Guy Ritchie directed. I thought it was fun as hell and while it had its faults, was a massive critical and box office failure.

Whats funny is that out of nowhere this movie is surging hard on Netflix. I guess I'm not the only one who liked it.... Anyway, what does this mean? After I first saw this on HBO, I wanted to check and see if there was a sequel forthcoming, and at the time, it was a very obvious No. However, does the cult status and demand on Netflix change that? Genuinely curious as to anyones thoughts on this movie and the potential for Netflix to fund a sequel.

I get this. And my interest is very obviously not relevant if the streaming numbers aren't legitimate

So assuming the numbers are in fact real, I just find it really weird that out of nowehere, and years after its initial release this thing just comes out of nowhere. I suppose there is not real explanation for these cult followings. They just happen.

What interests me is the business aspect of this whole thing. There clearly is a demand, and even though the first one was bloated budget wise, is there away for another studio to pick up the IP and fill the demand for a sequel? If you beleive what was said about this whole thing, Ritchie was forced to make major changes and cuts to his original version of the film. Reading interviews it seems that the cast and director are all on board to keep this thing going, and would someone finance the original cast and crew to make the sequel they want?

It's an interesting hypothetical for sure - but apparently this thing lost over $150 million. Also - holy **** this was from 2017? I thought 2019 or so.

I love King Arthur but I think it's been adapted to hell and back, and they're rarely any good. This may be surging on Netflix but it'd have to stay there for a good while and generate a lot of buzz for anyone to even think about throwing more money at it. Like Squidgame levels of buzz. Otherwise this is like seeing Hubie Halloween in the top-10 - I just don't buy it as being that legitimate.

PatAg said:

---

It's a fun movie, but not one of his better ones.

If Netflix wanted to spend money on the King Arthur topic, they should partner with Beranrd Cornwell again and make a series out of The Warlord Chronicles

---

Epix is already doing this

Max Power said:

---

Then again, this is the network that's made a lot of money off of garbage programming like Tiger King. Proving anyone will watch anything, regardless of how bad it is.

---

You over estimate the intelligence of the average American (or human for that matter).

I couldn't even finish Excalibur. Overacting out the wazoo.

Gabriel Byrne stares at a dancer, expressionless
Camera goes back to dancer
Back to Byrne (still looking uninterested)
Back to dancer
Back to Byrne

Byrne: "I MUST HAVE HER!"

I prefer the 2004 Fuqua version for quotability.

Rus!

Claude! said:

---

rhutton125 said:

---

I couldn't even finish Excalibur. Overacting out the wazoo.

Gabriel Byrne stares at a dancer, expressionless
Camera goes back to dancer
Back to Byrne (still looking uninterested)
Back to dancer
Back to Byrne

Byrne: "I MUST HAVE HER!"

---

Counterpoint: excellent use of Carmina Burana in the film.

---

Said every sound director of low budget horror movies.

Max Power said:

---

Just because a property is said to be popular on Netflix doesn't mean anything. Netflix is notoriously secretive regarding their data. I also don't believe their top 10 is legitimate to begin with. I'd take the fact that it's showing in the top 10 with a grain of salt.

Then again, this is the network that's made a lot of money off of garbage programming like Tiger King. Proving anyone will watch anything, regardless of how bad it is.

---

Every single thing you see in a "Top 10" or suggestion for you on Netflix is generated expressly for you by the AI. Even which character shows in the image of, say, The Office varies based on your viewing, selected from the actual show and the banner custom made by the AI.

It's SCARY good, and this sort of thing is everywhere. You don't really make many true choices for yourself anymore.

You guys see "Arthur & Merlin: Knights of Camelot"? It is on Amazon Prime so you know it's good.

javajaws said:

---

Max Power said:

---

Then again, this is the network that's made a lot of money off of garbage programming like Tiger King. Proving anyone will watch anything, regardless of how bad it is.

---

You over estimate the intelligence of the average American (or human for that matter).

---

Oh I overestimate nothing. The fact that Tiger King probably had 100X the viewership of something like Succession boggles my mind.

Couldn't have put it any better, especially the analogy to 1980s Dune. Both are epic and iconic stores presented pretty damn well, and both have held up well in my opinion.

Agree it's about time King Arthur got its SERIOUS reboot.

I stand by it! I'd been hoping/looking for the definitive version of King Arthur and I'd hoped Excalibur would be it but it didn't do it for me. I watched up until Arthur very undramatically pulls the sword from the stone. I probably should have kept going but it was pretty clear to me that this wasn't the version of King Arthur that I wanted.

rhutton125 said:

---

I stand by it! I'd been hoping/looking for the definitive version of King Arthur and I'd hoped Excalibur would be it but it didn't do it for me. I watched up until Arthur very undramatically pulls the sword from the stone. I probably should have kept going but it was pretty clear to me that this wasn't the version of King Arthur that I wanted.

---

I think you should finish it and maybe look at it as more of a work of surrealist art. It has a pretty spectacular finale. Plus, Helen Mirren is hot and is half naked throughout.

Come on, man!

Now you've got my interest!

Just watched this, and was surprised how hard it bombed at the box office.

Pretty fun acting, action scenes were great, elephants were ridiculous, hot medieval vegan goth girl.

Too bad they won't make a sequel.

Some of these deep fantasy works are so successful for reasons that may not translate well to a visual representation. It's too concrete.

rhutton125 said:

---

I stand by it! I'd been hoping/looking for the definitive version of King Arthur and I'd hoped Excalibur would be it but it didn't do it for me. I watched up until Arthur very undramatically pulls the sword from the stone. I probably should have kept going but it was pretty clear to me that this wasn't the version of King Arthur that I wanted.

---

Uther Pendragon's erection punches through armor before he bangs a woman. How can you not be entertained after watching that?

BurnetAggie99 said:

---

An L of an Ag said:

---

They broke the mold on King Arthur movies with "Excalibur".

---

This Excalibur is the GOAT

---

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Well, it definitely had better credits!

I'm continually irritated by the continual need to tell an alternative timeline tale or to play around with the relationships and just make **** up.

Give me a big budget retelling of Arthurian legend in the style of TH White, Howard Pyle.

I will also accept a big budget Netflix adaptation of the Warlord Chronicles.