You dumb b!tches have forgotten the joy of going to the movies.
It shows gladiators battling a rhinoceros and falling into water and getting eaten by sharks. I mean, f#ck yes!
Plus it looks like it's going to have some interesting little political intrigue, so goddamn, stop being so negative.
24 years later Ridley has finally delivered on a sequel.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You dumb b!tches have forgotten the joy of going to the movies.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It shows gladiators battling a rhinoceros and falling into water and getting eaten by sharks.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Plus it looks like it's going to have some interesting little political intrigue,
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
24 years later Ridley has finally delivered on a sequel.
Originally posted by Kazenji
not all long awaited sequels end up being good.
It was a great one and done lightning in a bottle movie, and there’s nothing wrong w. that.
If, at 86 years old, Ridley Scott feels he needs even more money to live out his golden (platinum?) years in comfort and is good w. going for a cash grab, more power to him though.
I don't think calling it a cash grab is necessarily fair, I mean, we'll see, certainly the studio wants a cash grab. But I think Ridley had been chasing the greatness of Gladiator ever since to greater and lesser success. He's certainly never matched it. I think he probably legitimately wants to make a great follow up. Probably why they didn't rush into it.
To me there is something a little more magical and fascinating about ancient Rome than his other historical epics, so I'm always excited about a new big budget film set then.
As long as he keeps the story concise and not a 3 hour slog like the current trend, it looks like it'll be pretty good.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I don't think calling it a cash grab is necessarily fair, I mean, we'll see, certainly the studio wants a cash grab. But I think Ridley had been chasing the greatness of Gladiator ever since to greater and lesser success. He's certainly never matched it. I think he probably legitimately wants to make a great follow up. Probably why they didn't rush into it.To me there is something a little more magical and fascinating about ancient Rome than his other historical epics, so I'm always excited about a new big budget film set then.
As long as he keeps the story concise and not a 3 hour slog like the current trend, it looks like it'll be pretty good.
I'm with you on the ancient Roman setting for epic films. Just ideal.
See, I'm pretty sure no one is asking for the 4-hour version of Napoleon...
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
See, I'm pretty sure no one is asking for the 4-hour version of Napoleon...
This is what's becoming frustrating about Ridley Scott - the man can't make up his mind about the running times of his films and keeps flip flopping.
As for this - is there a point to seeing it? The last trailer practically gives everything away.