What Really Went Wrong With King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword? 

What would I like to see? Hmmm.... How about the producer of the first movie being burned alive at the stake, the director being beheaded, and the entire cast being drowned in a giant vat of excrement. That'd certainly be more entertaining than their movie.

A strong cast, a solid story, a creative and original script and better directing?

... Merlin? I don't know, but let's keep in mind that it's not a comedy or a superhero seies... the King Arthur epic is a tragedy! No living happily ever after for these guys!

No sequel would be the best sequel. Not only most movies today lack a good story but they have to destroy the best ones from the past, this is insulting. what are they thinking out there? Force feeding us with CGI animation as if it was still THE THING in 2017. When special effects don't serve the story it serve nothing.

Looked more like a Robin Hood movie to me. And the Roman One too here and there . And even Robin Hood movies have a bigger character list most of the time than these too...... Monty Python played like triple the Kights to get that in. Excalibur & Python both , unless you read the time-life books or some gaming book you are like Who Are all these nights and others? I want to know More...

agree

Alexander Wood the soundtrack left me breathless and it sucked me in... I love it

Alexander Wood Because you don't actually know King Arthur, if this was rebranded as a different movie, with the characters named differently, then fine. But this isn't King Arthur.

you are correct!!! This isn't king Arthur its his son and his fight... come on people its not hard to see that no movie is going to be the same if it did then y'all will just complain about it being just that the same...

The King at the start was King UTHER (AKA King Arthur's Father). The Legend is shot completely out of wack. You can make a "King Arthur" movie, but it still has to resemble King Arthur (And no, having a sword in the stone doesn't count, if the only "King Arthur" part is the Sword in the Stone [Which isn't Excalibur, It's Caliburn] then it's just a Legendary Sword flick)

Yass

yesss i love it. sadly today if its not a marvel movie nobody give a shit sadly

Jay yea fuck those critics! I thought the movie was badass!

I agree was an awesome movie

That's because you're an idiot.

Lol, just my thought. Range... range... there is a reason for that!

Bro this

28% critic score: Rotten tomatos ...79% audience score. Good but nothing special and with poor timing. The hype in advertising wont work on something fundamentally lacking

Arsh Bucha critics are fucking DICKS!!

Lee Vallence yup

critics are critical in their critiquing

Everyone's political views are destroying the fact that its actually a really good movie...

Me too Its so weird why other people hate this.

I love it

i see

Also LOVED it.

Robin Vanger same!

Me too!!!

Robin Vanger doesn’t change the fact that it bombed horribly.

Zachery Rorsed ok...

I was actually super surprised to hear it had flopped cause both me and my dad watched it four or five times...

poodlemeister22314 I saw it 3 times, the soundtrack is amazing. It's a great movie.

The movie is indeed entertaining.

Zackly! Shoving a romance sub-plot in there has ruined many an otherwise good movie. Whoever wrote the copy on this vid is probably one of those coked up LA studio execs who think they know the art of film making but really only know money and only value things based on money. This was a very fun, very well made movie and it made me want to watch it at least one more time just to take in more of the stuff around the edges, appreciate the music, the costumes, the sets, the supporting cast, the stunts, the FX. This was a good movie. Solid 4 outta 5.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say this... Your berating and name-calling is firstly uncalled for, and secondly irrelevant to the topic at hand. If however, you provided a counterpoint to the above, you'd be worth the time I'm wasting on you. Cherish the moment. You won't get another

Tonmie Pitts he's the British Channing Tatum

no thats tom hopper

KitsuneShounenAi well they kinda use the time jumps first in the Sherlock Holmes movies, every time Sherlock made a plan they did a time jump while he explains it

That's what I hated about it! I was literally just saying it felt like a barocca commercial it was so stupid and ill fitting to the theme of the movie.

Yeah, kind of suspicious, isn't it?

because everyone went to the movie TO SEE KING ARTHUR. this dudes gives us arguments that king arthur's legends aren't worth seeing since there are GOT or Vikings out there is just dumb.

NATSUMIKENJII I didn't take it that way at all... if you spend 100 million making a show and you only make 35 million you lost millions of dollars... of course people did like it, but no where near enough people liked it. You can't spend that kind of studio money on a film thinking you're gonna be successful if you market it to a small group of mostly men. The musical Camelot had a better Arthur story and was closer to the chivalric mythology of Arthur, Gwen, and Lancelot. Excalibur was relatively hard core mythology complete with Arthur gathering his son by his sister. Even the cable series Camelot flopped bc right away they changed the love triangle and why? When Hollywood stops trying to "remake" classics and just sticks to the classic material they'll do better.

uh excuse you? if youre talking about the BBC Merlin then that thing was a complete masterpiece. I'm sorry if you think it flopped because that was really good. And I don't care about how money they spend on movie or shows as long as the story is good and the acting is good too. Tbh the legends can all be interpreted in a lot of ways so saying that the musical was closer or that this was too far-fetched is a bit hypocritical since there isn't a fixed legend for King Arthur.

NATSUMIKENJII no I'm not talking about BBC. I'm talking about the cable version that only lasted one season 2011. It wasn't very good, or case in ☝️ memorable. And the legends have their main storylines, and my point is that as Hollywood tries to "reinterpret" with a "big" twist it doesn't always go well. Of course it's great when a movie is well cast and acted well, but if you ultimately lose money it's a financial flop. Too many powerful stories get retold right out of existence or memory. It's too bad bc the classics are great tales.

ExtraRareTrumpSteak Hmmmm? Sorry what? I'm just shit? Why? How? If you are going to try to insult people over the Internet you need to explain yourself atleast a little. All you are doing is making an errant comment with no real point since you can't explain yourself. Why is what I said wrong. Make a counter arguement. Voice your opinion about why I am shit and wrong. I hate to see people regress to elementary school level arguments like yours... it is halarious to see though so thanks for the chuckle kid.

Pretty much sums it up. You can tell they had no real substance in their arguments, by the dumbing down of the wording. And just to get your attention they throw in GoT, as if that show even remotely compares, in neither action or tone. GoT has hours upon hours of time to set up character arcs, but has mediocre action scenes. Arthur had amazing level of kinetic scenes that GoT will never get, let alone few movies not made by Guy Richie, which makes sense since Guy has been practicing martial arts for around 20 years and is an all-round clever geezer :D There's a nice interview with Joe Rogan and Guy for any interested :)

HellionRex I think GOT has great battle scenes. Obviously, people didn't like this film or it would've grossed better in theaters. I was cheering for this Arthur movie. But, they took too many elements out of the Arthur myth and twisted it into a different story. Plus, by gearing it to an all male audience, they missed half the potential movie goers. You have to have a balance of action and romance for an epic story, balance the archetypal themes for wider audience appeal. People respond to these on an innate level. Looper is right that cable networks offer better stories right now.

On the one hand you're saying they took too many elements out of the Arthur myth, yet on the other you're saying they needed to add more romance and female cast to it... kinda contradicting don't ya think?

KVD no. There is a big part of Arthur myth tied into a romance with his wife and sister... what I'm saying is that this version targeted a larger male audience. And bc of that cinematic choice Hollywood missed out on a huge female going audience. The early medieval documents on Arthur are a much richer story than most films show. All I'm saying is the mythology surrounding Arthur is a much richer history/mythology than this film showed. The richer content appeals to men and women, and that take would have doubled the movie going audience. Since Hollywood wants to make money (let's face it movies that lose money don't get sequels generally speaking...look at Troy. Huge story. Box office flop.) it won't continue a film series that can't hold its own. This story should have kicked ass, but it veered too much away from the actual universal appeal of Arthur and too much about special effects... and that's sad.

Yes, it's not as if we were asked to sit through another "Force Awakens".

MrHaloswrath Ehhh... okay...?

I watched it and I consider it the best Arthur legend adaptation ever made.

That's right! Me and the mistress actually loved it, and I actually adored Charlie Hunnam acting.

Same, it was a fun film. The story in the "classic" format has been done to death. This was something new. Don't know what the critics are on about tbh.

8 Bites ugh agree. That’s what makes this movie so great.

I just rewatched the movie for the 5th 😆. Btw do you guys have any similar recs? Something epic like this without any romance.

King Arthur was Welsh ans he also spoke a form of Welsh, Brythonic or Celtic as known, Arthur wouldnt be speaking English as English weren't even a language at that time, sure old English but it was diff too now, makes no sense when using a foreigner as a Legendary Figure, a Welsh man who spoke Welsh would have been better instead of hiring overpaid English actors when Hiring Welsh makes more sense

@@ARMY2014 yes cause everyone would love to see a movie that only welsh people can understand

@@ethanwanlass9197 thank you very much

José Abel Salazar Lizárraga I think what he is trying to say is that with the big Marvel movies and such, the genre of movies that are action based are very hard to compete with the bigger and popular films. When Matrix came out, it hardly had to compete with any other movie in theaters at the time. So for that in mind King Arthur unfortunately lost due to the popularity of Marvel. I really did like King Arthur but I understand the negative feedback the movie is getting from everyone. Won't change my mind on the film though lol

Not true, the timing is everything. Matrix like you said came out of nowhere and became a huge sensation because it was the right time for it, there was nothing this ambitious who proposed such a complex and new universe to the audience, specialy when it came and the Dawn of the numeric Data hungry era where everyone got acces to the web. The movie just outright spoke to the poeple at the time. Just Like Star Wars became the hugest thing since sliced bread, because it came in an era where there was no or little Space opera like this( don't count Star Trek, while the new franchise that came in the 90's was different, the Star Trek from the 60's was corny at best and nothing as epic as Star Wars back then). The movies that works best are the ones that set up a new genre or re-invente/ressurect a genre. Like said in the video, unfortunatly for Arthur, we all rady have plenty of those Epic fantasy/viking stories , Game of Thrones, the last 3 Hobbits movies, The Last Kingdom, Vikings. Arthur comes a bit too late in the trend to be relevant, even if the movie is not bad, maybe it will gain a fan base after its dvd release or in some years when the Epic History/fantasy trend dies out and we all switch to something else. Thats also an example of "Timing" to release a movie, take a look at the films that where the most succesfull in the history, and take a look at what was released the months/year before this movie, and the years that came after, you'll see a patern. Think of it like in video games, While Doom was a FPS game, for decades we refered to FPS games that came after as "Doom-Likes", same with "DMC/GoW-like" etc.

Ha, keep tellin yourself that. This movie was a heaping, steamy pile of runny dog diarrhea.

People who use scatology in their opinions make their opinions automatically worthless.

Totally

Fantasyze now listen I respect your opinion, but that's the dumbest complaint I have ever heard

Fantasyze Or maybe its just shit

G_Morto screw that

I'm getting it just because of CHARLIE. PR(Pacific Rim) isn't my Favorite in General neither is Crimison Peak, but I got em for the fact of Charlie xD.

HappyandAtheist you are a badly written American knock off

The only badly written thing I see here is your comment.

They clearly marketed the movie as a different version of the legend of King Arthur. So what, now movies can't take their own version of classic stories? Because god forbid them of having different ideas?

Besides, the director is british, not american.

You want historically accurate, watch the history channel.

"The audio was excellent". Well, that settles it, I think we have a "Best Picture" on our hands here...

Long Horn audio means alot I know it's hard to take that into consideration when your being a pick but it does

+liquid curse I tend to mainly focus on being a shovel.

it had nothing to do with arthurs saga... but i admit it was fun to watch

+LordShaitaan then you should've expected it to have nothing to do with the "Saga" seeing as they said it wasnt like the the "ORIGINAL" Plenty of times =/.

Solaire of Astora well that's okay, I mean as far as I know they also didn't promote it as an other King Arthur and the knight of the round table sort of movie

ya cool action

Only to morons.

Jake Hunter exactly

Jake Hunter should've released in April when there really wasn't any movies

Jake Hunter gotg 2 was really not that gopd of a film

Agreed I left the theatre very disappointed after GOTG 2.

And Alien.

Tomas Michalek you must haven't seen a lot of movies then

yes, I did, and when I have time, I go to the cinema (1-2 times a month), or I just watch home. And for me, it was a really great movie. The sound, the action, music, hidden jokes,... Yea, I get that this movie is not so original, the witch could get more action, etc, but over all I did enjoyed it, and many people did. I dont know, how is your cinema, but here? it was extravagant, not many movies got such a good sound (some are over basse, some not), during battles, or run, the floor just shivered, light on screen just dropped you into action. I dont think, that on TV I would enjoy this movie that much, but seriously... man...

this was not king arthur. just cuz it got some dude with that name and a magical sword [that barely has any screen time] an author movie it does not make. those who liked it, great. obviously none know the story. thats what the majority paid to watch, a movie heavily based on the original. not an entirely different story stealing the name. thats like me making a story of your life but its got nothing to do with you except your name. make your movie but use your own original character names. this movie is all original, not a trace of actual legend. OH, WAIT! it also stole most of its story ideas from robin hood and [LOL] mostly the lion king. scar kills his brother to steal his kingdom and the king's kid comes back to take it back when he grows up. so there are thousands of paying movie goers claiming this is so great cuz it aint the reprint of excalibur and dont recognise what it did steal from. i hated this movie from beginning to end. id bet that if guy ritchie was to remake starwars, it'd also look like this and the same ignorant morons would like that also. even if not named after the old legend, it was still a sloppy silly movie. looks great though but was all over the place. couldnt make up its mind what era it was taken place in, or its style. it tells us its ancient england but acts 18th century with a lot of modern. back street gangs vs big mob boss. or military coup? overthrow or turf war? modern language vs, nah, just modern gibberish. and yet another 'chosen one' movie where that special character rejects being special. more lack of originality. and then the guy publicly claims to have wanted to make a lord of the rings look a like movie. how is that original? and then uses a magical creature that could have ended the fighting at the beginning but waits to the end [like the giant eagles who could have flown the ring over the volcano at any time] but doesnt kill the bad king dispite being right next to him while the giant snake kills every one else. why? well we cant have the two family members not fight each other, that would interfere with the originality of it once again. blah. oh ya, giant elephants. lets hope peter jackson sues his ass off.

I know the story, actually stories. I think, you can call King Arthur an urban legend. How were urban legends spread? by spoken word, so there are many stories talking about King arthur, I personally know 4. that in movie someone gets inspiration from one, or more is his bussines, but when you tell someone dont know King arthur story and you know only one, sir... you do not know nothing

@Tom Ster I have to say that I strongly disagree with your assessment, as I think I've said in other places in this thread. You clearly don't know the real original stories of the myth but instead believe that the Monty Python versions and the Excalibur movie version are the real stories. Perhaps do some research and read the material by Geoffrey Monmouth written in 1138 that is believed by most Arhurian experts to be the first time the story appeared and in that story was Vortigen, and Uther Pendragon. Now over time the magical sword appeared and this cinematic version is the only one that gives the sword a voice. Perhaps if you go see this current film more times you'll see it differently. I personally have seen it 10 times in the theater. Also if you haven't read it, T.H. White's book The Once and Future King uses Monmouth's ideas and is considered one of the best telling of the myths. Learn of what you speak if you are going to tell people they don't know of what they speak.

If you ask me guardian's of the Galaxy 2 really sucks it's about star Lord and his dad nothing it do with the stones or pointing to infenty wars

Sacha Winter nobody hates it, it just had too much competition

Sacha Winter you probably don't get good storytelling too.

there is no hate, just not interested

exactly!!

Some people like Sacha just like the taste of ass so...

Lmao He-man?

Yeah, Masters of the Universe. FNGs.

it sucked so bad. u have shit taste

it was a fun movie to watch. yea it wasn't deep, but the movie wasn't trying to be deep. it was trying to be a fun action movie which I think it succeeded.

Hero Hour it's a fun popcorn flick to watch, not some movie with a fucking deep meaning to it

Yeah I enjoyed it too, don't think it is a must watch or a top 10 movies of the year but definitely a good fun action movie. So far John Wick 2 is the best movie of 2017 for me

I've seen Alien, Guardians and Arthur. Arthur is easily the best of them imo.

Champ Johnson yeah I agree ! I had asked a friend about it and all he said was the reviews said it sucked so I'm not watching it. I'm really getting tired of movie reviews especially by rotten tomatoes. Not every movie will be an oscar contender. movies are made for pure enjoyment and people should watch a movie regardless of the film review.

Movie reviewers aren't in it to be informative, more often they draw eyeballs by being assholes.

Um no, you can blame the marketing team for that one. Tonally, the trailers were all over the place and I'm pretty sure most people were not interested in seeing yet another King Arthur film.

u are right about that

the trailers are what got me, so i guess its more about personal preferences. I think the fantasy elements of this movie is what separated it from being 'just another King Arthur film' but i truly believe the negative reviews and the people who didn't LIKE the shift in storytelling are the ones who turned people away

The movie was entertaining not the best plot. but it was pretty good. 6 or 7 out of 10.

UncleJackOnline it's basically what you are going to expect it to be. It's good, just not great. far from bad.

UncleJackOnline It's fine. Pretty decent movie. At the very least, you won't think you wasted two hours.

And better than Pirates 5 and Guardians 2, in my humble opinion. I even liked it better than Wonder Woman although that movie was better than the other two mentioned.

Alien was slow compared to it's predecessors... :/ This movie was action-packed

Mr Maravilla no

The box office speaks for itself, they lost 50 mil. It flopped.

Weak..We the rest of the world tired of this Arthur shit..Arthur Excalibur 1981 still the best without shitty cgi...

Metal Sucks dude shut up you sound like a whimpy 80 year old guy saying "Those were the days"

MineCraftDadnSon I agree and I think everyone was looking forward to alien covenant.

You have to admit that it was pretty stupid of them to put this out a week after Guardians.

Yeah for sure but I mean I went and seen many movies this year and enjoyed most... I'm looking forward to Alien for sure and already ordered my tickets for Wonder Woman. If people don't like Arthur I mean that's lame as fuck. Guardians was good but I don't understand many of the fans that only support MCU movies and rate them like they are perfect 10 out of 10 movies but shit on anything else and different. Was it stupid of them? I don't know but my lady said lot of people are just out of money lol mid month and I can agree I spent over 120$ when we went and seen Guardians. That is a good chunk and I had over 100 put away for our Wonder Woman tickets so maybe it was stupid I don't know but it feels like Guy Ritchie always gets a shit deal and his movies are fucking awesome.

True about Mothers day weekend also... People are just busy

MineCraftDadnSon The Guardian movie sucks!!!!

I thought it was 27

no, you don't look like the critics' review. You look for audience cause they are just like you and me, normal people with normal taste.

Audiences are way more likely to have poor taste

Yeaa, I don't really trust those audience reviews. A lot of the people who gave it 5 stars (which was a ridiculous amount) were mostly bashing critics and barely commented on the movie itself.

ihateu890 The movie had a 79% fresh audience score the day it premiered. Audience and critics rated it at the same damn time.

If this was just a fantasy film I was already in love with it but as a arthur movie it does't cut.

ToooMuch2Handle it's an adaptation, people gotta let it go.

ToooMuch2Handle Agree

ToooMuch2Handle I know I'm a dick by saying this but..... k

@Nini I respectfully disagree with you. As an Arthur movie it shines because it is more true to the actual original myth not the cheesy adaptations most people are familiar with, and it's the only one to give the sword it's own voice.

Because it flopped

Noel Dale people have opinions, not everyone HAS to love this movie, I didn't like the movie, and I don't really care for critics but Jesus people have beliefs and opinions, just accept it

Anderson Chase But that’s the beauty of the lore, nothing is canon because the stories have been rewritten tens, hundreds, maybe thousands of times as more or less the same story. Deviating from the norm doesn’t have to be a bad thing.

Then why did it bomb?

SonicStantz because nobody wanted to see it since the trailer didn't catch their attention but oh my god it's actually good

rofl i was on my phone for the last few acts this movie bored me to tears

Was John Wick a "flop?" If so that is very encouraging because it got a sequel! Although it did have a very high Rotten Tomatoes score with critics, but I'm still hopeful.

Sadly I just looked it up and it was not a flop. It had a $40 million budget and grossed $166 million just in the U.S. Doesn't sound like a flop to me.

Dr. Deborah Barr nobody knew about the movie only after dvd release did it get popular

If that were true how did it make $166 million in the theater? I'm not disagreeing overall, but the fact that it made so much money in the theater kind of refutes your argument. But believe me I want to hope that a sequel to King Arthur can still be made. I do know John Wick did become more popular on DVD but it still made the studio money where it counts, box office. Which brings up a good point, if people are going to say movies are a flop because people stay home and watch TV then why don't they also count the overall amount the movie makes included it's cable TV and DVD releases? Wouldn't that give everyone a more accurate view? Just a thought.

i saw it and i think it's pretty good like all Guy ritchie movies. Go and watch it

I agree, I found more entertaining than Alien Covenant.

Janson Leedlee Graig I agree and I'm an uber fan of Arther movies and shows. Nothing wrong with the movie.

I think people made up their minds about it before even seeing it.

Too many plotholes though, and way too pacy. Wasnt bad, but could have been better.

It had a terrible release schedule. Up against a marvel movie? Yeah even Oscar worthy films would do badly against a marvel movie