It has been nearly 25 years since the theatrical release of your Dad's favorite movie, the film that likely got more at-home viewers to tune into TNT over the years than any of the television channel's original programming. Yes, we're talking about "Gladiator," Ridley Scott's historically inaccurate "historical epic" set during the Roman Empire—a time we now know men think about frequently.
Despite how you may feel about the film, you cannot undersell the broad appeal of the original "Gladiator," which managed the rare feat of achieving the highest levels of both commercial and critical success. It thus became the second-highest-grossing movie of 2000 and won five Academy Awards, including the ceremony's highest honor: Best Picture. It brought in dudes who love war epics, audiences swooning for the star power that was Russell Crowe, and history nerds who likely left disappointed.
So, with all of the first film's achievements, why is it so hard to take the long-awaited sequel seriously? Just three months away from the release of "Gladiator II," audiences have yet to see if the combination of Ridley Scott's direction, the new cast carrying the torch, and the initial footage from the widely-seen and much-discussed trailer will amount to anything good. Anticipation for the film seems to be split among some genuine fans of the original and filmgoers who are looking forward to laughing at a potentially colossal—or, dare we say, colosseum-sized—misfire. One only needs to scroll through the YouTube comments from users responding to the trailer to get a sense of this fierce division.
Like what you see? Follow our WhatsApp channel for more.
How did the enthusiasm for the follow-up to a rousing Best Picture-winning epic become so ironic? There are a number of reasons, from Ridley Scott's recent track record to Denzel Washington's unabashedly contemporary cadence in the trailer to the mere idea of Paul Mescal and Pedro Pascal battling it out in the ancient Roman equivalent of short shorts, but if we had to boil it down to one problem, it's this: with every new still, poster, or piece of footage from “Gladiator II” that gets released, it's impossible not to feel the desperation of Hollywood studio executives trying everything in their power to strike gold with uninventive material.
In order to better understand why “Gladiator II” was greenlit in the first place, let’s take a closer look at how the first film was made.
Bringing “Gladiator” to the screen was no easy feat. The development involved three screenwriters on the project and revisions that extended far into production. Russell Crowe was vocal about his distaste for the dialogue. Furthermore, the sudden loss of supporting actor Oliver Reed midway through the shoot involved even more script revisions and production hurdles.
The film was ultimately released in early May 2000 and went on to become the second highest-grossing movie worldwide that year behind “Mission: Impossible 2,” another franchise that persists to this day, albeit with plenty of ups and downs. Critical and audience reactions to “Gladiator” were largely strong, and although Ridley Scott would not go on to win Best Director for the film (a prize he still has yet to win), both the film itself and Russell Crowe would win big at the Oscars almost a year after its release.
There is a lot to glean from the success of “Gladiator.” Although the development process was not easy, the various writers and revisions to the script ultimately contributed to a solid and occasionally formulaic narrative, but a narrative that worked nonetheless. Furthermore, “Gladiator” has the unique distinction of being a completely original screenplay and concept. Sure, the time period was a well-known one full of its fans and plenty of lore. Still, “Gladiator” was not heavily influenced by or reliant on intellectual property for its success, and it paid off. This aspect of its legacy—the investment on behalf of studios and financiers in original concepts at an epic scale—is not only unheard of these days, but it is also now completely tarnished decades later by the choice to turn this once original concept into IP.
The lesson to be learned from the success of “Gladiator” should not be to make another one all these years later. Instead of relying on IP to make a film sell, studio executives should invest in bold, original ideas with broad appeal. If that means hiring as many storytellers as needed in order to form a solid, entertaining narrative, then based on the original film’s success, that is a financial risk worth taking. Instead of asking how the story of “Gladiator” should continue (which is a tough one considering the fact that its ending is pretty finite), these creatives and executives should be brainstorming how they can tell a brand new epic set in a world with similar broad appeal. Unfortunately, however, that kind of outside-of-the-box thinking seems to be lacking among executives today. Instead, there seems to be consensus in opting for the less creative approach and greenlighting a million more remakes and sequels.
Speaking of franchises, “Gladiator II” joins the long-running list of sequels that Hollywood is relentlessly churning out these days. This fall alone, we’re also getting “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” “Joker: Folie a Deux,” and “Moana 2.” If you have paid attention to Disney’s recent D23 fan event last month, you likely will have seen the incessant number of sequels and remakes the studio has in the pipeline, from “Frozen 3” to “Toy Story 5.”
So, even if there is enough quality material to justify adding more to the story of “Gladiator,” one simply cannot separate this sequel from the whole frustrating trend. Of course, the trend will only continue because some sequels are still successful. After all, “Deadpool & Wolverine” recently became the highest-grossing R-rated film in history, and “Top Gun: Maverick" made lots of nostalgic boomers happy in 2022.
Still, there are just as many sequels that do not work critically or commercially. The latest “Mission: Impossible” underperformed and, despite “Deadpool,” it’s no secret that superhero movies are having trouble right now.
With all that in mind, there is plenty of justified skepticism regarding the fate of “Gladiator II.” Will this fan service be genuinely embraced, or will it be dismissed as nothing more than a cash grab? Even if it turns out to be great, that potential high quality could be eclipsed by the growing eye-roll-inducing sequel fatigue many filmgoers are feeling right now.
As for the footage that has been released thus far, the reactions have been, well, mixed. The official trailer of “Gladiator II” currently holds over 16 million views on YouTube, but one quick search on social media will show you that plenty of those viewers are watching the trailer ironically.
And who can blame the folks who are laughing at this three-minute first look? It’s hard to take the quality of “Gladiator II” seriously when it feels like the packaging of the film is so unserious. The marketing seems desperately determined to draw viewers in with shots of its hunky, sweaty Gen-Z-friendly stars. And then there’s the anachronisms. Look, the first “Gladiator” was never meant to be historically accurate, but it was, at the very least, immersive. Of course, what we have seen so far is just a trailer, but the choice of music only succeeds in taking the viewer out of the story.
Yes, we’re talking about the distracting sampling of Jay-Z and Kanye West’s “No Church in the Wild.” You can almost hear the conversations in marketing meetings surrounding the use of this song (“It makes sense because the song has the word colosseum in it!”). This choice reads as gimmicky and misguided, almost as if the advertisement was for a theme park experience rather than a sweeping historical epic from a master filmmaker.
If the early response to this footage is indicative of anything, it’s that “Gladiator II” may very well be widely seen, but not in the best way. It might be more like “Hocus Pocus 2” than “Top Gun: Maverick.” Why is this frustrating if people are still going to see it regardless? Well, it’s frustrating because the first entry in the franchise was embraced for the quality of the filmmaking, and now, this sequel might not be any different from the next Marvel flop. The marketing has downplayed any creative, cinematic aspirations in favor of what Hollywood thinks is satisfactory fan service. If the film itself is really like this—and believe us, we're hoping to be proven wrong—”Gladiator II” may not build on the legacy of the Best Picture winner at all; in fact, it may only do damage to it.
Thumbnail Attribution: Melanie van Leeuwen
Stay up to date by following us on Facebook!