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

[filmlover]

Official budget is $175M. Get that red pen ready, WB.

 

http://deadline.com/2017/05/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-king-arthur-bombing-snatched-amy-schumer-box-office-1202088670/

[DMan7]

WB and their excessive budgets again...

[The Futurist]

5 minutes ago, DMan7 said:

WB and their excessive budgets again...

 

Not really, the modern VFX heavy tentpole is exactly at that price.

 

You don't even want to know the price tag when it s superheroes.

[DMan7]

Just now, The Futurist said:

 

Not really, the modern VFX heavy tentpole is exactly at that price.

 

You don't even want to know the price tag when it s superheroes.

 

Seriously though they couldn't have made a lower budget Arthur movie? Same goes for Tarzan as well last year. This won't end up well for their revenue stream.

[filmlover]

Just now, DMan7 said:

 

Seriously though they couldn't have made a lower budget Arthur movie? Same goes for Tarzan as well last year. This won't end up well for their revenue stream.

Pretty sure there were reports of reshoots that led to most of the film being reshot (to the point where it was practically shot twice).

[The Futurist]

7 minutes ago, DMan7 said:

 

Seriously though they couldn't have made a lower budget Arthur movie? Same goes for Tarzan as well last year. This won't end up well for their revenue stream.

 

That s just the state of the market place right now, you can't afford to look cheap or not epic and you have to compete with what other studios are doing.

 

Plus, think that with tax credits, the real budget is probably over 200m with those massive re-shoots.

 

 

 

 

[Barnack]

26 minutes ago, DMan7 said:

 

Seriously though they couldn't have made a lower budget Arthur movie? Same goes for Tarzan as well last year. This won't end up well for their revenue stream.

 

There is 2 opposing narrative going on at the same time, the studio should put all their effort on the first movie of a movie universe they launch to be sure to nail it, and also they should not spend to much on i being an unproven yet concept commercially.

 

That must be seem like completely opposite from a studio point of view, that would agree to reshoot and vast post-production fix on a movie, trying to nail the first entry of a possible franchise.

 

Planet of the Apes went the really big budget road (last one was 236m) and it did work great for them. The King-Kong also went giant budget and go film in real world location, and it paid off really well for them.

 

We would need to see the lower budget one, the one without rework made on it to judge if they could not have just released it, but I would imagine that it was not good at all.

 

As for the revenue stream of WB, 2016 report was just released, operating income 22% in 2016, 1,734 million on 13,037, 13.3% way higher than their usual very good 8-12%.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Barnack

[rjones1325]

As far as Ritchie films go, I love Sherlock Holmes, Snatch, and I admit, I love The Man From U.N.C.L.E but now I’m starting to think that Guy Ritchie may be a one trick pony. I heard of his terrible films of his past such as Revolver and Swept away which were projects he both wrote and directed. The worst Guy Ritchie film I’ve seen was Sherlock Holmes 2 which honestly I thought was a decent rental. That has now been beaten by this. 


I saw this last night, and I actually contemplated walking out because the sequences just became torturous and repetitious.
 

https://rendyreviews.com/movies//king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review

[Mojoguy]

All studios should just make cheap Horror movies from now on.

[The Futurist]

1 minute ago, Mojoguy said:

All studios should just make cheap Horror movies from now on.

All movies should be shot in Jason Blum s basement and backyard.

No studio interference there.

Talent first.

[Mojoguy]

Disney getting ready to CANCEL that Sword in the Stone live action remake!

[commonsense88]

42 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

Disney getting ready to CANCEL that Sword in the Stone live action remake!

Don't think so, Disney will hit it out the park WB is just not as good as they use to be, Hobbit , DCU , Pan , now Aurther, all dissappointments

[marveldcfox]

2 hours ago, The Futurist said:

 

That s just the state of the market place right now, you can't afford to look cheap or not epic and you have to compete with what other studios are doing.

 

Plus, think that with tax credits, the real budget is probably over 200m with those massive re-shoots.

 

 

 

 

 Someone should have told fox that when they made fant4stic. Add some bloody set pieces or fun action sequences if there is nothing much in the movie. Atleast that would have helped somewhat.

[TalismanRing]

1 hour ago, Mojoguy said:

Disney getting ready to CANCEL that Sword in the Stone live action remake!

 

Doubftul though they're probably thinking twice or thrice about Ritchie doing Aladdin.

[PPZVGOS]

1 hour ago, Mojoguy said:

All studios should just make cheap Horror movies from now on.

 

It's either superheroes, or animated/kiddie fare or Star Wars or cheap horror. 

 

So, it's 2 genres, one sub-genre and one franchise that are now operational for Hollywood. Nothing else makes any financial sense whatsoever. 

 

Edit: This is shaping to be a real disaster for Warner Bros. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by PPZVGOS

[drdungbeetle]

3 hours ago, The Futurist said:

 

Not really, the modern VFX heavy tentpole is exactly at that price.

 

You don't even want to know the price tag when it s superheroes.

Superheroes actually make money, this...won't.

[drdungbeetle]

30 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Doubftul though they're probably thinking twice or thrice about Ritchie doing Aladdin.

For the billionth time, Aladdin is about the last thing they should be remaking right about now (and Ritchie is about the worst possible director I can tink of for it).

[JB33]

The problem is a guy like Guy Ritchie is going to go and stylize this movie when it would be so much better as a simple, no frills King Arthur tale. That's what people want. Some directors don't get that less is more.

[Arlborn]

11 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

For the billionth time, Aladdin is about the last thing they should be remaking right about now (and Ritchie is about the worst possible director I can tink of for it).

I can think of worse directors.

 

I'm actually interested to see his own take on it. Don't people love complaining about remakes being just copies? I say let the man put his style on Aladdin and see where it goes! It should at least be interesting.

[drdungbeetle]

5 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

I can think of worse directors.

 

I'm actually interested to see his own take on it. Don't people love complaining about remakes being just copies? I say let the man put his style on Aladdin and see where it goes! It should at least be interesting.

Who do you think would be worse? Uwe Boll? The idiot that made those Sharknado movies?