After the Sherlock Holmes sequel wraps this summer, Ritchie may take on the sword in the stone [The Playlist via Pajiba]. A project separate (but equal?) from the Bryan Singer film announced a century ago. I’ll put my money on this version seeing the light of day first. The best part of the two projects? They’re both set up at Warner Brothers. Chuckle chuckle. It’s literally a competition.
Ritchie for this project kind of makes sense after seeing Holmes. With the right team, and the right lead actor, he’s the world’s greatest studio director (okay, second to Cameron). Let’s all hope that production designer Sarah Greenwood and composer Hans Zimmer (and RDJ?) are down for this one, as they all took Holmes to great heights, both in entertainment and monetary value.
And if there’s one mythos that could use a hip, slick rejuvenation, it’s King Arthur. Thanks Antoine Fuqua for shooting that dead horse a few years back.
The Ritchie script is being written Warren Ellis and is NOT a remake of the 1981 John Boorman mini-classic. Singer’s is.
Here’s what Pajiba has to say:
“While Singer’s version is closer to a remake of the Boorman film, Ritchie’s possible take is more in the tone of Star Wars, and, as Ellis noted last year, his version ‘differs from the prior 751 King Arthur movies in many ways, but perhaps most obviously in that it is very specifically about the gathering of the Knights.'”
Ritchie, at the very least, is a visually-interesting director to watch, and that appears to be the most one can ask for in regards to a Excalibur re-imagining, much in the same way it was the most one could’ve asked from Holmes. The man delievered.
He’ll do it again.
Which Excalibur would you rather see, Singer’s remake or Ritchie’s re-imagining?