The Gladiator II Trailer Looks Epic, But What Do The Experts Think?

The trailer for Ridley Scott’s Gladiator II is now out and promises to be an unmatched cinematic spectacle. If you were a fan of the first film, there is every chance that you’ll love the new star-studded performance showcasing epic duels, fiendish Colosseum battles, and hints of political intrigue. But as with all Hollywood historical epics, you might end up asking how much of what is being portrayed is based on historical fact and how much is fun fiction?

We turned our questions to the Bad Ancient team to get their expert views on the fun, the fantasy, and the facts.

What is the film all about?

The story of the new Gladiator film picks up 25 years after the events of the first movie. The trailer opens with Lucius Verus II (played by Paul Mescal), the boy in the original story and son of Lucilla, recounting the fatal duel between Emperor Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) and the gladiator and fallen general Maximus Decimus Meridius (Russell Crowe). 

It seems that, in the years following this event, Lucius is in exile in Numidia, in northwestern Africa, and is captured by the Roman army, who force him to become a gladiator. Of course, Lucius wants to bring down the Roman order and abolish any form of slavery.

                 

We later see Lucius fighting the fictitious General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal), who also seems to have misgivings about the Roman Empire’s wanton bloodshed. Throughout the trailer, we are further introduced to characters like Macrinus (Denzel Washington), a scheming gladiator-owing power broker, and the gaunt, pale brother emperors Geta and Caracalla (played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger respectively), who appear cruel and decadent.

The trailer is filled with hints of spectacular scenes, like a gladiator riding a rhino, a simulated maritime battle in a flooded Colosseum (complete with boats and man-eating sharks), as well as politics and intrigue.

It’s a lot. It’s fun, but how realistic is it?

First things first, what did you think of the trailer? 

Dr Jo Ball (JB), an archaeologist and specialist in Roman battle and conflict: I had been incredibly excited to see the trailer for the new Gladiator II film, and it did not disappoint, seemingly promising a spectacular visual feast – hopefully with some decent history thrown in! I am particularly interested to see the storyline of Pedro Pascal’s Marcus Acacius, who appears from the trailer to come to protest the endless conquests of Rome, and the human lives it cost – and seemingly to be punished for his views – with the humanization of Roman generals and the army more widely, a potentially interesting thread playing alongside the main gladiator theme.

Alexandra Sills (AS), postgraduate at the University of Leicester: It definitely looks like it will eclipse the first film in terms of pure spectacle. I'm excited to see what 24 years of CGI development can bring to a Roman arena. I'm also curious to see how the movie deals with the fact that the Republic hasn't been reinstated. That was the whole reason Maximus sacrificed himself in the first film, so will Lucius finish the job? We know that emperors continued to rule for centuries, so it's unlikely, but it will definitely be interesting to see whether the political angle is continued or dropped completely in favor of a personal revenge story.

Dr Owen Rees (OR), founder and lead editor of Bad Ancient: The original Gladiator is a film very dear to my heart, so my initial response was Why?! Why is there a sequel? But then when the cityscape of Rome came on the screen, that response just melted away and I became engrossed in the spectacle on screen. I can’t wait to see how they link this to the previous film and pick up the themes laid out – the glory of Rome, the desire for a quiet life away from the hub of power, the ideological beacon of "the Republic".

Did anything immediately jump out as accurate or inaccurate/anachronistic?

JB: Paul Mescal’s Lucius appears to have become a gladiator after being captured in a violent conquest of Numidia in northwestern Africa – but this area had been part of the Roman world for centuries by the time the film is set, and it is difficult to imagine scenes like those shown in the trailer playing out as a result of Severan political reorganization in the region (around the time when the film is set).

Elements of the dress seem problematic, particularly the wristbands that seem to be compulsory for everyone who owns a sword! The accents are an interesting mix, but I actually quite like this, as it is a useful reminder that the "Romans" were not a homogenous population, but came from an empire that stretched from Britain across Europe, the Near East, and northern Africa – why people would be expected to have the same accents is beyond me (and even if they did, a modern American accent is no less accurate a representation than a classic British one!).

AS: Nobody is topless! Gladiators wore nothing to protect their torsos, because that would be seen as making the fight too easy. Pedro and Paul should also be carrying shields, because gladiators carried those instead of having chest armor. The cool thing is that the shield could be used offensively, almost like a second weapon, and it makes fights more interesting because both arms are in play. I can understand not putting famous movie stars in helmets that cover their face, but these guys should be showing a lot of bare chest. No doubt many in the cinema wouldn't mind, either...

Is there a problem with the portrayal of the two emperors? 

AS: The characterization of Caracalla and Geta is a bit strange; they look and act more like Nero and Caligula stereotypes than the actual Severans. Also, they're conspicuously pale: both brothers were actually half Libyan, half Syrian.

There were many people of color in the Roman world, and it's a shame to whitewash emperors who we know had darker skin. I'm excited to see Denzel Washington in the cast though, his character seems really intriguing.

OR: They seem to be a caricature of many "bad emperors" rolled into one, and the choice to cast such pale actors is an interesting one in this day and age. But we shall see when the film comes out how their characters are fleshed out. It is unfair to judge it from a few moments in an advert!

Was the Colosseum ever filled with water and used to stage maritime battles?

JB: Absolutely – naumachiae were popular and spectacular (if very expensive and logistically challenging) events put on to entertain the people of Rome on special occasions. Naumachiae were staged by the earliest emperors of Rome, although until the reign of Nero, they didn’t take place in amphitheaters but on lakes or in specially constructed basins. The Colosseum became a dedicated venue for naumachiae, and one even featured in its inauguration in 80 AD during the reign of the emperor Titus – but we have little idea of how they filled the arena with water for the battle, and it was probably done to the minimum level possible to make the ships float!

AS: Paul Mescal's character wouldn't have fought in naumachiae though. Instead of trained (read – expensive) gladiators, Romans used prisoners of war and condemned criminals, and we can deduce from this that few were expected to survive, if any. It's also worth mentioning that the naumachia of Claudius on the Fucine Lake was the only recorded instance of participants saying "We who are about to die salute you." Gladiators did not have to say this.

Would gladiators have actually fought rhinos... or sharks?

JB: Roman audiences liked novelty in their beast shows, and there were few animals they would not consider putting in the arena – there was a lucrative trade in sourcing animals for this very purpose, and the more exotic, the better. The animals did not even have to be particularly ferocious as long as they were unusual – animals like giraffes also featured alongside more "classic" wild animals such as lions or bears.

AS: Gladiators only ever fought other gladiators. But there were people who fought with or hunted animals in the arena; they were known as venatores and bestiarii.

We do know that rhinos were presented in Rome. Pompey Magnus was the first known to import one. The emperor Commodus (portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix in the first film) had one imported so that he himself could kill it in the Colosseum (he shot arrows at it from a platform so that he was never in any danger).

As for sharks, we're going into fantasy territory here. The Romans grew very skilled at collecting and transporting all manner of wild animals, particularly from Africa, but had no way of catching sharks, bringing them to Rome, and keeping them somewhere before a Games. On the other hand, if they could have, they undoubtedly would have and thought it was awesome, so maybe this is cinematic wish fulfillment for dead guys.

OR: Animals were seen in the arena, but it was not the same gladiators who did the fighting. Our term gladiator is an oversimplification of what the Romans had in the arena.