Trailer for 'King Arthur'

[Another Voice]

As a holiday gift, Disney has released the trailer for next summer Bruckheimer blockbuster, a Roman Empire retelling of the legends of King Arthur. Not only is it "from the producer of Pirates of the Caribbean, but it also stars Pirates' Keira Knightley as Guinevere (now a really hot Celtic warrior babe). This isn't Monty Python's Arthur for sure.

Be confused yourself at http://kingarthur.movies.go.com .

 

[Cricket2]

How are they going to convert the backstage tour to this newest feature? There doesn't seem to be a quarter of a billion dollars spent on explosions.

JC

 

[daannzzz]

Gosh. It appears to mostly be about people riding around on horses and fighting.

 

[Cricket2]

Who knows, with "Bad Santa" on the shelf now, maybe they are going for the MPAA "gore" qualifier and a score of an "R" with all of the sword play.

Nah! They are probably trying to play off a story or something foolish like that.

JC

 

[dzneelvr]

Now that the LOTR's trilogy is in the can, I think we're going to see ALOT of movies try (and I use the term loosely) and imitate it with epic battles, heros and heroines, wizardry, etc. ....here's to another round of "re makes"

 

[BRERALEX]

If anything i hope this film makes Clive owen the superstar we all know he can be......and the next james bond

 

[AspiringCindy]

I don't know how Disney's version will fair in comparison with the beautifully filmed "Excalibur"?!

 

[DisneyFanGuy]

I hate to say it, but the trailer was kind of boring. It didn't hook me at all. Pirates had me with the trailer and the movie exceeded my expectations.

 

[Bob O]

I thought the trailer looked interesting but i dont know how much of a market there is for this type of movie. And while it wont be fair it will be compared to Pirates in that it is made by the same people with a summer release scheduled.

 

[Willowwind]

dzneelvr, how do you figure a King Arthur Movie is a remake of LOTR when the ledgends of Arthur have been told since the Middle Ages!?!?!

Bob O, As for a market for the movie, ever hear of the SCA? It's a 90,000 member medieval reenactment organization spread in every state of the union and around the world. Only one of dozens of medieval reenactment groups, not even to mention the 100s of RPG and fantasy fans. How about the those who follow the Arthurian tradition spiritually? I don't have hard numbers on them, but there are several seminaries and still people who make pilgrimiages to the Arthuran sites. There's also many medieval scholars who will be interested in the Film I'm sure as there are volumes and volumes of texts on the topic that are still being written from both a ledgendary and historical perspective.

Think that there aren't enough people waiting to watch battle scenes? LoL.... Google "Pennsic War"

I for one am looking forward to it to see how they portray the historical Arthur compared to how most look to the fantasy aspects of the tales. Several of the groups mentioned above will also get huge membership influxes from the movie opening as well. Happened with Braveheart, Elizabeth, Shakespeare in Love and all the other medievalish movies that have been released in the past.

You'd be surprised, there is life other than Disney. But ssshhhh... don't let my husband know I said that. He'd use it as an excuse to take me somwhere else on vacation.

 

[Another Voice]

In reality there is almost nothing known about the "historical" King Arthur. There are indications there was a powerful Roman-era warlord with a big fort, but no one has ever been able to show a direct link between this guy and any of the legends. Whatever history there was in the stories has been muddled through centuries of retelling and interpretation.

This new version of Arthur is therefore no more historically correct than Monty Python's version.

There's a practice in Hollywood called "the pitch". A writer gets a few moments of an executive's time and has to sell his or her great story in a few minutes. One of the time honored clichés is to refer to other movies. You take a movie that was a hit (showing the box office success that's sure to be replicated) and combine it with yet another hit movie (doubling the box office and providing a "twist" to make things interesting). It's a serious business practice – watch the film The Player - but it's really more of a party game.

When I first saw this King Arthur the only thing that jumped into my head as "you see – it's like The Lord of the Rings but with The Gladiator in the lead instead of the midgets!"

 

[Bob O]

willowwind, while i dont doubt that there are alot of re-enactment groups who do follow "King Arthur" that in no way will make the King Arthur movie i financial success at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So i guess with all these re-enactment groups seeing the movie mutiple times it will outgross LOTR and Titanic.
When i scan the top grossing movies i fail to see King Athur tales at the top of the list so apparently these worldwide re-enactors dont visit movies often enough to makes these mvoies major moneymakers.
AV-And King Arthur unlike Gladiator doesnt have someone of the quality of Russell Crowe in the lead and i dont see many academy awards in its future.

 

[Willowwind]

Well I must admit amongst the throngs of medievalists I know, I'm a 16th Century gal, so arguing the merits of a 6th Century hero isn't my strong point. I happen to believe in King Arthur and several of the symbologies surrounding him and his mythos. I firmly believe that his legend stands strongly on it's own without having to ride upon the back of 20th Century counter parts. But gee, it's only 1500 years of interpretation, maybe Arthur's just a flash in the pan.

I don't actually expect any more accuracy of the person from this movie than say, Elizabeth or Braveheart. Which is to say slim to none at best.

However, I applaud even the attempt of a studio to create a period piece in which the setting of the story takes place in an appropriate time and culture to create the feel of being taken back to another place. Granted, little of that can be caught from the trailers quick flashes of scenes. What costuming you can see does however show greater promise than that of say, First Knight.

I never said that it would outgross anything Bob O, but there *is* a market for it, which is what you questioned. Every movie isn't a blockbuster and that's fine, they can still be good entertainment.

 

[Bob O]

I guess we will see if their is a market for this movie by the box office take as comapred to the costs of making the movie and marketing costs.

 

[Another Voice]

I didn't say the Arthurian myths are "a flash in pan" because of time – but the historical "truth" has been lost and is irrelevant.

Arthur, the story, is what's important. I find it rather disingenuous for the filmmakers to claim "this is the real, historical Arthur" when their work is just as much fiction as Malory (if not more so because Morte d'Arthur wasn't made in an era of marketing driven studio muddling). The real facts behind the stories, if there are any at all, have been lost.

On the commercial side – the it's damn hard to market a movie set in the Middle Ages (it didn't help that Timeline was utter garbage as a movie anyway), but a Dark Ages setting is an extra burden. Worse, this film runs counter to centuries of a medieval setting to the tales. It will be interesting to see if an audience will except all this without comparisons to The Life of Brian.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

The real facts behind the stories, if there are any at all, have been lost.

Not quite. There are quite a few facts which point to Arthur - the writings of Gildas and Bede, archeological records, etc. It's certainly possible to construct a pretty accurate portrayal of who Arthur was and what he did and when he did it, although the details are certainly fuzzy. It will be interesting as an Arthurian scholar to see how many things they get right. I agree with your main point, however, is that the legend of Arthur has overshadowed the reality of Arthur.

It will be interesting to see if an audience will except all this without comparisons to The Life of Brian.

You did mean "Holy Grail", right?

 

[Uncleromulus]

In the spirit of this thread, Mrs U and I will tonite dine in the family room--on our round table.

 

[Planogirl]

I can't immediately think of any recent mainstream movies based on King Arthur except for First Knight. According to boxofficemojo, it only grossed $37,600,435 in 1995. Of course, it was far from a great movie but unlike the newer movie, it did have top name stars in it. But according to some, Clive Owen is about to break out as a big star so who knows?

 

[Another Voice]

"You did mean "Holy Grail", right?"

Watch the trailer and see which movie pops to mind.