Braveheart v gladiator

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120102138#Comment_120102138

'Braveheart' isn't even 10% accurate. In fact it's very title was given to Robert The Bruce, not William Wallace. Robert The Bruce's "brave heart" was taken on crusade after his death, which is where the term was supposed to have come from.

There's more historical accuracy in 'Star Wars' than there is in 'Braveheart'.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120107694#Comment_120107694

I assume Wallace was picked because he died. In truth DeBruce was always the leader and held up as Scotland's great hero.

Mister Vain

The Passion Of Saint Tibulus surpasses them all.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120107641#Comment_120107641

I disagree.

Gladiator is a fairly standard revenge story set within the Roman Empire. Braveheart twists William Wallace into a vessel for Gibson's anti-English fantasies. The difference is historically authentic in the case of the former and historcial accuracy in the case of the latter. Gladiator is set in a fascinating world and really succeeds in drawing the viewer in. Braveheart just has Wallace succeed at literally everything he ever tries until he's betrayed and that's it. That's before you apply any knowledge of the period at all at which the film is only enjoyable if treated as a fantasy. The battle of Stirling Bridge isn't even on a f*cking bridge ffs.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109118#Comment_120109118

The English in 'Braveheart' are just the "bad guys". It's the same as nearly every war movie where the Germans are reduced to evil cliches too, or anything from the Cold War era that features anyone with an eastern European accent. I really wouldn't be reading too much into it if I were you.

All that's happened in 'Braveheart' is that Gibson has used a few set pieces to make you hate the English, simply because they are the antagonists in the story, which is a simple story as well.

in any case, there's nothing in 'Braveheart' to get upset over. It's all a pure fantasy. Long Shanks didn't die when Wallace was hung, drawn and quartered. Wallace didn't fuck Queen Isabella. They certainly didn't have a baby (as it's implied). King Edwards' son wasn't gay (as is also implied). Robert The Bruce didn't betray Wallace. Wallace wasn't a scraggly Scot's highlander, Scots didn't wear woad...etc.

...the list is endless.

In contrast, you have Ridley Scott turning Commodus into an incestuous psychopath in order to make you hate him and root for the goody. It's pretty much the same thing, except the hateful entity is boiled down to a fictional representation of a single man, rather than an occupying country.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109580#Comment_120109580

I'm not upset over Braveheart. I've no idea why you're pretending that I am. My point is that there's a limit to what you can have in a film before it becomes absurd. Nobody knows who Commodus is. I doubt Ridley Scott knows one way or the other beyond what was needed for the film. I sincerely doubt he has some sort of obsessive anti-Commodus agenda as you've suggested here. Gibson, on the other hand is a notorious bigot. There's no comparison.

It's simply not remotely the same thing.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109606#Comment_120109606

You sound upset. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, I mentioned nothing about an "anti-Commodus agenda" either. I merely said that both directors are using the age old technique of making you hate the antagonist of a story in order to make you root for the protagonist. It's a movie technique that's as old as storytelling itself.

The fact of the matter is, however, is that there's little in either movie that can claim historical accuracy, whether it's the depiction of the times, the circumstances, or the people involved.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120107714#Comment_120107714

Careful now !

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109637#Comment_120109637

Nope. This is beginning to get circular. If you can demonstrate that Scott has some sort of profound hatred of Commodus similar to Gibson's hatred of the English, Jewish people, etc then please do so.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109648#Comment_120109648

It's not circular, lad, it's ridiculous. 🙂

They're just movies, and fantasy ones at that.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109648#Comment_120109648

The problem with Gladiator is it was made by Scott 🤣

bassy

cool down lads cool the fook down lol lol

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109754#Comment_120109754

Ay...Alrite lad

Ashamed to say I've never watched Gladiator :/ ...a friend of mine used to have a joke and quote maximus desimus all the time and I kind of got the joke..but not really ☺️

Braveheart...from what I can remember is a good film but not nuanced enough...sometimes you need a film like that though.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120102314#Comment_120102314

Do you refer to John McClane as 'Diehard?'

Wailin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109648#Comment_120109648

Yep, you're upset 🤷‍♂️. BTW, why would Gibson have a hatred of the English? He's Australian, most of whom are just like the English.

bassy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109777#Comment_120109777

Scousers is it am loving your pain............

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120110106#Comment_120110106

I don't get it ?

raclle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120110499#Comment_120110499

They mean using the characters name instead of the movie title.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120110908#Comment_120110908

Just realized now I called the character "Gladiator" and not Maximus or Spaniard.

bodhrandude

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109659#Comment_120109659

I agree here, I love Braveheart, but its definitely mostly fantasy. Someone noted earlier the battle of Stirling Bridge, it was in a fcuking field in the movie. That is a vital clue on the defeat at that battle where the Scots army blocked the English in both sides of the bridge and slaughtered them. What's even more fantasy and fictitious is the BBC's History of Scotland documentary series, its a bastardised English version of events.

raclle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120111109#Comment_120111109

That sounds even better. I mean why change it?

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120111109#Comment_120111109

Never saw that series, but was aware at the time about various historians walking off the project. Never a good sign that. Hasn't Neil Oliver turned into a GB News twat subsequently as well?

As far as the battles in 'Braveheart' are concerned though, irrespective of the fact that Stirling Bridge forgot to turn up to its own scrap I thought the fighting scenes were well handled. They were appropriately bloody and painful looking and the terror of a cavalry charge was well realised. In fact, I think it's the battle scenes that play into a lot of the enjoyment that people get out of the movie, myself included.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120112045#Comment_120112045

The rules on engagement (rules set by the big boys like England) stated that you had to let the army pass the bridge and form up for battle so basically Wallace "cheated". It's the medieval version of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" But in my opinion fuk that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120112166#Comment_120112166

I can't remember what movie or show it was but I think it was Braveheart that was the first to show that most soldiers died not from actual stabbing but the crush and trampling created by the scrum of battle.

Greyfox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120112489#Comment_120112489

I think your thinking of that amazing battle in S6 of GOThrones. The battle scenes are the best thing about Braveheart, they look so raw, intense and realistic, so much fun to watch the carnage.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120112807#Comment_120112807

Na this was definitely before GoT I just can't remember when. GoT took it to another kinda silly level.

Tony EH

Without a doubt, most injury in battle during those times were results of blunt force trauma and not laceration. Even sword fighting was aimed more at bashing your opponent rather than cutting him.

But you had to get in close. Against pike men, you had little hope.

Over all, though, it was the use of the long bow that gave the English the edge over their enemies, which I thought the movie handled well.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120112850#Comment_120112850

Except it added the English shoot their own to add to their evvvvvviiiillllness.

But overall it did get their archer and cavalry advantage right.

Tony EH

Of course it did. The English are the "baddies". They're going to do bad things. Just the same as nearly every other baddie does in Hollywood movies.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120112896#Comment_120112896

And of course the Irish turned agin the English.

bassy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBE-uBgtINg

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120112166#Comment_120112166

Apparently, a Scottish man asked why the movie battle wasn't fought on the bridge. He was told that it was in the way to which he responded that that was the point.

Anyway, it's a bit tragic that we never get to see full on historical battles in films any more. It makes sense in that they'd be horrendously expensive but it's still a shame. Braveheart largely got that right along with the squalor of medieval Britain.

bodhrandude

Speaking of which, Braveheart starting now on RTE2.

Mad_maxx

Gladiator is miles better

Galwayguy35

I like both of them, the battle scenes in Braveheart are probably a bit more like it really was when men with swords and spears clashed.

My personal favourite is Last of the Mochicans, especially the scene near the end when Magua meets his maker.