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

[Jonwo]

Just now, Barnack said:

 

$102m would be really great for a movie like that (that had a very long pre-production hell).

 

That article is talking about something closer to what Tarzan rumored cost was:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-movie-projector-king-arthur-20170508-htmlstory.html

 

$175m

 

I thought The Legend of Tarzan was $180m although that was VFX heavy and had lots of big names in the cast. 

 

The Man from UNCLE cost $75m so perhaps Ritchie is good at keeping budgets at a decent level.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

10 minutes ago, Barnack said:

What for ? Only to protect the ego ?

 

To not look like an idiot.

[The Futurist]

Before seeing Barnack's last posts, I was gonna just say :

 

"sure, this movie cost 102m, , of course"

 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by The Futurist

[TalismanRing]

1 hour ago, Jonwo said:

 

I thought The Legend of Tarzan was $180m although that was VFX heavy and had lots of big names in the cast. 

 

The Man from UNCLE cost $75m so perhaps Ritchie is good at keeping budgets at a decent level.

 

The Man from UNCLE went over budget because the needed re-shoots (was green lit at $60m and wound up $80-90m). 

 

Reportedly they did so many re-shoots for King Arthur they practically filmed it twice.  If so that $102m budget is suspect.

 

EDIT: Barnack posted the Variety Article and budget on the previous page:

 

Quote

Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow hope so, after spending $175 million to produce Ritchie’s vision of medieval magic and sword fights

 

If the earlier budget really was $102 that's almost a 75% increase. OUCH.

 

Disney better have Ritchie on a very tight leash with Aladdin.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by TalismanRing

[Sam]

Lol at the reviews.

 

Can't even pretend to be surprised though. It's Guy Ritchie. No one should be expecting good things from Guy Ritchie, least of all a King Arthur movie. 

[Jay Beezy]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

 

$102m would be really great for a movie like that (that had a very long pre-production hell).

 

That article is talking about something closer to what Tarzan rumored cost was:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-movie-projector-king-arthur-20170508-htmlstory.html

 

$175m

 

There's no way it's 102M with all the reshoots.

[Jay Beezy]

40 minutes ago, Sam said:

Lol at the reviews.

 

Can't even pretend to be surprised though. It's Guy Ritchie. No one should be expecting good things from Guy Ritchie, least of all a King Arthur movie. 

 

He has a very particular style that fits certain things but not everything.

[drdungbeetle]

This did not cost 100 mil. Quit trying to Kellyanne Conway your audience WB, the only person stupid enough to buy that would be stupid enough to think this is the "real" King Arthur.

[Valonqar]

Hunnam will be fine. Everyone thinks he was in Logan anyway, so that balances out this bomb. 

[filmlover]

25 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

This did not cost 100 mil. Quit trying to Kellyanne Conway your audience WB, the only person stupid enough to buy that would be stupid enough to think this is the "real" King Arthur.

Pretty sure WB is more Sean Spicer considering they claimed a bunch of free screenings were sold out.

[UNDERDOG]

4 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Pretty sure WB is more Sean Spicer considering they claimed a bunch of free screenings were sold out.

 

I mean, they were heavily marketed free screenings.

 

Wouldnt be surprised if they were sold out.

Edited May 10, 2017 by UNDERDOG

[Fancyarcher]

1 hour ago, TalismanRing said:

 

The Man from UNCLE went over budget because the needed re-shoots (was green lit at $60m and wound up $80-90m). 

 

Reportedly they did so many re-shoots for King Arthur they practically filmed it twice.  If so that $102m budget is suspect.

 

EDIT: Barnack posted the Variety Article and budget on the previous page:

 

 

If the earlier budget really was $102 that's almost a 75% increase. OUCH.

 

Disney better have Ritchie on a very tight leash with Aladdin.

 

 

 

I doubt Aladdin will have the same kind of clear production problems the King Arthur film did, so it shouldn't go over-budget at all, hopefully.

[drdungbeetle]

7 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

I doubt Aladdin will have the same kind of clear production problems the King Arthur film did, so it shouldn't go over-budget at all, hopefully.

Aladdin is gonna get Boba Fett'd at this rate. ABORT ABORT ABORT

[drdungbeetle]

32 minutes ago, UNDERDOG said:

 

I mean, they were heavily marketed free screenings.

 

Wouldnt be surprised if they were sold out.

Pet box turtles, braindead 80 year olds, and TNA fans need movies too!!!!!!!

[Hiccup21]

https://youtu.be/mNNWCgwWlgQ

 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Hiccup21

[drdungbeetle]

Could just one of these internet idiots get through a movie review without making stupid monkey faces or trying to meme themselves? They're like the only reason Hollywood stars look professional by comparison.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

5 hours ago, Arlborn said:

Critics Consensus: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword piles mounds of modern action flash on an age-old tale -- and wipes out much of what made it a classic story in the first place.

 

Now I'm curious, what made the original a classic? All I know about the legend is that Arty pulls a sword out of the stone and then hangs out with David Beckham, and this version has both those things.

[Plain Old Tele]

41 minutes ago, Mikasa Ackerman said:

 

Now I'm curious, what made the original a classic? All I know about the legend is that Arty pulls a sword out of the stone and then hangs out with David Beckham, and this version has both those things.

 

What?! Say it isn't so.

 

 

 

The interesting thing about Arthurian legend is that it's a loose combination of Middle Ages romanticism (with a heavy dose of French influence) and much earlier myths from the Celts. There are core elements: Arthur, the sword in the stone, Merlin, the queen Guinevere, the round table, Lancelot (the greatest of all the knights), Arthur's incestuous affair with his half-sister and the bastard child Mordred who eventually wounds him mortally, the quest for the Holy Grail, and so forth. The saga of Arthur can be roughly broken into three general (classic) arcs: his rise, his fall, his redemption. The Arthur of legend is the true king of Briton, and when weaker (physically, morally, etc) the land literally weakens with him. So his story is thematically also a story of Briton rising, falling into moral decay and struggle, and the hint of recovery as Arthur -- mortally wounded but not dead -- is taken away from the lands of mortal men to be tended by the maidens of Avalon as he sleeps in a coma, and when he returns Britain will be renewed and renourished. There's a lot of emphasis on the moral rightness of one's actions and how even great and noble men can be waylaid by terrible temptation and fall from grace, and then must exert tremendous effort to regain their grace. Wrapped up in all this is the quest for the Holy Grail -- supposedly something that could only be found by someone utterly pure and virtuous -- and how Arthur (the greatest of kings) and Lancelot (the greatest of knights), failed in this quest and failed in their own moral efforts within the kingdom (Lancelot had an affair with Guinevere and Arthur succumbed to jealousy).

 

I'm rambling and I'm not doing the saga justice, but like all great ancient myths, it's sprawling, epic, and codifies the best and worst of human behavior as a way of setting up and explaining the world as it is.
 

 

 

Anyway, if any of this sounds remotely interesting, dig up EXCALIBUR and have a look. Among others, it co-stars a young Patrick Stewart, a young Liam Neeson, and a young Helen Mirren. It's flawed but majestic.

[Mulder]

12 hours ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

We've never had this. The best effort was a low-budget one (and, no surprise, it's also the best one). People keep doing revisionist and reimaginings of the myth but somehow no one's ever bothered to really take on the original. I would've thought it would be a natural green light post-LOTR but the stars never aligned.

Hey Tele do you mean Excalibur? If so then I 100% agree. Excalibur's honestly phenomenal. Tbh my dream project would be a trilogy based on Le Mort d'Arthur ((The very original source)). The myths are so good and with other more recent faithful retellings ((The fate franchise from Japan)) I just wish hollywood would get it right again. Ah well.

[aabattery]

4 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

What?! Say it isn't so.

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

The interesting thing about Arthurian legend is that it's a loose combination of Middle Ages romanticism (with a heavy dose of French influence) and much earlier myths from the Celts. There are core elements: Arthur, the sword in the stone, Merlin, the queen Guinevere, the round table, Lancelot (the greatest of all the knights), Arthur's incestuous affair with his half-sister and the bastard child Mordred who eventually wounds him mortally, the quest for the Holy Grail, and so forth. The saga of Arthur can be roughly broken into three general (classic) arcs: his rise, his fall, his redemption. The Arthur of legend is the true king of Briton, and when weaker (physically, morally, etc) the land literally weakens with him. So his story is thematically also a story of Briton rising, falling into moral decay and struggle, and the hint of recovery as Arthur -- mortally wounded but not dead -- is taken away from the lands of mortal men to be tended by the maidens of Avalon as he sleeps in a coma, and when he returns Britain will be renewed and renourished. There's a lot of emphasis on the moral rightness of one's actions and how even great and noble men can be waylaid by terrible temptation and fall from grace, and then must exert tremendous effort to regain their grace. Wrapped up in all this is the quest for the Holy Grail -- supposedly something that could only be found by someone utterly pure and virtuous -- and how Arthur (the greatest of kings) and Lancelot (the greatest of knights), failed in this quest and failed in their own moral efforts within the kingdom (Lancelot had an affair with Guinevere and Arthur succumbed to jealousy).

 

I'm rambling and I'm not doing the saga justice, but like all great ancient myths, it's sprawling, epic, and codifies the best and worst of human behavior as a way of setting up and explaining the world as it is.
 

 

 

 

Anyway, if any of this sounds remotely interesting, dig up EXCALIBUR and have a look. Among others, it co-stars a young Patrick Stewart and a young Liam Neeson. It's flawed but majestic.

 

The original legend is super cool. Saw this post on reddit and it sounds like it could make such an interesting movie series:

 

Spoiler

Oh man, I honestly always wanted to write a King Arthur movie so I did some research and it's quite interesting how little of King Arthur gets told.

For one, you had this guy named Rience who was descended from the Greek hero Heracles (Hercules) and has inherited Heracle's sword passed down generations. In that sense, I imagine that this king views himself as chosen by destiny because he is the last of a great and powerful lineage while being armed with a mighty sword in hand.

As a result, he is quite successful in conquering and uniting 12 powerful kings of Britain as his vassals. But due to his ambitions, he is a bit of a mad king....cutting the hair off of his rivals and trimming it onto his coat as one example.

Whereas, Arthur is descended from the Trojan hero Aeneas. So, he has a bit of the mythological blood/status within him as well.

Thus, when Rience hears a nobody named Arthur has inherited the lineage set in the stone and taken his own sword in hand, it bothers him. He sets out with his 12 armies against Arthur and his mere 12 knights (I could be wrong with the 12 knights figure...just an estimate).

As a result, Arthur seeks allies with local kings and together, he fights and is able to get kings to defect Rience. From there, he slowly fights and takes the realm for himself.

Then, you'd have Arthur cleansing the land of beasts and monsters (ex. giants, water monsters, etc) while settling disputes between his knights. Meanwhile, he eventually goes to war with the Emperor of Rome (or at least, the one dubbed "The Last Emperor") and unites Europe.

Other examples like Lancelot having a cool sword called Aerondight or Tristan having a bow that never misses or Lamorak being the third best knight/top jouster or the one armed Bedivere being possibly the most loyal of Arthur's knights. You have Saracens who join with Arthur as part of his Knights of the Round Table. There are ideas of a wasteland being tied to dead/murdered/wounded kings (kinda like Mordor, I think).

Just stuff like that could make for some more mythological/fantasy aspects.

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/6a6mh5/review_megathread_king_arthur_legend_of_the_sword/dhcksqp/