Film Ridley Scott is making Gladiator 2

Mr Pigeon said:
MV5BN2YzY2E1MjItYmZmYS00YjM5LTkzMTgtNDUzYmE1M2M4ZjVmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQ0MzMwNQ@@._V1_.jpg
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Two awful alien prequels, now this. It’s all a bit sad, especially when Blade Runner 2049 turned out so well without him.

Thelma & Louise Live must be next on his list.
 
Ngl I'll watch it. Even if I find myself alone. riding in green fields with the sun on my back
 
Scandi Red said:
One of my favorite films as a kid, but I find it absolutely shit now.
Click to expand...

It's not shit objectively speaking, but when you see people listing it as historically great you have to wonder where they're coming from. Bog standard blockbuster effort, I would say. Not the worst in its genre, but - yeah - whatever.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
It's not shit objectively speaking, but when you see people listing it as historically great you have to wonder where they're coming from. Bog standard blockbuster effort, I would say. Not the worst in its genre, but - yeah - whatever.
Click to expand...

"Shit" was a bit harsh. "Average" is more accurate. As an adult I find very little to enjoy in the film. I do like Ancient Rome as an historic setting, but in the Gladiator it only serves as a vessel for forcing the protagonist into a fighting arena.
 
Scandi Red said:
"Average" is more accurate.
Click to expand...

Yep. As in: it's an average blockbuster, big Hollywood movie, etc. Not particularly bad for that genre. Decent enough acting for the main actors, etc.

Were you not entertained (watching it)? For me, yes - I was sufficiently entertained, at least up until the ridiculous ending where the whole Hollywood/blockbuster shit was turned up to 11 (but would you expect anything else?).

I'd give it a C+.
 
Glady Aytor is tired of her regimented life. Every day she works the same 2-10 at Londis, serving the same Kestrel Super, chasing the same shoplifters.

But a chance encounter with a travelling wizard, who exchanges a mystical orb for some miniature blended whisky bottles, changes everything. With a little rub and a twiddle Glady is transported to a world of Roman conquerors, like Total War II but with better graphics.

But something is wrong with her new world. Russell Crowe's character is somehow still alive and a lot fatter nowadays. He also does everything backwards, including writing "bmoB motA" in his own rectal deposits on the walls of his spaceship. Glady also starts doing everything in reverse whilst Michael Caine creates shadow puppets using the light that emanates from Crowe's magic arsehole, which holds the secret to stopping World War II.

Directed by Christopher Nolan and that guy who hasn't made a good film since the first Alien, Wankstain Productions brings you Gladiator II: Maximus Overdrive.
 
Sweet Square said:
Oh didn’t know about that. Would have been interesting to see his take. I know he is currently in the process of finishing a film about Napoleon. Tbh he seems to non stop working so maybe we’ll get the Battle Of Britain some point in the future.Crazy that he is 85 years old and still going strong.
Click to expand...
The Battle of Britain film is apparently one of the most accurate war films of its era, don't see the point of re-making it, a good film about the Berlin airlift is needed - there may be some that exost that I don't know about though
 
Is this an actual sequel or basically just Scott doing another film about gladiators?
 
Jippy said:
Is this an actual sequel or basically just Scott doing another film about gladiators?
Click to expand...
The latter probably seeing how everyone would be dead and maximus had no progeny.

Considering the time jump it would take place at the crisis of the third century which could be interested (especially with the current circumstances) but the standouts figure of that era is aurelian and I have no idea how you could make a movie about gladiators with him upfront seeing how the poor sod spent most of his time campaigning all over the empire, also the gladiator games had a noticeable downturn during that period.
 
Jippy said:
Is this an actual sequel or basically just Scott doing another film about gladiators?
Click to expand...

I read the report and Mescal is playing the nephew of Joaquin Phoenix's character, so it's a sequel.

I thought he would be playing a similar role to Crowe which is why I said he wouldn't be suited for it.
 
Red the Bear said:
The latter probably seeing how everyone would be dead and maximus had no progeny.

Considering the time jump it would take place at the crisis of the third century which could be interested (especially with the current circumstances) but the standouts figure of that era is aurelian and I have no idea how you could make a movie about gladiators with him upfront seeing how the poor sod spent most of his time campaigning all over the empire, also the gladiator games had a noticeable downturn during that period.
Click to expand...
I've not read anything about it, but am obviously conscious Hollywood has little respect for timelines etc...Hopefully it focuses more on action, rather than say the drive to close down the games.

Idxomer said:
I read the report and Mescal is playing the nephew of Joaquin Phoenix's character, so it's a sequel.

I thought he would be playing a similar role to Crowe which is why I said he wouldn't be suited for it.
Click to expand...
That kid was the only obvious lineage from the original and I guess it's not like Scott is bound by history in whatever story he wants to create. I'm struggling to get excited about the concept, albeit you are always interested in what Scott can make of a film.
 
Jippy said:
I've not read anything about it, but am obviously conscious Hollywood has little respect for timelines etc...Hopefully it focuses more on action, rather than say the drive to close down the games.


That kid was the only obvious lineage from the original and I guess it's not like Scott is bound by history in whatever story he wants to create. I'm struggling to get excited about the concept, albeit you are always interested in what Scott can make of a film.
Click to expand...
There's a certainly potential for that period but I have difficulty seeing how the could connect it to the original.

He would have been a better off just making an unrelated roman periodical instead in my opinion.
 
After reading this thread, I went on a Scott binge.



The Blade Runner review he mentions -

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1982/07/12/baby-the-rain-must-fall

Scott and the others must have decided that the story was unimportant; maybe the booming, lewd and sultry score by Chariots-for-Hire Vangelis that seems to come out of the smoke convinced them that the audience would be moved even if vital parts of the story were trimmed. Vangelis gives the picture so much film noir overload that he fights Scott’s imagery; he chomps on it, stomps on it, and drowns it
Click to expand...

Apparently, the replicants have a motive for returning to Earth: they’re trying to reach Tyrell—they hope he can extend their life span. So if the police want to catch them, all they need to do is wait for them to show up at Tyrell’s place. And why hasn’t Deckard, the ace blade runner, figured out that if the replicants can’t have their lives extended they may want revenge for their slave existence, and that all he’s doing is protecting Tyrell? You can dope out how the story might have been presented, with Deckard as the patsy who does Tyrell’s dirty work; as it is, you can’t clear up why Tyrell isn’t better guarded—and why the movie doesn’t pull the plot strands together.
Click to expand...

:wenger:
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Those paragraphs of criticism strike me as quite reasonable.
Click to expand...
Slagging off Vangelis from the start is annoying but unless your deaf, his score works perfectly with the film. It’s also recognised as one of the time great soundtracks and has been influential in a number of music genres.

The second part about why the police or Decker don’t just go to Tyrell is easily the dumbest form of criticism(This was back in the 80’s so can’t even blame dog shit like cinema sins)Another critic Roger Ebert puts it well here -

Flw1UcZaMAElC8f
 
Sweet Square said:
Another critic Roger Ebert puts it well here -
Click to expand...

Roger Ebert said, of Blade Runner:
[Scott] seems more concerned with creating his film worlds than populating them with plausible characters, and that's the trouble this time. "Blade Runner" is a stunningly interesting visual achievement, but a failure as a story.
Click to expand...

I think Blade Runner is very good but the plot is the weakest part, by far. It's functional at best.

Also worth remembering that all these reviews are for the original cut of the movie, which is considered worse than the versions of the film we're used to now.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Roger Ebert said, of Blade Runner:
Click to expand...
Ebert also hated Blue Velet, the guy was interesting to listening in parts.(The thumbs up or thumbs down stuff was shite) but he should have listed to his own advice more.


Iker Quesadillas said:
Also worth remembering that all these reviews are for the original cut of the movie, which is considered worse than the versions of the film we're used to now.
Click to expand...
Tbh the original cut(The happy dream ending) is the only version of the film that makes sense in any traditional way. The final cuts where it’s shown that Decker is a robot dude doesn’t make much sense and undermines the overall narrative of the film(But it’s a cool twist, so it doesn’t matter Imo)
Iker Quesadillas said:
I think Blade Runner is very good but the plot is the weakest part, by far. It's functional at best.
Click to expand...
People can hate the film but the cinema sins/“plot holes” criticism is incredibly lazy. It doesn’t engage with the art and fundamentally misunderstands what films are. Blade Runner is in part a noir film, which means it will have a ton of slow ambience and rambling around, thats what the genre is, it’s not about trying to solve the case as quick as possible.

There’s nothing worse than a critic who is desperately trying to be smarter than the film they are reviewing.
 
Criticizing non-existent plot holes is silly, but criticizing the broad plot of a movie, which Kael and Ebert do in their review, is fine. Sometimes the broad problems of the plot can be seen in the particulars.

A few plot holes here and there are fine in the service of a story that is engaging, and if some details don't add up because of overall complexity, that is fine. This is really not the case in Blade Runner. The plot is not complex at all.
 
The Gladiator 2 release date has been announced by Paramount Pictures for Ridley Scott’s sequel to his 2000 hit starring Russell Crowe.

The film, which will be led by Best Actor Oscar nominee Paul Mescal (Aftersun), is set to be released in theaters on November 22, 2024. Rather than taking place before the first film and keeping Maximus in the spotlight, Mescal will be playing Lucius, the son of Connie Nelson’s Lucilla.

Scott will once again direct Gladiator 2. It’s the director’s next project as he just finished up Napoleon starring Joaquin Phoenix (who also starred in the original Gladiator). While a sequel has been hinted at for well over a decade, the current iteration started becoming a reality in 2018 after Paramount came on to help develop the project.

The script for the movie was written by David Scarpa.
Click to expand...
https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1265492-gladiator-2-release-date
 
Rambling Roundup: Ridley Scott's Very Expensive Roman Holiday

Ridley Scott's Very Expensive Roman Holiday
With accidents on the set, complaints about animal abuse and now reports that the production went wildly over budget, sources tell Rambling Reporter that Ridley Scott's long-anticipated Gladiator sequel is leaving Paramount execs feeling a bit like Joaquin Phoenix's Emperor Commodus — "terribly vexed." Initially budgeted at $165 million, sources say that figure has ballooned to something closer to $310 million. (Paramount insiders insist the net cost of the 49-day shoot was under $250 million.) "It's a runaway," says one source. "It's not being managed." The strikes account for some of that money; the shutdowns starting in July reportedly cost $600,000 a week, or a total of about $10 million, until Scott resumed shooting in December (though there were reports he kept cameras rolling during the work stoppages, shooting extras at crowd scenes in Malta, where he built a Coliseum set). But even before the walkouts, Fortuna clearly frowned on this sequel, which stars Paul Mescal as a grown-up Lucius, the young royal in the original who worshiped Russell Crowe's Maximus. A stunt gone wrong in June sent four crewmembers to the hospital with non-life-threatening burn injuries. Then in July, PETA sent an open letter to Scott filled with "whistleblower" reports about horses and monkeys being abused on the set, reports that sources close to the production deny, noting that the Humane Society was on site during filming.
Click to expand...
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...ladiator-sequel-production-budget-1235830460/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.