'The Gladiator' is for panzies?

Question

young snots thinks Maxi is THE sheet- isn't 'Conan the Barbarian' the real deal?

for 'realism', see the beheadings...

ladies & germs, there is a humongous flaw in the gladiator YET nobody seem to notice.

Answer 1

Gladiator sucked as a historical drama. They screwed up so badly on Roman history that it's obvious the writers did not research at all.

Item: Commodus did not murder his father to become Emperor. Marcus Aurelius died in his sleep from sleeping in a closed room with a charcoal burner. Roman medicine hadn't yet figured out the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. Then too, Commodus wasn't in Germany at that time; he was back in Rome partying. And finally, he was already Emperor; Marcus had named him Co-Emperor a couple of years earlier.

Also, there is no way that Marcus was plotting to restore the Roman Republic, which had been dead and buried for over two hundred years by then. In his Meditations, he writes that he never wanted to be Emperor, but since the gods had placed him in the office, his duty demanded that he must do the best job possible. These are not the thoughts of a man plotting to do away with the Empire, are they?

I suppose that for people who know nothing about the history of Rome around 180 A.D. the movie was probably a good one. But I can't enjoy a movie that has me constantly thinking, "What?! No! It didn't happen that way."

BTW, I doubt that a Roman general of that era would ever have issued an order like, "At my command, unleash Hell!" So far as I can tell, the Church had not invented Hell at such an early date; they made up that particular distortion of their scriptures several centuries later.

I could go on, but why?

Adastra,
the Wizzard of Jacksonville

Answer 2

I think if you came up against a gladiator you'd probably have a load in ur shorts the first time we took a wing at you!! "Panzies?" if not..well good for you! IF you were alive at that time in history would you have the strength and courage to face a gladiator?
Conan the Barbarian....I wouldn't call Arnold a panzie either!... They are supposed to tell a story to entertain and have a historical context. Based on real events?, who knows? Possibly. But to say one or the other is the real thing or not is usless, in the end, they are both Movies. Staged, with stunts and everything else a moive entales.
Panzies or not is redundant.

Answer 3

Maximus owns. think of his background. The roman army kills his family and he's taken into slavery and turned into a gladiator. he not only owns in the arena but he teaches his fellow gladiators about teamwork and strategy. Him and his companions step above all the competition and challeges to over come problems and challenges. Maximus owns Conan any day

Answer 4

Considering they are both from different time eras, i think they are both the shizzle. Conan was the only Anti-Hero shown from that era that wooped some major tooshy. Max was better than even King Author in most respects. I give it to Max though. His fights were more realistic and almost historically inclined, while Conans story was based on fantasy.

Answer 5

Well dumb@$$ "Gladiator" won several oscars including best movie. Now I don't know about you but in order to get one of those shiny gold awards you movie needs to be damn good. Nothing against Conan/Arnold but "Gladiator" is a much better film than Conan.

Answer 6

I look at like "Gladiator" is for literate people and "Conan" for illerate people. Doesn't mean one or the other is more or less entertaining to their prospective audience.

Answer 7

Q: What do you call a smiling Roman with hair in his teeth?


A: Gladiator.

Answer 8

The Gladiator is anything but a pansy.

Answer 9

i love conan the barbarian. he's the warrior of legends.

Answer 10

Half a dozen of one and six of the other