King Arthur

[Lady Blue03]

<font color=pink>As long as Merlin woops some ass with his magic I'll be happy </font>

[Balintherlas]

If he even existed, he was not a roman noble, he was the son of the king at the time, books say Uther. Also, since there is no concrete evidence he existed, we must go by the various books written about him, the foremost would probally be Malory's and White's. Both say he was the son of Uther Pendragon, and both say he fought the Romans in a great war which established him as emperor of europe, though he never claimed such a title. Also, in both there are many castles, most knights and barons and such had them. Also, White suggests that gun powder was discovered at the time and canons were used by Mordred.

[Epona]

There is no 'true story' - the legends of Arthur incorporate stories of probably more than one warlord at different times in what is now known as England, combined with old French legends. The legends are a hotchpotch of bits of myth laced with a small amount of history from different regions and different eras.

The story we are most familiar with is as written by Sir Thomas Malory in 'Le Morte d'Arthur' which he wrote in prison and was published by William Caxton in 1485. Malory felt that he was innocent of the crimes of which he had been convicted, and hence wrote a fictional account of chivalry and good-deeds (he felt himself a chivalrous man who had been wronged) based on a mix of earlier legends.

The film looks like a pile of shite, albeit an expensive pile of shite.

I'd still quite like to go and see it, but I'm not expecting much at all, least of all any iota of historical or literary accuracy (which in a blockbuster big-budget film would be a first)

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Epona: There is no 'true story' - the legends of Arthur incorporate stories of probably more than one warlord at different times in what is now known as England, combined with old French legends. The legends are a hotchpotch of bits of myth laced with a small amount of history from different regions and different eras. The story we are most familiar with is as written by Sir Thomas Malory in 'Le Morte d'Arthur' which he wrote in prison and was published by William Caxton in 1485. Malory felt that he was innocent of the crimes of which he had been convicted, and hence wrote a fictional account of chivalry and good-deeds (he felt himself a chivalrous man who had been wronged) based on a mix of earlier legends. The film looks like a pile of shite, albeit an expensive pile of shite. I'd still quite like to go and see it, but I'm not expecting much at all, least of all any iota of historical or literary accuracy (which in a blockbuster big-budget film would be a first)

Just a quick note of spam to say that I agree with absolutely everything you said Epona! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Balintherlas]

With so many stories about Arthur, how can we make any kind of assumptions?

[Larry_OHF]

<font color=skyblue>Reminder that the movie starts tomorrow. I have a class during the day, so I'll have to wait until after dinner to go see it. </font>

[Dreamer128]

Cool. Let us know how it turns out [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Xen]

Looks very interesting. I am looking forwad to see this one. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Aerich]

I agree with Epona. This movie looks like a vehicle for a vaguely Arthurian epic action movie.

I'm not a huge Bruckheimer fan, but I'll probably see it anyway... and be disappointed by all the historical (cultural and military) inaccuracies, just like Troy.

But Keira Knightly is in it, so it can't be ALL bad. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[slicer15]

Well, I've stopped expecting historical accuracies in films. All it does (for me) is lower the experience of the film, since you can't stop criticising it (well, some you can. ) and I personally thoroughly enjoyed Troy, no matter how inaccurate it was. I think you have to see it as entertainment, and not a historical documentary. I myself know very little about the legends (or myths [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) about King Arthur, other than Merlin was a character, that Arthur formed the Knights of the Round Table (even that could be wrong) and that Arthur wielded a sword called "Excalibur" "thrown at him by some watery tart"...I mean, given to him by a mythical creature. (Sorry, couldn't resist the quote. ).

As such, from what I've seen, it looks to be an awesome film. ^_^

[ 07-07-2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: slicer15 ]