King Arthur

[modage]

'from the producer of...' makes me want to PUKE my guts out.  who fucking cares about a producer?  a producer means shit.

[kotte]

a producer means shit.

A producer means everything but in this case it makes me not wanna se it...

[pete]

producers are pretty cool, man.

[kotte]

If you want your child to be a producer, don't name him John, James, Jacob, Jacque or anythign with a J...his friend could call him Jerry in the future.

[The Perineum Falcon]

Keira's getting my $8, for this is bound to be a shit fest.

[The Perineum Falcon]

From IGN

King Arthur Continues
Additional filming underway.

April 27, 2004 - A scooper for Dark Horizons reveals that additional filming on King Arthur recently transpired in the Brecon Beacons National Park in Wales.


"Today was the last day of filming and they reshot some of the opening title sequence. Apparently, the studio was not impressed with what they saw," claims DH's source. "These new shots included tracking a young boy on horse galloping across the mountain and various aerial shots for this. The dramatic landscape is supposed to double for Russia – despite the fact that the Arthurian legend originated around these parts. Next week they will be at Pinewood Studios."

IGN FilmForce checked in with its own trusty Arthurian source who gave another side of the story.

"It is absolutely untrue that the studio was in any way 'unhappy' with anything, in fact the studio is very happy with what they've seen," says IGNFF's source. "In fact, some of the extra shooting includes extra effects which were considered 'optional' (that is, expensive) and were given the go-ahead because the studio is so excited about the picture."

King Arthur draws on historical research that suggests the real Arthur was a Roman warrior and his knights were Sarmatians (Russians), which is why the opening sequence is set by the Black Sea. The filmmakers were looking for locations better suited to double as the Black Sea than those offered by Ireland so reshoots and pick-up shots in Wales were necessary.

Another scene that was recently filmed was a forest scene with Merlin and Arthur. There were apparently issues with the original Irish location so filming couldn't be done there. The Pinewood scene slated to be filmed next week involves Merlin (Stephen Dillane) on the Round Table set.

In related news, Newsweek profiled King Arthur in its new summer movie preview. "It's 500 A.D.," star Clive Owen advised the mag. "Britain is in chaos. And there's this half Roman, half Briton who may be the one to galvanize his country. It's a journey of someone who becomes a man of his people."

King Arthur opens July 7th.

[cowboykurtis]

'from the producer of...' makes me want to PUKE my guts out.  who fucking cares about a producer?  a producer means shit.

your stock price just went way down. i HAD some respect for you, and now, well, you're just a FUCKING IDIOT. you have much to learn bucko. learn what a producer does before you open your mouth -- next time chap,next time.

[ono]

As usual, I see both sides.  The producer credit can be invaluable if it's someone like, off the top of my head, Joanne Sellar or Lawrence Bender, but if it's Jerry Bruckheimer, then the movie is shit, and the producer title doesn't mean shit.  Producers are best when they don't see themselves as auteurs, but people who are in service of the director to help them make the best movie possible.  When you see a film from a producer, you know, nine times out of ten, it will be shit.

[cowboykurtis]

bottom of the line: producer owns the property, producer develops the idea, producer hires the director, producer has final cut.

[El Duderino]

yeah, most jerry bruckheimer movies suck balls

[MacGuffin]

As usual, I see both sides.  The producer credit can be invaluable if it's someone like, off the top of my head, Joanne Sellar or Lawrence Bender, but if it's Jerry Bruckheimer, then the movie is shit, and the producer title doesn't mean shit.  Producers are best when they don't see themselves as auteurs, but people who are in service of the director to help them make the best movie possible.  When you see a film from a producer, you know, nine times out of ten, it will be shit.

But you're looking at it as someone who hates action movies and what Bruckheimer produces. But to general audiences (you know, those who actually pay to see and like these kind of films, thus making them blockbusters), seeing the connection to his other films is the draw. But his name is better known now with the CSI series. And Bruckheimer's contribution to the film and filmmaker is very supportive; he doesn't step in or take control. I've seen it up close.

Sellar's or Bender's name don't mean anything to general audiences unless you put their film credits with their names.

[modage]

bottom of the line: producer owns the property, producer develops the idea, producer hires the director, producer has final cut.

are you a/an aspiring producer?  cause thats a little defensive.  a director has a vision, a writer has a vision.  a producer helps those people with it.  but really, who sits around making message boards for joanne sellar going 'god, i cant wait to see what she produces next!'  who cares about a producer?  as a moviegoer, the director, writer, actors matter and the producer could be jerry bruckheimer or jerry orbach and it wouldnt make any difference to me.

[Ghostboy]

Cowboy Kurtis's scenario is accurate in a lot of cases, though...I mean, probably 90% of the movies that get released are produced that way. Then you get the other movies, the ones that WE all care about, which are generally more auteur driven.

[cowboykurtis]

Cowboy Kurtis's scenario is accurate in a lot of cases, though...I mean, probably 90% of the movies that get released are produced that way. Then you get the other movies, the ones that WE all care about, which are generally more auteur driven.

magnolia is produced by pt anderson -- hes not just the director -- kubrick...producer. the producers have the control.

[cowboykurtis]

bottom of the line: producer owns the property, producer develops the idea, producer hires the director, producer has final cut.

a director has a vision, a writer has a vision.  a producer helps those people with it.  .

my reasoning for the harsh remark, was in response to your naive and uninformed statement. a producer is the one with the overall vision -- excluding people like pt anderson who conceptualize, direct and PRODUCE their own films, a producer is the one with the vision. he is the one who takes material and goes " this story is wonderful, im going to make this into a movie." they find the money, they hire ALL the creativedepartment heads who they feel will best "tell" teh story (including the director). he is the one at the end of the day who has the end all be all decision in every aspect, including the creative decisions. if the director is the one with the VISION, why does a film's PRODUCER recieve the oscar for BEST PICTURE. id just suggest youd learn what youre speaking about before you make  beligerant statements. youre no different then the "moviegoers" you criticize time and time again for ignorantly dismissing a "brilliant" film. ignorance is no different than being blind.