I never understood this scenes. The wall was there before he threw dust in its face. He was going full speed anyway. Absurd, but entertaining nonetheless.
In the movie they explain… How Romes A.I. Came up with that defensive tactic… Works every time, every generation😂 Bloodsport…wait…didnt work😢 made him STRONGER somehow😅
Tbh I thought is was the same place as in the first movie, look at the arena there and compare it to the one from the first movie. Looks pretty darn similar. So I'd wager Numidia, maybe Lybia.
As much as I roll my eyes at sharks in the naumachia scene, I feel confident that the romans would've absolutely put sharks in if they could've. Edit: I'm going to summarize the point that everyone is making below. While there are great white sharks in Mediterranean. They had no way of transporting and sustaining sharks at that time, considering how difficult it is to transport large sharks using today's technology. Additionally, the colosseum was filled with fresh water from the Tiber, not sea water as Rome is not a coastal city. Saltwater fish have evolved to deal with sea water's high salt content by constantly drinking the water and excreting the excess salt through their gills and urine. This is the exact opposite adaptation used in freshwater fish which are trying to conserve the salt they collect. Putting a shark in freshwater would cause it to lose all its salt and die, and one of the few sharks that can survive in freshwater, the bull shark, isn't found along European coastlines and in the Mediterranean.
@@olorin3815it did come from aquaducts. It was the ones used to fill neros massive pool in front of his palace and after neros death the coloseum was built where the pool was. Archeologists have explored up the tunnel underneath the coloseum. Sharks would have died almost immediately
At leastvthey have done an smart historical based story and didn't resucitate the main character like in sooo many other movies that everybody watched (avengers, Fast&F, extraction, john wick anybody?)
There's nothing to add to the first, so I guess that it's just free-riding on the success of the title of the first. Most of the public aren't very picky anyway. Let's hope the production can survive on its own merits. Historical accuracy isn't an issue so for those who care about that, choose to pay the ticket anyway and are disappointed only have themselves to blame.
I don't really get Caracalla's depiction. He was supposed to be a soldier Emperor who had little patience for politics and the court. The whole reason he was regarded as a bad Emperor was because he lavished the military, and absconded his duties as Emperor to go on campaign all the time. The depiction we see here looks more like John Hurt's Caligula from I, Claudius.
It also just doesn't look anything like the depictions we have. While his general "gruffness" might have been exaggerated, he has a beard in every single adult depiction I could find.
@@ThutUPB Literally when I first saw the pics, I thought for sure one of them was Elagabalus. I don't follow any kind of entertainment news so I had no idea what the plan was. it confused me a lot when I saw one of them was Caracalla.
@@user-xx6vy9ri8p believe me if they could had figure out how to ride rhino the same way they figure out how to domesticate elephants. we would had rhino calvery.
They need to do one of these “Historian Reacts” episodes for the Spartacus TV series, and then just show him every sex scene out of context and out of order.
@@richardbradley2335 The only drawback in the show was the real-life death of the hottest man on the planet. Aside from that, the show was way better than it had any business being. Quality throughout including the final season, makes it better than GoT in my book.
Ridley Scott is the biggest hack going. Whatever magic he managed to make with the original gladiator he's long since lost, this looks even more stupid than Napoleon
What magic??? The first Gladiator movie was an ahistorical mess and everyone who knew even a _little_ about the actual history hated it. I was an Ancient History student back then and we had a weekend class about it. Literally none of us liked it.
@@TheSleepyowlet The film is great, despite the ahistorical aspects of it. Why are you going to Hollywood films for accurate depictions of anything? It's about being entertained.
@@ArgenYargen If you make a film about history *and advertise it as historically accurate and well-researched* it better fucking be, aye? The first Mummy film by Stephen Summers wasn't advertised as historically correct at all, but they actually did their research to the point of characters actually speaking Ancient Egyptian. Gladiator also wasn't even a fun movie. Once Marcus Aurelius was dead, good writing and acting had left the chat.
I am so glad that trailers now tell me when they start. Previously I would click on one and an ad would play. This would confuse me to no end. "Why are they wearing Hokas in Ancient Rome? Do the characters in A Quiet Place only use meal delivery services?"
Until Spielberg’s Stanley Kubrick Napoleon series comes out, I’ve just given up all hope. I still think Dan Snow secretly wants to punch Ridley Scott in the face for duping him and all of us into having any shimmer of hope for Napoleon to be accurate in any way prior to it’s release.
Yesss !!! I held off to excitedly watch Napoleon and it was soooo horrible I just lost interest and didn't even finish the last third of the film. It reminded me of that Rock me Amadeus vibe. This looks at least equally as bad.
Hollywood never gets history right. Even the original Gladiator was full of mistakes and nonsense but at least it looked good, had compelling characters and was entertaining. Now even entertainment is outside of Hollywood's wheelhouse.
I have a feeling Pedro and Denzel will do their best to carry this movie, but it'll probably struggle to be good and get a Napoleon like criticism for Scott again.
@@coldworld5i love Ridley and im all in for this, but yeah, denzel is a terrible choice unfortunately...his mannerism and facial expressions are phenomenal, the problem is when he talks, like wth?!
Am I the only one confused by a historian not noticing Denzel incorrectly using the term 'Colosseum' in the trailer? No one at that time would've called it that, as it was known as the Flavian Amphitheater to them.
Denzel is one of my favorite actors but.. "Once again, we're seeing historical blackwashing with the casting of Macrinus, a Roman emperor of Numidian (Amazigh) descent, being portrayed by a black actor" (I am North African)
well a black complexion amazigh/berber is not out of the table tho if you look into the tuaregs but ye the person in question seemed to be of a more light complexion...
Someone said blacks appear in Morocco and Algeria. Most of those are descendants of black women brought to harems much later. Numidians would have looked like Algerians.
Oh please, spare us that grandstanding pseudo-contrarian for the sake of contrarianism bs. There exists people of dark complexion from Algeria and Morocco, and the berbers were no exception to this with some having darker complexions going back to antiquity.
17:55 I love how he laughs at seeing emperor Geta going absolutely ham, basically bringing Commodus' madness to a new level. What a fun experience it must've been for the actors to play the young emperors...
I can see the pitch to Denzel - "So Denzel, you'll be playing Macrinus, he becomes emperor after the death of Caracalla". "Great, so is he a great sexy, brooding military hero?" "Not quite - he was Caracalla's principal financial officer on campaign and became emperor after murdering Caracalla while Caracalla was on the toilet." “Hmm - rewrite that”.
I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about the Roman Empire becase I don't, however I love Gladiator (it's my 3rd favorite film of all time and I was done watching it through for the seventh time before ths trailer came out) it's one of the most beautiful films ever made. I am also very into films and story structures as well as detailed critisizm. After watching this trailer twice, in my own opinion (compared to it's predecessor) this looks like absoulute glossed up nonsense which is sad because thats a harsh truth that adorns many modern films. The first film (while by no means historically accurate in any regard) was perfectly fit together into a masterpiece. The cinematogrophy, the composition, the locations, the dilouge, the goals and intentions, the theme, the characterisation and the music (I listen to Now we are free at least once every day it's such a beautiful piece of music, speaking of which who puts a slowed rapper's corus as the theme to a trailer about the Roman Empire) it all just fits together like a jigsaw creating a perfect image, one of a Father/Husband's undbounded love for his Wife and Son. This just looks like they took all the epicness, special effects, CGI and Sound effects they had availble and crammed it all into the same jar and forced the lid on. Now I obviously haven't seen the film, none of us have yet. But based on what this trailer is offering for the film, it feels dissapointing. P.S When the Gladiator riding the Rhino entered the frame, I was laughing histerically because it felt like the Tigris of Ghaul from the first movie (don't worry I know that he is probably dead by this point) walked back into the Colleseum and was like 'Hello boys, I'M BACK!!'.
The next epic by Ridley Scott is the life of Ragnar lothbrok, and in it, he has a flying unicorn that he flies over the saxons shitting red hot skittles while shouting WHAKANDA FOREVER
I worked with the Art Director of one of Ridley Scott's historical epics. She told me she had frequent disagreements with him over historical inaccuracies. Ridley settled things by telling her "we're not making a f***ing documentary."
So originally Joseph Quinn was playing Caracalla BUT 3 weeks ago the names without any announcements got switched because the IDMB/interviews got changed and personally I still think he’s technically playing Caracalla because he seems more psychotic and more like the one controlling the empire compared to Fred Hechinger who just seems happy to be there (I mean did replace Barry Keoghan)
I think Ridley Scott's issue is he hasn't adapted to the fact that pretty much everyone who's going to watch this movie has access to all the knowledge of the universe in their pockets. Gone are the days that you just rolled with what you saw on a film, because you didn't have all ten volumes of "The History of Rome" to fact check, and he needs to understand that dumb, jarring historical inaccuracies really takes people out of the experience and ruins what could be an incredible film, with amazing bits of subtle historical detail (like HBO Rome). I'm sure Ridley also has the knowledge of the universe in his pocket, so it just comes across as lazy when he willingly ignores these things.
There was a slave riot in rome 73 B.C. most people know the name of the "leader" of this riot, Spartacus. This could be a very interesting topic, even though it is a bit earlier. In those times the romans had a few slave riots, Spartacus was only the most famous I belive, so lots of potential stories, even with a relatively similar premise.
As with all historical blockbuster movies, the historical accuracy is all over the place. Best to think of them as alternative history or being in a parallel universe. I find it helps
He made a really good point. People always get so mad when historical inaccuracies happen. It’s a movie, it’s made for purely entertainment. None of us were alive back then so getting it even close to accurate isn’t possible. Enjoy the accuracies it addresses and then enjoy the rest that isnt even close to accurate. 😂
Exactly... The history nerds out there need to give it a rest and realize it's entertainment, not a historical documentary. They want accuracy, read a book or go back to college and take a class in whatever it is they're interested in. It's like the Star Wars fans bitching about everything Disney's done with the franchise, without admitting that 5 of the six movies that Lucas did were pretty crap to begin with (Empire was pretty damn outstanding, the rest, not so much). Gotta love the Internet...
I will remain very skeptical after seeing Napoleon. The trailer for Napoleon made the movie to look better than it actually was. That movie had so much potential and most of it was based off of his relationship with Josephine. So disappointed in that. When a movie comes out on one of the greatest military strategists of all time, we expect more battle scenes than the small clips we got in that movie. At the end of that movie, I honestly wanted my money back. Lol I really hope Gladiator II makes up for it. 🤞
Battle scenes were absolutely EPIC and stunning, visually speaking that movie was top tier level, cinematography, colour grading, superbly directed from a technical point of view, sure the writing was not as good as the visuals but those 3/4 battles were epic to see on screen nonetheless. Gladiator II looks epic too, lets hope the writing is alla par with the visuals.
I might criticize the criticism. Even at the beginning Tristan is being very careful. He does not want to dismiss the intended africanism. The Romans living in Africa (which is a Latin word) lived as Romans. They would have built Roman structures and lived in Roman ways. What is associated with Black Africa today was not there and still is not. In fact the Moslem Arabs living there today are very anti-black and do not have any sort of architecture that resembles anything from south of the Sahara. This africanism is more for the American audience. The Romans in northern Africa were very Roman. In fact they maintained speaking Latin and many other Latin customs when the Romans in Latium or the area around Rome had been somewhat Hellenized.
Most of the people living in Roman North Africa were either Punic descendants of the Phoenicians or Berbers, neither of which would be Black populations, though there would have been Black Africans as well. And yes, Romans living as Romans. North Africa was and is a multiethnic, multiracial mixing pot. There is anti-Black racism in that part of the world now, but it’s not because Black people are absent from that part of the world. Cursory review of the history would teach you this.
How can u be so wrong and loud at the same time😂😂the very building style u see ha called Egypt (which aint).the ones with sticks pointing out is actually a west african style that extends up north.also arabs only built mosques and bazars but most of thm live in tents....i get the "blacks"put u off but try to keep it in your pants
@@wambokodavid7109 You need to watch again. There are pyramids in the background. The pyramids that would have existed in Algeria at this time looked very different.
@@wambokodavid7109 Sorry to say that since your English is so poor and disorganized, I really cannot respond to what you are trying to say. Would you care to try again?
Except he didn’t say he was from subsaharan African. He said he was from North Africa and Cherchell Algeria is where Macrinus is believed to have been born.
@@d-SonOfWillI think the complain here is that Algerian Berbers overwhelmingly do not look like this. Quickly googling Algerian Amizagh and reading about the history of the Berber people, and the genetic history of North Africa more broadly is worthwhile. Casting him as a Black man is as inaccurate as casting him as a Swede. The notion that indigenous African people are by necessity “Black” is just another example of Western ignorance.
@@markmorris7123 It was less Black because before the Arab conquest was also before the Islamic slave trade. Of course, it depends on where you’re talking about. Mauritania is North Africa, as I understand that and to an extent parts of Morocco have always been more of a mix. But the ancestral Berber population is not Black. Their ancestors - who are best represented by the Guanches of the Canary Islands - migrated back to Africa much later in human history. If you look up the Canary Islanders or the Amizagh of Algeria or Tunisia - who are not Arab - you’ll have a good sense for what I’m referring to. The Arab conquest brought a ton of population churn to North Africa and the Sahel, as did colonialism. Those were major factors in bringing more ethnic diversity to North Africa. Of course, there have always been Black people in those places as well, don’t misunderstand. But the genetic record shows less, not more, in ancient times.
@@nigelnyoni8265 I'm not a historical accuracy nerd. I'm able to suspend disbelief, but this is a genuine question I'm asking. If this actually happened, then how?
Then you cound not have really white guys portraying his sons. Considering what has been written about the two emperors background the casting looks weird. Why not cast actors that would look believable if you claim them to be historical figures?
@@icemanespoo2977 Yeah, all folks have to do is google "the Severan tondo" to see what the two brothers Carcalla and Geta would have looked like. Call me crazy but I'm skeptical a North African man and a Syrian woman would have two produced two pasty blond English boys.
I love how this guy is very down to earth and isn't snarky or pessimistic against movies like this just because of the historical inaccuracy, I do appreciate historical accuracy, but this is still entertainment and you should view it as such, u'll have way more fun ;)
How would the Romans have caught and transported live sharks ? The Colosseum was also fresh water not salt. Records indicate they may have had Crocodiles in the water though.
Fresh water will not kill a saltwater species immediately just because it swims in it. It will end up causing it, but not immediately. Also, freshwater sharks are very much a thing. Not giant great white looking sharks, but still freshwater sharks do very much exist.
@@whyjnot420 I'm Australian, I know several species are capable of tolerating brackish water. How do you think the Romans caught and transported large sharks 2000yrs ago in oxygenated salt water without killing them ? Think about it, it's even difficult NOW !!
@@whyjnot420 They do indeed exist. However, many sharks are notoriously fragile in terms of transportation and the Bull Shark, the only shark that fits the bill (maneater, freshwater tolerant) is found quite some way from Rome, the closest being parts of the Persian Gulf and off the coast of what is now Morocco and Western Sahara. Not that Rome didn't get around - we know there were animal catching expeditions that went past Roman boundaries - but this is too much of a stretch. The crocodile thing is correct though (I think) but it's 30 years or more since I was at uni.
@@PortilloMoment Thank you for the extra detail. I didn't bother typing it all out, as I sensed I was talking to someone who had a very poor grasp of the logistics..
@@PortilloMoment Yeah, the transportation aspect is the real kicker. I completely agree with questioning that part of the movie, hence why I didn't touch it.
Maybe the Greek helmet and siege tower on the ship were specific to please the emperors, given the fascination with Alexander. And if it’s not a named battle the organisers could and would, presumably, borrow from any period of their history. Them’s my theories and I’ll happily believe them when I’m watching the film. I can’t wait either! 😊
I knew there were going to be problems as soon as I heard that they were making a sequel. Scott already went off the historical rails by having young Lucius Verus still alive. He died very young, before Commodus became emperor. Never mind the historical inaccuracy of Commodus' death. And I was certain that there was no way Scott (and screenwriter David Scarpa who helped Scott turn Naopleon's story into a romance) was going to do justice to the Year of Five Emperors or the end result being the short-lived but at least longer Severan dynasty.
I'm glad you admit that this is Hollywood entertainment. If anyone out there really thought Gladiator was a documentary, they are really gullible. Same goes for Gladiator II. Probably will be entertaining, but not accurate as history.
Ilove the how they break down historical movies and let us know what's wrong and right, which also help us learn more about that period of hisory, keep it up!
I was also intrigued by the two brothers wearing heavy make up. I know ancient Egyptian men wore cosmetics, but have never heard of Roman men doing the same.
Can't see another comment addressing this but amphitheatre in trailer has wooden poles on it for canvas that the Romans hung between the poles for shade, so it's a trivial thing but I'm disappointed they did not hang canvas.
The first Gladiator movie was such a enjoyable watch and a stand-alone film with a distinct ending but I suppose with todays lack of originality and penchant for sequels we can't be surprised at another one.
Ridley should have left it alone. Gladiator is one of my favorite movies of all time and really did not need a sequel -especially one with Pedro Pascal! I am unable to understand the fascination with this dude but he is not an epic heavy-hitter!!! I'll watch the movie and reserve my judgement (as I did in Napoleon) so we shall see...Iacta Alea Est!
There is a list of Roman emperors in Wikipedia, with their busts, and it is clear that Geta was not a child when he was killed by his older brother Karakala. Geta was 22 when he was killed. Also a look at the Macrinus bust tells us that he was caucasian.
What race was 'Draba' in Spartacus? Or how about Juba in the OG with Crowe? Oh yeah, they were characters in WORKS of FICTION so them not being Italian wouldn't matter.
@@carlhassler5336 Lol, I don’t have an explanation for the pyramids in the background of that shot. But what I can tell you is that a cursory review of the film’s plot will make it clear that, in fact, the story does take place in Numidia.
@@smyers9052 I can understand that The province of Numidia (being right next to the province of Africa proconsularis; the home province of the Septimians) would heavily feature in the movie. But it having any pyramids seems dubious. If these movie producers want to show any semblance of historicity then I hope to god this particular scene is unrelated and does not depict Numidia.
I don't know if Hans Zimmer was busy this time around or something, but I really hope the movie doesn't have rap music during the arena scenes. Hopefully that was just for the trailer while the score is being completed (fingers crossed). I don't dislike rap music or anything it just seems out of place here.
It’s just a trailer… the original trailer wasn’t Zimmer either they used Conan The Barbarian - The Anvil of Crom (I remember because when I heard the song playing with the Universal logo I thought they were going to show a trailer for Conan 3 then I saw Russell Crowe and I was like WTF…)
This trailer shows exactly the kind of Hollywood movie making practice I hoped we have already got over with, it looks like a terrible sequel, over the top and it already appears to be all over the place storytelling-wise, just like the way Ridley Scott does in the last decade.
@@MFZ0dd Probably The Last Duel, it had an interesting narrative. But historical movies never was the strongest genre from Ridley, even though from visual/cinematography aspect they are top-notch, but man, he just can't tell a straightforward story.
I don't really think people watch these films for their historical accuracy, they watch them for the spectacle and over the top content of them, I loved the first Gladiator, and will be interested to see this one, but will take it with a pinch of salt, does anyone know when it being released, xx
There were plenty of black Africans living in North Africa back then, there still are plenty still living in North Africa today, have a look at the Berbers for instance. North African demographics have been drastically altered by many events since that time, the Arab incursions for instance had a huge influence, populations would have been more diverse.
@@mrdeurknopp The only problem is - we know exactly how Macrinus looked thanks to sculptures, coins... He didnt got black person features. Sure was probably dark skinned but looked nothing like Denzel. Funny you mentioned Berbers because Macrinus was indeed of that origin. And look how Berbers are portrait - they were not black - not all of them anyways. Neither Macrinus or King Massinissa whom Berbers consider their forefather looked black. I am sure Denzel will do a good job but fact is that black Macrinus is as truthful as riding rhinoceros.
@@Yuuki_Asunaagreed, people don't even know what "entertainment" is nowadays. Im Italian and i saw the first Gladiator when it came out, we all knew it wasn't historical or any of that, just nobody cared and everyone enjoyed it.
Can't say the prospect of Gladiator 2 being historically inaccurate even begins to bother me. If its even half as entertaining as the first one, im going to love it.
Is possible that Acacias, like Maximus, is himself a great general, but is framed for some kind of defeat and Lucillus not only blames him for it but wants revenge too. Lucillus kills Acacias in the Colosseum the way Maximus killed Commodus, only then to be reunited with his mother Lucilla who tells him the truth: Acacias was framed by Macrinus who was working for the evil Caracalla/Geta.
Yeah I know, I would love to know their thought process when thay did that. Also it shows Lucius walking out of the Collesseum with Lucilla when in the movie he leaves Lucilla in the Collesseum and follows the Guards carrying Maximus' body out of the arena.
We don't live in those kind of architecture in north africa mauretania cesarean, we build with stone, not accurate like the macrinus character. there is a lot of Numidians and romanized berbers depiction. Not west africans, the Kabyle people live in those area since always.
