King Arthur

[epiphany]

http://kingarthur.movies.go.com/main.html

new king arthur movie this summer.

the trailer says its based on a real King Arthur. Is there such a guy?

[mtw]

There isn't really any evidance that he existed, but that doesn't mean the stories aren't based on someone real. I think the movie is just making stuff up based on the stories, and movies generally don't do a good job of showing what the middle ages were really like.

I suggest reading the Arthurian romances by Chretien. I've read two, and they were pretty good. It's the kind of entertainment they liked back then.

[Skank]

that looks pretty damn cool =)

[dfacto]

Is that sword on the main page supposed to be Excalibur? That looks pretty too crappy to be the legendary sword.

[F3nix]

keira knightley...

yum...

mmmmm...

[Happy Camper]

:D Looks Awesome. It's no LOTR but it still looks good.

[jrr]

ofcourse there's a real king arthur.... he taught science at my old highschool.

[PeggyChung]

ah looks like a good movie, my kind of stuff. hmmmm well they do have his gravestone but no body wasnt it?

[Erik]

Hmm.

Supposedly the movie is about a Roman general who defends the British lands against invaders after the Romans have gone. This is one theory about the origins of Arthur. The stories about the gravestone are made up by the monks of Glastonbury to get more pilgrims to their monastery and become wealthy. It worked. Most of the stories about arthur come from the book by Geoffrey of Monmouth around 1200 and they are very much interpreted fok stories adapted to the culture of noble knighthood in those days. The jousting, armour and the storiesof Excalibur may even be of later date still, coming from the Morte d' Arthur of sometime around 1450 by sir Thomas Whatshisname.

The sword in the trailer is definitelynot Roman though but looks like a crusade time weapon. Romans had shorter, broeader swords (gladius) that got longer in later periods (spatha) but not as long and narrow as you see here. They also had a very narrow guard.

Too many things in the trailer look like the predictable bullshit hollywood crap with no regard for history or culture: basically a couple of modern day homies and chicas are dressed up and they walk around as if they are still in L.A., look at the stupid dresses and the idiot way they handle the sword and the armour. Trust mr. Bruckenheimer to fuck up as usual. (sorry,when i looked the second time i just could not believe what i saw anymore)

Read more books!

[uno]

[i]

Too many things in the trailer look like the predictable bullshit hollywood crap with no regard for history or culture: basically a couple of modern day homies and chicas are dressed up and they walk around as if they are still in L.A., look at the stupid dresses and the idiot way they handle the sword and the armour. Trust mr. Bruckenheimer to fuck up as usual. (sorry,when i looked the second time i just could not believe what i saw anymore)

Read more books! [/B]

Why read more books when i can just watch the original King Arthur movie....FIRST KNIGHT!! Yeah!! The only true King Arthur is Sean Connery ...King Arthur shaken not stirred!!

What do you expect out of Hollywood? A documentary? They are just giving the people what they think they want. Excitement and good-looking broads!! This heavily laden with swords and romance. I mean you cant put Ben Afleck in a book!! .....or can you......?

[MGH]

Kinda looks silly.

[Erik]

The only book Bennie would be in is a crappy playboy novel

[Fipse]

If you´ve got a bit knowledge about the british history and the costumes you can see that this movie is - regarding historical correctness - BS. Sarmatians wore another kind of armour (the pseudoroman armour the heroes are wearing is btw about 400 years too old - the roman armies of about 400 were nearly indistinguishable from their "barbarian" counterparts). There are quite a lot faults I saw in a first glance but I haven´t got the nerve to count them.

Can be a good entertaining movie anyway (just like Costners Robin Hood, far away from hitory but funny) - at least the girl in warpaint is an eye-catcher :D.

Fipse

[mcotie]

wow.

according to my extensive studying hobbies. Arthur was a Celtic lengend that existed waaay before the Romans or Christians got the hooks of their propaganda and promotional schemes on it. I guess Bruckheimer is no exception.

It looks like it'll have some cool battle scenes in it though. I'll most likely go see it.

Mitch

[Jaku]

lot of celtic feel to it.
it reminded me that the film i want to see is the one about slaine....

but anyway


keira knightley...

yum...

mmmmm...

[cybercyst]

dude, that looks freakin' cool...from what I've read, they have a few bits and pieces of evidence pointing to Arthur's existence (including what they think may be Camelot, but it's barely a castle buried in a mountain)...wasn't Arthur really a Celtic general named Uther who defended his home against the Brits or something? And hey, is Keira Knightley's Guinevere supposed to be Boudiccea, because she looks very Celtic/tribal-like. Thanks for bringing my attention to this film; I love the lore/legend of Arthur & Merlin, and this looks really interesting.:)

[jester]

I wrote my M.A. thesis on the Arthurian Legend in Fantasy (comparing the books of T.H. White [The Once and Future King], Marion Zimmer Bradley [The Mists of Avalon] and a trilogy by Vera Chapman with regard to their use of motifs etc.). Since I had also studied Archaeology and Prehistory, I did some research on the "Historian" Arthur, too. For those of you knowing enough German and are interested, it can be downloaded from http://www.jester.de/artusindex.html It is more than 10 years old by now, but the bibliography should still give you good starting points for personal research.

Jester

[Hanuka]

Originally posted by F3nix
keira knightley...

yum...

mmmmm...

word O_O

nothing more to say about that XD I've seen scenes from that movie some months ago with her fighting... cool stuff. Ill certainly watch it ;)

[cybercyst]

Yeah, 'Once and Future King' is a great book...I read it when I was a kid and still remember it as being a very thorough book, though I don't know if it's historically accurate. A friend of mine said that the legend of King Arthur comes from France, but then the Brits stole it and claimed the legend as theirs. Anyone know if this is true?