Hot Take: Gladiator Doesn't Need A Sequel

Why I think the upcoming Gladiator II is completely unnecessary.

You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who isn’t at least familiar with the 2000 Ridley Scott Roman epic. It’s probably one of the most famous films of the 21st century and one of the best films ever made. Even now, a quarter of a century after its release, it still holds up as an action classic. It was nominated for 12 Oscars, winning 5 including Best Picture, and its release revived a widespread interest in the sword and sandals epic genre for the first time since the 1960s.

For me, as someone who appreciates classical antiquity, there is much to admire about Gladiator. I would never call it my favourite film - in fact its probably not on my top ten list. Even so, it is nevertheless my go-to if I want to go back in time to Ancient Rome, despite being very historically inaccurate. The film’s mixed use of practical sets, CGI and hundreds of extras helped create a convincing re-enactment of a time that marked the end of the Pax Romana era.

The performances are fantastic too. Joaquin Phoenix knocks it out of the park with his villainous performance as Emperor Commodus (who famously took part in gladiator fights in real life), and Russel Crowe remains iconic for his role as the vengeful yet mournful general-turned-gladiator Maximus. The soundtrack is also in my opinion one of Hans Zimmer’s finest compositions, and Lisa Gerrard’s vocals are absolutely iconic.

In just a few weeks, the sequel to this famous blockbuster will be released, again directed by Ridley Scott. And I have a few thoughts that I would like to get out of my system before I eventually go see it.

Gladiator II is set around two decades after Maximus’ death and follows a grown-up Lucius, the son of Lucilla and grandson of the former emperor Marcus Aurelius, who is captured and brought back to Rome as a gladiator slave after General Marcus Acacius invades his hometown with his army. It boasts a star-studded cast of Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington, Connie Nielsen, Joseph Quinn and (everyone’s favourite Irish hottie) Paul Mescal, and has budget of a whopping $250–310 million according to Wikipedia. For comparison, the original Gladiator was less than half of that - a mere $103 million.

Thats a bit of a yikes. Paramount are sure taking a massive risk here, spending all that money on a sequel nobody really asked for. And to be quite honest, I really don’t think there’s enough interest in the film from what I have seen. Certainly there are some Gladiator fans who will go see it and of course the Paul Mescal fangirls will be out in droves to squeal about how ripped he got for the role. But the question is - was this film really needed?

We did not need a Gladiator II

On one hand, I am glad to see another Ancient Roman epic being made. Goodness knows we don’t see enough of them, or any film set in antiquity (good ones at least), which is pretty painful. It certainly looks spectacular too - clearly Paramount spared no expense when it came to set design costumes and effects. It looks authentically Roman and has the massive budget to prove it. It even added in a Colosseum naval battle scene, which is sure to be interesting. The only thing missing is the Latin language but unfortunately, that doesn’t appeal to a significant portion of the worldwide target audience.

(I still think Gladiator would have been much cooler if the characters spoke Latin. Imagine if we got to hear the gladiators say “Avē Imperātor, moritūrī tē salūtant” ["Hail, Emperor, those who are about to die salute you"!])

On the other hand - I think there’s a hundred other Roman era films that could have been made instead of this one. The original Gladiator is a great standalone film. It had a satisfying ending with character arcs that were successfully wrapped up, even if much of it was tragic and melancholic. Maximus gets what he wants in the end and the film ends with the hope that his legacy will help Rome become a better place than it was before. So why on earth did Ridley Scott feel the need to give Gladiator a sequel?

The first trailer for the film was released in the summer, and was poorly received. For for good reason too. It is just - horrendous. It’s a convoluted mess that reveals far too much of the film, and does absolutely no teasing. It reveals far too much in fact. The trailer attempts to create nostalgia for the first film, but feels so bloated that it’s impossible to feel anything except underwhelming boredom. Whatever happened to teasing audiences with just the right amount of bare minimum to elicit excitement from them?

Plus whoever chose that song too needs to get off the marketing team. Excuse me, it’s Ancient ROME, not a cyberpunk assassin action film.

From what I have heard about the film, the plot just sounds terribly familiar and lacks real originality. Russell Crowe’s role as the titular gladiator is swapped out with Paul Mescal, playing a warrior who loses everything at the hands of a Roman leader and is sold into slavery. He swears revenge on the ones responsible for the death of wife and taking his freedom, and is eventually bought by a wealthy former slave who trains gladiators. And Connie Nielsen shows up. Sound familiar already?

Not to mention apparently some of the canon appears to have been revised. According to the newest trailer and Ridley Scott himself, Lucius is *spoiler alert* actually the son of Maximus. Yep you heard that right. Surprise?

I am going to be honest and say that this is irritating to me on just about every level possible. Just - why? This wasn’t necessary. He wasn’t called the son of Maximus 24 years ago, so why change it up? I mean, it wasn’t not confirmed - certainly the theories were circulating about his parentage.

But sometimes, I think it’s just better to keep people in the dark. Like Yoda’s race - we don’t need to know who or what they are. Not knowing the truth is the fun part. Because let’s face it - most of the time the truth ends up being disappointing anyway. There’s a reason why Prometheus, an origin prequel of the Alien films, was such a disappointment to many. No one asked for an explanation for the origins of the Xenomorphs.

It seems to me that the only reason Lucius’ parentage was officially confirmed was to get audiences more curious about the film, seeing as the main character is quite literally the new Maximus. It’s a story of the legacy of Russell Crowe’s character.

Look the idea itself isn’t bad. I’m all for stories that follow the descendants of the original characters. It’s just - why this particular story?

To be honest, this makes it all the more obvious that this film is basically a copy and paste of its predecessor. You can’t tell the story of Gladiator without Maximus in some shape or form, and adding in a surprise secret son just proves that.

It seems like to me Gladiator II is trying to play safe and is essentially just following the same formula with an updated cast of characters. I already think it’s a bit of a problem when the filmmakers can’t come up with any other narrative other than ‘Free man loses family and becomes slave, seeks vengeance against his enemies, and in the process becomes a gladiator in order to attain said revenge’. But having the long-lost son of Maximus be the central character is just the cherry on top.

Sometimes, it’s best for things to just be left alone, just as they are. Filmmakers just need to step away from the repetitive sequel and reboot formulas and just try something more original. We didn’t need a story about Maximus’ surprise son, end of story.

I think if anything this film reveals one of the main problems with Hollywood in the current age, which is that the ones running it are completely unable to come up with anything truly new and original. And because of that, people are losing interest in many beloved franchises. Most of the DC and Marvel films being released these days just stick to the same old tired narratives that we have seen a million times before. Sticking to whats familiar isn’t always the way folks.

Now this film may very well be a surprise hit with audiences and everything I say on this blog will be completely irrelevant. I will probably go and see it myself, mainly to write a review and to evaluate if it was really worth making this particular sequel twenty years after the first film came out. Blade Runner 2047 certainly lived up to the hype thanks to its stellar director Denis Villeneuve, so it’s certainly not impossible.

The way I see it, Gladiator II is clearly doing everything in its power to live up to its predecessor. But I don’t think even Ridley Scott can live up to himself.

Now my next question is where is that film about Julius Caesar conquering Gaul? Or the war between Octavian and Mark Antony? There is an abundance of historical events just waiting to be given the silver screen treatment.

Are you going to go watch Gladiator II? Do you think it will be any good? Let me know your thoughts!