Jump to content

Talk:Gladiator II: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reverted
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Film|American=yes|British=yes}}
{{WikiProject Film|American=yes|British=yes}}
{{WikiProject Malta|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Malta|importance=Low}}
Line 66: Line 66:


{{tq|"Surely the latest reported figure is more accurate. "}} No. The [[Template:Infobox film]] documentation says do not cherry pick. Even though some editors ignore the documentation and make the assumption that newer figures are more accurate they simply cannot know that for sure. Earlier lower figures may represent the budget that the film was greenlit at, different figures may represent the actual budget they had to spend and other figures may represent the final cost after tax credits. (I fundamentally disagree the claim that production budget is anything other than the amount they actually had to spend to get the movie made, but editors have persistently argued that the cost after tax rebates is somehow a valid figure, which is part of the reason why we must include a range of figures.) Without knowing for sure (such as a [[Mad Max: Fury Road|court case]], or [[Sony hack|leaked internal documents]]) we cannot assume. Please also note that the [[WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] is to "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article" and that conflicting [[Gladiator_II#Development|figures should first be explained in the article body]] as best as possible, then summarized in the infobox. The lower $210 million should be restored and explained not excluded. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.76.131.213|109.76.131.213]] ([[User talk:109.76.131.213|talk]]) 03:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
{{tq|"Surely the latest reported figure is more accurate. "}} No. The [[Template:Infobox film]] documentation says do not cherry pick. Even though some editors ignore the documentation and make the assumption that newer figures are more accurate they simply cannot know that for sure. Earlier lower figures may represent the budget that the film was greenlit at, different figures may represent the actual budget they had to spend and other figures may represent the final cost after tax credits. (I fundamentally disagree the claim that production budget is anything other than the amount they actually had to spend to get the movie made, but editors have persistently argued that the cost after tax rebates is somehow a valid figure, which is part of the reason why we must include a range of figures.) Without knowing for sure (such as a [[Mad Max: Fury Road|court case]], or [[Sony hack|leaked internal documents]]) we cannot assume. Please also note that the [[WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] is to "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article" and that conflicting [[Gladiator_II#Development|figures should first be explained in the article body]] as best as possible, then summarized in the infobox. The lower $210 million should be restored and explained not excluded. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.76.131.213|109.76.131.213]] ([[User talk:109.76.131.213|talk]]) 03:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

: TropicAces again picking his preferred budget figure for the infobox[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gladiator_II&diff=prev&oldid=1262772279] and removing others, despite the [[Template:Infobox film]] documentation which clearly says not to cherry pick. Removing inconvenient sources is not constructive collaborative editing. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.78.196.89|109.78.196.89]] ([[User talk:109.78.196.89|talk]]) 04:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I restored the budget range. This discussion did not come to a conclusion and there is no consensus to exclude figures. Editors should not be adding warning comments to the wiki source when there is no concensus to back it up (and especially not when it goes against what the documentation says we are supposed to do). -- [[Special:Contributions/109.78.194.250|109.78.194.250]] ([[User talk:109.78.194.250|talk]]) 18:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


== Historical accuracy section ==
== Historical accuracy section ==

Revision as of 18:45, 14 December 2024

Change page title to Gladiator II

First promotional material is referring to this film as Gladiator II. I see somebody already changed the title in the lede. Here is a link to Twitter about promotional material at CinemaCon:

https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1776726604166685072

CNC33 (. . .talk) 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the "Gladiator"?

The lead of Russell Crowe says "Crowe gained wider stardom for playing the title role in the period film Gladiator (2000), winning [...]". Assuming that is true, could we modify Gladiator (2000 film) § Cast to not just say "Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius" but also that he is the... Gladiator? Similarly, the lead of Gladiator II says "Mescal was hired in the lead". Assuming that is true, could we modify Gladiator II § Cast to not just say "Paul Mescal as Lucius Verus" but also that he is the... Gladiator? Maybe both are obvious to film buffs, but I scrolled to these Cast sections, and personally did expect to see "... as [the] Gladiator". He's mentioned first in the Cast section, so of course I'm guessing he is, but as it was the first time I saw his (Paul Mescal) name, I did feel the need to ask a search engine/AI if he is - which, I shouldn't have to; I think reading these Wikipedia pages should be enough for me to not feel the need to check elsewhere. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most expensive R-rated movie ever made(?)

Ever since the trailer dropped ,the violence for this movie is shown in all of its red-band glory, which confirms the R-rating that this movie will get. Thing is, we don't know the budget yet for fellow big-budget R-rated film Deadpool & Wolverine, which is also releasing this year (probably a little less than this movie). So once the movie gets its rating, may we put the tag of "most expensive R-rated movie ever made" on this page? Thanks! Mattgelo (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the "Written by" and "Story by" in Gladiator II

Let's be honest with you now: if we see the poster credits has the "Written by" after "Story by", it would be great if that comparing to the trailer. I mean, future films should have the "Written by" credit (instead of "Screenplay by") after the "Story by" or "Based on the book/novel by" credit based on original material (literature books) and original screenplay (on-screen), for instance! GenerationZ2024 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GenerationZ2024, per the WGA screenwriting credit system, you cannot have a "Written by" credit combined with a "Story by" credit. A "Written by" credit is technically two credits combined into one, i.e. "Screenplay by" and "Story by". If there is a separate "Story by" credit, a "Written by" credit technically isn't possible. Now that is for WGA credits... I'm not sure if Writers' Guild of Great Britain or others follow similar structures or not... -2pou (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the Writers' Guild of Great Britain does not follow similar structures and instead - where technically - a "Written by" credit is definitely possible where there is a separate "Story by" credit (i.e. independent films such as A Fish Called Wanda). 2A02:C7C:F05E:6F00:70C4:6392:1D92:CDBC (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macrinus

We all know Denzel Washington's character is a fictional depiction of Emperor Macrinus, who was Berber and from Algeria. Denzel Washington does not look like a Berber - especially not of that period of time.

Why bother pretending it's a twist he topples them and becomes the Emperor in the finale?

Just say he's "(based on the historical Macrinus)" as well already! Colliric (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well evidently it is a twist if you're not familiar with Macrinus' biography. Reflecktor (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do U know real Commodus's bio? he is also very different from Commodus in the Gladiator (Idot (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Lucius isn't Maximus' son

Whoever is putting that, did not see the first movie. 2601:145:C200:7AE0:94E2:DD54:6672:4C04 (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever made this comment didn't realize the subtle is-he-or-isn't-he the son of the first movie OR hear the confirmation in the trailers promoting the movie. WickedFanAccount (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

poor box office

I've read several news articles stating this film has been an under-performer and also stating Scott's recent track record for ticket receipts has been poor. Is it too early to state this in the article? 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:6DE1:BBF:9544:6038 (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's too early and you should have shown your sources. -- 109.77.199.250 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As at December 7 it has done $368 million at the box office (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt9218128/) against a production budget of $250 million (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/nov/24/wicked-gladiator-ii-glicked-box-office#:~:text=Ridley%20Scott's%20Gladiator%20II%2C%20a,Denzel%20Washington%20and%20Paul%20Mescal.). AIUI you have to add to 50% to the production cost figure for marketing so it looks to be breaking even so far. It will probably make a profit eventually when you add in streaming etc.Tirailleur (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the budget

Previously Hollywood Reporter claimed that the budget was as much as $310M while Deadline recently claimed that the budget was $210M.

Now both trades have reported [1][2] that the budget is actually $250M, so can we use that figure instead of the $210-310M range? Surely the latest reported figure is more accurate. Babar Suhail (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. At the very least, we need to keep these random IPs from changing it to $350M for no apparent reason. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TropicAces: What is the source you're using to justify the budget range in your edit here? --ZimZalaBim talk 19:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely the latest reported figure is more accurate. " No. The Template:Infobox film documentation says do not cherry pick. Even though some editors ignore the documentation and make the assumption that newer figures are more accurate they simply cannot know that for sure. Earlier lower figures may represent the budget that the film was greenlit at, different figures may represent the actual budget they had to spend and other figures may represent the final cost after tax credits. (I fundamentally disagree the claim that production budget is anything other than the amount they actually had to spend to get the movie made, but editors have persistently argued that the cost after tax rebates is somehow a valid figure, which is part of the reason why we must include a range of figures.) Without knowing for sure (such as a court case, or leaked internal documents) we cannot assume. Please also note that the WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article" and that conflicting figures should first be explained in the article body as best as possible, then summarized in the infobox. The lower $210 million should be restored and explained not excluded. -- 109.76.131.213 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the budget range. This discussion did not come to a conclusion and there is no consensus to exclude figures. Editors should not be adding warning comments to the wiki source when there is no concensus to back it up (and especially not when it goes against what the documentation says we are supposed to do). -- 109.78.194.250 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy section

This section is getting a bit out of hand. This film isn't trying to reflect actual historical events. So what if "There is no historical record of a Roman general named Marcus Acacius" - this is fiction. It seems reasonable to point out if a character references a historical event that's align with the timeline of the film's events, but not every variance from history needs to be pointed out. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you called out every inaccuracy in this film - in any Ridley Scott film - you'd never stop.Tirailleur (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a controversy section needed?

its basically "there's no proof she was cut because of it but a lot of people seem to think so"

Like really? "Many people are saying this so it needs to be there"


Just gotta make sure everyone knows the Jews would do something like this and apparently control Ridley Scott's editing decisions. 151.181.168.74 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gladiator_II&oldid=1263107531"