King Arthur

I think it would have been best if they'd kept the "Richard Gere" angle out of it.

Click to expand...

Not a fan of Richard Gere then.

What I'd like to know is how a King Arthur movie (that's already been approached some 30+ times before) got greenlighted in the first place, yet dozens of classic sci-fi and fantasy novels continue to languish in production hell.

I'll have to go back and check with boxofficemojo, but I don't think a King Arthur movie has ever come close to breaking $100 million (unless you adjust for inflation, I suppose). So while another $40-60 million is poured into another attempt to address the King Arthur legend, something like Ender's Game or [name your favorite genre book here] languishes in limbo.

Well, reading this whole thread my first comment is ..

... I actually liked and enjoyed First Knight (Arthurian saga) , Armageddon (B&B-film), Pearl Harbour (another B&B-film) and also Star Wars ep 2 for that matter (another film often trashed in this forum) .. guess that makes me a freak huh ..

As to this new Arthurian film, sounds interesting to me and whether the story and the way it is portrayed here is "true" or not matters little as long as it is entertaining ..

Name recognition and easier acceptance by a wider audience. An Arthur movie will probably turn a profit. You didn't think it was about telling an interesting story or taking an artistic risk did you?

First Knight wouldn't have been so bad if they had kept the Arthur angle out of it.

Click to expand...

I think what you actually mean here is that First Knight wouldn't have been so bad if it had actually been good.

The best bit about first knight is how awful Shir Shean is. there's this big build up about arthuer, then you see him, the long walk with the torches and everything, then his first line is full of so many "sh" sounds, it's like he's his own caricature or something.

VB

First Knight wouldn't have been so bad if they had kept the Arthur angle out of it.

Click to expand...

I think what you actually mean here is that First Knight wouldn't have been so bad if it had actually been good.

Click to expand...

I like good old Medievil swordfighting films. It's just that when I saw this, I thought that they had a story that would have worked fine on it's own, but stuck the 'Arthur' label on to get it a higher profile.

I am an Arthur and Merlin fan, so the film doing that really ruined it for me as it went to far from the legend. If it had just been any old king, his bride, and a young(ish) knight, I think the film would have fared better (IMO).

My guess is that the new Arthur flick got greenlighted because of the success of Lord of the Rings and, to a smaller degree, Harry Potter. Fantasy used to be cinematic poison because of the production value and the cultural stigma. LOTR busted that wide open. And, fantasy aside, the Big Hollywood Epic is back in fashion: Troy, Alamo, Braveheard, Master & Commander, Gladiator, Last Samurai, etc and so on. I'm guessing this will last a couple more years until a the inevitable backlash comes out around a couple of crappy ones.