MovieChat Forums > Gladiator (2000) Discussion > Why aren't there more Roman movies?

Why aren't there more Roman movies?


Since Gladiator (2000), I have not considered any of the other Roman films to be quite as well made. From what I know, I think it's largely responsible for being both the peak and the beginning of the modern sword and sandals sub-genre of historical cinema. It is historically inaccurate in a number of ways, but I can get past those details if the atmosphere, characters, and stories are compelling enough. Gladiator seemed to be a very grand experience, that did not rely on its ancient Roman setting (alone or mostly) to accomplish that, but it had plenty in the department of those elements I mentioned. I think most Total War fans have seen Gladiator at some point, and most have likely appreciated it. It also has the distinction of remaining the most well known of the Roman films in the public awareness, after nearly sixteen years, and I consider it to be the most classic of 21st century movies, so far. As far as other 21st century (Gladiator and onward) ancient Roman movies are concerned, there are probably only three that I'm aware of, and only King Arthur (Which itself was a hybrid of a late Roman setting with the later medieval legends, sometimes mixing oddly, apparently even making Arthur/Artorius the same person as a 2nd century AD cavalry commander, while living in the 5th century) had a bigger budget and the most public exposure out of the ones I know (Even a pretty decent Playstation 2 game), the others being The Last Legion, and 476 A.D. Chapter One: The Last Light of Aries. There was once a fairly popular TV series on HBO, Rome, although that got cancelled way too soon. I remember a Rome-like series being done some time before that was made, called Empire, which I thought was pretty good at the time.

The ancient Greek genre of historical films (Including ones based around mythology, and especially those for this decade), since the point Troy or Alexander have been made (And both in 2004), going on through 300, and then recently 300's sequel, seems to have more movies than Rome does. However, as for medieval Greece, I am not aware of any English-language efforts to make a film about the later Eastern Roman, Byzantine Empire. A movie centered around the final years of that empire, with its eventual defeat to the Ottoman Empire, would make a great film if done in a similar style to the WWII film Downfall (Der Untergang). It could show the individuals involved, but unlike Downfall, those on both sides of the war. There probably is such a movie that has been made in Greece, or otherwise, and I'm unaware of it.

Which other movies may be compared more closely to Gladiator, or even King Arthur? What are all of the Roman films you're aware of, made since 2000? I can't forget to mention how for both of those movies, the soundtracks were definitely helped by the work of Hans Zimmer and company. To me, they somehow seem to fit in very well, despite how actual ancient Roman music is supposed to have been very different!

I can't help but to feel that I'm ultimately waiting for the next Gladiator type of movie to come along, and to bring about a further mainstream interest in Roman history, as well as revive the ancient Roman genre for more films to be made, hopefully with decent enough budgets. Wasn't there a phenomenon called the "Gladiator Effect" in the early 2000s, in which a lot more people became aware of Roman (likely also leading to Greek and otherwise) history? It seems before that one movie, people just didn't have as easy a reference point to connect the Romans with in popular media. To most, it was that period before the Middle Ages in Europe that they probably remembered reading about at some point, most likely at school. Was there any decent attempt in the 1990s to do a serious Roman era film before the most famous current example was released? Feel free to suggest 1980s and earlier films, but I think those periods of filmmaking may cause the movie to look a lot different from what we've got with Gladiator and similar 2000s/2010s inspirations, which are more of the type I'm after.

At this point, have you noticed that there is even more of an interest in the Romans since Total War: Rome II and Total War: Attila have been made? That's not including a holdover from Rome: Total War's spawning of the interest. You even get people on the Paradox forums or other game boards talking about the Byzantine Empire in medieval games, much of this representing the older Roman (Rome-centered at least) past to them. I think it's likely that an ambitious and interested director and party could succeed in making a big budget Roman epic, now, even at a point in which these movies are very few and lower budget. Who would you like to see direct such a movie? Now my question about casting is, of the currently more popular crop of actors and actresses (Or name an otherwise more obscure choice), who would you believe to be a good fit to get a role in such a movie? A film about the life of Constantine the Great, or one centered around the last years/century of the Western Roman Empire would be most of my preference, although I would be excited about a republic through middle imperial movie as well.


"A New Kind of Man" (John Foxx, 1980):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt4oi-PRbN4

reply

I play Total War games too and loved Gladiator, in fact watching it once again for the 4th time or so on tv.

I agree with you there is lacking and quite a potential gap in the movie industry.

There are indeed alot of periods in roman history that would make for a interesting movie or series!

But no ambitious director just yet to take it up.

owner of www.miscy.net | Find me on wwww.about.me/maxpen

reply

Money, I guess, these sets and customs are very expensive to make.

reply

Have you seen HBOs show Rome?

reply

Well, there's an unnecessary remake of Ben-Hur coming to theaters in August, so we got that going on.

reply

I have nothing to add, other than to say HBO 'Rome' was the business.

reply

Rome (HBO): Possibly my favorite show of all time. As much as I love Game of Thrones, Rome has a much tighter storyline. This show is the father of "swords and sex" shows such as Game of Thrones, Spartacus, The Tudors, etc. Unfortunately, the second season is rushed (but still good!) since the show was cancelled. They did a good job bowing out gracefully by getting to the deaths of Cleopatra and Marc Antony. HBO later acknowledged that it was a mistake cancelling the show, and only cancelled it since it was so expensive.

Spartacus (Starz?): Not as good as Rome, but still worth watching if you're into all things Roman. Unfortunately, the role of Spartacus was recast since the original actor died after season 1. Season "2" was a prequel showing some of the other gladiators like Crixus. Seasons 3 and 4 have a lot more Roman legionnaire action, since the gladiators escape after season 1.

The Eagle: Roman movie with Channing Tatum. It wasn't that good, but it might be worth watching once.

Attila: Television mini-series, but enjoyable from what I remember. It had Powers Booth as Flavius Atius, Liam Cunningham as Theodoric, and a young Gerard Butler as Attila (I didn't realize this until fairly recently). I liked this one, but it obviously had a smaller budget than the others.

Brienne: "Any last words?"
Stannis: "Why a peach?"

reply

It is surprising they aren't more films set in the Roman period -- in terms of sheer historical impact, Roman civilization is second to none, spanning nearly 1600 years if you measure it from the first Punic War to the fall of Constantinople.

Even if you focus on the high period of the Western Republic and Empire (from Marius to Caracalla), you're still talking about 300-400 years where a lot has happened which hasn't ever really made it onto film.

Rome seems to be split into two outputs -- high drama of the Shakespearean/PBS type, focusing on political maneuvering and personality, and action pieces which focus on battles and warfare.

Only HBO's Rome seemed able to kind of combine the two, although it was fairly light on legionary scale action.

reply

"although it was fairly light on legionary scale action."


The show had a very limited budget for what it was trying to do. This was certainly not Game of Thrones where HBO spends upwards of 50 million per season.

reply

That wasn't necessarily meant as a criticism. I think too often Roman (or other) historical films are dominated by giant military battles at the expense of richer narratives and character development.

I think one of the advantages "Rome" had may have been a lack of emphasis on giant military battles while still having a large dollop of action/violence scenes, albeit at smaller scale. I think they did an outstanding job depicting the social and political maneuvering during the transition from Republic to Empire, and doing so from more than the just the aristocratic level, depicting the lives of average Romans and slaves.

Ironically, I've read more than few things that said what brought the series to an early conclusion was that it was too expensive. I know one thing that was a problem was fires that extensively damaged the sets, which were really quite elaborate. The whole show had stellar production values and I can see how costuming and sets would have been very expensive.

It's kind of ironic how GoT, a fantasy historical epic, is able to attract attention and budgets, while Rome, which largely depicted history that actually happened, got cut short for budgetary reasons.

reply

I completely agree with your excellent post.


What I've read concerning the cancelling of "Rome" was that in addition to the relatively high production costs, the show was no longer going to have "The Sopranos" as a lead in since that show ended. The execs at HBO assumed that the viewership for Rome would fall since it no longer had a big name lead-in show airing before it.

reply

You want the short explanation?

Movies set in the Roman Empire or any other ancient historical time period don't make enough money to justify their big budgets. Of course, there will always be rare exceptions like Gladiator but studios now are averse to taking big risks like that.

reply

There were plenty of Historical Roman Epic "sword-and-sandals" genre filmed from the 50s to the 60s. In fact, this film is considered a "Neo-epic" because of the huge influence of those older films. This film is very much a homage to films such as "Spartacus" and "Ben-Hur."

After Gladiator, there was a whole slew of historical fiction/biopics that came out, such as "Troy" and "Alexander." It would quickly fade away.

The truth is, those older Hollywood Epics simply stood the test of time, in their grandiosity, and their ambition... There just simply isn't a market for them in modern day cinema. However, I agree that there is a renewed interest in it. With series such as "Game of Thrones," which is Medieval Fantasy, but still relevant, we are starting to see a resurgence of these types of movies and serials.

reply