Gladiator (2000)

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

LOLWUT?
Yeah, that would definitely not be my way of making a film. :P

Take a close look at these and you will see the circled errors...

http://www.moviemistakes.com/picture3362

http://www.moviemistakes.com/picture3402

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

Take a close look at these and you will see the circled errors...

http://www.moviemistakes.com/picture3362

http://www.moviemistakes.com/picture3402

XD White T-shirt and everything...

Russell Crowe: "YOU WANT ME TO TRASH YOU PANTS?!"
"HUNTADUNTADAAA IN THE BACKGROUND LIKE THAT!"

[Swede]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

You can see it anyway in the final version of the film. Quite a bit of laziness with this film. And Scott dared to ask why he didn't win Best Director. Hey Ridley, how about you make sure you don't have a guy in jeans during MULTIPLE shots of a historical epic?

Talk about watching movies frame-by-frame, but seriously you can find stuff like this on pretty much any other movie ever made

BTW I'd guess Ridley Scott is fairly happy with the 5 Oscar Wins the movie received, and well he did get the nomination for best director didn't he?

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Swede

Talk about watching movies frame-by-frame, but seriously you can find stuff like this on pretty much any other movie ever made

BTW I'd guess Ridley Scott is fairly happy with the 5 Oscar Wins the movie received, and well he did get the nomination for best director didn't he?

Frame by frame? It's blatantly obvious.

[Garconis]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

I understand that, but you still see more in the original shot.
Guess I just like it as-is, really really as-is.
No 4:3-cropping, but also no "wide-cropping".
Oh well...

More is definitely not better. Some things aren't really intended to be in the shot. In the two screens you supplied, the actual "cropped" versions look much nicer. They feel more cinematic, more dramatic, more dynamic, more interesting. They pull you in, rather than just laying out there.

[vega2K]

Originally Posted by Swede

Talk about watching movies frame-by-frame, but seriously you can find stuff like this on pretty much any other movie ever made

The issue I have with stuff like that is that doesn't the Editing process basically view the film frame by frame? How could you miss that, especially since I would assume looking for stuff like this is part of the process??? I don't blame Ridley but the editor should have at least gotten his hand slapped (if not his face).

[Swede]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

Frame by frame? It's blatantly obvious.

It's not even obvious in the screenshot, so no it's not "blatantly obvious". I've watched the movie several times and never noticed any of these things. If it was THAT obvious, why did they feel the need to put red circles around the part you should look for

Now, the EE and DNR problems however ARE blatantly obvious here without watching frame by frame, and that's the issue here.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Swede

It's not even obvious in the screenshot, so no it's not "blatantly obvious". I've watched the movie several times and never noticed any of these things. If it was THAT obvious, why did they feel the need to put red circles around the part you should look for

Now, the EE and DNR problems however ARE blatantly obvious here without watching frame by frame, and that's the issue here.

The horse one isn't as obvious, but the crowd one absolutely is -- particulary on the Blu-ray when watching it on a big screen.

[Swede]

Originally Posted by vega2K

The issue I have with stuff like that is that doesn't the Editing process basically view the film frame by frame? How could you miss that, especially since I would assume looking for stuff like this is part of the process??? I don't blame Ridley but the editor should have at least gotten his hand slapped (if not his face).

Well, I guess you could say that, but to their defense there are about 223,000 frames to go through in the theatrical version alone, so to demand absolute perfection on stuff like this is pretty much impossible, which is why like I said before that you can find these things in pretty much any movie out there. Just check here for a gazillion other "goofs" in this movie, that's just the nature of the beast.

Just FYI, here's the goofs page for Titanic, and another one for The Godfather, both considered fairly good movies by most standards, and somehow have about the same amount of "goofs" as Gladiator. Ironically, the bigger & more famous the movie is, the more "goofs" you can generally find about it, now somehow I don't think that's because the best movies have the most amount of mistakes made

[Swede]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

The horse one isn't as obvious, but the crowd one absolutely is -- particulary on the Blu-ray when watching it on a big screen.

Well, I guess I'll have to reserve my judgement on that until I see a blu-ray version of it myself, but either way it's not really a big deal as these things can be found on pretty much any movie.

I take it you're a big fan of The Dark Knight? Just for you I will link to imdb's goofs page for the movie. That's a HECK of a lot of goofs for a movie that's only one year old At least people have had 9 years to find that many goofs on Gladiator

Here are a few good ones:

"Revealing mistakes: The school bus backs up into the bank hard, and goes almost halfway into the building. When The Joker drives it out, the bus has no scratches or dents."

"Crew or equipment visible: In the holding cell, when Batman smashes the Joker against the wall, a camera with a blue LED/LCD screen and two people from the crew reflect on the right mirror."

"Crew or equipment visible: As the bus is driving away after the Joker blows up the hospital, you can see an IMAX camera in the seat opposite of him. This was to film a shot on the bus that was deleted (as explained in the special features)."

I could go on, but I think you get the drift

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Swede

Well, I guess I'll have to reserve my judgement on that until I see a blu-ray version of it myself, but either way it's not really a big deal as these things can be found on pretty much any movie.

I take it you're a big fan of The Dark Knight? Just for you I will link to imdb's goofs page for the movie. That's a HECK of a lot of goofs for a movie that's only one year old At least people have had 9 years to find that many goofs on Gladiator

Here are a few good ones:

"Revealing mistakes: The school bus backs up into the bank hard, and goes almost halfway into the building. When The Joker drives it out, the bus has no scratches or dents."

"Crew or equipment visible: In the holding cell, when Batman smashes the Joker against the wall, a camera with a blue LED/LCD screen and two people from the crew reflect on the right mirror."

"Crew or equipment visible: As the bus is driving away after the Joker blows up the hospital, you can see an IMAX camera in the seat opposite of him. This was to film a shot on the bus that was deleted (as explained in the special features)."

I could go on, but I think you get the drift

Dude, a sword and sandals 1st Century setting movie with an outdoor sunlight setting and there's a member of the crew in blue jeans in plain sight. At least in the horse scene he is sort of concealed by the horse and the fact that it's a dimly lit scene. There are goofs in EVERY movie, but if you are going to make a period piece, you damn well better avoid modern crap showing up in plain sight during the film. Or do you think ancient Rome had blue jeans?

By the way, that bus "goof" in TDK is similar to the kinds of goofs in every action movie including Gladiator. See the chariot scene.

[Swede]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

By the way, that bus "goof" in TDK is similar to the kinds of goofs in every action movie including Gladiator. See the chariot scene.

...and that would be my point

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Swede

...and that would be my point

You don't think a period piece film should have pretty good attention to detail on obvious crap like costumes that show up on screen? I think that is a more egregious error than the bus thing in TDK.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Swede, here's the screenshot from the Blu-ray, posted earlier in the thread by HAVOKK:

[Swede]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

You don't think a period piece film should have pretty good attention to detail on obvious crap like costumes that show up on screen? I think that is a more egregious error than the bus thing in TDK.

Yes and no, I actually consider plot holes, logical errors and other stuff that actually affect the movie a whole lot more serious than small revealing mistakes like that, but still that's just a screen shot, so can not be compared to watching the clip running at normal speed. Besides, if you're watching the movie you should not be watching the top-left corner of the screen in that particular scene anyway since your eyes should be focused on Maximus, and no, I don't really see how a tiny guy in the middle of the crowd wearing the wrong clothes is any more serious than any other kind of mistake...

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Swede

Yes and no, I actually consider plot holes, logical errors and other stuff that actually affect the movie a whole lot more serious than small revealing mistakes like that, but still that's just a screen shot, so can not be compared to watching the clip running at normal speed. Besides, if you're watching the movie you should not be watching the top-left corner of the screen in that particular scene anyway since your eyes should be focused on Maximus, and no, I don't really see how a tiny guy in the middle of the crowd wearing the wrong clothes is any more serious than any other kind of mistake...

It shows a lack of attention to detail for a $100m period piece that was produced in the 21st Century. As for plot holes, that is an entirely different thing altogether and obviously far more important. But on the scale of "goofs," a guy in jeans during a period piece is a pretty idiotic goof. My point earlier in the thread was poking fun at Riddley Scott for being miffed at why he didn't win Best Director. For one thing I think it showed his arrogance. For another, he shouldn't give a damn about awards. And for yet another, don't ***** about not winning an award if you've got goofs in your movie that are easily preventable.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

It shows a lack of attention to detail for a $100m period piece that was produced in the 21st Century. As for plot holes, that is an entirely different thing altogether and obviously far more important. But on the scale of "goofs," a guy in jeans during a period piece is a pretty idiotic goof. My point earlier in the thread was poking fun at Riddley Scott for being miffed at why he didn't win Best Director. For one thing I think it showed his arrogance. For another, he shouldn't give a damn about awards. And for yet another, don't ***** about not winning an award if you've got goofs in your movie that are easily preventable.

Well if error in a movie mean's no Oscar, then they should ask for almost every award given for Best Picture as I am sure if you look hard enough you will find weird errors in them. Movies are written by humans, done by humans. Humans make mistakes, we do our very best to avoid them but mistakes will happen, no matter how much quality control you put in too something, at one point an error will happen. But I wonder, do people actualy sit watching movies and look at them frame by frame to see all the errors they can find? Where is the fun in that?

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Well if error in a movie mean's no Oscar, then they should ask for almost every award given for Best Picture as I am sure if you look hard enough you will find weird errors in them. Movies are written by humans, done by humans. Humans make mistakes, we do our very best to avoid them but mistakes will happen, no matter how much quality control you put in too something, at one point an error will happen. But I wonder, do people actualy sit watching movies and look at them frame by frame to see all the errors they can find? Where is the fun in that?

The guys who make them are supposed to do that. They get paid to do exactly that. And saying that people shouldn't analyze the visuals of a film is kinda like saying people shouldn't analzye a painting. My point here in the first place was precisely that no one is perfect. Ridley could learn a thing or two about humility.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

The guys who make them are supposed to do that. They get paid to do exactly that. And saying that people shouldn't analyze the visuals of a film is kinda like saying people shouldn't analzye a painting. My point here in the first place was precisely that no one is perfect. Ridley could learn a thing or two about humility.

But there is analysing and then there is "analyzing". If all you actualy do is not watching the movie but sitting down and checking it frame by frame to see where the director, cameraman or editor made a mistake, I see it more as excessive obsession and finding fault at people who are more succesful in order to make oneself feel better about oneself IMO

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

But there is analysing and then there is "analyzing". If all you actualy do is not watching the movie but sitting down and checking it frame by frame to see where the director, cameraman or editor made a mistake, I see it more as excessive obsession and finding fault at people who are more succesful in order to make oneself feel better about oneself IMO

Who said anything about only watching a film frame by frame to look for errors? I don't do that. In fact I never do it. Other people on the Internet apparently do. They've created websites dedicated to that kind of stuff. I just found it pretty funny that the director was whining about not winning some stupid award when his direction wasn't perfect by any means.