MovieChat Forums > Riverworld (2003) Discussion > Why Nero?

Why Nero?

posted 18 years ago by mdfst13
8 replies | jump to latest

In this, Nero was a ruthless, ultra-competent warrior. In the real world, Nero did things like ban the slaying of gladiators. He was known for focusing on cultural matters over martial needs. He was renowned for his use of poison to assassinate his enemies and committed suicide. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero for more info.

So I ask, why Nero? Why not some earlier Roman? Julius? Mark Antony? Or someone like Alexander the Great? Someone who might reasonably be expected to have the martial accomplishments credited to the Nero character in this movie.

[–] nalders 18 years ago

I agree. Nero? Weak. Trajus and Hadrian, at least, were soldier-emperors. For the premise of this movie, you would need a Julius Caeser, a Mark Antony, or perhaps a Scipio Africanus.

(Roma Victor!)

Death to the Panopticon!

[–] Straydogs_and_Vampires 17 years ago

It's obvious they polled a hundred people on the street to name a Roman Emperor besides Caesar.

XXX

and

[–] new_moon 17 years ago

I agree, Nero is somebody anybody would know, and the name has a ring of decadence and evil to it (and doesn't have as many syllables to memorize!) which makes it interesting. You don't have to spend time with building up a character, all viewers have an image in their mind.

But as for Nero being no soldier - no, he wasn't. But he was a fighter, even if sources aren't very informative about how good he was. He trained as a wrestler and as a gladiator, and he fought in public games. (And took part in races and acted on stage - no wonder the historian Tacitus couldn't stand him and made him look as bad as possible.)

I thought the fight in the arena actually fit in with the historical Nero's character beautifully - he looked like he had the time of his life, having an audience and applause. Self-obsessed posing ruthless hedonist to the core. Fits the bill.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] OhNoMySwordIsGone 17 years ago

lol.. Dont always trust wikipedia...."Nero was insane. The Emperor of Rome took pleasure in other people's pain; he delighted in the idea of wiping the Christians from the face of the Earth."
http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/nero.htm

[–] LordDougins 16 years ago

Yeah, but the christians of the time period were kind of like the Muslims of today. They were anti-government and had terrorist sects.
The Christians were most likely the ones that burnt Rome, but since only christian history survived, Nero got blamed for it.

So I would say that Nero was probably not much worse than George Bush and Guantanamo Bay, and while that is not great, he is not insane.

[–] GrimmShadows 15 years ago

That's one problem with history. A historical person can be written about in so many different ways that at some point it becomes all but impossiable to know they way they really were.

[–] zeta1983-1 15 years ago

True Nero brings to mind insanity more than military accomplishments. A better choice would've been Caligula, although he was even less competent, but more sadistic and crazy.