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)