(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.ent4.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Ftouchstone_pictures%2Fking_arthur%2Fclive_owen%2Farthur.jpg&hash=533d1258a991575913671a6dbaa3114cd19cfff2)
Trailer here:
Hi-Res (http://mp3content02.bcst.yahoo.com/proot1/PubShare02/yahoomovies/5/5575674.mov)
Med-Res (http://mp3content02.bcst.yahoo.com/proot1/PubShare03/yahoomovies/9/5575673.mov)
Lo-Res (http://mp3content01.bcst.yahoo.com/proot4/PubShare15/yahoomovies/7/5575672.mov)
Release Date: July 7th, 2004 (wide)
Cast: Clive Owen (Arthur, AKA Arturius), Stephen Dillane (Merlin), Keira Knightley (Guinevere), Hugh Dancy (Galahad), Ioan Gruffudd (Lancelot), Stellan Skarsgaard (Cedric), Ray Winstone (Bors), Valeria Cavalli (Fulcinia), Charlie Creed-Miles (Ganis), Joel Edgerton (Gawain), Sean Gilder (Jols), Pat Kinevane (Horton), Ivano Marescotti (Bishop Germanius), Mads Mikkelsen (Tristram), Til Schweiger (Cynric), Ray Stevenson (Dagonet), Ken Stott (Marius Honorius)
Director: Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Replacement Killers, Bait, Tears of the Sun)
Screenwriter: David Franzoni (Amistad; cowriter of Gladiator, Jumpin' Jack Flash)
Premise: As the Roman Empire crumbles (circa 450 A.D.), the British Isles are thrown into a loose anarchy as errant knights are entrenched in years of territorial battle. Then, one king emerges to unite them, Arthur, with his concept of a Round Table of united knights. This film aims to tie the legend of Arthur into the realities of the time in which he would have ruled. The details of the plot aren't known, but this film will likely depict the battles that led to Arthur's reign, and the issues that he would have dealt with (the traditional "pulling Excalibur out of the stone" origin story will probably not be used).
Looks interesting... I dont know if this will be good... but I will see it for Keira Knightley :oops:
Quote from: andykLooks interesting... I dont know if this will be good... but I will see it for Keira Knightley :oops:
And I'll see it for Clive Owen.......dang he looks good in that pic
I fear this will be the bastard love-child of Braveheart and Gladiator, and I expect nothing more of it. Of course, I will see it if only for the fact that I have always been alittle interested in King Arthur and the like.
However, I do not recall Guinevere EVER fighting. Could just be me though, but that's my only real complaint as of now.
This looks very bad indeed, and Owen looks as if he's phoned in his performance.
There have been rumours that there was a very bad vibe on set, and apparantly there have been lots of injuries, someone even losing an eye. :shock:
Quote from: MacGuffinScreenwriter: David Franzoni (... cowriter of Gladiator...)
hmmm..bad sign...
even so, maybe i'll watch it just for Clive Owen
This will most definietly suck, but I'll be there first day of the release for sure.
I loved Jack Whyte's books Camulod Chronicles, that depicts the events leading to Arthur's reign.
I'll watch it just for Keira.
I like the idea of doing an authentic, de-Mallory'd King Arthur story, but I'm not a huge Antoine Fuqua fan. I'm neutral on this.
Although I haven't actually seen the trailer yet.
Quote from: GhostboyI'll watch it just for Keira.
I like the idea of doing an authentic, de-Mallory'd King Arthur story, but I'm not a huge Antoine Fuqua fan. I'm neutral on this.
Although I haven't actually seen the trailer yet.
From IGN:
"SciFi Wire claims King Arthur has drawn inspiration from 'Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Thomas Malory's 15th-century romance, which distilled many of the earlier Arthur legends into one narrative and formed the basis of subsequent retellings of the myth.'"
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/427/427725p1.html
Sure, it's just inspiration and doesn't equate to "Le Morte d'Arthur: The Movie," but I think saying 'de-Mallory'd' wouldn't be accurate.
And Keira also compares it to Gladiator. Yipp-ee!
TRAILER'S UP AT APPLE...
http://www.apple.com/trailers/touchstone/king_arthur.html
yeah sorry. i didnt know if the ones going up at apple were different or not. i just thought they'd be more accessible there (if other sites hosting them take them down since apple usually leaves em up FORever), but maybe not.
Yeah, I liked it... when it was called "Excalibur."
It doesn't look like Excalibur at all ... cause Excalibur was great.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2F153%2F810283.jpg&hash=5c16d3e90ffcd29ddf05aac12eaf587f24516a8a)
Hmm... poster is not very original
'from the producer of...' makes me want to PUKE my guts out. who fucking cares about a producer? a producer means shit.
Quote from: themodernage02a producer means shit.
A producer means everything but in this case it makes me
not wanna se it...
producers are pretty cool, man.
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.
Keira's getting my $8, for this is bound to be a shit fest.
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.
Quote from: themodernage02'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.
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.
bottom of the line: producer owns the property, producer develops the idea, producer hires the director, producer has final cut.
yeah, most jerry bruckheimer movies suck balls
Quote from: OnomatopitaAs 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.
Quote from: cowboykurtisbottom 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.
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.
Quote from: GhostboyCowboy 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.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: cowboykurtisbottom 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.
well like i said, ironically tonite i learned a lot more about a producers job through The Bad and the Beautiful which gave me a greater personal respect for their job. however, from a moviegoing standpoint, i would never let a producers name being attached sway me to or from a movie i was otherwise interested/disinterested in. like when THE HOT CHICK comes out and says something like FROM ONE OF THE PRODUCERS OF MR. DEEDS like its supposed to mean something?
It means if you like Mr. Deeds, you may like The Hot Chick. That's what it'd mean for the general moviegoing public, like Mac said, where they know movies based on stars and familiar formulas and names (Bruckheimer does have name recognition, as do other comedic producers). People will be swayed by that if they hear that a new movie is coming out by someone who made another movie they liked. Just like we are with directors.
Quote from: themodernage02from a moviegoing standpoint, i would never let a producers name being attached sway me to or from a movie
would you go see a movie produced by p t anderson? pt anderson presents... its the same thing.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: themodernage02from a moviegoing standpoint, i would never let a producers name being attached sway me to or from a movie
would you go see a movie produced by p t anderson? pt anderson presents... its the same thing.
only if he directed
Quote from: El DuderinoQuote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: themodernage02from a moviegoing standpoint, i would never let a producers name being attached sway me to or from a movie
would you go see a movie produced by p t anderson? pt anderson presents... its the same thing.
only if he directed
so you wouldnt be interested in a film where he found a script that he loved but felt the material was not suitable for himself to direct and hired another who he thought would execute it properly? a producer is a being of taste. if you like the taste and merit of pt anderson as a creator, id think youd be interested with any project he would be willing to put his time into.
i do pay attention to "from the producer of_____"
b/c scorcese produced you can count on me
lynch produced crumb.......
there are many more but those are top of my head kind of examples......
oh yeah......cameron in solaris.......
maybe these people i mentioned as producers wasn't 100% procued the film/doc....but they helped it out in certian ways......
EDIT: isn't malick producing DGG's the undertow......?
you guys are talking about somethign completely different. DIRECTORS producing, is different from somebody who is ALWAYS a producer. name one producer you follow all their works because of their namebrand?
Lawrence Bender?
Quote from: StefenLawrence Bender?
Dino. AND Walter Salles
Christine Vachon's name is enough to get me to see a movie. I'm often interested in what Scott Rudin acquires, before a director is even attached.
back to King Arthur...
I think this looks bad. "The True story behind King Arthur"
Anyone else find it ironic that Bruckheimer brings us the true story in anything?
Quote from: StefenLawrence Bender?
so you've seen...
Survivors Club, The (2004) (TV) (executive producer)
Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights (2004) (producer)
"Lost in Oz" (2002) TV Series (executive producer)
Nancy Drew (2002) (TV) (executive producer)
Stark Raving Mad (2002) (executive producer)
Knockaround Guys (2001) (producer)
Mexican, The (2001) (producer)
Anatomy of a Hate Crime (2001) (TV) (executive producer)
From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter (2000) (V) (executive producer)
Anna and the King (1999) (producer)
From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money (1999) (V) (executive producer)
Price Above Rubies, A (1998) (producer)
Snakeland (1996) (executive producer)
because he produced them? so how did Dirty Dancing 2 compare to the original?
the original is better, but havana nights has its moments. Don't try to put me in a corner modernage.
i just think its ridiculous to argue this point. everybody would've seen kill bill regardless of who produced it because of who directed it. and conversely nobody here wants to see dusk till dawn three or price above rubies regardless of who produced them. my rant was only inpired in the first place from how big the letters on the poster was on who produced the film.
Hey mod-age, I got a new one for you: In the trailer for Shall We Dance, the voice-over says, "From the studio that brought you Chicago."
Quote from: MacGuffinHey mod-age, I got a new one for you: In the trailer for Shall We Dance, the voice-over says, "From the studio that brought you Chicago."
*(head explodes).
I like the one in the Rollerball trailer:
'from one of the producers of Fast And The Furious.'
Not all of them, mind you, just one.
Quote from: GhostboyI like the one in the Rollerball trailer:
'from one of the producers of Fast And The Furious.'
Not all of them, mind you, just one.
If all of them produced Rollerball, it would have been a quality product.
Featurette (http://mediaframe.yahoo.com/detect/lite/prefs.html?.os=Windows&.osv=XP&.br=Netscape&.bv=7.1&.java=true&.sh=1024&.sv=768&.tz=44&.yp=false&.wm=7.1&.rn=6.0.12.68&.qt=6.4&.fl=6.0&.p1755=true&.p554=true&.rate=4075&.ct=false&.intl=us&.mc=q1=QJjv6xQAcYBkYA--%26q2=QJhEsA--&.done=/launch%3flid=wmv-56-p.1267833-128046,wmv-100-p.1267834-128046,wmv-300-p.1267835-128046%26p=movies%26f=1808404754%26.spid=1808567111%26.dist=disney%26type=m%2522,500,590)%3b) in Media Player/Real Player formats
Final poster:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themoviebox.net%2Fphp%2Fnews%2Fdata%2Fupimages%2Flilkaposter.jpg&hash=190fa99675b1dbba3ed95f9dbf974f4c8c34e7c5)
Haha. They may as well just call it Guinevere's Boobs.
Didn't those female archers, you know, Amazonians, cut off one of their boobs back in the day?
And this is also the first time I've ever heard of Guinevere seeing any action outside of the bedroom. I guess that's why it's "untold," until now...
So has anybody seen this or what?
Should I go or save my cash? The trailer is shitty but there are so many good films with bad trailers.
It doesn't make you forget the superior "Excalibur," and the battle scenes are nothing that "Braveheart" hasn't done better, save for one fight on a frozen river. The pacing could have been cut quicker, and I'm sure the film could have benefitted from the unDisneyfied, 'R' rated director's cut. The acting is kinda flat, and the Knights lack deeper personality. I like Clive Owen, but he has yet to really breakthrough with a 'mainstream' role that suits him.
In the realm of summer action, so so affair. The story is only half involving and Kiera Knightely, for as beautiful as she is, only half distracting in that good way. Enjoyed the action scenes and of course, for summer films, I expected nothing but felt rewarded. I must say though the best part of the film by far was Jerry Bruckheimer's production efforts. Excellent work. Yes, he's been incorporated with some shit films, but I think he does quality work. Its just I'd like to see him doing more risky films (have yet to see Veronica Guerin) but for summer duties, I always appreciate what he can do for such hollow films.
c'mon, admit it. you're just saying that to get under my skin.
Alright, I saw it yesterday, now I came back here to read MAC's review again and I totally TOTALLY agree with it.... to the letter!
That PG-13 love scene was pathetic to say the least, I was so hoping to see Keira's boobs. I did like the sets and the props.
Touchstone Pictures has announced King Arthur which stars Clive Owen and Keira Knightley. The film will be available to own from the 21st December this year, in seperate rated and unrated editions. The PG-13 rated edition will include the theatrical cut of the film, whereas the unrated edition will include a never-before seen extended Director’s cut of the film. Both discs will include an audio commentary with director Antoine Fuqua, deleted scenes with optional director commentary, an alternate ending with an optional director commentary, a new Blood On The Land: Forging King Arthur making of featurette and a Round Table Video Commentary with cast and filmmakers. Completing the packages will be a Knight Vision pop-up trivia feature, a playable X-Box video game demo as well as producer Jerry Bruckheimer’s personal photo gallery. As for the technical specs, the theatrical cut appears to be available in 1.33:1 full screen only, whereas the director's cut will receive a 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer. Both will carry an English Dolby Digital 5.1 track.