King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is the myths second big studio misfire this century.
We consider what both Arthurian flops represent.
For their studios, it was the worst of times, and the still pretty awful of times.
It was the winter of incredulity and a spring that barely thawed.
It was the age of disappointment, but also a time of corporate frustration too.
Nevertheless, they represent a fascinating study in contrasts.
Time capsules of branding at the expense of source material understanding.
There are even evil aquatic sea witches with tentacles because…reasons?
This newest Hollywood attempt at Arthur has mostly come out in an era of interconnecting and endless superhero movies.
He sees his parents die and then gets superpowers by holding a MacGuffin, in this case Excalibur.
Honestly, its moot.
One can hear Guy Ritchies disinterested yawn whenever the film cuts to her.
But all that does today is get the film an adult-only rating and lose a younger audience.
In many ways, this has actually improved the roles for actresses in big budget movies.
Luckily though, this too gives the impression of changing for genuinely good reasons thanks toHunger Gamesand nowStar Wars.
She also thanklessly gets placed in the damsel role.
Yet the most definitive difference between the two films is really in how they tell their tale.
This is the real pronounced difference as big budget moviemaking tastes change.
Plot threads may not be completely and neatly concluded, but for the most part there will be resolution.
Alls well that ends well.
Only in the final minutes of the picture is King Arthur actually crowned King Arthur.
His roundtable is still incomplete; his Mage (and sister?
As such, it mustnt tell one storyit must tell a segment, a chapter, a prologue.
A pilot for a cinematic serial.
InLegend of the Sword, hes a man-child who hasnt even had his first quest.
One is a movie, the other is a TV series in disguise.
In the end, however, they each must ultimately stand on their own.
And honestly, both are found wanting.
Between the two, I personally thinkLegend of the Swordis more enjoyable.
Its not very good, but it is eminently watchable.
The 2004 film, for all of its cinematic purity, is actually a pretty dull affair.
Robbed of any magic, fantastical or otherwise, that movie lives or dies on its epic battle scenes.
And die it does, for Fuqua is no Ridley Scott or Peter Jackson.
As it turned out, he wasnt even Wolfgang Petersen.
The piles of corpses were not the only thing lifeless in those battle scene frames.
Meanwhile, Charlie Hunnam gives a playful and charismatic turn as a cocky cockney Arthur.
Still, neither approach went on to set the box office on fire.
A cynical interpretation would be that audiences no longer have a taste for King Arthur or his noble knights.
Who knows, there could be even an elusive sequel or two built intothatbedrock.
