I have always found comparing these two sets of epics really interesting. Firstly because of the fact that, as we all know, both were done by the same directors. Anthony Mann and Ridley Scott. Prejudice in some way is a/the major theme for three of them. Though still somewhat there in a much smaller sense the exception is
Gladiator
, which was more about how the entertainment medium can be and has been used as a tool to help control/manipulate the people and so forth. It's interesting how each of these films match-up in different ways.
With
El Cid
/
Kingdom of Heaven
and
The Fall of the Roman Empire
/
Gladiator
they share some story content. The former both being set in the Middle Ages and dealing with prejudice and Christian/Muslim Conflict. While the latter two feature Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, and Lucilla as major characters and take place at the end of the Marcomannic Wars into Commodus' reign.
However
El Cid
/
Gladiator
and
The Fall of the Roman Empire
/
Kingdom of Heaven
I think match more in terms of tone, production, reception, and so forth interestingly enough.
The first two films were more financially successful, critical successes, and continue to be the more popular films of the director's pair. (That being said though,
El Cid
in of itself is also woefully underrated even so) Both center around tried and true heroes who are Spaniards (who arewellnot played by Spaniards) who are held in high esteem. And find themselves tasked with purging the darkness that cripples their kingdoms, but for this are put through trial and tribulation (including betrayal from those on their side) for sticking up for what they believe is right. Both manage to befriend a man who was a member of his society's longstanding enemy (Al-Mutamin/Hagen), inspires redemption from those around him (Ordonez & Alfonso/Proximo & Quintus), and ultimately die heroic martyrs who inspire their allies to continue their mission. Though neither film says that things will be perfect or anything, but they leave the glimmer of hope in that there are those willing to fight for the greater good/change. With the immediate threat being eliminated. (The Spaniards come together and manage to drive off the Almoravides, with Ben Yusuf himself getting killed in the final charge/Maximus manages to slay Commodus in their gladiatorial battle and relay Marcus Aurelius' mission to his allies) The hero essentially (while still being grounded in a sense of humanity IMO) are also representing an ideal to strive for. Both men at the end of the day just want to live fulfilling lives of peace (both films starting off with them hoping to get home to be with their love interest and such), and hold on to their honor and ideals through great tribulations, and manage to go through to the end an die for their cause and they are subsequently honored by their allies.
The latter two films (naturally) came afterward. However both underperformed financially and were lukewarmly received critically at the time. Both having taken the blame over time for aiding in ending the epic genre at two different points. That being said however, both have gone on to receive strong cult followings and something of critical re-appraisals. It's interesting to note that Charlton Heston (the star of
El Cid
) was originally supposed to play Livius, whilst similarly Russell Crowe (the star of
Gladiator
) was the original choice for Balian. The former dropping out due to his issues with Sophia Loren, the latter due to scheduling conflicts. And as we all know Stephen Boyd and Orlando Bloom were subsequently cast into those roles respectively. And have gone on to become one of the biggest points of contention for their respective movies. Some claiming that had they had different or stronger lead actors that they may have been more successful/popular. (I personally think they both did fine though, but I digress) Both characters are more conflicted/confused on their loyalties, to the point that when it comes to great gray decisions they begin to waver on tough moral decisions that would involve him going against his traditional ideals even if the decision is ultimately for the greater good. (Livius not openly defying Commodus and putting down rebellion against him until he is then ordered to start massacring innocents/Balian turns down getting with Sybilla and taking power in Jerusalem in spite of the fact that Guy is assuredly going to make matters worse when he does) Both also start with idealized kings in power (Marcus Aurelius/Baldwin IV) who when dead are succeeded by men who ruin their attempts at peace. (Commodus/Guy of Lusignan) Both films ending on more melancholy notes. Though the hero actually gets to survive and go away with his love interest and they don't completely fail (Livius slays Commodus and saves Lucilla/Balian manages to hold Jerusalem long enough to get terms with Saladin who lets them leave, him doing so with Sibylla), both end with many of the her

http://www.meredy.com/kirkdouglas/wpkirkdouglas04.jpg

Riddley Scott is someone who is specialized in ART. We can see he's influenced by several things. In Bladerunner we see neo-Babel with Japanese katakanas in highscrapers and we see the neon lights again from Japan in a film with Michael Douglas "Black Rain". Indeed Spartacus seems to be a big influence to do his remake of The Fall of Roman Empire. Kirk Douglas was the equivalent of R. Crowe and we see the black fellow having to fight against him. The scenes frm the point of view of the gladiators inside the dungeons were also borrowed from that film before Kirk went out to fight and the photographic evidence of the Nazi Reich inspired upon the Roman power of the bicephalic eagle. Snow keeps falling like visual poetry in both Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. The Muslim Saladin was wearing a helmet like Heston in El Cid if you pay attention. We saw similar helmets in Gladiator which seemed to me anachronic.
Now, Bloom doesn't match even Heston's little finger for Christ' sake. It would've been better to use an Irish actor Liam Neeson who was working in that film for the title role. His height and nose resemblance Heston.
Bloom is not an actor for epic. Maybe he would be a stupid teenager without any passion at all.

Was it just me though,or is the acting in the 60s epics far better and just more realisic.Im a fan of bloom he seems a ok guy,but i would say if he was not a good looking dude,he would defintly not get so many top parts.
The acting in El-cid,Fall of the roman empire,was jsut so much more powerful to me,while they seemed to be trying to hard in all the new so called epics,apart from a few guys (like irons,neeson ).
Dont get me wrong i love any epic historical flick,i love history,and am for one not to worried if they change or move things around,normaly im just happy they make them,but some times the acting and pc of it all (like the speech that bloom gave before the siege,when they obviously did not want to upset any muslims) just annoys the hell out of me.
Also having just watched fall of the roman empire,just how good was the main actors in that one,i loved christopher plummer and steven boyd in that film.

Hmmm.I always thought Ridley Scott watched "Spartacus" for Gladiator, but maybe that's just because I never saw "Fall Of The Roman Empire".

Doubtful, since most of the scene with Boromir was lifted directly out of Tolkien with some embellishments from the Ring's writing team.

Considering how much Scott borrowed from another Samuel Bronson epic, "Fall Of The Roman Empire" when he made "Gladiator" (in many ways it is almost a remake except for the Gladiatorial angle) I have no doubt he took notes from "El Cid" for "Kingdom Of Heaven".
And I have theory that the Death of the Scene influenced Peter Jackson when he was writing the Death of Boromir for "Fellowship Of The Ring".

I agree. I like Bloom as an actor, and I think he did the best job he could, but the role really required someone who was ten years older or so. Someone who leaned more towards Jeremy Iron's age.

Interesting comparison, but the grandeur of El Cid is what was really amiss in Kingdom of Heaven. Orlando as the ordinary man was a different approach, but it does simply not stir that epic, heroic touch that makes El Cid so awesome.