Before the JP release they actually pulled all the previous marketing material and removed the Seiken Musou branding from it, citing consultation with the US office. It could be that some talks fell through? Idk.
-
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
Before the JP release they actually pulled all the previous marketing material and removed the Seiken Musou branding from it, citing consultation with the US office. It could be that some talks fell through? Idk.
SpartanN92
Banned
Bookmarking this post to mock you later.
Too bad they can't even make a Sherlock cinematic universe with how busy RDJ is. Unless he retires soon after Infinity War
highrider
Banned
I see, so Warner tainted what would have otherwise been I great film by Europeans.
TrueDefault
Member
Well, duh. The trailers and premises sound so boring.
I'd only go see this if I'm paid to do it.
I'd only go see this if I'm paid to do it.
AHA-Lambda
Member
So why the hell did WB invest so much money in it?
They were able to make Sherlock work with Guy Ritchie. Maybe they figured another British focused series for him would hit gold. But, Charlie Hunam is no post-MCU RDJ and the story of King Arthur isn't too interesting to internationals.
Explain how Fate Grand Order is making so much money then. Hah! Checkmate, mate!
SMG
Member
He isn't. He is the British Snyder. The trailer for this movie is one of the most baffling bad ive seen in a long time.
Transformers The Last Knight has all of that in it too and it'll murder this film.
Anime makes everything better.
-MD-
Member
He was up until about 2009.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Saber Waifus.
Messofanego
Banned
Now that you say it, this gave me some slight 'In the name of the King - a dungeon siege tale'-vibes. Obviously massively more competent and better budgeted, but still.
The only "so bad it's good" movie of him is Postal. The rest is just garbage.
shira
Member
Triggerhappytel
Member
I don't think making an Arthurian film is a bad idea, but the budget was about $100 mil too high. Go for a modest success with a lower-budget first film and then increase the scope and budget in the sequel if that's a success.
Yeah, I really don't think Hunnam not having enough 'star power' is the cause of this. For instance, Russell Crowe wasn't very well known before Gladiator but it was a good film so people still flocked to see it.
I agree; I think the story has a lot of mileage. There's plenty of GoT-esque intrigue and scandal as well, with Lancelot, Guinevere, Morgana, Mordred, etc. They could easily make an interesting trilogy of films, with Arthur becoming king in the first, all the shit with Lancelot & Guinevere in the second and then his story ending in the third film with Morgana and finally dying by his son Mordred's hand at the end. But I suppose a trilogy of films isn't enough for a movie company looking enviously at Marvel any more.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
That's why the movie failed. It was about the wrong saber.
This.
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
The appeal of the Arthur legend is the character interactions and the themes of destiny. The action was never the point. Half the time they either talk through shit or it's just a curbstomp battle (Arthur & Co may or may not have superpowers, depending on the tale). Most of the noteworthy takes on the tale do something new and interesting with the characters and their relationships and their outlooks, and not anything particularly interesting with the battles. Some of them just gloss over them and are better for it. Thinking dragons, swordplay, and magic are the foundation or even the structure of a good Arthur tale is a trap. They're window dressing, and they always have been. This trailer makes it seem like it's the bedrock, and it's going to fail accordingly.
I think I was literally the only one that liked that King Arthur TV series with Eva Green a few years back, if purely because of Eva Green.
Google informs me the show was called Camelot.
I loved Camelot. Merlin (Joseph Fiennes) was such a bad ass in those series.
Too bad it was so short.
KonradLaw
Member
Disastrous Arthur's casting killed that show.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Dunkirk? More like Dungoofed, amirite.
So you are saying the movie needed a female King Arthur?
secondspace
Member
Another King Arthur always seemed like a tough sell, and Guy Ritchie looks a bad fit, but I'd have said that about Sherlock Holmes and that obviously made money. This did feel like everyone knew it was going to bomb as soon as that first trailer hit.
As for the Dunkirk negativity, can a Nolan film be a box office disaster if he gets his usual critical love and a strong marketing campaign. His last couple of films would sound like they're going straight to DVD if you don't see the footage and his name attached.
As for the Dunkirk negativity, can a Nolan film be a box office disaster if he gets his usual critical love and a strong marketing campaign. His last couple of films would sound like they're going straight to DVD if you don't see the footage and his name attached.
Hesemonni
Banned
Exactly.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
There's a TON of interesting stories to tell in the King Arthur universe with so many interesting characters. The big problem is that King Arthur would work far better as a long running TV series than a movie. Far too many movies these days are dumbed down, shallow blockbuster entertainment for a lowest common denominator worldwide public.
You are completely out of your mind
Probably more opening weekend.
That movie wasn't too bad IMO, it just wasn't anything special.
It had an awesome cast and was scored by Hans Zimmer and it still bombed.
I was dubious as soon as i heard king arthur and guy ritchie together nevermind charlie hunnam (i've not seen lost city of z to be fair but i have seen some of sons of anarchy, and green street where he somehow managed to sound like an american putting on a cockney accent)
he was on rogan's podcast and came off as sounding very cocksure. according to both that and imdb he's currently in preproduction on an aladdin film. hopefully someone gives that a second thought after this.
he was on rogan's podcast and came off as sounding very cocksure. according to both that and imdb he's currently in preproduction on an aladdin film. hopefully someone gives that a second thought after this.
Warner Bros is run by people very poor at their jobs. Constant flops, a total disaster of a D.C. Movie Universe, failing to create a replacement for Harry Potter (and now trying to just do more movies in the Harry Potter universe), and total misuse of their properties.
Compare it with Disney's work and it seems like WB is completely incompetent.
Compare it with Disney's work and it seems like WB is completely incompetent.
SinCityAssassin
Member
6 of what?
Spuck-uk
Banned
It's a truly, truly terrible film, but you should look up the story of how on earth it got made in the first place, it's fascinating.
Huh, and here I thought people loved Jude Law, Charlie Hunnam (I could have sworn Tom Hardy played the lead here but I guess I never really paid that much attention to the trailers...) and Guy Ritchie.
I will probably give this a watch when it's available to rent from Apple TV. I'm a big Jude Law fan and I loved him in The Young Pope so I will probably watch this movie just to see him perform.
Green Screen: The Movie.
Similar threads
- Locked