The newest film version of "King Arthur" has flopped. Could it be that the audience is getting tired of scripts that use the hero's journey as a fill-in-the-blanks formula rather than just as an inspiration?
This is from theWrap.com:
"...for audiences to get intrigued by a modernized version of a classic tale, something new needs to be brought to the table.
King Arthur failed to do this, instead relying on an origin tale that deviates little from the classic Hero’s Journey formula. Critics panned the film for turning the Arthurian legend into a rote tale where Arthur spends his life on the streets before learning of his true identity and being pushed into leading a revolution against the traitorous relative who robbed him of his birthright. 'In true Joseph Campbell style, this reluctant hero refuses over and over before finally accepting his destiny,' wrote TheWrap’s Alonso Duralde."
I'm sure there are additional reasons why the film failed (for one, I'm not a fan of Guy Ritchie's kinetic directing), but I've felt for a while that a lot of films these days are so alike in structure that you feel like you've seen a film before even when you haven't.
In my writing workshops, I suggest that writers develop their story fully first, and then decide on the structure; many are taught to do it the other way around. They cram their story into the detailed 3-act structure or the hero's journey, and sometimes in the process lose what could have made their story unique.
That's not to say that the hero's journey can't still serve as the foundation of a screenplay or novel, just that it has to be done in a fresh way.
(for help writing your own book or screenplay, see my book, Your Writing Coach, published by Nicholas Brealey and available from Amazon or your other favorite bookseller.)
