Hollywood has got some problems.
Grade-a quality observationalisms going on over here, I know. But can we talk about one of those problems for a minute? It's the enormous cost of making a blockbuster. Because that cost is so massive, studios are really only willing to greenlight something that they're confident will make it back. Remakes, existing franchises with a proven record of profitability, concepts that seem ripe for inclusion in some kind of inter-connected universe, stuff like that. And unfortunately that has left us without a whole lot of unique, original ideas in Hollywood.
This isn't a new problem, it's been like this for decades. And sometimes you get something truly original that turns out to be massively popular as well, like John Wick. Which instantly spawned two sequels, because if the first one makes money, suddenly that's a proven record of profitability and we're right back where we started.
It may seem like I'm beating around the bush of I'm-about-to-introduce-a-movie-that-was-original-but-underappreciated, and now you're looking back up at the title and realizing that King Arthur is hardly an original story.
And obviously that's true. Saying nothing about the previous movies based on the fictional character, you still wind up with the fact that most of everything about Arthurian legend we see in modern fiction stems from T. H. White's The Once and Future King or Paul Bettany's Canterbury Tales. So no, I'm not here claiming that Legend of the Sword is a wholly original blockbuster, but I'd like to suggest before we go any further that a work need not be utterly unique in order to be original. Mad Max: Fury Road is not the first Mad Max film, but the way it was shot, the story it told, makes it unique and allows it to stand alone very effectively.
Which brings us finally to Legend of the Sword. Because 'unique' and 'stands alone' is exactly how I would describe this movie... if it were about 45 minutes longer.
So, the film. It's sort of a cross between Batman vs Superman and The Italian Job, which doesn't make a whole ton of sense until I tell you that's kinda how I view A Knight's Tale as well. It wants to take itself seriously, it's about serious stuff, but it's situationally kinda silly and loves letting its ensemble of characters bounce off each other in interesting ways. There are a few sorta heist-planning conversations that make it feel even more like Italian Job, and the life the performers bring to their characters is generally pretty solid.
It's also got a pretty generic, mustache-twirly villain without super clear motivations, or rather with stark motivations that seem completely at odds with his actual emotional engagement, but he's played by Jude Law, so it works out okay. The villain is mainly where the BvS comparison comes in.
And all things considered, I liked the movie. There was a lot of good stuff in there, from solid characters in a good ensemble to decent world-building based around an interesting mythos. The action was really entertaining, and there was plenty of it, though generally I would have liked just a bit more... color. In, like... everything.
The trend of washed-out cinematography is annoying and I blame Zach Snyder for it entirely.
But the biggest issue with the whole movie was that the world itself is only given to us in hints. Which is fine, but some of those hints raised more questions than they answered, and honestly an extra 30 or 40 minutes would have allowed them to build this world more effectively. "But Spendlove," I hear you typing (I can recognize the sound of each individual key on your keyboard, BTW), "It's just Arthurian legend. That's a pretty solidly built world already, clearly they just mean to rely on that."
Two problems there. First, it's not solidly built for viewers that haven't read The Once and Future King or seen First Knight, so, you know... build it. And second, remember how I said the movie was unique?
Legend of the Sword was inspired by the stories of King Arthur, but it is not the King Arthur story you're familiar with. They went in a new and interesting direction with the whole thing, and the world that direction resulted in was good. I wanted more detail, I wanted to get invested, because this is one of the most unique new fantasy worlds I've seen come out of Hollywood in... years. Possibly since Lord of the Rings, in fact.
And if the movie would have had the time to build that world more effectively, it might very well have performed better in theaters. Which probably would have just encouraged executives to make sequels to it, yes, but hopefully somewhere it would also suggest to someone with money that new, unique takes on a story can be profitable, and we'd get more of them.
Alas, that's uh... that's not what happened. And so we'll be drinking down remakes and Marvel sequels until the atmosphere boils away. But you know what, it's okay. Because these are movies, you know? You can buy them.
And rewatch them. Over and over again, even.
Novel concept, you know?
Grade-a quality observationalisms going on over here, I know. But can we talk about one of those problems for a minute? It's the enormous cost of making a blockbuster. Because that cost is so massive, studios are really only willing to greenlight something that they're confident will make it back. Remakes, existing franchises with a proven record of profitability, concepts that seem ripe for inclusion in some kind of inter-connected universe, stuff like that. And unfortunately that has left us without a whole lot of unique, original ideas in Hollywood.
This isn't a new problem, it's been like this for decades. And sometimes you get something truly original that turns out to be massively popular as well, like John Wick. Which instantly spawned two sequels, because if the first one makes money, suddenly that's a proven record of profitability and we're right back where we started.
It may seem like I'm beating around the bush of I'm-about-to-introduce-a-movie-that-was-original-but-underappreciated, and now you're looking back up at the title and realizing that King Arthur is hardly an original story.
And obviously that's true. Saying nothing about the previous movies based on the fictional character, you still wind up with the fact that most of everything about Arthurian legend we see in modern fiction stems from T. H. White's The Once and Future King or Paul Bettany's Canterbury Tales. So no, I'm not here claiming that Legend of the Sword is a wholly original blockbuster, but I'd like to suggest before we go any further that a work need not be utterly unique in order to be original. Mad Max: Fury Road is not the first Mad Max film, but the way it was shot, the story it told, makes it unique and allows it to stand alone very effectively.
Which brings us finally to Legend of the Sword. Because 'unique' and 'stands alone' is exactly how I would describe this movie... if it were about 45 minutes longer.
So, the film. It's sort of a cross between Batman vs Superman and The Italian Job, which doesn't make a whole ton of sense until I tell you that's kinda how I view A Knight's Tale as well. It wants to take itself seriously, it's about serious stuff, but it's situationally kinda silly and loves letting its ensemble of characters bounce off each other in interesting ways. There are a few sorta heist-planning conversations that make it feel even more like Italian Job, and the life the performers bring to their characters is generally pretty solid.
It's also got a pretty generic, mustache-twirly villain without super clear motivations, or rather with stark motivations that seem completely at odds with his actual emotional engagement, but he's played by Jude Law, so it works out okay. The villain is mainly where the BvS comparison comes in.
And all things considered, I liked the movie. There was a lot of good stuff in there, from solid characters in a good ensemble to decent world-building based around an interesting mythos. The action was really entertaining, and there was plenty of it, though generally I would have liked just a bit more... color. In, like... everything.
The trend of washed-out cinematography is annoying and I blame Zach Snyder for it entirely.
But the biggest issue with the whole movie was that the world itself is only given to us in hints. Which is fine, but some of those hints raised more questions than they answered, and honestly an extra 30 or 40 minutes would have allowed them to build this world more effectively. "But Spendlove," I hear you typing (I can recognize the sound of each individual key on your keyboard, BTW), "It's just Arthurian legend. That's a pretty solidly built world already, clearly they just mean to rely on that."
Two problems there. First, it's not solidly built for viewers that haven't read The Once and Future King or seen First Knight, so, you know... build it. And second, remember how I said the movie was unique?
Legend of the Sword was inspired by the stories of King Arthur, but it is not the King Arthur story you're familiar with. They went in a new and interesting direction with the whole thing, and the world that direction resulted in was good. I wanted more detail, I wanted to get invested, because this is one of the most unique new fantasy worlds I've seen come out of Hollywood in... years. Possibly since Lord of the Rings, in fact.
And if the movie would have had the time to build that world more effectively, it might very well have performed better in theaters. Which probably would have just encouraged executives to make sequels to it, yes, but hopefully somewhere it would also suggest to someone with money that new, unique takes on a story can be profitable, and we'd get more of them.
Alas, that's uh... that's not what happened. And so we'll be drinking down remakes and Marvel sequels until the atmosphere boils away. But you know what, it's okay. Because these are movies, you know? You can buy them.
And rewatch them. Over and over again, even.
Novel concept, you know?
Comments
Post a Comment