Why is Gladiator 2 hated? There are three reasons

discourse around Gladiator 2 It may be as old as ancient Rome, so long ago at this point. The sequel you didn’t want gets criticism, but the haters are wasting their breath.

Close your eyes and think, “Ugh, we didn’t need a sequel to this masterpiece!” You can hear faint screams like: But Scott doesn’t care if Ridley “leads a life” and thus Gladiator 2 is born.

Russell Crowe won’t come back for this and clearly the original is considered one of: best movies of all time. It is understandable that there may be some degree of hesitation.

But here’s my answer: Let’s calm down and look at the logic here. I’ll tell you the three biggest complaints about Gladiator 2 and explain why they’re all stupid. You’re welcome

Ridley Scott isn’t looking for historical accuracy

Paul Mescal and Pedro Pascal battle in Gladiator 2

First, let’s address the elephant in the room. Ridley Scott takes some creative liberties when it comes to his version of ancient Rome. There’s the Gladiator sitting on a rhino in the Colosseum (probably untamable like Black Beauty), the arena turns into an aquarium full of sharks, and there’s the small matter of a character sipping tea and reading the newspaper.

Little details like this have already gotten people’s support, including the now-viral “Hollywood bulls**t.” overthrow from a historian. We will all have to grow up together and face the fact that the printing press was born 1200 years later. Big. To agree.

The trick is not to see any of this as a negative; because it isn’t. Where the OG Gladiator was hampered by a lack of technology, the sequel takes advantage of cutting-edge CGI to create something visually exciting. Everything we loved about the action the first time around gets even richer the second time around. Anything is possible in Scott’s version of Rome… and it’s truly amazing.

Ancient world expert Jasmine Elmer agrees. While talking to Dexerto, explained“I think directors have a certain responsibility to represent cultures accurately; It is important that they recognize the power they have over public impressions of historical periods. But let’s not forget that this is a movie, not a documentary!

“Its main purpose is to entertain. We allow creative expression in publishing, in historical fiction for example, why don’t we treat it as another form of storytelling and allow it? It’s the job of academics and public historians like me to debate the subtleties and debate accuracy.”