Guy Ritchie Revives A "King Arthur" Saga - Part 1

[Spider-Who?]

Huh.

You can love a film and still see/accept its faults. I love ASM2, and think in many ways it has the best representation of Spider-Man thus far, but that doesn't mean I'm not blind to all of the movie's (many) flaws.

 

[JtheDreamer]

The audience score on RT is notoriously unreliable, and kind of worthless. It directly converts the "want to see the movie" ratings to "liked the movie" ratings, so a great big chunk of any major release is "people who rated the movie before even seeing it."

Then there's the issue of spam accounts.

It amazes me how many time that has to be explained.

 

[Visceral]

this movie ****ing rocked. whatever.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

It amazes me how many time that has to be explained.

And yet so many people on boards like this take it as gospel. "See, the critics are all wrong, the audience loved the movie" And 99.9% of the time by people who loved the movie.
I never see a comment to the effect of "What is wrong with these people? A 78% audience score? The critics are right, the movie was terrible."

 

[Marvolo]

And yet so many people on boards like this take it as gospel. "See, the critics are all wrong, the audience loved the movie" And 99.9% of the time by people who loved the movie.
I never see a comment to the effect of "What is wrong with these people? A 78% audience score? The critics are right, the movie was terrible."

I've seen people on here agree with critics even when the audience score is good. That in itself implies they disagree with the audience score. There is no need for them to say it.

 

[TheFuture]

I think there is now an extremism towards judging movie that does a disservice to everyone and everything.

I feel disappointed because many aspects of the production which were great at let down by other aspects. I did not enjoy this as I thought I would.

But I would not say it is an awful movie either. There is a lot that was well made.

A read a review where the writer clearly was more about cramming in snark that doing actual analysis. It was more about his humor that the movie at times. I feel these wannabe comedians are better not trying to be reviewers because the humor in a well written review is different to the snark you share among friends while shooting the ****.

For example, he complained about the lack of Lancelot and Guinevere, later additions to the lore in many senses, and later mentioned that he heard it was to be the start of a multi-film franchise, which is clearly the answer to his complaint, but he was too oblivious to notice.

I am not a believer in conspiracies or anything like that, it is just that the critical attitude in the general field has become a bit too self-serving and the ways the criticism is presented and aggregated currently may not be the best for actually serving the public as a honest guideline.

It's the social media effect where people build their "brand" into what to say. I find that the less the talent, the more someone will fill their reviews with snark as you put it and other witticisms.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I think there is now an extremism towards judging movie that does a disservice to everyone and everything.

.

This is true and it is sad, I don't know what's worse that this extremism exists or that people are either blind to it or accept it. Too often movies are torn apart as the worst thing ever when in reality they are below average, average, above average. This is what happens when you just let anyone critique a movie for the public especially when they are more interested in promoting themselves than doing a job.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Any idea what the total box offical number should are? Did it at least make its budget back?

 

[TheVileOne]

Box Office Mojo has it at $137 million worldwide, so definitely not.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Box Office Mojo has it at $137 million worldwide, so definitely not.

The budget was 150 right? It still has a chance to make another 13 million.

 

[MadVillainy]

That's not how movie budgets work

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

That's not how movie budgets work

Please do elaborate.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Really?

 

[Rowsdower!]

The goal is to, at the very least, make double what the movie costs. Think about it. If you were making a product, would it be worth it if you only made your money back? Of course not; you'd want to make a profit. Otherwise, what's the point?

Furthermore, the budgets listed for these movies are typically understated; a troubled production like this one likely cost a lot more than what they said it did. And even if they are telling the truth on that, it doesn't include marketing costs, which are often massive.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

The goal is to, at the very least, make double what the movie costs. Think about it. If you were making a product, would it be worth it if you only made your money back? Of course not; you'd want to make a profit. Otherwise, what's the point?

Furthermore, the budgets listed for these movies are typically understated; a troubled production like this one likely cost a lot more than what they said it did. And even if they are telling the truth on that, it doesn't include marketing costs, which are often massive.

Great points you make here.

 

[MadVillainy]

Please do elaborate.

THere's a production budget, but then there's also an marketing budget.
So for example with this movie, they spent, allegedly (a lot of times budgets are more than they say), $175 mill. That $150 mill doesn't count what they spend to market the movie. Let's just say they spent like $75 mill on marketing. I don't know it's just a number. Usually it's a lot more. Sometimes they spend as much to market as they do on production. So in total, including marketing they spent $250 mill.

But then you have to take into account that studios don't get 100% of the gross. Otherwise movie theaters would get next to nothing. I don't know the exact amount they get, but they do get more money on domestic gross than they do from international numbers.

And I see you asking a lot in threads about what a movie has made. You can just go to boxofficemojo.com and just look it up yourself instead of always asking

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kingarthur2016.htm

Really?

If he doesn't know, he doesn't know

 

[Octoberist]

It's funny how the one man who was able to explain it well early on was Kevin Smith. Despite my meh on him with his more recent movies, he does know how to explain things in laymen terms because I think he was the first people to mention the 'double the budget' rule publicly when a movie actually profits.

He's also the dude who says that people fail upwards in Hollywood (referring to Jon Peters) and Smith is right on the money on the industry.

 

[TheVileOne]

http://deadline.com/2017/05/king-ar...led-at-the-box-office-guy-ritchie-1202092765/

Deadline reported a $175 million budget.

Remember, lots of delays and reshoots for this one.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

I've seen people on here agree with critics even when the audience score is good. That in itself implies they disagree with the audience score. There is no need for them to say it.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but a 78% audience score is considered pretty low.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

78%! Out of 100%! And you call that low!

 

[Rowsdower!]

No, I'm pretty sure that's 78% out of 200%.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

78%! Out of 100%! And you call that low!

They look at audience scores completely different. I know that seems relatively high, but I swear, I read something (recently at that) saying in the low 80's was quite bad. I'll attempt to find the article again.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Plus, you really have no idea how many people contributing to that audience score even saw the movie.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

THere's a production budget, but then there's also an marketing budget.
So for example with this movie, they spent, allegedly (a lot of times budgets are more than they say), $175 mill. That $150 mill doesn't count what they spend to market the movie. Let's just say they spent like $75 mill on marketing. I don't know it's just a number. Usually it's a lot more. Sometimes they spend as much to market as they do on production. So in total, including marketing they spent $250 mill.

But then you have to take into account that studios don't get 100% of the gross. Otherwise movie theaters would get next to nothing. I don't know the exact amount they get, but they do get more money on domestic gross than they do from international numbers.

And I see you asking a lot in threads about what a movie has made. You can just go to boxofficemojo.com and just look it up yourself instead of always asking

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kingarthur2016.htm



If he doesn't know, he doesn't know

Thanks for taking time and explaining it unlike other posters with their horrible attitudes.

 

[I Am The Knight]

You're welcome