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

[trifle]

14 hours ago, baumer said:

So this is getting some strong positive reactions from non critics.  Looks like a fun fantasy for the summer.  

 

8 hours ago, SchumacherFTW said:

Fuck the reviews, this movie is great fun. 

 

That's all I need.  I really like King Arthur but to be honest, I didn't get much out of the trailers.  I'm waiting for word of mouth of people who actually saw it.  Did you see it?  There are a very select number of critics I care about, but I couldn't care less about the RT rating.

 

1 hour ago, Arlborn said:

I wish everyone criticizing this movie wouldn't be so quick to spoil every little thing about it even before it comes out. Some of us do plan on seeing it even if we are an obvious minority.

 

Not that spoilers are much of a problem for this movie in particular but it's just annoying as hell how when a movie is badly received everyone(as in mostly the reviewers but also stuff like that article or even users in this forum) seems to assume they are free to spoil the living crap out of it even before it has actually opened. Again, not a big deal for this movie in particular but this kind of behavior just really irks me.

 

If you only read critics that are decent, there is no problem, I have found.  Of course, you end up reading a lot fewer reviews.

[drdungbeetle]

This movie looks like poo and people who watch it deserve to get slapped with a herring by a guy yelling NEEEH

[shayhiri]

48 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

This movie looks like poo and people who watch it deserve to get slapped with a herring by a guy yelling NEEEH

 

Right back at ya!!

 

http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/attachments/funny-farm/133271-post-your-funny-pics-part-three-s-not-hard-jackass-3.5-hit-fish-www.whysoblu.com_.jpeg

 

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by shayhiri

[shayhiri]

It's already Friday here, can't wait to see it in a few hours!!

 

And I can bet I'm gonna end up seeing this more times than the disappointing GotG2!

 

RITCHIE ROCKS!!

[Goffe]

7 hours ago, tonytr87 said:

A good King Arthur movie entails combining both nostalgia and something new. 

 

No. 

[Ryan Reynolds]

why is this even happening? Is this a hot new public domain title?

[Arlborn]

Hey, 73% audience score on RT is actually pretty good.

[MrGlass2]

Quote

Warner Bros./Village Roadshow’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword drew $1.15M last night in previews, a figure that’s significantly better than what another older male-skewing WB/VR bomb In the Heart of the Sea earned in previews ($575K), and under that of both studios’ The Legend of Tarzan ($2.55M), a previous classic IP.

It is a start.

[Jonwo]

The fact it's only $2m more than the Man from UNCLE isn't good at all. I suspect Warner Bros wrote it off a long time ago

[The Futurist]

Guy Ritchie and Ridley Scott are on fire right now, nobody can stop them.

 

Hail the Common Wealth !

[Jake Gittes]

Saw this yesterday. Neither disastrous nor good. Moderately fun in the beginning when Ritchie gets to indulge in his stylistic flourishes but that stuff ultimately is not tied to anything and then it only grows louder and messier and more and more pointless. Hunnam is decent but not enough to save/carry it. Law not nearly as hammy as he could/should have been. Pemberton's score is good but he did far better on UNCLE, just as Ritchie himself did. 

[SofNascimento]

Is there any historical element to this film?

[shayhiri]

Pretty good fantasy movie, and the Shay said he'll break the fingers of anyone who insults it unjustly (if he could).

 

Weaker than Holmes (of course), stronger than Uncle (of course). Seeing it three times - for the music and fantasy setting/creatures alone.

[TalismanRing]

4 hours ago, SofNascimento said:

Is there any historical element to this film?

 

 

There are elephants in Wales....

 

 

[NoobSaibot]

Three friends went to see it. They thought it was "dumb fun," but they seemed to place more emphasis on the "dumb" part.

[Arlborn]

2 hours ago, NoobSaibot said:

Three friends went to see it. They thought it was "dumb fun," but they seemed to place more emphasis on the "dumb" part.

That does seem to be the general consensus of the audience who has watched it so far. It's up to 75% and 3.9/5 on audience score at RT.

 

Shame I can only watch it next weekend; looking forward to it.

 

Edited May 13, 2017 by Arlborn

[SofNascimento]

6 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

 

 

There are elephants in Wales....

 

 

Well, we do read about the Romans bringing elephants when they invaded Britain... 

[Macleod]

Here's Deadline's analysis of this debacle, summarizing all the varying attempts Warners has made at resuscitating this over the past 8 years or so...

 

1. Why would anyone ever touch Boorman's Excalibur?  I'm looking at you, Singer.

 

2. I would still be interested in seeing Oldman as Merlin one day. 

 

http://deadline.com/2017/05/king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-why-it-failed-at-the-box-office-guy-ritchie-1202092765/

 

Dobkin went off and made The Judge. By the time that film wrapped, Warners had changed its mind on his version, and fell in love with Joby Harold’s King Arthur pitch which was to span several sequels, each focusing on a different Camelot character in an Avengers-Star Wars universe-sense with all the characters ultimately coming together in one movie. One insider tells us that Warner Bros. executives were blown away by Harold’s vision; the project’s fantasy beast artwork was a cross between 300 and Clash of the Titans. Deadline was informed that Harold’s vision never materialized in Ritchie’s final cut. By January 2014, King Arthur was becoming a reality with Ritchie behind the camera and writing alongside Wigram. With all of these different versions of Arthur floating around, and producers hopping between projects, one source tells Deadline that the situation was “incestuous,” resulting in the Writers Guild auditing both screenplays, only to realize that the studio was folding one into the other. In the end, Wigram, Ritchie and Harold are credited as the screenwriters, Harold also received a story by credit and Dobkin earned story and EP credits. By August 2014, Ritchie selected Hunnam to play Arthur.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Macleod

[Plain Old Tele]

27 minutes ago, Macleod said:

With all of these different versions of Arthur floating around, and producers hopping between projects, one source tells Deadline that the situation was “incestuous,” resulting in the Writers Guild auditing both screenplays, only to realize that the studio was folding one into the other. In the end, Wigram, Ritchie and Harold are credited as the screenwriters, Harold also received a story by credit and Dobkin earned story and EP credits. By August 2014, Ritchie selected Hunnam to play Arthur.

 

I had heard of this process going on (it sounds like this is not the only project or the only studio which has tried this), but didn't realize it was this specific project. Studios commission a series of scripts from writers whose pitches they like. Instead of picking one script that they like and going with that, they pick a writer and assemble all their favorite parts from all the scripts.

[Macleod]

4 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

I had heard of this process going on (it sounds like this is not the only project or the only studio which has tried this), but didn't realize it was this specific project. Studios commission a series of scripts from writers whose pitches they like. Instead of picking one script that they like and going with that, they pick a writer and assemble all their favorite parts from all the scripts.

 

Warner Bros. is definitely doing this a lot lately.  Some you hear about, some you don't.  It's been officially documented with Aquaman (and perhaps Wonder Woman), and various other franchise-y things. 

Edited May 13, 2017 by Macleod