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
share