Guy Ritchie's King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is the first major box office bomb of 2017, arriving with a $175 million price tag (not including an extra $100 million for marketing) and opening to a pitiful $15.4 million in its first U.S. weekend.
Analysts expect that the film will end up losing Warner Bros. $150 million when it's all said and done, a disastrous figure that would make it one of the biggest bombs in the history of Hollywood. So, what went wrong?
Though many movies tank against expectations or despite being genuinely great films, King Arthur was instead a depressingly predictable financial failure that just about any discerning cinemagoer saw coming a long time ago. Still, most probably weren't expecting it to flop quite this hard.
The ten reasons are myriad, and Warner Bros. embarrassingly should've seen the writing on the wall.
Though Charlie Hunnam's spirited performance absolutely doesn't deserve the blame for King Arthur bombing, it's undeniable that his lack of star power may well have contributed to the prevailing audience apathy.
Despite Hunnam's success on Sons of Anarchy, he's not yet proven that he can carry a blockbuster to box office dynamite, what with Pacific Rim's lukewarm reception back in 2013.
With the likes of Henry Cavill, Kit Harrington and even Colin Farrell previously in line to play Arthur at various points, Hunnam's level of popularity had no chance competing, so it's not a shock that he struggled to bring in the mainstream crowds.
Had he appeared in the Fifty Shades of Grey franchise as originally planned, then perhaps this might be a whole other story...