Gladiator ripped off TFOTRE

Actually, it ripped off Ben Hur.

No, Gladiator and TFOTRE use the same events in history. So you really can't say it is a rip off.

Gladiator is a remake, and a better movie

This is both a difficult and interesting debate topic because it’s easy for me to see both sides of it. And it's really interesting to ponder on. Sometimes I feel like given the similarities that are there as if I should consider it more of a rip-off than I ultimate can and do. But where I will land on it is that it feels like it took inspiration from it (having undeniable similarities), but upon closer examination I do think both manage to stand fine on their own two feet as different movies and stories given how things play out in both of them. One critic called Gladiator; a quasi-remake, and maybe that's the best term for it. The characterizations and over-arching conflicts being different enough where I can get a different experience with either film. I do think it's cutting either film a bit short to just call Gladiator nothing more a mindless rip-off with no integrity or intelligence behind it and nothing but action. Or calling Fall nothing more than a plodding, overlong, un-engaging, boring, mess that is "crushed under the weight of its own grandeur";. As I've heard the detractors of those films accusing them of. I personally think that is too simplistic a way of assessing these films. (Naturally that's just in my own opinion)

The undeniable similarities: Both start of in Germania with the Romans warring against the Germanic Barbarians. Both have Marcus Auerlius, Commodus, Lucilla, and a fictional general as major players. Marcus is murdered and he wanted the general to be his successor. Beyond those similarities though, they are fleshed out in very different ways and when past a certain point (with each having two hours to go) go down very different paths. For instance:

Take Marcus Aurelius for instance (portrayed by the great Alec Guiness and Richard Harris in their respective films) While portrayed as a father figure and mentor to the hero in both (as well as the fact that they are dying), their motivations and desires for the empire are different. The version in Fall being a more idealized leader who in his wisdom wants to grant greater levels of rights and citizenship to the Roman vassals in order to help both preserve and expand the peace of the empire, as well as the fact that he seems to figure it is genuinely the right thing to do.

The version in Gladiator is presented in a more flawed light. A man who while coming close to death comes to reflect on and re-assess what he and his life truly have meant as well as the state of the Roman Empire as it stands. (Not liking what he sees with either. With it being no coincidence that he's wondering these sorts of things while warring with rebellious Germanians as well. Worried that he will be remembered as a tyrant who brought "the sword and nothing more") The film saying he spent most of his years as emperor out at war expanding the empire and holding down uprisings against it from those like the barbarians. He wonders what it will all count for (worried about being remembered as not much more than a tyrant, and begins to resent the fact that he spent most of his rule at war.) as well as the fact that his and other emperor's putting the empire's vigorous and primary focus on things such as expanding the land and power of the empire allowed corruption to creep into the homefront within places like the senate. (Such was the case with Senator Falco for instance) And because of all that he seeks to atone and make amends for these perceived/potential wrongs/wasted time by planning to root out the corruption the he in part allowed and to turn Rome back what it originally was, a Republic with power handed back to the people as a whole through the senate rather than an above all others monarch that could very well abuse such authority. (As Commodus does later in the film when doing things like selling off from the grain reserves to fund the games, and sentence anyone he chooses on a whim if they challenge him or if he gets paranoid about them.)

Or take Commodus (again, illustrated by another two great performances IMO from both Christopher Plummer and Joaquin Phoenix) who perhaps is the most different between versions, including how they relate to the hero. The version from Fall seemed to feel more emotionally close to both his father and especially the lead hero. (Livius in this case) His issues with them not seeming to spring up until after he learns that his father seeks to pass down the power of his seat to the general rather than himself. He seemed more unfocused to (for lack of a better term) carefree rather than emotionally damaged at the beginning.

The version from Gladiator on the other-hand holds at least some level of resentment towards the two of them from the start, because of how his father more clearly favored the general for a longer period of time because of how much greater of a warrior/military leader he turned out being and that their virtues lined up more. With Commodus in the position of feeling like a disappointment no matter how much he tried to please and make him proud whose places by his father's side and in his heart was usurped by Maximus, and was not given the emotional support he needed. With his father passing down the power to him being the straw that breaks the camel's back, the ultimate undermining in what from his perspective was a life of undermining, even if Marcus didn't quite see it (as it was emotional ignorance and not something more obvious like physical abuse) until his son confronted him with it during their final talk. However Marcus fully accepts the blame laid upon him (and seems to try to take it all from Commodus) and tries to put forth his hand to set things right. However it is too late for that, and Commodus murders his father so that he can claim what he sees as his birthright.

The Fall version of Marcus is not even murdered by Commodus. He in fact had no say in the matter, and while bitter wasn’t planning on it. It was high ranking advisors who feared losing power if Livius became the ruler instead of Commodus. The Commodus of “Fall” then out of spite, as well as his over-arching belief like many other Romans in the film that those Marcus sought to help were inferior to them, tries to ruin everything his father tried to achieve for his perceived betrayal and abuses the vassals. (particularly through fierce taxation) And it’s even revealed later on that he isn’t actually Marcus Auerlius’ son, being the result of an affair. And though he’s losing his grip throughout the picture, that completely throws him over the edge upon discovery. While the version in “Gladiator” seeks to kill two birds with one stone with his plans. He brings back the gladiatorial games in order to win over the mob with grand-scale entertainment (along with the fact that like the version from “Fall” and their real life counterpart he was a fan of the games himself) so that he could try to win over the admiration he found lacking in his life as well as to eventually consolidate his power and grip over the people so that he could remove the senate and fully solidify his complete power over the empire.

Their character/villain archetypes are also different and arguably opposites. In “Fall” he could be described as being the “Dark Side of the Hero” sort of villain, while in “Gladiator” he is more of the “Opposite of the Hero”. In “Fall” he is proud, arrogant, tougher, and spoiled while in “Gladiator” he has an inferiority complex, was ignored, and is more underhanded and conniving. In “Fall” he is very much on the same plane as Livius and there is a sense that perhaps Livius could have become like him. While in “Gladiator” Maximus is your courageous and stalwart Heston or Douglas (at least in the cases of films in same genre like “Spartacus” and “El Cid”) type of square-jawed tried and true hero and great warrior, while Commodus is not nearly as strong or assured but was conniving and resorts to trickery and underhandedness to try and succeed. (Such as how he rigs his final duel with Maximus, and his idea of manipulating the people with the games.) Though both seem to show some level of remorse for what’s become of their lives. If I am remembering things correctly Commodus in “Fall” did seem to have melancholy at least a bit over the fact that he and Livius’ friendship was destroyed, while the Commodus in “Gladiator” felt guilt over the fact that he killed his father. Not only because he no matter was family after all, but also because before the end he did offer to set things right and accepted full responsibility for any of Commodus’ failings.

Like with the Marcus Aurelius’ these are while playing similar roles fleshed out in very different ways, and in my opinion are both interesting in their own rights. Interestingly enough, both match-up to differing aspects of the real Commodus from history that the other doesn't. But more on that later. With the version from Fall you've essentially got a flagrant hellraiser while the version from Gladiator is played as more of an underhanded schemer. Perhaps the equivocal sequences that best illustrate this are how the characters are handled in their climaxes. In Fall the character has just pretty well completely fallen off his rocker and off the cuff challenges Livius to a duel for the throne. While the version from Gladiator is not without his mental issues, he still thinks more methodically by comparison. After getting Maximus in his clutches he wants to take advantage of the situation by putting him in a rigged fight so that he could get rid of him in a way that would not tick off the crowd as well as help him win back his own popularity that was slipping away. Him needing to be in the good graces of the people before he can make his planned proclamation to dissolve the senate and thus consolidate his own power. And ironically the version from Fall starts out seeming more sane than his Gladiator counterpart but by the end seems much further off the deep end than he ever gets.

Then you have the main protagonists, Livius and Maximus. Both are generals serving under and emotionally close to Marcus Aurelius. (Both having known him since childhood) But their personal dilemmas and such are very different. Livius’ struggles with his loyalty towards Rome and what is right, and at times does feel like he’s nervous about doing certain things for fear of what would happen. (Such as him swearing allegiance to Commodus after Marcus’ death rather than challenging him, and for a good long while does try continue acting as a loyal servant of the emperor) Maximus on the other hand tries to act immediately when he feels there’s something wrong with the situation (him shown examining Marcus’ body when told he is dead and the like) and for this he winds up losing everything and becoming a slave. His family he was hoping to finally return to being killed, and his hopes for living a life of peace being dashed when he’s put into a position where he needs to kill for mere entertainment for himself to survive. (As said in his talk with Marcus earlier, he especially disapproves having people fight and die for nothing) And essentially looks like he has nothing to live for. He has to struggle with whether or not to go on (at first refusing to fight), but does have the desire for vengeance inside of him(for both his family and Marcus) as well as the lingering loyalty to Marcus and the mission he tasked him with (Though he finds himself questioning whether or not somebody like him could achieve it), leading him to fighting and hoping one day that could lead him down the road he desires (or perhaps even needs) to go. With his experiences having the potential to turn him into little more a cynical killer, as displayed when he tells Lucilla that her brother “did his work well”.

However, he proves to himself that he can hold onto his values in even the worst of positions when he spares the life of Tigris of Gaul after incapacitating him. As said before, Livius struggled with trying to maintain a balance of being loyal to his duty to the emperor, whilst still trying to do what was best for Rome. Only coming to openly and fully defy Commodus towards the end when it looks like no other choice can be made. (If anything Quintus’s character arc/struggles in “Gladiator” would be closer to this, at least to an extent. Given that he was also a high ranking soldier under the emperor who went on to struggle with his loyalty. However, that was shortchanged in the theatrical cut as two key scenes were cut that in part explained why he turned on Commodus in the end and why the other Praetorians could be swayed to defy their ruler as well.)

Again, though similarly positioned who they are, what there struggles are, and how things play out are very different. And where their journeys ends in a couple of interesting ways, are opposites. (Livius killing Commodus, surviving and saving his love interest but abandoning Rome with the realization that it cannot be saved. Maximus dies after his final battle, but goes down a martyr and inspiration who gets to be reunited with his family in the afterlife. And while Rome isn't definitively saved, a glimmer of hope is left in Maximus' allies who seek to continue his mission.) One could also say with regard to Gladiator that Commodus represented what Rome had become. (At the very least within the context of the film) Scheming from within the shadows, deceptive, greedy, manipulative, out for personal glory, etc. Maximus represented what Rome should have been. Strong, noble, fair, honest, accepting (given that he became good friends with not only a Numidian but also a Germanian, the great enemy Rome had fought for so long), etc. An idea which is compounded in how the conflict comes down to the two of them warring for the heart of Rome itself. They're fundamental differences are also displayed at the beginning of the film in how Maximus was desperate to engage in a simple life of peace as a farmer and tried turning down an offer for great power, while Commodus was desperate to ascend to the throne and get the power that comes with it that he turned to murder to get it.

With Lucilla the version in Gladiator knows and plays the games of manipulation and subterfuge, while her counterpart in Fall is more openly defiant of her brother and his rule. The version from Gladiator has a son who plays an integral role in her characterization while the version from Fall did not. And so forth.

I think that is enough to get the point across character-wise. Though there's other ones that can be discussed, including those who don't have a real direct counterpart in the other film. (Such as James Mason's Timonides and Oliver Reed's Proximo. Who are perhaps the most compelling supporting characters of their respective films I might add. But I digress.) But I do want to touch on one other major thing:

Thematically their over-arching themes/ideas concerning society, whether it is specifically about Rome or society at large, are also very different. In “Fall” they try to explain what planted the seed of the Empire’s eventual “Fall” as being from their refusal to expand their level of overall acceptance so to speak. The veteran senator's grand speech when the barbarians are brought before the senate fully illustrating this concept. Aurelius struggles for progress in such matters, while Commodus refuses to continue attempts at such work. And thus seeks to keep all the vassals in line through force. With Livius struggling with his loyalties throughout most of the movie. While the people that made “Gladiator” said they wanted to do something along the lines of/similar to a modern day morality play but set in the era of the Roman Empire and used the gladiator games’ use to distract the masses from the real problems (in the film with such cases being Commodus’ corruption and other things like the plague in the Greek quarter) to parallel how many still believe the entertainment medium is used to distract the people from the real problems, as well as showcase how “the mob” is often fixated on violence and spectacle. (“He will give them death, and they will love him for it.”) Even to an extent their fixation on celebrities, because it as a celebrity gladiator and underdog hero for the people, Maximus battles Commodus for the heart of the Roman mob in the sands of the coliseum. (Proximo was even consciously modeled after a real world Hollywood talent agent) So that he can win the crowd and his freedom so that he ultimately can finish what Marcus Aurelius hoped to achieve. Two different themes, but I think both are effectively handled. And with that what the main conflict ultimately is as well as how it is fought are very different between the two movies.



You can read the rest on my reply to this post on the next page.

If you want my penny worth ...
I think both films are great but of their own time. Fall was not praised at the time by critics but time has dealt very kindly with it. I liked it at the time and love it now. Against General opinion, I think Stephen Boyd is brilliant in it and a great foil for Sophia and Christopher.

Gladiator Is something quite different. I saw it five times at the cinema but when it was made the main actors were relatively unknown, unlike Fall. The Gladiator screenplay and music and actiing are first rate.

Fall has better known movie stars that add to the atmosphere. Gladiator has the SFX.



"I think I swollowed a bug" ....

"The Fall Of The Roman Empire" is itself loosely based on the monumental masterpiece series of books titled "The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbon.

Just listen to the intro narration at the beginning of the movie...but as other have said, I liked both "The Fall Of The Roman Empire" as well as "Gladiator"...


"Today is the tomorrow I was so worried about yesterday"--Anthony Hopkins

Gladiator is a bit of Fall of the Roman Empire and Spartacus with a light dusting of Zulu in the battle secene at the beginning.

Mind you the battle scene was probably the best depiction of ancient warfare I have seen. The mire, the dirt, the battle shredded campaign uniforms are very realistic compared to the usual immaculately uniformed sword and sandal epics.

After the battle scene (in which you hear a rip from the audio track of Zulu) the film settles down to FOTRE as far as Commodus is concerned and Spartacus as far as the other fellow is concerned. Ending with a daft soppy bit after the other fellow is killed in the Coloseum.

As I watch it now the battle scene in the forest is taking place - no-one can tell me that Scott's film does not make it more visceral and exciting than TFOTRE. TFOTRE is rather dreary and slow in my opinion, good for its time but very of its time.