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

[dudalb]

Sorry,but in my book the  Arthurian saga deserved better then "dumb fun".

I am really beginning to hate these people who want to reduce everything to the level of mindless action film.

I admit, I am happy this thing bombed. Maybe Hollywood will start treating some topics with the respect they deserve rather then dumb them down for the comic book fanboy crew.

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

fantasy movies always bomb. I don't know why studios are even making them at all any more. Very sad as I love the genre. I'm glad there are still some being made but I don't see any financial sense in it. The idea of 7 King Arthur movies was a joke to begin with. its just not financially viable.

 

aside from LOTR series, the biggest hit recently has been Warcraft, which may or may not have broken even, and even that has had no progress on a sequel.

 

Almost all big movie success are fantasy movie, recently we had the potters, beauty and the beast, Jungle book, middle earth, Star Wars, MCUs, etc...

 

It is rare movies without magic set in reality that become a really big franchise now (Fast & Furious and Bond are the 2 counter-example that come in mind), it is a really successful genre overall:

http://www.imdb.com/genre/fantasy

 

One attraction for many of them is that they are old enough to be fully in public domain, in a world that some can pay 4,5,6 billion for a franchise rights, to have it for free is attractive even if they are far to be has powerful.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Barnack

[Avatree]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

 

Almost all big movie success are fantasy movie, recently we had the potters, beauty and the beast, Jungle book, middle earth, Star Wars, MCUs, etc...

 

It is rare movies without magic set in reality that become a really big franchise now (Fast & Furious and Bond are the 2 counter-example that come in mind), it is a really successful genre overall:

http://www.imdb.com/genre/fantasy

 

One attraction for many of them is that they are old enough to be fully in public domain, in a world that some can pay 4,5,6 billion for a franchise rights, to have it for free is attractive even if they are far to be has powerful.

That's... not really the generally accepted idea of "fantasy". Usually means; 1) sword and sorcery; 2) not in this world

[Captain Craig]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

Sorry,but in my book the  Arthurian saga deserved better then "dumb fun".

I am really beginning to hate these people who want to reduce everything to the level of mindless action film.

I admit, I am happy this thing bombed. Maybe Hollywood will start treating some topics with the respect they deserve rather then dumb them down for the comic book fanboy crew.

This statement only shows your own bias and lack of background.

Hollywood was doing this to period piece and/or historical type material well before the rise of the CBM as it is today. A CBM can be brainy or simple, like any genre but back to my point.

 

Knights Tale (2001) with Heath Ledger

Robin Hood: Prince of Theives (1991) with Kevin Costner

 

Some might point to others but those two stand out to me as products of their time to speak to that 16-35yr old moviegoer at the time. It was updated. Had it's own era star and did the period saga a but unconventional from the more classic and contemporary style one comes to think of as 'proper' for the era. 

[drdungbeetle]

Hollywood forgetting how to do a good medieval movie doesn't have much to do with the fact that they know how to make a good superhero movie now.

[Mojoguy]

WB loses $150 million on King Arthur (Someone put this in the topic title)

http://screenrant.com/king-arthur-box-office-flop-losses/

[kayumanggi]

Ritchie made the character interesting to me. If it had been the same old approach to the character, I would have been bored.

[Barnack]

4 hours ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

That's... not really the generally accepted idea of "fantasy". Usually means; 1) sword and sorcery; 2) not in this world

 

That make more sense, I went with the imdb tag and google definition:

Fantasy is a fiction genre set in an imaginary universe, often but not always without any locations, events, or people from the real world. Most fantasy uses magic or other supernatural elements as a main plot element, theme, or setting. Magic and magical creatures are common in many of these imaginary worlds.

 

But I suspected that it must have been a more restricted genre in a box office discussion (particularly that almost all big box office movie have magic and not set in the real world now)

[The Futurist]

Star Wars is fantasy.

And YA.

Superheroes too.

Yup.

Edited May 23, 2017 by The Futurist

[kowhite]

10 hours ago, dudalb said:

 Maybe Hollywood will start treating some topics with the respect they deserve rather then dumb them down for the comic book fanboy crew.

 

Ha, that's funny.

[iluvjuanki]

13 hours ago, dudalb said:

Sorry,but in my book the  Arthurian saga deserved better then "dumb fun".

I am really beginning to hate these people who want to reduce everything to the level of mindless action film.

I admit, I am happy this thing bombed. Maybe Hollywood will start treating some topics with the respect they deserve rather then dumb them down for the comic book fanboy crew.

To me, being respectful = making a good movie. It's what Guy Ritchie did. 

[SteveJaros]

Saw King Arthur today ... sheesh, what a good movie! Plenty of action, smoothly directed, well acted, with some emotional depth and heart below the surface sturm and drang. Great SFX, no long drawn out endless ending ... very entertaining start to finish.

 

How did the WB machine blow the box office on this? Almost as good as Guardians 2, shoulda done $250m DOM/$700m WW.

 

756/1000

Edited May 23, 2017 by SteveJaros

[dudalb]

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:38 PM, Captain Craig said:

This statement only shows your own bias and lack of background.

Hollywood was doing this to period piece and/or historical type material well before the rise of the CBM as it is today. A CBM can be brainy or simple, like any genre but back to my point.

 

Knights Tale (2001) with Heath Ledger

Robin Hood: Prince of Theives (1991) with Kevin Costner

 

Some might point to others but those two stand out to me as products of their time to speak to that 16-35yr old moviegoer at the time. It was updated. Had it's own era star and did the period saga a but unconventional from the more classic and contemporary style one comes to think of as 'proper' for the era. 

And, Robin Hood prince of Theives is pretty much forgotten. The 1938  Errol Flynn film remains as popular as ever. So much for modernization always working.

[Barnack]

33 minutes ago, dudalb said:

And, Robin Hood prince of Theives is pretty much forgotten. The 1938  Errol Flynn film remains as popular as ever. So much for modernization always working.

 

But wasn't the 1938 remake a case of modernization ?, they made a very big deal of the movie being in technicolor (marketing wise but also in production design), it had sound versus the very popular previous silent version. And didn't they went for a more recent batch of book version, that were made for kids ?

Edited May 23, 2017 by Barnack

[Plain Old Tele]

34 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

But wasn't the 1938 remake a case of modernization ?, they made a very big deal of the movie being in technicolor (marketing wise but also in production design), it had sound versus the very popular previous silent version. And didn't they went for a more recent batch of book version, that were made for kids ?

 

There's no definitive "book" version of Robin Hood.

 

In terms of "modernization", there's a difference between what you're talking about (retelling a popular story using updated technical abilities) and what dudalb meant, which is changing a lot of thematic content and the story itself to "contemporize" it. At least in terms of how I see it.

[Captain Craig]

4 hours ago, dudalb said:

And, Robin Hood prince of Theives is pretty much forgotten. The 1938  Errol Flynn film remains as popular as ever. So much for modernization always working.

Is it? I know Costner is mocked for not even attempting a British accent but for pure action fun it ranks as one of Costner's better remembered films by those in the era it came out. 

I have no appreciation for Knights Tale but whenever I've spoken to someone of that generational span I often hear a fondness for it and this was BEFORE Ledger died. 

[Mockingjay Raphael]

I kinda enjoyed it, it was a mess, but a hot mess, I always liked Ritchie's style, but I think I'm love with his direction after this movie. Watching Charlie was a spectacle even bigger than the spectacular action scenes, if he had showed his V, this movie would have made Tarzan's numbers.

[incognitoo]

Finally seen it. A good movie (in my book) and at least on par with the Guy Ritchies Sherlock movies (which I enjoyed very much). Hunman (you see what I did there) wasn't annoying for a change, the direction was Sherlock in the medieval past, set pieces were great, action was good, the magic was well implemented and not as ridiculously overblown as I feared before buying the ticket (to me it came across as a tale of heroic deeds past, where what happened in reality has been twisted further and further into the supernatural with every generation that passed the story on to the next one), and the story was an interesting interpretation of the Arthur lore (and by no means the lore-wise abomination that "King Arthur" was). Nice movie, 9 out of 10. Will buy on BD. Unfortunately, there will never be a King Arthur: Tale of the Battle for Camelot or KA:Tale of Guinevere as this thing is bombing so hard it shakes the planet. Unfair, but that's life. :o/

[BadAtGender]

On 5/22/2017 at 10:38 AM, dudalb said:

Sorry,but in my book the  Arthurian saga deserved better then "dumb fun".

I am really beginning to hate these people who want to reduce everything to the level of mindless action film.

I admit, I am happy this thing bombed. Maybe Hollywood will start treating some topics with the respect they deserve rather then dumb them down for the comic book fanboy crew.

 

So, something more like this, then?

 

 

[Eric Lancer]

I think King ARthur:Legend Of the Sword is a fantastic movie, just because many people don't appreciate this movie, it doesn't mean it is bad... In fact, many viewers who watch this movies agree with me.

 

This movie is such a refreshing as compare to the tons of BORING super heroes franchise and fast & Furious yawning franchise..

 

First of all, the character interaction is good, the fantasy setting was nice and it gave new life to legendary characters.... I especially intrigued with the character "The Mage", who i believe is the fable Morgana. It gave a refreshing idea on Morgana was on other's side , Morgana's understanding on dark art/ witch craft is exactly what Arthur needs to help him in a treacherous realm..

 

As for those who argue that they prefer originality , then why don't they argue it with all those super heroes movies ? Did they follow any originality at all? The haters of King Arthur are just bunch of HYPOCRITES who thought they are the righteous persons in the world and know what is right or wrong... 

 

Many viewers enjoy this movie and we are longing for a new twist in the story line , a new interpretation of this legends.. Hope the rest of the 5 sequels will be made