Gladiator ripped off TFOTRE
Am I wrong or is Gladiator's plot ripped off from this film, while still attempting to remove any shred of integrity and consistency from it?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) Discussion > Gladiator ripped off TFOTRE
Its not a rip off......its based on it!
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Gladiator is more like a version of Fall, not a rip off. A rip off would be if they tried to hide its sources!
Anyway, both are good films for their time. Spartacus is also great, and Ben Hur.
majove-
The film doesn't say the Empire fell then-it says that was the start of it.
Great film-Gladiator is garbage though-wether a rip-off or not (and it is anyway) :)
[deleted]
I am 100% with you!!
...Gladiator steals from all the sandal classics but does not succeed in paying tribute to them ...as it might have been intended...
cheers
mpp
How can you criticize this movie when, by your own admission, you have never seen it?
Gladiator is a rip off of everything!!
Yes Gladiator ripped off everything, especially Fall of the Roman Empire. However, Gladiator was not that bad of a movie. IMO, it was about the death of the old loyal dutiful kind of Roman versus the advent of the corrupt insane kind of Roman - all turning around the arena. The movie did a good job in portraying that.
It is a dead horrible movie by a not too bad director who seemed to be controlled by the studio producers. Above all, it stars the dreadful Russell Crowe, playing a Spaniard with a heavy Australian accent. He was just playing himself in the film anyway; the 'look at me I'm so tough' surly street brawler - go and see his first major film "Romper Stomper" to see what I mean.
I thought that Russel Crowe was rather properly understated for Gladiator. The violence was over the top, but he really was not.
I've never seen FOTRE, but Rome didn't fall around the time of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. Plenty happened after that, like the military bureaucracy created to run the empire by Septimius Severus and his followers which destroyed the people's freedom and prosperity. Then there were the upheavals of the 300sAD, and finally the sack of Rome by the barbarians (Visgoths I think) in 410AD. The empire did not fall entirely until 476AD, when the young emperor Romulus Augustulus was abducted by Odoacer the barbarian.
The empire did not fall immediately, but Marcus Aurelius divided the empire into two administrative spheres, and finally he left it to his irresponsible son Commodus. These were important events that marked the decline of the empire.
Anyway, that is irrelevant; Gladiator is a rip off of both Spartacus and the Ten Commandments, as well as utlilising the same figures as FOTRE for a different story. The whole rot of the emperor choosing a man not of his body to succeed him instead of his own jealous son (read Yul Brynner's Ramses)is found in the Ten Commandments. Then the entire epic of the man sold into slavery fighting against the evil emperor (read Laurence Olivier's Crassus) is a rip off of Spartacus.
Ironically, the 5 emperors (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus "pius", Marcus Aurelius) were known as the 5 good emperors. The first 4 of those emperors chose an unrelated man and adopted him as son. Marcus Aurelius broke this tradition by choosing his actual son Commodus.
Its all been done before, and done much better. Kirk Douglas and Charlton Heston make better leads that the wanky Crowe, and Laurence Olivier and Yul Brynner make better adversaries than the self important (though decent actor) Joaquim Phoenix. Gladiator is just sword and sandal for the computer generation, and as a result is just a glitzy flippant reading of an entertaining genre
Gladiator did some things well, e.g. contrasting different kinds of Romans, and emphasizing the spiritual beliefs of simple Romans such as "Maximus". But the B/S historical events and the B/S Roman battle technology were highly annoying. I think that David Franzoni likes to pump up the glory of Rome because of his own Italian heritage. His later script for the dreadful King Arthur made that very plain wherein the Celtic tale become some Latin period piece based on extremely tenuous weak historical revisionist theories.
Illegitimus! share
Gladiator is the sequel to TFOTRE. The real Commodus was killed by a gladiator, not in the arena but while bathing so it wouldn't have been too heroic for either Stephen Boyd or Russel Crowe's Noble Romans to drown their drunken foes,Christopher Plummer (truly Roman decadent)and Joaqin Phoenix(spoiled brattish incarnate). I'm sure if 1964 censorship had allowed Mr. Mann would've allowed the gore to splash the landscape but I got the point;whether it was against barbarian Germanic tribesmen or civilized foes in the Roman East,combat was brutal. As a whole the film doesn't flow as well as Spartacus human intimacy wise as almost everyone is playing a type Stephen Boyd is Massala the Good, Sophia Loren the Noble Princess, Alec Guiness a world weary dying Ultra Roman etc. But the setpieces,the scenes on the German frontier of the veteran legions, the forest ambush, the gathering of the representaives of the various subjects of the Empire,and the clash of armies in the east were well done. The chariot race is the only thing of real interest to me in Ben Hur, Quo Vadis Peter Ustinov walks away with that film whenevers he's on screen Robert Taylor is an animated statue blech. Julius Caesar(Marlon Brando as Marc Antony) needed to have had a proper major battle it's scene winds up looking like a western movie ambush. If Anthony Mann hadn't clashed with Kirk Douglas who knows what Spartacus might've been like.
shareThey're both great films. I think Russel Crowe's character is (obviously) the centre of Gladiator, while James Mason's character seems to form the axis of FOTRE. What's interesting is the differences between the two: Mason is playing a Greek (a man arguably more civilised his adopted Roman countrymen) and a slave, who has risen in the ranks. Crowe plays a Spaniard (a man from the barbarian provinces) and a general who has become a slave. The characters are both opposites in this way, but both have that quiet, powerful dignity that ties their roles in the narrative together.
Just my £0.02.
Mix Conan the barbarian with this movie you got Gladiator.
Oh yea it was also a bite off of the book "Eagle in the Snow"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_in_the_Snow
They are too similar. Unfortunately, Gladiator results in a more gripping experience. I don't know if Gladiator gave any credit to TFOTRE (1964) but it should have. I worried more about this years ago. Now I have accepted Gladiator as a great film after seeing it 3 or so times, although it does appeal more to modern sensibilities.
I am sure most of the creators of Gladiator had seen TFOTRE at some point. Maybe they were influenced by it. However, since most of this is history, it is really no one's exclusive property.
TFOTRE is good for its day and has some great actors, but Gladiator also had some comparable talent: Derek Jacobi, Richard Harris, and Oliver Reed.
After some recent lacklustre efforts ("Troy," "Alexander,") maybe this genre will be placed on Hollywood's back-burner again (or they will not name movies with such male names!)
"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away."
-Philip K. Dick, VALIS
[deleted]
Yes, it clearly did because as well as borrowng the fictional spine of FTRE - the general of the northern armies is chosen as the emperor's successor (not true) but the emperor is murdered (not true) and he ends up in exile (not true) before returning to fight Commodus to the death (not true) - it copies many of the historical errors. It makes the mistake of assuming that FTRE is historically accurate. If it were, it wouldn't be stealing, it would be based on the same events, but since the story is pure Hollywood, yes, they stole the film blind.
Connecting you to boards system - please wait for hell to freeze over for page to load
I think it is supposed to be a remake.
I for one liked 'Gladiator' though not as much as the older Roman epics. I liked it because it beats the trashy modern day 'Gangsta' crap that is usually made and also it had some great acting from Derek Jacobi (Claudius in 'I, Claudius' THE best Roman epic even if it is only a BBC production), Oliver Reed (or numerous Hammer films), Richard Harris and even Joaquin Phoenix.
"The face of evil is ugly to look upon. And as the pleasures increase, the face becomes uglier."
I bow to you, Doctor Marlowe. Anyone who hasn't seen 'I, Claudius'(1976), hasn't seen a Roman epic. John Hurt's Caligula, alone, makes it a worth renting. Pack a lunch, tho. It's VERY long.
Carpe Noctem
Cstappert, I agree.
shareThe book that inspired Gladiator was actually "Eagle in the Snow," which is a great work and enjoyable. It actually takes place much later, but the general's dealings with the various tribes were what supposedly made Ridley Scott want to make a movie.
shareIt is sort of like The dirty dosen versus "EMOTIONAL" Saving Private Ryan, or The Towering Inferno versus "EMOTIONAL" Titanic. People have changed in the last thirty,forty years. People are more spoiled today and do not realize that the sweet juice that 30's to 70's films had, versus most of today's graphically great, but very dry and forgetable flicks. Is that there was a much more human modest side to movie making.
Before VHS and DVD, movies were being made for rereleases in theatres for many times to see. Therefore, compared to today fliping a DVD with a remote while sitting on your couch. Back then, you had to go and socialise in a movie theatre to see a movie, unless it was aired on a television once in a fiew years. It was the only way to see a movie and you could not pause nor rewind nor TIVOit People respected small litle, but pleasurable moments in the film that made you enjoy the popcorn even more. FTRE, Jaws, Sting, 10Comandments, Stalag17, Spartacus, Star Wars and many other plain good flicks. They were not spectacular graphic video games like Gladiator.(Though,for the most part I still did like the movie)
As a movie maker my self, I respect movies to the fullest of their purpose. Which is entertainment.
With FTRE, there is a certain atmosphere about the Roman easier and lighter times. It sort of also shows that back in the 50's & 60's (perhaps,because of the still fairly fresh WWII and 30's depression experience) people just took what they had modestly and did not expect details to be perfect. It's like today we are much more spoiled and closer to that decadent society that FTRE shows in it's sort of corny, but correct 50's,60's way. Call it maybe the change from the age of Pisces to the age Aquarius. Apparently it happens every two thousand years. So according to that, the last time an age change like that occured was rite arround those same FTRE Roman times with Christ starting a completely different new age.
Anyways to get back to the main point. Rippoff, or not, Gladiator is simply a different type of a movie and it's a fairly a good movie, but just more shallow then FTRE. Made more for a video game generation, which gets bored if there is too long of a conversation in a movie (anything over 60 sec.) without something exploding and blood squirting every thirty seconds. Just like the original Star Wars versus the new computer animated fancy Star Wars. With all it's hundreds of millions of dollars budget can not even come close to the spirit that the original created with such ease.
My end point is,that in today's film making. There is simply a lack of plain human modesty that gives it that something, or call it mojo.
I've never actually seen TFOTRE, but I do think Gladiator is a rip off. I love the movie, but if you watch Spartacus, that's what it is. It's Spartacus in reverse. Some of the lines are even the same. ANd the scene where the African trident bearer hurls the trident into the grandstand (Didn't Maximus do the EXACT same thing with a gladius?) Gladiator is beautiful in every way. Except, the screenwriter SUCKS; just read the first draft of Gladiator. I was just waiting for one of the characters to say, "Yo."
shareGLADIATOR was SUCH a ripoff of FALL that when I sat through G for the very first time I recognised shots and scenes and entire sequences that were clearly and unabashedly ripoffs.
Needless to say I knew the ending before the first reel was over!
The only thing missing from GLADIATOR was Joaquin Phoenix gleefully giggling "If you listen carefully...you'll hear the gods laughing!"
"If you don't know the answer -change the question."
[deleted]
And let's not forget it's a further rip off of what, not just TFOTRE and Spartacus but also Ben-Hur, the whole thing of guy in power friends with another, only to be consigned to slavery, only he returns and metes out that ridiculous thing known as 'film justice'.
And what in the blazes is up with that carriage that Commodus and Lucilla arrive in Germany in: IT'S GOT RIVETS IN IT!!! Also, listen closely, that's the soundtrack of Zulu (1964) in the background at that opening battle scene, German doesn't sound like that!!
Sorry!!
I'm a hardcore fan of the 1960's and 50's (and some 70's) epics, got 'em all on DVD or VHS, and I'm only nineteen. Most would call me a fool, but hey, to me they watch crap.
It's relieving, even if I only find this now, to know I wasn't the only one going, "What the hell? I've seen this movie already..."
I turned to my father (who has a degree in Classical Studies) and whispered, "Is any of this true?"
He said, "Not much." (or something to that effect--this WAS in the theatre when it first came out)
And I sighed and resigned myself to the fact that I was watching an un-credited rip off.
A shame, since I love Ridley Scott's work on the whole.