King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 3/10/2015, 5:32 pm

The bold new story introduces a streetwise young Arthur who runs the back alleys of Londonium with his gang, unaware of the life he was born for until he grasps hold of the sword Excalibur—and with it, his future. Instantly challenged by the power of Excalibur, Arthur is forced to make some hard choices. Throwing in with the Resistance and a mysterious young woman named Guinevere, he must learn to master the sword, face down his demons and unite the people to defeat the tyrant Vortigern, who stole his crown and murdered his parents, and become King.


Last edited by WyldeMan on 5/21/2017, 8:52 am; edited 8 times in total
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 7/24/2015, 6:59 pm

With King Arthur, Charlie Hunnam and Guy Ritchie are attempting to do something new with the legendary hero: make him a kickass action hero. While their new take on Arthur and the knights of the Round Table isn’t set to hit theaters until next summer, EW visited the set to bring you the first look at the former Sons of Anarchy star as the once and future king.

From the very start of the project, Ritchie knew that he’d need to make a few changes to the story’s hero. “I think where the pitfall has often been is trying to make King Arthur bland and nice, and nice and bland,” he says. “The two qualities make rather compatible bed companions. Unfortunately, they’re not interesting to watch. Luke Skywalker was always the most uninteresting character in Star Wars because he’s the good guy. Good guys are boring.”

And that’s where Hunnam came in. Fresh off of seven seasons as Jax on Sons of Anarchy, he knew a thing or two about playing someone with a few shades of grey — more on that later. This King Arthur wouldn’t be the same virtuous, medieval Superman we’ve seen before.

Orphaned as an infant and raised by three prostitutes in the 5th century version of London, this Arthur is more of a street-wise hood, who looks after the people living in his tiny corner of the world. “He’s a little bit rough around the edges, but he’s basically a survivor. He’s a hustler,” Hunnam says. “He’s a street kid. There’s definitely a harder edge to him than people would imagine. It’s sort of classic Guy Ritchie stuff.”

What isn’t typical for Ritchie, though, is the film’s major fantasy element. Instead of going with the Batman Begins-esque, stripped down reboot, King Arthur sprints full blast in the opposite direction with giant snakes, massive war elephants, and a monstrous viking-like creature known as The Nemesis. “Hopefully, loyalists won’t be too offended by what we’ve done,” says producer Lionel Wigram.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 7/24/2015, 7:02 pm

Say whaaat? They're doing a full King Arthur fantasy franchise loaded with monsters? Did not see that coming. That is something new for the King Arthur story...

I find that disappointing as that now means this will be slathered in CGI, been expecting a very grounded and gritty King Arthur story.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by ForeverBlu on 7/24/2015, 8:04 pm

Don't think it will work here, like with Sherlock Holmes.
avatar
ForeverBlu

Posts : 3467
Join date : 2014-12-10
Age : 54
Location : NYC

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 7/25/2015, 9:35 am

@ForeverBlu wrote:Don't think it will work here, like with Sherlock Holmes.

This is supposed to be a gigantic six film epic and it's starting to worry like it could be another Conan or Seventh Son. With that said, it worked very well for Snow White and the Huntsman with a sequel soon to follow. In the past though, Charlie seems to make very wise choices when it comes to his film roles, I haven't seen one I didn't like. He passed up Fifty Shades of Grey for this and it might just turn out to be the greatest career move he's ever made.

Knights has a great cast though, I never bothered with Sherlock because I do not like sober RDJ, his characters are always so boring and safe now. I know Jude Law was his co-star but I don't like him enough to suffer through the other.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 7/14/2016, 9:21 am


Almost exactly one year ago today, we got our first “look” at director Guy Ritchie’s bold new King Arthur movie via a photoshoot spread in EW. Now, 12 months later, the film still isn’t even that close to release, but the first official images from the film have been unveiled revealing Jude Law as the villainous Vortigern, the tyrannical uncle of Charlie Hunnam’s titular hero Arthur. In this iteration of the tale, Arthur is spurred into action when Vortigern murders Arthur’s brother and dad (Eric Bana), therefore usurping the throne.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword originated with screenwriter Joby Harold, whose initial pitch covered a series of King Arthur films that could extend for a very lengthy franchise. Ritchie came in and put his stamp on the screenplay alongside frequent collaborator Lionel Wigram and filled out the cast with Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, and Aidan Gillen.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 7/22/2016, 12:59 pm

avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by Rusty on 7/22/2016, 6:50 pm

I'm really looking forward to this. Hope they don't fuck it up.
avatar
Rusty

Posts : 1761
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 7/23/2016, 12:00 pm

Rusty Cunt wrote:I'm really looking forward to this. Hope they don't fuck it up.

Do you think that Guy Ritchie even still exists? I believe he lost his talent the moment he shackled himself to Madonna. Snatch was so long ago while RocknRolla was his last halfway decent movie IMO and one viewing of it was more than enough for me.  The Guy Ritchie who made Sherlock somehow even worse Man from UNCLE is of no interest to me so if that's what he's bringing to Arthur.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by UltimateMarvel on 7/23/2016, 3:11 pm

avatar
UltimateMarvel

Posts : 4869
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Marvel Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by Rusty on 7/23/2016, 7:35 pm

@WyldeMan wrote:
Rusty Cunt wrote:I'm really looking forward to this. Hope they don't fuck it up.

Do you think that Guy Ritchie even still exists? I believe he lost his talent the moment he shackled himself to Madonna. Snatch was so long ago while RocknRolla was his last halfway decent movie IMO and one viewing of it was more than enough for me.  The Guy Ritchie who made Sherlock somehow even worse Man from UNCLE is of no interest to me so if that's what he's bringing to Arthur.

I like the King Arthur legend, so another take on it works for me. Guy Ritchie is the least interesting thing about it (and I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on him), but hopefully the other elements balance him out. Jax, Eric Bana, Jude Law. Great cast ... just hoping the fantasy element isn't over done.
avatar
Rusty

Posts : 1761
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 7/23/2016, 10:29 pm

Oh no!!! Over the shoulder shaky cam!!!! Evil or Very Mad

Not really sure what to make of that first trailer. I thought it was a straight up medieval tale with a hint of mysticism when it came to Excalibur and Merlin but I was not expecting this grandiose CGI slathered spectacle of creatures.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by UltimateMarvel on 7/23/2016, 10:57 pm

Yeah, I didn't expect magic and creatures to be involved in this too based on the early photos we got. It's not a bad thing though, we'll see how the movie turns out. When you do Excalibur then you have to do Merlin and all the other stuff that comes with it. I'm surprised we didn't Merlin, there has to be some kind of reference to him in the movie.
avatar
UltimateMarvel

Posts : 4869
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Marvel Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by Rusty on 7/23/2016, 11:10 pm

@UltimateMarvel wrote: in the movie.

Shit. It's a movie. I thought this was a mini-series.lol.

Now my thoughts have changed.
avatar
Rusty

Posts : 1761
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by UltimateMarvel on 7/23/2016, 11:14 pm

Rusty Cunt wrote:
@UltimateMarvel wrote: in the movie.

Shit. It's a movie. I thought this was a mini-series.lol.

Now my thoughts have changed.

LOL! This is the movie thread, would've been in the TV thread otherwise. Would make a great TV but they already tried this once with Camelot, I liked that show but they cancelled it.
avatar
UltimateMarvel

Posts : 4869
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Marvel Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by Rusty on 7/23/2016, 11:59 pm

@UltimateMarvel wrote:
Rusty Cunt wrote:
@UltimateMarvel wrote: in the movie.

Shit. It's a movie. I thought this was a mini-series.lol.

Now my thoughts have changed.

LOL! This is the movie thread, would've been in the TV thread otherwise. Would make a great TV but they already tried this once with Camelot, I liked that show but they cancelled it.

Haha, I had no idea what forum it was in. For some reason I just thought it was a mini-series. Not keen on a movie. There's so much to cover in so little time, and being a movie means the last 40 minutes of it is going to be a CGI shit-storm of nothing but green screen "action".

I just can't sit through these things anymore.
avatar
Rusty

Posts : 1761
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 7/24/2016, 12:46 am

Rusty Cunt wrote:Haha, I had no idea what forum it was in. For some reason I just thought it was a mini-series. Not keen on a movie. There's so much to cover in so little time, and being a movie means the last 40 minutes of it is going to be a CGI shit-storm of nothing but green screen "action".

I just can't sit through these things anymore.

This is planned to be the first in a six film franchise, they locked Hunnam into a six picture contract before rolling a frame.

Also Roose Bolton and Little Finger? WHAAAT?
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by ForeverBlu on 7/24/2016, 2:22 am

Did I see Eric Bana, Roose Bolton   and Aiden Gillen?
avatar
ForeverBlu

Posts : 3467
Join date : 2014-12-10
Age : 54
Location : NYC

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by Rusty on 7/24/2016, 3:20 am

@WyldeMan wrote:

This is planned to be the first in a six film franchise, they locked Hunnam into a six picture contract before rolling a frame.

Still, they're movies. They won't be able to help themselves in being formulaic. I'd much rather 3 HBO 6-episode seasons, than 6 140 minute films.

Game of Thrones has spoiled me with what can be achieved, and 58 comic-book super-hero movies a year (plus my recent LOTR extended version viewing), has completely ruined the modern blockbuster for me. I just can't sit through them anymore. They are all the same. Even when they head into them knowing they have multiple films to tell the story, they still fuck it up.



@ForeverBlu wrote:Did I see Eric Bana, Roose Bolton   and Aiden Gillen?

Yep, yep, and yep.

Looking at Wikipedia, Idris Elba was initially approached to play a Merlin-type figure. Hope this film is good & successful enough to bring him on board in a future installment to play that role.

A black guy as Merlin. The makeshift historians it'll create online that will be offended would be fucking rad.
avatar
Rusty

Posts : 1761
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 7/24/2016, 7:37 am

Rusty Cunt wrote:Still, they're movies. They won't be able to help themselves in being formulaic. I'd much rather 3 HBO 6-episode seasons, than 6 140 minute films.

Game of Thrones has spoiled me with what can be achieved, and 58 comic-book super-hero movies a year (plus my recent LOTR extended version viewing), has completely ruined the modern blockbuster for me. I just can't sit through them anymore. They are all the same. Even when they head into them knowing they have multiple films to tell the story, they still fuck it up.

I couldn't agree more. Over the last six years the landscape of cable has changed so drastically with shows like Spartacus, Game of Thrones and the list goes on, just look at my signature but I no longer hold much interest in movies anymore. We wait years and years for two hours of a movie that may flat out suck after all the waiting. I rarely buy movies anymore, let alone ever see them in theaters. Like you I prefer the long character development arcs that are offered only on cable or streaming services. Sometimes it feels more daunting to me to watch a 2 hour movie than a 12 hour season.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 1/22/2017, 11:46 am

avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by UltimateMarvel on 1/22/2017, 12:29 pm

This looks good. I hope it doesn't flop.
avatar
UltimateMarvel

Posts : 4869
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Marvel Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 2/20/2017, 3:11 pm

avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 4/2/2017, 7:49 pm

avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 5/13/2017, 8:36 am

Box Office: ‘King Arthur’ Bombing as It Limps Toward $18 Million Debut

Every summer has them. Big studio movies launched with massive budgets that saddle into multiplexes looking to kick off new film franchise only to be greeted by the forces of audience indifference.

Well, it looks like summer 2017 has its first official flop. Warner Bros.’ “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword,” Guy Ritchie’s attempt to make the Knights of the Round Table hip again, is collapsing at the box office. Based on its Thursday pre-shows and Friday afternoon mid-day grosses, the $175 million epic is looking at a disastrous $18 million debut. Those projections come from rival studios. Insiders at Warner Bros. think the film could still exceed $20 million, but even if it does, that’s still a very weak start for such an expensive picture. Barring a mid-weekend surge in enthusiasm for tales of gallantry, there will be red ink.

“King Arthur” stars Charlie Hunnam as a rough-and-tumble version of the legendary king, with Jude Law as Vortigern, a war lord who murdered his parents and usurped the crown. Village Roadshow and RatPac-Dune co-financed the picture. Overseas, the film is faring slightly better, pulling in an estimated $4.9 million from such territories as Russia and Germany over the past two days. No matter how it fares internationally, don’t hold your breath for a part two.

As it stands, Fox and Chernin Entertainment’s “Snatched” may end the weekend with more in the bank than “King Arthur.” The R-rated comedy about a mother-daughter trip gone wrong stars Amy Schumer and Goldie Hawn. It is expected to bring in $19 million over the weekend. The film cost $42 million to make and marks Hawn’s first film appearance in 15 years.

With the two new releases failing to make a big splash, Disney and Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” should cruise to first place again. The comic book adaptation will likely add more than $60 million to its haul. It has already made more than $500 million globally.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by UltimateMarvel on 5/13/2017, 10:07 am

I don't get it though. The trailers all looked great, it's King Arthur and Guy Ritchie is behind it. Even with Guardians Vol. 2, it should have done ok, no? It could make it up in foreign countries, we'll see......
avatar
UltimateMarvel

Posts : 4869
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Marvel Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 5/13/2017, 10:29 am

@UltimateMarvel wrote:I don't get it though. The trailers all looked great, it's King Arthur and Guy Ritchie is behind it. Even with Guardians Vol. 2, it should have done ok, no? It could make it up in foreign countries, we'll see......

Guy Ritchie hasn't made a good movie since before he hooked up with Madonna, so nobody cares about him and King Arthur doesn't exactly ignite the box office or the loins of the ladies, no matter how much GQ appeal they give it.

Not even the Asians will save this CGI slathered disaster.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by ForeverBlu on 5/13/2017, 11:06 am

Welp.


So much for that six picture EPIC.


Maybe  Guy will cast Charlie in Sherlock 3.
avatar
ForeverBlu

Posts : 3467
Join date : 2014-12-10
Age : 54
Location : NYC

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 5/13/2017, 12:43 pm

@ForeverBlu wrote:Welp.

So much for that six picture EPIC.

Maybe  Guy will cast Charlie in Sherlock 3.

I wonder if Charlie is rethinking that Fifty Shades deal now....
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by UltimateMarvel on 5/13/2017, 2:23 pm

He would have gotten a lot more famous with Fifty Shades despite them being terrible movies.
avatar
UltimateMarvel

Posts : 4869
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Marvel Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by ForeverBlu on 5/13/2017, 4:09 pm

@UltimateMarvel wrote:He would have gotten a lot more famous with Fifty Shades despite them being terrible movies.

Charlie doesn't want that type of fame, that's why he backed out.

According to reports, some chick found out where he lived and left lingerie on the doorstep.

My guess, that spooked him.

He's notoriously private.
avatar
ForeverBlu

Posts : 3467
Join date : 2014-12-10
Age : 54
Location : NYC

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by Rusty on 5/13/2017, 5:50 pm

I'm in no way surprised. I think I'll enjoy it, but I can see why it didn't catch on.

avatar
Rusty

Posts : 1761
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 5/13/2017, 7:36 pm

Rusty Cunt wrote:I'm in no way surprised. I think I'll enjoy it, but I can see why it didn't catch on.

But since it was written with six movies always planned, I can't imagine the kind of unresolved cliffhangers it would have.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by ForeverBlu on 5/13/2017, 9:01 pm

This movie was filmed .a while back.

The release date pushed back several times.
avatar
ForeverBlu

Posts : 3467
Join date : 2014-12-10
Age : 54
Location : NYC

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 5/13/2017, 9:19 pm

@ForeverBlu wrote:This movie was filmed .a while back.

The release date pushed back several times.

Filming began in February 2015 and was dated and delayed four separate times.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by ForeverBlu on 5/13/2017, 9:26 pm

It bombed horribly.
avatar
ForeverBlu

Posts : 3467
Join date : 2014-12-10
Age : 54
Location : NYC

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 5/14/2017, 8:39 am

@ForeverBlu wrote:It bombed horribly.

Turns out the $18 million projections were still too high cause it's not even gonna break $15m at the opening BO.
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by Rusty on 5/18/2017, 3:04 am

Razz

avatar
Rusty

Posts : 1761
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by ForeverBlu on 5/18/2017, 8:44 am

The Montage is hilarious, with her shaking to that annoying noise.


Guess she doesn't know that Mists of Avalon was adapted into a miniseries.

Back in 2001, aired on TNT.
avatar
ForeverBlu

Posts : 3467
Join date : 2014-12-10
Age : 54
Location : NYC

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 5/21/2017, 8:51 am

Not only has King Arthur completely bombed at the Box Office with a worldwide total of $93million after two weeks but Hunnam's other film "The Lost City of Z" opened in only 600 screens in April and has a ww total of $8 million. Pretty sure, he's no longer going to be considered in demand.....
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by UltimateMarvel on 5/21/2017, 10:37 am

Daaaaaamn! Hopefully he lands Green Arrow in the DCEU as people have been asking him a lot about that lately. Should have gone with Fifty Shades.
avatar
UltimateMarvel

Posts : 4869
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Marvel Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by WyldeMan on 5/21/2017, 3:16 pm

@UltimateMarvel wrote:Hopefully he lands Green Arrow in the DCEU as people have been asking him a lot about that lately.

What?!?! Noooooooooooooooo....... Evil or Very Mad
avatar
WyldeMan
Admin

Posts : 14105
Join date : 2014-12-09
Age : 31
Location : West Coast

http://bdtv.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by UltimateMarvel on 5/21/2017, 5:09 pm

@WyldeMan wrote:
@UltimateMarvel wrote:Hopefully he lands Green Arrow in the DCEU as people have been asking him a lot about that lately.

What?!?! Noooooooooooooooo....... Evil or Very Mad

I know but at this point, it would only help his career. You don't think?
avatar
UltimateMarvel

Posts : 4869
Join date : 2014-12-09
Location : Marvel Universe

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by ForeverBlu on 5/25/2017, 8:49 am

@UltimateMarvel wrote:Daaaaaamn! Hopefully he lands Green Arrow in the DCEU as people have been asking him a lot about that lately. Should have gone with Fifty Shades.





I thought Charlie already passed on Green Arrow.
avatar
ForeverBlu

Posts : 3467
Join date : 2014-12-10
Age : 54
Location : NYC

Back to top Go down

Re: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ($93,401,221)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum