Talk:The Fall of the Roman Empire (film)

Immigration

Given when the film was made, when immigration was not a prominent issue in the USA (although developing as an issue in the United Kingdom), I would suppose that the debate over whether to assimilate the barbarians into Roman society or fight them and exclude them probably reflects the civil rights movement more than it does immigration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.178.176 (talk • contribs) at 21:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, why is this movie called The Fall of the Roman Empire? It still had a few more centuries to go... Brutannica 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is explained in the article thus - "The plot may be termed a fantasia on various historical events and characters in the years 180-192, which are taken as the moment when the Roman Empire ceased to rise and begun its ineluctable decline, under the disastrous rule of the unhinged Emperor Commodus". In the opening voice-over of the film itself it is clearly stated that Rome took centuries to fall and that the film concentrates on the period that was 'the start of the fall'.Cenedi 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing Footage

Would 98.160.153.15 care to write something in the article about the nature and content of the missing footage he/she mentions as having been discovered too recently for the deluxe DVD release? This is news (but welcome news) to me. Cenedi (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the 3 disk collector's edition, and it is unclear whether they will release this footage on another deluxe film release: the "Fall of the Roman Empire" lost footage as a special on it OR a new "Fall of the Roman Empire" later edition. I also would welcome more news about it.--Drboisclair (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarities to Gladiator (film with Russell Crowe)

Headline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.0.71 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are obviously a lot of similarities with "Gladiator", which is essentially the same plot, and I have removed the rather bizarre statement: "(but cannot, of course, be called a 'remake')". Fig (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My personal impression on watching 'Gladiator' for the first time was that it was clearly a remake of this film. Presumably Gladiator is not 'legally' a remake, but the plot appeared to me to have been lifted wholesale. - Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.101.166 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, the article reads "The 2000 film Gladiator was not a formal remake but has many points of contact with this movie." What is "a formal remake"? I always thought that was a purely fact-based determination: If a film is essentially the same as one that's been made before, then it's a remake. How does "formal" (or as Simon puts it above, "legal") enter into it? I think it should read that "Gladiator" is a remake, period. In both articles. -- CRConrad (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It means they remade it without the formal rights to do so (and one or two changes tp cover themselves). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.77.49.253 (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

About two-thirds of the basic plot of Gladiator were lifted from FORE, yes - one major addition being a much more realistic and in-depth depiction of gladiatorial games, which simply wouldn't have been possible to do in that way in the 1960s. The trouble is that "remake" isn't a very well-defined term, but the two films do share a great deal of their stories. 188.150.74.171 (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Demand for citations

Some of the demands for citations are somewhat "nit-picketty": Sometimes material is gleaned from "special features" on the DVD versions.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't source the comments to the special features DVD. Seems like a valid reference. Print and permanent copies of films are better sources than internet links, despite being more of a bother to track down.(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary?

Paragraph two describes this film as "...a film of the contemporary sword and sandal genre..." The film is one year short of being 50 years old. What is the point of this phrase and can it be more clearly expressed? Arcanicus (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Production design, dimensions of the set

Currently, the dimensions of one of the sets are given as

The entire set was measured at 400 x 30 meters (1312 x 754 feet)

That doesn't really add up, since 30 meters correspond to more like 100 feet. Also, the dimensions in meters would result in a very narrow strip only. OTOH, 754 feet would yield just 230 meters.

Does anybody know the correct dimensions? Is "230m" actually correct, and the digit "2" has accidentally been dropped? --Syzygy (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I accidentally removed the digit "2" upon editing the article back in May. The correct measurement should read as "400 x 230 meters (1312 x 754 feet)". It's been corrected now. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)