Gladiator 2 | November 22, 2024 | DENZEL IS REUNITING WITH RIDLEY?!

[Eric the Marxist]

Do respect the marketing team going all "Oh, y'all don't like rap music? Well TOO BAD". Let all those weirdos and nerds suffer.

[Speedorito]

Wrong link, this was the Pepsi ad. Couldn’t even come up with something original to market this

 

 

43 minutes ago, Eric Deetz said:

Do respect the marketing team going all "Oh, y'all don't like rap music? Well TOO BAD". Let all those weirdos and nerds suffer.

(Unjustified) outrage doesn’t always sell but I respect the hustle.

[mikeymichael]

This movie has both huge flop/huge hit potential. Like I can see it opening to 100M+ if it's good and can see it not clearing 60-70M total if it's a stinker. 

[emoviefan]

22 minutes ago, mikeymichael said:

This movie has both huge flop/huge hit potential. Like I can see it opening to 100M+ if it's good and can see it not clearing 60-70M total if it's a stinker. 

And with Sir Ridley it could go either way.

[TomThomas]

Runtime is 2 hours 21 minutes.

 

14 minutes shorter than the first one despite bigger scale and cast. And around 20 minutes shorter than test screening cut before June reshoots.

 

I think Ridley will eat his words about "the best movie of my career" and gonna pretend there's a much better director's cut, just like Snyder.

Edited September 6 by TomThomas

[filmlover]

Let's be real: considering the impressively high number of Internet's Boyfriends that are in this (Mescal, Pascal, Quinn), is getting Miss Body-ody-ody-ody-ody as part of the marketing campaign that out of place?

[vale9001]

It's not the runtime makes the quality, also 141 minutes is a long movie. 

 

The first movie has a very long part could be considered like a "prologue", and it's like 40 minutes long. That part exists to create all the context for the revenge main plot of the movie. 

 

Since this is a sequel, we already know Who is the main character, what are the motivations behind his actions probably the movie doesn't need all that.

Edited September 6 by vale9001

[TomThomas]

7 minutes ago, vale9001 said:

It's not the runtime makes the quality, also 141 minutes is a long movie. 

 

The first movie has a very long part could be considered like a "prologue", and it's like 40 minutes long. That part exists to create all the context for the the main plot of the movie. 

 

Since this is a sequel, we already know Who is the main character, what are the motivations behind his actions probably the movie doesn't need all that. 

It's pretty much remake of the first movie, so this one has the same kind of prologue, this time city siege. I don't trust Ridley to deliver a competent and well edited large scale epic with 2.21 runtime including credits. Theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven was 2.20 as well and we know how it turned out. Ridley often has issues with theatricul cut editing, Napoleon was a frankenstein monster and even The Last Duel had some editing issues.

Edited September 6 by TomThomas

[vale9001]

8 minutes ago, TomThomas said:

It's pretty much remake of the first movie, so this one has the same kind of prologue, this time city siege. I don't trust Ridley to deliver a competent large scale epic with 2.21 runtime including credits. Theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven was 2.20 as well and we know how it turned out.

 

 

It's not a remake of the First movie. For what we know what's the same is the revenge plot at the center of the movie. 

 

For the first movie you need to know Who Is the main character, all the situation brings to the  revenge plot, you need to know what's the historical political context, you Need to explain to the big audience what a gladiator is and how it works being a gladiator.

 

Here you already know from minute 1 why the main character wants a Revenge (the first movie is for this movie what the prologue part was for the first movie)  , what gladiators are, how the fight, the context etc..

 

So there is any reason to say the story needs 1 hour more of 140 minutes to be good or well told just because....

Edited September 6 by vale9001

[TomThomas]

2 minutes ago, vale9001 said:

It's not a remake of the First movie. For what we know what's the same is the revenge plot at the center of the movie. 

It literally has the same plot, structure and lead character motivation. The movie opens with a big scale battle, lead character is captured and becomes a slave, purchased by Oliver Reed-sque character, then becomes a gladiator and fights his way to the top of the chain to avenge his family. But this time it has more characters, 2 evil emperrors instead of 1 and 2 major gladiator characters instead of 1. And all of this with 14 minutes shorter runtime.

[Speedorito]

10 minutes ago, TomThomas said:

It literally has the same plot, structure and lead character motivation. The movie opens with a big scale battle, lead character is captured and becomes a slave, purchased by Oliver Reed-sque character, then becomes a gladiator and fights his way to the top of the chain to avenge his family. But this time it has more characters, 2 evil emperrors instead of 1 and 2 major gladiator characters instead of 1. And all of this with 14 minutes shorter runtime.

Assuming that’s all true, that’s not a remake. That’s just a lazy, inferior rehash. At least remakes don’t pretend they’re entirely new or that they have something new to say.

[TomThomas]

6 minutes ago, Speedorito said:

Assuming that’s all true, that’s not a remake. That’s just a lazy, inferior rehash. At least remakes don’t pretend they’re entirely new or that they have something new to say.

Fair enough, could be defined like that as well.

[Human]

This film's box office is going to be so exciting.  I am way mor interested in it than the actual movie.

[WittyUsername]

2 hours ago, TomThomas said:

Runtime is 2 hours 21 minutes.

 

14 minutes shorter than the first one despite bigger scale and cast. And around 20 minutes shorter than test screening cut before June reshoots.

 

I think Ridley will eat his words about "the best movie of my career" and gonna pretend there's a much better director's cut, just like Snyder.

Ridley Scott movies have had director’s cuts for decades. That’s not a recent thing. Director’s cuts used to be commonplace in Hollywood before the Internet suddenly decided they were bad. 

[TomThomas]

7 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Ridley Scott movies have had director’s cuts for decades. That’s not a recent thing. Director’s cuts used to be commonplace in Hollywood before the Internet suddenly decided they were bad. 

It's a bad thing when they hype the movie as the best ever, release a bad movie and then play by Snyder playbook promising a much better version that might or might not to be released one day.

[Cmasterclay]

So apparently people in this thread have seen the movie, know all the story beats, and are able to opine on the quality based on those text descriptions. Good to know we have insider details!

[TomThomas]

3 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

So apparently people in this thread have seen the movie, know all the story beats, and are able to opine on the quality based on those text descriptions. Good to know we have insider details!

They spoiled most of the movie in Vanity Fair piece and trailer visualized those beats.

[PlatnumRoyce]

1 hour ago, WittyUsername said:

Ridley Scott movies have had director’s cuts for decades. That’s not a recent thing. Director’s cuts used to be commonplace in Hollywood before the Internet suddenly decided they were bad. 

DVDs imploding killed directors cuts not the internet. It's the same reason we don't get as many cool special features (which the internet has never soured on) or dvd commentaries.

Edited September 6 by PlatnumRoyce

[dudalb]

19 hours ago, Speedorito said:

Wrong link, this was the Pepsi ad. Couldn’t even come up with something original to market this

 

 

(Unjustified) outrage doesn’t always sell but I respect the hustle.

I don;t mind the vidoes, but modern songs has better NOT be in the movie proper.

Thumbs down on that.

Edited September 6 by dudalb

[dudalb]

6 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

Ridley Scott movies have had director’s cuts for decades. That’s not a recent thing. Director’s cuts used to be commonplace in Hollywood before the Internet suddenly decided they were bad. 

Hell, it was "Blade Runner" that made the whole Director';s cut thing big.

It was not the first directors cut..the 1988 restoration of 'Lawrence of Arabia" and the 1991 resotraton of "Spartacus"   came before  it but Blade Runner put it into high gear.