Jake Gittes Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Actually watched Excalibur before heading out to see this and man that was a total cheesefest. Honestly hard to understand how it's still so beloved even by those who grew up with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted May 13, 2017 Author Share Posted May 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said: Actually watched Excalibur before heading out to see this and man that was a total cheesefest. Honestly hard to understand how it's still so beloved even by those who grew up with it. (Admittedly I didn't like it when I first saw it either.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Gittes Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said: (Admittedly I didn't like it when I first saw it either.) What made it grow on you? At a certain point I just couldn't take it seriously anymore as it kept leaping from one major story beat to another seemingly without regard for the resulting tone changes. Some of the dialogue is like the movie is unwittingly writing its own porn parody. ("Drink from Lancelot's cup, and partake of his goodness!") I didn't even enjoy Nicol Williamson which probably means that all hope is lost on me. The only things that felt like they aged well were the raw scenery and the casual treatment of sex and violence. I think the latter when combined with the fantasy elements and archetypal characters points at the difficulty in properly adapting Arthur's story; I've never read the actual books like Le Morte d'Arthur or The Once and Future King, but based on everything I've caught over the years and could piece together (correct me if I'm wrong) I feel like you'd need to find a perfect middle ground between the grandiose mythmaking of LOTR and the complex character work and relationships of ASOIAF/Game of Thrones, and good luck pulling that off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted May 13, 2017 Author Share Posted May 13, 2017 I think the core mythology is pure archetype. Not a lot of nuance. I liked that Boorman went all-in on that -- and I grew to love Williamson's off-beat take on Merlin. (The first time around, I hated him and the guy who played Arthur). I think it's a very un-self-conscious movie, and while that makes it ripe for parody if you don't embrace it, it makes it better (IMO) than being self-reflective. What I think I really love is the rawness that comes from the Welsh and Celtic elements -- the land dying along with Arthur, the rejuvenation as he -- older, grayer -- rouses himself from his stupor for the final confrontation. And I think the ending is just majestic on every level. It's not a perfect film at all, but even its flaws are interesting to me. In terms of doing it today, I think LOTR is a great example of hewing close to the mythology and embracing the archetypes, rather than trying to reinvent or complicate them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mulder Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 The battle of Camlann in Excalibur is pure movie gold. The cinematography there is fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Gittes Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said: I think the core mythology is pure archetype. Not a lot of nuance. I liked that Boorman went all-in on that -- and I grew to love Williamson's off-beat take on Merlin. (The first time around, I hated him and the guy who played Arthur). I think it's a very un-self-conscious movie, and while that makes it ripe for parody if you don't embrace it, it makes it better (IMO) than being self-reflective. What I think I really love is the rawness that comes from the Welsh and Celtic elements -- the land dying along with Arthur, the rejuvenation as he -- older, grayer -- rouses himself from his stupor for the final confrontation. And I think the ending is just majestic on every level. It's not a perfect film at all, but even its flaws are interesting to me. In terms of doing it today, I think LOTR is a great example of hewing close to the mythology and embracing the archetypes, rather than trying to reinvent or complicate them. The ending is very strong yeah. If only the entire thing had been like that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 On 5/11/2017 at 2:54 PM, The Futurist said: Those 150m+ Warner giant bombs are something else. And this looks like the second time that King Arthur has proved a box office fiasco for Warners. Back in 1967,the expensive film version of the Musical "Camelot" was a very costly bomb for Warners....and was a major factor in Jack Warner being forced out as head of the studio, since this was a personal project of his. Warners did have a Arthurain hit in 1981 with "Excalibur" but one of out of three is not good odds, and maybe they should think twice before spending a lot of money on an Arthurian epic. That the fantasy element seems forced was one of the things I was afraid of when I heard that Ritchie was directing this film.I thought he was simply the wrong director for a project like this,,and looks as though I was right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hegemony Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 People want a serious Game of Thrones-ish take on King Arthur, not some campy superhero movie. If I was Robin Hood Origins I'd be very worried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 34 minutes ago, Mulder said: The battle of Camlann in Excalibur is pure movie gold. The cinematography there is fantastic. Excalibur has flaws, but overall it is the film that is most faithful to Thomas Malory's "Le Morte D Arthur", pretty much the prime source for the Arthurian legends. Ritchie's Arthur seems to be a fiasco, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Guy Ritchie needs to make a crime thriller...that is what he is good at. Historical epics, not so much. I know the Ritchie cheerleaders here will protest, but 15 Million on a 150 Million budget is NOT a good opening. Warners mght, if overseas is decent, break even on this,but I think a franchise is DOA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Tele Came Back said: I had heard of this process going on (it sounds like this is not the only project or the only studio which has tried this), but didn't realize it was this specific project. Studios commission a series of scripts from writers whose pitches they like. Instead of picking one script that they like and going with that, they pick a writer and assemble all their favorite parts from all the scripts. This was very common in the "Golden Age" of the film studio. Difference is in those days the Studio heads knew how to put elements from different script together to get a decent final script,, but that seems to be a lost art nowdays. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mulder Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 20 minutes ago, dudalb said: Excalibur has flaws, but overall it is the film that is most faithful to Thomas Malory's "Le Morte D Arthur", pretty much the prime source for the Arthurian legends. Ritchie's Arthur seems to be a fiasco, though. It is. It's why it works so well. Hell it went on to inspire my other favorite version of the Arthurian myths. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, dudalb said: Guy Ritchie needs to make a crime thriller...that is what he is good at. Historical epics, not so much. I know the Ritchie cheerleaders here will protest, but 15 Million on a 150 Million budget is NOT a good opening. Warners mght, if overseas is decent, break even on this,but I think a franchise is DOA. It's flopping overseas too, might not even make $100M worldwide. This is a deeply abject failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 As far as Box Office results go, this version of King Arthur is going to look like the Black Knight In "Money Python and The Holy Grail" by next weekend.... I can see Warners, trying to put a good spin on this, saying :'Tis But A Scratch". One of the great things about Python's "Holy Grail" is that it full of jokes that only those really familiar with the Arthurian Cycle will get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Macleod said: Warner Bros. is definitely doing this a lot lately. Some you hear about, some you don't. It's been officially documented with Aquaman (and perhaps Wonder Woman), and various other franchise-y things. Only Marvel seems to trust wirters, visionaries and auteurs these days in giant corporate filmmaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, The Futurist said: Only Marvel seems to trust wirters, visionaries and auteurs these days in giant corporate filmmaking. But then Marvel tries to select directors and writers who they think "Get" the material, and will respect what made the material so popular in the first place. And Marvel did remove one writer/director from a film..."Ant Man"...when they felt what he was doing would not fit into the Marvel Universe. Warners also trusted an "auteur" ( at least in his own mind) with the DC Universe, and it has not turned out all the well for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGlass2 Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 Weekend report: King Arthur Crowned #1 in Russia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 2 hours ago, The Futurist said: Only Marvel seems to trust wirters, visionaries and auteurs these days in giant corporate filmmaking. Are you trolling or serious ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 They reshot the movie almost entirely, and still ended up with a $14M OW disaster, how can this be possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 3 hours ago, dudalb said: And this looks like the second time that King Arthur has proved a box office fiasco for Warners. Back in 1967,the expensive film version of the Musical "Camelot" was a very costly bomb for Warners....and was a major factor in Jack Warner being forced out as head of the studio, since this was a personal project of his. Warners did have a Arthurain hit in 1981 with "Excalibur" but one of out of three is not good odds, and maybe they should think twice before spending a lot of money on an Arthurian epic. That the fantasy element seems forced was one of the things I was afraid of when I heard that Ritchie was directing this film.I thought he was simply the wrong director for a project like this,,and looks as though I was right. Don't forget Quest for Camelot which is a major bomb for Warner Bros Family Entertainment 3 hours ago, dudalb said: Guy Ritchie needs to make a crime thriller...that is what he is good at. Historical epics, not so much. I know the Ritchie cheerleaders here will protest, but 15 Million on a 150 Million budget is NOT a good opening. Warners mght, if overseas is decent, break even on this,but I think a franchise is DOA. I think a low to mid budget crime thriller would be best, looked at M.Night's resurgence with The Visit and Split. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...