-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gladiator 2 Trailer
- Thread starter AJUMP23
- Start date
Ammogeddon
Member
I still have my doubts but the new trailer is far better than the last one.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
And it kills me. I want this to be good, because I love history. I'm a history scholar! My dick should be throbbing over this, but instead it's soft and flaccid. Ridley Scott has burned me too many times with his "historical" films. In fact, I can't just blame Scott, but Hollywood in general for creating trash historical films that should be classed as fantasy.
Fuck this world.
LimanimaPT
Member
Haha. What a flop.
Edit: maybe not...
Edit: maybe not...
What are you talking about? I loved seeing Eva Green's tities!! Best movie ever.
Last edited:
KURDISTAN YPG
Member
It sucks
Regginator
Member
So what's the story about the character that Denzel plays? Is it the same Macrinus from antiquity, the Amazigh (indigenous North African) that became Roman emperor, or just loosely based on him or whatever?
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
i'll take the reviews with a pinch of salt until more of them are in, Napoleon was the biggest pile o balls and he's had more misses than hits lately, Gladiator is still one of my top 10 movies and we regularly rewatch it in this household so i'm not holding out hope for a 2024 modern audience sequel
Sounds like the next Assassin's creed hero!
But seriously, it would be a hoot if Denzel rules Rome in one film and then comes around as Hannibal to destroy it in the next
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Yeah, it is based on him.
Though the funny part is that now Gladiator 2 looks like an allusion to the american election
- we have two corrupted emperors (Biden and Harris) waging wars, media pushing leftist propaganda (movies, games, music, media) - basically left leaning coliseum, while the empire is on decline, economy is tanking etc.
- Macrinus being Trump whose motivation is the revenge on the empire that mistreated him
- Lucius Verus being Musk with imperial forces (regulators, commissions) waging war with his "lands"
Last edited:
SJRB
Gold Member
Yeah, it is based on him.
Though the funny part is that now Gladiator 2 looks like an allusion to the american election
- we have two corrupted emperors (Biden and Harris) waging wars, media pushing leftist propaganda (movies, games, music, media) - basically left leaning coliseum, while the empire is on decline, economy is tanking etc.
- Macrinus being Trump whose motivation is the revenge on the empire that mistreated him
- Lucius Verus being Musk with imperial forces (regulators, commissions) waging war with his "lands"
Regginator
Member
I have no idea what you're saying lol, but I just found it weird that they'd cast a black guy (as terrific as Denzel is) to play a North African instead of an actual Maghrebi. Then again, Gladiator isn't really known for its historical accuracy, of course.Yeah, it is based on him.
Though the funny part is that now Gladiator 2 looks like an allusion to the american election
- we have two corrupted emperors (Biden and Harris) waging wars, media pushing leftist propaganda (movies, games, music, media) - basically left leaning coliseum, while the empire is on decline, economy is tanking etc.
- Macrinus being Trump whose motivation is the revenge on the empire that mistreated him
- Lucius Verus being Musk with imperial forces (regulators, commissions) waging war with his "lands"
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Ridley Scott sounds like he's done it again. As in, made a historical film so historically inaccurate that it should be historical fantasy.
We know there is a scene where the arena is flooded for a mock naval battle. That part is fine as we have evidence the Romans did do this.
But then adding fucking sharks? Sharks? Sorry, but not only is there no evidence for this but it would have been impossible for the Romans to transport Sharks to Rome alive. So what does Ridley have to say about this?
Dude, if you can build a Colosseum, you can flood it with fucking water. Are you joking? And to get a couple of sharks in a net from the sea, are you kidding? Of course they can. They were quite small. They were only about six or seven feet.
No, Ridley, they couldn't. Use some fucking logic. How are they going to keep the sharks alive for transportation? Where are they going to keep them in Rome? A giant public aquarium? No. Just no.
And then there is people riding Rhino's, which never happened. Just because something has four legs doesn't mean you can ride it like a horse. I'm surprised he didn't have people riding on bears and lions.
collider.com
We know there is a scene where the arena is flooded for a mock naval battle. That part is fine as we have evidence the Romans did do this.
But then adding fucking sharks? Sharks? Sorry, but not only is there no evidence for this but it would have been impossible for the Romans to transport Sharks to Rome alive. So what does Ridley have to say about this?
Dude, if you can build a Colosseum, you can flood it with fucking water. Are you joking? And to get a couple of sharks in a net from the sea, are you kidding? Of course they can. They were quite small. They were only about six or seven feet.
No, Ridley, they couldn't. Use some fucking logic. How are they going to keep the sharks alive for transportation? Where are they going to keep them in Rome? A giant public aquarium? No. Just no.
And then there is people riding Rhino's, which never happened. Just because something has four legs doesn't mean you can ride it like a horse. I'm surprised he didn't have people riding on bears and lions.
"It Warns Us What Happens If We Allow AI Into Our Universe": Ridley Scott Explains How '2001 A Space Odyssey' Predetermined The Future
Scott and Paul Mescal also discuss why we won't see an extended cut of 'Gladiator 2' and putting sharks in the Colosseum.
collider.com
Last edited:
SirKicksalot
Member
Fish and other creatures in mock naval battles are mentioned by ancient writers. I think they had seals and hippos for one. The Mediterranean has small sharks, but don't they all need to stay moving to breathe?
Anyway that "historian" said the Romans probably didn't know about sharks, and that is retarded.
Anyway that "historian" said the Romans probably didn't know about sharks, and that is retarded.
Wandering Leopard
Member
If they were serious about making a good 2nd movie, it should have been a prequel about Proximo and Marcus Aurelius and how Commodus grew up into what he became + some stoic philosophy thrown in.
From what I've seen, especially with Denzel Washington overdoing it in the trailers, I have no interest.
From what I've seen, especially with Denzel Washington overdoing it in the trailers, I have no interest.
Stitch
Gold Member
Even in modern times it's hard to safely transport sharks, and it's even harder to keep them alive
Sharks in captivity - Wikipedia
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
I've personally not come across any source that mentions aquatic creatures being used in the naumachia.
For my own personal interest, can you please point me to the primary source you're using. Secondary source is also fine as I can just piggy-back off that to get to the primary.
Represent.
Banned
Great reviews. IMAX Day 1. What an amazing year for movies. Solid releases virtually every month.
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
Ridley Scott sounds like he's done it again. As in, made a historical film so historically inaccurate that it should be historical fantasy.
We know there is a scene where the arena is flooded for a mock naval battle. That part is fine as we have evidence the Romans did do this.
But then adding fucking sharks? Sharks? Sorry, but not only is there no evidence for this but it would have been impossible for the Romans to transport Sharks to Rome alive. So what does Ridley have to say about this?
Dude, if you can build a Colosseum, you can flood it with fucking water. Are you joking? And to get a couple of sharks in a net from the sea, are you kidding? Of course they can. They were quite small. They were only about six or seven feet.
No, Ridley, they couldn't. Use some fucking logic. How are they going to keep the sharks alive for transportation? Where are they going to keep them in Rome? A giant public aquarium? No. Just no.
And then there is people riding Rhino's, which never happened. Just because something has four legs doesn't mean you can ride it like a horse. I'm surprised he didn't have people riding on bears and lions.
"It Warns Us What Happens If We Allow AI Into Our Universe": Ridley Scott Explains How '2001 A Space Odyssey' Predetermined The Future
Scott and Paul Mescal also discuss why we won't see an extended cut of 'Gladiator 2' and putting sharks in the Colosseum.
So its official. Ridley Scott has jumped the shark.
SirKicksalot
Member
Well here's how I got it. Suetonius, Nero, paragraph 12. The Oxford World's Classics version is "He also gave a naval battle on sea water which had monsters swimming in it." The original term is "beluae". The old Romanian version I have translates it as "sea monsters". Now I haven't taken Latin classes since I was 16 (mandatory in my country lol) but I'm pretty sure Suetonius could have used a better word for land beasts.
Of course, they could be ships decorated as sea monsters. They could also be crocodiles and hippos.
Surely they could bring some massive freshwater fish here, for Augustus:
Weren't they farming moray eels and catfish too? Surely they can survive in freshwater for a couple of hours.
If they trained horses and bulls for naumachias, I'm sure they could transport some eels to the Colosseum. Unlimited budget and all that. But sharks can't breathe unless they move all the time.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
It's interesting, but such a vague description that we have no idea what this is referring to. As you said, it could be sea animals, or it could have been fabricated creatures made of wood or other materials.
But sharks can't breathe unless they move all the time.
What you're referring to is ram ventilation, which is where water is forced over the gills while swimming. However, not all sharks do this.
Regardless, it would have still be impossible for Romans to capture and transport live sharks in Rome. Where would they put them on the ship? How would they get transported from the ship to Rome? How would they be kept alive in Rome and moved to the arena? How would they survive in the arena?
The biggest issue would be stress. Sharks are prone to stress. This is one of the main reasons why today it's difficult to keep them alive in captivity and why transporting them live is challenging. It would have been impossible for the Romans.
SirKicksalot
Member
It's a perfectly decent companion to the first movie. It's not often that a movie makes you go "I haven't seen that before". The production design and craft are amazing and the action is coherent, unlike the first movie. Loved the baboons and the emperors.
Now for some mild spoilers:
Now for some mild spoilers:
I think the doctor was meant to be Juba.
The story has an unusual structure - all the setpieces are in the first half, then the second half is more character driven. And the second half is better! I felt really bad for the emperors. Commodus was a cunt but the new guys are tragic.
Paul Mescal has none of Crowe's gravitas. He's a likeable and intense meathead, sort of like Gerard Butler with a very impressive nose. The story leans into that and discards the ludus shenanigans.
The new afterlife is like Ridley's Orange commercials from 2000 lol
The story has an unusual structure - all the setpieces are in the first half, then the second half is more character driven. And the second half is better! I felt really bad for the emperors. Commodus was a cunt but the new guys are tragic.
Paul Mescal has none of Crowe's gravitas. He's a likeable and intense meathead, sort of like Gerard Butler with a very impressive nose. The story leans into that and discards the ludus shenanigans.
The new afterlife is like Ridley's Orange commercials from 2000 lol
Whether or not it actually happened, I've little doubt they COULD have done it if they really wanted. Hell, they could have constructed a separate tank and RAISED them from...pups? whatever a baby shark is called, just for the arena. NEVER underestimate the human ingenuity for spectacle!
Hugare
Member
Ive just left the cinema after watching it
The drama resolution didnt make any sense. He was mad at someone for his whole life, but suddenly he goes "eh, its all water under the bridge now". Wtf?
And this happens not once, but two times. So rushed. Didnt feel earned at all.
Also the final scene was just ... so sudden.
Setpieces were cool, Denzel was awesome as always, but this felt like one of those straight to DVD sequels
The drama resolution didnt make any sense. He was mad at someone for his whole life, but suddenly he goes "eh, its all water under the bridge now". Wtf?
And this happens not once, but two times. So rushed. Didnt feel earned at all.
Also the final scene was just ... so sudden.
Setpieces were cool, Denzel was awesome as always, but this felt like one of those straight to DVD sequels
Tokio Blues
Gold Member
Saw it yesterday. It's a kind of a mess, but a fun mess.
Don't know how to describe it. Sharks and rhinos in the arena were too much for me I think.
Mescal, Pascal and Washington are top tier as always.
Don't know how to describe it. Sharks and rhinos in the arena were too much for me I think.
Mescal, Pascal and Washington are top tier as always.
Last edited:
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
It also appears to me suddenly..
I'm sorry brother
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
But he's friendly, like Casper.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
He's never said a word to me. Always laugh reacting to any of my posts that I'm not trying to be funny in.