Guy Ritchie's King Arthur
- Thread starter Demi-fiend
- Start date
Well that one has me kinda hyped, been ages since I've seen a good fantasy popcorn movie so here's hoping!
you know, after GoT, i think it's kinda risky to make a movie with this kind of setting.. but it does looks good, and with ritchie i expect it'll be 'different'
Jesus, I just saw the trailer for this, and I'm already throwing up in my own mouth. They got absolutely EVERYTHING WRONG. And before some squeals about Arthurian myth having no singular definitive version--even with the vast differences in adaptations, there's still some consistent elements that tie them together....elements that THIS movie is ignoring completely.
Arthur being some cocky kid engaging in low-brow comedic moments? Britain engaging with some far Eastern Army equipped with giant, roving Elephants? Some random cookie-cuter villain as the king of the whole country, when the whole point of the sword in the stone was to unite a country being torn apart by squabbling warlords? Having Merlin played by some pretty boy like Kamil Lemieszewski, who looks barely older than Arthur is? Guinevere being some "girl-power" fighter in an anti-Monarchy Resistance?
This isn't straying from the source material. This is systematically defecating on EVERY SINGLE FAMOUS adaptation of the Arthurian myth. T.H. White, Lord Tennyson, Howard Pyle....they're all spinning in their graves right now. And what's worse is that according to Wikipedia, this is part one of SIX MORE MOVIES.
Screw this. I'm entertaining a second of this try-hard fantasy tripe. I'm staying home and watching Excalibur.
Arthur being some cocky kid engaging in low-brow comedic moments? Britain engaging with some far Eastern Army equipped with giant, roving Elephants? Some random cookie-cuter villain as the king of the whole country, when the whole point of the sword in the stone was to unite a country being torn apart by squabbling warlords? Having Merlin played by some pretty boy like Kamil Lemieszewski, who looks barely older than Arthur is? Guinevere being some "girl-power" fighter in an anti-Monarchy Resistance?
This isn't straying from the source material. This is systematically defecating on EVERY SINGLE FAMOUS adaptation of the Arthurian myth. T.H. White, Lord Tennyson, Howard Pyle....they're all spinning in their graves right now. And what's worse is that according to Wikipedia, this is part one of SIX MORE MOVIES.
Screw this. I'm entertaining a second of this try-hard fantasy tripe. I'm staying home and watching Excalibur.
Wizard of Oz is public domain, too. Doesn't mean The Great and Powerful Oz movie wasn't all kinds of fecal waste.
That's what I'm trying to say -- whenever an IP goes the public route, there's ALWAYS a huge risk of... waste.
http://www.cracked.com/article_24341_7-ridiculously-specific-movies-hollywood-wont-stop-making.html
It's like fanfiction... with funding.
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.
Plus, Dracula movies are made with startling frequency, and often, at least one of them is decent or watchable.
Fantasy films, much less King Arthur movies, are in far less quantity these days, which is why this new movie comes as a slap in the face to a sword-and-sorcerer enthusiast like me.
@WolfOD64
Of course. I agree.
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.
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.
Of course. I agree.
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.
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.
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.
Imagine someone rebooting Dracula, but changing the aesthetics, incorporating more sexual depravity, introducing plot elements that didn’t previously exist….but the role of say, Van Helsing was recast as some hot-blooded, unintelligent jock douche (which, coincidentally, is exactly what this movie’s Arthur is shaping up to be) instead of a learned and determined professional like Peter Cushing or Anthony Hopkins.
Making drastic alterations to the characters or world of a source material is fine as long you adhere to at least the intention or spirit of its source material, which this movie isn’t.
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.
Quite a fall from the period of sword-and-sorcery epics in the 1980's.
So...there's another trailer that came out.
Honestly, I struggled to even tell what was going on. That trailer was poorly put together. If I didn't see the title, I wouldn't have even known that it was supposed to be about King Arthur. I'll probably give this movie a pass.
Also this might sound petty but the fact that they refer to Excalibur as "The Sword in the Stone" bugs me. :facepalm:
Honestly, I struggled to even tell what was going on. That trailer was poorly put together. If I didn't see the title, I wouldn't have even known that it was supposed to be about King Arthur. I'll probably give this movie a pass.
Also this might sound petty but the fact that they refer to Excalibur as "The Sword in the Stone" bugs me. :facepalm:
Last edited:
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.
I have severe doubts that this trainwreck of a movie has an explanation as remotely interesting as that one, though. And even if it does, it also has to explain other moronic sways from the source material, like Arthur being some streetsmart punk instead of an endearing underdog squire, and Guinevere being the leader of some "Resistance", or how Arthur's trying to overthrow a king, even though the whole point of the Sword in the Stone was to choose the proper king out of a mess of squabbling noblemen.
Also, can anyone explain why Arthur has a 21st century hipster pompadour haircut in what's supposed to be Medieval Britain?
I'm aware, hence why I called it "petty". I guess they just really wanted it to be "Excalibur" for brand recognition.
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. 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.
Heh, not that I can talk now that I look at my sig. :tongue:
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. 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.
Heh, not that I can talk now that I look at my sig. :tongue:
Last edited:
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.
One could argue that they want to save time explaining the difference between the Sword in the Stone and Excalibur...but the problem with that argument is that this movie is going to be part one of six films.
They have the time, budget, runtime, and resources to establish these things. But they won't...because why make your film intricate with lore and story elements when you can make it a brain-dead, aggressively unfunny action film for the lowest-common-denominator audience, like the rest of Guy Ritchie's films are?
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.
It's just vomit-inducing.
In fairness, calling anything related to King Arthur a "period piece" is a bit hard, considering how it doesn't have any historical basis.
But there are plenty of fantasy works who preserve the practicality of its aesthetics and historical influences to refrain from shattering immersion....which is precisely what the hyperstylized and anachronistc look of this movie and characters does. Have a good look at how young and fangirl-baiting this movie's Merlin looks, and you'll endure the same fits of nauseous pain that I have.
The Guy Ritchie Sherlock movies? Well, let's see:
-Holmes and Watson are far younger than they're supposed to be
-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
-Holmes' personality is Jack Sparrowfied to the point of nausea, for cheap laughs and nothing else
-Slo-mo action sequences that look like something off of a direct-to-Sci-Fi movie
-Anachronistic weapons and gadgets, which were cranked to absurdity in the second film
-Writing and humor that most fourteen-year-olds would avoid in online attempts at fanfiction
-Riddles, mysteries, and adversaies that function NOTHING like any of Holmes' physical and intellectual obstacles in the books
...so what do YOU think?
I can take cheap popcorn entertainment as long as it isn't attempting to root itself in adapting anything with literary significance. This is why I can forgive something like, say, Pirates of the Caribbean, which at its crappiest is still harmless fantasy that plays fast and loose with nautical and pirate superstitions that are ALREADY far-fetched. It'll always be good for a guilty afternoon, because it doesn't wipe its greasy gnads on something I hold dear.
I like Sherlock Holmes, and I adore Arthurian myth...but only if they're done with class and creativity. Anything Guy Ritchie touches lacks both.
I see.
Ok. I'm not defending Guy Ritchie's SH. Nor am I defending LotS.
I'm just someone who liked his Sherlock movies, nothing more.
-----
For instance: How did Lan Di effortlessly dodge all of Iwao Hazuki's moves?
In my opinion, it's not quite the same as a martial arts exhibit: Even in Keanu Reeves' Man of Tai Chi, you had to be extremely proficient in order to evade every strike.
I'm not saying Sherlock is even comparable to Shenmue (because it's not), I'm just saying, that even some of the better stories out there (which Shenmue is) can fall victim to... overly suspended disbelief.
Ok. I'm not defending Guy Ritchie's SH. Nor am I defending LotS.
I'm just someone who liked his Sherlock movies, nothing more.
-----
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.
I'm not saying Sherlock is even comparable to Shenmue (because it's not), I'm just saying, that even some of the better stories out there (which Shenmue is) can fall victim to... overly suspended disbelief.
Last edited:
I haven't seen the Guy Ritchie Holmes films so I won't comment.
But I will say, I think the problem with this movie is that it's got too high a budget for too narrow an audience. I just can't see this film getting six sequels, even if it has King Arthur as the draw appeal.
But I will say, I think the problem with this movie is that it's got too high a budget for too narrow an audience. I just can't see this film getting six sequels, even if it has King Arthur as the draw appeal.