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.
I never knew it was a series of eight books. I never paid much attention to the source material to know that, but yeah so much potential there to do something even during the rest of the 1960s and 1970s.
RETURN TO OZ a great sequel? The movie looks overly dark and the costumes are inconsistent to what we've seen in the 1939 movie. Then again, they weren't out to make an official sequel but really its own thing, but why even bother? They could have just remade the Wizard of Oz story and then went from there for better consistency then just semi-connecting it to the 1939 movie.
Return to Oz is an excellent sequel that did something different while still feeling like a follow up. Have you read the books? They’re also dark. This is the crux of the argument in a sequel that isn’t just a watered down retread of the first movie and a perfect example, UNLIKE GLADIATOR II
shareLike I said, following from the 1939 version the change in tone and style is odd even if close to the books because the 1939 version took a different direction and you'd expect a follow-up to maintain this. But since "Return" isn't OFFICIALLY a real sequel I guess you can give it a pass and take it as its own thing, but calling it "RETURN TO OZ" kind of ruins that since it's "acting" as a sequel to the only one-off movie this story that the evets are succeeding from. Again, it would have helped if they REMADE the original Oz story and then this would be a sequel to THAT for better consistency if they wanted to change everything about Oz, the wardrobes, the designs, the actors even, especially this many decades later.
shareSequels that have a change in tone are more daring and original than watered down remakes or reboots that only pretend to be a sequel. Aliens is a complete change in tone from Alien, for example, but it still works. Remaking Wizard of Oz just to set up sequels would be a bomb of an idea considering the original is an all time classic. In reality Return to Oz isn’t a true sequel, but an adaptation of another book in the series, or a spiritual sequel. In the same way that the Color of Money is a totally/stylistically completely different sequel to The Hustler. In the end, I prefer sequels that bravely expand the universe and offer different content like Return to Oz, compared to a soulless and derivative prequel like Oz the great and powerful.
shareReturn to Oz adapted quite a few books (which I hate when they do this). But to do this "somewhat of a continuation but not exactly" was a weird move. Remaking Oz wouldn't have been bad since it's been enough time to do so and if you're gonna adapt the other books in any way, it's only fitting so you could keep the same cast and provide a proper continuation. They were basically trying to collect their cake and eat it too.
shareyou’re making mountains out of mole hills. I’ll explain this simply for you. Return to Oz is an example of a continuation that is, yes really, a continuation because they can’t cast Judy Garland in the role can they? And return to Oz is FAITHFUL TO THE SOURCR MATERIAL so it is in fact a good adaptation of the books, AND works as a sequel that does something different. Remaking the wizard of Oz just to adapt the other books would be stupid and an example of all that is wrong with Hollywood today, because theees nothing wrong with having a sequel decades later with a different ca st as long as it’s consistent. End of discussion
shareI'm not making any mountains here. I'm just saying, they were best off remaking Wizard of Oz (itself a remake from the 1925 version) and going from there. Trying to make a sort-of sequel and sort-of reboot was just odd. The two movies are vastly different and might as well be in different continuities. Remaking for the sake of keeping the tone and same actors around if this is to be a potential long-running series is actually a great idea than making a 40+ year sequel with a whole new modern style, different designs, and cast altogether because you want to maintain that original movie and have it be somewhat of a connection. IT DOESN'T WORK. Imagine if they did the first Harry Potter movie in 2001 and then now decided to do Chamber of Secrets. They're best redoing that first book and THEN doing Chamber of Secrets for consistency of the same actors, same designs, same whatever than it would be going from a rather older movie to something modern that would require significant changes.
End of discussion THERE.
First off, remaking Wizard of Oz is still a shit idea because the 1939 version is iconic. No one has seen the 1925 one for good reason. The 1939 version is the definitive one. Remaking the original and trying to top it is a dumb idea, which is precisely why no one’s done it.
Second of all, Return to Oz is not a reboot. It IS a sequel. Going darker as a sequel happens all the fuckkng time.
Thirdly, Return to Oz being faithful to the source material doesn’t make it “stylistically different”. They’re both still fantasy movies with a somewhat scary atmosphere, and Return to Oz does a GREAT job at feeling like it’s in the same continuity as the original, unlike shitty disguised reboots like Gladiator II or The Force Awakens. People who bitch about Return to Oz being “too dark” have obviously never read the source material or even a fucking Grimm fairytale.
Fourthly, comparing it to Harry pooper is also dumb since those movies were planned as a series. Return to Oz was made half a century after, so doesn’t need a bunch of movies in between, there had been a long enough wait.
Lastly, Philosopher’s Stone IS ALREADY DARK As IT IS. There is a giant ass three headed demon dog and another demon attached to the back of a guy’s head. Frankly, the first HP film woulda been better off going DARKER and avoiding all the commercialized kiddy shit.
End of discussion NOW!
Dude you're a moron. Return to Oz is credited as an UNOFFICIAL sequel, meaning not really a sequel. The 1925 version was part of the silent era so of course it wasn't bound to be all popular when a well-known and bigger budget with sound and color version would come along years later and overshadow it. I doubt you've seen the 1925 version to even judge it. It had wonderful special effects for it's time.
I get sequels get dark and change stuff, but guess that? The wat Return to Oz did it is not genuine since it still has the change in time, actors, and designs entirely (mainly due to a rights issue with MGM not to use certain things). At least when the Harry Potter movies got dark by the third movie there were still similar things still carried over from the first two. Speaking of HP, yet, the time gap between 1 and 2 would be shorter if my scenario were to be the case but my point still stands. A book series with consecutive books meant to be adapted over a short period of time shouldn't be done 20+ years apart from each other that will require significant changes. To have one first entry with this cast and style and then have succeeding entries done with an entirely new cast and style is weird. Best to remake the first story and then go from there. DEAL WITH IT. And I don't care about Sorcerer's Stone being "dark". I was making a point of they just waited to make the sequel decades later, not saying it compares to the 1939 Oz movie in being lighthearted and cheesy. Way to argue over something non-existent.
Fuck you pal, the 1925 version is trash no one has seen. The Harry Potter movies are also trash. Return to Oz is a better sequel than gladiator II.
End of discussion
Have you even SEEN the 1925 version? No. This is probably the first time you've heard about it so how are you going to judge it? I suggest you shut the fuck up. The special effects for the twister and the lightning strikes and the travel t Oz was remarkable for its time. The movie is nearing a century old too so show it some respect.
Don't really care much for the HP movies following the second (or third depending on my mood) and you can find Return to Oz to be a better sequel all you want but at least Gladiator II has better consistency to its predecessor to also be an OFFICIAL sequel.
EAT MY BUTT HOLE. :)
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)