TLK Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 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. I skipped the second Sherlock movie because of what he did to the character in the first one. There was no need to bastardize a character that was so well-developed by Arthur Conan Doyle over the course of dozens of stories and a handful of novels. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 They will do one. It will fail. And then finally we may have our Sherlock Holmes 3. No! Never! I skipped the second Sherlock movie because of what he did to the character in the first one. There was no need to bastardize a character that was so well-developed by Arthur Conan Doyle over the course of dozens of stories and a handful of novels. I'm with ya. Wasn't a fan at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Shorts Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Pussies, why stop at six. Let's greenlight 12 of these suckers culminating in the 12th against a zombie dragon. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 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. For you, B: @GoogIeStreets The clown from the movie "It" found on Google Street view http://t.co/c1FRjdsvIt 1/27/14, 4:27 PM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Guy Ritchie gets to rape another British legend. Move along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 They will do one. It will fail. And then finally we may have our Sherlock Holmes 3. 6+ years after the last one and that one will fail as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiccup Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 For you, B: @GoogIeStreets The clown from the movie "It" found on Google Street view http://t.co/c1FRjdsvIt 1/27/14, 4:27 PM That is terrifying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a2k Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) 3 I would understand. But 6? They are barely making it to 6 middle-earth films over a decade. franchises with 6 or more films are (i will exclude Bond cause it's 1 disconnected film each time and have had different actors playing the lead): 1. Potter 2. Star Wars - only 3 at a time were planned and the last 3 came after a big gap. 3. Fast and Furious - the main cast went in and out. Can't happen with Arthur. Also a Tokyo Drift like gross would be the end. Potter is the only franchise ever successfully planned with 6 or more continuous films at a stretch around the same main cast. WB are trying to bite more than they can chew. Time's gone for Sherlock 3. I did rather have Guy Ritchie reboot the Green Lantern. Edited January 28, 2014 by a2knet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Narrow it down to three films (six will be overkill, imo) and get rid of Guy Ritchie and this has a ton of potential to be fucking epic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAtGender Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Guy Ritchie gets to rape another British legend. Move along. No he doesn't. He may poorly adapt it, but there's no rape involved. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaldun Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It's a good idea if done right IMO. The Arthur legends contains some epic stuff and universal themes. Would be great to see that in a blockbuster but 6 seems a little too much. 3 is good indeed. WB wants to much to do another harry Potter but we can't follow Arthur on every moment of his life, even if there will have enough material for 6 movies (I doubt it). I'm not fan of Guy Ritchie on that too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 3 I would understand. But 6? They are barely making it to 6 middle-earth films over a decade. franchises with 6 or more films are (i will exclude Bond cause it's 1 disconnected film each time and have had different actors playing the lead): 1. Potter 2. Star Wars - only 3 at a time were planned and the last 3 came after a big gap. 3. Fast and Furious - the main cast went in and out. Can't happen with Arthur. Also a Tokyo Drift like gross would be the end. Potter is the only franchise ever successfully planned with 6 or more continuous films at a stretch around the same main cast. WB are trying to bite more than they can chew. Time's gone for Sherlock 3. I did rather have Guy Ritchie reboot the Green Lantern. Why can't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 No he doesn't. He may poorly adapt it, but there's no rape involved. Yes. This is srs bsns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portgas Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It can be awesome, but only with magic and Merlin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a2k Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Why can't it? How can Arthur be out of an Arthur movie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 How can Arthur be out of an Arthur movie? I would imagine in the story, he isn't everywhere. Like in Fast 2 Diesel wasn't there, but his character still moved with the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a2k Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I would imagine in the story, he isn't everywhere. Like in Fast 2 Diesel wasn't there, but his character still moved with the story. Yeah. If that happens they can't have his name in the title - like potter or sherlock had. Will have to go the generic way like Fast and Furious, LOTR, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAtGender Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Yes. This is srs bsns. Bloody christ. That's a horrible mindset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 WB put the brakes on this one Trainspotting’s John Hodge Rewriting Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur Project to pursue Arthur & Lancelot that stalled out. Lets hope another King Arthur pops up that stalls this one, well WB is sitting on a few other Arthur projects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 http://www.deadline.com/2014/04/king-arthur-guy-ritchie-warner-bros-july-2016 Warner Bros and Village Roadshow Pictures have slotted the Guy Ritchie-helmed King Arthur for July 22, 2016. As we reported back in January, Ritchie was circling the project, a tentpole fantasy retelling of the Arthur legend. This new version was created by Joby Harold, who wrote the script for the first film. Producing is Akiva Goldsman through Weed Road, Harold and Tory Tunnell through Safehouse Pictures, and Ritchie’s partner Lionel Wigram. So far the pic has the July 22, 2016 date to itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...