Ordinarily, the discussion of movie runtimes sight unseen is as silly as getting worked up over a title treatment. The length of a film you have not seen will only be of note when you buy your tickets and, should you be taking a date or hanging with friends, attempt to coordinate before- and/or after-film plans. Beyond this, whether a movie runs 80 minutes or 200 minutes is immaterial to your eventual enjoyment of it. It may seem odd if a seemingly expansive Western runs under two hours or a romantic comedy pushes two-and-a-half hours, but so what? If anything, it should be exciting that the movie is already challenging your expectations before you set foot in a theater. (And if you feel like a film of whatever length is not what the trailers are selling, let this be your reminder that judging a film based on its marketing materials is spectacularly silly as well.)

I wouldn't say the work of Ridley Scott is the exception to this rule, but the master filmmaker behind "Alien," "Blade Runner," and "American Gangster" has long been satisfied with releasing shortened theatrical cuts of his movies, knowing that he'll get a chance to release an extended or modified cut somewhere down the line. Sometimes, these re-cuts feel unnecessary (e.g. his hurried 2003 Director's Cut of "Alien"); other times, they prove essential (see, for the love of god if you haven't, his brilliant 194-minute expansion of the incoherently truncated, 144-minute theatrical cut of "Kingdom of Heaven").

Most recently, he restored 48 minutes to last year's 157-minute awards season version of "Napoleon," and anecdotally, most people who have seen it feel the longer cut is by far the definitive vision of the movie. With Scott's long-awaited "Gladiator II" less than a month away from theatrical release, the director's fans can't help but wonder how the sequel will measure up to the 2000 Best Picture winner, and, unavoidably, whether what they're going to see at their local multiplex will be definitive.

With all of that said, we now need to take a look at the just-announced runtime.

Are you not entertained (at an exhibitor-friendly length)?

According to the British Board of Film Classification, "Gladiator II" will sport a 15 rating and run 148 minutes. That's seven minutes shorter than the theatrical cut of "Gladiator" (which later received an extended 171-minute home video release), which you might find surprising considering that its trio of major movie stars (Denzel Washington, Pedro Pascal, and Paul Mescal) surely signed on with an expectation of having fully fleshed out character arcs. Can Scott serve all three actors to their screen-time satisfaction?

Scott's track record has me betting the answer is yes, but I've also been told he test screened the film with a runtime of around three hours. A half-hour is a whole lot of movie to lose. Past experience tells us Scott will probably deliver a longer cut at some point, but, knowing how the "Gladiator" cuts panned out, that's by no means a sign of trouble for the sequel.

Like you'd turn your nose up at "Gladiator II" at any length (or rating, as that BBFC 15 suggests the follow-up will receive an MPA designation of PG-13, a shade softer than the 2000 film's R). We'll find out what Scott's got in store for us when the film – which he's gambling will be a big enough hit to guarantee a second sequel — hits theaters on November 22, 2024.