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

Is this still a 6 movie series?

Edited by Neo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this still a 6 movie series?

 

Six movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, would have been a good date for another DC movie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Last KING ARTHUR, although reasonable well done, only did $50M+ in 2004. TROY & 300 are famous tales, have considerable built-in audience, but both also are invested in massive battle sequences, and meticulously choreographed fight scenes for the genre fans, i.e. commercial hooks. A more serious, historical ALEXANDER did atrocious business in 2004. I really like ALEXANDER though, I thought Stone was a little too ambitious, and let the plot sprawl out instead of, maybe, focusing on the grudge match between Alexander & King Darius. But how Alexander strategizes his troops against a larger Persian armies is pretty accurately depicted and well staged. I wonder how 300 will turn out if a more serious filmmaker like Michael Mann handles the project. It was reported Mann was supposed to do the 300 story based on a NYT bestseller called GATES OF FIRE, not Miller's comics. I wish the filmmakers of 300 would do away with the deformed monsters, cartoonish villains, and florid speeches and just focus on history & realistic action. I really like History Channel series, VIKINGS, for instance. A series done with intelligence while not forgetting to entertain the audience. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this still a 6 movie series?

 

Thanks for making me look dumb after your edit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my birthday?  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically, Warner Bros. is using this movie as a 'confirmation' that they will not move Batman & Superman. Huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically, Warner Bros. is using this movie as a 'confirmation' that they will not move Batman & Superman. Huh.

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically, Warner Bros. is using this movie as a 'confirmation' that they will not move Batman & Superman. Huh.

 

For now I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

Oh, I am very serious all right. Do you have anything else to comment on that apart from that over used 'meme'? No? All right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I am very serious all right. Do you have anything else to comment on that apart from that over used 'meme'? No? All right.

I do. So fail on that. Anyways its 2 years out as we know dates change all the time. There is a month called November that worked well for WB in the past ya know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do. So fail on that. Anyways its 2 years out as we know dates change all the time. There is a month called November that worked well for WB in the past ya know.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't know you need a push to come out of your shell. Or that you're an amnesiac and I had to remember the commenting part for you.

 

And secondly, I'm saying they're using that movie to try and scare Marvel. I never said it's official, hence the '(TRY TO NOTICE THE APOSTROPHE) CONFIRMATION' they're not moving Batman and Superman. They're just trying to scare them away.

 

Oh, I don't know anything about November. Why don't ya tell me more. I'm really curious about it. Do Flying Unicorns live there? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I didn't know you need a push to come out of your shell. Or that you're an amnesiac and I had to remember the commenting part for you.

 

And secondly, I'm saying they're using that movie to try and scare Marvel. I never said it's official, hence the '(TRY TO NOTICE THE APOSTROPHE) CONFIRMATION' they're not moving Batman and Superman. They're just trying to scare them away.

 

Oh, I don't know anything about November. Why don't ya tell me more. I'm really curious about it. Do Flying Unicorns live there? 

Shell? For some its obvious I guess you need it spelled out. I thought it was obvious and the meme was enough guess over your head. Nah, just read my post again might help there. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shell? For some its obvious I guess you need it spelled out. I thought it was obvious and the meme was enough guess over your head. Nah, just read my post again might help there. LOL.

 

I'm sorry I didn't realize that from your post, but I thought you'd be mentally capable to recognize apostrophes that were on both sides of that freaking word. Apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the first one will actually end up getting made, if even that.

 

Yea, I really liked the 2004 version by Antoine Fuqua.  Unfortunately it didn't make money which brings into question the financial viability of the Arthur story.  Of course, Ritchie and crew did make Sherlock a big money maker.  

 

Still, six films?  There's probably enough story there.  My interest is piqued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually really like Ritchie's Sherlock movies, and this sounds better than Man from UNCLE so... I'm interested

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't going to pull that grimdark "realistic take" bullshit so many movies do, is it? Give me the fantasy element goddammit.Do it Guy Ritchie. You know fantasy...you married Madonna and thought it would work...

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't going to pull that grimdark "realistic take" bullshit so many movies do, is it? Give me the fantasy element goddammit.Do it Guy Ritchie. You know fantasy...you married Madonna and thought it would work...

 

Ha ha. lol

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.