Thoughts on the new King Arthur trailer?

Thoughts on the new King Arthur trailer?

youtube.com/watch?v=jIM4-HLtUM0

Other urls found in this thread:

dana.org/News/Are_Face-Blindness_and_Synesthesia_Linked_to_Autism_Spectrum_Disorders_/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's been done.

Why not Charlemagne or some shit.

Hollywood is dead.

Some parts look ok, the heavy fantasy/dream sequence stuff seems a bit jarring.

I'm intrigued

...

...

>its a classic european fantasy has a token black person in it episode

>aquatic tart . jpeg

I'm down. I can always appreciate some medieval kino, be it early, high or late.

All this weird, hyper-stylised and heavily altered fairytale shit is freaking me out.

We had those Alice in Wonderland films a few years back, then the Snow White shit, then they built onto that universe with the weird "Huntsman" stuff, then the Hansel & Gretel shit.

Who watches this stuff and who the fuck directs it? Garbage like Transformers I understand, but this just baffles me.

Remind me of those Children of the Forest from GoT.

This is trash

>Its another King Arthur movie with late medieval aesthetics and not sub-roman pre-dark-age aesthetics

Arthur movies are either Imperial Roman or late Medieval. Really grinds my gears.

Late Roman/ Early Dark Ages is best aesthetic.

why is there a black guy?
why is there rock music playing in the trailer?
why the anachronisms?

>King Arthur and his squire Kang Artha

Honestly, that looked pretty good, not like that means anything

You know what also had a great trailer?
After Earth.

Yeah

where the fuck is rocknrolla 2 ritchie you fuck.

uh no late Eastern Roman Empire aesthetic best aesthetic

that armor looks hella gay

>Greatest Bana

If he's in the rest of the movie with Bane Hardy I'd purchase the tickets Senpai

>Bad guys throwing Nazi salutes
>Black sidekick

pol is gonna fucking aneurysm

Does Monty Python and the Holy Grail get it wrong as well?

Know any films with a good reference point of that aesthetic?

Maybe Hard to be a God

Oh shit I thought it was Baneman. NEver mind. Charlie Hunman can't act for shit. He's using the same character he always does.

>Nazi Salutes
>being so pleb you don't recognize that the Nazi salute is based off the Imperial Roman salute

I may see this because of Aiden Gillen
What have you done to me Sup Forums

I'll watch it for CIA

>If I pull out that sword will you die?
>It would be extremely painful
>You're a big guy
>For you

>Imperial Roman Salutes
>Being so pleb you don't know that there is zero evidence it was used by the Romans

money, user.

(((they))) do this every 10 or so years or sometimes sooner.

This is shlock. Did they ever read an Arthurian Legends? Arthurian tales are tales of romance, chivalry, and friendship. This is capeshit tier

KING
I
N
O

It was invented by French painters.
The only real Roman gesture was the "adlocutio" and it was merely functional.

>chivalry
nah nah kang artha gon fuck dem hos

king foltest

They need to stop putting niggers everywhere
Ruins the immersion

So wait, is Jude Law supposed to be Arthur or Uther? If Arthrur then is the beefy lead Morgan? Cause that might b cool

WE

How likely do you think it would have been for a couple of Nubians to have arrived in Britannia circa 500 AD, let alone join the army of Arthur? Arthur would have been in parts of England just a little past current Cornwall or Wales at the time, fighting the Saxons, Angles, and Jutes for every inch of land, for both glory and protecting the Britons from the recent invaders. A better, but nearly as exotic (for the time) choice would have been to include a couple of Slavic or Hunnic mercenaries to Arthur's retinue/army. The last King Arthur movie was almost along the lines of my suggestions, but they still missed a lot regarding historical accuracy of the period. This new King Arthur movie seems to be based on later medieval interpretations of the legend, which is not as appealing to me as the Late Roman and Dark Ages one that originated it. To truly do the Arthurian legend, it needs an atmosphere most similar to Total War: Attila (400s-500s AD), and not Medieval II: Total War (Beginning 1080 AD), in other words. At least Vortigern is supposed to make an appearance in this movie, who was a historical figure of the Arthurian time period. Mostly, I wish the weapons and armor were less Late Medieval looking, and more Late Roman and Dark Ages in style.

What are examples of movies that have been made about Emperor Charlemagne? I'm genuinely interested.

Considering the highly inaccurate armor displayed in those screenshots I imagine it doesn't really matter at all.

Just think of it all happening in a parallel universe.

not into this kind of stories but..

what's the point on showing the pulling out of the sword in the trailer?
wouldn't you want to make that scene the most thrilling and iconic of all in that kind of movie hence not showing it in the first trailer?

also guy ritchie's a hack. snatch was a decent fluke his other movies are trash tier.

I guess I'll try to approach the movie more along the lines of the Lord of the Rings films. I wish a new high-budget movie was made featuring a reasonably accurate early Dark Ages atmosphere.

Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels is better than Snatch though

>2017
>Still no Cyrus the Great historical epic

Also are those little chain mail booties?

debatable

>using "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" for the trailer music
>not "Battle of Evermore"

Jesus Christ, if you're going to spend the money on licensing a Led Zeppelin song you might as well get one that actually fits.

I think they're just cloth or wool socks, wrapped like puttees.

Fuck no, its been seen a thousand times. you go to a king arthur movie not knowing that cliched moment would happen ur an idiot. better to just sell it in the trailer

After the inaccuracies already present in the 2004 King Arthur movie, despite close-enough armor and weapons, and the general 5th century AD time period, I feel like we've regressed back to the "King Arthur is a late medieval English King" meme. He should be depicted more like an early Welsh/Romano-British leader.

why would you shoot arrows at a man before throwing him off a tower?

OK, but who plays Merlin? Are they gonna show us how Merlin grooms Artoria but instead of fucking him, gives her a dick to bone Morgana and create Mordred? Why is Arthur a grown man when pulling out Caliburn? Are they gonna show us how Lancelot grows up with the lady of the lake ad then tries to cuck his King? Are they gonna ned it with Artoria dying at the sword of her daughter????

On this one I can agree. The overall lefty sentiment and fear of overt signs of "rightist" shit makes it more authoritarian instead of something like Branagh's Henry V where it basks in nationalistic shit, "our king is godly, heil" etc

And yeah it feels really jewy or like a tumblr potter fangirl view of leftism. Like star wars' nazi salute

Yeah, the movie's compromised by that, but I'll probably end up seeing it at some point because I'm interested in Arthurian legends.

that's the point? everyone knows the scene is going to happen.
an ambitious film maker will make the how it's happening into something special that has a new touch. it's not that hard since the best and only memorable arthur story we had was very much based in the realm of polished fantasm.

guess you just film 3 shots of nails getting hammered into hands and feet and skip to the part where he's dead right? moronic arugment
just because audience knows a certain scene is happening doesn't mean you should just skip telling the story your way.

Charlemagne would likely seem too right wing for Hollywood to make a movie about him. They wouldn't even go near Charles Martel, his grandfather, who defeated the Muslim army invading France at the Battle of Tours. Even Donald Trump was recently compared to Charlemagne, and it was not meant to be positive, despite a once widely-accepted positive view of Charlemagne himself, the founder of the Holy Roman Empire.

Apart from Merlin, none of this characters are going to appear in this film - at least according to the imdb casting.

No Morgana, Lancelot, Guinevere, etc…

>It is the first installment of a planned six film series

so expect them in the sequels I guess

They're quite optimistic about those sequels.

>Charlie Hunman
I'll skip it.

It would seem fitting for Hollywood to try to do a movie about the Persian Empire and Cyrus the Great, depicting them as reasonable, or even good, instead of the 300 style monstrous villains.

Ive commented to much on this piece of shit in earlier threads but the one thing that i still cant get over is that they got charlie hunman as the lead actor.

face blindness is a sign of autism

Charlemagne was basically a real life King Arthur.

Sup Forums literally gets triggered 10,000 times a day. it's hilarious that they make fun of SJW's for getting offended all the time.

No its actually more autistic when youre good at recognizing people

>king arthur

Fuck Hollywood

KING
KINO

said no one ever

Yeah pretty much this

Well yes because Sup Forums gets offended for the right reason, unlike sjw's.

Actually i just did. You might want to understand that having a exceptionally great memory is a sign of advanced autism also known as AA.

wtf is this?

>How likely do you think it would have been for a couple of Nubians to have arrived in Britannia circa 500 AD, let alone join the army of Arthur?

According to imdb that Nubian is Sir Bedivere. The movie will probably just say he is a Moor or something, because We Wuz Kangz n shiettt

getting triggered by everything you see is still fucking ridiculous and retarded. not everything is a jewish conspiracy.

dana.org/News/Are_Face-Blindness_and_Synesthesia_Linked_to_Autism_Spectrum_Disorders_/

>Are you scared?
>No
>You should be

What is the best King Arthur movie and why is it Monty Python

>If I pull out that sword will you die?

underrated

dude did you even watch the trailer?
Eric Bana was Uther and Charlie was Arthur

maybe this movie is a little too advanced for you

Well considering the source you gave me to back up this claim is a well known false information spreader in the autism psychology work help station operation community also known as the APWSOC, id be not that sure that simple retardation is a cause of thee good ol 'tism

A highly ranking knight? That sounds even more implausible, if not impossible. I'm trying to visualize what a sub-Saharan African of the early middle ages would be able to do to 1. reach Britain, 2. know enough of the language of Arthur's people (would it be Latin or Celtic Brythonic over there?), 3. to not only enlist but achieve the rank of a knight. Arthur was supposed to be from a time well before even the Arabs and the Berbers became Islamized, let alone recruited sub-Saharan African soldiers and mercenaries into their forces. While we're at it, we should have a far easterner from China serving with Arthur, which would balance out the diversity of his knightly order quite well.

lel, you clearly are autistic if you know this much about autisim. further proving my point that face blindness is a sign of autism.

>getting triggered every time you see a black person in a movie or on television is getting "offended for the right reason"

Sup Forumstards everybody. you can't make this shit up.

Whether i was diagnosed with autism at the age of 5 has nothing to do with you gettin trolled like a good little newfag.

That's Morgan Freeman's character when he was younger from Robin Hood

Looks like GOT meets Clash of the Titans.

I hope they go back to making movies like they did in the late 90's...have visual FX take a backseat to character development and plot.

some stories had Arthur fighting the Roman Emperor on the continent, probably some blacks were there

watching this just made me want a well scripted/well directed Witcher movie.

Although balance the action with a prominent horror element.

>No Goosefat Bill Wilson

Why even bother

I only want Asians and Pacific Islanders in my films

No mayos pls

It is a sub saharan african wearing a coif without an cloth padding, making it literally useless, wearing apparently a pot on his head which is what happens when you opt out of the apparently optional nasal guard of the classic Nasal Helm, and using what looks like a Heater shield with the bottom cut out for unknown reasons. The sword checks out, but the pommel looks like it has a wheel pommel, which would have us looking at early 14th century.

This, is what happens when you put a fucking sub saharan african in what is apparently late 12th century england.

We seem to have come full circle with other decades, in making the typical hair styling mistakes against historical accuracy. I doubt many people, except for possibly some Germanic tribesmen, would have had hair approximating today's undercut haircut. His hair should be longer on the sides and back, or maybe give him a Caesar haircut instead.

WE WUZ ARTHURIAN KNIGHT N SHEEIT

Why do movies feel the need to take so many liberties?

If they'd followed the Arthurian legends this could have been kino. Instead it is generic action shit.

Damn, the young pope looks like THAT?!

Thats the worst part. This movie is an utter waste of Jude Law.

Hollywood can't even do Arthurian legend right anymore. This is the end folks. Everything is a marvel movie now.

Yes. Charlemagne=King Arthur basically.

Looks kino

Better than the 2004 one?

Guy Ritchie is directing, it probably won't be that bad.

Umm sorry, but Guy Ritchie's style is a horrible choice for this kind of movie. You can tell by the trailer.