King Arthur - How To Fail At Fantasy
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- King Arthur Failed because of one single flaw, it is a flaw in every story however this film was particularly rife with it...
Support me on Patreon: / henryboseley
Please Like and Subscribe for more Video essays.
A huge thank you to my patrons for helping me create these videos:
Adam Bergman
Hannah Southerland
Joseph Henderson
Gabriel Hug
Nikkie Dekeuster
Debbie Dearest
Ringoster
Justus Berberich
Debra Stanley
Notker Kirchgäßner
John Sipes
Thad Snell
Steve Barrow
PJ Crabb
The Fisherman
The Millennial Writes
Ryan Tam
Bernardo Rodriguez
1:35 did he just Yoshi that horse?
Yup...
The horse was obviously equipped with a royal horse parachute, and found its rendezvous point with the other para cavalry.
"I can see their parachutes! They´re ok"!
Dammit, now I have the Mario World theme in my head...
───────────────────────────────
───────────────████─███────────
──────────────██▒▒▒█▒▒▒█───────
─────────────██▒────────█──────
─────────██████──██─██──█──────
────────██████───██─██──█──────
────────██▒▒▒█──────────███────
────────██▒▒▒▒▒▒───▒──██████───
───────██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒███─
──────██▒▒▒▒─────▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█─
──────██▒▒▒───────▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒█▒██
───────██▒▒───────▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█
────────██▒▒─────█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█
────────███▒▒───██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█
─────────███▒▒───█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█─
────────██▀█▒▒────█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██──
──────██▀██▒▒▒────█████████────
────██▀███▒▒▒▒────█▒▒██────────
█████████▒▒▒▒▒█───██──██───────
█▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▒▒▒▒█────████▒▒█──────
█▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▒▒▒▒▒█───███▒▒▒█──────
█▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▒▒▒▒█────█▒▒▒▒▒█──────
██▒▒▒▒▒█▒▒▒▒▒▒█───█▒▒▒███──────
─██▒▒▒▒███████───██████────────
──██▒▒▒▒▒██─────██─────────────
───██▒▒▒██─────██──────────────
────█████─────███──────────────
────█████▄───█████▄────────────
──▄█▓▓▓▓▓█▄─█▓▓▓▓▓█▄───────────
──█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█──────────
──█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█──────────
──▀████████▀▀███████▀──────────
I spent 2 minutes copy and pasting this from a website, I hope you're happy XD
To be honest, I really, really liked the movie. Sure, it had its flaws, and the beginning was terrible, but it was still entertaining as hell, at least to me.
Gui Caldo
You’re not alone on that good sir.
I was the 100th like 😎
Me too bro
Me too
I loved the Uther scene.
Was it a great movie? No. Did I like it? yes. It was very unique and visually appealing and the acting was great.
Am I the only one that really like that movie? It's in my top 5 movies from the past few years. Saw it twice in theater and at least a couple more times since then.
My top 5 too.
i honestly LOVE this movie.
It's a very good movie in terms of entertainment but that's about it,I still enjoyed it when I saw it. You will like it if you look for entertainment.
jesus. are you a teenager? watch more movies.
@@claynorth964 Not every movie has to be an artistic masterpiece. Personally, I enjoy the mashup of the Arthurian fantasy with a Guy Ritchie heist movie. The dissonance of the classic Richie style direction/editing compared to a regular fantasy movie is what really makes the movie for me. Casting Sons' actor Charlie Hunnam is perfect for this too, subverting the audience expectations for the classic sword-in-the-stone character.
The entire traditional story has been (over) done so many times that anything but a subversion like this would be utterly forgettable and not worth the time to make. It's just too bad that most people didn't get it or at least didn't enjoy it. I think the main problem is likely that the trailers didn't let people know to expect anything other than a generic fantasy movie. It seemed like they were just trying to sell the movie as "King Arthur, but with Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law". I expect that the studio pushed for that since it was the peak of Hunnam's career at the time.
Like I said the movie is no masterpiece, but I find it enjoyable in it's uniqueness and in how it attempted to subvert the fantasy style in a way that is rarely done to this degree.
This movie gets more shit than it deserves. It actually wasn't bad...
But it wasn't great either.
Well.. I love king arthur and I love medieval movies and I love fantasy. I couldn't for the life of me bring myself to pay attention to this the few times I've tried watching it. I'm sure it's not the worst movie ever, but everything just seems so boring and uninteresting.
PurityKane you think this is the worst movie i think the worst movie is mortal kombat annihilation
@@firebrickman where did I say I thought this was the worst movie ever? lol
Well actually it was bad, it was so bad that i would not even attempt to steal it.
I think one of the key faults with King Arthur, and something that could perhaps explain the points you make around the 7:30 mark, is that this was SO OBVIOUSLY designed from the very beginning to be a franchise. I think Warner Brothers even said they were planning on making 6 King Arthur films in total.... all before the first had even been released! I actually did enjoy King Arthur, but it was the epitome of a studio not being able to think past "franchise" and dollar signs instead of focusing on things like, oh I dunno, making a good film. They should have streamlined KA more, as you said, and then slowly introduced the other characters and their personalities if the franchise did continue. Instead, they fucked it before it even had a chance.
The interesting thing for me is that focusing on making a good film might have given them the franchise they wanted. Instead, they only slapped together a string of cliches and boring CGI sequences thinking that just having pretty people on lead roles together with that would given them the franchise. But I don't think studios, writers and directors can see past the cliches anymore. We'll need new generations and the complete failure of the current system to have that happen.
I completely agree with your analysis rather than the video, the plot is too damn fast for the audience to immerse into the story, immersion is really important at fantasy genre. Look at the ending of LOTR: Return of The King, when all the people bow down to the hobbits, I got a real goose bump from that scene, why? because immersion
When you build an extended universe I think there needs to be two rules,
1. That the movie stands well on its own. If the movie isn't good then I'm not going to be going to see the other movies in the universe unless its something I'm super interested in like Star trek (aka an already made franchise) or I hear that the sequels are having major changes such as getting a new production crew that I approve of. Basically if you don't get the people on board for film 1 then they are 98% likely not to go see the next one.
and
2. Anything for the extend universe shouldn't obstruct the current plot. Basically I shouldn't need to wait for the second movie to get who or what is going on in the first. Sure you can leave some mysteries but those mysteries shouldn't derail the plot. Like the training place in this movie. They didn't need to give a detailed explanation but at least a small blurb of exposition now so that we can be excited about how it will be used in the future.
WeegieMovies wait really? I didn’t get that impression at all I thought it was about having fun
Alex DuRain the failure of this film and it's purported franchise disagrees with you.
The opening shows the power of the mages and how they were feared by the later ruler as well as it was part of the betrayal.
An interesting title compared to your thesis. You talk about inefficient storytelling. why is this specific to fantasy? I almost feel like some key point were edited out and the title not changed to reflect it.
perhaps you meant to talk about how world building is important for fantasy? perhaps you meant to make your point ultimately about how it is important to combine world building scenes with storytelling elements to create good fantasy stories? Perhaps you even meant to make the point that implying a world is not enough in fantasy, and that concrete answers and story relevant callbacks to world building scenes are necessary to create good fantasy.
idk, I just feel like there's something missing here, and your title accentuates it by implying a conclusion that simply isn't present in the video.
I liked every second of the movie. It has it's flaws, but I think it gets way more shit than it deserves.
Yass
The first scene shows the importance and strength of wielding Excalibur and that it is necessary for someone to do so to safeguard the kingdom from overpowered threats, such as magic. This ties in later where Arthur has difficulties wielding the blade at all, where Uther didn't seem to have any issues (meaning he's quite strong by will and turning to Arthur struggling to live up to his father throughout the movie.)
The Darklands is suppose to be this mystical, dark place that you're not suppose to understand. He goes there to hone his mind and body, break him down by will, and open him up to the truth of who he is (and make him embrace it). It most definitely could not be cut or he'd still be as stubborn and ignorant as he was before.
I'm not saying the movies isn't flawed, cause it is, and I usually enjoy your videos, but your arguments were quite lacking and people who didn't watch it will get the wrong idea of what the movie truly is.
agreed
Agreed. He could have instead made the same point about the coffers Arthur hides away and how inefficient those scenes were. That element was set up well, displayed an aspect of his personality (that he's smart with money and cautious, cares about his future) and then they just...didn't do anything with it. They make such a big deal of it and when his uncle finds them it's supposedly very serious. But the confrontation with the uncle is the last time money is ever mentioned. Why then did we need to see those scenes?!
They could have tried to maybe use them in the heist scenes where they were interrupting the supply chain to the tower construction site. Bribed some folks to get them access, paid common folk to spy for them, paid for extra weapons. Anything but leaving that thread loose.
But yeah, just finished watching this movie for the maybe 7/8th time. The flaws are huge and glaring but I can't help but have fun watching it. 👌
Vortigern was possessed/corrupted by the evil mage, that's why his nose bleeds when the sorcerer dies
@@henriquebitencourt4280 i watched the movie an hour ago and he wasn't corrupted in fact he was the guy who asked for help to overthrow the king(his brother). Overall the movie is not rly good but i did enjoy it though out the time so it's one of those strange movies.
YES!
Didn’t the first scene of King Arthur serve the purpose of establishing the power of the sword Excalibur?
Not really, he barely used it.
If i remember well, main purpose of it was to show why Excalibur was feared so much by Vortigen. It protected the wielder from dark magic.
Did It establish what you’d expect when watching the film?
For example, the beginning of Indiana Jones served no purpose but served to
Tell us what kind of action you’d expect
Was King Arthur trying to do that?
@@TheCloserLook You should probably watch the movie. It's not that good to talk about an movie you obviously haven't watch or cared to watch.
@@Captain-Axeman Movie critics watched it for sure and they considered bad.
I also watched it and agree with most of TCL's points. The movie was entertaining but there's not much else good about it.
If you ask me the film was just filled with too many cutaways, tangents from the main stories that really served nothing, such as the dark lands. It’s basically mentioned as a place to test skill and then a short 10 min sequences of cuts to show how much of an awful time the main character was having in that particular place and at the end of it I was like: “hmm that was cool and all, but, why did any of that just happen?”
I think the assassination sequence definitely serves a purpose. Yes, they could have done more with it like inject character moments into it to help flesh them out, but it does move the plot forward. It ends with Arthur's friend's death, which drives him to finally assault Vortigen directly. The chase also gives Arthur that last push he needs to use Excalibur's powers. The sequence as a whole is also a big failure for Arthur. A common plot structure is the try-fail cycle where a character tries something and fails, tries something and fails, and so-on until they finally succeed. This really helps to make the end where the character finally triumphs that much more cathartic.
Anyways, I really enjoyed this movie, but you bring up some good points. Nice video.
Yeah, that scene wasn’t the most useless in the movie, to be sure. I just think the consequences should have been more dire. Some nobody got caught and killed iirc, instead of one of the major characters, which could’ve made the stakes a lot higher. I think that’s what he’s ultimately critiquing by calling out the Assassination scene. The whole crew is fine, nobody important died, but everyone acts like it. It could’ve been way more impactful than it was.
So Vortigen was fridged then.
That's still not great but at least the scene serves a purpose then.
I really liked the film. And I keep listen to soundtrack over and over. The music in this movie is amazing.
Yeah, I listen to the star wars 3 soundtrack all the time. The movie wasn't that great however the music is of exceptional quality.
Exactly!!
When the ingredient is so good that the pot can still be edible
If you call unfitting grinding guitar music great; then, yes.
I, on the other hand think that kind of music is severely inapropriate for a fantasy movie. Whatever to haunting musical cues, dramatic choirs and orchestral soundtracks
The Closer Look His point isn’t that the movie was great because of the soundtrack, he’s saying that’s one of the positives of the movie. The movie was amazing, idk why critics rated it this bad.
Funny how I disagree with every point you've made. For me, the movie was fresh, I loved the montage scenes, they were great fun to watch and spared us a lot of repetitive introduction, music was just amazing and I relistened to it many times over. That 20~something chase scene was also good, and it wasn't made for nothing, all those losses pushed Arthur to firm decision to face the king. All throughout the movie he unwantingly gathered reasons to confront him. Could the characters have been made more interesting? Yes, but they had plenty of memorable dialogues and scenes, it wasn't as bad as you portrayed it. I liked the gangster/low life atmosphere around the protagonists, cause it fitted them, they've been brought up as small criminals. Villain had some motivation and I liked that he repeated his previous mistakes, he loved his family but craved for power to a point it was an obssession. I liked the fact that he killed the second time. To gain power, yes, but for me also to justify his previous sacrifice, not to let it go in vain. It was great to see him despair over something, to show that he is more than just Darth , Evil Bad Guy. And the first introductory scenes - yes, they were there for a reason, we needed some background on Arthur's father and the hidden envy his brother felt. Without them the whole thing that led to the sacrifice and the kill would be kinda out of nowhere. Dark Lands? Just a simple quest like many protagonists do in the movies, I was relieved they just made a montage out of it. Sorry, I've seen that kind of stuff too many times but yet it is kinda needed in a hero movie. Anyway cool video
I Hated montage scenes especialy when he was training in the begining and when they are planing its terible and dreadfull
The film diverged so much from the lore of the classical king arthur why even call it king arthur
It's a Guy Richie's take on King Arthur.
That's why Arthur is a street-smart wise-cracking guy and Londonium isn't much different socially-wise from London in movies like Snatch and RocknRolla.
I think it's an interesting experiment.
He did a bad take on it, if you ask me. The guy in this movie was NOT Arthur. He was just a loser Ritchie found on the streets
@@Thomazbr King Arthur wasn't even based remotely near London(Londinium), to take it even father away from the Welsh aspect of the stories and not base it near Wales or Cornwall is a joke to me.
Tim Kundrus So? How does that make it a bad movie. Yes, it is absolutely nothing like how King Arthur should be, but it’s just Guy Ritchie being Guy Ritchie.
@@planc3318 It makes it a bad movie as what we expect isn't here. King Arthur holds a certain expectation to it, and this movie doesn't deliver. At least the tie should allude to a "lie" or "conspiracy", maybe leading to the eventual downfall. If not, the film could still deliver on those themes if it's good enough regardless.
The costumes look beast though
The purpose of the opening scene was to establish: the character of arthurs father, and his heroics, the relationship between uther and his brother, the power of the sword, and simply be an entertaining opening scene that catches your attention
ZiroWatt thank you! I feel like there are a lot of biased people complaining at King Arthur for having "logical flaws" instead of praising it for being unique as fuck as far as story/character development and for the way it's edited.
Also, world building and showing up front that this isn't in anyway based on real history.
Yare Yare Sake yeah, this guy tries to attribute why it failed in the box office to the quality of the movie, but hes just grasping at straws imo, it bombed because of bad marketing and critic reviews, most of which were completely missing the point of the movie
ZiroWatt godspeed bro
I can almost guarantee you that was not what Ritchie was intending when he planned the scene. He planned it because he thought "Ah yeah, lets open with an impressive cinematic bang to hook the viewer." Any meaning beyond that was very surface level and probably coincidental.
And it kind of shows, look at star wars. Very clear obvious purpose that sets up elements of the story that it is still reaping all the way until the closing credits. King Arthur, significantly less so. Also BTW it didn't establish the power of the sword at all, if you pay attention he might as well of had a regular sword for all the difference it made. I mean sure he walks past the flames with it but that is hardly demonstrating 1% of it's power. Sure it establishes the fact Uther is heroic but he dies 2 minutes later. If he were present throughout the whole story then you would have more of a point but he isn't.
The fact the scene was entertaining does not count in the kinds of purpose we are talking about. Yes it is a purpose however we are talking from a narrative perspective, how does it add to the plot? character development? foreshadowing? e.t.c.
It didn't.
As a guy famous for movies containing many characters which all drive the plot in small ways, reaching a cohesive sequence of events only by the genius of his unorthodox storytelling, maybe where Ritchie went wrong was trying to make a movie with a more traditional sequence of events. it's easy enough to imagine this movie told in a more typically Ritchie-esque manner, whereby each character's small, seemingly random contributions to events gradually form a plot. In that kind of story, characters that only do one or two things each make more sense. I guess, in the same way normal movie characters would fall flat in a Guy Ritchie film, trying to put Guy Ritchie characters in a normal movie ruined both.
The film has a problem with its source material. (Incoming wall of text TURN BACK NOW YOU FOOLS)
When I watched this film I was not very familiar with Arthurian legend beyond Disney’s Sword in the Stone and some references in the English fiction I’d read as a child. But I understood the basics: King Arthur is the rightful King of England because he is just and wise and learns to understand the souls of all living things under his tutelage by Merlin.
I was not expecting this film to be faithful, I was expecting an action film with some Arthur bits and pieces. Set dressing, similar characters in wacky situations.
What I got was… confusing. Familiar names like Mordred and Vortigern seemed to belong to the wrong characters. Arthur was a street thug with no honour to speak of and very little character development. Merlin was nowhere to be seen and was The Mage supposed to be Morrigan?
I spent the entire film convinced I was missing something, that they were basing all these characters off of Arthurian legend and just recasting them into an action film. Because the film wasn’t doing any explaining. It didn’t define the lore, didn’t tell the audience the rules of the world and it clearly wasn’t following traditional legend.
I love King Arthur. The King under the mountain who will awake in our hour of need to set all to rights. I grew up with stories based around this: Lord of the Rings, Narnia, The Dark is Rising.
This Arthur grew up in a brothel. That’s amazing. That must be where he got his ideas of honour and chivalry, protecting people disempowered by society and respecting even the ‘lowest’ classes. He’s an ally to women because he was raised by women. That’s a really interesting way of turning the rather sexist Arthurian legends around!
Nope! Never comes up. And that could have been compelling. If they had written Arthur as someone who cared deeply about his adopted family, who helped the people on the streets like some kind of Robin Hood. Mixing mythologies somewhat but it makes the audience believe he would be a good king.
Nope. In fact he sells a man out to the hated guardsmen just to save his own skin. He threatens people into being 'friends' purely because he has the power to best them. It's not just unfaithful, it's the antithesis of the original story.
Why is this man the rightwise king born?
Why do people like him?
What makes him a better king than Vortigern? Is it just because he doesn't murder for power?
He comes off as even a bit power hungry actually, so he's not even that different from Vortigern. He's just another thug who people like. What does he know about ruling? What does he know of justice?
This Arthur seems actively /disinterested/ in pursuing justice. I never buy that he's doing this for anything other than his own power.
Making him actually related to Uther Pendragon makes it worse - that he's only king because of his blood and not because he is the right man for the job. Granted, that's the reason Arthur is King in the original stories but they made an effort to show he was trying to do the right thing. Here he has no motivation.
Granted I didn’t hate the movie, I was just confused as all heck. It was somewhat entertaining and provided a lot of conversation fodder for my friend and I later on on why it failed so hard but...
Kai Sea To be fair, in the older stories, Arthur was really violent, and I believe slept around, cheating on his wife. There's a lot of ways to play the character.
when you think about it the true historical source of the legend is a bit jumbled up anyway since it's a collection of poems and short stories written after William the conqueror conquered Britain.
I disagree, "staying true to the source material" does not equal a good movie. It's always appreciated when a film tries but it's just not necessary. Not having a well paced plot, a consistent narrative, good characters, or a well thought out script is what tanked what could have been an amazing movie. Everything else is just window dressing.
My point is more that Ritchie seems utterly disinterested in the source material, because absolutely nothing is the same. He doesn't take Arthurian legend in any new directions, doesn't play with it at all, he just uses the names to lend some weight to an otherwise unremarkable fantasy film.
Without Arthur, this film has nothing to recommend it. Having done a lot more research I can confidently say that Arthurian legend can absolutely be a fun action flick with a bit of effort.
I would have written this film more with Arthur growing up on the streets, being protective of his family, refusing the call to power because he just wants to protect his own. But be unable to turn away once he realises the power he wields to help. But for much of the run time the violence and threats he's used to only make situations worse and people die, it's only when he learns to negotiate that he's able to be effective.
Almost everything you said, Kai is EXACTLY how I feel. I say almost everything because I've been a lover of King Arthur for years. Read several literary versions of the story and have seen several film adaptations as well (but not this travesty.)
To me; the best movies that tell Arthur's legend are Excalibur, Knights of the Round Table and Sword in the Stone
To a certain degree I agree with what you say on this film, but after having watched it myself, I'm baffled at how bad this movie failed, I completly loved it from beginning to end, and those exact scenes that you critizise for having no narrative value are the exact same scenes I remember the most and watched on youtube very often just for how cool and snappy the dialog, the acting and directing really, was. The movie just infects you with its coolness and by the end of the film I ended with big "wow, why did this fail so bad" Yes, in terms of narrative it is not the most well constructed film. But I personnaly did not mind given how much the movie sucked me in, with its style and characters. That's just how I personally felt watching the movie.
It's somewhat like Pompeii, the dialogue could be better but it isn't terrible, there is definitely a memorable style but sadly little to no substance. Like I like Pompeii, but only just to shut my brain off for over an hour. Anderson definitely did better on that movie than he did on the majority of his Resident Evil films.
I feel that calling it King Arthur was the biggest error. They could have called it Robin Hood, and it would have failed for the same reason. Such titles carry expectation. I want to see knights going on heroic quests with King Arthur. As a thought experiment, just explain to people that it is a Skyrim film.
Joseph Lechuga At this point, you could even say it was a Transformers movie. =9[.]9=
That's the thing, the clips that you do remember is better as clips than part of a movie. You could just watch various clips of your favorite parts and it'll have the same impact
Anon Agreed. It's a sequence of superficially eye-catching scenes, like a string of shiny beads.
The scenes weren't as clear as they could have been, but that doesn't make them devoid of purpose. I've crafted answers to the questions you ask about the purpose of these scenes as well as addressing the other topics you presented:
Opening Scene: 1) It sets up the jealousy Vortigern has for Uther, which is why he betrayed him. 2) Shows the potential of Excalibur and 3) the expectations the people have for their king, which contrasts nicely with the way Voritgern fights from the shadows and in secret. 4) It also shows Vortigern's potential if he goes full evil. 5) It also sets up the magic we see later in the film. And thus the battle and the betrayal are indeed related.
Assassination Scene: 1) Arthur is learning to lead his troops into battle. 2) He learns how to use Excalibur. 3) Plus it's just a lot of fun, which was a major motive in this film. 4) Develops Vortigern as perceptive. 5) Previously, Arthur promised that he'd just go away never to return. This scene is Arthur breaking that promise, which proves Vortigern's worst fear of being overtaken by the true King.
Darklands: I agree there was something out of place with this scene, but I feel there's more complication than to simply blame the director. One thing this, the opening, scene, and the ending scene have in common is the abundance of magical creatures and over-the-top magic and visuals. The film is unclear about this, but I think these isolated moments of grandeur speak to the Legend of the sword-the Legend of King Arthur. These were the parts that had been twisted by time and re-tellings. These are the moments where we switch to the perspective of someone who wasn't there. Again, not super clear in the film and I may be wrong, but that does not mean the scene is devoid of purpose. The scene had to be there tonally, and because a training sequence was needed.
Additionally, there's a long-time tradition in Fantasy storytelling where not everything is explained. It's okay to let things be mysterious. Again, that does not mean it was executed perfectly, but it's problematic to address this tradition as a problem by itself. Maybe compare how fantasy questions left unanswered have been done right in other films?
Mages: It would have been cool to learn about the mages, but like much of the movie, there's more complication than just blaming the director. Maybe muse with the idea that maybe the studio made him cut some scenes. Or maybe they had funding cut to pay for Wonder Woman or to recover from BvS? That's not confirmed, but just some of the possible reasons behind problems like this. That said, I agree this aspect of the film could have been cut entirely in pre-production.
Character Development: I completely agree, no argument here. No matter the complications, this should have been addressed even before pitching the movie. The casting should have been more carefully chosen as well. This is where A Knight's Tale would have been a nice comparison.
This is a long way of saying that I love your channel and the thought you've put into your essays, except for this one. I do however look forward to your increased dedication to this channel.
"Also, if this video is about how to fail at fantasy, wouldn't it be wise to compare this film to another fantasy film done right?"
He did compare it to a fantasy film done right: _Star Wars: A New Hope._
I see where you're coming from. I consider Star Wars a sci-fi more than a fantasy, but arguing semantics isn't terribly productive either.
just wanted to say that, the point of the scene talking about the persecution of the mages, explains why you don't see mages
Go point. In defense of the video essay, I think suggesting that the mages should have been explored more is in reference to an old film rule/tradition called Chekhov's gun. The rule states that if you see a gun hanging on a wall early in the film, you must see it go off later on. If you don't plan to have the gun go off, it's better to remove it from the wall entirely.
So in this case: seeing a mage in hiding, using her magic, and then discussing how there are more in hiding actually suggests to the audience that they'll come out of hiding later in the film...but then they don't. Following the Chekhov's gun rule, it would have been best to leave out the other mages entirely or maybe structure their involvement differently to at least feel like there's a payoff at the end-more than simply seeing the same mage use her powers again like she did earlier in the film.
Star Wars _definitely_ falls under science fantasy, as opposed to science fiction. First and most obviously, it has space magic in space. Secondly, melee combat is still the norm of the entire galaxy, which while alone doesn't _necessarily_ mean fantasy, does lean it in that direction. Thirdly, when they _did_ try to explain things to make it more "scientific," it was kiiiinda shit. Atleast when it came to trying to make the space magic sound vaguely scientific with the whole mediclorians thing.. Oddly enough, the little tidbits explaining their technology and weaponry were usually pretty cool, though.
That's not even _counting_ the fact that some (moreso when referring to the dark side) techniques of the Force are _literally_ considered sorcery, the Ewoks cartoon, the existence of ghosts _and_ an afterlife, cursed artifacts *galore,* the presence of an objective morality system, and a few other things I can't think of atm.
Those aside (this has no bearing on Star Wars being fantasy; just something somewhat related), several of the species in Star Wars are direct expys of fantasy races--Anzat are _directly_ linked to vampire myths (aside from them going for braaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiins), Chironians are _literally_ centaurs, and there's even some Arkanian offshoots that look like elves.
Granted all of those are "legends," but let's face it: *cough* DisneyDidntHappen. *cough*
And yes, some science fiction works _also_ have certain aspects of the above--yet _not_ to this degree.
The opening scene served for many purposes:
-To introduce Arthur´s father and the sword.
-To later show that vortigern was trying to take over the throne.
-To present the kingdom of Camelot.
That line, “he sews the seeds of storytelling, only to never reap them” is incredible, breathtaking writing you have my upmost applause and thanks
Who else here gets a little bit of pride watching these videos and hearing him go for his dreams? Keep doing the good work man and make sure to notify us when the other channels comes up these are great videos and would love to keep watching them.
Thanks, that means a lot and I'll be sure to let you know when they are up :D
The Closer Look And could you make a video about Schindler's List? I'm sure there's something about the movie worth making a video about.
I actually really enjoyed this movie. It was fun
I really like how everyone talked with like gangster slang, i cant explain it exactly like they spoke like they were in SNATCH i thought that was awesome
I agree
You can enjoy bad movies. Don’t worry ;)
I really appreciate videos like these since it helps me out as writer to think deeper about what scenes I am gonna do and if they are indeed useful, since at times you can easily get lost too much into what you write and how that sometimes you give out little to no information and just do endless world building or do just nothing entirely. Thank you a lot
After the 1981 movie "Excalibur" I dont believe we will have a better version of Camelot and King Arthur.
Watch the 1998 "Merlin" TV Movie. It's much better than "Excalibur" and still remains as one of my favorite movies of all time.
Nothing will be better than monty python and the holy grail
littlefinger ehh ... Goosefat Bill ... Great moment !
;D
I just went on a huge Game of Thrones binge and now am seeing references everywhere.
Game of thrones has poisoned everything.
In the age of ubiquitous CGI and 100M+ budgets everything is too easy, every idea can (and will) be executed. Look at the classics like Alien, Star Wars, they were driven by scarcity. It made you really thing what is absolute necessary and how you can execute it cheaply so you have the budget for that one money shot. This meant also you needed to iterate the ideas and not settle on the first idea
Matias Kiviniemi Jaws too. Apparently the shark was meant to be in more scenes but the puppet wasn't up to long looks so you get the truly terrifying glimpses that create the fear.
Similar case was Razorback, many limitations but they overcame it through ingenuity
as they say "Limitation breeds creativity"
But in that regard if the person in charge has a clear motive and skill at these things they can succeed much easier too because of these resources, what truly kills is when the people lose focus or passion.
"What do get when the characters have no personality and don't serve to progress the plot?"
Ummmm.... Rogue One?
The opening sequence showcased Mordrid's demise, the shot immediately after shows Vortigern in shock. This is a hint at the reveal later in the movie that Vortigern had plotted with Mordrid to overthrow Arthur and split the power between the two of them, Vortigern providing help from the inside and Mordrid leading the external offensive campaign. Although there could have been better opening sequences, this one worked just fine I think.
No characters develop during the escape scene..? Do you not remember the whole issue with Arthur not being able to grip and wield the sword? Something that he learns to do during that very sequence. The death of those minor characters contributed to that quite significantly, albeit it is not made apparent. Arthur witnesses two people die *for him*, one of which was a close friend of his for many years. When he sees the Mage about to die he remembers those who have died for him already and is willing to overcome this hurdle to save her and avenge his fallen allies. It's also some character development by showing how despite Arthur's rough childhood in a rough neighborhood he is still a good person at heart. None of the others develop, thats true, but to be fair I don't remember the names of any of the others minus Goosefat Bill.
Try not to forget this is an action movie, Magic is there because it's cool, and so are some characters! Not because the plot *demands* them...
The storytelling may not be great, and it may be difficult to pick up for some, but it's there and it's alright.
Medieval N' Magic Thank you!
This video analysis is so off.
I honestly really, really enjoyed the film, but it definitely had a great many flaws. Still, I loved its style and had a great time watching it
What's to enjoy in this movie?!
The story's a mess, the cast is garbage and they took a bigger dump on the Arthurian lore than Jerry Berkheimer's "historically accurate" Arthur film
sadlobster1 the fact that it looks good and it tells a different kind of story that’s clearly meant to be a fun take on the legend. It’s not meant to be accurate. The soundtrack was great the visuals were great and the way the handle the tone in the movie was great.
In what way is this movie fun?
The visuals are garbage, the grinding rock music is painful to listen to and the tone is unrealistically grim.
When I think of Arthur Pendragon, Excalibur or Knights of the Round Table is what comes to mind. This, this feels like some sort of post-apocalyptic garbage
sadlobster1 all the things I’ve stated that makes the movie fun and enjoyable is what I believe what makes the movie fun. The visuals are great, the movies obviously a different take on the character. There was meant to be more movies. There were like, two soundtracks that had “rock”music. If you think that’s a grim tone idk how else to tell you but you’re wrong. And the movie isn’t meant to be realistic. The reason you dislike it is because you had your version of what the movie should be in your head which is fine, but that’s not a reason to hate a movie.
I'm not talking about the movie, I'm saying this movie is a HUGE disservice to the Arthurian mythos.
I'm not alone in this thought either
I really like videos like this, it's that kind of basic stuff that can help a lot of beginning writers in the future. Also, great to hear you will be able to work more on CZcams, congrats and good luck!
Thankyou :)
Well you need to think that way in order to become a better writer. I may have a wonder towards how a blacksmith creates an elegant sword and I may want to make one myself one day. But to intentionally not learn how to make a sword all to preserve the sense of mystery and wonder will prevent me from becoming a good blacksmith. In order to create a good story. You need to know what makes a good story.
Ca C I agree with the YT guy here, but I know what you mean. The best way to think about is like a very basic tool, used for polishing the story over time. That doesn't mean that it should be used to cut everything that is outside of this very linear story you meantioned. The atmosphere is important in some stories or in some parts of it, so it shouldn't be cut. There are stories that are about getting the sword and beating the bad guy, but at heart they are also about friendship abd such. Then you shouldn't cut it. The piont is more about being concious what your story is supposed to be and sticking to it in efficient way. It doesn't even mean it has to go very fast, if it's supposed to be slower. But it just can't be everything. At least that's how I see it, and in that sense it is very important to become a better writer. I think you also might have disliked the idea of combining the exposition guy and the archer in one for the sake of efficiency. Well, if they had no personality and were just devices anyway, then it's better to combine them. Obvoiusly would be even better if they had something like personality that would make interesting interactions with the rest of the charaters. Then no cut is needed, because they most likely add to the story. Hope it helps.
I was feeling the first chapter of my story was shitty. Now, after this video I feel so much better! Realized parts I was doubting on were necessary to explain the main Character's situation. Loved this! Helps to provide better art
j
I'm glad i found your channel. You have a great insight on storytelling. I'm learning quite a lot. Thx.
"R2D2."
"Forgettable personality."
_What?_
My first comment would be that the opening scene acts to establish the power of the sword, the heroic nature of the King and by comparison just how cowardly the Jude Law character is. All very important plot points.
It didn't establish the power of the sword at all, he only used it one time to kill one guy, the way in which he did it did not display any of it's abilities. Yes it does portray the heroic nature of the king... who dies 7 minutes after the start. Why build up a character only to immediately kill them? Jude Law has one line of dialogue in this scene. And in the rest of the film he displays no cowardice whatsoever. So if anything it incorrectly paints his character.
Firstly, I did not expect a reply, so thank you for that. I would preface this by saying I greatly enjoy a majority of your videos. However, I still believe what I say to be true. The sword evidently protected the person who wielded it from the powerful magic of a Mage, who at that stage was able to control multiple skyscraper sized elephants. I think it was important to establish power of the sword early on, because modern day audiences need quick fixes to keep their attention. If they had waited until half way through the film for Arthur to wield its full power, I think that would have lost audience interest. Similarly we only see towards the end of the film that it was Jude Law who originally murdered the King , and it is there that you realise what a coward he was from the beginning. It is not uncommon for movies to take their time explaining the inclusion and relevance of certain scenes, in this case the opening scene, which was made all the more poignant by what we learn about Jude in the finale. For instance, they had to quickly establish the heroic nature of the King so it would juxtapose the extent of Jude's cowardice. Finally I would say it is reasonable to state that Jude was a coward throughout, because his ascent to King was based on a terrible act of cowardice :-)
The movie is flawed, no denying. But are you really saying the scenes you point out didnt help the story? The first scene, established that the kingdom is in danger and that the threat come from enemies with dark magic, it shows us why people loved Arthur’s father, how he himself is responsible for saving everyone, it shows us that the villain of the movie was a coward, that envied his brother’s courage and the love people had for him, it shows WHY THE FUCK THESE PEOPLE WOULD DO SOME MUCH FOR THIS MAN’S SON.
The second scene, “minor character”, that scene showed Arthur CONSEQUENCES. He was always able to escape everything, because he was cunning, smart and charismatic. It showed us that like his father he has people that will do anything for him, and that this time he faces real danger of losing them and losing the fight. And the scene connects him to the kid, they both lost fathers to Arthur’s uncle, now he has responsibilities over the kid.
It is important to the story. However, there are PARTS of this story points, that do slow the movie down and are unimportant, but not the whole sequences.
I agree with your comment about 'CONSEQUENCES"! The scene does much to lead Arthur towards the realization that he can't half-ass his resistance to Vortigern. Throughout the movie you can see this push and pull between Arthur and the other characters as he resists going all in on the resistance plans. I think his attempts prior to his final connection with the sword are evocative of this because he's trying to avoid actually fighting Vortigern. He attempts to assassinate Vort, poison him with a snakebite and other roundabout ways because he is scared. Scared of the consequences that people are willing to die for him and among them could be his friends. And if they actually do he has to accept that it was on HIS behalf and go through with what they died for: killing Vortigern.
what a waste the effects, environment and action looks amazing
Sir_Applejuice IMO it was a great movie, I think you should watch it first before judging based off one review.
My favorite reviewer on CZcams gave it a B and said he was pleasantly surprised.
Why do you think he didn't watch it?
I watched it because of pure no brain action and spectacle. I wasn't disappointed, but either surprised. Guy Ritchie is really entertaining action director, but when it comes to storytelling, he is very mediocre. Great cinematography, vfx, and production overall, but for me personally it can't counterbalance weak storyline. But that's just me. Every has his/her own taste.
Kind of looks like it was ran though Unreal Engine. Too brown and grey.
Literally not how engines work.
Moravian Lion: Really? Have you seen Lock Stock or Snatch? While obviously Richie doesn't do drama and romance that much, he can juggle a story.
I actually loved the whole movie, even the intro and chase scene. The intro established a background story of arthur's dad, and the connection of Mordred's power to the abilities of Vortigern.
I... I liked that movie
I forgive you ;D
The Closer Look so watching movies you like is a sin now? k
I really like this movie. It was fun.
Your essays provide a fuck ton of wealth of lessons that I'm learning. I appreciate your channel so much!
Great job. I really love video essays about movies, and i spend much time on youtube looking for the best ones. So, in my experience, a lot of them are too shallow or even when they highlight interesting points sometimes they get simply boring. You really strike the balance between informative and entertaining. Be sure i'll check it out whenever you do it about movies, thanks!
Thanks :)
I am kind of turned of by this film already by the costume desing. People wearing only dark and every black and leather and earth tones and white (at least when you are a man) was not what actually happened historically and it's bland to watch. But people now think it will look more grounded and you can't take male heroes seriously if they wear any color in a Middle Ages setting apparently.
Not to mention that every woman wears the same overused ren-fair dresses, as well as having their long flowing hair out. Not only is it historically inaccurate and widely impractical for them to have their hair loose, but it's also visually boring when every woman in the movie has exactly the same hairstyle, they wear the same hairstyle you see on every woman in a Hollywood movie nowadays. To once again compare to Star Wars, those intricate hairstyles on Leia were pretty iconic and gave her a unique and memorable look, and helped show that she was a princess.
Have Hollywood filmmakers grown allergic to hairpins and braids?
They have grown allergic to not repeating cliches.
The first scene of Arthur served to introduce Uther and His Brother and forshadow the future Evil.
I appreciate you efforts and your videos are interesting. Yet, i TOTALLY disagree with most, if not all, of your points in this commentary. Plus you made no mention of the Amazing Film Score and the breathtaking cinematography!
Or like a James Bond intro, just there for the action.
Wa gonna speak my mind till I saw this comment. Couldn't have said it better myself.
He isn't wrong though after all this film lost a monstrous amount of money. Whatever you think of it, clearly people weren't interested in paying for it. It isn't the case that critics hate it but the film was a rampant success. It failed commercially and critically. So there are clearly faults with it, major ones.
This isn't a review. He needs not bring up the film score or the cinematography. That being said, some of the scenes mentioned I feel actually had purpose. All in all, examples maybe weren't the best, but the advice is sensible and at least quite a few of the given examples are absolutely hitting at actual problems.
so you think they were articulate in making all 7 of Arthurs friends interesting? you think that was efficient storytelling?
Who gives a damn what the critics think? Their opinions are detached from the fans on almost everything anyways, and I personally enjoyed this film as a standalone movie.
i give a shit. I take there opinions far more seriously then random people who have very little ability you use critical thinking regarding why a film works or not.
Well, every movie has flaws.. I wanted to know wtf happened to Obi Wan when Vader killed him, how does the lightsaber work, can it be wielded just by force sensitive guys or by anybody..the truth is, it's not important, just like the badlands in this movie, it's a magical event/device/place that makes the plot possible..further more what happened to Vader in star wars, did blowing up the death star make the rebels win, are the rebels still on Yavin 4, is no one gonna come and look for them there, is Luke now a jedi, what is he gonna do with that lightsaber, is he gonna duel Vader, damn, that would be cool to see..what is the plot as far as Luke goes, good guy with great destiny learns some things about his past and some magic, kind of saves the princess and destroys one big bad thing..Arthur does not have such lose ends as a character, it ends when the entire premise of the movie ends, a good man with a great destiny learns some things about himself, some magic, beats the badguy and becomes a benevolent king...for the scenes you said are "extended scenes" material I would disagree..the first scene of this movie was the world establishing scene, like in your face "this is a fantasy movie" opening, just like you had the star destroyer chasing Leia's frigate in the opening(space, space ships, lasers.. it's a scifi movie), the director needed to show the extent of magical possibilities of that world just so we wouldn't be baffled later on by giant animals and things like the double bladed scythe wielding Shao Khan looking badguy..and the chase sequence was the most important part of the movie in my opinion, that is when everybody shows that they are willing to die for Arthur, and he uses the magic abilities successfully for the first time, much like Luke turning off the targeting system before taking the shot at the deathstar, important stuff. Some other scenes might be unnecessary in the movie but not those two definitely. The wizard girl is essential in that she teaches Arthur how to control Excalibur and I agree the rest of the cast feel like they were made to be further developed in some sequels but at least a few of them did not feel ciompletly generic, they are just not as archetypical and interestingly alien as a star wars character is...I mean, give me an Ithorian sidekick who loves to sing in a star wars movie already Disney..such an easy thing to do to make characters loveable when they are so weird physically..anyway..I would also say that the music and sound in Arthur are far above what Hollywood shits out these days. Star Wars was a fine fairy tale story with amazing concept, design and music but, in my opinion, so was this movie..though with a far more familiar setting and concept for sure, but well done nonetheless. The greatest problem for this movie was that it was the story of king Arthur which no one want to see for the 100th time :/ I'm sad it didn't find an audience, but happy that it might be considered a decent movie one day and not become a generic soulless franchise.
I think fantasy should be something where the audience is interested in understanding the setting in the movie and making them think of how it could work in our like. For example doctor strage, the movie opens with a very weird scene of a chase while the characters use unknown abilities which suprises the audience. It makes the watchers hyped and prepared of what awaits. Fantasy also has so many settings and ideas. Sadly i actually don't know a lot of good fantasy films
Harry potter, star wars, lord of the rings are all fantasy. What is the force if not a magic system? Really I define fantasy as something that is physically impossible in real life. Sci Fi is plausible and I think that's why a lot of people prefer it because it has this reality to it that is hard to get with fantasy.
This movie is so under rated! I went into it knowing about the reviews and I got way more entertainment out of it than expected! So good.
The first scene does hint towards vortigerns plan to overthrow the king, when he suggests they surrender. However, since we already get to see what happens in the next scene, there's really no time to process it. They could have given more context to how he orchestrated the coup, instead of just jumping straight to "Oh no, we've been betrayed! Time to run!"
Dude! Great vid. I'm happy to hear you'll be making more vids, cause I absolutely love them! Your ones on Loki and the Joker were really good. You gained a new subscriber.
Thanks :)
*gasps* I've never had a CZcamsr I like respond to one of my comments before lol. Since I have your attention, do you think you could make a vid on making your audience understand your story? I know you're busy and all, but I'd really like to hear your advice on it. My biggest writing fear, is that people may not understand what the points of my story are, and may only view it at surface level.
P.S - one of my best friend's is actually a graphic designer (I'm an artist as well, but I'm not as good) idk if he could help you?
May I ask for a video on Cristopher Nolan's Dunkirk? What does very little dialogue do for a film? Why are the story lines split up the way they are? How does it compare with other war films, or other Nolan films?
I plan to make a video on that when the DVD comes out so I can show some footage. Thanks for the suggestion :)
Thank you sir for saying so. And thanks for the fantastic videos.
LeoThatch I thought it was ok. But I lost track of those two soldier character. I thought they died multiple times
Jonathan Campbell That’s understandable. It is a film to be seen a few times before it can be fully understood, as is the case with quite a few of Mr. Nolan’s works. I also had a problem with how alike the characters looked and sounded.
I forking LOVED Dunkirk he needs to do it
I agree but the first scene, it's purpose is pretty obvious
Not really :/
Thank you! I was expecting to hear about historical constraints but your concise questions have helped me review my own passion project. Thank you again.
No problem :)
Iron man 1 had great efficient storytelling in the first scene. Some of the best. If you see the deleted scenes, when Stark's in Afghanistan and his car gets ambushed, they had this whole drawn out fight that was like 2 minutes, even Tony picked up a gun and shot back. What was in the final movie, a short, 30 seconds, Stark stumbles out of the car in confusion and then gets hit with his own missile while ducking for cover. It was crisp, clear, intense, and it conveyed the message perfectly
The King's brother use this opportunity to stage a coup after the first attempt by the Mage who train the King's brother. The King's brother used this chance while the his brother forces are recouping.
While I agree with most everything in this analysis, I would like to add a qualification to the "He/She/It does not add anything to the story" theme you have identified: The mage, littlefinger, the chase scene... I agree that they didn't play any driving role in the development of the story at all, but what they do add is breadth. They enrich the story with flourish, context and added points of interest.
When you just tell a story, what you call efficiency of storytelling is clearly important, but it's not the only reason for all the content. An overly "efficient" movie like that can easily feel a little thin, under-developed and perhaps even a little disinterested.
I do see your point that this adaptation was missing something important, and that is probably the relevance and connection between scenes that you mention. But the stylistic value of those disconnected scenes and characters is not nil. Cutting them would feel like a great loss to this movie (it's not an audio-book after all).
I believe this movie could have benefitted from being split into at least 2 parts, in which Richie spent more time on creating meaning in the scenes and adding the coherent connections they are lacking. In the end, I do agree with the others here who praise the movie for its bold and precise visual style. Sometimes... that's enough. Even though it could have been even better.
The point is wasted opportunities. All of those pointless scenes could have been done better... which ends up being true about the movie, it could have been great, if most of the runtime wasn't squandered. It was well directed, poorly written,
I loved this movie. Genuinely loved. I was really bummed it didn’t do well because I wanted more.
I love the action in king Arthur especially when he uses exalibur
he actually explains unanswered questions through dialogue, so you really have to pay attention
the dark lands are where the giant elephants came from for example. its where mordrid came to power
as nostalgia critic likes to say show don't tell
Although I agree with many points made and the indisputable fact that this film is not perfect, I do believe it was entertaining, fun and well done. Many people these days simply label such films they find 'over the top' 'all style, but no substance' without actually understanding what they are saying. Often enough, these very people love films such as the recent mad max: fury road. Yet what most overlook is the genius film-related devices Richie utilizes to engender an experience that is meant perhaps not to leave a resonating impact on the audience carrying a message of morality or what-not, but instead designed for simply a fun and enjoyable time.
Appreciate the film for what it is.
Finny you accuse people of not understanding the term 'style over substance', and then go on to describe the film in a way that adds up to exactly that.
If I want to watch a fun but meaningless spectacle, I'll go watch, oh, a bunch of cockney villains running around after a giant diamond. (Either that or go nuts with some bubble wrap and shiny tinfoil) I'd expect something a little different from what's set up as a grand, pseudo-medieval epic featuring a grand, pseudo-medieval character; and perhaps it should be expected. It's like turning Richard III into a caper ("Nahw is the wintah of our discontent, innit you slaaag") or 'Churchill: The Hollywood Years' done straight.
A goofy, consequence-free, flash-animated cartoon from 2005 was a more appealing take on King Arthur. At least it didn't mess about with what it was supposed to be.
It’s a bad copy of Lord of the Rings.
I appreciate it for what it is. A commercial and critical failure that lost a record-breaking amount of money and killed off any chance of sequels. It fails on a fundamental level in trying to establish a franchise. Tell one solid story, then expand on it. Rather than this approach which was tell a story full of holes and hope you get the chance to fill it in later.
Already really enjoy your channel's content as a film and literature buff. But as a philosophy student and big philosophy nerd I'm super pumped for your new channel
The best adaptation of King Arthur is "Excalibur".
I beg to disagree: it's the comic book series Arthur by Jerome Lereculey: a faithful adaptation of the Welsh King Arthur legends.
No no, the best adaptation is 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'
I do not think a story should be measured in efficiency. This movie is good and entertaining and it has nothing to do with how compressed the story is or is not. If you start to simplify New Hope, you eventually get: An evil empire's massive space station is defeated by a farm boy. And that's it. A writer should not aim for story.rar, as it takes away important parts of the movie. The way King Arthur is cut, the action scenes, the camera work, the music... they all build up a fun experience that I can and want to rewatch. And yes, I want to rewatch New Hope too, but if the viewer goes back to the movie again for fun, it achieved its goal.
It was bad.
Only if you like generic shit like Marvel movies.
Efficiency is important so you don't get bored or feel like your time is being wasted. Even Pacific Rim(the first one) is pretty efficient at story telling and it has to force giant robot battles😂
You clearly have no clue what he means by efficiency. Particularly if you think that's actually a functional summary of A New Hope.
I think you are semi-right about the first scene. It is awesome but it should have been told differently or later in the film, maybe like a story someone tells Arthur about the sword and the death of the old king.
I see nothing wrong with the scene with the tried assasination. Someone else already said it set many information. Athur gets to know first-hand the powers of Excalibur and one of his closer friends dies. We may not be emotional attached to that guy but we saw Arthur react badly to one of his friends death in the beginning of the film and the kid of the killed guy is watching which makes this even worse. Thus, we understand why Arthus runs from his destany later in the movie. It would have been harder to understand for the audience if he didn't use Excalibur once accidently and suddenly can control it.
I personally really really enjoyed the film. It was not a bad film. Story was no big baddie for this film, other points were.
Great videos. I really enjoy watching your take on the movies and how you analyze them. I would love to see your take on Beowulf.
Thanks for the suggestion but I probably wont tackle that movie. Don't know what I could say about it :/
Please do a video on supporting characters, how they work and how to make them unique from each other. Maybe a word on script structure too would be very helpful..... Love these videos!
Thanks, I'll add it to the list.
I ACTUALLY LIKED THIS FILM.
Oops, caps lock.
Guy Ritchie is becoming all style and no substance, seriously, this guy's lack of self control is worse than Michael Bay.
超粒方 i totally disagree, this movie was awesome. It wasnt meant to be some big, super thought provoking artsy story, it was supposed to be a fun, epic action movie. And to me, it completely succeeded
ZiroWatt in that context then yea it has plenty of action for that :p
超粒方 You say "Style Over Substance" as if it were a bad thing. This is one of the best movies of the year because of that.
I don't really care. It's a Guy Ritchie film and from the very start it feelt like Style-movie and oh lord was the Style glorious. Not all movies and stories are meant to be viewed the same way. Just because this wasn't LOTR doesn't mean its bad. This is one of the best and entertaining movies of the year because its so "style over substence" and the style-part was perfectly executed. Its not as mucj of a style-masterpiece as Snatch sadly, I think some scenes are not really tight enough and there where to many scenes where it tried to have a story which slowed down the style.
Style over substance is perfectly fine. It's not like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Die Hard, or The Raid movies had much depth either. They were just fun for the sake of it. I'm not saying his films are great, but they're really just meant to be entertaining. It may be a missed opportunity for potential depth, but it's fine.
Just found myself into your channel 2 days ago and i'm pleasantly surprised. Your doing a great job and it feels really professional. Took me two videos to decide that I want to be a subscriber and I've gone through all of your videos already, and i look forward to any future content. I love discussing movies and storys and why they work and don't, and you are helping me figuring out why exactly i like and dislike movies and how to debate my thoughts.
What i would love to see from your is your thought's on the movie adaptation of World of Warcraft and why it didn't do so well in the US.
I personally really like this movie and would love to see a franchise from it. But I also have thoughts on why it didn't do so well.
I feel the opening should have had a 10 minute history lesson on how Azeroth was created and how the fell came to be. To fit that in they could have removed the ghastly made love story between Garona and Lothar which i feel was so out of place and didn't bring anything to the movie. I feel that if they would have invested some time into explaining the world a bit and why the Orcs had to flee their home world, people with no knowledge of the game would have been more invested in the story and want more.
There are a lot wrong with the adaptation of the game but they also did a great job in other aspects. But what really interest me is your thought's on it all and how perhaps you would have changed it.
With that said, I would like to thank you again for great content and keep up the good work!
great channel mate, you've got a pretty clever and interesting perspective.
Thanks :)
Fail? :( I really liked this movie and this take on the fantasy world. :( I WANT THOSE SEQUELS from Guy Ritchie!! :(
Patrix8558 exactly
Never going to happen, it was absurdly expensive to make and lost a ton of money. An established franchize can sometimes survive that, but an aspiring one can't. If its launch doesn't work it quite literally dies. Primarily because of what this guy says, there are a lot of extremely expensive, unnecessary scenes that bloated its cost with no return on investment.
maybe if they dind't wasted money on CGI scene that din't make any progress on the plot
That's why I feel Excalibur was and still is the superior King Arthur movie.
It never relied on overly-expensive and messy CG to be good. It had a wonderful cast, a deliciously haunting soundtrack, an excellent story and utilized magical elements from Arthurian lore the RIGHT way
You're of course absolutely right! If *you* , Mister Patrix number 8558 liked it it *can't* be a fail. Forget about the box office or critics, we all know what *really* matters is *your* opinion.
I was on board until you said R2 had a forgettable personality. How dare you!
One of my favourite films of all time. In a world where Hollywood pumps out films through some formula and occasionally do something a bit different which gets heralded as an incredible experimentation. I think a film like this with its snappy Guy Ritchie style is perfect.
The action sequences are incredible and I found the world and characters to be far more believable when they weren't delivering meaningful lines every sentence (like in almost every other film). Look at some of the most popular films of all time and you'll see they're ones with lots of dialogue that doesn't add to the story but simply develops characters or makes the scene feel natural and less forced. This insightful video goes into the side characters having no personality but I actually felt like the personalities were conveyed perfectly. They're subtle, gained through phrases which these people say naturally.
When watching this film I felt like I was actually watching the life story of Arthur, seeing his first meetings with people he knows nothing about (we meet them as he does) and others who he has known from childhood (we see an instant understanding and connection between them, often very banterous and enjoyable). Arthur's character is very entertaining to watch and you see how he deals with each of the people around him. They don't NEED to be developed more than they are, that's just the formula Hollywood has come up with for a "good film".
When bootstrap Bill decides to carry out his personal vendetta against the people he didn't like in court I found that to be an incredible moment in a film. At that point we've seen the character a few times and know him a little, but not everything. Hence, we're caught a little off-guard by his action and are intrigued as the scene plays out.
I could go on a lot, but I think this film does so many things which other films just don't do and they should. I believe this film will be looked back on in 50 years and be an inspiration for a new style of film making. Western Cinema has advanced a lot in the last 50 years but there is still so much that could be improved. I HATE when I see critical opinion relating things to a formulaic structure. If it's entertaining but doesn't follow a structure then perhaps it's best to see what it does differently and work out if that's any good before calling all the differences faults.
My drama club had an event where our local theater showed Monty Python and the Holy Grail (two of my cousins are prominent members whose parents owned the theater, and we had just done Spamalot). The trailer for this film showed before and the boy who played King Arthur stood up the front to receive his applause.
They needed to make this into A SHOW! That way they had time to finish what they established! Tired of movies these days.
I wish we could get more out of the Arthur mythos than we have.
Most follow one of 3 story arcs: The Sword in the Stone, The Death of Arthur, or the Lancelot Grail Mythos; missing about 40 years of the king's awesome adventures like that.
Plus he has a whole arsenal of weaponry that ISN'T Excalibur; a dagger that can make him invisible, a shield that drains his opponent's fighting strength, and many MANY more.
Seriously Hollywood, we get it, Arthur was a fish out of water and had a sword called Excalibur, can we please get one of the other parts of his story?
As a novel writter, I thank you for this useful video. You earned a new subscriber.
Thanks :)
Chewbacca's character was there to assure us that Han wasn't ALL scoundrel. If Chewbacca wasn't there, it would have been hard to convey Han's character without him.
Still i have to say: I love the movie. I was really shocked when i read about the massive box office fail. The way it's cut is awesome. Sure it's not perfect, but it deserves way better than it did in reality ... it is a movie you do not watch for its story. You watch it for the way it is made. Like Baby Driver or Fury Road. At least as someone who is interested in films and the mechanics in the background. And the one great mechanic in King Arthur was the style it was cut. The assassination scene you were talking about was a very good chase-scene for itself. The only thing i really, really disliked was the "bossfight" at the end. But of course what you say in the video is right. Still, its worth watching if you ask me.
fitoou I agree with you, apart from the part about the final fight. But ey, to everyone his own opinion :)
The thing i didnt like about the final fight was it's cheapness. A fully CGI Scullmasked black warrior ... couldnt get any more generic and it doesnt fit to vortigerns character imo ;)
fitoou I also liked the movie, but in my opinion this movie is nowhere near the level of quality as Baby Driver or Fury Road.
The whole point of movies is to tell stories. Some movies lean more towards simple stories, like Fury Road or The Revenant, in order to film them more artistically but the stories are still well written for what they are. In The Revenant, the story is so incredibly dull but it's at least consistent and doesn't have any pointless scenes (as far as I remember) like King Arthur. This movie can be fun to watch but it'll only ever be a glorified modern painting that just looks cool.
@John erik Im not talking about levels. Im talking about the fact that the Story in these movies does not really matter. Baby Driver is a good movie cause the way Edgar Wright uses music. The rest of it is mediocre, but the usage of music and how the movie deals with it is enough to make the movie worth watching. it's what makes it so good. Same with Fury Road. It is one of the best movies that shows how to make awesome action scenes (from an editing perspective). And thats why you watch it. Not because of the story.
@Chandler Andrews The point of a movie doesnt have to be to tell stories. I hardly disagree with that statement. Every movie 'has' a story in some way, okay. But it's definitely not the whole point. Depending on the material it can be the smallest, most unimportant point.
i loved king arthur
The closer look: “if they take out 90% of the film it would still make perfect sense”
The value of the opening scene is of extrinsic nature. Notice the pyramid carried by the elephant in the opening scene, and the king literally getting on board with them. That is the purpose of that scene. The king is joining the club, if you will. Sacrificing his horse (probably one of his best friends) in the process is also an element not to be underestimated.
I think you are searching for a meaning when there is none. Ritchie wanted to make an entertaining scene and nothing more. Any other meaning is really coincidental.
@@TheCloserLook You talked with him about that or how do you know?
I loved it
I enjoyed it as well. Having a reason for why it failed is nice. Sometimes bloat is all you want in a story. You can answer questions for yourself after all
All of the examples he gives of good storytelling, or clearly defined characters are simplistic cliches. Star Wars is a by the numbers Hero's Tale. The Justice League has almost no complexity whatsoever. Firefly is a tired as heck "Plucky underdogs fight against da bad guyz and win wif da powa of Fwenship" garbage. It's almost as if both critics and audiences only like stories that do what every other one has done. Since when have we had a rebellious character realize that his fellow underdogs are on the wrong side? Since when have we had a Designated Villain actually be proven right as to how to improve the state of the world?
"I loved it" is a pretty useless comment. The film bombed at the box office and has gone down in history as a pretty record-breaking fail. The points he made are valid and if all you can say after it is I loved it well then... you love bad films.
Joshua Lonsako Me too. It’s a bad movie, obviously, but I enjoy the shit out of it. This and Suckerpunch.
defiante1 You say that like it's a bad thing. I enjoyed the hell out of it and have and will continue to enjoy "bad movies". The thing is nobody's opinion but your own matters when watching a film. If you enjoyed it and others didn't that's fine. We all have different tastes and things we prioritise. The writing in King Arthur was pretty weak but the music and cinematography was more than enough to make up for it.
R2D2 is the hero of all Star Wars movies. C3PO is the relief counter part.
The opening scene introduced us to the sword and it's incredible power. We get a sense of why it is so important.
What killed the people in the Darklands? Oh I don't know, the giant sized predators?!
lovely! lovely! such important work within the field of storytelling.
While I agree with the overall point about the storytelling being inefficient, I'm not sure some of the examples here are good. For example the thing about parallel universes or mages.
This is because King Arthur was setup as being a franchise movie, so it has to give some of these elements without giving total answers on them. Some of these are clearly things they are saving for later elaboration.
And while yes setting up a first movie with it being a franchise maker isn't a good idea, however I don't think movies need to elaborate every single idea they contributed in the same movie
It would be the equivalent of blaming the original Star Wars not explaining what the Clone Wars is or what does the Senate do in the Empire - or even who the Emperor was. These are all mentioned in short lines in the movie that builds the world but not elaborated until later movies.
Now again, like I said, I agree with the overall point about inefficient storytelling as well as some other example like the 25 minute assasination scene. I just don't think movies should be criticized for bringing up world building points and not elaborating them. I think this is especially the case if they are first of a planned franchise.
I also not sure the title of the video "how to fail at fantasy is apt". Making up new concepts IS part of fantasy and they're not always resolved in the first movie/book/work.
I also take issue with the criticism of the mage at 6:47. Yes you have a good point bat she doesn't really do much but save Arthur twice but I again say as a franchise starter movie, these are things that are fine. A character that doesn't do much is okay because they can always be a first introduction for later movies. I do agree that they went TOO overboard with the side character count though. Not all characters need to do things especially in a franchise movie but there are limits.
I know that the counter argument is that franchises shouldn't be started based on a bad movie and I agree with that. However I do think that having world building points that are not fully elaborated and solved or character that don't seem like they do much is itself a bad thing in movies. While I agree that franchises should only be made or of good movies, I don't think movies having some things that are clearly saving for later entries are necessarily a bad thing. It is the other points beside these that matter more to me on whether the movie is good or not.
its a real shame it was so crap, because from those clips, it LOOKS really nice
Katharine W It is a much better movie than this analysis would indicate.
Katharine W You really should watch it. This is a very enjoyable movie to watch if you don't care about the movie snobs hating on it for not being "Artsy" or an MCU
The opening scenes were linked, Mordred and Vortigan were secretly collaborating. It was upon Mordred's unexpected defeat that the coup was carried out
So far i wasn't able to put my finger on what was bugging me, because on their own, most of the scenes were very entertaining. The acting was great, the movie was shot interestingly, the action was thrilling and the dialogue was sharp af, hell, even the soundtrack was pretty good. It's interesting how all of this isn't enough to make a good movie for the reasons you described. Great video.
+Walter Kowalski Thanks :)
You are absolutely right of course but I loved the movie anyway 😅
Cool video
Thanks :)
They would of talked about the dark lands if they would of given the movie a chance and let them make sequels. As well as more with the mages.
You hit the nail's head! In my opinion, this movie does have great elements as well - such as the villain for example - but the excessive number of small characters makes the hero weak, and my overall experience of the movie suffers from it. Thanks again for a great presentation!
This movie seems like it was to be a series but they ran short of time or money and decided to make a film. as a series it would have been awesome because they'd have time to explore somethings that probably were meant to be explained but were not
Movie critics are overrated
Doesn't that make you a critic too?
Sure, but that wasn't my point. I meant "professional" movie critics are overrated. Those critics who are cited by magazines, newspapers, websites, etc.
There are good critics, and there are bad ones. Some would analyze the the historical, political or personal contexts of a film, and criticize the filmmaker's artistic choices, while others may simply write a sorry 500 word excuse to sass mouth a film they didn't like. However, public opinion of a film often conflicts with professional criticism largely because critics generally judge film as a form of art, while audiences regard it simply as a source of entertainment.
By who?
I agree with MrC0MPUT3R. I liked new KA movie. It was entertaining. Isn't that what we want from movies?
Brilliant dude, I knew something was wrong with that story I just couldn't put my finger on what it was, and you're absolutely correct, they needed to CUT so much of what is in it out of it and the characters, too. That old Robert McKee adage, keep the world small, the smaller it is the more in control of it you can be!
The chase scene serves perfect purpose. They add George the Fighter to the group. And we get this bombastic sequence when Arthur uses Excalibur for the first time.