King Arthur - Hollywood Style

[Morgoth]

Just a warning - this movie sucks with a capital 'S'. Man, talk about pure Hollywood BS, this movie reeks like an entire manuere factory. They may as well have called this thing 'King Bandini'.

OK, for starters, this is supposed to be a historical take on what might have been the basis for the Arthurian legends. So, while we still have Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin etc, they aren't the characters we remember. Arthur is a garrison commander at Hadrian's Wall, a half Roman Briton who commands an order of Sarmatian knights during the waning days of Roman rule in Britain. Merlin, by contrast is the leader of the steadfastly savage, pagan Woads (but we'll call 'em Picts, cause they are obviously more based on Bran Mak Morn and Robert E Howard's Picts than anything else) - no magical powers, though he does appear to be a druid priest and seemingly has both political and spiritual power over his people (he's really not in it enough to get much character depth, but, then neither is anybody else - banter is not character development). Of course, the Woads are incapable of leading themselves - despite apparently running the Romans ragged and forcing the construction of Hadrain's Wall, so they require Arthur to lead them in battle against the latest foreigners to invade Britain - the Saxons, Germanic barbarians from, well, Germany. Oh, did I mention the Saxons all use crossbows, devices that were decidedly uncommon in 500 AD?

My God! Where to begin? OK, lets sidestep the fact that Christianity is slammed repeatedly and gratuitously throughout the film, while paganism seems to be appalauded (at least they avoid mentioning such charming practices as wicker men and druids watering their sacred groves with human blood). The real kicker is the fact that nobody attached to this film seems to have even the slightest idea of how battles were fought in 'days of yore'. The Saxons mount an assault on Hadrian's Wall that seems to consist solely of standing around waiting for somebody to open the gates for them! Crom's Blood, even the orcs in Return of the King knew that you need siege towers, catapults and battering rams to get through a fortification! And so did real soldiers since the first Babalonian decided to pile a bunch of stones into a castle. But, no, these guys just kinda stand there staring at the wall, not even bothering to knock down a few trees and get some scaling ladders ready. On the other end, we have Arthur, who has six knights. Yes, six knights. Against 1,000 Saxon barbarians. Smell the BS yet? Oh, wait, even though the Romans are in full retreat, he has hundreds of heroic pagan Woads with their blue body paint and leather loin cloths, replete with Guenevire reinvented as a Xena-type bimbo. These guys have longbows, something that could come in very handy. I mean, much better range than those crossbows the Saxons have somehow managed to get hundreds of. Just put a bunch of your archers up on the walls and let them start picking off the Saxons while they stand out in the open trying to figure out how to get over the wall without ladders. Maximum efficiency, minimum risk. So, Arthur, being this military genius, of course instead decides to open the gates and let the Saxons in so they can be fought in close quarters melee combat! I don't care how many haystack smokescreens you set, this is an act of criminal idiocy that makes George Armstrong Custer look like Rommel! Did I mention there are only six knights yet? Yeah, that's gonna do a whole lot, especially when they are using swords and axes, not proper cavalry spears or lances, the weapons that give cavalry charges their devastating impact. Oh, and Arthur even uses his sword in a stabbing fashion rather than a slashing manner. While riding, galloping past in fact. Sorry, in reality that sword you just stabbed into your victim becomes lodged in the corpse and ripped from your hand as you continue to ride past. Oh, and those half-crazed pagan Picts are able to build trebuchets. Which of course they use to hurl something similar to Greek naphta at the Saxons (once they are on the near side of Hadrian's Wall of course). Yeah, guys that don't seem able to stitch cloth are able to build very sophisticated engines like trebuchets. For those who don't know, a trebuchet is similar to a catapult in the way a bow is similar to a gun. A catapult is a simple device based on the tension of its firing arm. A trebuchet is worked by a system of counterbalances. We'll not get into the fact that even today we don't know exactly how to reproduce Greek fire. I'm sure a pack of savages in ancient Britain would have a much greater knowledge of the Greeks than we do today.

This movie sucked. Damn did it suck. Anybody who derived even an instant of pleasure from watching this crap obviously has no idea of, not simply history or military tactics, but old fashioned common sense.

And, just to keep things fair, here's another slam against primitive, knuckle-dragging, idol-kissing pagan barbarian vermin - because as we all know, ripping open the belly of a slave so that you can examine the way his entrails spill out and thereby read some omen from Odin or whichever heathen demon-lord whose *** your shaman is currently kissng is ever so much more civilized and kindly than anything taught by the Christ. Sorry, but I needed to try and even the score a little bit.

[Baryonyx13]

Wow, that is quite the scathing review. I'll be sure not to watch it and warn anybody who tries to.

[Kaiser Kronos]

Just a warning - this movie sucks with a capital 'S'. Man, talk about pure Hollywood BS, this movie reeks like an entire manuere factory. They may as well have called this thing 'King Bandini'.

OK, for starters, this is supposed to be a historical take on what might have been the basis for the Arthurian legends. So, while we still have Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin etc, they aren't the characters we remember. Arthur is a garrison commander at Hadrian's Wall, a half Roman Briton who commands an order of Sarmatian knights during the waning days of Roman rule in Britain. Merlin, by contrast is the leader of the steadfastly savage, pagan Woads (but we'll call 'em Picts, cause they are obviously more based on Bran Mak Morn and Robert E Howard's Picts than anything else) - no magical powers, though he does appear to be a druid priest and seemingly has both political and spiritual power over his people (he's really not in it enough to get much character depth, but, then neither is anybody else - banter is not character development). Of course, the Woads are incapable of leading themselves - despite apparently running the Romans ragged and forcing the construction of Hadrain's Wall, so they require Arthur to lead them in battle against the latest foreigners to invade Britain - the Saxons, Germanic barbarians from, well, Germany. Oh, did I mention the Saxons all use crossbows, devices that were decidedly uncommon in 500 AD?

My God! Where to begin? OK, lets sidestep the fact that Christianity is slammed repeatedly and gratuitously throughout the film, while paganism seems to be appalauded (at least they avoid mentioning such charming practices as wicker men and druids watering their sacred groves with human blood). The real kicker is the fact that nobody attached to this film seems to have even the slightest idea of how battles were fought in 'days of yore'. The Saxons mount an assault on Hadrian's Wall that seems to consist solely of standing around waiting for somebody to open the gates for them! Crom's Blood, even the orcs in Return of the King knew that you need siege towers, catapults and battering rams to get through a fortification! And so did real soldiers since the first Babalonian decided to pile a bunch of stones into a castle. But, no, these guys just kinda stand there staring at the wall, not even bothering to knock down a few trees and get some scaling ladders ready. On the other end, we have Arthur, who has six knights. Yes, six knights. Against 1,000 Saxon barbarians. Smell the BS yet? Oh, wait, even though the Romans are in full retreat, he has hundreds of heroic pagan Woads with their blue body paint and leather loin cloths, replete with Guenevire reinvented as a Xena-type bimbo. These guys have longbows, something that could come in very handy. I mean, much better range than those crossbows the Saxons have somehow managed to get hundreds of. Just put a bunch of your archers up on the walls and let them start picking off the Saxons while they stand out in the open trying to figure out how to get over the wall without ladders. Maximum efficiency, minimum risk. So, Arthur, being this military genius, of course instead decides to open the gates and let the Saxons in so they can be fought in close quarters melee combat! I don't care how many haystack smokescreens you set, this is an act of criminal idiocy that makes George Armstrong Custer look like Rommel! Did I mention there are only six knights yet? Yeah, that's gonna do a whole lot, especially when they are using swords and axes, not proper cavalry spears or lances, the weapons that give cavalry charges their devastating impact. Oh, and Arthur even uses his sword in a stabbing fashion rather than a slashing manner. While riding, galloping past in fact. Sorry, in reality that sword you just stabbed into your victim becomes lodged in the corpse and ripped from your hand as you continue to ride past. Oh, and those half-crazed pagan Picts are able to build trebuchets. Which of course they use to hurl something similar to Greek naphta at the Saxons (once they are on the near side of Hadrian's Wall of course). Yeah, guys that don't seem able to stitch cloth are able to build very sophisticated engines like trebuchets. For those who don't know, a trebuchet is similar to a catapult in the way a bow is similar to a gun. A catapult is a simple device based on the tension of its firing arm. A trebuchet is worked by a system of counterbalances. We'll not get into the fact that even today we don't know exactly how to reproduce Greek fire. I'm sure a pack of savages in ancient Britain would have a much greater knowledge of the Greeks than we do today.

This movie sucked. Damn did it suck. Anybody who derived even an instant of pleasure from watching this crap obviously has no idea of, not simply history or military tactics, but old fashioned common sense.

And, just to keep things fair, here's another slam against primitive, knuckle-dragging, idol-kissing pagan barbarian vermin - because as we all know, ripping open the belly of a slave so that you can examine the way his entrails spill out and thereby read some omen from Odin or whichever heathen demon-lord whose *** your shaman is currently kissng is ever so much more civilized and kindly than anything taught by the Christ. Sorry, but I needed to try and even the score a little bit.
Typical Helly-I mean Hollywood crap, eh? :p

[Neo-Crucifer]

It seems that we've got a new Hollywood crapfest on our hands. :dozing:

[Dark Warrior]

You know,the first time I saw the trailer for this I thought it would be crap...thought it would be even crapper when for a split second I saw a knight pull out double swords.

...Seems my feelings towards this where true.

[MechaV]

This about 'sums up my opinion of the movie;
http://www.theaterhopper.com/index.php?strip_id=298

[Bagoth]

Sigh I just knew that they wouldn't give Merlin, magical powers I just knew it.

[Saruman]

Just a warning - this movie sucks with a capital 'S'. Man, talk about pure Hollywood BS, this movie reeks like an entire manuere factory. They may as well have called this thing 'King Bandini'.

OK, for starters, this is supposed to be a historical take on what might have been the basis for the Arthurian legends. So, while we still have Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin etc, they aren't the characters we remember. Arthur is a garrison commander at Hadrian's Wall, a half Roman Briton who commands an order of Sarmatian knights during the waning days of Roman rule in Britain. Merlin, by contrast is the leader of the steadfastly savage, pagan Woads (but we'll call 'em Picts, cause they are obviously more based on Bran Mak Morn and Robert E Howard's Picts than anything else) - no magical powers, though he does appear to be a druid priest and seemingly has both political and spiritual power over his people (he's really not in it enough to get much character depth, but, then neither is anybody else - banter is not character development). Of course, the Woads are incapable of leading themselves - despite apparently running the Romans ragged and forcing the construction of Hadrain's Wall, so they require Arthur to lead them in battle against the latest foreigners to invade Britain - the Saxons, Germanic barbarians from, well, Germany. Oh, did I mention the Saxons all use crossbows, devices that were decidedly uncommon in 500 AD?

My God! Where to begin? OK, lets sidestep the fact that Christianity is slammed repeatedly and gratuitously throughout the film, while paganism seems to be appalauded (at least they avoid mentioning such charming practices as wicker men and druids watering their sacred groves with human blood). The real kicker is the fact that nobody attached to this film seems to have even the slightest idea of how battles were fought in 'days of yore'. The Saxons mount an assault on Hadrian's Wall that seems to consist solely of standing around waiting for somebody to open the gates for them! Crom's Blood, even the orcs in Return of the King knew that you need siege towers, catapults and battering rams to get through a fortification! And so did real soldiers since the first Babalonian decided to pile a bunch of stones into a castle. But, no, these guys just kinda stand there staring at the wall, not even bothering to knock down a few trees and get some scaling ladders ready. On the other end, we have Arthur, who has six knights. Yes, six knights. Against 1,000 Saxon barbarians. Smell the BS yet? Oh, wait, even though the Romans are in full retreat, he has hundreds of heroic pagan Woads with their blue body paint and leather loin cloths, replete with Guenevire reinvented as a Xena-type bimbo. These guys have longbows, something that could come in very handy. I mean, much better range than those crossbows the Saxons have somehow managed to get hundreds of. Just put a bunch of your archers up on the walls and let them start picking off the Saxons while they stand out in the open trying to figure out how to get over the wall without ladders. Maximum efficiency, minimum risk. So, Arthur, being this military genius, of course instead decides to open the gates and let the Saxons in so they can be fought in close quarters melee combat! I don't care how many haystack smokescreens you set, this is an act of criminal idiocy that makes George Armstrong Custer look like Rommel! Did I mention there are only six knights yet? Yeah, that's gonna do a whole lot, especially when they are using swords and axes, not proper cavalry spears or lances, the weapons that give cavalry charges their devastating impact. Oh, and Arthur even uses his sword in a stabbing fashion rather than a slashing manner. While riding, galloping past in fact. Sorry, in reality that sword you just stabbed into your victim becomes lodged in the corpse and ripped from your hand as you continue to ride past. Oh, and those half-crazed pagan Picts are able to build trebuchets. Which of course they use to hurl something similar to Greek naphta at the Saxons (once they are on the near side of Hadrian's Wall of course). Yeah, guys that don't seem able to stitch cloth are able to build very sophisticated engines like trebuchets. For those who don't know, a trebuchet is similar to a catapult in the way a bow is similar to a gun. A catapult is a simple device based on the tension of its firing arm. A trebuchet is worked by a system of counterbalances. We'll not get into the fact that even today we don't know exactly how to reproduce Greek fire. I'm sure a pack of savages in ancient Britain would have a much greater knowledge of the Greeks than we do today.

This movie sucked. Damn did it suck. Anybody who derived even an instant of pleasure from watching this crap obviously has no idea of, not simply history or military tactics, but old fashioned common sense.

And, just to keep things fair, here's another slam against primitive, knuckle-dragging, idol-kissing pagan barbarian vermin - because as we all know, ripping open the belly of a slave so that you can examine the way his entrails spill out and thereby read some omen from Odin or whichever heathen demon-lord whose *** your shaman is currently kissng is ever so much more civilized and kindly than anything taught by the Christ. Sorry, but I needed to try and even the score a little bit.
Of course you know that I will now be forced to see this move and absolutely love it just to mess with you Clint. ;)

[Tokyo VigilanteX]

I was a little iffy with this movie when I saw the trailer.But Clint helped to clear up that doubt.And saved me about 3 bucks.

Thanks!(I belive I owe you this 3 bucks now.But oh well)

[Zigra]

(at least they avoid mentioning such charming practices as wicker men and druids watering their sacred groves with human blood).


"incidentally, this annual mock sacrifice of a large wicker-work figure (representing the vegetation spirit) may have been the origin of the misconception that Druids made human sacrifices. This charge was first made by Julius Caesar (who may not have had the most unbiased of motives), and has been re-stated many times since. However, as has often been pointed out, the only historians besides Caesar who make this accusation are those who have read Caesar. And in fact, upon reading Caesar's 'Gallic Wars' closely, one discovers that Caesar never claims to have actually witnessed such a sacrifice. Nor does he claim to have talked to anyone else who did. In fact, there is not one single eyewitness account of a human sacrifice performed by Druids in all of history! Nor is there any archeological evidence to support the charge. If, for example, human sacrifices had been performed at the same ritual sites year after year, there would be physical traces. Yet there is not a scrap. "
Harvest Home
by Mike Nichols

Sorry, Clint, had to add that.

But, yeah, this movie is obviously a piece of junk. A historical take on the Arthurian legend? C'mon! What's next? A historical take on the myth of Heracles where he's not really a demigod? And, don't even get me started on how they turned Guinivere into some pseudo-Xena warrior woman.

[Cole Deschain]

More to the point, Clint, it's not Christianity that gets slammed. It's the organized, priestly approach to it, and the abuses thereof (I looooooooove the proto-Inquisition they have going on) that gets hacked to pieces.

Pull in your theological fangs a bit, fearless leader. All organized faiths have their bloody events in history. Most of Christianity's regrettable excesses are not excused by their circumstances, and I fail to see how a druid who strangles a victim and pitches him into a bog is any worse than, say, Torquemada.

[Morgoth]

Hey, the end of the Inquisition took all of the fun out of organized religion. Certainly quashed any chance of me becoming a priest, I'll tell you that much.

And I disagree Zigra. This 'kinder gentler' druids crap is nothing more than revisionist history at its more despicable, rather like the 'noble savage' crap that is brandied about white-washing the fact that during the Indian Wars, the Indians had their fair share of atrocities right alongside the cavalry. The reason that no later historians were able to witness Gallic druids performing human sacrifices is because Caesar had the *******s exterminated. And ashes are pretty damn hard to examine two thousand years later. As for British druids, there is evidence that sacrifices were conducted at many stone circles like Stonehenge. And the film came across as anti-Christian, not simply anti-Church. Yeah, there have been alot of nasty, ugly things done by the Church, but are they really needed as window dressing to something that is supposed to be about King Arthur?

Here is a good historical accounting of Druids and human sacrifice, as supported by Roman and Greek histories, Celtic mythology and physical evidence: http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/faqs/sacrific.html

Most sites out there are either religious fear-mongering, such as Chic, or else the other side of the coin, people trying to white-wash ancient pagans. The site above is more rooted in reality than either of the other positions.

[Zigra]

I think Cole's point is that any atrocities that may have been committed by pagan cultures like the Celts or Saxons is no better or worse than the atrocities that have been committed by the Church over the centuries.

As for Caesar's claims, I'm not sure why you put much stock in them, seeing how Caesar is one of those "heathen demon lord ***-kissers" you speak so fondly of, and also seeing how there is virtually nothing to back up his claims. For one thing, if the druids butchered people on the grand scale that Caesar claimed, there would be a hell of a lot more evidence for it. Fire doesn't usually reduce skeletons to ash, so more remains should've been found if Caesar's claims were true. Also, it is a matter of record that the Romans often told lies about people they subjegated (i.e., they claimed that Christians worshiped a donkey-headed god and often sacrificed children to it).

But anyway, getting back to the subject at hand, I do happen to agree with you on the movie's portrayal of Christianity. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a movie about Arthur, a Christian king, and use it to bash Christianity.

Edit: Thanks for the link, Clint, I'll check it out.

[Zigra]

Yes, that information is very insightful (thanks again for the link). But still, it only goes to show that the Romans, at best, were exaggerating the atrocities committed by the Celts, if not outright lying (the report all-but prooves that Starbo's claims were false, seeing how there isn't a shred of archeological evidence that the Celts had bows and arrows).

[SuperXAsh]

Ah yesh... King Arthur.

First things first, it was a pretty poor movie. Not an extremely BAD movie... just... poor. It's like the recent Troy movie, movie revision of great stories. But compared to Troy and it's huge revisioning of the entire storyline... King Arthur is a bit better than it's fellow revisioned history/story epic.

Yes, I too felt a major anti-christianity vibe going through it... while it tries to make pagans and other forms of "noble savage" religions look like the right way to go. Sacrificing Virgins when the crops are low is apparently alot better than praying to a dead guy on a cross. 9_9 But what do I know? i'm a republican :P.

I just went into the theater (trust me... that day KA was the only appealing thing playing at that moment) knowing that this would not be the King Arthur I've read about and know each event in the story's chronology almost by heart. I mean... a sword-swinging, bad-*** barbarian ***** Guenevere? You know that this is NOT going to be a King Arthur story if it has THAT.

So I just went in knowing that it's not going to even remotely live up to it's mythological roots, and be more like Troy. I still left feeling a tad bit ripped off... but not ranting and raving about it. My friend and I spent quite a bit of time discussing some of the hilarities behind some of the movie's premises.

Yeah... I too found it a bit suspect that these primitive savages had such amazing technology as well.

Arthur and his knights were likeable characters, nothing really wrong with them, least I had no beef with them in this picture. Same with the Saxon leader, he was perhaps the coolest character in this movie (next to the dude with the Hawk).

But my biggest beef with this movie has got to be:

A) Guenevere. I guess having her be some defenseless queen character or some damsel in distress type of archetype just didn't appeal to the directors. Well it should've in this case, cause they really really really stretch disbelief with their take on Guenevere. She's all sagely talking to Arthur, in a strange Merlin type way... which most of them SHOULD have been Merlin's lines btw if you ask me... and she's dressed in light revealing clothing... IN THE COLD FRIKKIN' SNOW!!! I don't care how "Briton" you are... EVEN ESKIMOS WEAR FUR CLOTHING and they've been in their cold environments much longer than any noble savages prancing around in early Britain... cause it's COLD when it SNOWS!!!! Put on a heavy fur cloak or something...

Just the fact that she's given any kind of status in a savage society is proof of Hollywood lunacy. Women in early or savage tribes only had TWO jobs... cook and raise the kids. the hunting and the war-making was strictly for the men in the tribe. But not in this movie, not in the "factual" King Arthur world. Hell, here all sorts of women can be seen amongst the tribe of savage smelly but yet technologically advanced and wise Britons.

B) Merlin. Merlin in this movie gets the shaft. Majorly. He's shown as this sort of leader or wiseman of the Briton tribe, but is given absolutely NOTHING to do through out this entire picture. Cept at the end, but even that's not much. Here's a character that is an integral part of who Arthur IS... a major character in the stories. He should have been given more to do through out this movie, besides sit on his fur clothed ***, spouting about what to do about the oncoming Saxon threat. He's wearing this fur-diaper thing... and he's later seen walking through the snow as well. What the sam-f*** is wrong with the director of this picture and his knowledge of cold weather and winter?

Oh and don't be fooled by the small scene he is given in the trailor, amidst what originally looked to be "fire-rain", that's only the projectiles of the catapult-things these primitive yet technologically advanced savages. He's also just standing there as the others do the work for him... yeah the trailor makes it look like he's some major fighter type or a threat... but no... he's not.
--------

What is wrong with Hollywood nowadays and these "factual revisions" of classic stories? What's wrong the original texts? What's wrong with keeping these stories true to the material? Some of these stories are pratically begging to be given a more modern and respectful movie. But apparently that idea, to make a true "King Arthur" or "Troy" movie based entirely on the story itself... is a bad one.

Why would it have been "wrong" to show the greek gods having a major hand and participating in the Trojan War? Why would it have been "wrong" to have Brad Pitt die before the storming of Troy? Why would it have been "wrong" to kill Helen and Paris? What's wrong with the original story in question? Why not go with a fantasy story?

Why would it have been "wrong" to have Merlin be a magic-using wizard? Why would it have been "wrong" to have Guenevere stay at the castle during the battles? Why would it have been "wrong" to give Arthur the TRUE Excalibur? Why give Lancelot two swords? Where's Camelot?

I mean... try to, I know I've tried, understand the reasoning behind these decisions. Is it because "Everyone Knows About Arthur's Story"? The LotR trilogy was heavily based on and almost scene for scene true to the literature it was based on. Lotsa people knew what was going to happen to about 95.5% of the characters involved and most of those scenes played out as planned, (some were changed a bit, but never really detracted from the experience), and the LotR trilogy is now considered one of the best epic movie stories to ever grace the silver screen. "People liked it" is putting it lightly. They didn't change Aragorn's character, they didn't change really anyone's character, cept maybe a few minor changes here and there to some of them, but not enough to truelly blow the entire movie for anyone.

All it really takes, in my mind, is a very respectful, competant, and true translation from the book to a movie. All you gotta do is give the people what they really want in a movie or expect... at times. Specially when it's based off such an influencial story such as King Arthur and his knights.

Course then most would say, "But the story of King Arthur and his knights has been done to death with countless movie versions". Yeah that's true... but most of them SUCK, and even those that ARE the best of the bunch still don't quite seem to grasp the concepts in some areas of the original texts.

Maybe one day... an autobo... i mean a director will rise from our ranks... and unleash the power of the true "movie translation" of some of these stories. Keep it true to the material, keep character plots intact, and finally show how to make a real movie based off of a classic storyline.

Till all are one... I mean... till that day comes.

:kinggoji: :gamera: :kingkong:

[Zigra]

Why would it have been "wrong" to kill Helen and Paris?

Uh, just a small note. In the original Illiad, I don't think Helen died. I believe she was taken back to Greece after Troy's fall.

[SuperXAsh]

Are you out for my blood this morning Zigra?

So I made a blooper about the illiad... I don't know it as much as I do the Odyssey... ok? Get off my back Zigra.

:kinggoji: :gamera: :kingkong:

[Zigra]

Eh, I should've have put a smiley face or something at the end of my sentence.

[Melkor]

I absolutely agree with Clint here. The moment I saw the God-awful trailer and the horrendous poster, I knew this was going to be a tremendous waste of time. Bottom line, if you're looking for a good historical movie to watch, then don't see 'King Arthur'. It's just another one of those trying-hard flicks that end up as formulaic as ever. Oh, and did I mention they totally distorted the King Arthur legend as well? And as for the incessant bashing of Christianity, haven't we seen that in, oh say, almost all major Hollywood productions? Though this one gets my particular ire-- as Clint already mentioned, pagans are glorified [ whitewashing the fact that some did perform human sacrifices ] while Christianity is bashed gratuitously throughout the film. I will say no more of this matter, since it might only develop into a religious war. Though that does not change the fact that I piss on this one-sided and diabolical portrayal of my religion. And yes, the Xena slash Guinevere thing is annoying. Stupid, an insult to intelligence and just plain brain-killing. All in all, this movie SUCKED big time.



Peace,



Melkor



:darklord:

[Morgoth]

The only thing I can think of is that Guene-xena was supposed to be a surrogate for Queen Bodicia, an enemy of Rome during its hey-day who did lead her barbarian armies into battle. But it should also be noted that women like Bodicia were very much the exception rather than the rule.

[SuperXAsh]

Yeah the more I think about it... the more I would've liked it if they had taken out the "Barbarian B**** Barbie" Guenevere, and given Merlin more things to do than just sit around on his ***, spouting all philosophical about how he needs to get Arthur to join his cause.

Better yet... they should've made a real KING ARTHUR movie!!! You know... based on the story? I know... wishful thinking. 6_6

Hey Clint... a better title for this topic would've been "King Arthur- Catwoman style", if you get my meaning. :sly:

:kinggoji: :gamera: :kingkong:

[Morgoth]

Yeah, that would have been a better title. Or at least more fitting.

[Father Estaban Cortez]

I was really excited about this movie when I first heard of an ARTHUR movie, WOOT. Alas ive heared that its just one big ***** storm.

[Metal Zombie]

Thank God I went and saw Anchorman instead of this movie, we even bought tickets and everything, but then at the last minute exchanged them because everyone else in our group was seeing Anchorman...I think that really was an act of God to save me from getting kicked out of the theater for yelling obscenities. Even though I did rant outside when I saw a Thunderbirds poster...

[Goji Son]

All I have to say is that if you went into this film expecting a historically accurate film created by Antone "Better be kissing Denzel's *** for a career" Fuqua and Jerry "I produced PEARL HARBOR for Christ sake" Bruckheimer then you know nothing about the BS Hollywood process. Thank you, good night.

[Morgoth]

Not historically accurate, but at least realistic enough that it didn't come across as a complete insult to anyone with a brain and perhaps even a speck of understanding that if you have a wall you DO NOT let the enemy just waltz right through it.

[Goji Son]

So CL did you miss Pearl Harbor at the theater?

[Morgoth]

Damn straight. I have never seen that idiocy and I never will. Transforming one of the most cataclysmic events in US history into a bloated love story is not my idea of how to spend 3 1/2 hours.

[Zigra]

Anyone else remember Excalibur (1981)? By far the best version, in my opinion.

Yeah, it wasn't bad, but is that the best Hollywood can do with the Arthurian legend? For one thing, is it too much to ask to have a King Arthur movie where Morgan Le Fey actually survives like she did in the actual legend?

[SandwormPhish]

IIRC wasn't Lancelot something the French came up with?

[Burkion]

Yes folks, Author has been given YET ANOTHER movie about him. Cept, this is based of the REAL Author, so no dragons or such. Dose this make him any less of a legend? Hell ****ing no! The Excalibur is still the best sword around, (Broke sheilds in two, three peices, and just plainly ROCKED!) Author is still the best Knight around, and he just plainly rocks.

If you want to see a two something hour long action movie that's just plain cool, come on down.

[Darth Reaper]

First, this isn't neccessarily the 'real' King Arthur. As I recall, the makers of the movie were playing with the idea of where the story of King Arthur might have come from. They were imagining what the reality behind the fantasy might have been like. It's still a work of fiction, just a more down-to-Earth kind of fiction.

Admittedly, I haven't seen KING ARTHUR yet, perhaps I should. However, I have heard and read a thing or two about it, so I'm not completely ignorant.

Second, I honestly find this apparent semi-trend (if not a full trend) of demystifying everything a bit annoying sometimes. Vampires and Werewolves are no longer supernatural creatures, they're the products of a virus. Dragons aren't mystical creatures. Excaliber isn't a mystical sword anymore, it's just a simbol. Merlin's not a wizard. Part of me finds some of these ideas to be quite interesting, but another part of me feels like removing the magic from these things somehow sucks the life out of them. It's just not as much fun when there's no magic involved. So, I guess you could say that I have a love/hate relationship with the idea of demystifying things.

Who's with me?