Stone Marshall's Blog, page 162

Microsoft Explains Why Minecraft For Nintendo Switch Runs At 720p

The Nintendo Switch received a big new game last week in the form of Minecraft. Now, some new insight into its technical specifics have come to light.

According to Time, the popular sandbox game runs at 720p in both docked and mobile modes. Some fans might have wanted to see 1080p, but this is not possible due to “issues currently experienced shifting from one resolution to the other when docking/undocking,” Time reported (via DualShockers), citing a Microsoft representative. According to the spokesperson, the Switch’s power is not holding the game back from reaching 1080p, but instead the “issues” laid out above are to blame.

As Time points out, it is possible that Minecraft for Switch could reach 1080p if those items are sorted out. We will report back with more details as they become available.

As for frame rate, Minecraft runs at 60FPS when docked and undocked.

Priced at $30, Minecraft for Switch features local and online multiplayer support as well as Mario-inspired skins, as you can see in the image gallery above.

In other Switch news, the eShop got a welcome upgrade recently, as it now allows users to store their credit card information. Previously, you had to enter it every time you made a new purchase, unless you were willing to add credit to your digital wallet on the system.

Microsoft Explains Why Minecraft For Nintendo Switch Runs At 720p

Minecraft: Nintendo Switch Edition review – worth digging up again

The Switch already has its own version of Minecraft, and it’s easily the best portable edition the game has ever seen.

When Phil Spencer, the head of Xbox, tweets to say that Minecraft is perfect for Nintendo Switch you know there’s probably something in it. He is in a peculiar position though, in that Microsoft now owns developer Mojang and could easily make Minecraft an Xbox and Windows exclusive if they wanted to. Thankfully, they’ve been more sensible than that, and Minecraft is still available on all Sony consoles. It took a long while for it to arrive on the Wii U though, despite it fitting the format, and the Nintendo audience, perfectly. But no such mistake is being made with the Nintendo Switch.

We’re still surprised that Nintendo themselves (or Lego) weren’t the ones that bought Mojang in the first place. But while they could easily have afforded the $2.5 billion price tag, that’s just not the way the company has ever worked. Even sweet-talking other publishers into bringing multiformat games to their consoles is usually beyond them, but as with much else they seem to have changed their ways with the Switch. And in so doing provided the console with what could easily be regarded as another killer app.

Although the details vary between versions this is fundamentally the same game that’s available on all the other console formats. There is some extra Super Mario-themed texture packs and music throw in (as well as a few other mash-up packs, which seems to be meant as justification for the slightly higher price tag), and good use is made of the Switch’s various multiplayer, but this is still the same old Minecraft at heart. And frankly it’s never felt as at home on any other console.

If you somehow don’t know what Minecraft is – which presumably means you also haven’t been near any children in the last five years – it’s basically digital Lego. Not literally (there’s Lego Worlds for that) but the appeal of building whatever you want out of small building blocks is very similar. You start the experience in a huge, randomly-generated, game world where everything is made out of small cubes composed of different materials such as wood, dirt, stone and other more precious minerals. These can be excavated and used to create a huge range of different items, from tools like shovels and pickaxes to bedroom furniture, boats, and armour.

Most people will play the game in Creative mode, where you’re left to do whatever you want, but there is also a more structured Survival mode, which imposes de facto goals – such as building a shelter to survive the monsters that appear at night. But from there you can still do anything you like, from catching a fish with a fishing rod (that you made) on a stove (which you also made) to making pets of the wandering wild animals.

Although the in-game tutorial does its best the set-up is very disorientating at first, but that’s actually part of the charm. Getting your head around the game’s internal logic takes a little while (the effect of gravity is implemented inconsistently, for example, so trees will happily stay standing even with the middle of their trunks removed). But working out what everything can be used for is a primary appeal and the help system almost ruins it at times by giving too much away.

Minecraft: Nintendo Switch Edition (NS) – four-player is probably best left to TV mode

When it comes to the Nintendo Switch version, this sits somewhere between the Xbox 360 (and Wii U) version and the Xbox One in terms of performance. The maximum world size is ‘medium’, compared to the Xbox 360’s ‘small’ and the Xbox One’s ‘large’. The performance is a smooth 60fps throughout though, even in two-player split-screen mode. There is a little slowdown in four-player split-screen, but given you need both Joy-Cons, or a Pro Controller, for each player that’s probably not going to be an option for most people anyway.

That instantly makes it the best portable version of the game ever seen, especially given the numerous compromises of the Pocket Edition. The draw distance is quite short when in handheld mode though, and there’s a real inconsistency in when and how the touchscreen is used. For some reason you still have to use an onscreen cursor with the inventory, but you can use the touchscreen when crafting.

The other problem with the Nintendo Switch version is that it’s not the latest console update, but is instead stuck back where the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 were in late January. It should be easy for it to catch up, but we’ll have to wait and see if it actually does. The online options are also predictably limited in terms of whose games you can join. You’re fine if you join someone already on your friends list, but there’s no in-game chat of any kind.

The Nintendo Switch Edition is a small step-down from the other current gen console versions, although to the casual observer it will seem all but identical. As a portable version of the game though, this is easily the best there’s ever been. And given how versatile it is in terms of multiplayer and playing it on the TV it’s easy to imagine it becoming many people’s favourite version. So while technically this is just another port, it’s also further proof of just how energising the Switch can be for even the most familiar games.

Minecraft: Nintendo Switch Edition

In Short: The definitive portable version of Minecraft, with almost all the features of the current gen home console editions combined with the convenience of the Nintendo Switch.

Pros: A good port of the original, with excellent performance in both handheld and TV mode. Minecraft is naturally well-suited to Switch, and there a few fun extras with the mash-up pack.

Cons: World sizes aren’t as big as the PC or other next gen consoles. Restrictive online options and not the latest update. Inconsistent use of the touchscreen.

Score: 8/10

Formats: Nintendo Switch

Price: £19.99

Publisher: Mojang

Developer: 4J Studios and Mojang

Release Date: 12th May 2017 (currently eShop only)

Age Rating: 7

Minecraft: Nintendo Switch Edition review – worth digging up again

343 Is Teasing A Microsoft E3 ‘Halo’ Announcement That Isn’t ‘Halo 6’

I’m frankly a little surprised we haven’t started hearing more E3 leaks yet, but everyone seems to be playing everything pretty close to their chest for the show which kicks off in a month. But one little tidbit has purposefully dropped about the Microsoft event, thanks to someone from 343 itself.

Responding to some community excitement on the Halo subreddit, 343 community manager Brian Jarrad had to step in to manage expectations about what might appear in Microsoft’s show at E3. And namely what wouldn’t appear: Halo 6.

“I’ll slip into my Dreamcrusher persona for a minute in the name of realistic expectations,” Jarrad said. “We’ve said this already but we’ll have a little something at E3 but it’s not related to the next major entry in the franchise.”

Some are saying that there could still be a tease for Halo 6, while “the game” itself may not be there, but Jarrad’s wording is pretty clear. Something “not related” to the next major entry in the franchise, which would be Halo 6, or Halo: Whatever Subtitle They Use Instead of 6.

Obviously in a perfect world, Microsoft would have been able to launch this fall’s Xbox Scorpio with some sort of major Halo game, given that it’s still the console’s most beloved exclusive series by a mile, but the timing is just not in the cards for that, clearly. If anything, it seems like Crackdown 3 may end up being the “launch game” for Scorpio, as the dev is teasing a big presence at E3, but Halo? Doubtful.

Still, Jarrad’s comment about some sort of Halo presence at E3 has sparked a number of theories about what that could actually mean. Here are a few I could believe:

– Halo 3 Anniversary Edition

– Halo 5 standalone DLC

– Halo Wars 2 DLC/Expansion

– More info on Microsoft’s alleged collaboration with Steven Spielberg for a Halo show (remember that?)

Obviously the best news of the bunch here would be Halo 3 Anniversary, and if that could somehow arrive in time for Scorpio’s release? That would be pretty fantastic.

Microsoft has had their E3 shows bested by Sony pretty routinely for the most part the past few years, but I think they’re going to have a good run this year as (presumably) the only company show off new hardware. Technically the Scorpio has already “debuted,” but not really. Last year, we just had a spec tease, and so far this year, all we’ve seen from the console is a Digital Foundry examination of just how powerful the thing is. I expect Scorpio to dominate Microsoft’s show this year, with the full unveiling of the box, price and name.

Obviously it would be nice for Halo, their biggest franchise, to also have a major reveal there at the same time, but it doesn’t look like that will be in the cards. I do think it’s wise for 343 to keep their heads down and simply polish Halo 6 to a mirror shine. We have already heard some changes in the works, from a story focused solely on Master Chief after criticisms about Halo 5 (that wasn’t the reason that story didn’t work, but whatever) and a return to local split-screen play, which 343 admitted was a mistake to remove after the fact. The success of local co-op Battlefront probably did much to help with that decision as well.

I’m looking forward to whatever 343 and Microsoft bring to E3, and to picking up a Scorpio this fall, even if I’m skeptical about the overall market for an expensive superconsole in this day and age. But we’ll see how it all plays out in the coming year.

343 Is Teasing A Microsoft E3 ‘Halo’ Announcement That Isn’t ‘Halo 6’

Nintendo E3 2017 Direct: 5 Reveals We Want To See

Nintendo revealed its plans for E3 in a press release Thursday, and we couldn’t be more excited for the Switch-related reveals. While these aren’t necessarily predictions, here are five games and announcements we’d love to see from Nintendo at E3 2017.

1) Super Mario Odyssey: It’s already been confirmed that Super Mario Odyssey will factor into Nintendo’s E3 plans in a big way, but we truly hope it delivers on everything we saw in January’s debut trailer. For all intents and purposes, this looks like the triumphant return of 3D sandbox Mario games. We haven’t seen one of those since Sunshine in 2002, so expectations are riding high.

Not only should the slice shown during E3 be as substantial as last year’s Breath Of The Wild Great Plateau demo, but it should also highlight several ways in which the play style has evolved over the last 12 years. Fans who played Sunshine or Super Mario 64 already have a basic idea of what to expect. We hope Nintendo builds on the best parts of those games in ways nobody sees coming. Infuse new genres and mechanics into the plumber’s upcoming adventure.

2) Virtual Console & Online Details: While this sort of stuff may not be sexy enough for a Direct debut, we hope Nintendo takes some time during E3 week to answer two of the biggest questions still haunting Switch owners: is Virtual Console coming, and how will this fall’s online service be structured?

Since we’re talking about desires rather than predictions, our reasonable dream scenario is that Switch online access costs $20 a month with a free Virtual Console game that you can keep as long as the subscription is active. In January Nintendo said free games would only be playable for the month, but we hope that idea gets rolled back. As for VC, we hope Nintendo is taking this extra time to ensure that all Wii U purchases transfer to Switch for free. Even more pie in the sky perhaps, wouldn’t it be great to pay an extra $10 a month to get unlimited access to the entire VC catalog? Make Switch’s services shine so brightly that we never have time to be bored with the console.

3) Super Smash Bros. For Switch: We’ve heard the rumors forever, and we hope E3 2017 is when they’re finally confirmed to be real. We’re fine with this game starting out as a Wii U port, but we’d love to see Nintendo commit to an extended DLC plan for the future.

‘Super Smash Bros’

We hope ‘Super Smash Bros.’ comes to Switch in a way that builds off its predecessor on Wii U with tons of new character and stage DLC. Photo: Nintendo/Facebook

In other words, continue to give us new characters and stages beyond the couple of new additions that have popped up in rumor reports. Make this iteration less of a Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and more of a continuation of an existing service on a new platform.

4) Metroid: Enough is enough Nintendo! We know Retro Studios has been toiling away on something for years, and evidence is mounting that it could be Metroid-related. This franchise has essentially been dormant for a decade, so we’re willing to take anything. Just tell us this game exists. If we’re dreaming, we’d like to see it come out this fall, but even a 2018 tease would blow the roof off the building.

After seeing how Breath Of The Wild brilliantly reinvented Zelda, it’d be awesome to see Metroid adopt some of that game’s best features. Put space exploration front and center, flesh out planets with sidequests and tie it down with the impressive combat and movement from Prime. Metroid Switch could fill in for the awesome Mass Effect game we didn’t get this year.

5) Something Nobody Expects: Every great E3 showcase has a totally unexpected surprise, so we hope Nintendo has one up its sleeve. There have been no rumblings about a franchise like Animal Crossing or F-Zero coming to Switch yet, so wouldn’t it be awesome to hear that a title along those lines is set to release this year?

The shock factor could also come from a third-party partnership too considering Nintendo historically struggles in that department. We know about the whole Rabbids thing, but that’s not a show stopper. We’re talking about a major name or franchise with some form of Switch exclusivity. Beyond Good And Evil 2 in 2017 perhaps ? Bring on the unexpected.

Nintendo’s E3 Direct stream is set to take place June 13 at 12 p.m. EDT. It will be followed by Treehouse streams throughout the convention.

What do you want to see from Nintendo’s E3 showcase? Will any of our dreams come true? Tell us in the comments section!

Nintendo E3 2017 Direct: 5 Reveals We Want To See

6 reasons why ‘Minecraft’ is so incredibly popular

Minecraft wasn’t always the enormous franchise that it has become. It has slowly been building in popularity since its creator, Markus Persson, released the game in 2009. So, what is it about this independently created game that made it endure over time?

6 reasons why ‘Minecraft’ is so incredibly popular

One tweet perfectly highlights the bizarre position Microsoft is in with ‘Minecraft’

Microsoft’s ownership of “Minecraft” has made for some decidedly strange situations.

There was none more bizarre than this week, when company executive Phil Spencer celebrated the launch of “Minecraft” for Nintendo’s hot new game console, the Switch. As of May 11, you can buy and play “Minecraft: Nintendo Switch Edition,” a fact Spencer touted on Twitter:

What makes this so weird is Spencer is the guy in charge of Microsoft’s gaming division. That makes him responsible for sales of Microsoft’s Xbox One game console. And the Switch is Nintendo’s latest rival to the Xbox One.

In the game business, great games drive hardware sales. Consumers often buy particular consoles because they want to play a hit new game.

View photos

With that in mind, console makers have tried to develop blockbuster games that they have exclusive rights too. And they typically reserve those games for their own platforms. For example, “Halo,” “Forza Motorsport,” “Gears of War” and other game franchises that Microsoft owns are only available for its Xbox consoles or PCs running its Windows operating system.

The idea is that those franchises will drive people to buy Microsoft hardware (in the case of the Xbox One) or software (in the case of Windows 10).

Spencer is in charge of overseeing Microsoft’s games in addition to its consoles. So you might think he’d want to use “Minecraft” to help boost the Xbox One, not one of its chief rivals. After all, “Minecraft” is one of the most popular games in the world. Instead, here he was not only green lighting a game that could boost the Switch, he was celebrating its launch!

But such weird situations are nothing new. Microsoft has been placed in them repeatedly ever since it purchased “Minecraft” back in 2014. That’s because Microsoft has continued to support the game on a whole slew of platforms it doesn’t control. You can play it on your phone (iPhone and Android), on your tablet, on your computer (PC or Mac), and even on Sony’s PlayStation 4.

Heck, the Switch isn’t even the first Nintendo console for “Minecraft” to appear on. Microsoft previously released a version of the game for the Wii U, Nintendo’s last home console.

Which isn’t to say there’s something wrong with Microsoft preserving the legacy of “Minecraft” as a game you can play on pretty much anything.It might be a smart business move! And from a consumer’s perspective, it’s mighty nice to be able to play the game on any platform you want.  But that situation is a tremendous outlier in terms of typical game industry strategy, and it sticks out as a result.

It’s outright fantastic that “Minecraft” just launched on the Nintendo Switch, a platform that makes perfect sense for it. It’s also outright bizarre that Microsoft is responsible for making that happen.

One tweet perfectly highlights the bizarre position Microsoft is in with ‘Minecraft’

Box Office: Guardians Vol. 2 Tops Snatched, King Arthur

Box Office: Guardians Vol. 2 Tops Snatched, King Arthur
The Fate of the Furious and The Boss Baby round out the top five.

This weekend two new major new releases disappointed while there were a couple of surprises near the bottom of the top 10.

The rag-tag team of misfits lead the box office for a second straight weekend as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 slipped a reasonable 57% from last weekend to an estimated $63M, bringing its total to $246M after 10 days. By comparison, the original fell 55% in its second weekend so even though sequels tend to front load their grosses, Guardians 2 seems to be holding on better than most. After 10 days the original was at $176M and ended its run at $333M. Following roughly the same trajectory, and realizing the box office at the beginning of the summer is more competitive than at the end of the summer, Guardians 2 could end at around $375-400M.

Second place belonged to the leading ladies of Snatched. The R-rated comedy starring Amy Schumer and Goldie Hawn opened to a so-so $17.5M, according to estimates, from 3,501 theaters for a per screen average of $4,999. Critics were not kind as it currently sits at 36% positive on Rotten Tomatoes. Audiences didn’t seem too pleased either as it got a B CinemaScore. It doesn’t appear the counterprogramming to the male dominated summer blockbusters worked in this case. However, with a production budget around $40M, it will likely make back its money unlike…

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword which tanked this weekend grossing only an estimated $14.7M from 3,702 theaters for a per screen average of $3,971. Its production budget was in the $175M vicinity and while a lot of films these days make up their money overseas, King Arthur is dying there too as it opened to $29M from 51 markets this weekend. Critics liked this one even less as it stands at 28% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, yet audiences liked it a bit more as it got a B+ CinemaScore. Still, this one is in the running for biggest bomb of the year and it’s only the second week of May.

Holdovers, all with relatively small drops, took the next four places on the charts. Landing in fourth place was the multicultural crew of The Fate of the Furious which took in an estimated $5.3M in its fifth go around, bringing its cume up to $215M. In fifth place was The Boss Baby which added an estimated $4.6M to its coffers, bringing its total up to $162M after seven weeks. 2017s reigning champ fell to sixth place this weekend as Beauty and the Beast added another $3.86M, according to estimates, to its gargantuan total, bringing its cume up to $493M after nine weeks. Does it have enough left in the tank to become only the eighth film to hit the magical $500M mark? I’m gonna say yes. And in seventh place was How to be a Latin Lover which took in an estimated $3.75M bringing its total up to $26M after three weeks.

There was s surprise entry in the top 10 as the unheralded Lowriders ended in eighth place this weekend with an estimated $2.4M from only 295 theaters for a per screen average of $8,810, second best in the top 10. A PG-13 drama about lowrider car culture with virtually no stars managed to do some pretty good business. Ninth place belonged to the disappointing thriller The Circle which added an estimated $1.7M to its bank, bringing the total up to only $18.9M… which is virtually the same total as the final film in the top 10, the biggest Bollywood hit of all time, Baahubali 2: The Conclusion which made $1.5M from only 375 theaters this weekend, bringing its total to $18.93M. If I told you a few weeks ago that a Bollywood film that had a 167 minute running time and never play in more than 425 theaters would outgross a film starring Tom Hanks and Emma Watson, would you have believed me? Also, I never would have said it because I never would have imagined it happening.

The top ten films grossed an estimated $118M which was down 3.7% from last year when Captain America: Civil War remained at number one with $72.6M; and down 32.5% from 2015 when the ladies of Pitch Perfect 2 opened in the top spot with $69.2M.

Box Office: Guardians Vol. 2 Tops Snatched, King Arthur

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword Is This Summer’s First Box Office Bomb

By Alex Osborn King Arthur: Legend of the Sword bombed in its opening weekend, placing third at the domestic box office with an estimated $14.7 million.

As noted by Variety, director Guy Ritchie’s fantasy drama, starring Charlie Hunnam, is this summer’s first box office flop and has a long way to go before recouping its hefty production budget of $175 million. Read IGN’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword review, or watch the video below, to find out why the film’s “incessant desire to be clever and funny, go too far and become off-putting.”

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword – Review
02:35

Leading the box office for its second consecutive week is Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, which earned an estimated $63 million. With a $145 million debut last weekend, the domestic total for director James Gunn’s sci-fi sequel is nearing $250 million.

Just ahead of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in second place is Snatched. Fox’s R-rated comedy, starring Amy Schumer and Goldie Hawn, debuted to an estimated $17.5 million. Meanwhile, Lowriders, the Ricardo de Montreuil-directed drama about a teenage graffiti artist, played by Gabriel Chavarria, had a limited release this weekend, placing eighth with $2.4 million.

Rounding out this weekend’s top five are The Fate of the Furious and The Boss Baby, which earned an estimated $5.3 million and $4.6 million, respectively.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 – Chris Pratt on What Comes Next for Star-Lord
01:41

Here are this weekend’s Top 10 North American box office estimates via comScore:

1. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 $63 million

2. Snatched $17.5 million

3. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword $14.7 million

4. The Fate of the Furious $5.3 million

5. The Boss Baby $4.6 million

6. Beauty and the Beast $3.9 million

7. How to Be a Latin Lover $3.8 million

8. Lowriders $2.4 million

9. The Circle $1.7 million

10. MET Opera: Der Rosenkavalier $1.7 million

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword Is This Summer’s First Box Office Bomb

‘King Arthur’ Bombs: Why Guy Ritchie’s Latest Was a Royal Miss

“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is a massive flop; let the pointing (and wagging) of fingers commence!

The project from Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow landed with a thud after earning only $14.7 million domestically during its opening weekend off an estimated $175 million production budget, not to mention marketing costs. Not even overseas grosses — which have propped up big-budget films, not in the least limited to “Pacific Rim” and “Warcraft” that would have been considered bombs otherwise — could save “Arthur,” which brought in $29.1 million internationally this weekend. Audiences have received the movie relatively well, earning it a B+ CinemaScore, but the same cannot be said for critics, who sliced and diced the picture down to a 27% on Rotten Tomatoes.

The weekend tallies and critical and audience consensus are the result of a years-in-the-making story, eventually directed by Guy Ritchie and starring Charlie Hunnam. So how did the big-budget film become what could be remembered as the biggest flop of the summer, or even the entire year?

Charlie Hunnam Says at ‘King Arthur’ Premiere That ‘Excalibur’ Inspired His Filmmaking Journey

Was the IP too tired? The legend of King Arthur is one that has been told and retold in various forms, not unlike many of the superhero movies that dominate the modern-day box office. But this flop feeds the narrative that Warner Bros. is banking too much on reviving stale ideas after misfires including “Pan,” “The Legend of Tarzan,” and, most recently, “Chips.” Still, Ritchie has made good money off an old idea with his take on Sherlock Holmes in 2009 and its sequel in 2011, which both grossed over $500 million worldwide. Ritchie addressed the idea in an interview with Variety’s Kris Tapley.

“It didn’t occur to me that it was a dusty or unexciting title,” Ritchie said. “To me, I fancy the challenge of — a bit like ‘Sherlock Holmes’ — I thought, ‘Oh, I’m familiar with that. I think I can do something with that.’”

Did the delays kill buzz? When Ritchie signed onto “Arthur” in 2014, he attached himself to a script by Joby Harold that was conceived as the first part in a six-film series set in one contained universe. Three years later, the film was finally released.

“King Arthur” was originally slated for a July 22, 2016 release, which ended up belonging to Paramount’s “Star Trek Beyond.” Warner Bros. released the low-budget supernatural horror film “Lights Out” instead, which was a surprise hit. “Arthur” was pushed to a Feb. 17, 2017 release, only to be pushed again to March 24, and then finally to its ultimate date of May 12. If IP already causes rumblings of being tired, delaying a film’s release several times might only hinder potential excitement.

Did recasting get in the way? Starting in 2011, years prior to Ritchie’s involvement, Warner Bros. was adapting an Arthur-based project with director David Dobkin called “Arthur and Lancelot.” At the time, Kit Harington and Joel Kinnaman were attached to star, and later Colin Farrell was thought to bring the star power necessary to see the project through. Neither iteration was brought to production.

When Ritchie reignited talks of reviving the property, Idris Elba’s name was floated to play a Merlin-esque character. Neither the actor nor his character made the 2017 release.

Does Charlie Hunnam lack star power? Charlie Hunnam is a relatively untested star. Although he toplined “Pacific Rim,” the actor is most well-known for “Sons of Anarchy,” which ran for seven seasons on FX. Whenever a film tanks, the star shares some of the responsibility. But Hunnam’s role in “Arthur’s” lack of draw seems more like a small piece of a large puzzle.

Was it the recutting? Ritchie’s original cut of “King Arthur” was three and a half hours long. The final product clocks in at two hours and six minutes, which some critics, including Variety’s Peter Debruge, have identified as feeling more characteristic of Ritchie than a sprawling Arthurian epic.

“I was desperate that it would be an entertaining three and a half hours,” Ritchie told the Ringer’s Sean Fennessey. “Two hours into it, I knew I was in trouble.”

But Ritchie defended his process of trying to make the “worthy, extended version” before chopping it down to a movie that fits within his own oeuvre. “If I went to the studio and said, ‘This scene is going to cost me $3 million and it’s going to be ten seconds long,’ it’s very hard to get your nut around that,” Ritchie said.

So what? Despite this catastrophic flop, Ritchie has a potential reputation rehab project in place with Disney’s live-action “Aladdin.” The studio has had nary a miss recently with remakes of “Jungle Book” and “Beauty and the Beast” each topping $1 billion worldwide. Warner Bros., too, has several shots at redemption with titles including “Wonder Woman” and “Dunkirk” in the summer pipeline and “It” hitting theaters in early fall. But while the residual effects of “King Arthur’s” financial losses have yet to be seen on a grand scale, the jab of earning title of “summer’s first big flop” can only be felt once a year

‘King Arthur’ Bombs: Why Guy Ritchie’s Latest Was a Royal Miss

Diane Lane: Justice League Won’t Be Better Than The Avengers

The DCEU has not been without controversy and Diane Lane may have accidentally added to that by saying Justice League won’t be better than The Avengers. Warner Bros. has made a big push to get the DCEU off the ground and running, and one of the biggest ways to jump start the universe has been the formation of the Justice League before each character gets a solo movie. This strategy allows for Justice League to come out years before and capitalize on the boom in comic book movies, which can be largely equated to the success of The Avengers.

However, even though studio executives and most people agree it is in everyone’s best interest to see all comic book movies succeed, there is another section of fans that have divided the genre into a Marvel vs DC fight. This has caused somewhat venomous factions that believe only their side is good and think every Marvel or DC film – depending on their stance – needs to be better than any other film from the other side. But, the DCEU’s Diane Lane doesn’t think Justice League will ultimately be better than Avengers.

This statement came about during an interview Lane – who plays Martha Kent in the DCEU – had on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen After Show. The interview allowed for fans to call in and when one asked if she had any Justice League spoilers and if she thought it will be a better movie than 2012’s The Avengers, Lane had a quick response that is sure to be divisive saying, “No and no. [laughs] Short but honest. I hate to disappoint.”

[image error]

First things first, this is simply Lane’s opinion and not necessarily a jab at the quality of the film that will mark Zack Snyder’s third entry in the universe. Also, there is no telling how big or small of a role Lane has in the movie to truly know how much she knows about the overall direction, and she has most likely yet to see anything close to a finished cut of the movie. She could simply be a big fan of The Avengers and understand how highly regarded the film is for many.

Even with her saying she hates to disappoint, that too may very well not be an indicator of the film’s quality since she may be referring to being unable to divulge spoilers. Justice League has high expectations to meet – possibly the highest for any DCEU film – so she could simply be tempering said expectations so everyone can come out loving the film and not slightly disappointed that it didn’t meet every ridiculously lofty expectation. Even if Justice League doesn’t wind up being better than The Avengers, there is nothing wrong with that. Not every movie can be the best film ever made – not to say Avengers is – so the goal here should be producing the best Justice League movie.

The comparisons to Avengers have stuck with Justice League ever since it was announced. Both movies will bring together various heroes in a team-up fashion. Avengers was a true kick starter for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Justice League wants to have a similar response without question. Those similarities aside, the build up to each has been quite different. Avengers saw all of the characters previously introduced in better received films, while Justice League is marching forward with an established divisive past. Hopefully when the dust settles on Lane’s statements and the release of Justice League, both Marvel and DC will have their own successful team-up movies.

Diane Lane: Justice League Won’t Be Better Than The Avengers