King Arthur - Teh Movie!

[Merrilow]

I suppose the new version of "Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy" will in fact be about kittens, potty training hamsters and tarmacing the M25, and nout to do with the adventures of a paranoid andriod, an Englishman in his dressing gown and a chap from Beatleguese (sp ). John Malcovich is in it, and as weird as he is, Im looking forward to the toilet antics of hamsters...not.

Sacrilege!

 

[old.Whoodoo]

Sorry we talking about the same film? Micheal Caine one????

Yes I am, and when you look at it, yes it is realistic, the route they took in the film was at the time, very possible. The only gripe anyone had was the weight issue. But, this film was meant as more of a comedy, and so the funneh elements are there.

Sacrilege!

I would go as far as to say Blasphemy!

Now I see ppl posting about Alien vs Predator, so now its "take 2 decent films, slap em together and get the cast of blue peter to give it a story line." Fine by me, ill just download it rather than give to their coffers I dont know about you lot but I beleive in not paying for trash, but pirating it!

(on that note, I paid to see Spiderman 2 and Shrek 2, both worth every penny )

 

[Aurelius]

A couple of the best written books ive come across based on the King Arthur legends are The Crystal Caves and The Hollow Hills by Mary Stewart well worth reading.

 

[Ilienwyn]

Well, you all know what the problem with Amercans is. They don't have any history of their own so they don't have problem ***ing other countries stories and history. Just see Braveheart, Troy and lots of others which were changed to fit their way of seeing things.... uke:




Hmm, on another note I guess they are sooo used to doing that in every story that they even do it in some of their owns (e.g. that american movie with Mel Gibson edit: The Patriot)

 

[Muylaetrix]

Just judging from the historical erra they put this movie in, i have to say it is probably closer to the actual history than any other movie/book about king arthur today.

 

[Aiteal]

Thats why british films generally are so could, cos we tell a story how it should be fucking told......
our fucking history which WE take fucking pride in!!! It makes me sick!

Boorman's Excalibur is a much better film, however as much as it pains me to say it, for history, King Arthur is closer to historical accuracy.

If you want history, Arthur didn't wear plate armour, was a romano-celt (probably a swarthy little welshman), and spent his time fighting the saxons, the picts and the scotti (Irish)

Most of what people know as 'Arthurian legends' are actually romanticised victorian clap trap, nothing to do with your 'history' whatsoever. What you probably know as 'genuine arthurian legends' are the product of victorian tastes, they took arthurian myth and rewrote it to suit their own views of how it should be, the same thing people accuse Hollywood of doing.

 

[Coren]

Bernard Cornwell's Winter King books are great, also the Harlequin - Vagabond - Heretic (Grail Quest trilogy) for all you scouts out there. I like his way of handling the traditionally 'magic' parts of the story (e.g Merlin and the Grail in the other books), never really confiriming that there's anything magic going on.

Determined never to start reading the Sharpe books though...so damn many of em and I just know I'll end up having to get the lot - and there's no room on my bookshelf thanks to Mr Clancy.

 

[chipper]

while we talkin about shit films i just watched catwoman :/

AVOID THIS FILM AT ALL COSTS IT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BAD!!!!

 

[Flimgoblin]

Just judging from the historical erra they put this movie in, i have to say it is probably closer to the actual history than any other movie/book about king arthur today.

there's a lot of books setting arthur in post-roman dark age briton but you're probably right about the movies.

Bernard Cornwell's The Winter King, Enemy of God and Excalibur are superb (very "real" - the druidic magic is very much take it or leave it, could just be trickery or it could be magic - take yer pick)

Marianne Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon is another one with a different perspective (told from Morgaine's point of view and all the big battles - badon hill, camlann etc. - are just footnotes, mentioned in passing rather than described in detail. The story happens through all the intrigue and magic.)

 

[Reignfire]

David Gemmell is the best!!

rigante series are king

Prefered Lion of Macedon and Dark Prince myself ..... Shite Hollywood doing Alexander next

 

[Reignfire]

the drenai series very nearly made me reroll alb, waylander is so much like an infil

Soz m8 but Jimmythepost = Waylander

 

[Aiteal]

while we talkin about shit films i just watched catwoman :/

AVOID THIS FILM AT ALL COSTS IT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BAD!!!!

Did you go see it because of the cleavage in the trailer?
It certainly made me want to see it, or at least some sleazy porno send up of it

 

[Chronick Wind]

Yes, King Arthur is more historically accurate than most Arthurian films(must have done that by accident hehehehe), but he definately would not have worn Roman armour in that era...besides Arthur is supposed to be a Welshamn, according to history books, and probably wore next to no armour at all. To be honest, Arthur imo is total myth anyway, a bit like the bible, but it is still a great part of british legend. Regarding the film Excalibur, that is our "classic" knights and castles type of film, which yes is historically inaccurate...alas i was just stating it is a nice depiction of arthurian times.

But dont defract from the plain fact that Americans have once again fucked up one of Europes best told tales with all their hollywood glam shit.

Over and out.

 

[Ilienwyn]

Prefered Lion of Macedon and Dark Prince myself ..... Shite Hollywood doing Alexander next

Yeah, heard release date is around November.

Btw, Olympics are nice but no new films coming here during them (delaying Aliens vs Predators) and no good films came here for about a month. Hope games go well but that's stupid tbh. Guess I will hae to do a lot of cinema going after Olympics

 

[wyldecelt]

It was Sir Thomas Malory who first put Arthur in gothic plate in the 15th Century in his book Le Morte DArthur. If he did exist, it was in Saxo-romanic Britain and the film is nearer to what Arthur really was than the gothic plate image.

 

[Anubz]

Prefered Lion of Macedon and Dark Prince myself ..... Shite Hollywood doing Alexander next

Agree .. Lion Of Macedon is a top book. Saying that nearly all the Gemmell books I've read are excellent.. Also Raymond E Fiest.

 

[Culanan]

It was Sir Thomas Malory who first put Arthur in gothic plate in the 15th Century in his book Le Morte DArthur. If he did exist, it was in Saxo-romanic Britain and the film is nearer to what Arthur really was than the gothic plate image.

Historically inaccurate excalibur may be but at least they weren't swinging around long, heavy swords at mach 5 like the yanks would have done

 

[Heath]

And just look at what the yanks did to Robin Hood....Kevin bloody Costner...ffs....i can think of loads of English actors who could have pulled that off better than him. And that bloody song by Bryan Adams...i could kill him for that. :touch:

 

[Shagrat]

Yes, King Arthur is more historically accurate than most Arthurian films(must have done that by accident hehehehe), but he definately would not have worn Roman armour in that era...besides Arthur is supposed to be a Welshamn, according to history books, and probably wore next to no armour at all. To be honest, Arthur imo is total myth anyway, a bit like the bible, but it is still a great part of british legend. Regarding the film Excalibur, that is our "classic" knights and castles type of film, which yes is historically inaccurate...alas i was just stating it is a nice depiction of arthurian times.

But dont defract from the plain fact that Americans have once again fucked up one of Europes best told tales with all their hollywood glam shit.

Over and out.

The Arthurian legend is actually a mish-mash of French and British myth's. Originally there were just a few brief references to Arthur in early Welsh poems which were embellished on by French poets adding all the pomp and ceremony and elevating Arthur to some form of christian king (they had problems with a heroic figure being some pagan general apparently).

And recent research has pointed to the fact that Arthur may have been some form of mercenary dragged over to England from somewhere in Eastern Europe by his Roman employers (hence his and his colleagues prowess on horseback) so the film isnt that far off the mark.

 

[Tallen]

And just look at what the yanks did to Robin Hood....Kevin bloody Costner...ffs....i can think of loads of English actors who could have pulled that off better than him. And that bloody song by Bryan Adams...i could kill him for that. :touch:

Robin Hood, Men in Tights.......nuff said.

 

[Raven]

robin hood who according to holywood landed at dover then traveled to nottingham via hadrians wall in one day. i wish they would all fuck off with thier crap films

 

[SeeN]

I couldnt help noticing something which kindda annoyed me in both this movie and in Troy:

The massive armies, be it saxons in King arthur or the Greeks in Troy march to the wall, without any kind of siege equipment, and yet the defenders choose to either open the wall or go outside it...

Why dont they just stay behind the wall? I mean, what are the attackers gonna do then? Bash on the wall with their axes??

Either these movies are missing something or people where really really stupid back then...

 

[Runolas]

Well I had a fun time watching the movie, but if it was any more historical than the original stories of Arthur I don't know. Imho the story of both Arthur and Troy cannot be read as myth and neither as historical, it is somewere in between.

It is reasonable to believe that a man of the name Arthur did exist and that he was the leader of Briton forces. From what little evidence there is, it is credible that his forces won a victory of importance in about 496 (Badon Hill) and that he was killed in about 515, following the battle of Camlann. The rest of the storries of Arthur is probably myth.

 

[Taardad]

Let's not forget Monty Python's epic The Holy grail. :worthy:

 

[Drav]

Someone explain something to me, ok if Arthur is roman and hes running around in deh 5th century.... Why the feck is he christian in the film?

The Romans were still feeding christians to the lions at that time if I remember rightly, nerf American fundamentalism into the ground pls.

Plus arthur wouldve been a pagan warrior warlord back in the day, the whole plate armor stuff was just the influence of the french on the story (kinda like how GoA feck up patch translation, rather than just giving us the pure source).

But shite films like this do achieve something, if it wasnt for the shite french influence on the arthur story.... we wouldnt have Lord of the Rings today.... jooo are deh roxxor Tolkien!

 

[M® Zîllâ]

Well they got the look of the film about right but they could have done so much more with it and at least based it on one of the more likely candidates of the tale of arthur ie "Ambrosius Aurelianus" a romano-britain only problem with "Ambrosius" is Geoffrey of Monmouth got his grubby hand on him two but we still have some 1st hand info on Ambrosius from "Gildas The Wise" In his "Ruin of Britain," wich points to him being one of the pivtol figures of the age and giveing the bigest contribution to the tale of Arthur.
I belive it would have been a far better tale to tell.

Ambrosius