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

[dudalb]

On 2/24/2024 at 1:46 AM, Krissykins said:

Yeh these budgets are getting out of hand, and they’re crippling the films chances. Look at MI7 and Indiana Jones just last year. 
 

If it’s $315m, this could be the biggest financial bomb of the year. Hopefully it isn’t true. 

Only a matter ot time before a  huge overbudget film does a 'Heaven's gate" and wrecks a studio.

The 1963 Cleopatra came very close to destroying Fox; and it did so while it was still filming.

[dudalb]

On 2/24/2024 at 1:42 AM, WorkingonaName said:

Titanic's budget was only $340M in 2023 dollars. 

Don't forget that Fox was so concerned over Titnaic budget being out of control, it ended up  convincing Paramount to parnter with it.

[Barnack]

4 hours ago, dudalb said:

Only a matter ot time before a  huge overbudget film does a 'Heaven's gate" and wrecks a studio.

The 1963 Cleopatra came very close to destroying Fox; and it did so while it was still filming.

Studio were possible to close because they were not part of a media empire and the market place was different.

 

Now a studio loosing money would not be wreck necesarily, AT&T, Disney, Viacom/CBS (I am not so sure who own who anymore) would have a lost on their movie division line, well maybe TV did well or video game and can survive multi-billion lost some years.

 

When it is smaller more independent of a larger conglomerate like Liongates at one point could have, but they never took a big risk on a single movie, their record by a good amount was the first Hungers Games I think in term of jumping and with co-financier, selling the international markets and so on where in for $20 million dollars, they sold movie rights and some assets to make it happen, but that give an idea they rarely jump alone on big risk if they are not Disney.

 

Titanic risk-reward being split in 2 intl-domestic or Braveheart being good example

Edited February 28 by Barnack

[dudalb]

8 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Studio were possible to close because they were not part of a media empire and the market place was different.

 

Now a studio loosing money would not be wreck necesarily, AT&T, Disney, Viacom/CBS (I am not so sure who own who anymore) would have a lost on their movie division line, well maybe TV did well or video game and can survive multi-billion lost some years.

 

Something when it was more independent of a larger conglomerate like Liongates at one point could have, but they never took a big risk on a single movie, their record by a good amount was the first Hungers Games I think in term of jumping and with co-financier, selling the international markets and so on where in for $20 million dollars, they sold movie rights and some assets to make it happen, but that give an idea they rarely jump alone on big risk if they are not Disney.

 

Titanic risk-reward being split in 2 intl-domestic or Braveheart being good example

Actually, UA was owned by Transamerica at the time Heaven's Gate was made and flopped, and the result was the entire managment of UA was removed by Transamerica, the UA sold off in the Merger with MGM.

That is the danger, not sou much a studiio would vanish, but it would be reduced by a huge flop to a minor league studio, and sold off to de facto oblivion by the parent company, or broken up into parts and sold for what the parts would bring.

 

[Jake Gittes]

Edit: nvm

Edited February 28 by Jake Gittes

[dudalb]

We who have gone overbudget bigtime salute  you.

[Firepower]

So... trailer this month?

[AMCTheater2000]

 

[Firepower]

But they said it's not gonna be called Gladiator 2...

I fully expected them to give up on a different title because it would've been a much harder sale, so they decided to do straightforward 2 and call it a day.

Edited April 6 by Firepower

[SpiderByte]

I think it works. Since...the entire cast is different it's easier to communicate that it's a sequel.

[CoolioD1]

they had to go with the roman numerals it was the right call.

[Speedorito]

Probably a trailer at CinemaCon on Thursday when Paramount shows their upcoming films for the year. Should be interesting.

[AN9815]

Please let this be good. I don't really trust Ridley Scott in making a good Gladiator sequel but the cast is amazing. This for me is the biggest wildcard at the box office this year. I can see it being awful and making $100m DOM or being fantastic and crossing $350m DOM. 

[Hatebox]

I see the first gladiator as the freak accident, because generally Scott is not what I would call a natural storyteller. He likes weirdness and moodiness (and good for him!). So for gladiator to be such a populist movie was a miracle. Suffice it to say I’m not expecting a repeat here. 

[Torontofan]

13 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

I see the first gladiator as the freak accident, because generally Scott is not what I would call a natural storyteller. He likes weirdness and moodiness (and good for him!). So for gladiator to be such a populist movie was a miracle. Suffice it to say I’m not expecting a repeat here. 

 

I mean Gladiator 1 is a classic, it feels like an epic sword and Sandal epic from the 1960s with a great story and has one of the most famous endings of all time. 

 

[Speedorito]

If the trailer looks really good I’ll let go of my pessimism and put a little faith in Ridley Scott.

[Firepower]

Trailer needs to be really good to raise hype, something emotional and maybe a bit nostalgic, not Beetlejuice 2 teaser type of nothing sandwich.

[Firepower]

 

Another one.

[Firepower]

So... are they gonna show a trailer publicly tomorrow or it's gonna be Cinema Con exclusive? Any word about this?

[BadOlCatSylvester]

1 minute ago, Firepower said:

So... are they gonna show a trailer publicly tomorrow or it's gonna be Cinema Con exclusive? Any word about this?

They have marketing material up on the floor, so it's likely a public one. The one hurdle is that IF's trailer has been confirmed for a public release tomorrow, and I don't see Paramount releasing two CinemaCon trailers.