I could see them doing this as early as 2004 if they got the gears running soon enough. The first movie was such a hit so it's a shame it took 20+ years for them to finally get the ball rolling with a sequel. This better be a damn good long-awaited one too as it's a rarity a sequel this late could even do good. Many of them have tanked. What do you guys think?
shareI didn't think this needed a sequel, I was not in love with the original tbh.
I'll likely see it streaming at some point but no way am I driving out to a theatre.
Four bucks on Prime sounds about right for this schlock.
Pretty much sounds like any move these days. I don't waste my time with the theater at all. I find them free online if I need to. -_-
shareIt's because it wasn't planned to have a sequel and only out of creative and/or financial desperation one has been made. Even just saying Gladiator with a 2 on the end of it sounds silly to me. They could have at least ignored the number 2 and given it a subtitle.
I haven't seen the film but it sounds like it wasn't really worthy of being made either. I guess a sequel might have worked, since Top Gun: Maverick did, it just would have needed a really talented group of people working on it.
think it was called II so they could use the roman numerals
shareYes I get why they would do that, although plenty of films have done the same without that tie in. I'm talking more about actually having to say it, in which you'd say the number. It even sounds silly because each time it reminds you a sequel has been made to a film that shouldn't have had one.
shareIt does sound like a comically blatent cash in type title, like if there was Ben-Hur 2 or Spartacus 2 or Macbeth 2 (or Bodybags 2) or something. esp since everyone knows he died at end of the first.
Perhaps the most similar film sequel would be the sequel to 300 but that went with a subtitle (Rise of an Empre)
Or Titanic 2 as another example. Again it just sounds silly because you know it shouldn't have a sequel and you shouldn't be confirming it by saying it out loud.
Forget saying it, 300 would have just looked stupid with a 2 after it, since the title is a number already. A subtitle at least makes the sequel seem like, while a continuation, something a bit different from the original.
As I understand it, there were various script ideas floating around and none of them were deemed acceptable. One of them involved the gods deciding to send Maximus back to the land of the living to continue his mission.
Having now seen the film, the fact that THIS is the idea that they decided was good enough is flabbergasting.
Wait, did Gladiators even depict anything supernatural to hint at such a story outline? The first seemed pretty grounded. Quite a change in direction.
shareAll the first film did was acknowledge the existence of the afterlife. I agree it's a serious change in direction and that makes me think it would've felt like a movie that wasn't a real sequel to the first film.
According to one podcast I listen to, another idea was for the second film to begin with Maximus's body being carried out of the Colosseum by his friends and then once outside he pops up and is like, "Ah ha, we tricked them!"
I mean a shift to an afterlife has to be done organically like the sequel has to build up to it rather than throw it out there as if the first movie set up this realm, which it didn't. I have a thriller duology where the first is grounded and the sequel explores into supernatural/afterlife territory but it happens progressively over the story starting with a ghost sighting and then a character entering an afterlife while on life support.
The second idea just sounds like a really bad cop out. No thanks.
I would say that the first one told the story conclusively, so they felt there wasn't much more to say or show in another movie
share