1. Tim W Brown says:

    “To me, it is not enough to name a bunch of characters after people in the Arthurian legends, add in some sword named Excalibur, and then call it a King Arthur movie. There just has to be more depth than that. Why? Because there is so much source material to draw from. How can you make a movie and not even put in faint nods to the original material? To me, using the name of King Arthur without any appreciation for the legends seems cold, callous, and uninformed.”

    This. So much this. This is the (primary) reason I won’t see this film, not in first run, maybe (but probably not) if it comes to the neighborhood second-run house. This is much the same reason I have yet to see the film 300 in any form. And it’s the reason I was so disappointed in the Hobbit films. They may be fine action films; they may have these or those various positive aspects of filmmaking. But I have grown fed up with films that take a name which promises certain things and then completely neglect (or grossly subvert) the source material – which has been so inspiring and delightful to generations. It’s gone far beyond even the bowdlerized whackjobs from as far back as the 1930’s, where Hollywood at least tried to tell a version of the classic stories – often mangled and ham-fisted, but recognizable. I’m not sure if the use of titles such as ‘King Arthur’ is just a cynical marketing ploy, or if it rises from a deep lack of confidence in their own product – probably both.

What do you think?