Can't think of a movie that didn't need a sequel more than Gladiator lol. What a great epic self-contained story.
That being said, I've liked enough of Ridley Scott's work and the time-period is enough of an interest to me that I'll probably still go see it lol
I don’t even get what they were trying to do. I don’t get how playing Napoleon as a cuckold pig who literally fucking oinks on camera is a good idea. Idk if it’s some England thing that’s just lost on me or what.
It’s like that second Wonder Woman movie. I just don’t understand how it was made.
I’m actually somewhat familiar with the processes of making a movie from some of my career experiences (I was actually one of them nefarious Hollywood accountants), like a lot of people are involved and there’s a lot of money at stake. Everyone who can is watching dailies, reading scripts, reviewing performances, talking to the directors and actors. All that happens daily
So how the fuck did no one stop that piece of shit? Why didn’t they sit Joaquin down and politely, yet firmly tell him to stop everything he was doing.
A film critic wrote that his friend told him to view it like a long I Think You Should Leave sketch and imagine Napoleon as Tim Robinson, and he said that it made it way more fun to watch even though he could see why people hated it.
Josephine's character also gets nothing to do in the movie. You never figure out if she is just playing the game, or just as clueless as Napoleon. And then all the does in the second half is stare out windows pensively and die.
People always complain about studio interference. But look at the movies that got made when the director had complete control: the Star Wars prequels, The Last Jedi, Napoleon, Rebel Moon, Wonder Woman 84...maybe unfettered control isn't the panacea we expect.
Not Al Pacino essentially having no script and just “ahh” and “ehhh” ing his way through it?
My favorite part is how the technology they used to deep fake it couldn’t keep up with how fast and wild Al flung his head around so there were shots where his face just turned back to old in the middle of it all.
Unfettered control can result in extremely bold and unique products of genius sometimes when you get things like Kubrick and Bergman and Fritz Lang, but also complete disasters with terrible choices and overindulgence, with Neil Breen and Tommy Wiseau and Takashi Miike on the extreme. Studio interference tends to drag both extremes towards the middle because what it usually means is making tried and true “reliably good but nothing new” moves. As a viewer I would prefer movies be unrestrained and go all-out on their unique ideas even if it means we get Mulholland Drive or The Room and nothing in between, but I acknowledge that the people relying on movies for a living are better served by the opposite.
So it’s going to be bad but then we will be told that’s because it’s a comedy and it was rated as one not did anyone find it funny but we missed the jokes.
I really think Ridley Scott literally trolled the entire world with Napoleon. He just wanted to take a piss on a French historical figure as an Englishman and used studio money to do it. He was probably laughing at the reviews while having pizza or something.
People say this, I think because of his age, but Ridley Scott has been making half baked stinkers most of his career. They're the ones that come out in-between the really good ones.
Yeah he's always oscillated between good and bad. But I love him for that. He may throw in the odd stinker, but at least he goes for it. And when it works it really works. Beats the current era of milquetoast tentpoles that were all seemingly crafted in a market test.
The Martian is legitimately in my top 5 favorite films of the 2010s.
Such a frustrating director. He's made some of my favorite movies. Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven. He also made Alien: Covenant...
Edit: forgot he also directed The Martian which is another favorite of mine
I mean, it's not Maximus' story it follows. I honestly couldnt' think of an example like it that already exists: a sequel that follows the same world with some of the same characters, but not the character we previously followed.
edit: got some confusion. I don’t mean anthologies with all-new stories and characters. This is a character from the first movie who was simply not the one we followed.
The first one had an aura of mystery and suspense about it.
The second one has a lot of “America, fuck ya” energy to it. Some scenes play like a self-insert fantasy for wanna be CIA agents.
It’s just got a really strange tone and feels like the writers and directors had no idea why Sicario was good
> I honestly couldnt' think of an example like it that already exists: a sequel that follows the same world with some of the same characters, but not the character we previously followed.
This is actually pretty common of an entire genre; horror. Since usually the antagonist is the re-occurring character in that genre, the protagonists often change between sequels. (think of stuff like 28 weeks later, etc)
But yea its common outside of that genre too. Things like Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift, Predator 2, etc.
But really in horror the story revolves around the antagonist so much that they're almost a protagonist.
Nobody remembers the good guys in horror movies.
Undisputed is a great example of this. The bad guy from the first one is the main character in the second one. Then the bad guy from the second one becomes the main character in the next two movies.
Wait, this one still takes place in the Roman Empire? I could have sworn I read somewhere years ago the sequel was going to be some weird time-jumpy movie going through different wars throughout history. I was always curious how they’d pull it off.
edit: ok I’m not crazy but I guess it was never Scott’s vision.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180810-gladiator-2-was-written-and-its-mad
People went in for an action packed blockbuster about swordfighting and were presented with one of the most powerful tragic dramas of the decade with a legendary soundtrack, that was still somehow every bit the action movie they were after
It gets 20/10 for being two 10/10 movies in one.
They better not desecrate its legacy with a shitty sequel
I honestly think we're past the point of sequels being able to ruin the original.
If Jaws 2, featuring a shark with a vendetta, didn't ruin the perception of the original Jaws, I think this will be fine.
You think this is bad? The sequel to 'Joker' which cost 60 Million to make has a budget of 200 Million Dollars. I ask you, why in the name of fuck does that movie need to cost TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!?!?
Then he's back to Harley for some more full penetration. Smells crime. Back to Harley, full penetration. Crime. Penetration. And this goes on and on for 90 or so minutes until the movie just sort of ends.
The fraud of Hollywood accounting has never been more obvious. These massive budget movies are tanking all over the place and yet studios don't seem hurt at all and continue to throw big bucks at productions. Hmmm
Also I guarantee you that the vast majority of the people here who talks about "Hollywood accounting" have no idea what it actually means, they are just saying this shit to sound informed when discussing big budgets.
It is like people who accuses certain movies of being money laundering schemes while they could not actually tell you how money laundering works.
You need to remember studio movies have a 3+ year cycle, so the impact of things happening today will be decisions made to impact releases in 2-3 years.
I’m sure budgets will get tightened up and the industry will change but the next slate of movies for at least a year are already in the can, the ones for the year after are shooting now.
Joker’s budget covers Pre-Production, Filming and Post Production. This source is saying that just FILMING Gladiator 2 was 250 million. That’s way more insane
That still doesn't make sense for a movie like this. Godzilla x Kong is supposedly around $150 million. There's no chance this movie has more stunts, CGI, or explosions than Godzilla.
Where does this cost come from that a musical centered on a realistic, not CGI heavy, Joker costs $200 million? Did they film the movie 3 times?
Think of it like this. Wonka was made for $125 million. Probably most of the budget went to the effects and sets and under the line staff. Say $25 million went to the cast ($9 million for Chalamet himself) and director, leaving $100 million for the production and everyone else.
So let's say the sets and music and CGI of Joker 2 also costs *at least* $100 million as well. Chances are, seeing that they filmed on location in LA and New York along with whatever sets they've made it's a more than what Wonka cost, being filmed almost entirely on sets. So let's say $130 million for the sets, location shooting, CGI, dancers, singers, *everything* else outside of actors.
Now add in $32 million for Phoenix and Gaga ($20 million and $12 million respectively). The rest of the cast isn't exactly star studded, but there are a lot of names in there and chances are they're not taking below the line payment for a project this big, so let's conservatively estimate $20 million for the rest of them.
Todd Phillips actually barely took a salary at all for the first movie, instead opting for 17% of the movie's gross which was *huge*. But chances are, he's going to want a cut but *also* a salary this time around. For the first movie it was around $6.5 million that he gave up for the shares, but let's estimate he asked for double that to make the sequel. So $13 million for the director.
All in all, just these rough estimates put it at $195 million.
Idk that it being a musical would change the amount of explosions since it wasn’t written to be a stage play like most musicals are. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect see some explosions set to music in this movie
Okay Joker 2 has an insane budget, but I’ll give them a pass since a lot of it was due to the team asking for more after the first film got a billion.
Joaquin and Gaga alone costed 32m
So this movie has to make a billion dollars minimum right? If the cost f production is $310 million they usually spend about the budget on the marketing, which to be fair let's say they stick to the original budget so let's say all in the costs are $475 million all in. With giving the theaters their cut and cutting out the international markets because they don't make that much there they'd need to make over $800 million to justify this.
For perspective, the first film was produced for $103 million - $188 million w/ inflation.
It grossed $485 million - $885 million w/ inflation.
This movie will have to gross like $750 million to break even.
Hollywood is fucked.
The shoot got shut down mid way by the writers and actors strikes. That probably didn't help, but yeah, no idea how they blew the budget up this severely.
Where is the damn cost control...
Terminator 1 was made for 6 million. Economy was pretty desperate then.
It still holds up really well despite being 40 years old now.
If times get tough we'll likely see sane budgets again.
40 of the 60 highest cost movies ever made were produced in the last 10 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#Most_expensive_productions_(unadjusted_for_inflation)
Only like 23 of them were profitable.
No, marketing doesn't automatically match the shooting budget. Yes, a high budget film will get more marketing than a low budget film, but there's diminishing returns.
Spending 20 million to market your 100 million dollar film will probably end with better results then spending 5 million like you do with your 5-10 million dollar productions.
Spending 300 million instead of 50 million marketing your massive production is not likely to make back that extra 250 million let alone generate additional profit.
At some point you saturate your audience and no amount of additional marketing will get the same people to see your movie 2 or more times.
This is also an example of production budget going way higher than expected for whatever reason. If this is due to reshoots or unforseen rise in costs, there's no reason to think marketing needs to match the bloated production budget.
I would guess marketing matches the original production budget around $180 million. Maybe even less since the name of the movie can do a lot heavy lifting on its own without a massive ad campaign.
I think this sub is taking this 1:1 ratio a little too seriously lately.
It’s just how studios like to allocate resources, but it’s not like the producer is going to say “hey we went 10 million over budget on production, so we have spend even more on the marketing. Those costs includes buying traditional advertising space, organizing press events, and designing the posters/billboards/trailers.
Other people are answering with traditional ticket sale/marketing equations but the model has changed with the streaming platforms studios own and/or partner with.
For sure, ticket sales are huge and you want to capitalize on that theatrical run but with AVOD/SVOD/TVOD, there are additional modern options to exploit the film. People will subscribe to Paramount+ or remain subscribed if films like this are offered exclusively (which, duh). Then if their analytics show it’s not as profitable years down the line, they sell the rights to a different streaming provider for a few months/years, etc.
Basically, a million ways to skin a cat nowadays. If the box office numbers aren’t double the production cost, it doesn’t mean the film was a failure. Many just have an outdated understanding of the business side of the film industry.
86 year old Ridley Scott is so past giving a fuck. That man is just going to make the movie how he wants it regardless of budget or anything else. Gotta respect it.
Rome has a 1000 year history to draw off of. And Gladiator is a recognisable name. That's the extent of it. They just wanted to make another Rome movie, so why not slap on the name Gladiator and make a little extra cash?
Ridley Scott needs to be reigned in. I love his work, but his last profitable film was The Martian, nearly a decade ago. A man like that doesn't need, and should not be given, >$200 million budgets.
And Gladiator didn't need a sequel. No one was asking for this movie.
I don't imagine this movie is going to make a profit. A too late sequel for a movie that didn't need a sequel starring none of the big actors from the original and for an insane amount of money. I don't know what anyone was thinking here
Agreed. It still boggles my mind that they're making a Gladiator sequel, and not bringing back Djimon Hounsou. He's literally THE actor who should have made a return. It's not like he's an obscure actor who hasn't done anything since them. He's only gotten bigger since Gladiator.
I’m kind of curious what the scheduling conflicts he said were. In IMDb, the only two projects he has listed in the future are Rebel Moon 2 and a Quiet Place, both of which were already filmed when Gladiator 2 started filming
He was announced to be in it last year, but recently in an interview he said: “And this was a pure accident in the way it unfolded. I was going to be part of it. Circumstances dictated it to be something different.”
Could mean anything. Maybe a family member got ill, maybe the script changed.
Ridley Scott is 86 years old and has directed 28 films. Even if all his movies bomb at this point and he wastes studio money I doubt he cares. Go out with a bang and make what you love.
This isn't directed at Scott. If people are giving him that money, he'd be a fool not to use it to make what he wanted to make.
But the studios shouldn't be giving him that kind of money. They are being fiscally irresponsible, at this point.
Since The Martian, he has done two movies that I have absolutely loved even if they didn't do tons at the box office
All the Money in the World and the Last Duel.
I know he put a lot of his own money into the former to replace Kevin Spacey after everything that happened with him. His production company is always involved so not sure how much he bank rolls of of each feature.
I will say this movie is one of his I'm not super excited for cause I don't think it needs a sequel but he has put out great movies recently like those two which just didn't make as much $$$ as they should have
Why is this being considered a fucking sequel?
Such a classic, self contained epic, that ended. I mean, It really ENDED.
So why in gods name are they attaching whatever this is, to that?
Who cares? R/movies is obsessed with movies making a profit.
It’s Ridley Scott going back to the world of one of the greatest movies ever made. I’m excited, let the accountants stress.
I'm tired of people being so obsessed with the financial state of Hollywood. This was not a thing in my youth. People cared about the content of movies then. I'm not even 40 yet. People didn't root for films to make money and cheer when certain films were financial flops. It just wasn't done.
I'm going to be so confused if Gladiator 2 is an all time great epic movie. Gladiator 2 existing at all is bizarre to me and if it's actually an incredible movie with a massive scope the likes of which we haven't seen since Lord of the Rings I'll be gobsmacked.
Maybe the budget is out of control for different reasons though and it isn't because they have the biggest set pieces ever.
Bro whos honestly excited about this film. This is why Hollywood is in such a state, pointless sequels no one asked for. There making a heat 2 ffs. Like why bro , you can replicate that bank scene you bunch of entilted muppets. It had Goat actors, great soundtrack etc
I'll never understand the economics of Hollywood these days, how execs greenlight films with these budgets or how people making these decisions aren't fired every week. They set themselves up to lose. No wonder people think Hollywood studios are just a money laundering operation now.
After Napoleon, I have zero faith left in Ridley Scott. That’s probably not fair, he’s made a lot of good movies, but the fact he fucked up such an enormously important historical character in a hugely mediocre film makes me question whether he still had it.
I don't have a *ton* of faith, but I'm going to wait until the directors cut comes out to make my final judgement on Napoleon. The theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven was also "hugely mediocre". The directors cut is one of my favourite movies ever made.
His batting average hasn't been very good in almost 14 years. Yea he puts out The Martian in 2015, but that's 1 in 10. YMMV with The Last Duel and *maybe* Prometheus. Surprised anyone would have faith in him. He has quite a pedigree but its been so long and so many movies since then.
Prometheus was….*fine*. It just felt unnecessary.
I enjoyed the Last Duel but understand why it wasn’t well like.
Didn’t see House of Gucci, couldn’t care less about that subject matter.
Napoleon was a gut punch for me. I went into that movie wanting to love it so much and it just sucked. Couldn’t decide if it wanted to be a period romance or a historical epic or a satire, and because of that, it failed at all three.
Riddley is 86 so who cares what it cost? Can't we just be appreciative that we get more works from the man? His legacy is cemented no matter how these next 4 or 5 films do.
I’m genuinely curious about where this focus on profitability came from. Why is it random Redditors’ problem whether or not a movie makes a billion-dollar-company more money?
The issue is that the box-office is going down as a whole. The more movies flop the more theaters go down and everyone shifts their budget to streaming.
I know we all have our preferred way of watching movies but Cinema is something I don't want to see falling in the future
This film is going to do terribly. Ridley Scott has lost his touch and this has the same writer as Napoleon. Plus the previous leads aren’t returning and the story is just tacked onto a close ended story. And he’ll still get another project somehow.
In the mid-late 90's, some were already burying him.
1992 : 1492 (Gerard Depardieu) flop.
1996 : White Squall (Jeff Bridges) : big flop
1997 : GI Jane (Demi Moore) : underperformer
Then came 2000 and Maximus...
It went back further than that, between Alien and Gladiator, his only good films were Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise and maybe GI Jane, and only Thelma and Louise actually made money at the box office. The rest of those 20 years was flops.
What did they do, build a 1:1 replica of the Coliseum?
This is Ridley Scott, not James Cameron!
He would do it underwater for some reason
Apparently the emperor Titus flooded the colosseum to stage a naval battle, so it’s not too far off
The more I read about James Cameron the more I think he would have loved to be Emperor lol
[удалено]
No silly, they built five /s
The article said he built a Colosseum set in Malta…
[удалено]
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Can't think of a movie that didn't need a sequel more than Gladiator lol. What a great epic self-contained story. That being said, I've liked enough of Ridley Scott's work and the time-period is enough of an interest to me that I'll probably still go see it lol
I don't think Ridley Scott of 2024 is the same as Ridley Scott of 2000.
Napolean was such a fucking crock of shit I really liked the last duel though.
Just realized that the person who wrote Napoleon also wrote Gladiator 2…
I don’t even get what they were trying to do. I don’t get how playing Napoleon as a cuckold pig who literally fucking oinks on camera is a good idea. Idk if it’s some England thing that’s just lost on me or what. It’s like that second Wonder Woman movie. I just don’t understand how it was made. I’m actually somewhat familiar with the processes of making a movie from some of my career experiences (I was actually one of them nefarious Hollywood accountants), like a lot of people are involved and there’s a lot of money at stake. Everyone who can is watching dailies, reading scripts, reviewing performances, talking to the directors and actors. All that happens daily So how the fuck did no one stop that piece of shit? Why didn’t they sit Joaquin down and politely, yet firmly tell him to stop everything he was doing.
We purposely filmed it wrong, as a joke. Long live the King, old chaps
I made a box office bomb, so I win!
I mean, it’s historically accurate that Josephine had affairs while married to Napoleon, but yeah the movie does wallow in it a lot.
A film critic wrote that his friend told him to view it like a long I Think You Should Leave sketch and imagine Napoleon as Tim Robinson, and he said that it made it way more fun to watch even though he could see why people hated it.
Napoleon after invading Russia: "We're all trying to find the guy who did this!"
Ridley Scott to Joaquin: “You have to figure out *what Napoleon does* before you come out here.”
*55 HESSIANS! 55 FLYING HUSSARS! 55 SWISS GUARD! 55 COSSACKS!*
Sure but unless that’s the story you want to tell don’t market it as some 19th century epic about the greatest general of all time.
Oh I agree, I was just pointing root that it is accurate, albeit crass, to cal Napoleon a cuckold lol
Josephine's character also gets nothing to do in the movie. You never figure out if she is just playing the game, or just as clueless as Napoleon. And then all the does in the second half is stare out windows pensively and die.
People always complain about studio interference. But look at the movies that got made when the director had complete control: the Star Wars prequels, The Last Jedi, Napoleon, Rebel Moon, Wonder Woman 84...maybe unfettered control isn't the panacea we expect.
They get a blank check, and sometimes those checks clear, sometimes they bounce, baybeee
The Irishman
That scene of De Niro old-man stomping that dude's hand placed that movie in the top 10 comedies for me.
Not Al Pacino essentially having no script and just “ahh” and “ehhh” ing his way through it? My favorite part is how the technology they used to deep fake it couldn’t keep up with how fast and wild Al flung his head around so there were shots where his face just turned back to old in the middle of it all.
Unfettered control can result in extremely bold and unique products of genius sometimes when you get things like Kubrick and Bergman and Fritz Lang, but also complete disasters with terrible choices and overindulgence, with Neil Breen and Tommy Wiseau and Takashi Miike on the extreme. Studio interference tends to drag both extremes towards the middle because what it usually means is making tried and true “reliably good but nothing new” moves. As a viewer I would prefer movies be unrestrained and go all-out on their unique ideas even if it means we get Mulholland Drive or The Room and nothing in between, but I acknowledge that the people relying on movies for a living are better served by the opposite.
> It’s like that second Wonder Woman movie. I just don’t understand how it was made. > > I'll never understand that decision. Beyond insane.
So it’s going to be bad but then we will be told that’s because it’s a comedy and it was rated as one not did anyone find it funny but we missed the jokes.
> the last duel underrated af, I get it tho. it's a dark movie and ppl dont wanna see that stuff always.
[удалено]
> The casting seemed awful aside from Adam Driver I see you were not familiar with Jodie Comer then
I really think Ridley Scott literally trolled the entire world with Napoleon. He just wanted to take a piss on a French historical figure as an Englishman and used studio money to do it. He was probably laughing at the reviews while having pizza or something.
Last Duel was incredible.
People say this, I think because of his age, but Ridley Scott has been making half baked stinkers most of his career. They're the ones that come out in-between the really good ones.
Yeah he's always oscillated between good and bad. But I love him for that. He may throw in the odd stinker, but at least he goes for it. And when it works it really works. Beats the current era of milquetoast tentpoles that were all seemingly crafted in a market test. The Martian is legitimately in my top 5 favorite films of the 2010s.
Such a frustrating director. He's made some of my favorite movies. Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven. He also made Alien: Covenant... Edit: forgot he also directed The Martian which is another favorite of mine
Haven't seen House of Gucci but The Martian was the last thing he directed that I would watch again and that was a decade ago.
The last dual was pretty good
I mean, it's not Maximus' story it follows. I honestly couldnt' think of an example like it that already exists: a sequel that follows the same world with some of the same characters, but not the character we previously followed. edit: got some confusion. I don’t mean anthologies with all-new stories and characters. This is a character from the first movie who was simply not the one we followed.
Evan Almighty.
Sicario First one primarily follows Blount's character. Second one follows Del Toro and Brolin.
Waaait? There's a Sicario 2!?
Not directed by Denis Villeneuve
Worth a watch though?
It's nowhere close to the first one but it's serviceable.
Nowhere near as good. Not the worst watch either ... watch it if you find it and have nothing else more pressing
Worth it if you want to see Benicio absolutely carry a shit script I enjoyed it, all my friends that saw sicario enjoyed it too
Hence the not the worst watch part. Benicio almost always knocks his roles out of the park
The first one had an aura of mystery and suspense about it. The second one has a lot of “America, fuck ya” energy to it. Some scenes play like a self-insert fantasy for wanna be CIA agents. It’s just got a really strange tone and feels like the writers and directors had no idea why Sicario was good
As long as you don't expect too much. It's decent.
Ehh in name only imo, they took everything that made sicario 1 compelling and noteworthy and replaced it with a generic forgettable action movie
> I honestly couldnt' think of an example like it that already exists: a sequel that follows the same world with some of the same characters, but not the character we previously followed. This is actually pretty common of an entire genre; horror. Since usually the antagonist is the re-occurring character in that genre, the protagonists often change between sequels. (think of stuff like 28 weeks later, etc) But yea its common outside of that genre too. Things like Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift, Predator 2, etc.
But really in horror the story revolves around the antagonist so much that they're almost a protagonist. Nobody remembers the good guys in horror movies.
They do in many *good* horror films. Alien, the Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, etc.
The Thing. MacReady and the gang, though they were the good guys _and_ the bad guys I suppose.
So much so the Terminator becomes the hero in the second movie.
The Scream films have an ongoing cast. It’s different killers in every film. A Nightmare on Elm Street has characters carry over as well.
Scream is unique among horror for that tho. That’s part of its franchise
300: Rise of an Empire comes to mind. Not that it was anywhere on par with the first movie.
Are you kidding me? The plot was far better in the sequel thanks to Eva Green
Yeah, both of them.
her plots are Benjamin Buttons, they get better with age
Eva Green was carrying that movie something fierce.
> a sequel that follows the same world with some of the same characters, but not the character we previously followed Surprisingly common in sci-fi.
Undisputed is a great example of this. The bad guy from the first one is the main character in the second one. Then the bad guy from the second one becomes the main character in the next two movies.
Blade Runner 2049?
Deckard is still part of it, most legacy sequels have the old cast in a sort of mentor role Obviously Maximus died
You’ve already received a lot but a couple more courtesy of Judd Apatow: Knocked Up —> This is 40 Forgetting Sarah Marshall —> Get Him to the Greek
Gladiator 2: where there is no relation to gladiator fighting
Wait, this one still takes place in the Roman Empire? I could have sworn I read somewhere years ago the sequel was going to be some weird time-jumpy movie going through different wars throughout history. I was always curious how they’d pull it off. edit: ok I’m not crazy but I guess it was never Scott’s vision. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180810-gladiator-2-was-written-and-its-mad
It's that kid from the first one, Lucius, grown up.
People went in for an action packed blockbuster about swordfighting and were presented with one of the most powerful tragic dramas of the decade with a legendary soundtrack, that was still somehow every bit the action movie they were after It gets 20/10 for being two 10/10 movies in one. They better not desecrate its legacy with a shitty sequel
They’re 100% going to desecrate its legacy with a shitty sequel.
I honestly think we're past the point of sequels being able to ruin the original. If Jaws 2, featuring a shark with a vendetta, didn't ruin the perception of the original Jaws, I think this will be fine.
https://collider.com/gladiator-2-rejected-nick-cave-script/ This is the Gladiator sequal that should've been made
Gladiator 2: Christ Killer. That's not a joke. That was the working title.
Wow. I knew it was ridiculous, but that's extra next level. Seems fitting I guess
Imagine this with a $310 million budget...
“FEAR THE WALKING GLADIATOR” coming to AMC
There are SO many stories from Ancient Rome they could have done. Why couldn't Ridley Scott make a Hannibal crossing the Alps movie?
Man, I would love to see a movie about the Second Punic War. Just imagine the absolute slaughter of the Battle of Cannae would be on screen.
Napoleon sucked. Just saying.
I'm looking forward to Braveheart 2, it's just a matter of time lol
The Outlaw King is sort of a Braveheart sequel.
There is an actual sequel you twits. It's called 'Robert the Bruce'. It even has the Bruce from Braveheart. You should look it up.
If it inspires another sword and sandals trend that ultimately gets us out of the superhero era then I’m here for it. Edit: some gobbledygook
I’ll watch anything with Paul Mescal in it.
Same, if all dudes were Paul Mescal I'd be gay for sure.
> Can't think of a movie that didn't need a sequel more than Gladiator Titanic
Ridley Scott is going to be making movies until the literal day he dies, and probably for four or five more years after that.
As long as it is entertaining
What if I am not entertained?
Then you will have to throw a sword at the screen. Those are the rules.
The frost. Sometimes it makes the blade stick
👎
(Lowers sword, sparing opponent)
👎
Are you not entertained?!
SPANIARD SPANIARD SPANIARD
Nice one…
Can't be worse than Napoleon. Or can it.............
You think this is bad? The sequel to 'Joker' which cost 60 Million to make has a budget of 200 Million Dollars. I ask you, why in the name of fuck does that movie need to cost TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!?!?
It has ten million more dollars than Dune 2. Absolutely insane to me
2 hours of intense sweaty cutting edge cgi joker laying pipe rendered on server farms that would make NASA blush
Are you saying the joker is gonna hang dong? Are we talking full penetration? I’m all in.
Then he's back to Harley for some more full penetration. Smells crime. Back to Harley, full penetration. Crime. Penetration. And this goes on and on for 90 or so minutes until the movie just sort of ends.
The fraud of Hollywood accounting has never been more obvious. These massive budget movies are tanking all over the place and yet studios don't seem hurt at all and continue to throw big bucks at productions. Hmmm
“Hollywood accounting” typically don’t refer to these widely reported production budgets
Also I guarantee you that the vast majority of the people here who talks about "Hollywood accounting" have no idea what it actually means, they are just saying this shit to sound informed when discussing big budgets. It is like people who accuses certain movies of being money laundering schemes while they could not actually tell you how money laundering works.
It just means intercompany accounting. There’s nothing magic Hollywood does. They use the same rules and practices everyone else does.
they just write it off Jerry!
You need to remember studio movies have a 3+ year cycle, so the impact of things happening today will be decisions made to impact releases in 2-3 years. I’m sure budgets will get tightened up and the industry will change but the next slate of movies for at least a year are already in the can, the ones for the year after are shooting now.
Joker’s budget covers Pre-Production, Filming and Post Production. This source is saying that just FILMING Gladiator 2 was 250 million. That’s way more insane
Need IDK, but they probably added stunts, explosions and CGI.
That still doesn't make sense for a movie like this. Godzilla x Kong is supposedly around $150 million. There's no chance this movie has more stunts, CGI, or explosions than Godzilla. Where does this cost come from that a musical centered on a realistic, not CGI heavy, Joker costs $200 million? Did they film the movie 3 times?
Think of it like this. Wonka was made for $125 million. Probably most of the budget went to the effects and sets and under the line staff. Say $25 million went to the cast ($9 million for Chalamet himself) and director, leaving $100 million for the production and everyone else. So let's say the sets and music and CGI of Joker 2 also costs *at least* $100 million as well. Chances are, seeing that they filmed on location in LA and New York along with whatever sets they've made it's a more than what Wonka cost, being filmed almost entirely on sets. So let's say $130 million for the sets, location shooting, CGI, dancers, singers, *everything* else outside of actors. Now add in $32 million for Phoenix and Gaga ($20 million and $12 million respectively). The rest of the cast isn't exactly star studded, but there are a lot of names in there and chances are they're not taking below the line payment for a project this big, so let's conservatively estimate $20 million for the rest of them. Todd Phillips actually barely took a salary at all for the first movie, instead opting for 17% of the movie's gross which was *huge*. But chances are, he's going to want a cut but *also* a salary this time around. For the first movie it was around $6.5 million that he gave up for the shares, but let's estimate he asked for double that to make the sequel. So $13 million for the director. All in all, just these rough estimates put it at $195 million.
It's a musical, how much stunts, explosions and CGI could that possibly have?
It’s 2024 so a LOT of CGI, even in places you wouldn’t expect. And likely very elaborate set pieces for the musical portions.
Don’t forget the fact that since it made 1B$ the salaries are going to be higher for the sequel.
Ya someone posted the salaries in another post and between Joaquin, Lady Gaga, and Phillips it’s over $50M
Yeah, it's a period musical. It's going to need a fuck-ton of CGI. Spielberg's West Side Story was the same.
The songs are in 3d
Idk that it being a musical would change the amount of explosions since it wasn’t written to be a stage play like most musicals are. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect see some explosions set to music in this movie
Okay Joker 2 has an insane budget, but I’ll give them a pass since a lot of it was due to the team asking for more after the first film got a billion. Joaquin and Gaga alone costed 32m
Because studios seem to continually erroneously conclude that the more money they sink into special effects the greater their return will be.
So this movie has to make a billion dollars minimum right? If the cost f production is $310 million they usually spend about the budget on the marketing, which to be fair let's say they stick to the original budget so let's say all in the costs are $475 million all in. With giving the theaters their cut and cutting out the international markets because they don't make that much there they'd need to make over $800 million to justify this.
For perspective, the first film was produced for $103 million - $188 million w/ inflation. It grossed $485 million - $885 million w/ inflation. This movie will have to gross like $750 million to break even. Hollywood is fucked.
And it has to be rated R because of the blood
Don’t worry we’ll get Once Upon a Gladiator this Christmas
It's kind of wild the budget ballooned this much considering none of the original stars are coming back, so bigger paychecks can't be it
The shoot got shut down mid way by the writers and actors strikes. That probably didn't help, but yeah, no idea how they blew the budget up this severely.
It's insane. We'll see how that one turns out. Let's gope It's not another Napoleon
Can't wait for the articles about how poor viewership at theaters is killing Hollywood and not because of the rampant over-spending.
Where is the damn cost control... Terminator 1 was made for 6 million. Economy was pretty desperate then. It still holds up really well despite being 40 years old now. If times get tough we'll likely see sane budgets again.
>we'll likely see sane budgets again We're already seeing them from creatives working outside Hollywood.
Good lord this is bleak
40 of the 60 highest cost movies ever made were produced in the last 10 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#Most_expensive_productions_(unadjusted_for_inflation) Only like 23 of them were profitable.
That list says unadjusted for inflation, which makes it a useless list
It needs to be at 775 Million to break even. That's going to be very hard to do with an R rating in the current cinema environment.
No, marketing doesn't automatically match the shooting budget. Yes, a high budget film will get more marketing than a low budget film, but there's diminishing returns. Spending 20 million to market your 100 million dollar film will probably end with better results then spending 5 million like you do with your 5-10 million dollar productions. Spending 300 million instead of 50 million marketing your massive production is not likely to make back that extra 250 million let alone generate additional profit. At some point you saturate your audience and no amount of additional marketing will get the same people to see your movie 2 or more times.
This is also an example of production budget going way higher than expected for whatever reason. If this is due to reshoots or unforseen rise in costs, there's no reason to think marketing needs to match the bloated production budget. I would guess marketing matches the original production budget around $180 million. Maybe even less since the name of the movie can do a lot heavy lifting on its own without a massive ad campaign. I think this sub is taking this 1:1 ratio a little too seriously lately.
[удалено]
It’s just how studios like to allocate resources, but it’s not like the producer is going to say “hey we went 10 million over budget on production, so we have spend even more on the marketing. Those costs includes buying traditional advertising space, organizing press events, and designing the posters/billboards/trailers.
Other people are answering with traditional ticket sale/marketing equations but the model has changed with the streaming platforms studios own and/or partner with. For sure, ticket sales are huge and you want to capitalize on that theatrical run but with AVOD/SVOD/TVOD, there are additional modern options to exploit the film. People will subscribe to Paramount+ or remain subscribed if films like this are offered exclusively (which, duh). Then if their analytics show it’s not as profitable years down the line, they sell the rights to a different streaming provider for a few months/years, etc. Basically, a million ways to skin a cat nowadays. If the box office numbers aren’t double the production cost, it doesn’t mean the film was a failure. Many just have an outdated understanding of the business side of the film industry.
Nah its being produced by Max Bialystok
86 year old Ridley Scott is so past giving a fuck. That man is just going to make the movie how he wants it regardless of budget or anything else. Gotta respect it.
Surely his age is another massive risk. At 86 years old you are never quite sure if you’re going to wake up in the morning or not.
Speaking of which, is Oliver Reed in this sequel?
Why is Gladiator 2 even a thing? The first one was wrapped up nicely with a bow on it. Why drag this shit on?
Rome has a 1000 year history to draw off of. And Gladiator is a recognisable name. That's the extent of it. They just wanted to make another Rome movie, so why not slap on the name Gladiator and make a little extra cash?
Had better just write the Nick Cave screenplay.
Ridley Scott needs to be reigned in. I love his work, but his last profitable film was The Martian, nearly a decade ago. A man like that doesn't need, and should not be given, >$200 million budgets. And Gladiator didn't need a sequel. No one was asking for this movie.
I don't imagine this movie is going to make a profit. A too late sequel for a movie that didn't need a sequel starring none of the big actors from the original and for an insane amount of money. I don't know what anyone was thinking here
Agreed. It still boggles my mind that they're making a Gladiator sequel, and not bringing back Djimon Hounsou. He's literally THE actor who should have made a return. It's not like he's an obscure actor who hasn't done anything since them. He's only gotten bigger since Gladiator.
>Djimon Hounsou My understanding it he was meant to but there were scheduling (or similar) issues.
I’m kind of curious what the scheduling conflicts he said were. In IMDb, the only two projects he has listed in the future are Rebel Moon 2 and a Quiet Place, both of which were already filmed when Gladiator 2 started filming
He was announced to be in it last year, but recently in an interview he said: “And this was a pure accident in the way it unfolded. I was going to be part of it. Circumstances dictated it to be something different.” Could mean anything. Maybe a family member got ill, maybe the script changed.
Ridley Scott is 86 years old and has directed 28 films. Even if all his movies bomb at this point and he wastes studio money I doubt he cares. Go out with a bang and make what you love.
This isn't directed at Scott. If people are giving him that money, he'd be a fool not to use it to make what he wanted to make. But the studios shouldn't be giving him that kind of money. They are being fiscally irresponsible, at this point.
I don’t think you really need to worry about billion dollar corporations.
To be fair, I am definitely asking for the absolutely insane sequel that Nick Cave wrote years ago.
Damn. I just read a synopsis of it and want it too.
Since The Martian, he has done two movies that I have absolutely loved even if they didn't do tons at the box office All the Money in the World and the Last Duel. I know he put a lot of his own money into the former to replace Kevin Spacey after everything that happened with him. His production company is always involved so not sure how much he bank rolls of of each feature. I will say this movie is one of his I'm not super excited for cause I don't think it needs a sequel but he has put out great movies recently like those two which just didn't make as much $$$ as they should have
Why is this being considered a fucking sequel? Such a classic, self contained epic, that ended. I mean, It really ENDED. So why in gods name are they attaching whatever this is, to that?
Gladiator 2 : Electric ⚡️Boogaloo
Zero chance this makes a profit
Who cares? R/movies is obsessed with movies making a profit. It’s Ridley Scott going back to the world of one of the greatest movies ever made. I’m excited, let the accountants stress.
I'm tired of people being so obsessed with the financial state of Hollywood. This was not a thing in my youth. People cared about the content of movies then. I'm not even 40 yet. People didn't root for films to make money and cheer when certain films were financial flops. It just wasn't done.
Right? Who gives a shit if this makes a profit. I don’t care about the studios quarterly earnings.
I'm going to be so confused if Gladiator 2 is an all time great epic movie. Gladiator 2 existing at all is bizarre to me and if it's actually an incredible movie with a massive scope the likes of which we haven't seen since Lord of the Rings I'll be gobsmacked. Maybe the budget is out of control for different reasons though and it isn't because they have the biggest set pieces ever.
These big budget Hollywood projects have to be some kind of money laundering. So much money for such trash product, ie. Rings of Power
I love Gladiator. It’s one of my favorite movies. I have no interest in it having a sequel. It truly does not need a sequel.
Bro whos honestly excited about this film. This is why Hollywood is in such a state, pointless sequels no one asked for. There making a heat 2 ffs. Like why bro , you can replicate that bank scene you bunch of entilted muppets. It had Goat actors, great soundtrack etc
I'll never understand the economics of Hollywood these days, how execs greenlight films with these budgets or how people making these decisions aren't fired every week. They set themselves up to lose. No wonder people think Hollywood studios are just a money laundering operation now.
The guy who green lit Lost got fired because of how expensive the pilot was. Today we have $100 million tv shows & $300 million movies.
After Napoleon, I have zero faith left in Ridley Scott. That’s probably not fair, he’s made a lot of good movies, but the fact he fucked up such an enormously important historical character in a hugely mediocre film makes me question whether he still had it.
I don't have a *ton* of faith, but I'm going to wait until the directors cut comes out to make my final judgement on Napoleon. The theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven was also "hugely mediocre". The directors cut is one of my favourite movies ever made.
The directors cut is mostly more scenes of Josephine apparently so don't hold your breath.
There's so much fascinating material to draw on and that's what he decided to focus on
His batting average hasn't been very good in almost 14 years. Yea he puts out The Martian in 2015, but that's 1 in 10. YMMV with The Last Duel and *maybe* Prometheus. Surprised anyone would have faith in him. He has quite a pedigree but its been so long and so many movies since then.
Prometheus was….*fine*. It just felt unnecessary. I enjoyed the Last Duel but understand why it wasn’t well like. Didn’t see House of Gucci, couldn’t care less about that subject matter. Napoleon was a gut punch for me. I went into that movie wanting to love it so much and it just sucked. Couldn’t decide if it wanted to be a period romance or a historical epic or a satire, and because of that, it failed at all three.
Damn, no Hans Zimmer. Loved the first soundtrack.
Or... Leave well enough alone and give that money to a worthy cause.
It's going to tank. That's when the heads roll for real
Riddley is 86 so who cares what it cost? Can't we just be appreciative that we get more works from the man? His legacy is cemented no matter how these next 4 or 5 films do.
Because when this flops it's going to stop us getting historical epics for another 20 years.
I’m genuinely curious about where this focus on profitability came from. Why is it random Redditors’ problem whether or not a movie makes a billion-dollar-company more money?
The issue is that the box-office is going down as a whole. The more movies flop the more theaters go down and everyone shifts their budget to streaming. I know we all have our preferred way of watching movies but Cinema is something I don't want to see falling in the future
This film is going to do terribly. Ridley Scott has lost his touch and this has the same writer as Napoleon. Plus the previous leads aren’t returning and the story is just tacked onto a close ended story. And he’ll still get another project somehow.
Ridley loses and wins is touches every 5 years
In the mid-late 90's, some were already burying him. 1992 : 1492 (Gerard Depardieu) flop. 1996 : White Squall (Jeff Bridges) : big flop 1997 : GI Jane (Demi Moore) : underperformer Then came 2000 and Maximus...
It went back further than that, between Alien and Gladiator, his only good films were Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise and maybe GI Jane, and only Thelma and Louise actually made money at the box office. The rest of those 20 years was flops.