or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › GLADIATOR: Best Movie At The Golden Globe Awards!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GLADIATOR: Best Movie At The Golden Globe Awards!  

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
How about them apples...Gladiator managed to get the best movie award at the Golden Globe Awards show. That ought to make many fans of this film happy. It does me because I love to see that the genre is coming back (?). Yet I wish Ridley Scott would have included the Christians thrown to the lions (a historical fact) scenes in the movie rather than giving in to the politically correct, history revisionist crowd. The movie would have been much better, possessing greater character depth...

post #2 of 11

Though it would have been historically correct, I believe that images you suggest would be too horrific for the viewing public.

If you notice in Graphic Violence movies, we very rarely see a human being being attacked by a wild animal. This is one of mans' primal fears that dates back millions of years.

We the audience love to see Arnold or Clint or whoever tear into the bad guys with body parts flying. We love to see ax or knife weilding murders dispatch their "prey".

But we don't like to see wild animals especially lions and tigers, tear up and eat humans. Everyone fears this. Just go to your local zoo and stand in front of the lion cage. Even with those bars in place, your blood still freezes.

What's a matter Frank? This movie had its share of blood and guts. You want more?

post #3 of 11
Thread Starter 

A great film of the 30's, The Sign Of The Cross, had more of its share in showing Christians being thrown to the lions...but the scenes were IMPLIED and not graphic. C. B. DeMille still attained the desired effect--portraying the horrific torture and slaying ways Roman Emperors lavished upon such gentle people, to the utter relish of a bestial populace so desensitized to their fellow men's suffering that they kept on growing even hungrier for more gore and guts with each passing bloody spectacle--by simply implying the horror contained in such torture and death methods than to be bloody graphic (it takes less talent to do this than the other way around).
CBDM, much like Hitchcock, hardly used sensationalism to drive his points home, unlike many current directors which appear bent on being extremely graphic when it comes to portraying human acts of violence (The Messenger is a recent example of such attitude).

My comments were aimed more at Scott's reluctance to deal with a subject matter that for many years Hollywood has either vehemently attacked, derided, or ignored all together, than wish for more blood and gore. You've got me totally wrong on this one...

But you're right about man's innate fear about being eaten alive by wild beasts...that is why I never went back to swim in the ocean after seeing JAWS! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

post #4 of 11
Hi Frank,
Maybe you had this in mind already, but there is a scene in the supplements of Gladiator showing the Christians about to be eaten, with Maximus watching the carnage. There was another film that tried to depict ancient Rome accurately. I think the screenplay was originally written by Gore Vidal? I'm talking about Caligula, which is not exactly a mainstream film. I remember when it was released and the reviewers being stunned by it. Anyway, I guess some people might not like a scene as graphic as being eaten alive by an animal. Maybe it would have changed the tone of the film. Lot's of films have violence and graphic scenes cut. But I'm all in favor of including them in the DVD! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

All the best,

[This message has been edited by Larry Davis (edited 01-22-2001).]
post #5 of 11
Well diserved!! Bodes well for the Oscar. Too bad Crowe did not get it. Maybe he'll get the Oscar. Hanks hit again.... mmhhh.
post #6 of 11
Frank, I agree with you. Feeding Chistians to the Lions was always quite popular and usually was right after the children's matinee. I thought most of the deleted scenes should not have been deleted. Even more so than the happy meal scenes, I thought, the scenes concerning scheming with the Senators were sorely missed. THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE follows history far closer than GLADIATOR. They are based on the same events.

I wish Russell Crowe's character in GLADIATOR had been a lesser ranked person, so that the plot could of bounced off real history a little better. I better not start in on this! I would of done many things different in this film.

I'd bet that the studio types took the politics out of the film, not Scott. To me, most of the deleted scenes would of added authenticity to the story. Happy meals and corupt, plotting Senators should of been more promenient in the story, IMO. Best wishes!

P.S.-You-hoo, Uncle Maximus where are you?


Rachael,la gata del disco Grande, meow!
post #7 of 11
A Director's or rather an expanded cut would be great. Even the scene prior to where sonny killing Emperor would have been a nice add. I think the outake of the family & the lion would have added some poiugnant drame, but I guess would have detracted from the "new age" polytheistic grass floating, not that I have anything against polytheistic grass floaters.

Agree with Frank, this hopefully is a shot in the arm of epic entertainment (facts being secondary),
post #8 of 11
I agree with everyone who said that most of the deleted scenes should have been left in. Unfortunatly, we are living in the time of modern pop culture. The fast food version of everything including movies seem to rule.
Its a bit sad really. I suppose they think most people are brain dead and will lose interest if they have to concentrate a little more for a while longer.
Oh well, at least what they left in was worth it!
Anyway, I hope Scott and Crowe do well in the oscars. Enough of the statues to Tom Hanks already. His shelfs are going to collapse from the weight.
post #9 of 11
Thread Starter 
uncle eric,

The Oscars and other similar film awards ceremonies are nothing more than politics, IMHO. For instance, look what happened last year at the Oscars; there were several actors who more than well deserved an award for their work...yet did not get it. At this point it is doubtful that Crowe will win. On the other hand, he could possibly manage to pull it off. One just never know...

post #10 of 11
Right off hand I'd say that GLADIATOR is the favourite to win best picture. It made alot of money and they never give the thang to "small" films. TRAFFIC, CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, WONDER BOYS, and ERIN BROCAVICH proably all have outside chances. Personally, I don't think GLADIATOR is the best picture, but I think it has all the criteria they want the winner to have. It has Russell Crowe, several strong supporting parts (I particularly liked Richard Harris), It's the best-selling DVD (which means it's certainly the year's leading money maker), the box office was big too, so it's got the "profile" of a winner. The politics of the Oscars gets more obvious all the time. I'd give Gladiator 6 to 7 chances out of 10 to win, if I was handicapping the thing....


Rachael,la gata del disco Grande, meow!
post #11 of 11
Originally posted by VidPhile:
Am I the only one who thought that Gladiator was not a very good film. It if takes the Oscar for best picture, it would only be because it wasn't a really good year in movies and voters tend to overlook excellent independent films. At best I can say that Gladiator was an ok movie that stood out in a crowd of mediocre to bad films.
I thought Gladiator was an excellent film from a purely entertainment standpoint. Great action, good characters, wonderful musical score and lovely photography. However, as far as a meaningful film or groundbreaking ...of course not. But, Oscar is not in the business of citing those type of films only. Depending on the competition or the impact a film may have, the Academy is swayed one way or the other. Just look at Titanic beating out LA Confidential for instance. In other years, a Midnight Cowboy rated x in its day wins out...who'd have thought the Academy would recognize a film such as that one, but it was so special that it could not be ignored.

One other thing about Best Picture vs. the rest of the Oscars. The Best Picture category is a true popularity contest whereby every branch member of the Academy votes. All the other categories are voted on strictly by peers within that particular niche of filmwork. In other words, screenwriters vote only for screenwriters, directors for directors and actors for actors etc.

Gladiator is a big favorite, even though CGI is disdained by a lot of film people who consider the use of it as technological and not the result of a true artist's work. CGI didn't stop Titanic from winning though and it probably won't here. I could be wrong, but I see the film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as Gladiator's biggest threat notwithstanding the brilliance of Traffic, which is a big critic's choice but probably not within the Academy and Soderbergh's two films may end up cancelling each other out anyway. Crouching Tiger is the antithesis of Gladiator in that Ang Lee's film was no less spectacular in its visual effects, but guess what? He didn;t use one bit of CGI -- he did it the old fashioned way and a lot of people are buzzing about it. For me, Gladiator was th ebest flick in a very bad year overall. In most other years, Gladiator would be an also ran with a few nominations but no cigars.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › GLADIATOR: Best Movie At The Golden Globe Awards!