Jump to content

Plain Old Tele

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

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Are you trolling or serious ?

 

100% serious but I know I am alone on this.

 

Marvel having troubles/conflicts with directors is the exception to the rule, but somehow the few notable examples (Edward Norton, Edgar Wright, Alan Taylor)  serve the basic narrative that Marvel directors are somehow drones of Feige, yes men with no added value whatsoever.

 

 

 

Edited by The Futurist
Link to comment
Share on other sites



It was more the only place to do so, do you think Paramount do not trust Bay, Fox James Cameron, WB Nolan and Eastwood, Weinstein do not trust Tarantino ?

That a Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk happen without Sony trusting and giving total freedom to Lee ?

That Chazelle was not trusted by liongates ?

Blade Runner, Interstellar, etc... seem to be made with more freedom that would ever happen on a Marvel movie.

Do you think Edgar Wright got more trust on Baby Driver or Ant-Man ?

 

I mean Shane Black told the story about is script needing to be read by the toys department and them forcing change on it, it really give that you get trust as long you fit a very tight box that fit a big plan.

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Barnack said:

It was more the only place to do so, do you think Paramount do not trust Bay ?

That a Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk happen without Sony trusting and giving total freedom to Lee ?

That Chazelle was not trusted by liongates ?

Blade Runner, Interstellar, etc... seem to be made with more freedom that would ever happen on a Marvel movie.

Do you think Edgar Wright got more trust on Baby Driver or Ant-Man ?

 

I mean Shane Black told the story about is script needing to be read by the toys department and them forcing change on it, it really give that you get trust as long you fit a very tight box that fit a big plan.

 

Nevermind, really, I have different perspectives on things and all your examples have specifics that have  nothing to do with what Marvel is doing.

 

Didn't know about the Shane Black anecdote but I doubt very much this is an isolated case (do you think there was no Toys discussions in the making process of Force awakens ? Or when you make a Pixar/WDAS/DCEU etc ?), these movies are called franchise film for a reason and yes , it comes with some limitations but every movie has hurdles and obstacles of all sorts.

And said limitations don't prevent from creating great art, IMO.

 

James Gunn had as much liberty on Guardians Vol.2 than Mangold on Logan IMO.

And both films were probably the best versions of the movies these filmmakers and the studios set out to make.

But because Logan has violence, swearing, some kind of grit, sunsets (western !) and very little superhero elements, it is being set apart as being "true" art, because it s trying very hard to not be one of those silly "CBM movies directed by film committees" ya know.

 

You can feel the condescending tone with some Logan admirers, same thing happened with TDK 9 years ago, the BEST superhero movies of all time (!!!) are the ones that try very hard to not be ones.

 

A canadian singer had a song about this, don't you think ?

Yeah I really do think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Limitation can often be for the better, lot of creative way to get around the Hays code was nice for example, but the question was about trusting them.

 

Not sure you bring movies like a Star wars movie, they are certainly like MCU one (if not worst, they didn't trust the vision on Rogue One at all) or stuff like Logan, why use those benchmark, why not Cameron, Nolan, Lee, Miller, etc...

 

Your statement was:

 

Quote

  Only Marvel seems to trust wirters, visionaries and auteurs these days in giant corporate filmmaking.  

 

Do you think Marvel trusted Edgar Wright on Ant-Man more than Sony did on Baby Driver ?

Edited by Barnack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as they got the MCU up and running and well established, Wright's Ant Man was never going to happen. He was never going to make an AM movie that had to fit within the MCU. He likes to do his own thing. 

 

Then again, Gunn has been pretty much allowed to do his thing on the two Gaurdians movies. And IM3 is definitely a Shane Black movie that happens to fit within the MCU. You think Marvel would have let just anybody do that whole Mandarin fake out with Kingsley's character? I doubt it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Barnack said it best. You are free to do your own thing as long as you do what you are told and don't diverge too much from this very specific kind of movie. 

 

It's obvious Marvel is run that way given that their movies since The Avengers are, by and large, the same.

Edited by Goffe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I had to check this out because it just seemed like a movie that was up my wheelhouse.  Fantastical, good soundtrack, a bit cheese, and Jax.  I liked it.  Went to see guardians with one of my best buds tonight and we talked about this.  I was like " I liked it but I highly doubt you'd like it."  It's def not a movie I'd recommend to most but if you can just kind of enjoy the spectacle and forget about the narrative flaws, it's fun.  It's really a shitload of cgi fantasy stuff, more than I thought.  Richie of course overuses his narration tricks.  Some parts I was just thinking wtf, why? It's really like King Arthur - Legend of the Superhero.  It kind of just throws out the normal King Arthur story and does its own thing...which I liked. Richie was just like f it, were doing it my way and it is what it is ha. It's def an original take on the material. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



10 hours ago, Barnack said:

Limitation can often be for the better, lot of creative way to get around the Hays code was nice for example, but the question was about trusting them.

 

Not sure you bring movies like a Star wars movie, they are certainly like MCU one (if not worst, they didn't trust the vision on Rogue One at all) or stuff like Logan, why use those benchmark, why not Cameron, Nolan, Lee, Miller, etc...

 

Your statement was:

 

 

Do you think Marvel trusted Edgar Wright on Ant-Man more than Sony did on Baby Driver ?

 

I was speaking in the context of big branded franchise films which all the directors you mention don't really do.

You continue to use the most famous example of Marvel/Director disagreement and I already told you, in the context of the MCU, it is the exception to the rule.

Not to mention both parties remained silent ever since.

Just watched an interview from visionary director Peyton Reed and boy, Wright put Marvel in a very dire situation, they were basically about to shoot and he left the movie, putting the production on shutdown for 12 (!) weeks.

It s all good tho, I adore Ant-Man, Wright's movies are great, Peyton s back for the sequel (Adam McKay too, wonder if Marvel trusted him?) and Wright will be able to do his brilliant comedies critics and cinephiles geek go gaga for but GA will pass on.

Everybody s happy.

:)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, holcs said:

So I had to check this out because it just seemed like a movie that was up my wheelhouse.  Fantastical, good soundtrack, a bit cheese, and Jax.  I liked it.  Went to see guardians with one of my best buds tonight and we talked about this.  I was like " I liked it but I highly doubt you'd like it."  It's def not a movie I'd recommend to most but if you can just kind of enjoy the spectacle and forget about the narrative flaws, it's fun.  It's really a shitload of cgi fantasy stuff, more than I thought.  Richie of course overuses his narration tricks.  Some parts I was just thinking wtf, why? It's really like King Arthur - Legend of the Superhero.  It kind of just throws out the normal King Arthur story and does its own thing...which I liked. Richie was just like f it, were doing it my way and it is what it is ha. It's def an original take on the material. 

The reactions I've read and heard about this movie have really been hyping me up to see it next weekend. It seems to be exactly the kind of movie I'll really enjoy on the big screen.

 

Also audience score climbed up to 78% on RT. Tarzan, for example, has 60%.

 

Edited by Arlborn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 hours ago, Arlborn said:

The reactions I've read and heard about this movie have really been hyping me up to see it next weekend. It seems to be exactly the kind of movie I'll really enjoy on the big screen.

 

Also audience score climbed up to 78% on RT. Tarzan, for example, has 60%.

 

 

It is all very puzzling, and disappointing for the fantasy genre as a whole. But King Arthur seems destined to become a cult classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Futurist said:

 

I was speaking in the context of big branded franchise films which all the directors you mention don't really do.

 

Miller don't do big branded franchise, he just did Fury Road, Nolan just did a Batman trilogy, Ang Lee made a giant adaptation of one of the most popular book of all time that did over 600m at the box office, has for Bay at paramount not doing big franchise films or James Cameron not sure about that.

 

Your statement didn't mention big branded franchise (you made it sound like studio movies in general, thus sounding like trolling), but sure in the big branded franchise world Marvel is probably above average (because I imagine the very powerful producer create a nice buffer between the creators and the studio head), but your statement was about being the only one trusting director, when someone like Miller had final cut privilege on MadMax Fury Road and Denis Villeneuve is doing a Blade Runner.... 

 

And the same is true for the Potter franchise past the 3-4 entry in it, Warner Brother was almost not involved at all in them.

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



You can't possibly say Mad Max is a franchise film in the current sense of the word.

 

As for Nolan, he is again, the exception to the rule, so peculiar that he is the only blockbuster oriented director to become itw own brand/franchise in the last 10 years.

Cameron, same drill, you have a Nolan or a Cameron per decade, not much.

We won't agree on this and that s ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

We won't agree on this and that s ok.

 SImply because you don't want to say clearly what you mean.

 

Do Marvel trust more is director than Paramount trust Cruise on a Mission Impossible franchise movie, Paramount with Bay movies ?

 

What do you mean clearly, certainly not Marvel is the only place that trust auteur at the moment, what it the real non trolling, trying to shock type of your idea on the subject, maybe we agree, hard to tell.

Edited by Barnack
Link to comment
Share on other sites



That s exaclty what I am saying, Marvel trusts its directors and writers and artists 100% just like they do in their other brands/divisions.

It is in everybody s interests, Feige knows it, Iger and Horn too.

There you have it.

Moving on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



That again an Internet hyperbole (in the context that the toy division is stronger than your writers on important aspect of the movie I'm not sure what you mean by trust exactly), Duvernay, Wright and a long list of director that quit would not have quit, but that was not the question.

 

Does Marvel trust is director more than Paramount trust Bay ? More than WB trust Yates/Rowling on a Potter movie ?  Why are you not answering any of those simple question ?

Edited by Barnack
Link to comment
Share on other sites





17 hours ago, Napoleon said:

They reshot the movie almost entirely, and still ended up with a $14M OW disaster, how can this be possible?

Uh, usually when they do massive reshoots on a movie ,it is a sign the movie is in deep trouble.

Massive reshoots are usually  drastic emergency surgery, and a lot of time the surgery does not save the patient.

You REALLY do not know much about how movies are made, do you? Huge reshoots are never a good sign. Sometimes they can save a movie,but more often they do not

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:

 

It is all very puzzling, and disappointing for the fantasy genre as a whole. But King Arthur seems destined to become a cult classic.

I don't see too many signs of that. It will more likely just be another big flop that will be pretty much forgotten in a couple of years.

Every time a genre film flops, we hear people say "Cult Classic". And most of the time it just does not happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 hours ago, The Futurist said:

That s exaclty what I am saying, Marvel trusts its directors and writers and artists 100% just like they do in their other brands/divisions.

It is in everybody s interests, Feige knows it, Iger and Horn too.

There you have it.

Moving on.

Bu then Marvel vets the directors and writers pretty carefully before bringing them on board.

 Mavel operates almost exactly like the Major Studios did in the Golden Age of Hollywood;they will allow directors some freedom, but make the sure the director is pretty much on board with what the studio has in mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



59 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

Hahahaha, the Americans watch a putrid misshapen fem-comedy MORE than an epic big budget fantasy classic! :) Why is the Shay not surprised?

Maybe that the epic big budget fantasy seems to be not a very good movie,and hardly a classic?

You seem to revel in your reputation as the village idiot at Box Office Theory, and continually add to your reputation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.