I'm a big fan of the King Arthur legends, but this film looks terrible.
They really think there will be interest in doing 6 films? This has bomb written all over it.
shareIt does look like garbage , and an insult to the masterful "Excalibur".
share
MovieChat Forums > King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) Discussion > I'm a big fan of the King Arthur legends...
Absolutley not. It looks really cool, something different. But since all that matters these days are super hero- and star wars movies, it most certainly looks like it will not make enough to warrant a sequel unfortunately.
shareIt's not even about that. I'm also not into super heroes and so on, but Guy Richie's style applied into this does really looked forced, not credible and fake. Love the cast, but the trailer looks dreadful.
shareIt looks terrible. Absolutely terrible. Just the over done huge metal armour. They wouldn't have had that. Real or not. It looks like a Disney filom for kids. Guy Ritchie?????? hasn't he been banished for good?
shareNot surprised. I thought from day one that Guy Ritchie was a bad choice for director for this. Ritchie makes great modern day Crime dramas,but a Medieval Epic always seemed way beyond his range.
And I was not that impressed with his Sherlock Holmes either.
I saw this trailer tonight, and I agree it looks atrociously bad.
It looks more like Space Opera than Athurian legend. What's with the clothes? What's with the haircuts?
What should an Arthurian haircut look like in your opinion?
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
That depends on the era the film / story is set. Most King Arthur stories are set in medieval England, because a lot of stories were written in the high middle ages (12th century), but he could also have a 5th/6th century haircut.
The hair in the trailer looks modern, though, as do some of the clothes. I actually had a hard time telling whether this was supposed to be a fantasy setting or some meta story where they go into a Star Trek holodeck type of thing.
Giant elephants and fireballs are also modern.
shareJust hoping it will be a movie to enjoy. Let's watch it first before we condemn it. Just because it is not a traditional retelling, doesn't mean it will be bad.
shareIm looking forward to this, ALOT. Then again i seem to be one of the few that know what it aims to do, entertain. And this movies looks like a blast.
shareYes sir. Will not be missing this one.
shareapart from cartoons, it seems all other films have to be "worthy" now.
I think it looks great, could be wrong but I'll give it a chance.
Are there no elephants or fireballs anymore? Have elephants gone instinct? What the *beep* are you talking about?
I'm not saying the film cannot be entertaining. I actually enjoyed Guy Ritchie's first Sherlock Holmes film a lot. But this trailer was confusing for the reason above and did not make me want to see this film.
If you watch it and end up enjoying it, good for you!
I don't think elephants as big as skyscrapers exist, not sure they ever did (Correct me if im wrong). And It's clearly a lot of supernatural elements in this. I'm just saying that if someone wants to point out unrealistic elements... i feel like that person could find something more than colour to comment on. I love Guys movies but never watched Sherlock Holmes. BUT Snatch and "Lock Stock" is brilliant.
Looking forward to it, going in whith an open mind and just want people to do the same. So much i have/could have missed because i judged beforehand.
For the 5th and 6th centuries AD references, the Roman forward-facing Caesar haircut and style was still popular then, although worn a little longer and shaggier than earlier Romans usually went for during the 1st century BC when Julius Caesar lived. During the Late Roman and early Dark Ages periods, medium length hair was the prevailing fashion for those living in Roman or Romanized provinces, with the fringe mostly facing forward down the forehead. Hair was probably generally a bit longer for people from outside of the former Roman provinces, but I think some of the Germanic tribes, as the Franks and later the Vikings, had a style popular among them of hair shorn on the sides and back, but long on top, similar to today's undercut. Roman men didn't go for deliberately parted hair, aside from women, but people of other ethnic backgrounds would have done that in the time period, usually with medium and longer hairstyles.
I think going with the very contemporary looking undercut for King Arthur would have worked, if he was actually a Germanic figure in history. They should have given him a variation of the Caesar hairstyles, instead, whether particularly short or medium length. One thing that they do get right with this actor, is that supposedly, King Arthur was blond, according to studies of remains attributed to being his.
This is "Sussudio," a great, great song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sny3wSsJIoY
someone apparently has no idea what medieval armor ACTUALLY looks like.
none of the armor thats we've seen so far have been "overdone" in the slightest, the armor that we seen so far look to be quite good actually.
we got salads with additional eagle flourish, we've got Djimon Hounsou wearing what appears to be a chainmail coif, Spangenhelm, a breastplate and Spaulders and guantlets. which actually looks pretty good.
in fact, i assume you are talking about jude laws character Vortigern armor, and again that ALSO looks like it would work and we've got a chainmail coif, some sort of brigadine, gauntlets, a standard Pauldron with gardbrace, and then a stylized Pauldron(which was NOT uncommon btw especially when talking about royalty. so prey tell how is the "armor huge metal"
so true Mr_Researcher.
I think it looks amazing & different but it won't do well, Guy Ritchie hasn't made a successful film since Sherlock Holmes has he?
I worship the first three original Star Wars films but I'm sick and tired of the add-ons, (I did love The Force Awakens though) & the Marvel films, don't get me started in tose, I DESPISE them !!
Cool? Different?
You know - if you make a film about medieval mythology, you should at least stick a little bit to history.
Yes, it's all just mythology and insofar "fantasy" - but all these over-the-top "cool, medieval-action-movies" with ha ha funny jokes and explosions... give me a break!
This looks so absurd... with the usual fantasy-leather outfits etc. - it makes "Game of Thrones" look more medieval actually (a LOT, actually...)
And then you say: "But since all that matters these days are super hero- and star wars movies, it most certainly looks like it will not make enough to warrant a sequel unfortunately."
REALLY? Are you serious? THIS IS THE EXACT SAME THING!!!
THIS is basically just another generic superhero-action-whatever film... just this time dressed up as "medieval"
If you go for black leather and plastic and stainless-steel swords - then you can do as well "A Knight's Tale" part 2! (and this one was actually good, because it WAS a comedy!)
And then you mention STAR WARS. you know - replace the costumes (but, in the end - whatever they are wearing in this latest "Arthur" film - it's so fantasy - it could be as well in the STAR WARS universe...) - give them Lightsabers instead of swords... and, well, you have another STAR WARS film!
NightAxe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJzZ4jkYd40
Looks like rock bottom bad. Not gonna waste time on it.
shareYea unfortunately. Charlie Hunnam what were you thinking? You got Lost City of Z coming out, you don't need this!
Whatever you are, be a good one.
Yeah this is not doin' it for me. They don't even have Merlin, Lancelot, or Guinevere in the credits. Explosions? 100ft tall elephants? Bridges/aquifers hundreds of feet tall? I don't see why the legend that inspired so many spinoffs isn't worth retelling accurately.
shareThis just looks atrocious. Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. As to those just looking to be entertained, that's fine feel free. Though here's my problem. If they wanted to do a medieval movie why not just do one, why use Arthur though not the one from history? Why the need to completely change the story? I may have watched this if it was an original like Ladyhawke?
shareI'm hoping this one bombs for two reasons. I wan't Guy Ritchie to be forced back into making another England crime movie to save his career (since his last movie bombed, and three in a row could be the end). I also think Charlie Hunnam is just awful.
Take your flunky and dangle.
Horrible looking from all points of view. After Excalibar, the only KA telling I thought was good was a British mini series, might have been Masterpiece Theater, many years ago. It stuck pretty much to the legends. Hell, this movie doesn't even get the time period correct. And of course it's basically a super hero movie full of special effects and CGI. But then again, we are also getting ready for Matt Damon to show us that the Great Wall of China was built to keep the giant dragons out!
share