Guy Ritchiealmost created an amazing new franchise with his 2017 film, but its commercial and critical failure killed all hopes of ever getting a sequel. Ritchie is one of the most beloved action filmmakers in recent memory, and his works are known for blending the genre with a healthy dose of comedy.
Starting in the late 1990s withLock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Ritchie established a tone and style that has served him well over the decades. He eventually found mainstream success thanks to films likeSnatchand theSherlock Holmesduology (starring Robert Downey Jr.), but he’s had his fair share of failures too.
For every billion-dollar movie likeAladdin, there are flops such asOperation Fortune. However, there is a consistent level of quality that goes into every project, even if critics and moviegoers don’t see it at the time. Byworking with the same actorsagain and again, Ritchie is able to hone his themes, making for an even more enjoyable experience.
There is one particular Guy Ritchie flop that stands head and shoulders above the rest, though, and its quality far exceeds its critical reputation. What makes the movie so fascinating and frustrating is what might have been, and there was a legitimate opportunity to create another massive franchise. Sadly, that time has long since passed.
King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword Is Guy Ritchie At His Best
The Arthurian Mythis well-known to most fantasy fans, and Guy Ritchie had a tall order to make the story interesting in a modern context. 2017’sKing Arthur: Legend of the Swordwas the director’s approach to the story, and he didn’t pull any punches.The anachronistic fantasy film has all of Ritchie’s trademarks, including quirky humor and fast-paced action.
The movie is also on a scale wholly unlike many of his other films, with lavish sets and unique costume design. To match the exaggerated tone of the characters,the art direction is also intentionally unrealistic to ancient history. The costumes reflect modern sensibilities and fantasy with nods towards what would have been worn way back when.
Performances from the likes of Jude Law and Charlie Hunnam were also strong, with both understanding exactly what the film was going for.Law was particularly good as the villain, playing up the camp to the perfect degree to match the movie’s tone.
The details were all strong, butsomething about the film didn’t quite add up. While it’s certainly better than its abysmal 31% onRotten Tomatoes, it falls somewhere in the middle when considering all ofGuy Ritchie’s movies. The film’s anachronistic tone works, but there is still slight conflict as it tries to take itself too seriously at times.
King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword Set Up A Potential Franchise
There was a lot riding onKing Arthur: Legend of the Sword, and Warner Bros. hoped tolaunch a franchise from the Guy Ritchie movie. Not only does the movie itself blatantly hint that Arthur’s story is far from over, but there area ton of little details throughout that intend to establish a larger fictional universe around the mythos.
The film ends with Arthur constructing his round table, and knighting a few of the notable names that would later join him on his quests. However,the movie also makes it explicitly known that famous characters, such as Lancelot, were still waiting in the wings. It’s one of the more obvious examples of sequel-baiting, but WB was confident.
The Box Office Failure Of King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword Killed The Franchise
Critical reception really isn’t important in the long run, and Hollywood only cares about the money a movie makes. Unfortunately,King Arthurwas a double failure, and it got poor reviews alongside a notoriously weak box office run.Box Office Mojoreports the movie’s production budget at $175 million, but its worldwide gross only topped out at $149 million.
The Numbersestimate thatKing Arthur: Legend of the Swordmade an additional $17 million in home market sales (VOD, DVD, ETC).
Even before factoring in additional costs such as marketing,King Arthurlost a considerable amount of money. However, with those costs added,it results in one of the worst flops in recent memory. Considering how much development probably went into the future of the extended universe, it’s possible that Warner Bros. lost even more money overall.
Obviously, this completely tanked any plans for a franchise, andLegend of the Swordwas destined to become a standalone film without a sequel in sight. This has only helped to further hold the film back, since it was intentionally made to set up more movies. Because those movies never came, it feels incomplete and a little bit disappointing.
Guy Ritchie Re-Teamed With Charlie Hunnam A Few Years Later
Though his time as King Arthur didn’t work out, Charlie Hunnam’s partnership with Guy Ritchie has still been fruitful. Two years after the fantasy film flopped,Ritchie cast Hunnam in his crime comedy film,The Gentleman, which saw him lead alongside the likes of Matthew McConaughey. It’s a wildly different type of movie, but the Ritchie hallmarks returned.
The Gentlemangot stellar reviews and was a box office smash, proving that the failure ofKing Arthur: Legend of the Swordcouldn’t be chalked up toGuy Ritchieor Charlie Hunnam. It’s likely they’ll work together again in the future, since the director has an eye for talent, and likes to work with the same actors again and again.
