If you were a studio that hired Guy Ritchie for a King Arthur movie, would you in any way expect to get the sort of classic medieval story full of pining and faith -- or would you expect one where Arthur wears a Henley and shadowboxes? The latter, right?
Image: Warner Bros.
According to star Charlie Hunnam, when they started, no one was quite sure what kind of Arthur they were getting. He told EW, "It was challenging to begin with because there was an uncertainty about the tone. Guy's [initial] intention was to make something that was outside of his wheelhouse, and make a more classic, straightforward, and somewhat somber film -- which is obviously not what we ended up with."
No kidding. Instead, Hunnam says the film we're getting is full of people giving us their "best Guy Ritchie impersonations". That sounds hilarious and also not like a King Arthur story. Why can we only do knights if it's Arthur? Are we just incapable of setting things in the past? Just do a weird-arse action story of your own making. It doesn't need to be Sherlock Holmes or King Arthur. There's no weird Venn diagram of "Guy Ritchie fans" and "Arthur fans" that means you double the audience and the box office. I just want Ritchie to be Ritchie away from other stories.
Of course, in the same article, Ritchie describes filmmaking as: "You just sort of commit with a couple hundred million of someone else's money and hope you find your way." Oh sure then. He can do what he wants, I guess.