h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I saw the new Ridley Scott Saga just two days ago (i still have the ticket in my pocket) and was impressed of what digital cinematoghraphy can do.
I guess Scott was impressed by the "I Claudius" BBC mini-series with Alec Guiness. I found that, apart from the action scenes, the rest of the flic was actually a ripp-off of this TV Show.

Also, i was really impressed with the consistancy of names and places and facts. Someone did his research on this...

But the fact remains that Commodus (the Imperator portrayed by Joakin Phoenix) wasn't really killed in an arena: He was poisoned by his wife and sister.

One more thing i noticed was that in some panning of the camera to the Roman skyline, you actually get a glimpse of the St.Peter's Cathedral, build only a 1000 years later
But of course for Americans the building of the Vatican, the Roman Empire and the Dinosaurs existed all about the same time.

>>But the fact remains that Commodus (the Imperator portrayed by Joakin Phoenix) wasn't really killed in an arena: He was poisoned by his wife and sister.<<

Really? Britannica.com states that Commodus was killed by a champion wrestler at the behest of his own advisers (Commodus' advisers, not the wrestler's) on Dec 31, 192 AD. His sister was involved in a conspiracy against him, but this was 10 years before his death.

The whole Commodus thing annoyed me as well, but then historically he did at least fight in the arean...
Isupopose he is a Holwood writer's dream: if they'd invented him, he wouldn't have been believed.

WHat did Alec Guiness do in I claudius???

While on about History, Hollywood are still getting confused with the thumbs up to kill, thumbs down to live, they still persist on doing it the wrong way round.

Gedge

I'm going to repost that last one without the careless typos:

The whole Commodus thing annoyed me as well, but then historically he did at least fight in the arena...
I suppose he is a Hollywood writer's dream: if they'd invented him, he wouldn't have been believed.

What did Alec Guiness do in I Claudius???

That's better

Two points:

1) The BBC series 'I Claudius' starred Derek Jacobi, not Alec Guinness.
2) In the arena it was 'thumbs down' to let the adversary win (literally 'drop your sword'), and 'thumb toward chest', not 'thumbs up' to kill him.

Another anachroism in the film is the persistent use of, and reference to, stirrups. Romans didn't have them.

A topic of much historical debate and academic acrimony, I believe.

Did anybody else have a slight problem with the geography of the film?

Okay, the opening sequence in in Germania (I think- please don't bite my head off if I get this wrong, as I'm going from memory from when I saw it months ago) or somewhere similar with barbarians, forests etc in Central / North Central Europe.

When Max. escapes from his would-be executioners, he takes off with a couple of horses and *rides home*. Now, is this in Spain? Or Italy? Either way, it's a hell of a distance, with several mountain ranges etc in the way. Then, when he's captured by the slave train, he then seems to go to North Africa with Olly Reed and so forth. Again, not a small distance to cover. In the Roman world, travel was not swift; even sea journeys through the Med. were long, drawn-out affairs.

Apologies if I'm being a complete pedant, but these things really bug me. Well, to be honest, Gladiator really bugged me. Probably because (controversial one, this) I thought it was really boring. The opening sequence was great; then, a whole HOUR of sod-all (ie Joaquin Phoenix grimacing, Richard Harris luvvying, Russell Crowe being dour [wooden], and worst of all, that bint from the TicTac adverts trying to be a minxish manipulator).

Oops, allow me to finish that last sentence:
An HOUR of sod-all before Max. even becomes a gladiator. That's bad pacing.

You have a point, however I thought the film was very well paced. The build up to Maximus becoming a Gladiator gave us a reason to be on his side. It made us feel the blows and really understand his character and its actions.

Couldn't agree more: I had great hopes from the opening sequence, but it really went downhill from there: and all those flashbacks/dream sequences drove me nuts!
There is always a dangerous assumption that gritty=accurate, but it's just not the case, and I still felt the film was from the usually American perspoective (eg hero has two sidekicks, one black, one Irish)

You're bang on about the geography! I don't think it's much later in the film that we find out Max is from Spain. Before I heard this piece of salient information, I was thinking "What the hell?!? How did he get from Italy to the Middle East?" And regardless of whether it was Italy or Spain, that's still one helluva long horseride either way!

There's another historio-geographical point: the film starts with the Romans fighting in Germania, but their camp is at Vindobona (Vienna). Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Vindobona in another Roman province (ie Pannonia?).

Well we're being picky today aren't we? We just have to accept that the film was primarily made for the american audience, as most are these days. As the film concerns European History the director knew he wouldnt have to remain that accurate and could do all of this moving around, "yeah, he can do about 1000+ miles on his horse..." because, quite frankly, how many Americans who go to the movies regularly are going to know anywhere near that much about Europe roughly 2000 years ago?

Anybody who doesn't like the film can head over to http://www.nitpickers.com and check out the nitpicks that have already been posted on Gladiator. If you can think of any that haven't been posted, feel free to register and post them yourself!

I rather enjoy having a good pick, actually

This is leading to the usual old chestnut: If Hollywood is not interested in 'real' history, then they don't need to represent 'real' historical characters. Let's face it: what % of people going to see the film had ever heard of Commodus? Unfortunately the viewers (American and otherwise)believe far more than they admit to. I don't want to bore you with the repercussions of this: but let's just say that they can make my working life a pain.

As a good friend of mine says, I would rather see a GOOD film, even if it was historically inaccurate, rather than watch a tedious, but scrupulously correct movie. Problem is, Gladiator is both tedious and incorrect...

For the sake of the story, they wished to show M using time and energy to travel a long way: physically and emotionally. To show him going from a wet, cold place to a hot, dry place just seems a bit lazy...

I have to admit I didn't really get the whole dream sequences with the corn field bit, it was kind of out of place in a blood and guts Roman epic. Other than that I loved the film - especially the soundtrack, and seeing Derek Jacobi drop from Emperor to Senator

Ok - I liked seeing Derek J as well: I think there is some ancient tradition along the lines of "Yea, wherever there are togas there also shall be Derek Jacobi..."

Excuse me, I'm still reeling from having my first entry approved!

Many congratulations

I agree about the film being made from the American perspective, lets just be grateful that America wasn't around at the time of the Roman Empire, else 'The Spaniard' would have been 'The Yankee' or something similar, and Commodus (as the villain) would have been an upper class Brit!