Bad movie news for disney!!!!!

[Bob O]

According to boxofficemojo.com King Arthur only made 4.8 million for its first day and $1,605 per movie screen, not good at all, escepcially for what i thought was a very good/entertaining movie!!!

[WDSearcher]

I wouldn't spout gloom and doom yet, it opened on a Wednesday, AND it's up against Spidey and F9/11, which haven't been around long enough for people to be tired of them yet. I think it will do well this weekend, which is when I'm planning to see it!

:earsboy:

[KMovies]

Paramount went a long time between hits as well. . . next up are The Village and Princess Diaries II. These should be hits for Disney.

[Cris]

I have never even heard of this King Aurthor movie LOL :confused: :eek:

[Planogirl]

I hope that The Village is good because I've really been looking forward to it! I've heard that King Arthur is pretty good too.

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by Planogirl
I hope that The Village is good because I've really been looking forward to it! I've heard that King Arthur is pretty good too.
I'm not going to spoil it..but the Village ending might have you demanding your money back.

[KNWVIKING]

***"I'm not going to spoil it..but the Village ending might have you demanding your money back."***

Sounds like you just did.

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
***"I'm not going to spoil it..but the Village ending might have you demanding your money back."***

Sounds like you just did.

Great now tell us all what the ending is now that I've spoiled it for you. :rolleyes:

[jarestel]

For people who know the Arthur story, the movie is a BIG disappointment. It's like they just took the names and made up a completely different plot. I'm not surprised if this thing is a bust.

[KNWVIKING]

***"Great now tell us all what the ending is now that I've spoiled it for you."***

Well, lets see..... I'm sitting in the theater watching a movie that I'm enjoying when I suddenly remember that Phoebesaturn say's I'll be disappointed in the ending. While you haven't actually told us the ending, you kinda said " great restaurant,but you'll be disappointed with the food".

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
***"Great now tell us all what the ending is now that I've spoiled it for you."***

Well, lets see..... I'm sitting in the theater watching a movie that I'm enjoying when I suddenly remember that Phoebesaturn say's I'll be disappointed in the ending. While you haven't actually told us the ending, you kinda said " great restaurant,but you'll be disappointed with the food".
OH please give it up...nothing has been spoiled by someone telling you they think the ending of a movie sucks. If so you should never listen to criticism or leave the house again.

[MPLsDad]

I though the end of The Village was awesome - I hope there is a sequel!:tongue: All better now? Let's play nice!

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by MPLsDad
I though the end of The Village was awesome - I hope there is a sequel!:tongue: All better now? Let's play nice!

Actually, the director has reshot the ending, due to the incredibly rude people over at AintitCool.com telling everyone the original ending. I don't know what the real ending will be , but I have to say, I thought the original ending was kinda neat myself.

[mickey4ver]

Originally posted by jarestel
For people who know the Arthur story, the movie is a BIG disappointment. It's like they just took the names and made up a completely different plot. I'm not surprised if this thing is a bust.

I didn't see this as making up another plot, it supposedly happened in 459 a.d. which is way before other King Arthur tales, so perhaps this is based on some new evidence of his tale and this is how it is being interpreted. I even think if I remember at the beginning of the film, this is stated, based on new historical findings. JMHO:D

[dcentity2000]

With M. Night Shyamalan, you either love the endings or you loathe them. I've loved all the ones I've seen so far; Signs was profound and a wonderful climax, The 6th Sense was a wonderful twist and Unbreakable was dark and unexpected. Of course, some could see them as awful :)



Rich::

[jarestel]

Originally posted by mickey4ver
I didn't see this as making up another plot, it supposedly happened in 459 a.d. which is way before other King Arthur tales, so perhaps this is based on some new evidence of his tale and this is how it is being interpreted. I even think if I remember at the beginning of the film, this is stated, based on new historical findings. JMHO:D

But the point is people with an interest in the Arthur story, who I assume is the target audience for this film, will not be interested in a re-written Arthur story. Had they chosen to call it King Pete, maybe it could have stood on it's own as nobody would be viewing it with any pre-conceived expectations about the story.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by jarestel
For people who know the Arthur story, the movie is a BIG disappointment. It's like they just took the names and made up a completely different plot. I'm not surprised if this thing is a bust. I don't agree at all! I very much enjoyed King Arthur. I know the Arthur stories and Camelot backwards and forwards -- read them all a hundred times. (And I can sing the entire score of Camelot, although I'll save that for another time.) Yet I truly enjoyed this version of it and the new historical context. Of course, if you believe that the Camelot version is the one and only absolute truth of the Arthur legends and you're not intrigued by the thought that there could be a different take on it all, then I could understand your disappointment. But I thought it was great fun, with some wonderful scenery, a lot more humor than I'd expected, and it made me want to take another look at that part of England and who Arthur was. Oh ... and who knew Galahad was that hot? ;)

:earsboy:

[DisneyFanGuy]

There was some discussion that the ending described at AICN was a ruse. I thought the idea was fun and "twisty" in the same way that I was drawn into M.S.'s prior three movies only to be surprised or humored at the end. I had not heard that the ending was reshot.

[Planogirl]

How come everyone knows the ending to The Village besides me? :crazy: I don't like to know ahead of time anyway.

As for Arthur, the estimates show it rather flat. From boxofficemojo, the top ten:

1 1 Spider-Man 2 Sony $46,000,000
2 N Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy DW $28,000,000
3 N King Arthur BV $15,155,000
4 2 Fahrenheit 9/11 Lions $11,000,000
5 6 The Notebook NL $6,525,000
6 3 White Chicks Sony $6,500,000
7 4 DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story Fox $5,400,000
8 5 The Terminal DW $5,000,000
9 8 Shrek 2 DW $4,500,000
10 N Sleepover MGM $4,200,000


Wow, Dreamworks is on a roll this week.

[dcentity2000]

Guess it's not all that bad - could be a lot worse.

Planogirl, I have no idea what the ending to The Village is either and I intend to keep it that way for when I see the film :)



Rich::

[jarestel]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
Of course, if you believe that the Camelot version is the one and only absolute truth of the Arthur legends and you're not intrigued by the thought that there could be a different take on it all, then I could understand your disappointment.

You can have a different take on anything you want, as long as you're not expecting much from it. And it seems from the box office figures, not much is coming from it. Imagine if the "creative" team for the next Superman movie said. "Hey! Instead of doing the same old superpowers things, why don't we make Superman a karate expert instead"? The creativeness of this might appeal to some, but I'd wager that the majority of Superman fans want to see "the same old take" on the Superman story.

[Bob O]

I also didnt know the ending to the Village, and glad i havent found out what it was or what it may be!!!!

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by jarestel
"Hey! Instead of doing the same old superpowers things, why don't we make Superman a karate expert instead"? Isn't that the basic premise of pretty much every ninja movie? :p

I still go on the record as thoroughly enjoying King Arthur. And I'm looking forward to seeing it again sometime this week.

:earsboy:

[MPLsDad]

One of my least favorite recreational activities would be going to the movies:bored: . That being said, this past week I reluctantly agreed to see King Arthur. I also saw Anchorman. While comparing the two would be like comparing Sam Adams and Budweiser, I found King Arthur much enjoyable!! Anchorman had way too much skin time for Will Ferrell :crazy2:. He needs to wear the elf costume more!

[jarestel]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
I still go on the record as thoroughly enjoying King Arthur. And I'm looking forward to seeing it again sometime this week.

Yea, me too. I love the characters so I can't help myself! Still wish they had been a bit more faithful to the more well known story though.

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by jarestel
Still wish they had been a bit more faithful to the more well known story though. See ... the thing that makes me want to see it again is to dissect how they told the story. If it was the same old re-hash of King Arthur and Camelot and all that ... well, heck. Didn't First Knight and Mists of Avalon just do that?

:earsboy:

[jarestel]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
See ... the thing that makes me want to see it again is to dissect how they told the story. If it was the same old re-hash of King Arthur and Camelot and all that ... well, heck. Didn't First Knight and Mists of Avalon just do that?

:earsboy:

IMO, there's never been a first class movie version of the Arthur story. The films you refer to were similar, again in my opinion, to the cartoon versions of LOTR. ( comparing cartoon LOTR to PJ's LOTR, that is ) Obviously, you disagree, but that's okay. We like what we like, right? My only real point is if you just want to see a movie with knights & kings & such, you can tell any story you want without having to pretend that it's based on some newly discovered "historical" evidence about King Arthur. I still think it would stand a better chance as King Pete, but I'm starting to repeat myself so we'll just agree to diagree on this one.

[WDSearcher]

I didn't say I necessarily LIKED First Knight or Mists of Avalon! ;) I was just using them as an example.

I don't think there's been a good re-telling of the legends of Camelot since, well, Camelot. Or maybe the 1953 version of Knights of the Round Table with Mel Ferrar as Arthur and Ava Garner as Guinevere. That stands as a favorite.

My point was that they'd been done ... over and over again. This King Arthur appealed to me because it was new.

:earsboy:

[Planogirl]

I agree that there hasn't been a good, modern version of the King Arthur stories. First Knight had the stars at least but was way too focused on the love triangle. This movie could have finally told the familiar legends in the right way but instead the filmmakers chose to veer off into unfamiliar territory which is kind of surprising. But I will see this before I judge too much. :)