Sunshine, Light, and Joy

 

This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Tele Came Back

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword | Guy Ritchie | May 12, 2017 | Charlie Hunnam

1,599 posts in this topic

I think King Arthur has an enormous, albeit latent, potential fanbase. Though I didn't like what Ritchie did with SHERLOCK HOLMES, that character was in a similar state prior to the WB re-imagining.

 

I skipped the second Sherlock movie because of what he did to the character in the first one. There was no need to bastardize a character that was so well-developed by Arthur Conan Doyle over the course of dozens of stories and a handful of novels. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will do one. It will fail. And then finally we may have our Sherlock Holmes 3.

 

No! Never!

 

I skipped the second Sherlock movie because of what he did to the character in the first one. There was no need to bastardize a character that was so well-developed by Arthur Conan Doyle over the course of dozens of stories and a handful of novels. 

 

I'm with ya. Wasn't a fan at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pussies, why stop at six. Let's greenlight 12 of these suckers culminating in the 12th against a zombie dragon.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are planning 6 of these, can we not finally get an IT trilogy?  IMO, it's Stephen King's greatest work, just get the damn thing made.

 

For you, B:

 

  @GoogIeStreets

The clown from the movie "It" found on Google Street view http://t.co/c1FRjdsvIt

1/27/14, 4:27 PM

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy Ritchie gets to rape another British legend. Move along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will do one. It will fail. And then finally we may have our Sherlock Holmes 3.

6+ years after the last one and that one will fail as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 I would understand. But 6?

They are barely making it to 6 middle-earth films over a decade.

 

franchises with 6 or more films are (i will exclude Bond cause it's 1 disconnected film each time and have had different actors playing the lead):

1. Potter

2. Star Wars - only 3 at a time were planned and the last 3 came after a big gap.

3. Fast and Furious -  the main cast went in and out. Can't happen with Arthur. Also a Tokyo Drift like gross would be the end.

 

Potter is the only franchise ever successfully planned with 6 or more continuous films at a stretch around the same main cast.

WB are trying to bite more than they can chew.

 

Time's gone for Sherlock 3.

I did rather have Guy Ritchie reboot the Green Lantern.

Edited by a2knet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Narrow it down to three films (six will be overkill, imo) and get rid of Guy Ritchie and this has a ton of potential to be fucking epic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy Ritchie gets to rape another British legend. Move along.

 

No he doesn't.

 

He may poorly adapt it, but there's no rape involved.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good idea if done right IMO. The Arthur legends contains some epic stuff and universal themes. Would be great to see that in a blockbuster but 6 seems a little too much. 3 is good indeed.  WB wants to much to do another harry Potter but we can't follow Arthur on every moment of his life, even if there will have enough material for 6 movies (I doubt it).

 

I'm not fan of Guy Ritchie on that too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 I would understand. But 6?

They are barely making it to 6 middle-earth films over a decade.

 

franchises with 6 or more films are (i will exclude Bond cause it's 1 disconnected film each time and have had different actors playing the lead):

1. Potter

2. Star Wars - only 3 at a time were planned and the last 3 came after a big gap.

3. Fast and Furious -  the main cast went in and out. Can't happen with Arthur. Also a Tokyo Drift like gross would be the end.

 

Potter is the only franchise ever successfully planned with 6 or more continuous films at a stretch around the same main cast.

WB are trying to bite more than they can chew.

 

Time's gone for Sherlock 3.

I did rather have Guy Ritchie reboot the Green Lantern.

Why can't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No he doesn't.

 

He may poorly adapt it, but there's no rape involved.

 

Yes. This is srs bsns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be awesome, but only with magic and Merlin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't it?

 

How can Arthur be out of an Arthur movie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can Arthur be out of an Arthur movie?

I would imagine in the story, he isn't everywhere. Like in Fast 2 Diesel wasn't there, but his character still moved with the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine in the story, he isn't everywhere. Like in Fast 2 Diesel wasn't there, but his character still moved with the story.

Yeah. If that happens they can't have his name in the title - like potter or sherlock had.

Will have to go the generic way like Fast and Furious, LOTR, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. This is srs bsns.

 

Bloody christ. That's a horrible mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.deadline.com/2014/04/king-arthur-guy-ritchie-warner-bros-july-2016

 

Warner Bros and Village Roadshow Pictures have slotted the Guy Ritchie-helmed King Arthur for July 22, 2016. As we reported back in January, Ritchie was circling the project, a tentpole fantasy retelling of the Arthur legend. This new version was created by Joby Harold, who wrote the script for the first film. Producing is Akiva Goldsman through Weed Road, Harold and Tory Tunnell through Safehouse Pictures, and Ritchie’s partner Lionel Wigram. So far the pic has the July 22, 2016 date to itself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.