Thoughts and Comments on the upcoming movie "King Arthur"

[Anthony]

i'll go see it, had some nice action shots, and Kiera (I want to bang her daily and) Knightley but i'm bothered somewhat about this movie. it seems too revisionist for me, apparently the movie is a prequel to the real king Arthur story we all know. it has him as a soldier - "before he was king" (as the marrator solemnly tells us), Gwenevere (sic) as some type of valkyrie warrior ( :confused: ), and really no mention of Merlin (unless i missed it and they turned him into some traveling snake oil salesman in this movie).

what does everyone think about this?

[Danny]

Keira Knightley = Yummy

[Anthony]

i want to poke her like the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

[Danny]

The movie looks to be a decent epic type movie. Certainly not LOTR quality and probably not even Troy's quality, but should still make for a couple hours of entertainment.

[3ric]

I like the concept, it's the dark medieval ages, which is true to the actual time line (such as it would be) with none of this "noble knight in shiny armor" rubbish. Finally a realistic take on the Arthur legend.

[sachmo71]

The trailers looked a bit shakey with Gwinny shooting folks full of arrows and such, but it may be amusing.

[Anthony]

I like the concept, it's the dark medieval ages, which is true to the actual time line (such as it would be) with none of this "noble knight in shiny armor" rubbish. Finally a realistic take on the Arthur legend.

hmmm....i never thought about it that way before.

and Will Smith's "I, Robot" is nothing like the book. i've heard it's based more off another of Asimov's novels - Caves of Steel. why they didn't call the movie that is beyond me. "I,Robot" is a collection of short stories about the evolution of the robot. i gather Caves of Steel actually deals with a detective that suspects a robot of killing a human (which according to Asimov's 3 cardinal laws governing robots is virtually impossible to happen). the robots look good in the movie. but i think this movie is being released too close to the Matrix trilogy. i'm not sure people are ready for yet another "man vs. machine" movie just yet. i've heard Will Smith is still sour from passing up the role of Neo in the Matric movie and this is his make-up movie. the things people say on the internet.

[Samdari]

it seems too revisionist for me

Revisionist from what though? They are legends, and thus have various incarnations. There is no 'definitive' legend of Arthur, so how could they revise from the 'true' story when there isn't one.

There is no 'history' to speak of, in fact most of what people conceptualize about the Arthurian legend is very anachronistic.

[Dutch]

This is the first I've heard of it. I will be interested to see what everybody thinks of it after it's released.

[Anthony]

Revisionist from what though? They are legends, and thus have various incarnations. There is no 'definitive' legend of Arthur, so how could they revise from the 'true' story when there isn't one.

There is no 'history' to speak of, in fact most of what people conceptualize about the Arthurian legend is very anachronistic.

well, most of the legends deal with the similar concepts of the King and his sword excalibur, along with his wizard advisor Merlin, having the Lady Gwinevere as a love interest and has a round table (in the movie) surrounded by knights in shining armor, which inlcuded the great fighter Lancelot, etc.

the movie contains scenes involving Arthur and co. being surrounded on an ice sheet (?!?) by (i assume to be) a German barbarians, Lady Gwineveer apparently is a marksman with a bow and arrow and fights alongside what appeared to be an all-female clan. there is no mention of the great kingdom of avalon or castles of any kind.

the movie bills itself as a prequel to the Arthurian legend, so i suppose it's allowed artistic freedom. i'm gonna see it regardless, just found it too liberal with the concepts of King Arthur we all grew up with.

[Schmidty]

Am I the only one here who has read the Stephen Lawhead books about Arthurian mythos? Taliesin, Merlin and Arthur were excellent in my opinion.

[Eaglesfan27]

hmmm....i never thought about it that way before.

and Will Smith's "I, Robot" is nothing like the book. i've heard it's based more off another of Asimov's novels - Caves of Steel. why they didn't call the movie that is beyond me. "I,Robot" is a collection of short stories about the evolution of the robot. i gather Caves of Steel actually deals with a detective that suspects a robot of killing a human (which according to Asimov's 3 cardinal laws governing robots is virtually impossible to happen). the robots look good in the movie. but i think this movie is being released too close to the Matrix trilogy. i'm not sure people are ready for yet another "man vs. machine" movie just yet. i've heard Will Smith is still sour from passing up the role of Neo in the Matric movie and this is his make-up movie. the things people say on the internet.

"I, Robot" is one of my favorite collection of stories ever. I'm going to go see the movie, but with great trepidation that they will completely bastardize the books.

[JeeberD]

and really no mention of Merlin (unless i missed it and they turned him into some traveling snake oil salesman in this movie).


I remember seeing Merlin in the preview that I saw. Just a quick scene or two with him in there, nothing really focusing in on him.

It looks like an interesting movie overall. The girlfriend wants to go see it, so I'm sure we'll be heading to the theater within the first couple of weeks that it's out...

[Arles]

I am the only one here who has read the Stephen Lawhead books about Arthurian mythos? Taliesin, Merlin and Arthur were excellent in my opinion.
Those were some of the best books I've ever read. I would also recommend Le Morte D'Arthur by Thomas Mallory for those who want the "true scoop" of the original legend.

[Leonidas]

Revisionist from what though? They are legends, and thus have various incarnations. There is no 'definitive' legend of Arthur, so how could they revise from the 'true' story when there isn't one.

There is no 'history' to speak of, in fact most of what people conceptualize about the Arthurian legend is very anachronistic.

There actually was a King Arthur, historians know when he reigned, and supposedly he did do some significant work uniting the Britons. Other than that not too much is known. This movie claims to be the "real story", yet the armor and weaponry is all wrong (at least from the commercials) for the real era of Arthur.

To me, there really is only one King Arthur movie worth the time, Excalibur.

[Celeval]

There actually was a King Arthur, historians know when he reigned, and supposedly he did do some significant work uniting the Britons. Other than that not too much is known. This movie claims to be the "real story", yet the armor and weaponry is all wrong (at least from the commercials) for the real era of Arthur.

Erm. That severely contradicts most of the articles I've read on the subject. ;) As for the period... what would you suggest? The "standard" knights in shining armor and whatnot is pretty far off - 500-600 years too early.

[3ric]

From what I've read, the Arthur myth is based on a real-life Briton warrior that fought against the Saxons in about 500 AD.

Geoffrey of Monmouth created the popular myth by imposing a romantic 12th century image on this figure.

[Sharpieman]

The only version I remember or know is the Disney one. Sad, very sad.