Jerry Bruckheimer To Produce "De-Mystified" King Aurthur retelling (merged) (1 Viewer)

[Dalton]

Well to me this is horrible news. I was reding about it in today's USA Today. He wants to take the magic out of the Arthur myth. The magic is one of the best aspects of the Arthur legend IMO. John Boorman's Excalibur is my favorite Arthur movie and one of my all-time favorite movies. I didn't care for the NBC mini-series Merlin with Sam Neill (although i like Sam Neill as an actor). I also very much disliked First Knight with Richard Gere and Sean Connery (whom i also like). Neither Merlin nor First Knight captured the bleek darkness of the Middle-Ages the way Excalibur did(IMO at least). Bruckheimer also believes most people think the Arthur legend takes place in the 1500's. Who thinks that? I certainly don't. No one i've talked to thought it took place in the 1500's either. Clive Owen is set to play Arthur and Stephen Dillane to play Merlin. While i like Owen i don't recall who Stephen Dillane is. Antoine Fuqua of Training Day and Tears of the Sun is set to direct. Anyone else know anymore details about this film? Here is the link to the imdb info but it's not much.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0349683

 

[Hunter P]

Don't forget Camelot and Monty Python and the Holy Grail and The Sword in the Stone.

According to your IMDB link, the setting will be between the fall of Rome and the Dark Ages. Maybe instead of the 1500's you meant the 500's. That is more "accurate".

Anyhoo, since guns and gunpowder hasn't been invented, how the hell is Bruckheimer gonna make it through the whole film without a single explosion?

Apparently, Speilberg is also filming an Arthur mini-series for TV. Amazing how similar films or TV shows always seem to hit the market at the same time.

 

[Dalton]

Hunter,
Some more good examples. The 1500's thing is a quote from Bruckheimer in USA Today. Maybe he meant 500's but the article has him saying the 1500's. I just think taking the mysticism out of the story makes it become just another historical epic(not that that is a bad thing) and diminishes the Arthur legend as a whole. I think we have enough historical epics being released over the next couple of years. I would love love to see a remake of Excalibur with some of today's advances in special effects(although not too overdone with CGI).

 

[Andy Sheets]

I think you could potentially do a very interesting historical take on King Arthur. Unfortunately, Jerry Bruckheimer is not the guy to do that. I read about this movie a couple of weeks ago and couldn't help but laugh because after reading about the more historical-based take on the story, the article then mentioned that Keira Knightley was taking swordfighting lessons because Guinevere is going to be an action queen in the story

 

[Dalton]

the article then mentioned that Keira Knightley was taking swordfighting lessons because Guinevere is going to be an action queen in the story

Another thing that i am not too thrilled about. I will of course reserve judgment till i see the film but i am not liking how things are shaping up so far. It just seems that they are changing the story too much from the myth most of us are familar with.

 

[Joshua_Y]

Cant Bruckheimer just keel over already...

 

[Greg O' Connel]

Just the mention of re-telling the Camelot legend without the magic brings back thoughts of First Knight. God, that was a stinker. The only thing that can make it even remotely enjoyable is making a drinking game out of it. Take a shot everytime you see the color blue used in excess. Watch it and see what I'm talking about.

Anyway, if Bruckheimer wants to do a magic-less King Arthur film, well more power to him. I don't think anyone could top Boorman's Excalibur, so maybe a different take on the legend is a good idea. If only it was anyone but Jerry Bruckheimer...

 

[Holadem]

Anyhoo, since guns and gunpowder hasn't been invented, how the hell is Bruckheimer gonna make it through the whole film without a single explosion?

What makes you think he cares about such details?

--
Holadem

 

[Greg O' Connel]

Anyhoo, since guns and gunpowder hasn't been invented, how the hell is Bruckheimer gonna make it through the whole film without a single explosion?

TIME TRAVEL.

 

[Dalton]

Just the mention of re-telling the Camelot legend without the magic brings back thoughts of First Knight

Yes what an awful movie that was. I really like Sean Connery but he was to old to play Arthur IMO. Not to mention the story was crappy too (at least IMO). I think Excalibur had a perfect blend of magic and reality. Your'e right Greg, it would be tough to top Boorman's version of Camelot.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Anyhoo, since guns and gunpowder hasn't been invented, how the hell is Bruckheimer gonna make it through the whole film without a single explosion?

You guys should read try reading Bruckheimer's credits. The variety of his output might surprise you.

M.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Bruckheimer producint without Bay directing might do just fine.

Bruckheimer also produces one of the finest television shows on the air right now, CSI, which imho is much better than any movie Bay's ever made.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

the article then mentioned that Keira Knightley was taking swordfighting lessons because Guinevere is going to be an action queen in the story

Since Arthur IS a holy story to the English, and I have English blood is it OK to cry blasphemy? Cause that right there is blasphemy. Excalibur did it right. I thought Merlin was a fascinating take on the story from a different angle, though I didn't like all aspects of it. But this is ludicrous and should be stopped immediately.

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

Since Arthur IS a holy story to the English, and I have English blood is it OK to cry blasphemy? Cause that right there is blasphemy.

Guenevere: Warrior Princess is a concept that should never even have gotten to conceptual stage. Utter blasphemy.

That having been said, the Arthurian Legend has too many iterations to ever truly cry "blasphemy". Mallory's Le Morte D'Arthur is considered the "definitive" text, but what about the romances by Chretien de Troyes? The Celtic Arthurian tales of the Mabinogian? Even Geoffrey of Monmouth's phoney-baloney "History of the Kings of Britain" pre-dates and contradicts most of the "canonical" Arthurian legend. I think many would flip their bacon-trampoline if Artie whipped out his sword "Caliburn".

I don't think any single film has ever captured (or could ever really capture) the breadth the Arthurian legend which, going by Mallory's text, is strictly episodic in nature. This legend is screaming for a 10-part HBO mini ala Band of Brothers, From The Earth To The Moon.

But I still love Excalibur. It's reasonably faithful to Mallory, and as a bonus, no woman has ever been hotter than Helen Mirren's Morgana.

 

[Lewis Besze]

You guys should read try reading Bruckheimer's credits. The variety of his output might surprise you.

Like Coyote Ugly? Yeah, that's "DA BOMB"!

 

[Michael Reuben]

Like Coyote Ugly?

I was thinking more of Farewell, My Lovely, American Gigolo, Thief, Cat People, Remember the Titans. And there's also the upcoming Veronica Guerin with Cate Blanchett, for which I have high hopes.

But Coyote Ugly isn't a bad example. I'm not claiming that every Bruckheimer production is great, but simply noting that the output encompasses a lot more than explosions.

M.

 

[BrianB]

Since Arthur IS a holy story to the English

It is?

 

[TheLongshot]

Guenevere: Warrior Princess is a concept that should never even have gotten to conceptual stage. Utter blasphemy.

To be honest, that "blasphemy" has been done a few times in books to make Guenevere a stronger character, with modern Feminist views. Nothing new here.

Then, there's "The Mists Of Avalon", which is interesting by taking a different perspective on Arthurian legend...

Personally, I'll take a "wait and see" look on this. Doing a pre-christianity Arthur film could be good, or it could stink.

Jason

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

To be honest, that "blasphemy" has been done a few times in books to make Guenevere a stronger character, with modern Feminist views. Nothing new here.

This is a modern retroviewpoint on Guenevere, in that in order for her to be a "stronger" character, she needs to pick up a battle-axe and start a-swingin'.

There is enough strength, grit, courage, and conviction in her character that far surpasses the need to turn her into Carrie Ann-Moss.

To me, the best revision that made sense within the contextof Arthurian lore was in T.H. White's The Once and Future King by making Lancelot hideously ugly. It was Lance's strict adherence to romantic chivalry and the ideals of courtly love which made him Arthur's first and best of all knights, which in the eyes of the court made him beautiful.

 

[David Wilkins]

Bruckheimer's insistance of flash over substance, is certain to take the magic out of the story. Perhaps the visual styling could be coupled with... Leonardo DiCaprio as King Arthur.