YaThreadFloppedB!
The Patron Saint of Threads
$175 million from what I heard. Might be lookin' at a flop brehs
Guy Ritchie's 2017 "King Arthur" movie thread
- Thread starter satam55
- Start date
kingdarius
Wtf u talkin bout? Ya Bish
^^im actually surprised the coli like the man from uncle as much as they did. That shyt was mad boring to me. This looks like it has a lot more going for it tho so it should at least hold my attention
This is bang on.
People are avoiding it because the trailers were meh,reviews are bad and king arthur just doesn't resonate with modern audiences.
But it's going to be a film people will discover in streaming services are going to really enjoy it.
the next guy
Superstar
Yup. This will be a great friday night vod, netflix flick for fun. The budget was too much, if it was 100 million this film is in the black and Hunham is the "breakout star" of the summer.
The numbers 
Hunnam is about to get the Taylor Kitsch treatment :uneasy:
Hunnam is about to get the Taylor Kitsch treatment :uneasy:
Last edited:
Since Pacific rim none of his movies have made money
The numbers
Hunnam is about to get the Taylor Kitsch treatment :uneasy:
Mr. McDowell
The Brotha's Got His Own Money
This is what some would say... a "firm" flop. Just epic in failure every which-a-way.
Good.
Good.
Pricey ‘King Arthur’ Is a Box Office Pauper
By BROOKS BARNESMAY 14, 2017
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Continue reading the main story
When audiences reject a studio movie on this scale, it usually means the entire concept was flawed. The senior Warner executives who made a group decision to produce “King Arthur” saw a chance to put a “Game of Thrones” spin on a well-worn medieval story. But it proved a massive miscalculation: Younger audiences in particular showed very little interest, even with Mr. Ritchie (“Sherlock Holmes”) in the director’s chair.
Questions about the effectiveness of Warner’s marketing machine also circulated in Hollywood over the weekend.
As recently as last summer, when shoddily made films like “Suicide Squad” arrived on the Warner assembly line, Warner marketers were able to save the box office day with their signature maneuver: a big, bombastic, back-up-the-Brink’s-trucks advertising campaign. But consumers seem to be pushing back, ignoring blanket marketing and instead placing enormous emphasis on review-aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
In the last six months, Warner has found substantial hits in “Kong: Skull Island” and “The Lego Batman Movie.” But in that same period, Warner has been unable to “open” midmarket movies like “Unforgettable,” “CHIPS,” “Live by Night,” “Collateral Beauty” and “Fist Fight.” And now comes a disastrous debut for the lavishly budgeted “King Arthur.”
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Watching
Get recommendations on the best TV shows and films to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
To some extent, “King Arthur,” starring Charlie Hunnam, was never able to recover from a marketing moment last July, when Warner showed underwhelming footage at the Comic-Con International fan convention. In the social media age, bad buzz spreads in a flash. Warner also moved the release date for “King Arthur” three times, in part to give Mr. Ritchie time to rework it, which was widely reported by blogs and added to the stink.
Warner ultimately decided to release “King Arthur” in the shadow of what was always expected to be a box office monster, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.” That Disney-Marvel sequel was again a huge No. 1 over the weekend, taking in $63 million, for a two-week domestic total of $246.2 million, according to comScore, which compiles box office data.
As Warner braces for new corporate oversight — AT&T is expected to win regulatory approval in the coming months for its $85 billion takeover of its parent, Time Warner — the studio has taken steps to improve film quality. In December, Warner’s top production executive, Greg Silverman, was pushed out. His successor, Toby Emmerich, last week made more staffing changes, including wooing back a former Warner executive, Kevin McCormick, a veteran of a more gold-plated era at the studio.
In the near term, the failure of “King Arthur” heightens pressure on the coming Warner film “Wonder Woman,” which Hollywood and Wall Street analysts already viewed as a make-or-break release. If successful, that big-budget film, scheduled to arrive on June 2, could offset “King Arthur” losses and show that Warner has put its superhero operation back on track. (“King Arthur” was financed in part by Village Roadshow.)
Warner also has high hopes for Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk,” set for release on July 21, and the horror film “Annabelle: Creation,” which is scheduled for Aug. 11.
As for Mr. Ritchie, he has now suffered two bombs in a row, putting him in a perilous career spot. “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.,” written and directed by Mr. Ritchie, cost at least $150 million to make and market and took in $110 million worldwide in 2015. His recent track record throws a shadow over his next costly project: Walt Disney Studios has hired him to make a live-action version of “Aladdin.”
For the weekend, the Amy Schumer-Goldie Hawn comedy “Snatched” (20th Century Fox) was a neither-here-nor-there second, collecting about $17.5 million; it was produced by Fox and Chernin Entertainment for roughly $42 million. “King Arthur” was third.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/14/movies/pricey-king-arthur-is-a-box-office-pauper.html?_r=0
By BROOKS BARNESMAY 14, 2017
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
- poorly reviewed film — costing roughly $300 million to make and market worldwide — took in about $14.7 million at North American theaters over the weekend.
“King Arthur,” directed by Guy Ritchie and envisioned by Warner as the beginning of a multiple-film series, managed only $29.1 million overseas, where it played on about 18,000 screens in 51 countries.
“I’m really disappointed,” Jeff Goldstein, Warner’s president of domestic distribution, said by phone on Sunday. “We had higher hopes.” He declined to comment further.
Continue reading the main story
Warner Bros. Promotes One Executive as Another Departs DEC. 14, 2016 -
Warner Bros., Quietly Thriving, Recasts Its Own Story NOV. 7, 2016 -
Warner’s C.E.O. Is Bullish on the Big Screen MARCH 29, 2014
Continue reading the main story
When audiences reject a studio movie on this scale, it usually means the entire concept was flawed. The senior Warner executives who made a group decision to produce “King Arthur” saw a chance to put a “Game of Thrones” spin on a well-worn medieval story. But it proved a massive miscalculation: Younger audiences in particular showed very little interest, even with Mr. Ritchie (“Sherlock Holmes”) in the director’s chair.
Questions about the effectiveness of Warner’s marketing machine also circulated in Hollywood over the weekend.
As recently as last summer, when shoddily made films like “Suicide Squad” arrived on the Warner assembly line, Warner marketers were able to save the box office day with their signature maneuver: a big, bombastic, back-up-the-Brink’s-trucks advertising campaign. But consumers seem to be pushing back, ignoring blanket marketing and instead placing enormous emphasis on review-aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
In the last six months, Warner has found substantial hits in “Kong: Skull Island” and “The Lego Batman Movie.” But in that same period, Warner has been unable to “open” midmarket movies like “Unforgettable,” “CHIPS,” “Live by Night,” “Collateral Beauty” and “Fist Fight.” And now comes a disastrous debut for the lavishly budgeted “King Arthur.”
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Watching
Get recommendations on the best TV shows and films to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
To some extent, “King Arthur,” starring Charlie Hunnam, was never able to recover from a marketing moment last July, when Warner showed underwhelming footage at the Comic-Con International fan convention. In the social media age, bad buzz spreads in a flash. Warner also moved the release date for “King Arthur” three times, in part to give Mr. Ritchie time to rework it, which was widely reported by blogs and added to the stink.
Warner ultimately decided to release “King Arthur” in the shadow of what was always expected to be a box office monster, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.” That Disney-Marvel sequel was again a huge No. 1 over the weekend, taking in $63 million, for a two-week domestic total of $246.2 million, according to comScore, which compiles box office data.
As Warner braces for new corporate oversight — AT&T is expected to win regulatory approval in the coming months for its $85 billion takeover of its parent, Time Warner — the studio has taken steps to improve film quality. In December, Warner’s top production executive, Greg Silverman, was pushed out. His successor, Toby Emmerich, last week made more staffing changes, including wooing back a former Warner executive, Kevin McCormick, a veteran of a more gold-plated era at the studio.
In the near term, the failure of “King Arthur” heightens pressure on the coming Warner film “Wonder Woman,” which Hollywood and Wall Street analysts already viewed as a make-or-break release. If successful, that big-budget film, scheduled to arrive on June 2, could offset “King Arthur” losses and show that Warner has put its superhero operation back on track. (“King Arthur” was financed in part by Village Roadshow.)
Warner also has high hopes for Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk,” set for release on July 21, and the horror film “Annabelle: Creation,” which is scheduled for Aug. 11.
As for Mr. Ritchie, he has now suffered two bombs in a row, putting him in a perilous career spot. “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.,” written and directed by Mr. Ritchie, cost at least $150 million to make and market and took in $110 million worldwide in 2015. His recent track record throws a shadow over his next costly project: Walt Disney Studios has hired him to make a live-action version of “Aladdin.”
For the weekend, the Amy Schumer-Goldie Hawn comedy “Snatched” (20th Century Fox) was a neither-here-nor-there second, collecting about $17.5 million; it was produced by Fox and Chernin Entertainment for roughly $42 million. “King Arthur” was third.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/14/movies/pricey-king-arthur-is-a-box-office-pauper.html?_r=0
MAY 14, 2017 10:25am PT by Chris Hartwell
How 'King Arthur' Was Killed by a Would-Be Franchise
Warner Bros./Photofest
summer movie season's first bomb?
Consider recent movie history. The above praise of Ritchie could also be said of Mark Webb (The Amazing Spider-Man 2), Josh Trank (2015's Fantastic Four) and David Ayer (Suicide Squad). It was each of their strong storytelling sensibilities and fresh voices that led to film studios entrusting them with some of their largest franchises.
Good filmmakers. Distinctive voices. They should’ve worked, right?
Though there are undoubtedly a number of other contributing factors for those films' shortcomings, one of the most certainly is an issue that plagues more and more summer blockbusters. Whether it’s Marvel, DC or the Harry Potter Cinematic universe, too often a film's individual narrative is steamrolled in the name of setting up the next big franchise.
King Arthur was at one point conceived as kicking off a shared universe, and the film does set the stage for potential sequels and spinoffs. As much fun as a large, interconnected universe can be, what King Arthur and too many studios and filmmakers have failed to grasp is, if the individual installments fail to justify their continued existence, what’s the point?
Even as the aforementioned films did showcase a measure of their directors’ personalities and styles, either the studio or the filmmaker or both just couldn’t wholly reconcile that with servicing the larger universe.
Ritchie's King Arthur includes a couple of scenes featuring his trademark monologue montages, and he uses them to energetically craft an oral history that grows in the retelling and constructs the legend surrounding the film's mythic hero. Webb, with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 — just as in 500 Day of Summer — did successfully capture something very personal and candid in Peter's (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen's (Emma Stone) relationship. And we certainly saw a measure of Ayer’s strong ensemble writing in Suicide Squad as well as his appropriately loose visual style.
Courtesy of Marvel
But time and again, we saw those films fail to stick their landings, because each of their narratives, at a certain point, ceased to belong to those directors or play to their strengths. Webb was forced to juggle three villains as well as hint at many more to set up a Sinister Six movie. Ayer had to sprint through his ensembles’ individual stories to ensure that the franchise was teed up for sequels (and Justice League). And King Arthur underminded its own stakes in favor of hinting at more consequential stories to come.
Photofest
The big-screen version of Suicide Squad.
And while some of these franchises have survived (and even thrived), despite the shortcomings of their individual installments, King Arthur certainly won't make it to film two. Which is a shame, given the number of intriguing directions hinted at by the film’s conclusion.
The round table is finally constructed and Arthur's (Charlie Hunnam) closest friends are knighted — and the sequels could’ve further expanded upon the legend of King Arthur in exciting ways. There were hints at a romance between Arthur and the Mage character (Astrid Berges-Frisbey). The world of magic in general — which in Legend of the Sword was all but extinct — was poised to be further explored, allowing introduction of even a character as iconic as Merlin. The lack of other iconic individuals from the Arthurian legends — such as Guinevere and Lancelot — could have made for some compelling stories.
But all of these characters and plotlines now seem forever out of reach, at least for this cinematic universe, because of that unfortunate decision of putting the proverbial "franchise cart" before the "solo film horse."
How 'King Arthur' Was Killed by a Would-Be Franchise
Warner Bros./Photofest
summer movie season's first bomb?
Consider recent movie history. The above praise of Ritchie could also be said of Mark Webb (The Amazing Spider-Man 2), Josh Trank (2015's Fantastic Four) and David Ayer (Suicide Squad). It was each of their strong storytelling sensibilities and fresh voices that led to film studios entrusting them with some of their largest franchises.
Good filmmakers. Distinctive voices. They should’ve worked, right?
Though there are undoubtedly a number of other contributing factors for those films' shortcomings, one of the most certainly is an issue that plagues more and more summer blockbusters. Whether it’s Marvel, DC or the Harry Potter Cinematic universe, too often a film's individual narrative is steamrolled in the name of setting up the next big franchise.
King Arthur was at one point conceived as kicking off a shared universe, and the film does set the stage for potential sequels and spinoffs. As much fun as a large, interconnected universe can be, what King Arthur and too many studios and filmmakers have failed to grasp is, if the individual installments fail to justify their continued existence, what’s the point?
Even as the aforementioned films did showcase a measure of their directors’ personalities and styles, either the studio or the filmmaker or both just couldn’t wholly reconcile that with servicing the larger universe.
Ritchie's King Arthur includes a couple of scenes featuring his trademark monologue montages, and he uses them to energetically craft an oral history that grows in the retelling and constructs the legend surrounding the film's mythic hero. Webb, with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 — just as in 500 Day of Summer — did successfully capture something very personal and candid in Peter's (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen's (Emma Stone) relationship. And we certainly saw a measure of Ayer’s strong ensemble writing in Suicide Squad as well as his appropriately loose visual style.
Courtesy of Marvel
But time and again, we saw those films fail to stick their landings, because each of their narratives, at a certain point, ceased to belong to those directors or play to their strengths. Webb was forced to juggle three villains as well as hint at many more to set up a Sinister Six movie. Ayer had to sprint through his ensembles’ individual stories to ensure that the franchise was teed up for sequels (and Justice League). And King Arthur underminded its own stakes in favor of hinting at more consequential stories to come.
Photofest
The big-screen version of Suicide Squad.
And while some of these franchises have survived (and even thrived), despite the shortcomings of their individual installments, King Arthur certainly won't make it to film two. Which is a shame, given the number of intriguing directions hinted at by the film’s conclusion.
The round table is finally constructed and Arthur's (Charlie Hunnam) closest friends are knighted — and the sequels could’ve further expanded upon the legend of King Arthur in exciting ways. There were hints at a romance between Arthur and the Mage character (Astrid Berges-Frisbey). The world of magic in general — which in Legend of the Sword was all but extinct — was poised to be further explored, allowing introduction of even a character as iconic as Merlin. The lack of other iconic individuals from the Arthurian legends — such as Guinevere and Lancelot — could have made for some compelling stories.
But all of these characters and plotlines now seem forever out of reach, at least for this cinematic universe, because of that unfortunate decision of putting the proverbial "franchise cart" before the "solo film horse."
Charlie hunham didn't even speak in the trailer I saw
