General Movie Discussion

Troyal1 wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I could never get into the 2004 movie since it was 'too real'. Yes, I know that a Roman general has been the source of King Arthur, or at least has a majority part of all the sources, but seeing the trailers for that as a 16 year old who grew up on the old medieval legends...It just left a big sour taste in my mouth.

Too real?



Historically it's just as made-up nonsense as films like Robin Hood 2010 or Troy 2004 or Gladiator 2000, almost completely fabricated with just the thinnest pretense of 'real' time scale that the masses could buy into. And even legends wise it wasn't that accurate. Not that there is really such thing as 'accurate with Arthur when it got modified thousand times over the centuries...

What film is that gif from?

Heathers! It's so amazing I could cry. 10/10 for sure, in terms of 80's movies only Aliens goes above for me. Really started my Winona fandom back in the day.

The comedy in it is so weird and black hearted

Spoiler:

finally decided to watch Sausage Party on Netflix earlier

yyyeah, it wasn't very good. i don't plan on watching it again. not godawfully terrible, though.

Oshronosaurus wrote:

finally decided to watch Sausage Party on Netflix earlier

yyyeah, it wasn't very good. i don't plan on watching it again. not godawfully terrible, though.

I'm not going to get into the commentary on religion because I have my own beliefs and while I'm more open than to let a movie offend me, overall I thought it looked pretty bland. Heard about a few certain scenes which really did nothing to boost my enthusiasm.

Oshronosaurus wrote:

finally decided to watch Sausage Party on Netflix earlier

yyyeah, it wasn't very good. i don't plan on watching it again. not godawfully terrible, though.

I saw that in the theater. It was a mostly boring experience, but a few scenes got me to chuckle at the very least.

pretty much my complaints against it, too, along with the excessive cursing (and this is coming from a guy who curses casually) and the fact that almost every single character is a racist stereotype. one thing they've got going for them, at least as far as the studio itself is concerned, is that the animation is quite good--they've definitely got a future in that part of cinema

This Vanity Fair piece say that the biggest problem that the 5th Pirates of the Caribbean movie faces is Jack Sparrow himself, via his money problems.

Here's a related article from The Hollywood Reporter.

I always thought that this would be final movie of the franchise, but I never thought that it would be like this.

Just watched "Tale of Tales", Euro fantasy film released few years back. When it comes to plain bizarreness, I didn't think anything could match "Being John Malkovich" for quite some time, but this came somewhat close to it, although not quite. It was just so very weird, the structure and little details, despite the obvious intentions and fairy tale connections. There were many shortcomings too... but overall it was pretty alright. The music was probably the best aspect, and the creature design (for the few that there were).

Rhedosaurus wrote:

This Vanity Fair piece say that the biggest problem that the 5th Pirates of the Caribbean movie faces is Jack Sparrow himself, via his money problems.

Here's a related article from The Hollywood Reporter.

I always thought that this would be final movie of the franchise, but I never thought that it would be like this.

Very sobering stuff... I think the next Pirates movie will make money, but only on the level of the first movie which may not be all that satisfactory to Disney, since this is their only billion dollar franchise that isn't Marvel, Lucasfilm or Animation. But yeah, compiled onto Depp's severe lifestyle problems and the possibility of this losing money, this really be it Jack Sparrow even if the film does break even or make a decent profit.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

This Vanity Fair piece say that the biggest problem that the 5th Pirates of the Caribbean movie faces is Jack Sparrow himself, via his money problems.

Here's a related article from The Hollywood Reporter.

I always thought that this would be final movie of the franchise, but I never thought that it would be like this.

2 million a month life style... wow

Anyway, Depp's name used to be a cash magnet... Now I think only these PotC films are sure bet for the studios, everything else might burn

The only movies of his I like are Ed Wood and Edwards Scissorhands, both ions ago

If they do make a 6th movie, then I'd like to see them move on without Depp and have it take place 20-30 years after this one, with Gary Oldman as a much older Sparrow. Oldman is more then good enough to make it work.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

If they do make a 6th movie, then I'd like to see them move on without Depp and have it take place 20-30 years after this one, with Gary Oldman as a much older Sparrow. Oldman is more then good enough to make it work.

Gary Oldman is five years older than Johnny Depp

Not that Connery was much older than Ford in Crusade either, mere 12 years, but still, that was actually believable

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

If they do make a 6th movie, then I'd like to see them move on without Depp and have it take place 20-30 years after this one, with Gary Oldman as a much older Sparrow. Oldman is more then good enough to make it work.

Gary Oldman is five years older than Johnny Depp

Not that Connery was much older than Ford in Crusade either, mere 12 years, but still... that was believable

I didn't know Depp was that old...In any case, I still think it can work. Depp has aged better then Oldman and he can get away with playing a much younger pirate. Oldman has played older characters before. (Dracula 1992). So he can play an older Sparrow better then Depp could. And he doesn't have the money problems, either.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

If they do make a 6th movie, then I'd like to see them move on without Depp and have it take place 20-30 years after this one, with Gary Oldman as a much older Sparrow. Oldman is more then good enough to make it work.

Gary Oldman is five years older than Johnny Depp

Not that Connery was much older than Ford in Crusade either, mere 12 years, but still... that was believable

I didn't know Depp was that old...In any case, I still think it can work. Depp has aged better then Oldman and he can get away with playing a much younger pirate. Oldman has played older characters before. (Dracula 1992). So he can play an older Sparrow better then Depp could. And he doesn't have the money problems, either.

Guess they could throw in prosthetic makeup too, but in any case he's not someone people hire in leads in blockbusters anymore, only in supporting roles

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Critics are destroying Guy Ritchie's King Arthur movie.

How hard can it be to make a King Arthur movie?!

It's what happens when you make a King Arthur movie with none of the original King Arthur mythos. I was actually looking forward to it until I started seeing the previews.

Oshronosaurus wrote:

finally decided to watch Sausage Party on Netflix earlier

yyyeah, it wasn't very good. i don't plan on watching it again. not godawfully terrible, though.

I liked it, but then again I like Seth Rogan stoner comedies, which was what Sausage Fest was.

This is an interesting article about how movie studios are to blame for the decrease in movies.

These parts sums it up nicely.

Quote wrote:

UNIVERSAL? I know more about their theme park than what a “Universal movie” is.
   
WARNER BROTHERS? Um… Batman, kinda?
   
FOX? I bet they’d fire everyone tomorrow if they could have one-tenth of the brand identity their news division has.
 
SONY? Lololol.

Quote wrote:

-1) It’s become clear that studios have virtually zero ability to shepherd and facilitate an artist’s vision for a unique project. Certainly, no better than an experienced producer can while working through the channels of independent financing.

-2) It’s become clear that the studios are unimaginative and uninformed about the very “product” they are making. The industry’s obsession with how they market films (instead of the making of good ones) means more influence from the marketing industry – guys and gals who have never written script, or made a film, and thus lack a fundamental understanding of what it is they’re even doing.

-3) It’s become clear that the one thing they should be good at – selling movies – they can’t do either. By consistently opting to rehash old (and already proven) ideas, or continuing to make an endless number of sequels – the studios have essentially admitted that they have no clue how to promote anything unless the bulk of the work has already been done for them. “You had one job to do!”

And people wonder why I want Disney to get the JP rights after the Crichton estate gets them back after JW3/JP6.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

This is an interesting article about how movie studios are to blame for the decrease in movies.

These parts sums it up nicely.

Quote wrote:

UNIVERSAL? I know more about their theme park than what a “Universal movie” is.
   
WARNER BROTHERS? Um… Batman, kinda?
   
FOX? I bet they’d fire everyone tomorrow if they could have one-tenth of the brand identity their     news division has.
 
SONY? Lololol.

Quote wrote:

-1) It’s become clear that studios have virtually zero ability to shepherd and facilitate an artist’s vision for a unique project. Certainly, no better than an experienced producer can while working through the channels of independent financing.

-2) It’s become clear that the studios are unimaginative and uninformed about the very “product” they are making. The industry’s obsession with how they market films (instead of the making of good ones) means more influence from the marketing industry – guys and gals who have never written script, or made a film, and thus lack a fundamental understanding of what it is they’re even doing.

-3) It’s become clear that the one thing they should be good at – selling movies – they can’t do either. By consistently opting to rehash old (and already proven) ideas, or continuing to make an endless number of sequels – the studios have essentially admitted that they have no clue how to promote anything unless the bulk of the work has already been done for them. “You had one job to do!”

And people wonder why want Disney to get the JP rights after the Crichton estate gets them back after JW3/JP6.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine. The other studios seem to be bound to the prow of a wrecked ship careening into a reef. Unlike Disney, and especially like DreamWorks Animation today, they have little to no brand identity, and almost no reason why audiences would care about them or their success the way many feel about Disney, even Netflix has it's own identity that audiences are not only aware of but actively seeking.

Back when the major studios (MGM, RKO, Warner Bros, Paramount, Columbia Pictures, Fox, Universal) were first starting to get a footing, they all had a semblance of identity. Universal had their supernatural films and monster movies, Columbia Pictures had an affinity for romances, WB were the masters of the film noir, and MGM were the prestige studio on the block. And even then, Disney was the big breakout success of 1937 with "Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs", and their signature style was family friendly stories and animation. The one part of the post I disagree with is that only Lucasfilm and Marvel studios will help Disney stay afloat, they still have Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios is riding a strong success streak, as well as carrying the legacy of classics from Snow White to Beauty and the Beast. Even if their live action in-house films struggle and falter, their in-house animation has a secure footing.

With regards to to Universal, I think they're living on borrowed time like the others. However, they don't have the baggage that Fox, WB, Paramount or Sony do but they will probably get saddled with their own new problems if The Mummy isn't a hit. What they will do after time's up for one of their golden (dinosaur shaped) geese is anyone's guess, and a very interesting quandary at that. My answer to Disney getting the JP rights remains the same. They could certainly buy Amblin Entertainment and the franchise catalogue that comes with it, but there is such a thing as too much influence, and how/why would they do anything more or less creatively driven than Universal? I will maintain that the jury is still out before JW2/JP5 comes around. But at this point I do see where you're coming from on this front, especially after having read this article.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

This is an interesting article about how movie studios are to blame for the decrease in movies.

These parts sums it up nicely.

Quote wrote:

UNIVERSAL? I know more about their theme park than what a “Universal movie” is.
   
WARNER BROTHERS? Um… Batman, kinda?
   
FOX? I bet they’d fire everyone tomorrow if they could have one-tenth of the brand identity their news division has.
 
SONY? Lololol.

Quote wrote:

-1) It’s become clear that studios have virtually zero ability to shepherd and facilitate an artist’s vision for a unique project. Certainly, no better than an experienced producer can while working through the channels of independent financing.

-2) It’s become clear that the studios are unimaginative and uninformed about the very “product” they are making. The industry’s obsession with how they market films (instead of the making of good ones) means more influence from the marketing industry – guys and gals who have never written script, or made a film, and thus lack a fundamental understanding of what it is they’re even doing.

-3) It’s become clear that the one thing they should be good at – selling movies – they can’t do either. By consistently opting to rehash old (and already proven) ideas, or continuing to make an endless number of sequels – the studios have essentially admitted that they have no clue how to promote anything unless the bulk of the work has already been done for them. “You had one job to do!”

And people wonder why want Disney to get the JP rights after the Crichton estate gets them back after JW3/JP6.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine. The other studios seem to be bound to the prow of a wrecked ship careening into a reef. Unlike Disney, and especially like DreamWorks Animation today, they have little to no brand identity, and almost no reason why audiences would care about them or their success the way many feel about Disney, even Netflix has it's own identity that audiences are not only aware of but actively seeking.

Back when the major studios (MGM, RKO, Warner Bros, Paramount, Columbia Pictures, Fox, Universal) were first starting to get a footing, they all had a semblance of identity. Universal had their supernatural films and monster movies, Columbia Pictures had an affinity for romances, WB were the masters of the film noir, and MGM were the prestige studio on the block. And even then, Disney was the big breakout success of 1937 with "Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs", and their signature style was family friendly stories and animation. The one part of the post I disagree with is that only Lucasfilm and Marvel studios will help Disney stay afloat, they still have Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios is riding a strong success streak, as well as carrying the legacy of classics from Snow White to Beauty and the Beast. Even if their live action in-house films struggle and falter, their in-house animation has a secure footing.

With regards to to Universal, I think they're living on borrowed time like the others. However, they don't have the baggage that Fox, WB, Paramount or Sony do but they will probably get saddled with their own new problems if The Mummy isn't a hit. What they will do after time's up for one of their golden (dinosaur shaped) geese is anyone's guess, and a very interesting quandary at that. My answer to Disney getting the JP rights remains the same. They could certainly buy Amblin Entertainment and the franchise catalogue that comes with it, but there is such a thing as too much influence, and how/why would they do anything more or less creatively driven than Universal? I will maintain that the jury is still out before JW2/JP5 comes around. But at this point I do see where you're coming from on this front, especially after having read this article.

That and in the 1950's WB had a lot of success with sci-fi movies like The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms and THEM!.

I also disagree that Fox doesn't have an identity. Even when they get rid of the Fantastic 4, they will still have the X-Men, Alien, and Predator franchises. So while they don't have as much of an identity that Disney has, at least they have one. And Fox has always been a profitable company, even when King Rothman was running the place. Add how they've fixed most of the damage he caused (Fant4stic being the big exception) and in a few years, they'll still be in respectable shape. They'll be more battered then Disney, but they'll still be standing above everyone else. I really don't see how Sony can survive and who if Paramount can get out of their $13-$14 million dollar debt. W.B. might regain one, but it's going to be rough given how they are also in debt and how the DCCU has been exploding and imploding at the same time. Universal seems to be to be too focused on the here and now to care about a long term plan, unless you count the F&F movie series which, despite all the box office success, is nearing an end. And if they don't regain the JP rights, it's going to be game over for a long time, since I don't see their Monsterverse working as much as they think. Lionsgate is iffy and I'm surprised that MGM is still around.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

That and in the 1950's WB had a lot of success with sci-fi movies like The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms and THEM!.

I also disagree that Fox doesn't have an identity. Even when they get rid of the Fantastic 4, they will still have the X-Men, Alien, and Predator franchises. So while they don't have as much of an identity that Disney has, at least they have one. And Fox has always been a profitable company, even when King Rothman was running the place. Add how they've fixed most of the damage he caused (Fant4stic being the big exception) and in a few years, they'll still be in respectable shape. They'll be more battered then Disney, but they'll still be standing above everyone else. I really don't see how Sony can survive and who if Paramount can get out of their $13-$14 million dollar debt. W.B. might regain one, but it's going to be rough given how they are also in debt and how the DCCU has been exploding and imploding at the same time. Universal seems to be to be too focused on the here and now to care about a long term plan, unless you count the F&F movie series which, despite all the box office success, is nearing an end. And if they don't regain the JP rights, it's going to be game over for a long time, since I don't see their Monsterverse working as much as they think. Lionsgate is iffy and I'm surprised that MGM is still around.

Admittedly, that's why I didn't address Fox directly; and why the term was "little to no identity" (rather than zero identity) which is not entirely true. These days, Fox of all studios seems to be building their own niche of mid-budget R-rated blockbusters. X-Men might be mainly PG-13 and the ones with the most money to spend, but with Deadpool, Logan, Planet of the Apes, and the renewed Alien franchise and the upcoming Predator movie, it certainly gives a strong impression of mature sci-fi films with a harder edge to them that is actually earned. Its usually when they release something like 'Bad Moms', a raunchy R-rated comedy, that usually sticks out.

MGM is technically not one of the big players, they tend to attach themselves to other studios, like Warner Bros (The Hobbit), Columbia Pictures (21 Jump Street and Magnificent Seven), and Paramount (Ben-Hur). They basically co-finance other studios' films and either reap the benefits/damages of said films, though why they have not yet tried to launch with smaller properties without the larger studios is something of a mystery to me. Lionsgate won my approval with La La Land and Hacksaw Ridge, but they have yet to find a franchise to properly replace Hunger Games. The ace up WB's sleeve might be the Legendary Monsters Cinematic Universe, which at least is off to a less rocky start than the DCEU. While they still have Harry Potter, that's also a finite well. And who knows if anyone would accept a Middle-earth film not directed by Peter Jackson. Also, their Looney Toons/Hanna Barbera catalogue have been on and off over the decades, with the best of that material being in the past.

Steven Spielberg practically helped reshape Universal into the prestigious studio most people tended to see them as in the 80s and 90s, largely through the films he personally directed or executive produced for them. He was to them was Christopher Nolan is the Warner Bros now, and the films he directed became pertinent to the studio's identity in addition to the famous Universal Monsters. Its just a regal shame that that influence gradually faded over the years, Back to the Future and E.T. were one-and-done classics, Jaws petered out badly after the first film, Amblimation only put out three films in its time before folding, and Jurassic Park III basically put that franchise on ice. At east Jurassic World felt more like a Universal movie than its contemporaries from the same studio.

(edit: Even The Mummy trilogy with Brendan Fraser was essentially a more tongue-in-cheek Indiana Jones franchise, another quintessentially Spielberg property. Though, more accurately, it sported the aesthetics of the Indy series but lacked pretty much any of the substance and just went for go-for-broke action and one liners with a supernatural, 1930s twist.)

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

That and in the 1950's WB had a lot of success with sci-fi movies like The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms and THEM!.

I also disagree that Fox doesn't have an identity. Even when they get rid of the Fantastic 4, they will still have the X-Men, Alien, and Predator franchises. So while they don't have as much of an identity that Disney has, at least they have one. And Fox has always been a profitable company, even when King Rothman was running the place. Add how they've fixed most of the damage he caused (Fant4stic being the big exception) and in a few years, they'll still be in respectable shape. They'll be more battered then Disney, but they'll still be standing above everyone else. I really don't see how Sony can survive and who if Paramount can get out of their $13-$14 million dollar debt. W.B. might regain one, but it's going to be rough given how they are also in debt and how the DCCU has been exploding and imploding at the same time. Universal seems to be to be too focused on the here and now to care about a long term plan, unless you count the F&F movie series which, despite all the box office success, is nearing an end. And if they don't regain the JP rights, it's going to be game over for a long time, since I don't see their Monsterverse working as much as they think. Lionsgate is iffy and I'm surprised that MGM is still around.

Admittedly, that's why I didn't address Fox directly; and why the term was "little to no identity" (rather than zero identity) which is not entirely true. These days, Fox of all studios seems to be building their own niche of mid-budget R-rated blockbusters. X-Men might be mainly PG-13 and the ones with the most money to spend, but with Deadpool, Logan, Planet of the Apes, and the renewed Alien franchise and the upcoming Predator movie, it certainly gives a strong impression of mature sci-fi films with a harder edge to them that is actually earned. Its usually when they release something like 'Bad Moms', a raunchy R-rated comedy, that usually sticks out.

MGM is technically not one of the big players, they tend to attach themselves to other studios, like Warner Bros (The Hobbit), Columbia Pictures (21 Jump Street and Magnificent Seven), and Paramount (Ben-Hur). They basically co-finance other studios' films and either reap the benefits/damages of said films, though why they have tried to strike out with smaller original properties is something of a mystery to me. Lionsgate won my approval with La La Land and Hacksaw Ridge, but they have yet to find a franchise to properly replace Hunger Games. The ace up WB's sleeve might be the Legendary Monsters Cinematic Universe, which at least is off to a less rocky start than the DCEU. While they still have Harry Potter but that's also a finite well, and who knows if anyone would accept a Middle-earth film not directed by Peter Jackson.

Steven Spielberg practically helped reshape Universal into the prestigious studio most people tended to see them as in the 80s and 90s, largely through the films he personally directed or executive produced for them. He was to them was Christopher Nolan is the Warner Bros now, and the films he directed became pertinent to the studio's identity in addition to the famous Universal Monsters. Its just a regal shame that that influence gradually faded over the years, Back to the Future and E.T. were one-and-done classics, Jaws petered out badly after the first film, Amblimation only put out three films in its time before folding, and Jurassic Park III basically put that franchise on ice. At least Jurassic World felt more like a Universal movie than its contemporaries from the same studio.

(edit: Even The Mummy trilogy with Brendan Fraser was essentially a more tongue-in-cheek Indiana Jones franchise, another quintessentially Spielberg property. Though, more accurately, it sported the aesthetics of the Indy series but lacked pretty much any of the substance and just went for go-for-broke action and one liners with a supernatural, 1930s twist.)

It's a shame that MGM has faded out of the limelight. Even more considering how Ben-Hur, which was 80% of their doing, bombed hard. As for Universal with Spielberg, I honestly think he's in it for the money and to keep his name going so that he doesn't get forgotten. The fact that he didn't do anything to make JP3 better then the pile of trash that it became is proof of that. The JP franchise doesn't really need him anymore and he doesn't need it. I still think that Dreamworks could make good traditional animated movie if it stopped making trash like Boss Baby.

Last night I watched Victor Frankenstein starring Daniel Radcliffe and James Mcavoy. Playing Igor and the deranged doctor respectively, this was a really interesting version of the classic tale. It also has a couple cinematic firsts for me. I won't pretend to have seen every cinematic version of Frankenstein, but I have seen most of them, and I think this is the first time I've seen a Frankenstein movie where the monster is shown as he's described in the book: pus yellow skin instead of green, and grotesquely shaped. I did enjoy the joke about giving him a flat head, even if that's not how the monster eventually came out looking. It was a nice nod to the 1931 movie. I also believe this is the first version where Dr. Frankenstein is automatically horrified at his creation, just like in the book. Most versions have Dr. Frankenstein madly excited about his creation, running about his laboratory in a frantic state of deranged glee. Not this time. He sees what he created isn't what he imagined, and seeks to instantly destroy this monstrosity.

It's a very character driven version of the Frankenstein tale, focussing on Igor's point of view, which is something we also haven't gotten before outside of a terrible, failed children's cartoon that wasn't very good. I liked that perspective, and Mcavoy and Radcliffe played off each other very well. The romantic subplot between Igor and the trapeze artist woman never seemed especially prominent, like the writers never knew what they wanted from it, but it's an otherwise very worthy addition to a long list of cinematic Frankenstein monsters.

With a movie budget of $175 million dollars and a marketing campaign of another $75 million, the new King Arthur movie projected to make just $14 million in it's box office debut.

Buckle your seatbelts, people. Because unless Wonder Woman and Justice League do well and Transformers 5 does better then what people think, it looks like another crappy year for movies...just as long as it's not Disney via the MCU or Star Wars that is.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

With a movie budget of $175 million dollars and a marketing campaign of another $75 million, the new King Arthur movie projected to make just $14 million in it's box office debut.

Buckle your seatbelts, people. Because unless Wonder Woman and Justice League do well and Transformers 5 does better then what people think, it looks like another crappy year for movies...just as long as it's not Disney via the MCU or Star Wars that is.

Nah it was huge success man. 14.7 million.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/05/14/box-office-king-arthur-royally-flops-with-14-7m-weekend/#70cb66dd7ada

Rhedosaurus wrote:

With a movie budget of $175 million dollars and a marketing campaign of another $75 million, the new King Arthur movie projected to make just $14 million in it's box office debut.

Buckle your seatbelts, people. Because unless Wonder Woman and Justice League do well and Transformers 5 does better then what people think, it looks like another crappy year for movies...just as long as it's not Disney via the MCU or Star Wars that is.

Jesus, I think we all saw this coming with the first trailers for King Arthur; which were just off-putting as hell. With all the iterations of King Arthur out there, this version looked like a fusion of two completely different things: Guy Ritchie and mythology. Poor sod should have lobbied for a sequel to The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

At this rate, how long before Warner Bros falls back onto another fantasy property, be it Dragonriders of Pern or Dungeons and Dragons? Those are the ones I've heard they were in the script writing process for. Sad thing is it won't matter if they can't make a good movie that doesn't rely on the formula they've relied on for all these years.

And lastly, take a gander at all the inane, pointless and completely boneheaded ways that the film contradicts Arthurian mythology and falls back of uninspired screenwriting. It's so bad, my jaw dropped a few times, I am now thoroughly convinced not to see it, and that its no surprised Warner Bros tried to hide the film from audiences for ages.

How Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur Diverges From Arthurian Myth

to be fair, it actually makes sense to exclude Lancelot and several other characters omitted from the film since they were later additions to the Arthur Cycle. doesn't justify all the other changes, though.

all this kinda makes me wonder if my own idea for a duology based on The Iliad and The Odyssey (possibly a trilogy with a third-film spin-off based on The Aeneid) would have any chance in today's film industry...

Oshronosaurus wrote:

to be fair, it actually makes sense to exclude Lancelot and several other characters omitted from the film since they were later additions to the Arthur Cycle. doesn't justify all the other changes, though.

all this kinda makes me wonder if my own idea for a duology based on The Iliad and The Odyssey (possibly a trilogy with a third-film spin-off based on The Aeneid) would have any chance in today's film industry...

I actually think it can work, but you'd have to have somebody like Peter Jackson or Guillermo del Toro involved.

Oshronosaurus wrote:

all this kinda makes me wonder if my own idea for a duology based on The Iliad and The Odyssey (possibly a trilogy with a third-film spin-off based on The Aeneid) would have any chance in today's film industry...

I'm curious; have you written a script (or two) for a film treatment for The Iliad and The Odyssey? If so, then colour me intrigued! I would love to see a fully fleshed out version of those stories that embraced the mythological subtext.

Though, I'd have to agree with Rhedo on this one, this would be the kind of project that would lend itself well to Del Toro and Jackson, but since there's only two of them (and I have no idea what PJ's next directing project is going to be) it's best to keep such a potentially great film out of reach for now.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Oshronosaurus wrote:

all this kinda makes me wonder if my own idea for a duology based on The Iliad and The Odyssey (possibly a trilogy with a third-film spin-off based on The Aeneid) would have any chance in today's film industry...

I'm curious; have you written a script (or two) for a film treatment for The Iliad and The Odyssey? If so, then colour me intrigued! I would love to see a fully fleshed out version of those stories that embraced the mythological subtext.

Though, I'd have to agree with Rhedo on this one, this would be the kind of project that would lend itself well to Del Toro and Jackson, but since there's only two of them (and I have no idea what PJ's next directing project is going to be) it's best to keep such a potentially great film out of reach for now.

Even more so considering how the last Greek myth based movies that I remember, Revenge of the Titans and the 2 Hercules movies that came out in 2014, did so poorly. It's mind-boggling how hard it is for Hollywood to make a respectable swords-and-sandles movie or a King Arthur/any medieval movie. It's not that hard with all the material you have at your disposal. Even if you miscast most of your acting crew, everything else could carry your movie to a decent profit.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

I'm curious; have you written a script (or two) for a film treatment for The Iliad and The Odyssey? If so, then colour me intrigued! I would love to see a fully fleshed out version of those stories that embraced the mythological subtext.

Though, I'd have to agree with Rhedo on this one, this would be the kind of project that would lend itself well to Del Toro and Jackson, but since there's only two of them (and I have no idea what PJ's next directing project is going to be) it's best to keep such a potentially great film out of reach for now.

Even more so considering how the last Greek myth based movies that I remember, Revenge of the Titans and the 2 Hercules movies that came out in 2014, did so poorly. It's mind-boggling how hard it is for Hollywood to make a respectable swords-and-sandles movie or a King Arthur/any medieval movie. It's not that hard with all the material you have at your disposal. Even if you miscast most of your acting crew, everything else could carry your movie to a decent profit.

yeah, the problem of underperforming would definitely be getting to me if it went through since it'd mean the Odyssey movie--the one i'd really like to see made--wouldn't get to the screen. part of why i have some low-budget options in mind for parts of it where, instead of relying overly-much on CGI to portray various supernatural elements, demigods would (for example) be shown as having warpaint/tattoos representing their divine parents and, as i'm currently writing it, the gods would/could be used more like Old Georgie in Cloud Atlas, just appearing out of nowhere, distorted voices and a bit out of focus and no one really acknowledges that they're there but they whisper in mortals' ears to manipulate them and that's how the Trojan War starts

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

I'm curious; have you written a script (or two) for a film treatment for The Iliad and The Odyssey? If so, then colour me intrigued! I would love to see a fully fleshed out version of those stories that embraced the mythological subtext.

Though, I'd have to agree with Rhedo on this one, this would be the kind of project that would lend itself well to Del Toro and Jackson, but since there's only two of them (and I have no idea what PJ's next directing project is going to be) it's best to keep such a potentially great film out of reach for now.

for the first draft of the Iliad script itself, (haven't tried at the Odyssey or Aeneid yet) it's only just gotten off Ithaca and i'm a teeny bit stuck with a scene establishing the Trojans as antagonists but not villains (except for Paris, who is unambiguously villainous here--he's basically mind-controlling Helen) but i've developed plenty of ideas for the larger narrative, including for how characters are portrayed (namely costumes for the gods and demigods, including some low-budget options, and an idea for "ethnic casting" where most of the Greeks would ideally be played by actual Greeks but giving leeway for theater traditions--namely, Scottish Spartans--and the Trojans would ideally be played by either Italians or Turks, the former because they're ancestral to the Romans and the latter because Troy was in Turkey). the idea going in is to fully embrace the original myths while slightly updating them for modern audiences such as the values dissonance of "oh, Penelope can't be with anyone even though they can reasonably expect Odysseus to be dead 'cuz she's a woman but Odysseus can have all the sex he wants" being redone as him essentially being forced into it by Circe and then Calypso (e.g., female-on-male rape; a theme of the Iliad and Odyssey movies may well be about consent since there's also the whole thing with Helen being mind-controlled by Paris which also constitutes rape if they ever did it). i imagine, if i ever complete this first draft and managed to get it going, i'd hopefully then collaborate on streamlining it with some professional screenwriters and hope i'd have finished at least my first book before this. probably wishful thinking but i'd want to have at least some creative control and at least propose my ideas for costume design, makeup, and special effects rather than getting some cliche amalgamated ancient/medieval outfits like you see in 300, Clash of the Titans, Gods of Egypt, and now in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword as well.

oh, and i also have the idea of basing some of the props on actual artifacts found in and around the site of Troy, like the purported Jewels of Helen being a gift to her from Paris that she rips off at the end when she snaps out of the mind-control and Agamemnon have a samurai-like face mask based on the Mask of Agamemnon, just for a bit of cool-factor  Agamemnon would be a bastard here like he was in Troy but Menelaus is much more respectable, happily married to Helen, and Odysseus is the concerted main protagonist and even kind of an opposite to Paris since they're both archers

It's official. The King Arthur movie is going to lose uo to $150 million dollars.

Oh and it's a WB movie...

I honestly like WB. So having them struggle like this is really sad. They must really be counting on Wonder Woman and Justice League now.

And once again, the overall boss of Sony, Kaz Hirai, says that the American movie branch still isn't up for sale.

I guess they really are taking the possibility of merging it and the video game division into one big media division.