The legend of King Arthur has often been adapted for the big screen. In 2004, a director attempted a historical approach, even building elaborate sets, but that did not help the film become successful or popular.
Which film is it about? In 2004, director Antoine Fuqua attempted a new film about the legend of King Arthur. Fuqua is known among other things as the director of Training Day, Olympus Has Fallen, or The Equalizer. For the film King Arthur, he tried to realize a historical approach for the well-known characters.
To achieve a more realistic look, Fuqua did not want to rely on CGI scenes, but on built sets. To this end, he constructed a long replica of Hadrian’s Wall in Ireland. This required not only the help of about 250 workers but also 4 months of construction time, as explained in the making-of (via YouTube).
To make the battles look better, high-quality props were also used for the weapons. Over 300 swords, 700 spears, and 300 axes were produced. However, the elaborate sets did not convince viewers or allow for a great success.
Despite elaborate sets, not a big success
How was King Arthur received? Although a lot of time was invested in the sets and props of the film, it was received only moderately by critics and audiences. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a score of only 30% from 187 critics. Users are somewhat more forgiving, as it has 59% based on over 250,000 reviews.
It has been criticized that the film is easily forgettable, the actors lack chemistry, and the battle scenes are not good.
The elaborate sets also cost something, and the budget was, according to Box Office Mojo, 120 million US dollars. Although the film grossed over 200 million US dollars worldwide, it cannot be called a success when considering that there are also marketing costs involved.
Typically, a film is considered a success if it earns about double or more than its budget. The film was rated PG-13 in the USA, meaning it is recommended for those 13 years and older. Although this potentially allows more people to watch the film, it was not actually the version Fuqua wanted.
The film was originally intended to be much more brutal
What was Antoine Fuqua’s original vision? Originally, Fuqua wanted to make a more brutal film out of King Arthur. That was actually the agreed plan, but according to Fuqua (via sfgate.com), Disney, which was the film distributor behind the film, noticed that a younger audience was also showing interest in the film.
As a result, Fuqua changed some parts of the film. His director’s cut is 15 minutes longer and has nearly 80 new scenes compared to the theatrical release (via Schnittberichte). However, it is quite unlikely that a more brutal version would have helped the film at the box office.
Every year, promising films are released that often end up flopping. Even in 2024, there were some releases that failed at the box office, even if the predecessor was a hit: The 5 biggest flops of 2024 – Which films have flopped at the box office
