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?
shareYeah, makes no sense, because Hollywood ran out of a ideas a dozen of years ago. I guess, now they have completely ran out of alternatives and are going after the holy cows with sharpened blades, and Ridley's dementia ain't helping. Expect Citizen Kane remake and Star Wars reboot.
shareI'd take a sequel over a reboot/remake any day as long as it's fresh and warrants being made and not just to cash-in on a successful movie. I just wonder why it took this long for something I could see being made twenty years ago at earliest. I just hope the huge gap doesn't bring the movie's potential fame down like people are long over Gladiator who was around when it came out to feel like ditching the sequel altogether and then others not caring to watch it because they didn't see the first or weren't born yet when it came out (those in their early-to-mid 20s) and don't plan to just to understand this movie.
shareMaybe they wanted it to be a singular masterpiece, not adulterated by crappy uninspired sequels made for money... which is happening right now.
shareWell let's see if this beats all the odds and make its sequel worthy existence warranted. You're gonna wait this long to do a sequel it better be godly.
shareEveryone has seen Gladiator. VHS tapes of Gladiator are the most common junk at garage sales, Goodwills, etc.. also copies of Waterworld! Why are there so many F'ing Watta worlds in existence!! I don't know but maybe thats how they could cram it down people's throats anyways at some point. Like Gladiator. Neither hold up to repeat viewings well imo
Also, water world starts with Kevin Costner urinating so you know what you're in for
Because Ridley Scott is a stubborn old man and is only really making a sequel because all of his other movies flopped. Check the numbers. His last bona fide hit was The Martian and that was almost a decade ago.
shareFunny, the guy here reviewing the movie said something similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0dKcg6TLwU, except he said between 10-20 years. He didn't like the movie, which makes me concerned how the majority of others will take it. -_-
shareAnd he seems to be making sequels of all his old films. I wonder when we will see 1492 II or Legend 2.
sharebecause gladiator supposed to be one movie. maximus is dead, that was his story.
shareIt takes place 16 years after the events of the original so in that respect it has a nice synergy that it took at least that long to come out with a sequel.
shareIf the gap helps the story being told then sure, but even that shows this could have been made sometime in the mid-2010s, not a whole extra decade later.
shareGladiator was never meant to have a sequel, it doesn’t even make sense why Lucsious is a gladiator in this. They just needed an excuse to make a spinoff movie.
shareSo the original didn't set up that there could be a potential "gladiator" successor?
shareNot really, Luscious was royalty, gladiators were slaves. Only reason Maximus ended up there was due to being charged with treason.
shareBut there were other gladiators, not just one, so why did Maximus need to be the only one? There could possibly be a continuance with a focus on more if they wanted to.
shareBecause Maximus saved Rome by killing Commodus and then died, the story is over, there is nothing to continue with. It’s like having a sequel to Citizen Kane about his butler.
shareI mean a sequel to Citizen Kane could work if you have someone that could continue Kane's legacy. For there to be a "Gladiator II" shouldn't be an issue if you have someone else who can step into the "gladiator" position and undergo a similar journey Max did. Max's own story is done but he was not the one and only gladiator here. If there's a group of them then I don't see why their stories can't be explored.
shareBut at that point you’re not making a sequel, you’re just doing a half-hearted reboot and a retread of the original story without adding anything new, and it really doesn’t have anything to do with the original characters other than name reference. The original story was wrapped up neatly with a bow on it and all the characters were dead, there was nothing to continue. With your logic, there should be sequels to every movie. Let’s make Apocalypse Now II!
shareYou can still add new things, just make sure the lead person is a Gladiator and set out with a purpose. Doesn't even have to be like what Max went through. I just know he isn't the only one who had it rough and seeing someone else's story as a successor could be accomplished and not be something beat for beat.
And I just realized you're the same gimp I'm debating Star Wars with over on the 1977 movie thread. How peculiar we cross paths here too. Funny I went to add that in my last comment since you didn't reply yet and as I saved the edit, here you come, so I removed it and threw it here instead.
Yes and you still have the same brain dead opinions. You don’t realize that you’re not making a “sequel to gladiator”, you’re just making another gladiator movie. But what else can one expect from the nimrod that thinks the Star Wars prequels are good? 🤣
shareWell there's continuity here so this is very well a "sequel to Gladiator" and not some random standalone movie as they COULD have done. You're a limited book with no sense of expansion. What can I expect from a rape victim who see no potential in movie story expanding even in the slightest? You're a rod with no iron to shine you. Laugh at that you crooked handjob.
shareAt this point your argument falls apart and you start speaking like a smooth-brained incel. How predictable. There is no continuity other than some jagoff metrosexual actor who wasn’t even in the original coincidentally having the same name as a minor character from the first. It’s not a sequel, it’s a shitty spinoff/reboot you jagoff. But keep eating this slop up, piglet. Not every story needs “expanding” especially when it ended resolutely 20 fucking years ago!!!! You want any Ancient Rome movie with gladiators? Call it something else, like “Colosseum” or something.
shareYou don't think anything needs expanding even in a creative sense if there's been very little installments made and the concepts such as Star Wars and Gladiator that can greatly go on and on and be something big. You should stop watching movies altogether. Limited bastard.
shareif your idea of “expansion” is remaking the same movie over and over then it is in fact you that’s a limited bastard
shareNo, I like them to be more original. I never said they had to be "remakes". You bum. If Gladiator II is a straight copy of the first then shame on it, but the idea of continuing the story I don't see being an issue. Just as long as a sequel is warranted to be made especially this many years later.
shareThe issue is that they’re not continuing the story, there is no story to continue without jsut being a retread of the original. Not everything needs a sequel ffs. You want a sequel to the Bible too?
shareThe issue is you aren't open for them to continue anything because you're just a one and done brat. You think a sequel to Citizen Kane about the butler can't be good? You'll be surprised but hey, you're not allowing yourself to explore your mind and make it such. You just take things at first glance and want to be utterly blunt about it. Not everything HAS to be a retread if you put your mind to it. Perhaps they fumbled this a bit with Gladiator II but the idea of there being a sequel I don't see being an issue. In this case, they just didn't do it right or maybe even at the right time.
Yes, the Bible has so much that happens after Christ's death and the last two thousand years particularly the catholic church rising to power and making rules of how beliefs should be. PLENTY of story there.
What you’re describing isn’t sequels, they’re fucking spinoffs you tetard. There is nothing to make a sequel about with citizen Kane. Explain how a sequel to citizen Kane involving a butler would be in any way good? Would you call it citizen Kane II? Holly fuck. You are retarded. Explain how the Catholic Church is a sequel to the Bible. Were you born this fuckin g stupid?
shareBluster and the corresponding ad hominem insults are not conducive to a convincing argument in a debate. Rather, they make the person out to be ignoble, ignorant, juvenile and pathetic.
Learn how to phrase your points in a knowledgeable and effective manner, at least if you want to be taken seriously by anyone over 11 years-old.
Lol this is too entertaining. “Wuchak” comes in on his high horse and finger wagging, despite being an illiterate asshole unable to realize his sock started the “ad-hominems” (aka insults) by calling me a “gimp”, and then PROCEEDS to use an ad-hominem attack in his very response. Your journey to being a dumb asshole is officially complete buddy! At that point it’s scorched earth where you get what you give. Do you go through life as an oblivious hypocrite all the time, or is this a recent development, I’m curious.
Can’t wait for your tepid response as I deconstruct your stupidity and continue to verbally annihilate you. Or better yet, don’t bother responding coward 🤡
Sequels, spinoffs, if they were to have Citizen Kane in the title then it's a sequel. Depends on how the story is constructed. You know how many sequels out there we have without whoever was the lead of the first and it followed another character whether main or supporting? "Evan Almighty" would be an example of this. It's both a sequel and a spinoff but we've had movies like that where they're either one or the other. Heck, a CK sequel about the butler could very well be a sequel/spinoff. Why can't it be both? Get a clue.
I don't know how a sequel to CK with a butler would be good. I'm not out trying to write one, but it could be. You're not even bothering trying to make sense of it, you're just trying to diminish it because it's about a butler you think butlers can't be interesting. How pathetic. I never said the Catholic Church would be a sequel to the Bible but would play a role in telling a "sequel" story to how the Christian religion changed over time. There's like 1500+ years of material to add there where Catholicism wasn't around you broomstick up the dick hole. Go get phlegm stuck in your orfice.
Except Evan Almighty actually involved the same character from the original played by the same actor. Also Evan almighty was an
Unfunny garbage,
Soulless cash-in and shouldn’t have been made. Just like gladiator II. This isn’t helping your case.
You lose again.
I don't lose. You're ignorant. Simple as that. Can't debate with a man who is lacking on what sequels are and can be and the potential story they can tell based on how one measly movie ended for one character.
I'm saying Citizen Kane could have done a sequel about the butler if they wanted to, I'm speaking more-so back when a sequel with the same actor could have been utilized. I wasn't saying NOW. But hey, even now can work if they had different actors. They did it with the Mary Poppins sequel just a few years ago, but a missed opportunity not to use Julie Andrews again.
Well unfortunately it wouldn’t work and would most likely bomb, just like Mary Poppins Returns did. Legacy sequels are usually trash, just like Texasville and The Two Jakes
shareNot all of them have been trash. Most were made just to be quick cash-ins. The ones that were actually good were made with charisma and purpose.
Mary Poppins Returns might have worked better if Julie came back and they de-aged her a bit. Not sure why they HAD to go with someone else. A better story might have sufficed, but I like the attempt to finally do a follow-up to such an old movie, though something like that should have came out decades earlier.
If it came out in the 80s it would’ve been better, as Julie Andrews was still young enough for the role. There were 8 books in the series so I don’t know why Disney never turned it into a movie franchise sooner, although probably something to do with losing the rights and the author being cranky.
An example of a good 80s sequel to a classic movie is Return to Oz from 1985.
New actresses for Dorothy but picks up where the last one left off.
Someone needed to make new mansion payments is my guess.
Ive said it before when I saw they were making a sequel. Gladiator is a movie that isnt supposed to have sequels or prequels. Not EVRYTHING has to be attempted as a trilogy or 2-logy.
Scott is chasing old glory!
shareSomeone (reputable) probably had the rights which lapsed or were sold after a certain amount of time. The new rights holders greedily sought to cash in and cut Ridley in for a share. Artistic integrity be damned.
They could make a third movie and then market it as a trilogy (blu ray box set). $$$$$$$
What next for Ridley? Maybe make a franchise out of The Martian? Intelligent life found on Mars invade Earth. Have to get Denzel Washington into it as well (possibly in the Matt Damon role). Or Denzel as the Martians...every one of them a clone of Denzel with a dumb fucking toothy grin.
Ridley talked alot about rights and ownership of his franchises in a recent interview with THR. thats why BR2 got made when it did bc some company aquired the rights in like 2010 and offered Scott the chance to make it (he was due to direct but it clashed with Prometheus 2) , with Alien he bizaraly was never asked back by Fox to do one until the prequel movie was put into production (there was a potential team up with James Cameron planned in 2000s but Fox went with AvP instead)
with Gladiator 2 they been trying to make it since about mid 2000s when that funny Nick Cave script of resurrected Maximus was around and ridley was pondering doing that or a more traditional sequel set years after Maximus' death, i guess they were umming and arring for a few years then he was doing all those other movies he did until he finally got around to it (which fits in with the 20+ years time lapse in the movie)