But this doesn't look like high fantasy, it looks like watered down, Hollywood, "mature and gritty" schlock garbage. If someone made a high fantasy movie with classic ass normcore knights and kings and wizards and dragons, in the style of Jeff Easley or Larry Elmore, I'd be all over that shit!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hollywood Reporter: King Arthur could lose $150M for WB and Village Roadshow
- Thread starter kswiston
- Start date
But this doesn't look like high fantasy, it looks like watered down, Hollywood, "mature and gritty" schlock garbage. If someone made a high fantasy movie with classic ass normcore knights and kings and wizards and dragons, in the style of Jeff Easley or Larry Elmore, I'd be all over that shit!
Yeah. Their takeaway being "we didn't have a big enough name" ignores that it looked pretty terrible, and trying to set up a massive cinematic universe before you've got a successful film is the definition of putting cart before horse, but every studio is tripping over themselves trying it.
I enjoyed Sky Captain, but it probably relies on how much you appreciate the style and its homage to classic serials and the like. It's very much an interesting tech demo that presaged a lot of modern filmmaking, but never transcends its goofy pulp origins and doesn't quite pay off.
Especially without a more recognizable lead playing Arthur. Charlie Hunnam ain't gonna put asses in the seats. Of course it didn't help that the trailers didn't make the movie actually look good either.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Of course it bombed. The trailer was the most generic action scenes imaginable and ended with the ludicrous reveal that it was a King Arthur movie of all things. It was also failure #583 of studios trying to chase the Game of Thrones/LOTR phenomenon without actually understanding why it's popular.
Messofanego
Banned
lol no one bothers to remember Sky Captain on the level of Speed Racer, it's got cult nothing. It would need to be memorable first.
Reptars Revenge
Member
How's the box office for that movie though.
KarneeKarnay
Member
Peter Jackson had a lot more going for him than just Dead Alive. It was as much about getting a good director, as someone who knew enough about the setting to bring it to life. He'd proved himself with previous directing, writing and special effects.
Sam Raimi has decades in the industry. He's near enough been making movies one way or another for 30 years before Spider Man.
That's not to say that Guy Ritichi doesn't. The man has mad talent. But if I were a studio exec my first though would be to keep a tight leash on the production. Which is a pretty awful idea with a director like Guy. The man functions best when he is allowed to make the movie he wants to make. With a budget like this, I would really not be surprised to hear about studio interference.
I would have given him a smaller budget, about 100 million. Left him to play with it, give him a producer that can play well with him like Stephen Marks and keep tabs.
WaterAstro
Member
Well, when I saw the trailer, it just looked like someone thought it was a good idea to put King Arthur into Game of Thrones and call it a day.
Yea, Hunnam is a fine actor, even is he can come across as milquetoast. Kinda like Channing Tatum a couple of years ago.
I'll give this a watch on the small screen, seems like the kinda movie that just happens to you. Some people are gonna dig the assault on the senses (Lets say 1 in 4, for no particular reason) while the rest are gonna be 'Huh' and/or 'meh'.
I'll give this a watch on the small screen, seems like the kinda movie that just happens to you. Some people are gonna dig the assault on the senses (Lets say 1 in 4, for no particular reason) while the rest are gonna be 'Huh' and/or 'meh'.
Samuraicop
Member
Did Jude Law ever climb that high to begin with? I mean, he's obviously a very famous actor...but he's been in a lot of dud films.
Anyone remember this film? Angelina Jolie was in it, I think. She had an eyepatch?
Fuxkkkk this film was wiped from my brain until now. Wew this was a fever dream more than a movie
Man Called Aerodynamics
Member
I don't get the appeal of Charlie Hunnam at all. Like, I can see why a studio might have thought that Sam Worthington or Taylor Kitsch was worth taking a bet on. Charlie Hunnam was off-putting even in Pacific Rim.
It could be a surprise hit, but it is widely pegged to bomb. The budget is potentially over $200M. I think we had a quote of $180M at one point, but I have seen articles suggesting it went higher than that.
With that budget, even Lucy money would probably mean mild losses to breaking even at best.
andythinkpad
Member
I agree with this. Nobody wants to watch Robin Hood movie either. I don't know why it is since Game of Thrones is super popular.
I saw this in theatre and liked it... I don't remember anything about it now.Did Jude Law ever climb that high to begin with? I mean, he's obviously a very famous actor...but he's been in a lot of dud films.
Anyone remember this film? Angelina Jolie was in it, I think. She had an eyepatch?
Fancyarcher
Member
Gee I'm not surprised. I wish studios would stop trying to "hip / modern" these classics legends up just so they could get teenagers into the theaters. At least Ritchie has Aladdin to fall back on.
It wasn't originally greenlit at 175m. There were massive reshoots that bloated the budget actually.
It wasn't originally greenlit at 175m. There were massive reshoots that bloated the budget actually.
andythinkpad
Member
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
I am always in for historical epics with a gripping story (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven). Completely over the top action scenes that are obviously CGI are a major turn off.
ClivePwned
Member
Problems that have nothing to do with this movie (It looks terrible BTW),
King Arthur was done more or less perfectly in the eyes of anyone who likes films by Excalibur. You then have to do a 'new, modern' take on the story. Which then defeats the purpose of telling this story.
The last big (well medium) budget King Arthur movie from 2004 was another failed attempt but even that didn't bomb as hard as this. That had Clive Owen, Keira Knieghtly, Ray Winstone, Mads Mikkelson, Ray Stevenson, Hugh Dancy, Ioan Grufford, Joel Edgerton, Peter Skarsgard and was directed by the oscar-winning director Anton Fuqua. And was a pile of shit.
Funny thing about chasing that GoT audience, maybe make something closer to GoT. Or if you're Warner, you already own GoT through HBO.
fun fact: my Gaf handle comes from that movie
The more you know.
King Arthur was done more or less perfectly in the eyes of anyone who likes films by Excalibur. You then have to do a 'new, modern' take on the story. Which then defeats the purpose of telling this story.
The last big (well medium) budget King Arthur movie from 2004 was another failed attempt but even that didn't bomb as hard as this. That had Clive Owen, Keira Knieghtly, Ray Winstone, Mads Mikkelson, Ray Stevenson, Hugh Dancy, Ioan Grufford, Joel Edgerton, Peter Skarsgard and was directed by the oscar-winning director Anton Fuqua. And was a pile of shit.
Funny thing about chasing that GoT audience, maybe make something closer to GoT. Or if you're Warner, you already own GoT through HBO.
fun fact: my Gaf handle comes from that movie
more accurately, the Konami-published game tie-in which I worked on. Clive Owen's agent was being a dick about the soundalike used for Owen and made us get another actor at the very last minute.
So I changed by handle to Clivepwned for a game of Rainbow 6 3 or CoD or whatever I was playing at the time and it kinda stuck
So I changed by handle to Clivepwned for a game of Rainbow 6 3 or CoD or whatever I was playing at the time and it kinda stuck
TheJollyCorner
Member
Doesn't surprise me at all. Guy Ritchie + King Arthur sounded about as appetizing as onion-flavored ice cream with mayonnaise topping.
But will it take the KING BOMB title of 2017?
I'm looking forward to Valerian and I hope it's great, but I won't be surprised if it does worse.
-crazy, colorful sci-fi films in the recent years either work (Guardians of the Galaxy) or not (Jupiter Ascending). I really don't recall one that found a comfortable middle ground. One of these was part of an ever-growing comic cinematic universe that is on fire; the other starred two charismatic vacuums and was directed by filmmakers that hadn't had an honest critical and commercial hit since 1999. In the end, one turned out great and one turned out dull at best. Their box office results mirrored this.
-Besson's last two successful directed films were carried by legitimate stars (The 5th Element with Bruce Willis in '97, LUCY with Scarjo in 2014). Although he's produced about 754 films since the early 2000s, I think many would agree that his overall film quality has plummeted since the days of LEON and The 5th Element. After watching La Femme Nikita, The Big Blue, LEON, and The 5th Element through the early-mid 90s, I honestly thought Besson would have a beast of a career as a director. I honestly haven't loved one of his films in two decades. I keep a small sliver of hope, though.
-Valerian has 0 star power... unless I've missed something big in the last year of marketing/promotion. I know some (like BobbyRoberts maybe?) claim that stars don't carry films these days like they used to, but I think they're still pretty damn important for your average moviegoer - especially for a film that costs $200 million to make.
This movie stars.... The Green Goblin from a Spidey movie that I've yet to see anyone admit they liked and a model/actress that last tore up the screen (over-dubbed 90% of the time) in Suicide Squad. I'm honestly trying to remember either of their names. Besson's name alone also isn't the draw it might have been twenty years ago, despite LUCY's success.
We'll see, but yeah... Arthur still has some potential competition in the way of the BOMB.
But will it take the KING BOMB title of 2017?
I'm looking forward to Valerian and I hope it's great, but I won't be surprised if it does worse.
-crazy, colorful sci-fi films in the recent years either work (Guardians of the Galaxy) or not (Jupiter Ascending). I really don't recall one that found a comfortable middle ground. One of these was part of an ever-growing comic cinematic universe that is on fire; the other starred two charismatic vacuums and was directed by filmmakers that hadn't had an honest critical and commercial hit since 1999. In the end, one turned out great and one turned out dull at best. Their box office results mirrored this.
-Besson's last two successful directed films were carried by legitimate stars (The 5th Element with Bruce Willis in '97, LUCY with Scarjo in 2014). Although he's produced about 754 films since the early 2000s, I think many would agree that his overall film quality has plummeted since the days of LEON and The 5th Element. After watching La Femme Nikita, The Big Blue, LEON, and The 5th Element through the early-mid 90s, I honestly thought Besson would have a beast of a career as a director. I honestly haven't loved one of his films in two decades. I keep a small sliver of hope, though.
-Valerian has 0 star power... unless I've missed something big in the last year of marketing/promotion. I know some (like BobbyRoberts maybe?) claim that stars don't carry films these days like they used to, but I think they're still pretty damn important for your average moviegoer - especially for a film that costs $200 million to make.
This movie stars.... The Green Goblin from a Spidey movie that I've yet to see anyone admit they liked and a model/actress that last tore up the screen (over-dubbed 90% of the time) in Suicide Squad. I'm honestly trying to remember either of their names. Besson's name alone also isn't the draw it might have been twenty years ago, despite LUCY's success.
We'll see, but yeah... Arthur still has some potential competition in the way of the BOMB.
SomedayTheFire
Member
huh? didn't you know all films based around historical events are oscar bait?
I think it looks pretty good, but yeah, I seriously doubt it can make that sort of money. So many of these budgets are crazy big for what they're selling.
So I had no idea Monster Trucks was so expensive. How the hell do you greenlight that much money for this concept that it is even possible to lose over $100 million on the project?
At least Guy Ritchie King Arthur movie sounds like it could be something really cool on paper that makes bank.
At least Guy Ritchie King Arthur movie sounds like it could be something really cool on paper that makes bank.
I know right?
The last trailer for Valerian looked fantastic imo.
If they didn't dumb down the script for the movie, they could really have something special there.
My only reservation so far is the actors, but hard to tell in a quickly edited trailer.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Poor decision making by the suits at WB?
I am shocked!
I am shocked!
He had plenty of experience, but Spider-Man was his first movie with a budget higher than $20m and they gave him $140m.
Valerian will be a huge bomb.
The point stands that he was an established director with sensibilities in horror and stuff like Quick and The Dead AND even a Kevin Costner rom-com. Plus he created his own superhero with Darkman. Dude was as sure a bet as you'd get without going the Cameron route.
Vyse The Legend
Member
Based on the ads on the subway, I thought this was a made-for-TV movie or a new FX series. I had zero clue this was Guy Richie!
Quick and the Dead was his biggest, which bombed.
Raimi never really had any major success prior to Spiderman. I'd argue most of his work was alright to dud.
18mil is what Jupiter Ascending did.
bonesmccoy
Banned
Yea, this is what I don't really get. There have been hugely successful 'normcore' European-medieval fantasy films over the past 16 years. Even the divisive Hobbit trilogy pulled in an average of over $900m per film.
What audiences don't seem to like are these awful revisionist takes on classical stories.
Strangelove77
Member
A $175m King Arthur movie in 2017.
Come the fuck on.
Come the fuck on.
nailbombxx
Member
More fantasy films need to hire really good illustrators to inform their aesthetics, as did Peter Jackson hiring Alan Lee and John Howe when he made the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Alan Lee illustrated the Lord of the Rings extensively, and he was hired to do concept art for the films in order to get the right tone - that's why the films are relatively true to the style of the source material I think.
Alan Lee really knows how to illustrate medieval fantasy with realism but with the mythic and romantic tone that would translate well to film in the right hands:
Instead we get shit like King Arthur with an undercut and ye olde bomber jacket
cartographer
Member
2004 King Arthur wasn't that bad.
I didn't know the dude before this, still don't
Similar threads
- Locked