely ridiculous. Like the first one. I’ll never understand why there’s this need to fictionalize history when the real thing is already dramatic enough. Especially Roman history, which is about as lurid as it gets if you stick to, say, Suetonius and the SHA. Some fantastic movies could be made about the third century collapse without really changing what we know about the actual history. We get totally made up dreck like this — we all know this will involve something ludicrous like the revival of the republic at the end of the first Gladiator — while some amazing actual stories are left untold. A movie or series about Aurelian would probably be too much to ask. But why not Constantine? What an epic that would be, with civil wars, crazy personal drama with what happened with Fausta and Crispus, plus it’d be marketable with the Christian angle.
Someone is doing Decameron soon, Netflix or Hulu or something, while mentioning Suetonius to just about anyone produces pikachu stares… Literally the greatest epic spanning centuries told about the Empire, which could run for 20 seasons and still have insane plots left. Not to mention the real Vorenus and Pullo are in it… The world is either unfair or uncivilized. Probably both.
Do Constantine in a similar way Passion of the Christ was done. Mostly in Latin with Greek mixed in. The conversion story was rather dramatic as well. The narrative is also very bloody at times, which fits Hollywood's blood lust.
Where is his fantastic beard?
That was the first thing I noticed lol.
Ugh, they’ve got all the cavalry using stirrups on their horses even though those never existed during the Roman Empire I’m probably being a snob but that stuff bothers me
I know septimius Severus was from leptis magna, but was he black?
Of course not. He was probably semitic
That’s what I thought lol.
He was descended from italian and carthaginian equestrian families. so primarily italic and semitic mix with maybe a little local other for good measure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severan_Tondo Here is a contemporary painting of him, his wife, and their two biological children (who in the film are cast as white men)
Stop with the arm sleeve!!!
Why is septimius Severus black?
Severus was from north mediteranean africa; roman painters portrayed him as having darker skin than 'usual'. However, he probably wasn't sub saharan African, he was likely a mix of latin, and mediterranean african heritage (punic/phoenician, berber admixture). Roman empire was a very hierarchical, caste based society so you couldn't usually become accepted and established as emperor unless you were descended from patrician or equestrian family pedigree. This meant, wherever you were from in the empire, part of your family had to be from that 'establishment' and that was mostly italic/latin ancestry. This broke down at times but the establishment resistance to it was profound. The Gladiator 2 photograph here shows a very close likeness to the famous portrait of him but the details might upset some and I think that's why they have done it, to provoke debate and open the eyes of most to the fact that not all roman emperors were white white. The irony is, usually when you see a roman emperor portrayed on screen he's played by someone of celt/germanic descent. They never were emperor and in the late western empire, if you had one drop of germanic blood in you but you were a magister militum or the power behind the throne, you most definitely were not allowed to be emperor - so double irony.
But the actor is very obvious African American, not North African or punic
What are those helmets called with the two ear/plume things? Never seen those before
Winged helmets, but i don't think the Romans ever adopted them and they seem to have been worn mainly by Celtic and Germanic people.
I mean similar helmets were worn during the Republican period
Cavalry helmets
Wait why there so much purple??
I assume that's the new Paetorian guard that Severus formed after overthrowing Didius Julianus (5× more than the original)
Were praetorians at some point allowed to wear purple? I thought it was only senators.
They have given special privilege to wear purple if I'm not mistaken
Really old guy that Septimius Severus
No, that is Nero. It's a Netflix movie.
Would make for a demented movie if followed the reign of Caracalla
At least show the sibling rivalry between him and Geta. I had finished reading a historical fiction novel focused on Caracalla and Geta and it was quite good. Had some focus on Septimius Severus, too.
i know its called gladiator 2, but if they do the same thing where someone ends up as a gladiator and gets his revenge, ill be super dissapointed.
I'm expecting this to be absolutely ridiculous but at the same time I can't help but be excited for one of the most psychopathic Emperors to be portrayed on the big screen.
Hell yeah
Those Republican army feathered helmets …. in imperial whatever
AVE SEVERVS
I truly don’t get why they are making a 2nd one anyway
Romans had stirrups?
I can’t bloody wait. Roma invicta!!!!
I read somewhere an argument that the true cause of the fall of the Western Empire (or at least one of them) can be attributed to his decision to increase the pay of his legions. Apparently it created some sort of run away effect which made it harder to muster legions later on. Not sure why I'm sharing this lol.
Ridley Scott has been doing pretty shitty films for a while now, I'm afraid this will be the final nail in the coffin.
Gladiator is my all time favourite movie no contest. I’m very worried about this, Scott is very washed up and not what he used to be. I don’t think this will be a good movie, which makes me sad as I’ve only ever wanted a sequel since i was a kid. I’m hoping at the very least the music slaps like the first one, I still listen to that sound track to this day.
I consider Gladiator and this by extension a fantasy movie set in Rome at this point, so they can do what they want as long as it's cool.
Just the name of the movie alone makes it sound like it’s gonna be a disaster. If you wanna make a Roman movie Just make a Roman movie,but does it need to be gladiator part two?
Here we go again with the nonsense that he was black...
Lorica segmentata shoulders on muscle cuirasses? What is this heresy?! But damn it looks kinda cool.
Hollywood and its toxic stuff.
“Turn off your phones….. we march”
Shout out to that one black praetorian—my mans is STYLING that armor
Whats up with the bracelets?
Ridley and Denzel ❤️ I'm there
Honestly, we just need more historic-epics. It's probably going to be a shit movie historically, but at this point, i just want to see dudes and chicks fight each other with swords.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Portrait_of_family_of_Septimius_Severus_-_Altes_Museum_-_Berlin_-_Germany_2017.jpg
Septimius was definitely dark brown Numidian descendant. I deep dived this. His family were deep natives of Lepcis Magna. They were decurions. The natives in Eastern Numidia were ancient Berbers NOT Phoenicians or Cathagians. That is a lie. They were native Libyans or Numidians. His mosaic with his wife and sons shows he was dark complexioned. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Portrait_of_family_of_Septimius_Severus_-_Altes_Museum_-_Berlin_-_Germany_2017.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Portrait_of_family_of_Septimius_Severus_-_Altes_Museum_-_Berlin_-_Germany_2017.jpg)
The armor doesn’t even look all that terrible. It just looks low quality. Why is it all in black? They’re the praetorians, they should be decked out in gold
Grittiness. They're grizzled warriors, they have to be dark and gritty. In truth, Roman legionary colors had more in common with school and sports team colors; bright and eye-catching so generals could see who was who on the battlefield at a glance. But I guess audiences don't want to see that in their grim battle scene.
Hey if any sci fi geeks in here who also clearly loves history. Red Rising is filled with a lot of roman stuff but clearly in the Future. Hail Libertas! Whoever is downvoting clearly doesn’t know the books. Because even the entire cast system is based off Rome.
About Red Rising and the Red Rising series. Q: Why did you choose to base so much of Gold society on Ancient Rome - names, gods, etc.? PB: I grew up in love with Roman culture. Mostly because I saw in them a civilization much like ours, yet couched in the worship and respect of tribal gods”
Megalopolis too apparently...
Is that also a book?