MovieChat Forums > Gladiator II (2024) Discussion > the historical nerds are out of their mi...

the historical nerds are out of their mind and want to destory every history based movie

posted 10 days ago by TiberiumKing (45)
20 replies | jump to latest

because they think movies should be 100% accruate. those guys are all over youtube and want to annoy us. they also do this to video games. dont listen to those clout chasers, story comes first. its like those clowns dont understand what historical movies are about

like how to this day they bash braveheart because "its not the real wiliam wallace" "scots dident wear that" etc etc.... well no &&^^ this is a MOVIE. and there are BUDGET LIMITATION, especielly to a movie made in 1995. i loved braveheart from the very first moment i saw it. i actually thought it first it was not based on anything. maybe thats why i love it

its a formula japanese movies do all the time. they take the time period and make up story for that time period for their samurai movies. everyone in japan understand this.

its only in the west where the history nerds go "BUTTT HE WASENT AN EMPEROR" "BUT THE ARMOR IS FROM 100 YEARS LATER" "BUT HE DIDENT DIED LIKE THAT"

god those guys are so obnoxious, they dont understand that the general population DO NOT CARE. its all about how good a movie is. not historical accuracy

[–] Satan2016 (25525) 10 days ago

So you're OK with Negro Cleopatra? The Greeks sure were NOT!

[–] TiberiumKing (45) 9 days ago

whataboutism at its finest. apples and oranges. cleopatra was classified as a documentry. not a movie. know the difference. and no i'm not ok with forcing woke stuff on historical movies but i am okay with minor things because inaccurate such as clothes,armor, story, etc

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2410) 4 days ago

Race swapping is minor?

Cool, let's make a film about Nelson Mandella and make him into a white redneck. That would be awesome, because race swapping is only a minor historical offense.

[–] fc31 (5363) 10 days ago

But complaining about other people complaining. Aren't you even worse?

At least their complaints were legitimate and about substance.

Yours are just bitching.

Is that because you found out you are so ignorant? Because of them?

[–] TiberiumKing (45) 9 days ago

their complaints arnt legitimate at all because they are ignorent to film making.

movies have budget limitations, time limitations, are dependent on existing props, have to make a story that fits 2 hours therefore they cant re-imagine real history because reality is much slower and it wont fit the movie. so they have to change stuff. the majority of the public watch movies for their stories and not to nitpick on every single prop in it like those history buffs.

am i worse? for what? for telling the truth about those insuffrable people that nitpick on every movie and try to destory those movies for their own pathetic grift?

there are youtubers who quite litterly their entire channel revolve around military history and those clowns bash every movie in existence because its not good enough for their "historical standarts" you see those guys everywhere nitpicking every damm scene. those guys are annoying and cring AF

no i dont care that marcus auralius in the first movie is "NOT ACCRUATE" get bent history buffs. movies suppose to be THEIR OWN UNIVERSE, its the same with movies based on books, they arnt suppose to be loyal to the books to are suppose to be a different version all together.

[–] fc31 (5363) 9 days ago

They spent more than $200 millions, you think they have budget limitations?

No, they did what they want, they did it because they know most people are dumb, and don't like to think.

Just like you.

They can create characters in a fantasy world, like countless other movies and TV shows, but they did not.

They used history but had no respect for it, which warrants complaints.

It is you that are really weird, defending the soulless Hollywood studios, why? Are you another paid shill? Because there are quite a few here already. You could be one of them using a new account.

[–] TiberiumKing (45) 5 days ago

they spend this money on salaries for extras + for the main case and as you know this type of movie have insane amount of exras, so, theres that...

they also spend it on practical + digital effects. having the exact historically accruate props are things that require alot of time and way more money then they have and it will not be worth money wise for them to do it.

the story is changed to fit 2 hour runtime. real history is slow and you have to have a story for 2 hours. so this is why you will never see a 1 to 1 historically accruate movie no matter how much you will cry about it.

relativly, this movie is more historally accruate then the first. in the first they dident even wore sandals, for hollywood prudctions this movie is pretty accruate. of course the ones i talk about are history nerds who have no life and nitpick on such a deep level that they will never be satisfyed with anything. and they all do it for views. if you know the youtuber metatron, hes famous for being like that.

[–] fc31 (5363) 5 days ago

You talk like a nerd now.

The only difference is that you defend the movie studio.

[–] alanparsons (559) 5 days ago

The historical inaccuracies almost always to end to be against white people and men...

No matter how much leftist hollywood tries to pound it over people's heads, 120lbs women are not warriors that can fight even average men.

No matter how much leftist hollywood tries to pound it over people's heads, homosexuality was NOT common throughout history.

No matter how much leftist hollywood tries to pound it over people's heads, non white people did NOT play a significant role in the development of Europe and subsequent European nations.

Leftist dogma has been running Hollywood for a long time and in the past few decades it's been nauseating.

[–] millsey72 (10241) 4 days ago

Its called alternate history and I love it because its very inclusive to all races and genders

[–] TiberiumKing (45) 4 days ago

actually, homosexuality was common in rome and ancient greece, you may call it bisexuality if you want because it was mostly slaves who were the recievers.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2410) 4 days ago

This is true.

In ancient Greece it was not frowned upon to be the giver to another man. It was frowned upon to be the taker from another man.

Odd, but true.

[–] fc31 (5363) 4 days ago

I don't know how you came up with that.

Ancient Greek homosexuality is well documented, and mostly between grown men and young adolescent males, called "pederasty".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

They engage in intercrural sex, no penetration. Other than penetration nothing was really frowned upon.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2410) 4 days ago

I learned that about 20 years ago in Western Civilization I. My teacher had a PHD in Western Civilization and even wrote a book about it. So, I will assume she was right.

[–] fc31 (5363) 4 days ago

Yet you don't know about pederasty and intercrural sex.

I'd say you should check up your teacher's credentials, make sure her college was actually accredited.

And if all your related knowledge was from your teacher, and you did not do any research of the subject on your own, I'd say you were not a very good student.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2410) 4 days ago

Whatever you say. Have fun with that condescending personality of yours...

[–] fc31 (5363) 4 days ago

When I find out I am wrong I admit it.

When others are wrong I point it out.

When others are wrong but won't admit it that is usually when I become condescending.

I concede that it is a character flaw but I think more often than not it is justified.

[–] TiberiumKing (45) 3 days ago

not all greeks believed in that soft homo nonsense like you claim. there were other greeks who were more savage and would graped slaves and for fun

[–] fc31 (5363) 3 days ago

What I talked about was the main form, what was in public, the accepted norm, endorsed by various arts.

[–] Rorikon (17855) 2 days ago

I don't mind those kinds of reviews if they told what happened with pictures and documents to show for it. Like a comparison of movie vs reality but it's not a complaint but a story telling comparison.