 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Ah, but you're reading into my post what you want to read... posted by Audiophilander on January 24, 2002 at 00:44:43:
How can historical Rome differ from Roman history or the history of Rome ?"Historical" is the adjective form of HISTORY.
Your personal definition is sheer nonsense- you think Gladiator is more realistic but you cannot justify that opinion with a single fact.
"For instance, only those with a fairly advanced knowledge of ancient Rome would be aware that the retractable awnings depicted on the coliseum are in fact historically accurate."
This is a recent hypothesis- and you know that too. The actual mechanism is unknown- and there is only one fresco (in Pompeii I think) that depicts an awning. At the time Kubrick made Spartacus- this was not known.
Given that Gladiator fucks up on ALL MAJOR historical facts- all you are left with are the tiniest of details.
"One of the most impressive aspects of Gladiator to me are those details, which anyone who has studied the lifestyles and culture of ancient Rome should appreciate, at least from a historical context."
Name these details Auph- and how are they more accurate than in Spartacus ?
You can't- because they're not.
You like Gladiator- leave it at that instead of being silly about it.
Follow Ups:
... "based on or suggested by events of the past" as in a historical novel and "famous in history" as in occuring in a place such as HISTORICAL ROME (now often shortened to the word historic, but it applies the same emphasis). Furthermore, the word "historical" is an adjective used to limit or qualify the noun which follows it. Sheeeesh! It never occured to me that I'd be required to provide lessons in grammar in order to defend a good movie! My intent was simply to suggest why Gladiator is a fine, enjoyable film that's rich in detail in spite of the liberties it takes with the protrayal of historical and fictional characters. If you weren't entertained by it, that's not my problem.AuPh
I really ought to use smiley faces more often-8--> ~)D..bah.......humbug !
Anyway- I didn't say I didn't like the film- I did !
I really like Oliver Reed (the world has lost a truly dedicated drinker- and a fine actor)and Richard Harris and Russel Crowe. (As far as Spartacus goes- it was ok but Kirk just does not convince)
I don't mind seeing big- budget blockbusters- they are films to be enjoyed or not based on whatever criteria you choose.
It was colorful- had a hero and a villain- had some plot, the underdog triumphed even though he died in the end- good ol' Hollywood fare.
You don't have to give grammar lessons- but don't expect that a film like Gladiator should be judged on its accuracy- leave that out of it.
And your defense of your use of historical is hysterical.
nyuk nyuk nyuk
Yeah, at times it's hard to pick up on the virtual tongue-in-cheek, especially after feeling obliged to rain on Victor's tirade, but it was fun sparring with ya anyway. :o)Cheers,
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
