I'm sure most of you have seen the news that Ridley Scott will be making Gladiator 2...
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/01/gladiator-2-ridley-scott-pe...
Frankly, it baffles me a bit. Both the villain AND the hero died in the first movie. With the main dramatic spine of the story gone, how can you call a follow up film a 'sequel'?
Are there any examples you can think of where the filmmakers killed off the hero and villain, then used the minor characters to populate a 'sequel'?
Agree with Sawyer. A few other films in the same world....S. Darko...after Donnie and the bunny die in Donnie Darko...follows Donnie's sister Sam.....The Creature from the Black Lagoon...in the original....The Creature died...so did ONE of the heroes....not as clean as "one hero-one villain" though....maybe Jaws II....another one where ONE of the heroes is killed....The Hills Have Eyes II....and maybe Night of the Living Dead Parts 2 and beyond.....where....well....you know how those play out.....in The Stepford Wives...don't remember if some died...and don't remember if the next installment was a sequel or a remake...Steven King's Children of the Corn might qualify, too.
......glad to read in the article that Russell Crowe had asked Nick Cave to write the sequel...even though it was "shelved"......Nick Cave is one of the greatest storytellers around....
....great topic, Phil!
2 people like this
I read somewhere that Ridley Scott knows how he's going to bring Maximus back. I also saw that it apparently has something to do with the Roman gods resurrecting him to try and prevent Rome falling to Christianity. In any case it's a stupid, late, money grabbing idea and I don't know about everyone else, but I'm so sick of studios plucking any film pretty much at random and thinking it needs a sequel, Independence Day springs instantly to mind. Films like that and Gladiator are brilliant ideas and great films and there is absolutely no reason for them to have sequels. Come on Ridley, you're so much better than this. Rant over.
Some of the examples that Sawyer Specter and Bill Costantini bring up are valid, but in a way they change the discussion. When I was thinking of sequels I had in mind movies like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or The Hunger Games, etc. - films that have a continuity of character and story. Movies like Jurassic World, Alien: Covenant, etc are new films based on a story world that has been previously created and is now populated with entirely new characters. Those worlds are really the main attraction and the reason why people are willing to follow new characters within them, albeit with a tenuous thread connecting them to the originals.
So, I guess my question is - is the world created by the original Gladiator film compelling enough in the same way? Some people like sword-and-sandal movies, but what is the dinosaur/egg-laying alien/killer-shark hook of the world of 'Gladiator' that makes it worth going back to without the incredible drama of Maximus vs Commodus?
And before you say, "Well, duh - it was the world/lives of the Gladiators that made it interesting" - I would say yes, but no. What really made it compelling was the irony that the character Maximus, Rome's top general, who defeated entire armies, really saved the empire only after being forced to become a lowly gladiator and defeating the emperor himself one on one.
I'd love to see a great follow-up film, but I just wonder how it can be done successfully... and whether it's really a 'sequel' lol Maybe that bit is just semantics.
MONEY! NAME RECOGNITION! TEMPTING. And, like Dan M said, RS may just crank out another great movie.
It's all about the $$$$ in sequel land. The studios feel it's less risky. And Ridley Scott well you know.
RS's talent is not in question. When he has the right script, he's one of the best in the game. I'm more curious about the difficulty in mining the concept from a screenwriting perspective.. Fingers crossed that Peter Craig can find the gold.
1 person likes this
Does anyone know why his brother passed the way he did? Respect. Such a Talent.
2 people like this
Brian: Tony was a giant talent but he unfortunately committed suicide in San Pedro on a bridge I used to frequently use when I lived in LA. Here's the info from Wikipedia
On 19 August 2012, at approximately 12:30 pm. PDT, Scott killed himself by jumping off the Vincent Thomas Bridge in the San Pedro port district of Los Angeles.[46] Investigators from the Los Angeles Police Department's Harbor Division found contact information in a note left in his car, parked on the bridge,[47] and a note at his office for his family.[48][49] One witness said he did not hesitate before jumping, but another said he looked nervous before climbing a fence, hesitating for two seconds, and jumping into the water beside a tour boat.[50][47][51] His body was recovered from the water by the Los Angeles Port Police.[6] On 22 August, Los Angeles County coroner's spokesman Ed Winters said the two notes Scott left behind made no mention of any health problems,[52] but neither the police nor the family disclosed the content of those notes.[53]
On 22 October 2012, the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office announced the cause of death as "multiple blunt force injuries." Therapeutic levels of mirtazapine and eszopiclone were in his system at the time of death. Both drugs have been known to cause suicidal thoughts or ideation.[54] A coroner's official said Scott "did not have any serious underlying medical conditions" and that there was "no anatomic evidence of neoplasia [cancer] identified."[55]
In a November 2014 interview with Variety, Ridley Scott, while describing his brother's death as "inexplicable", contradicted the coroner's official by saying that Tony had been "fighting a lengthy battle with cancer — a diagnosis the family elected to keep private during his treatments and in the immediate wake of his death."[56]
2 people like this
Dan M: I'm always amazed when I hear stories of films that had such a lean script or shitload's of rewrites along the way. Jaws is an example. I watched a documentary about the making of El Cid and they were literally writing pages along the way while filming. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
2 people like this
Yeah I’ve read about that. Scott, Crowe and the writers brainstorming every day. Crazy way to make a film.
2 people like this
When I worked nights at Hughes Aircraft testing satellite antennas on our roof (across from LAX), El Segundo often made me feel it was Ridley Scott's inspiration for Blade Runner' atmosphere.
"Wikipedia on “Gladiator” says the production was chaos. They started shooting with a 32-page script, Russell Crowe made up his own dialogue. Somehow, Scott found a story in the editing room."
Maybe that's a reason I never found Gladiator screenplay
A logical conclusion would be a prequel, but the actors are now, well... quite a bit older. I'm eager to see what they'll come up with.
1 person likes this
Bring old Rusty back and just call it 'Olympus Maximus' ;-)
2 people like this
For a laugh. Look up "Gladiator Running Club".
A bunch of Sydney lads would go for a run each morning and ever time they went past Russell place in Woolloomooloo they would yell our a line from Gladiator. Surprisingly he didn't find it as funny as they did.
I do not see what the problem is about. What prevents him from writing the story: "Before the Gladiator"? Well, it can be, say, five to six new films!