So Ridley Scott is directing a Gladiator sequel...

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

3 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

don't understand what drives anger in response to a film that doesn't have any immediately evident reason to exist

 

I don't think it's "anger" At least in my case. For me the idea of Gladiator sequel is more...

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

It has Lucila, Gracchus and an older Lucius...

 

Its not a standalone vignette of Roman history. Its a sequel.

 

Exactly. If Scott were merely making another Roman epic history/swords and sandals film set in a different era, I'd be over the moon (though with expectations tempered after Napoleon). It's the fact that it's a Gladiator sequel that grates a bit. And if his comments on the project are anything to go by, his rationale for making the film is primarily commercial, not artistic. 

[Thor 7,508]

Why is a sequel problematic to you?

[Chen G. 3,949]

Some films lend themselves to having sequels.

 

Gladiator is not one of those.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

It feels uninspired and unnecessary. Some films beg for a sequel, Gladiator is not one of them. Russel Crowe and Maximus is Gladiator. There's no Gladiator without Russel Crowe and Maximus.

 

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

They should call it Caesar.

[Thor 7,508]

I'm of the complete opposite opinion. Ever since I was a kid, I was obsessed with getting more stories from fictional universes I loved. I've never been able to understand those who refute them almost on principle, as if a film is a closed entity that should never be explored further. There is plenty to build on in the world of GLADIATOR that I would be interested in. Especially in the hands of the same director.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I think a story - as told in a film or in a series of films - has to have a certain dramatic shape.

 

Gladiator's dramatic shape is complete. To make a sequel would mean to take the bow that had been wrapped over this most wonderful present, and unravel it anew.

 

I find those kinds of films - we're getting many of them nowadays - depressing.

[Jay 37,369]

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Some films lend themselves to having sequels.

 

Gladiator is not one of those.

 

8 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Some films beg for a sequel, Gladiator is not one of them.

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

 

 

 

[Thor 7,508]

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I think a story - as told in a film or in a series of films - has to have a certain dramatic shape.

 

Gladiator's dramatic shape is complete. To make a sequel would mean to take the bow that had been wrapped over this most wonderful present, and unravel it anew.

 

I find those kinds of films - we're getting many of them nowadays - depressing.

 

I think that's a little too narrow and story-centric to look at it. In cases like these, I think more in terms of worlds, not individual stories. I'm aware some of the same characters and plot points reappear in this too, but mostly it's a further exploration of the Roman world, and the gladiator scene, as seen through the GLADIATOR lens. I'll take that with open arms.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Just now, Thor said:

I think that's a little too story-centric. In cases like these, I think more in terms of worlds, not individual stories.

 

See, to me "worlds" exist to stage stories in, rather than stories existing to "showcase" worlds.

[Thor 7,508]

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

 

See, to me "worlds" exist to stage stories in, rather than stories existing to "showcase" worlds.

 

Yes, and I'm kinda opposite. I've never really been that interested in stories, but I'm all about worlds.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I think we just define "story" differently.

 

I don't mean story strictly in the sense of plot mechanics unfolding. I mean story in the sense "characters going through something."

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Just now, Thor said:

 I've never really been that interested in stories, but I'm all about worlds.

 

All these worlds are yours to explore, Thor.

 

Except Middle-Earth. Attempt no landing there.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Good sequitur: if The Fellowship of the Ring was ABOUT Middle-Earth, then no sooner would Frodo arrive in Rivendell, ol' Figwit/Lindir would have taken him on a guided tour through the entire place.

 

But he doesn't: Because that's not the point of the movie. Of course, you're not going to go to the trouble of making beautiful visuals and not give them a chance to breath (see every David Lean film ever), but there's a difference between a film taking its time, and a film misplacing its focus from the story to the setting.

 

I honestly can't see many people lining up to see a mockumentary/travelogue of the geography of Tatooine or Khand or what have you.

 

What's more, Gladiator itself is not the kind of movie Thor fancies: Gladiator is a plot-oriented movie, and I'll bet Nick's house that the sequel will be that, as well.

[Thor 7,508]

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I think we just define "story" differently.

 

I don't mean story strictly in the sense of plot mechanics unfolding. I mean story in the sense "characters going through something."

 

I know. It's essentially the Bremond definition. I studied narratology once, so I use my "disinterest" in story somewhat rhetorically here. I do obviously have some sort of interest in story. But it's still not my main attraction to film as a medium. If it had been, I'd been reading books instead. For me, it's all about being absorbed in a world.

Ever since I saw GLADIATOR 25-ish years ago, I fell not only in love with the characters and the story (and the music!), but also with the world created by Scott. The cinematography, the production design, the light, the sweat, the tears, the blood, the visceral part of it. I wanted to see more of it. I wanted more stories set within this world. And I wanted more world building. That never came. So now I'm all set for this. I see no problem with this. Yes, the original is a self-contained story, but that doesn't automatically exclude more stories set within the same universe.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

18 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I think we just define "story" differently.

 

I don't mean story strictly in the sense of plot mechanics unfolding. I mean story in the sense "characters going through something."

 

Just introduce new characters. 

 

7 minutes ago, Thor said:

Ever since I saw GLADIATOR 25-ish years ago, I fell not only in love with the characters and the story (and the music!), but also with the world created by Scott. The cinematography, the production design, the light, the sweat, the tears, the blood, the visceral part of it.

 

Don't forget the bad CGI.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Yeah, I find it depressing.

 

What does Gladiator ends with? It ends with the sad but heroic sacrifice by the main character and, like all the best dramas, it ends with a sense of promise for the future and we're left to imagine a rosier Rome and, for all they've weathered, a "happily ever after" for Lucila, Gracchus, Juba and Lucius.

 

By making a sequel -  not "another film set in that world", a sequel - you're forced into going "well, actually!" and show that those characters still have terrible trials and tribulations to go through, if they manage to go through them at all...

 

It ruins it.

[Thor 7,508]

We don't know that yet. We know very little about the plot or the premise other than the return of a few characters. Why not wait and see how they've approached it?

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

you're forced into going "well, actually!"

 

This is actually (no pun intended) an excellent way of describing it. 

 

I get Thor's point about world-building...even if I do think that story, and especially character, are more important. And there are movies that lend themselves to continuing to explore the "world" they inhabit. The MCU, imperfect as it is, is a good example of that.  But I just don't think Gladiator is that kind of beast, and I think trying to make it be so is a little ham-fisted.

[mstrox 6,651]

You can watch a movie in a vacuum without its belated sequel and still find it satisfying!  That’s probably how it will be for me with Gladiator, Ridley Scott’s only good movie.

[Stark 316]

If this film ends up an excuse for us to hear the old themes developed upon then it’s worth it for it to be Gladiator 2 and not something else!

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

27 minutes ago, Stark said:

If this film ends up an excuse for us to hear the old themes developed upon then it’s worth it for it to be Gladiator 2 and not something else!

 

One morning I came home after being out all night...a friend had opened up a new Italian restaurant in London near Covent Garden and we closed the place down, then helped ourselves to his wine cellar.  When I got home I collapsed on the couch but didn't feel like sleeping (or so I thought) so I popped in the Gladiator DVD.  Fell asleep like 5 minutes later, of course.  Eventually, the film played through and the DVD switched back to the menu screen, which looped the main theme every 60 seconds as the menu reset.
 
Over. And over. And over. For 12 hours. Having drank all night, I was constantly in that half awake/asleep dream state where time and space have no meaning and I couldn't figure out why I kept hearing the same piece of music again and again, and how long was this movie anyway?  Didn't even have the energy or presence of mind to reach for the remote and turn it off. That thing turned into an earworm that stayed with me until it was mercifully replaced by Hedwig's Theme.
 
Not that there's anything wrong w/the Gladiator score, but after that, I didn't want to hear anything from Zimmer and pretty much ignored everything he did until Interstellar.
 
Some nights though, I wake up in a cold sweat and can still hear it...the screaming of the Hans.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

HanZ HGW can't get sued by the Holst foundation anymore...

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

32 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The MCU, imperfect as it is, is a good example of that.

 

And even there, I feel, it would have been better served by having Endgame be the actual, err, Endgame.

 

An audience knows a climax and coda when they see it, and once that cadential feeling had been fired-up, it can't be taken back.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

And even there, I feel, it would have been better served by having Endgame be the actual, err, Endgame.

 

 

Oh, I agree. After Endgame the MCU lost its way. But like it or not, it is a genuine cinematic universe. Gladiator is...not. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the MCU is the only "shared" cinematic universe that's ever really worked.

[Edmilson 7,466]

Just now, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Oh, I agree. After Endgame the MCU lost its way. But like it or not, it is a genuine cinematic universe. Gladiator is...not. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the MCU is the only "shared" cinematic universe that's ever really worked.

Former Forbes writer Scott Mendelson likes to say whenever he can that The Conjuring Universe is the only successful cinematic universe outside of the MCU. I'd argue that the Legendary Monsterverse is another example... But even that franchise hasn't breached that much.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

58 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

I know. It's essentially the Bremond definition. I studied narratology once, so I use my "disinterest" in story somewhat rhetorically here. I do obviously have some sort of interest in story. But it's still not my main attraction to film as a medium. If it had been, I'd been reading books instead. For me, it's all about being absorbed in a world.

Ever since I saw GLADIATOR 25-ish years ago, I fell not only in love with the characters and the story (and the music!), but also with the world created by Scott. The cinematography, the production design, the light, the sweat, the tears, the blood, the visceral part of it. I wanted to see more of it. I wanted more stories set within this world. And I wanted more world building. That never came. So now I'm all set for this. I see no problem with this. Yes, the original is a self-contained story, but that doesn't automatically exclude more stories set within the same universe.

In that sense you could assume, Scott's Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood all playing in the same world and paying into the world building. 

 

The new movie might be a good movie about the Roman Empire. But I think, the point is, it doesn't make much sense to watch it as a sequel of Gladiator but rather as an independent movie of its own.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 minute ago, GerateWohl said:

it doesn't make much sense to watch it as a sequel of Gladiator but rather as an independent movie of its own.

 

But it is a sequel to Gladiator! They basically nabbed anyone of the veteran cast that they could, and I seriously doubt they're there for cursory roles.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Don't forget the bad CGI.

 

Nothing wrong with Gladiator's CGI.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

49 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Nothing wrong with Gladiator's CGI.

 

The aerial views of Rome look like they're from a computer game. 

[Edmilson 7,466]

6 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

The aerial views of Rome look like they're from a computer game. 

That movie is from 2000. CGI was crap back then 

 

And before anyone mentions Titanic or Jurassic Park, those movies also used miniatures and such to help disguise the dodgy CGI.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

1 minute ago, Edmilson said:

miniatures

 

A miniature of 90% scale. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,536]

10 hours ago, Chen G. said:

What does Gladiator ends with? 

 

Sadly, what it doesn't end with, is Oliver Reed.

[JTN 2,030]

11 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Yeah, I find it depressing.

 

What does Gladiator ends with? It ends with the sad but heroic sacrifice by the main character and, like all the best dramas, it ends with a sense of promise for the future and we're left to imagine a rosier Rome and, for all they've weathered, a "happily ever after" for Lucila, Gracchus, Juba and Lucius.

 

By making a sequel -  not "another film set in that world", a sequel - you're forced into going "well, actually!" and show that those characters still have terrible trials and tribulations to go through, if they manage to go through them at all...

 

It ruins it.

It’s just like The Force Awakens (and the sequels) and Return of the Jedi (and the OT). There was no point in continuing a story that was complete. 
 

 

 

10 hours ago, mstrox said:

You can watch a movie in a vacuum without its belated sequel and still find it satisfying!  That’s probably how it will be for me with Gladiator, one of Ridley Scott’s best movies.

Fixed and a big like from me to you.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

10 hours ago, Chen G. said:

But it is a sequel to Gladiator! They basically nabbed anyone of the veteran cast that they could, and I seriously doubt they're there for w roles.

Wasn't aware. Ok. In worst case we get something like The Force Awakens with almost the same story with younger characters and guest appearances of desillusioned original characters. 

But even though I didn't like any of Scott's alien prequels or Hannibal, he never repeated the same story. He just made them bad movies. 

[JTN 2,030]

I would rather watch an old fat Russell Crowe as Maximus wandering on the wheatfield in Elysium for 3 hours than this sequel.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, JTN said:

It’s just like The Force Awakens (and the sequels) and Return of the Jedi (and the OT). There was no point in continuing a story that was complete. 

 

We get this a lot recently: sequels to stories that, whether told in one entry or more, ended on a full-stop. Off the top of my head:

 

Indiana Jones (sorta)

Toy Story (sorta)

Star Wars

The Matrix

Marvel (post Endgame)

 

Hollywood had developed a topical allergy to finality.

[JTN 2,030]

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Hollywood had developed a topical allergy to finality.

And the death of the protagonist by self sacrifice.

[Thor 7,508]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Hollywood had developed a topical allergy to finality.

 

So? If the universe is rich enough, I see no reason to not explore it further.

[Chen G. 3,949]

6 minutes ago, Thor said:

If the universe is rich enough, I see no reason to not explore it further.

 

I should add, I don't entirely object, but I think prequels are typically better for that than sequels.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

21 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I should add, I don't entirely object, but I think prequels are typically better for that than sequels.

I would agree. But mostly prequels have poorer storytelling.

[Chen G. 3,949]

6 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

But mostly prequels have poorer storytelling.

 

Meh. Lots of sequels suck, too.

 

I've never subscribed to this notion that prequels are somehow more likely to suck than - or are somehow artistically inferior to - sequels.

 

That's not to say I want prequels to Gladiator, either!

[A24 4,338]

7 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

 

But even though I didn't like any of Scott's alien prequels or Hannibal, he never repeated the same story. He just made them bad movies. 

 

Even though Hannibal is a sequel to Silence Of The Lambs, I somehow enjoyed it as a grotesque freak show. 

[Thor 7,508]

Let me add that there are obviously bad prequels and sequels. But ultimately, one needs to judge the film on its filmic merits. What I don't get is people having a principal stand against prequels and sequels as a thing to begin with, i.e. hermetically closing a rich fictional universe simply because one particular story has finished within it.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,536]

11 minutes ago, A24 said:

 

Even though Hannibal is a sequel to Silence Of The Lambs, I somehow enjoyed it as a grotesque freak show. 

 

Agreed, Alex.

I find HANNIBAL a much more satisfying watch, than THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. It has a streak of dark humour that runs through it, and it looks better.

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

Objectively, that may not be true that prequels are inherently better or worse than sequels or vice versa. But personally, whenever I know that a movie or a show is going to be a prequel to something I feel like

 

 

Like, a prequel to Fury Road? Really? A prequel to The Lion King? Oh gosh I need to sleep...

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 minutes ago, Thor said:

But ultimately, one needs to judge the film on its filmic merits. What I don't get is people having a principal stand against prequels and sequels

 

If a film is an entry in a series, it HAS to be judged both as an individual entry and an installment in the series. And I'm fine with sequels and prequels, and depending on the series, with a great many of them, too.

 

But some films lend themselves to sequels, and some don't. Some sequels lend themselves to even more sequels, other don't. Some films lend themselves to prequels, but others do not, etc...

[Thor 7,508]

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

But some films lend themselves to sequels, and some don't. Some sequels lend themselves to even more sequels, other don't. Some films lend themselves to prequels, but others do not, etc...

 

That's true, but it's doesn't need to be a science fiction film, like many people think. Other types of "universes" can be expanded too. And it's not only to do with the setting, but the way the filmmaker has staged that setting. In the case of GLADIATOR, it isn't only the richness of the Roman empire in itself, but also the particular way Scott has staged it (as previously noted). THAT'S what I want to see expanded and explored further. If it were just Roman times, I'd watch the ROME series instead, or something else set in the era.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

On 7/3/2024 at 8:27 AM, Thor said:

Again: Sorry to hear that he won't be returning, but it was all expected. At least there wasn't any explicit mention in that interview of a falling-out with Scott. I still have a faint hope that the two of them will work together again, as director-composer, before it's too late. MATCHSTICK MEN was a staggering 21 years ago!

Ridley Scott has always had phases in his career with different composers. It just so happens to be the HGW era. I don’t think it necessarily means there was a falling out.

 

But Ridley is up there in age. I can’t imagine him working with Zimmer again.