Legend of the Sword
That's what I'm trying to say -- whenever an IP goes the public route, there's ALWAYS a huge risk of... waste.Wizard of Oz is public domain, too. Doesn't mean The Great and Powerful Oz movie wasn't all kinds of fecal waste.
I mean...good things come out of public domain. Count Dracula is a character that belongs to public domain, and due to that, excellent characterizations and well-made imaginings of both Dracula and the Stoker novel have come from it.That's what I'm trying to say -- whenever an IP goes the public route, there's ALWAYS a huge risk of... waste.
It's like fanfiction... with funding.
In regards to “stealing better material” and “most of the good stuff already being done”, I can say as an Arthurian enthusiast that adaptations add original elements of their own all the time. My favorite, the aforementioned Excalibur from 1981, is arguably the darkest version of the story in film, with things like deception, rape, black arts, and even incest that really make it a more sinister take on the legend (little bit of trivia, it was actually one of the fantasy films to inspire Berserk). Here’s the thing, though: the role of each character, the flow of the story, the eventual formation and dissolution of the Round Table and the betrayal that destroys all the characters….all of those elements stay intact, even when more fantasy elements or sexual plot points were added, because they’re vital to the Arthurian story.There's more of a risk with Arthurian Legend however, due to the fact that most of the good stuff has already been done, so it's hard to make another good movie without looking like it was "stealing" from better material.
Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. I have no idea what it takes to make a good Arthur movie.
When the biggest fantasy blockbuster movies are putrid wastes like John Carter, Snow White & The Huntsman, and Warcraft, you know we truly live in a dark age.All I know is that it's not just making a good fantasy film (which is rare enough these days imo), but one that treats Arthur with the right amount of... gravitas, I guess.
Some Arthurian depictions have played with the idea of Excalibur and the Sword in the Stone being the same, most notably the 1981 adaptation Excalibur. In that movie, Uther Pendragon, Arthur's father, greedily thrusts Excalibur into the stone precisely so no one else can wield it after he dies.Also this might sound petty but the fact that they refer to Excalibur as "The Sword in the Stone" bugs me.
If they're going to dig up obscure concepts like Vortigern to make for a cheap and fast villain for "brand recognition", they could easily just have called it the "Sword in the Stone." That's already the name of a famous Disney film, so it's not like the phrase is uncommon or unheard of in pop culture already.I'm aware, hence why I called it "petty". I guess they just really wanted it to be "Excalibur" for brand recognition.
Playing fast and loose with the intricacies of a mythos is one thing...changing the role, attitudes, and narrative impact of each character to make them fantasy gimmicks instead of fulfilling the roles they play in every interpretation of the Arthurian story is literal heresy.This film really does seem to be playing fast and loose with the accuracy of the mythos. IIRC, Vortigern was long dead by the time Arthur attempts to become King.
In fairness, calling anything related to King Arthur a "period piece" is a bit hard, considering how it doesn't have any historical basis.As for the pompadour, that's something I always ignore when watching period pieces, for example Arthur shouldn't be talking in English and Bedivere would have been unlikely to have been a dark skinned man.
The Guy Ritchie Sherlock movies? Well, let's see:So, I take it you didn't like Sherlock?
I can understand your other complaints, but here's where I have to point out that other franchises have more or less done the same thing.-Sherlock has this ridiculously implemented ability that can only be psychic superpowers that grant him the kind of plot-bending perception that's the direct antithesis of everything Sir Arthur Conan Doyle established