King Arthur - Irish Independent Lies To Make It Seem Successful

ixoy

Hilarious over-the-top article in today's Irish Independent about King Arthur. Here's some selective quotes from it:

The €100m (€82m) Hollywood blockbuster, shot entirely on location in this country, has already smashed box office records in the US by taking in $23.5m (€20m) in its first five days on American cinema screens alone.

For a big budget movie, that was a pretty pathetic opening and it didn't smash any records. Lies - let's compare it to this quote from IMDB:

Disney seemed certain to take another drubbing at the box office this weekend as returns for its Wednesday premiere of King Arthur came in below expectations. (Daily Variety described the opening as "not stellar.")

or how about this bit:

Disney's King Arthur, which reportedly cost more than $120 million to make, took in a disappointing $15.5 million, placing third. It was the studio's sixth straight fizzle.

.
Yes great reporting there Indo. Obviously a huge success - certainly, in no way, are you exagerrating - or lying - just because the movie was filmed here in Ireland. Some more hilarity:

Mr O'Sullivan said the success of the film, which was the third top-grossing film in the US last week,

No it wasn't. What's with the lies? Box office receipts are measured by weekend gross and if you look here you'll see King Arthur enjoyed 9th place, with a massive 57.6% drop-off. In fact the movie has only grossed $46 million so far, far shy of its estimated $140 million cost.
Let's leave it to Pauline McGlyn's quote to round out the chuckles:

"It's just wonderful that such a big movie, possibly the biggest movie of the year, was made here," said the ex-star housekeeper of Father Ted.

Hahahahaha. Not very likely.

What dreadful biasting reporting that's actually full of lies and errors. So King Arthur was shot here - that's no reason to engage in such blatantly deceitful reporting. It makes me less inclined again to see the movie if this is how they think we should be informed about it.

UnrealQueen

Why would they bother lying to make the film seem good?

ixoy

Because it's filmed in Ireland. They wouldn't have engaged in all this hyperbole otherwise. It's designed to make Ireland seem like a thriving place for top Hollywood movies rather than having being used to film Disney's latest flop. Which of the two ideas would seem more attractive to a potential producer?
I guess by "good" I mean successful. Maybe I'll edit the thread title if possible.

leeroybrown

It makes me less inclined again to see the movie if this is how they think we should be informed about it.

It should make you less inclined to buy the Irish Independent.

Of course it did poorly at the US box office. A British legend, starring a British cast, filmed in Ireland. I suppose Antoine Fuqua is American but I doubt that'll push the sales up. It should do somewhat better over here.

The film also had to be re-edited in post production as the distributers decided they wanted to market it as PG-13 in the US.

iasc

why are they making it seem like a successful film, it doesnt make sense, its not like a hollywood hot-shot is gonna read it and say oh wow, i have to make a movie in ireland now.

ixoy

Originally posted by leeroybrown
Of course it did poorly at the US box office. A British legent, starring a british story, filmed in Ireland. It should do somewhat better over here.

Most likely it will - Troy grossed 72% (I believe) of its gross from overseas, an usually disproportionate amount. That's still no excuse for the Irish Independent to lie about its success (or lack of) in the U.S.

The film also had to be re-edited in post production as the distributers decided they wanted to market it as PG-13 in the US.

Indeed and apparently the director was less than thrilled about it (reading in between the lines in interviews). None of which excuses the Indo's reporting on this (although I admit this is more of a News/Media forum issue....)

Rew

Its a terrible movie that should be avoided in favour of poking sharp objects in your eyes and the Indo is a rag (nothing new there though).

segadreamcast

Yep, terrible flop. I noticed network 2 news up to the same tricks on Monday night "King Arthur rejuvenating the box office" etc.

Yeah right.

However, for the week in question - King Arthur is third for that weekend apparently, so I read in imdb news anyway. (http://imdb.com/boxoffice/?region=us&date=2004-07-09). Nonetheless, this is still a spectacularly poor performance - and probably going to be the Summer's first big loss - with Catwoman set to follow too.

Mr O'Sullivan said the success of the film, which was the third top-grossing film in the US last week,

Zoton

It wasn't entirely shot here either. The reshoots were done in pinwood studios in englan, as well as the lake set-piece, and a few of the aerial shots were done in wales and eastern europe.

Evil_Bilbo

that is weird.

Obviously it'll take in a sh1t lot more here and england than in the states. In fairness, if you lived in the states would you know (or care) who king arthur is?(was) It'd be like us going to see a movie about King Bubba or something.

Rew

Actually I thought the yanks would go mad for it, obviously not...

boo4842

This is the worst movie I've seen in the last 6 months (after Garfield). There was so much potential here that was just wasted.

Merlin was on screen for about 10 seconds? No mention of excalibur at all? Guenivierre shooting arrows with accuracy that would make an elf from Lord of the Rings blush? :rolleyes:

Just a sad movie.

JohnnyBravo

I saw it and i have to say
Rubbish
The guy playing artur was miscast
And the only real character that was worthcaring about was the fat guy with all the bastard sons
It claims to be realistic but seriously anyone see the guy get shot by the arrow in the tree
And how slow is artur to leave in a dream world that rome is just
The only positive from this was that Keira KNightly is a lasher

Phil_321

It was pretty crap alright. Did anyone else wonder how it could have at least $100 million?
The set basically consisted of a wall. There were no big names in it. Very little CGI. I think they hyped the cost of it to make it seem like a major blockbuster, when in fact I'd wouldn't be surprised if they shot it for well under $40 mill.

And the director wasn't happy at all about the editing, there was an interview with him in the Indo magazine on Saturday. They made him take out all gore to get a U(or whatever) rating. That decision ruined the fight scenes.
It was a big mistake trying to get a general audience as this "authentic" version of King Arthur would not appeal to children. And by neutering they ruined it for adults too.

Wacker

The only reason I went to it (other than that I go to the movies a lot!) was because my buddy assured me that it would be possible to see him in it. Maybe if I got the DVD and went frame by frame....

Bad film.

Etain

I looked forward to seeing this movie. They did extensive research on Arthur, garrison life in Britain, etc... I expected so much. I was so disappointed!
I can't quite pinpoint what went wrong with it. Maybe cutting the battle/violent scenes took the guts out of the movie..... just disappointing.

Draco

Phil_321 wrote:

Very little CGI.

You know all those mountain scenes? alot of those were apparently cg

Rew

Draco wrote:

You know all those mountain scenes? alot of those were apparently cg

The snow and ice stuff was all CG (saw before and after pics some where) it was good but by todays standards nothing special.

Phil_321

Draco wrote:

You know all those mountain scenes? alot of those were apparently cg

That's basic CG, that wouldn't have cost them much. They also used some (very little) for the saxon army and the hawk.
Nothing on the scale of Spiderman, Troy, Van Helsing, (insert blockbuster here), etc.....

nadir

i dont get it. They say its like all factual and stuff. But then they dress them up as 15-16 century knights, which is crap, cause they were celts and probably ran into battle skyclad. They should have made em all ride around naked if it was anyways factual. I mean at least in excalibur they didnt make any excuses it was all just fantasy, and quite good at that.
I havnt watched ths film myself yet, but i may do for they laugh.