|
|
Post by hardball on May 12, 2017 23:03:42 GMT
That's according to DeadlineIts budget is $175M before P&A. |
|
|
|
Post by CowherPowerForever on May 13, 2017 6:52:00 GMT
Awful release date. What was WB thinking? And its not like Guy's previous film(Man from UNCLE) where the reviews were good enough to give it some good legs. That won't be happening here.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on May 13, 2017 16:21:54 GMT
bombing everywhere
|
|
|
|
Post by hardball on May 14, 2017 4:01:40 GMT
King Arthur opened at $14.3M, even lower than estimates.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 14, 2017 7:59:17 GMT
wow.....
|
|
ashverses
Sophomore
@ashverses
Posts: 572
Likes: 119
 
|
Post by ashverses on May 14, 2017 14:11:41 GMT
Don't know why they continued to sink more money in reshoots after the first ones had a negative response. This is a swords and sandals film. What swords and sandal film could ever recover from a 170M budget?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 15, 2017 15:08:06 GMT
Don't know why they continued to sink more money in reshoots after the first ones had a negative response. This is a swords and sandals film. What swords and sandal film could ever recover from a 170M budget? Troy (2004) had a budget of $180M I think and did pretty well for itself. |
|
ashverses
Sophomore
@ashverses
Posts: 572
Likes: 119
|
Post by ashverses on May 15, 2017 20:59:23 GMT
Don't know why they continued to sink more money in reshoots after the first ones had a negative response. This is a swords and sandals film. What swords and sandal film could ever recover from a 170M budget? Troy (2004) had a budget of $180M I think and did pretty well for itself. I think it made about 500M. Troy might be the exception, not the rule.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 7:03:43 GMT
Don't know why they continued to sink more money in reshoots after the first ones had a negative response. This is a swords and sandals film. What swords and sandal film could ever recover from a 170M budget? Not only that. It's a sword and sandals directed by Guy Ritchie. Just saw the film 2 days ago and it's a fucking disaster train wreck of a movie. It did look very good in 3D but that is the only redeeming quality. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 16, 2017 12:50:32 GMT
I thought it was alright but I had low expectations. Fantasy and Guy Ritchie may not be the best fit with general audiences. I like most of his stuff a lot, so I knew what I was getting. It isn't like the character of King Arthur is a hot property these days and as other have pointed out, the release date was suicide. This had bomb written all over it, but I personally enjoyed what it did as a film. It's not great, I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to anyone who isn't a fan of Ritchie's style; but I didn't think it was terrible.
What's wild is I heard an interview with Ritchie where he revealed his first cut of the film was over 3 hours. There are parts of the film where I think this shows, and it definitely would've been much different; whether it would've made it better or exponentially worse is up for debate, though.
|
|
ashverses
Sophomore
@ashverses
Posts: 572
Likes: 119
|
Post by ashverses on May 16, 2017 13:01:21 GMT
I might see this out of curiosity. I know some friends who enjoyed the movie and thought it's very low rotten tomato score was a bit harsh.
|
|
