boogercraft
New member
mmk guys, which movie is more badass.
-
Make sure to read the forum rules before creating a new thread or commenting on someone else's thread. The forum rules can be read on this page.
What's cooler.
- Thread starter boogercraft
- Start date
boogercraft
New member
Tis nearly the toughest decision of me whole life.
Braveheart.
Gladiator. Just cause everyone else voted Braveheart
boogercraft
New member
Yea I agree. Gladiator is cool and has awesome action, but overall Braveheart is better.
Lagy_Paladin/Andrew
New member
never seen either. gladiator sounds like a bloody movie about gladiators without a very big plot or very good acting. braveheart sounds like its about somebody that goes on a adventure and does something to save the world.
ithewinner
New member
REALLY. GO BUY NETFLIX AND WATCH THE DAMN MOVIE. BUt really, Mel Gibson FTW
CptBlockbeard
New member
I love the film, but Mel Gibson is a complete asshole in real life; sexist, racist, Australian.
Braveheart is Scottish, your argument is invalid
boogercraft
New member
Links at ends of paragraphs have mature content; violence (a lot). Younger crowd beware.
Gladiator is about a Roman General who is fighting in the North with his Legion. The current Emperor is really old and likes the General more than his own assface of a son. He tells the General that he will be his heir, assface son finds out and kills the Emperor and says he "passed away." He becomes the Emperor and sends the General off to be executed. General escapes cause he's Russell Crowe badass. He goes home and his family was murdered by assface Emperor. He then was captured and sold as a slave and becomes a gladiator. Since he's a badass, he becomes like the best gladiator and turns his fellow gladiators into a small military unit and they win in impossible situations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0DxK1ZEMcg
Braveheart is about a Scottish man in..uh, Scotland..he's a bigger badass than Mr. General though. English are pissing the Scottish off and started a new policy where when a couple is married, that night of the wedding, the English ruler dude of that area has the wife in his bed before the husband does (this happened historically, Hollywood isn't being perverted for once). Anyway, this on top of tons of other things and Scotts are getting pissed off obviously. One day, some English guards try to rape main guy's wife. That pisses him off and he beats the crap out of them. Wife and dude try to escape but wife is caught. Dude comes back all pissed off and kills like all the English military in the village with the help of fellow Scotts. This starts a massive revolution. He's their symbol of leadership. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LedR-ILK18U
Both are fantastic movies but after some thought I think Braveheart is better in my opinion. But haha poll is tied.
CptBlockbeard
New member
He's soon killed by the English and the revolution is crushed. ( ͡º ͜ʖ ͡º)
But yeah, despite hating Mel Gibson and being English, Braveheart is better.
[quote user_id="3261313" avatar="https://cravatar.eu/helmavatar/Greenjay64/74.png" name="Greenjay64"]Braveheart is Scottish, your argument is invalid[/quote]
The actor is Australian, my argument is valid. Also, it was a joke. :3
boogercraft
New member
Although my personal favorite is Braveheart, it appears Gladiator has won the vote.
You might take our RP server, but you'll never take our freedom!
ithewinner
New member
I love the film, but Mel Gibson is a complete asshole in real life; sexist, racist, Australian.[/quote]
That sums him up quite well.
CptBlockbeard
New member
As well as Mel Gibson being a douche, Braveheart has a set of other flaws. When you learn the history, this film is almost unbearable to watch from a historical standpoint:
- Wallace, did not rally everyone to his cause. A lot of his soldiers where forced to fight the English. In fact, if they refused Wallace had them hung.
- The English never changed the law in Scotland that every recently married woman belongs to the Crown. That is complete fiction that the film created. While that stuff DID exist in these days, the English never imposed it on the Scots.
- Wallace may have been married but we don't know to who, and we know she was never executed by anyone if she did exist.
- Needless to say, Wallace never had his fake wife raped by a fake english soldier.
- Wallace didn't cut the Sheriffs throat when he rebelled, he cut him to pieces and burned the English alive. Which I'm sure more scots would enjoy.
- The battle of Stirling bridge, doesn't have a bridge,
- Wallace sacks York in the film, yet in reality Wallace never even got close to York. His invasion of England was in fact, mostly burning down villages for Supplies too feed his army.
- The traitorous lords that Wallace kills in there sleep? Never existed. Wallace combined his forces with a fellow rebel leaders army before the battle of Stirling bridge.
- Needless to say, Wallace never dated the French Princess Isabella, in fact, she was 8-9 when Wallace was rebelling.
- Edward never attempted to negotiate with Wallace.
- In the film Robert the Bruce has a pushy father who has lepracy. No he did not, his father was perfectly well, and Robert the Bruce was independently making his own decisions.
- We all know that the battle of Stirling Bridge was not won by them tricking and flanking the English, the battle of Stirling bridge was won because the English charged across a damaged bridge and it collapsed, drowning half of them, and leaving the rest stranded on the other side.
- Following the battle of Falkirk, Wallace did not remain in Scotland to conduct guerrilla warfare. He instead left Scotland for France and Rome, to argue for there cause, and gain supplies and reinforcements (they did not receive them).
That being said, the film is great, and I overall prefer it to Gladiator - probably because I've watched Gladiator way too many times.
- Wallace, did not rally everyone to his cause. A lot of his soldiers where forced to fight the English. In fact, if they refused Wallace had them hung.
- The English never changed the law in Scotland that every recently married woman belongs to the Crown. That is complete fiction that the film created. While that stuff DID exist in these days, the English never imposed it on the Scots.
- Wallace may have been married but we don't know to who, and we know she was never executed by anyone if she did exist.
- Needless to say, Wallace never had his fake wife raped by a fake english soldier.
- Wallace didn't cut the Sheriffs throat when he rebelled, he cut him to pieces and burned the English alive. Which I'm sure more scots would enjoy.
- The battle of Stirling bridge, doesn't have a bridge,
- Wallace sacks York in the film, yet in reality Wallace never even got close to York. His invasion of England was in fact, mostly burning down villages for Supplies too feed his army.
- The traitorous lords that Wallace kills in there sleep? Never existed. Wallace combined his forces with a fellow rebel leaders army before the battle of Stirling bridge.
- Needless to say, Wallace never dated the French Princess Isabella, in fact, she was 8-9 when Wallace was rebelling.
- Edward never attempted to negotiate with Wallace.
- In the film Robert the Bruce has a pushy father who has lepracy. No he did not, his father was perfectly well, and Robert the Bruce was independently making his own decisions.
- We all know that the battle of Stirling Bridge was not won by them tricking and flanking the English, the battle of Stirling bridge was won because the English charged across a damaged bridge and it collapsed, drowning half of them, and leaving the rest stranded on the other side.
- Following the battle of Falkirk, Wallace did not remain in Scotland to conduct guerrilla warfare. He instead left Scotland for France and Rome, to argue for there cause, and gain supplies and reinforcements (they did not receive them).
That being said, the film is great, and I overall prefer it to Gladiator - probably because I've watched Gladiator way too many times.
