Who exactly decided it was a good idea to let Guy Ritchie direct a movie about King Arthur?
Buffista Movies Across the 8th Dimension!
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Did that finally come out?
Came and went. Flopped.
Maybe it'll be Netflixable just for Charlie Hunnam appreciation.
The thing is, an adaptation of the Arthur story transposed into the modern day with the "kingdom" being a British criminal operation could have been a decent new take on an old story. The actual Sixth Century AD legendary characters speaking and acting like modern London thugs, not so much.
What I want to know is who greenlit a $175 million budget for this turkey?
The funniest thing I saw was in the Wikipedia article, where the studio was hoping to launch a six-picture shared Arthurian universe. Guys, c'mon. I know you all want to be Marvel, but there are reasons they succeeded beyond "bunch of movies with many characters, sometimes in common."
Sounds like it'd be a good graphic novel series.
I'm curious how DC's "Screw it, we're skipping straight to the Justice League" gambit is going to pan out. By all rights it should just crash and burn under its own weight but the trailers have been promising.
I'll begrudgingly admit that a Justice League movie with reshoots and rewrites by Joss will be an improvement than a Justice League movie entirely by Zack Snyder.
Probably not a whole lot better.
Definitely better one-liners, though.
I don't have a whole lot of faith in Joss anymore. I'd really rather he stay far the hell away from Diana. (And I'd bet folding money that there's a scene with her barefoot now that he's doing reshoots.)