King Arthur

[BlanchPrez]

I don't know, the more I read (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=596&e=3&u=/nm/20040705/review_nm/review_film_arthur_dc) about this movie, the less I think I will like it as an Arthurian movie. But, that said, it does looke like a decent action flick. Maybe worth a matanee price.

Chris

[Gotetsu]

You and your Arthurian Snobbery. :roll:

(as opposed to SmartMonkey's Aruthian Snobbery) :lol:

[BlanchPrez]

You and your Arthurian Snobbery. :roll:


Yeah, yeah... I just expect certain things from an Arthurian story, and Arthur not being a native of Britton isn't one of them. I've read stories where he's half-roman, and that I can deal with. But, full on Roman? With the rest of the Knights of the Round Table also being full-on Roman? Not to mention that they turned him into a freedom fighter, rather than a unifier.

Like I said, it looks like it might make a decent action flick, but like First Knight, it appears that it will fall short as an Arthurian story.

[/snobbery]

Chris

[mordraine]

I have the same reaction whenever I see the previews. And the thing that really bugs me is the whole "this is the REAL story" baloney they're spouting. WTF?

[cczernia]

One word: Bruckheimer

That's all you needed to know.

[Gotetsu]

And the thing that really bugs me is the whole "this is the REAL story" baloney they're spouting. WTF?

"Oscar Mayer has a way with B-O-L-O-G-N-A." :lol:

I have to say that during Arthur's "supposed" time, EVERYONE was "Roman." :? That's why it's called the "Arthurian LEGEND" and not the "Arthurian Chronicle/Story/etc..."

Snobs. :P

[Neuro]

We don't even know for certain if there was an Arthur. If there was an Arthur, we really don't have a starting point for figuring out if he was a tribal warlord of some form or if he was a Roman hanging out around Hadrian's wall.

There are certain elements of the Arthur story that speak to us through the ages, regardless of truth or fiction or anything else. The elements that stand out to me are that he came from a violent and besmirched background, he rose up and took the throne from obscurity either by magic or by grace or perhaps both, he united the Christian elements of Britain with the Pagan and engendered a kind of golden age, he fell by his own sin and was taken away to someday return again (once more by grace or magic, take your pick). The Arthur story in this light has strong elements of both Christian and pagan folklore. It is cyclical as pagan mythos characteristic of Britain are - things move in a full circle. The concepts of grace lifting men up after times of darkness is a very Christian theme.

It's just that, though, it's folklore and the things that you take from it depend a lot on the storytellers you choose to listen to. Every storyteller takes a story and views it through the focus of his own life and times, the social values appropriate to his culture.

So as far as the accuracy of the movie? Who knows, and who really cares. Does it tell the story in a way that is exciting and does justice to the myth would be a more appropriate question. The answer's going to vary by what the individual takes with him from the myth.

[Gotetsu]

Yeah! What she said! You Elitist Snobs!! :lol:

[BlanchPrez]

Yeah! What she said! You Elitist Snobs!! :lol:

I'm not denying that statement. :)

I'm saying that there are certain things that, to me, make up the Arthurian Myths, and everything I've seen about this movie has very little in it. Does it mean I'm going to hate the movie? No. But it does mean that I won't like it as much if I weren't such an "elitist snob."

Like Nuro said, there are certain elements of the story that speak to me, and those elements represent concepts that speak to me, and I'm just not seeing them in here. It doesn't even look like Arthur is forming a kingdom in this movie. He's just protecting Gewn's people, helping out Merlin and his little band of gurilla warriors.

But, all that said, I still want to see it. I want to like this movie, and I'm willing to give it a chance. I'm just not pinning much hope on it.

Chris

[Gotetsu]

I love being open-minded about movies. Allows for so much more enjoyment. And I hardly ever feel that I have wasted my money. :D

[Gotetsu]

Actually, I just think it's funny because the same discussion is ongoing over at the Conan boards. Believe it or not, there are actually Conan fans who hate, detest and dispise Conan the Barbarian! :: GASP:: :shock:

And the same kinds of things were said when LotR came out by those Elitists. On this very board! :roll:

How come no one protested Michael Chricton's bastardization of Beowulf (aka Eaters of the Dead / The 13th Warrior)? Because it was good movie (as well as a good book), that's why! So, who cares if it's not the same as the epic poem? It's a great story.

So, I say "Just enjoy the story!" :D

[Wintermute]

Historically Accurate? Good movie? Who cares...

http://rpg-sandiego.org/images/ihi.jpg

Yes, I think I'll be seeing it. :D

[Gotetsu]

http://i.imdb.com/mptv1.gif

Yes, I think I'll be seeing it. :D

I hope you can see it better than that pic. :lol:

[Wintermute]

I hope you can see it better than that pic. :lol:

Goddamn, stealing photos from imdb is hard work... makes it feel like an accomplishment. :)

[Neuro]

Damn she's hot.

[mordraine]

Actually, I just think it's funny because the same discussion is ongoing over at the Conan boards. Believe it or not, there are actually Conan fans who hate, detest and dispise Conan the Barbarian! :: GASP:: :shock:

That wouldn't surprise me. The Howard purists would dislike it, sure. I can understand that.

And the same kinds of things were said when LotR came out by those Elitists. On this very board! :roll:

And I can understand them as well. I loved the movies on their own right, but I sure as hell recognize that the LotR movies weren't 100% accurate to Tolkien's vision, but were instead a revisioning in Jackson's eyes.

How come no one protested Michael Chricton's bastardization of Beowulf (aka Eaters of the Dead / The 13th Warrior)? Because it was good movie (as well as a good book), that's why! So, who cares if it's not the same as the epic poem? It's a great story.

Did anyone use the name Beowulf? Did Chrichton say "This is the TRUE story of Beowulf"? Nope. In fact, I was unaware that 13th Warrior was a take off on Beowulf until after I'd seen it. It wasn't pitched that way. It wasn't marketed that way. HUGE difference if you ask me.

The King Arthur movie, although it may be entertaining and have hot chicks and all that, is not the TRUE story of King Arthur any more than Monty Python and the Holy Grail was.

So, I say "Just enjoy the story!" :D

I have the capacity to do that. But I can also call "bullshit" on the makers of the movie.

Also, if the story isn't good, then hey, it isn't good. I don't know without seeing the movie whether it'll be a story I enjoy or not. Simply having lots of action and hot chicks will only get a 3 or 4 out of a possible 10 from me.

My question is, if they're not even gonna be close to the story of Arthur, then why the hell do they even use the name? For one reason and one reason only. Because they know that it's a recognized name and will draw the Arthur fans. And to me that's a very good reason to complain. It's got me skeptical from the get-go, simply because of the marketing.

[mordraine]

I love being open-minded about movies. Allows for so much more enjoyment. And I hardly ever feel that I have wasted my money. :D

I'm always open-minded about movies. But I also have to capacity to recognize shite when I see it. I've gone to movies where I thought I'd enjoy them, but come out going "WTF?!?". (case in point - Stepford Wives: hated it).

Don't know if I'll hate King Arthur. Depends on whether it has a plausible story and good characters. Maybe they can overcome their whole non-Arthurness. Or maybe, despite the trailers, it actually DOES stick to the story.

[Cthulhu]

I've given up complaining about movies. I hate a great deal of movies, but all complaining does is make my friends who liked it uncomfortable. The only exception is I, Robot, which will suck so hard that 20th Century Fox will collapse in on itself like a neutron star. :nono:

[cczernia]

I've given up complaining about movies. I hate a great deal of movies, but all complaining does is make my friends who liked it uncomfortable. The only exception is I, Robot, which will suck so hard that 20th Century Fox will collapse in on itself like a neutron star. :nono:

I want to cry now :cry:

[Foxbat]

The King Arthur movie, although it may be entertaining and have hot chicks and all that, is not the TRUE story of King Arthur any more than Monty Python and the Holy Grail was.


Blasphemy! Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a documentary!!!! :D

Daniel

[Skyman]

Wow she's got it going! Just remove that tiny leather strap across the chest and she'll Janet Jackson us for sure....albeit I wonder how her blue tattoo jello mounds don't just pop out on it's own with all the running action going on.

I personally am not intrigued with seeing the movie beyond her....which may still have me going. It has nothing to do with knowing the arthurian legend or having an idealized way I want to see it presented. It's just that nothing grabs me about it in the preview. Kinda like the last Samurai....If it wasn't for peoples review(especially Tom's) I would have passed it up. I still have to see Troy. I liked Harry Potter but my Harry Potter die hard fiance didn't and wants the old director back.

Yes, the holy grail is a documentary.

Oh by the way I just saw Bubba Hotep on the video shelves....sad but true.

[Infernus]

Saw it today, and I enjoyed it, which is enough to get a "good" description from me. I wouldn't call it a great movie, but it was hardly the stinking bomb I was worried about after all the reviews blasting it. I am not nearly as nit-picking with regards to movies as some people I know though, so if you are an obsessive detail person keep that in mind.

My biggest problem with the movie was the billing that it was *THE* real story of Arthur. A brief bit of text at the beginning of the movie claims that recent archaelogical finds are what the movie is based on, but somehow I dont think any find could have been so conclusive as to allow Blow-It-Up-Bruckheimer to make that claim (or honestly that Hollywood would allow reality anyways, thats why we pay writers for scripts which are based on books).

Some minor spoilers below, in white in case you dont want to read them:

It is a definite split from what I consider normal Arthurian legend, Its far more more focused on Arthur than his knights, a few of them barely register as individual, I spent a few minutes after the movie explaining to a friend which knight was which. Instead of the concept of Quest, Comraderie/Brotherhood, or any kind of tie to the land, they are somewhere between mercenary and slave; fighting for their own personal freedom.
Merlin and Guenevere are huge departures from what you might expect, the Britons are about one step above the barbarian savages who are the "bad guys" of the film. One review I read called them "Dirty Elves", couldnt help but agree with that in part.
Although as far as the stuff Blanch mentioned, Arthur was actually meant to be only half roman (Or half Sarmatian rather, all of them were the descendents of a conquered warrior culture) and half Briton. The Kingdom concept is briefly touched upon, though not the focus of the movie at all.

Still, the scene from the trailer where they fight across the ice was pretty cool, and Keira Knightley is always fun to watch :D . There were parts of it Im sure were probably "wrong" from a historical viewpoint, but if you set that aside its probably worth the 15 bucks for two tickets.

[opwunder]

I am sure that when "Once and Future King" was written there was no thought of having King Arthur dancing around in a circle singing about "What do the simple folk do?" But that does make "Camelot" any the less entertaining. I enjoyed Troy for the movie it was not because of any accuracy on its part. I came out thinking that the screenwriters cracked open neither the Illiad nor a history book but it was fun to watch. I did think that they should have called the movie "Achilles" in stead of "Troy" though. :roll:

[Count Zero]

How come no one protested Michael Chricton's bastardization of Beowulf (aka Eaters of the Dead / The 13th Warrior)? Because it was good movie (as well as a good book), that's why! So, who cares if it's not the same as the epic poem? It's a great story.

Did anyone use the name Beowulf? Did Chrichton say "This is the TRUE story of Beowulf"? Nope. In fact, I was unaware that 13th Warrior was a take off on Beowulf until after I'd seen it. It wasn't pitched that way. It wasn't marketed that way. HUGE difference if you ask me.


I think it was because of how it was presented. If you read the opening to Eaters of the Dead, Chricton presents it as based off a discussion that he and a friend had about all legends being based in fact. And they were discussing Beowulf. The fact that there is some reference to a celtic king the might have inspired the Aurthurian legends, but like Mordraine said... 13th Warrior never claimed that it was the true story of Beowulf.

The problem with the Arthur movie is the fact that all the morons will beleive it is true. Right down to the hot celtic chick.

Jonathan

[Gotetsu]

The problem with the Arthur movie is the fact that all the morons will beleive it is true. Right down to the hot celtic chick.

And why are they morons? That's kinda harsh considering that no version of the story can be proven or disproven.

The version we all know and love (as presented in Excalibur) is based on a single book about it, L'Mort de Arthur (from what I have heard...so please prove that wrong if it is). Yet, based on the evidence, that version is historically impossible. The weapons, armor, and even the code of chivalry postdate by centuries the only probable time of any real "Arthur."

So, this version is historically just as plausible. I would say even moreso.

I'm looking very much forward to this movie.

[cczernia]

The problem with the Arthur movie is the fact that all the morons will beleive it is true. Right down to the hot celtic chick.

If there was any part I wish was true the hot celtic chick would be it :naughty:

[Count Zero]

[quote:dfc461b2ca="Count Zero"]The problem with the Arthur movie is the fact that all the morons will beleive it is true. Right down to the hot celtic chick.

If there was any part I wish was true the hot celtic chick would be it :naughty:[/quote:dfc461b2ca]

That is kind of more what I was referencing. I don't mind a fictional story about Arthur set up like Eaters of the Dead was but don't try to claim it is the "true story". Also, it is very Hollywood which makes me just roll my eyes... not only is the celtic chick hot, but she is in a nice roman era bikini which is oh so accurate.

If you like the movie, I'm not bashing you for it, but you and I both know that a large collection of idiots actually believe that if a movie claims it is true story then it must be.

If is a well told story then so be it, but I really expect it to be painfully Hollywood with the hot chick in the token semi/total nude scene (most likely bathing), the camera tracking the villian as he falls from a great height onto something painful/sharp, and if all goes as expected... a really big fucking explosion. :lol:

Later,

Jonathan

[Shin Kenshiro]

who'd have thought that the most era-accurate movie for legends in England would've been Robin Hood: Men in TIghts and Braveheart. Well, maybe not Braveheart, but damn did Mel try....

[Wintermute]

Just saw King Arthur. Arthur seemed miscast, some of the fight scenes were unintentionally funny, but on the whole worth the $4 I paid to see it.

Oh yeah, and Keira Knightly = TEH HOTNESS!

[Cthulhu]

Four dollars!?

Where'd you see it, 1982?

[Wintermute]

Four dollars!?

Where'd you see it, 1982?

Theatre over in Poway. There are actually a few around town that have $4 tuesdays.

[Neuro]

It was absolutely worth it just to see Keira Knightly. Oh yes it was.

There were bits of it I liked very much. There were bits of it that had me snickering up my sleeve. Tristian is my hero. That is all.