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

[Plain Old Tele]

http://www.slashfilm.com/guy-ritchie-circling-six-film-king-arthur-franchise-for-warner-bros/

 

Six film King Arthur series? YES PLEASE.

 

Guy Ritchie? FUCK NO.

 

 

 

 

 

Predicts?

[CoolioD1]

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

[Plain Old Tele]

I'm a huge King Arthur fan in general and post-LOTR, it's one of the few fantasy projects I'd love to see some to big-budget life. There's certain enough story there to cover multiple movies. The only -- huge -- issue I have is that Guy Ritchie seems like exactly the wrong person to be spearheading this. If he pulls a Sherlock Holmes with this, I'm gonna go all fishnets on the project.

[Chewy]

Should probably try to get the first one off the ground before planning out 6

[Plain Old Tele]

Should probably try to get the first one off the ground before planning out 6

 

Studios, man. They want their franchises.

[Ozymandias]

Do people really care about King Arthur today? I'm not sure if there would be enough interest in these to be huge hits, which is certainly the idea if they're talking about 6 movies.  I don't know, King Arthur just seems like Robin Hood, everyone has heard of those characters, but most don't seem to care.

[baumer]

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.

[grim22]

I would like to see the first one before the franchise moves ahead, which is exactly what I think the studio will be doing as well. The first one will surely get made, it will have a definite ending but a sequel hook built in, and then based on the reception (and BO figures) decide if they want to make the rest.

 

I would really like some studio to make the Ashok Banker Ramayana series a reality. The set of 7 books already reads like an epic screenplay. No one in India will make it because it will cost too much:  http://www.bookshopofindia.com/search.asp?action1=default&bookid=9115150

 

These are by far the best "Epic" books to come from India. The Meluha trilogy is good, but doesn't have a big scope.

[Plain Old Tele]

Do people really care about King Arthur Lord of the Rings today? I'm not sure if there would be enough interest in these to be huge hits, which is certainly the idea if they're talking about 6 movies.  I don't know, King Arthur Lord of the Rings just seems like Robin Hood, everyone has heard of those characters these stories, but most don't seem to care.

 

Amazingly, this is what I found in the Internet Wayback Machine from 1997.

[Plain Old Tele]

I would like to see the first one before the franchise moves ahead, which is exactly what I think the studio will be doing as well. The first one will surely get made, it will have a definite ending but a sequel hook built in, and then based on the reception (and BO figures) decide if they want to make the rest.

 

I would really like some studio to make the Ashok Banker Ramayana series a reality. The set of 7 books already reads like an epic screenplay. No one in India will make it because it will cost too much:  http://www.bookshopofindia.com/search.asp?action1=default&bookid=9115150

 

These are by far the best "Epic" books to come from India. The Meluha trilogy is good, but doesn't have a big scope.

 

Shit, man, I'd love to see a big-budget Ramayana. And a Mahabharata franchise too. All these classic epics (along with Arthur, and others) have near-universal appeal, done correctly.

[Fancyarcher]

Wow! Talk about jumping the gun.

 

The first one will probably have a budget of over 200 million, and may be fortunate to just barely break even.

 

Don't plan sequels (let alone five), when you have no idea if the first film will be successful. 

[Ozymandias]

Amazingly, this is what I found in the Internet Wayback Machine from 1997.

 

Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were hugely popular before the movies and the hype for Fellowship of the Ring was great memories.  Its OW in 2001 was 47m after opening on a Wednesday.  I don't see how a King Arthur movie would come close to that adjusted.

[Empire]

This could be great if done right.

 

However, I don't have much hope that they will be done right. 

[Plain Old Tele]

Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were hugely popular before the movies and the hype for Fellowship of the Ring was great memories.  Its OW in 2001 was 47m after opening on a Wednesday.  I don't see how a King Arthur movie would come close to that adjusted.

 

But hindsight is 20/20. Before the LOTR films got into production, there was serious doubt about whether they'd be big hits or not. The books were popular in the 1950s and 1960s, but had fallen off the cultural radar by the 80s. The only reason the movies got made in the first place is because Bob Shaye was a huge fan and decided to take a flyer on PJ; before NL grabbed the project (at the last minute) it was about to die, because Weinstein first wanted to only do two movies, and then wanted to compress everything into one.

[Hiccup]

King Arthur could be massive if done correctly. King Arthur is very popular still. I trust Warner Brothers. 

[Lordmandeep]

Thing is the story of legendary characters can be told well.

 

You can easily make a great 3 film series on Julius Caesar. 

[Neo]

So many Arthur projects.

[TLK]

Multi-part series idea works for properties with strong fanbase. Who is going to give a fuck about King Arthur three movies into the series ?

[Plain Old Tele]

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.

[CJohn]

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