Is Gladiator a good movie

[alfred russel]

Frank Miller was quite serious about his political messaging, though (the noble Spartan ideal defending effete Greeks from subhuman Easterners).

Yes, and that comes across clearly in the screen adaptation of his work. It was by no means a parody of his work.

Which is surprising as it is a very good parody.

It is very good parody.  Anyone who went to see it thinking that it was a movie about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae walked away disappointed, but those who recognized that it was sending up Miller and his whole worldview about real men fighting monsters while almost naked could be entertained.  I know that there are people who don't recognize the movie 300 as parody, any more than they recognize the movie Starship Troopers as parody, but that's their loss.

If David Lynch's version of Dune hadn't been intended for us to take seriously, it would be up there, too.

I always want to take up for "300" when people laugh at the historical accuracy of the spartans fighting monsters. The story is being told by that one dude that survived before the battle of marathon to fire up his homies. If he told the story with a regard to actual historical events the way a 21st century historian would, that would arguably be less accurate. The Iliad has lots of supernatural stuff too, but that is the way the greeks told and remembered the story of the trojan war.

The problem with that defense is that there is clearly a lot of stuff that the spartans wouldn't have had in the story.

[The Brain]

I don't know if the people who made 300 intended to make a good movie or not.

[Admiral Yi]

Did Leonidas speak with a Scottish accent in Teh Graphic Novel?

[The Brain]

That was speech?

[FunkMonk]

When I saw 300 in the theater I genuinely thought it was a comedic parody. I laughed quite a bit. I might have annoyed some of the people in the theater 

Haven't seen it since and I don't really remember it other than through its constant use in internet memes.

[Maladict]

300 is a lot better more funny than Gladiator.

FTFY.  300 was a brilliant spoof of itself.

I remember being really suprised when I realized that we were supposed to be taking this shit seriously, and actually be rooting for a bunch of homicidal maniacs.

It is kind of like when my wife made me watch the first Twilight movie, and it was terrible, but the male lead actually did a pretty damn good job. Later on I read an interview where the actor said something like "I just assumed everyone was supposed to think my character was a whiny little bitch and played him like that...." (I am summarizing). I laughed at that, and thought "Yep, he gets it!" but of course all the actual fans were *supposed* to find him so endearingly moody and lovable...

300 was based on a graphic novel/comic and it was true to that source material.  I am not sure what you mean by taking that shit seriously.  If you went in not knowing you were going to watch a screen adaptation of an action comic book there would definitely have been a disconnect.  Kind of like watching a movie based on comic book Thor when you expected to see real Norse mythology.

One of my history professors wrote an long article for a newspaper decrying all the things wrong with 300 and how the actual historical event would have looked very different. It was very embarrassing.

[The Brain]

300 is a lot better more funny than Gladiator.

FTFY.  300 was a brilliant spoof of itself.

I remember being really suprised when I realized that we were supposed to be taking this shit seriously, and actually be rooting for a bunch of homicidal maniacs.

It is kind of like when my wife made me watch the first Twilight movie, and it was terrible, but the male lead actually did a pretty damn good job. Later on I read an interview where the actor said something like "I just assumed everyone was supposed to think my character was a whiny little bitch and played him like that...." (I am summarizing). I laughed at that, and thought "Yep, he gets it!" but of course all the actual fans were *supposed* to find him so endearingly moody and lovable...

300 was based on a graphic novel/comic and it was true to that source material.  I am not sure what you mean by taking that shit seriously.  If you went in not knowing you were going to watch a screen adaptation of an action comic book there would definitely have been a disconnect.  Kind of like watching a movie based on comic book Thor when you expected to see real Norse mythology.

One of my history professors wrote an long article for a newspaper decrying all the things wrong with 300 and how the actual historical event would have looked very different. It was very embarrassing.

Invite to Languish?

[Maladict]

I always want to take up for "300" when people laugh at the historical accuracy of the spartans fighting monsters. The story is being told by that one dude that survived before the battle of marathon to fire up his homies. If he told the story with a regard to actual historical events the way a 21st century historian would, that would arguably be less accurate. The Iliad has lots of supernatural stuff too, but that is the way the greeks told and remembered the story of the trojan war.

The problem with that defense is that there is clearly a lot of stuff that the spartans wouldn't have had in the story.

Marathon happens a decade before Thermopylae. I looked it up, the story is told on the eve of Plataea, which is one year after Thermopylae. I don't think those soldiers needed a history lesson.

[The Brain]

I always want to take up for "300" when people laugh at the historical accuracy of the spartans fighting monsters. The story is being told by that one dude that survived before the battle of marathon to fire up his homies. If he told the story with a regard to actual historical events the way a 21st century historian would, that would arguably be less accurate. The Iliad has lots of supernatural stuff too, but that is the way the greeks told and remembered the story of the trojan war.

The problem with that defense is that there is clearly a lot of stuff that the spartans wouldn't have had in the story.

Marathon happens a decade before Thermopylae. I looked it up, the story is told on the eve of Plataea, which is one year after Thermopylae. I don't think those soldiers needed a history lesson.

No one in history who deserted and then the rest of his buddies were killed felt a need to improve on the facts. Did you ever watch The Usual Suspects btw?

[crazy canuck]

300 is a lot better more funny than Gladiator.

FTFY.  300 was a brilliant spoof of itself.

I remember being really suprised when I realized that we were supposed to be taking this shit seriously, and actually be rooting for a bunch of homicidal maniacs.

It is kind of like when my wife made me watch the first Twilight movie, and it was terrible, but the male lead actually did a pretty damn good job. Later on I read an interview where the actor said something like "I just assumed everyone was supposed to think my character was a whiny little bitch and played him like that...." (I am summarizing). I laughed at that, and thought "Yep, he gets it!" but of course all the actual fans were *supposed* to find him so endearingly moody and lovable...

300 was based on a graphic novel/comic and it was true to that source material.  I am not sure what you mean by taking that shit seriously.  If you went in not knowing you were going to watch a screen adaptation of an action comic book there would definitely have been a disconnect.  Kind of like watching a movie based on comic book Thor when you expected to see real Norse mythology.

One of my history professors wrote an long article for a newspaper decrying all the things wrong with 300 and how the actual historical event would have looked very different. It was very embarrassing.

Yeah, yet another one who missed it was based on a comic.

[crazy canuck]

I always want to take up for "300" when people laugh at the historical accuracy of the spartans fighting monsters. The story is being told by that one dude that survived before the battle of marathon to fire up his homies. If he told the story with a regard to actual historical events the way a 21st century historian would, that would arguably be less accurate. The Iliad has lots of supernatural stuff too, but that is the way the greeks told and remembered the story of the trojan war.

The problem with that defense is that there is clearly a lot of stuff that the spartans wouldn't have had in the story.

Marathon happens a decade before Thermopylae. I looked it up, the story is told on the eve of Plataea, which is one year after Thermopylae. I don't think those soldiers needed a history lesson.

And the other problem with trying to give an historical justification, is that the one Spartan who did come back was despised, not cheered.

"no man would give him a light for his fire or speak to him; he was called Aristodemus the Coward."

[Josquius]

Frank Miller was quite serious about his political messaging, though (the noble Spartan ideal defending effete Greeks from subhuman Easterners).

Yes, and that comes across clearly in the screen adaptation of his work. It was by no means a parody of his work.

Which is surprising as it is a very good parody.

It is very good parody.  Anyone who went to see it thinking that it was a movie about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae walked away disappointed, but those who recognized that it was sending up Miller and his whole worldview about real men fighting monsters while almost naked could be entertained.  I know that there are people who don't recognize the movie 300 as parody, any more than they recognize the movie Starship Troopers as parody, but that's their loss.

If David Lynch's version of Dune hadn't been intended for us to take seriously, it would be up there, too.

I always want to take up for "300" when people laugh at the historical accuracy of the spartans fighting monsters. The story is being told by that one dude that survived before the battle of marathon to fire up his homies. If he told the story with a regard to actual historical events the way a 21st century historian would, that would arguably be less accurate. The Iliad has lots of supernatural stuff too, but that is the way the greeks told and remembered the story of the trojan war.

The problem with that defense is that there is clearly a lot of stuff that the spartans wouldn't have had in the story.

Yes. I always liked this interpretation of it. It's like a film from a wacky alternate history where Sparta is making movies.
Or hell. It's like the sort of thing the nazis would have made. Just need to take on a bit more Jewishness on the Persians.
Not a good film for impressionable teenagers. But for anyone capable of thinking for themselves there are a lot of layers to think about.
It's commendable because it's such a bizzare one off in telling the story the way those involved would have.

That the people behind it were really earnest about the whole thing is worrying and funny at the same time. Though I really expect beyond miller at least some prominent people in the crew were in on the joke and knew not to take It at face value

[Sheilbh]

One of my history professors wrote an long article for a newspaper decrying all the things wrong with 300 and how the actual historical event would have looked very different. It was very embarrassing.

I had a history teacher at school who would put on Elizabeth for end of term classes, which she loved - normally followed by a lesson where she just went through all the mistakes.

I don't think I was ever in a class with her that was actually about the Tudors.

[jimmy olsen]

As to Gladiator - the question is "Is Gladiator a good movie".

The answer is absolutely.  Great enjoyable action movie.

Thinking back I can't believe it won Best Picture, but if my wife said "Hey do you want to watch Gladiator tonight" I'd surely say yes.

What movie from 2000 should have won then?

[jimmy olsen]

It is good. Almost the archetypal summer blockbuster.

Kind of a weird moment in time, when a film like this could win Best Picture and a film like this that is not a comic book adaptation or a sequel to something.

For the whole 20th century movies like that could win. The population as a whole would respect the Oscars a lot more if that was still true.

There should be a minimum number of tickets sold for a movie to qualify for the Oscars. At least a million, maybe two. No art house flicks that only fifty thousand people have seen.