King Arthur

[MrBug708]

Anyone else see it yet? I thought it was pretty good. The local movie critics give it 2.5 stars, but I think it was a little bit better than that. I think your better off knowing a little of the Dark, Middle, and High Ages along with some idea of the Roman Empire. Pretty sure there are a lot of inaccurate displays, but still a good movie nonetheless, IMO.

[The_herd]

I was checking some reviews of it. Its actually getting reviewed much better than I expected (although I was expecting trash).

[Arles]

I was checking some reviews of it. Its actually getting reviewed much better than I expected (although I was expecting trash).
I'm with you. Normally when I see a movie that really looks interesting to me I assume it's going to be trash. That way, even if it's slightly above trash in the reviews, I get an excuse to go see it :D

But this movie has actually been fairly well received when you consider how hollywood normally judges movies of this ilk.

[Peregrine]

I'm definitely not going to see it unless a friend changes my mind, and none of them are planning on seeing it. King Arthur stripped of all its cool historical/mythical stuff just doesn't interest me.

[Franklinnoble]

Yeah, I don't think the far-fetched notion of Lady Guenivere becoming a scantily-clad woad-painted warrior who survives a battle in the midst of hundreds of armored knights is going to do it for me.

[Swaggs]

Yeah, I don't think the far-fetched notion of Lady Guenivere becoming a scantily-clad woad-painted warrior who survives a battle in the midst of hundreds of armored knights is going to do it for me.

Would you do it if the santily-clad warrior was played by Keira Knightly? :)

[kingfc22]

Would you do it if the santily-clad warrior was played by Keira Knightly? :)
My thoughts exactly.:D

[Whar]

I hated this movie. The acting blew. The fight scenes were weak. Historically it was awful. If it wasn't for Kiera Knightly I would have rather seen the Garfield Movie.

Historical inaccuracies ... Crossbows were not introduced to England until 1066. Only 600 years off!

The saxons were allies to the Romans first coming to the island as mercenaries.

Disturbing stuff about Samartians (the knights) ...

They [Sarmatian women] have no right breasts...for while they are yet babies their mothers make red-hot a bronze instrument constructed for this very purpose and apply it to the right breast and cauterize it, so that its growth is arrested, and all its strength and bulk are diverted to the right shoulder and right arm."
--- Hippocrates

No girl shall wed till she has killed a man in battle
-- Herodotus

Findings in the graves of Samartian sites seem to support these statements. Women were oftened buried with weapons and their remains bore signs of battle. (Though some scholars maintain the weapons are ornamental in nature.)

*EDIT* By the period of the movie the Sarmatians had almost ceased to exist as a people. They had also dropped quite a bit of the warrior women past.

After watching this horrific movie I am forced to read Dr Littleton's boof from Scythia to Camelot which seems the basis for this film, since I must somehow recoup the 2 hours I wasted on it.

[Samdari]

Would you do it if the santily-clad warrior was played by Keira Knightly? :)

She could play Abraham Lincoln scanitly clad and painted in woad, and I would find the portrayal convincing.

[Taur]

Who, or what is behind all this PC correctness in the Movies lately?

Troy was a complete nightmare of a story once they had removed all the Gods.

And, now they have removed the magic from King Arthur.

I just do not understand what is the driving force behind this. I Seem to remember a movie with fairies and elves that did quite well at the box office a little while ago.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Who, or what is behind all this PC correctness in the Movies lately?

Troy was a complete nightmare of a story once they had removed all the Gods.

And, now they have removed the magic from King Arthur.

I just do not understand what is the driving force behind this. I Seem to remember a movie with fairies and elves that did quite well at the box office a little while ago.

I really don't see how removing the gods in "Troy" or magic from "King Aurthur" has anying to do with "PC correctness." I need this explained to me.

I see it as an attempt to make as "realistic" a portrayl of what happened as possible. Not including gods and/or magic is a step in that direction.

[Taur]

I see it as an attempt to make as "realistic" a portrayl of what happened as possible. Not including gods and/or magic is a step in that direction.

What, are you saying that they did not exsist back then. Good, it is nice to know that where you live there are no miracles, angels, or even Gods; this will hopefully allow them to spend more time at my house. :D


Explain.....Well most scholars believe that the turning point of the war in the battle for Troy actually occured before the war even started. When the King sacrisfied his eldest Daughter to the Gods for favorable winds his troops realized how commited he was. ....Not to mention the Achillies Heal shot????

I am sorry, but King Arthur without Merlin is just plain stupid. Wizards and fortune tellers have been around since the beginning of time. I believe today many of the old Wizards would be called a chemist?

[strait8]

The best set of books that I read were a set of historical novels by Jack Whyte The Dream of Eagles. He spent 17 years researching the subject.

I think Bruckheimer read these but changed information. In the Books the Roman legions are in britain but some British Born Roman officers see the time the Romans will be called back to the Mainland to Defend Rome,

These officers begin to build a settlement called Camolud where they welcome people who have all the skills required for the settlement, They follow the old Roman way where every man is a soldier rather than having a standing army. The son of one of the officers is Uther pendragon, Half Roman and Half celt. Another's son is Merlin. Pendragons son is Arthur.

the books have a logical way of expalining the Roaman occupation, pullout and rise of town defences in Britain, Good Reading.

On the subject of Women fighting. Britain has a great history of Women leading troops and fighting a long side men The most famous was Boudica who fought and beat the Romans for years. There are two parts of a new trilogy on Boudica written by a British Author available today. Boudica: Dream the Eagle and Boudica: Dream the Bull

I havent seen the Artur movie, But I like Clive Owen a lot. He is touted as the next Bond. i definitely liked him in Croupier, the British Art film.

He also starred in all of the short films at BMWfilms.com which were excellent. If you havent seen those you should look they are great for the most part.

[clintl]

I don't know why anyone should object to a treatment of King Arthur or the Trojan War without the supernatural elements. It is a perfectly valid artistic treatment.

Now, whether it is a well-done treatment is quite another matter. I haven't seen either movie, so I have no opinion on that question.

[Chief Rum]

Explain.....Well most scholars believe that the turning point of the war in the battle for Troy actually occured before the war even started. When the King sacrisfied his eldest Daughter to the Gods for favorable winds his troops realized how commited he was. ....Not to mention the Achillies Heal shot????

Curious, but what scholars would these be? My understanding is that there is no scholarly corroboration of the Trojan-Greek war, although there is little doubt it occurred.

The only mention of this war in Greek texts, IIRC, is from Homer himself and from plays by famous playwrights like Euripedes and Sophocles (I think on that last one, might have the name wrong).

Homer, Euripedes and Sophocles all lived about 400-500 years after the supposed time of this war, and they were strongly imbued with the god-culture of their times. Achilles may have been a real warrior who ended up being felled from an unfortunate arrow throught he ankle (and doubtless, NOT shot by the prince of Troy), but he almost certainly was not immortal outside of his ankle, nor the son of Zeus. Perhaps King Agammemnon killed his daughter as an offering to the gods, but did the gods really then open the winds for him? Pretty unlikely, don't you think? Sounds like the Greeks got a good turn of wind after a bad run, and decided it must be divinity.

The fact is, we know very little about this war. Our primary sources were all Greek. They all lived centuries after it happened. They were all working to satisfy an audience, not preserve historical accuracy. And they were a part of a culture that believe heavily in magic and gods, and insist on working them into most of their plays and stories and history.

I'm not saying Troy knows the truth any better. They went off on completely different tangents, and if their goal was to follow our known manuscripts of that war, then they failed completely. But I'm not going to not like it because it "doesn't follow history". For all we know, it does. Point is, we just don't know exactly what happened in that war, or if any elements in it (Trojan horse, Achilles, Helen of Troy, etc. ever existed).

CR

[The_herd]

There is little to no evidence that the Trojan War ever happend. There is a growing belief that the Greek-Trojan war described by Homer was actually a series of seperate wars (not necessarily Greeks-Romans) and sieges over a 20 or so year period that he fused together to create his story.

[Taur]

Curious, but what scholars would these be? My understanding is that there is no scholarly corroboration of the Trojan-Greek war, although there is little doubt it occurred.


I believe it was on The History channel, or could of been on A&E. Called something like the "The Real Troy" with an assortment of college profesors and archaeologist. Not being a major history buff I was amazed to learn that the war took over 10 years. So, if something was built it would of been built in a matter of years not overnight.

[druez]

Excalibur will always be my favorite King Arthur movie.

[Franklinnoble]

Just saw this on DVD.

It didn't suck as bad as I expected, but I'm really, really glad I didn't pay money to see it in a theater.

The creative license they took with the story was a bit obnoxious.

[Flasch186]

i honestly thought it was horrible

[Coffee Warlord]

Buddy of mine rented it. It's a fun movie, nothing more. Same reason I like 13th Warrior. Fun, moderately over the top sword & board killing of shit.

Quite ironically, their versions of Bors and Lancelot were damn near spot on persona-wise from a pair of me and my friend's tabletop RPG chars.

[cthomer5000]

FWIW, the DVD director's cut is supposedly radically different from the theatre version. They shot an R movie (and told the director it would be an 'R' movie), then forced the director to edit it to PG-13 for theatrical release. The DVD (as far as i know) is the release the director intended.

[Coffee Warlord]

Unless the rental DVD is the theatrical (or there are both versions out already, my friend rented it, I didn't), I doubt it. There's no way that was an R movie (zero nudity, zero dialect, no uberharsh violence).

They'll come out with the Director's Cut later on, charge more, and make more cash.

[Bubba Wheels]

The best set of books that I read were a set of historical novels by Jack Whyte The Dream of Eagles. He spent 17 years researching the subject.

I think Bruckheimer read these but changed information. In the Books the Roman legions are in britain but some British Born Roman officers see the time the Romans will be called back to the Mainland to Defend Rome,

These officers begin to build a settlement called Camolud where they welcome people who have all the skills required for the settlement, They follow the old Roman way where every man is a soldier rather than having a standing army. The son of one of the officers is Uther pendragon, Half Roman and Half celt. Another's son is Merlin. Pendragons son is Arthur.

the books have a logical way of expalining the Roaman occupation, pullout and rise of town defences in Britain, Good Reading.

On the subject of Women fighting. Britain has a great history of Women leading troops and fighting a long side men The most famous was Boudica who fought and beat the Romans for years. There are two parts of a new trilogy on Boudica written by a British Author available today. Boudica: Dream the Eagle and Boudica: Dream the Bull

I havent seen the Artur movie, But I like Clive Owen a lot. He is touted as the next Bond. i definitely liked him in Croupier, the British Art film.

He also starred in all of the short films at BMWfilms.com which were excellent. If you havent seen those you should look they are great for the most part.

Good brief! I actually learned something. Interesting time in history, and I loves history. This is also the movie that I'd like to see, with some basis in fact.

[Flasch186]

i liked the mickey rourke/Forrest Whitaker one..it was outstanding

[Celeval]

Unless the rental DVD is the theatrical (or there are both versions out already, my friend rented it, I didn't), I doubt it. There's no way that was an R movie (zero nudity, zero dialect, no uberharsh violence).

They'll come out with the Director's Cut later on, charge more, and make more cash.
There's both an 'Unrated Director's Cut' and 'PG-13' version out on DVD now.

[Bomber]

This movie wasn't has bad as I thought it would be, not a horrible way to spend $4.

[RendeR]

As mentioned above the movie isn't all that accurate historically, it is however an excellent 2 hours of entertainment. The problem most people have with films like this is that they sabotage their own enjoyment by nit picking at things like historical accuracy in an entertainmnent piece.

Who gives a flying horses ass if crossbows weren't around in 500 ad? Who really cares if they had the use of magic? Take what is given to you for what it is, a story about a group of knights fighting insurmountable odds and coming out victorious. Its FICTION people, good grief.

I for one LOVE this movie, got the DVD for xmas and have watched both versions on it twice now. It has weaknesses even for what it is, but I like that in a film, it allows MY imagination to draw me into it further by filling in the gaps on its own.

I can't imagine a movie that hand feeds you exactly what you expect being worth the effort to stay awake to watch it.

Great Movie, period.

[Samdari]

As mentioned above the movie isn't all that accurate historically

AAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Any movie about Arthur is not historically accurate. There was no Arthur in recorded history. The story told in this, and any film about Arthur, is just as valid as the most popular myths (not that they all converge anyway).

[JeeberD]

As mentioned above the movie isn't all that accurate historically, it is however an excellent 2 hours of entertainment. The problem most people have with films like this is that they sabotage their own enjoyment by nit picking at things like historical accuracy in an entertainmnent piece.

Yeah, but wasn't the tagline something about this being about the REAL King Arthur?

[gstelmack]

Yeah, but wasn't the tagline something about this being about the REAL King Arthur?
That's your problem: you're listening to Marketing http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Raven Hawk]

Here's something to ponder about this movie:

If you're an important roman noble of such high standing (that your son could be considered a prodigy) why does the caesar grant you land north of Hadrian's Wall?

The movie was historically inaccurate because the movie states a time period that this fiction was supposed to occur. Therefore, we have certain expectations about the setting. Although we're not all history buffs, it is nice to have the director make an attempt to make it historically accurate, especially when they bill it as the REAL King Arthur story (good catch Jeebs).

When it comes down to it, though. It was much better than First Knight, which incidentally is the shittiest Arthur movie ever made, Sean Connery or no Sean Connery.

[Bomber]

I really don't understand the historical accuracy complaints. This was a Jerry Bruckheimer film and a "summer blockbuster"-type, the mere fact it didn't completely suck should be enough. I can see making complaints about historical accuracy in films like Gangs of New York because you'd expect more out of a serious drama by Scorcese, but for this movie I'm stunned people expected it.

[Raven Hawk]

Perhaps this will help you understand the complaints. This is from the trailer from their website:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ravenhawk/arthur1.jpg

It's billed as a true story.

edit: linky http://www.kingarthurmovie.com

[Bomber]

It's a King Arthur movie. I don't care what its billed as.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

After seeing the directors cut I can totally see a Dungeon Siege movie patterened after King Arthur and a Forgotten Realms/D&D movie if done right having a Gladiator feel to it.

[jbmagic]

what the better movie Troy or King Arthur?

[Anthony]

Troy gets the slight nudge over King Arthur.

i have the Director's Cut of King Arthus on DVD, btw, and was very pleased with it. not sure what the complaints are - i don't know how you can have a "true story" about a fucking legend. that's like believing a diner when it advertises as having "the world's best hamburgers". it's called poetic license.

[RendeR]

i have the Director's Cut of King Arthus on DVD, btw, and was very pleased with it. not sure what the complaints are - i don't know how you can have a "true story" about a fucking legend. that's like believing a diner when it advertises as having "the world's best hamburgers". it's called poetic license.


Thank goodness I'm not the only one who realizes this.....

[Bubba Wheels]

Allright, its like the difference between Sean Connery and Roger Moore. They are both fictional, but when you see Sean Connery, you think "this could be real." When you see Roger Moore, you think "obviously could not be real.' The crossbows thing would seem to make the movie more like Roger Moore than Sean Connery. But I still plan to see it.