King Arthur
 

I was at the movies this past Saturday night and I saw a movie poster that interested me. It was a King Arthur movie poster. So when I got home I decided to do a search on the internet and I found the official site with a trailer.

Here is the link to the trailer
http://kingarthur.movies.go.com/enhanced.html

Here is the link to the site
http://kingarthur.movies.go.com/main.html

The site doesn't have much right now but the trailer looked friggen sweet. Apparently its about the real Arthur who was a Roman general during Rome's occupation of Britain. I remember doing a research paper a while back about the Arthurian legend and Arthur being a Roman general was the most common theory of what the real Arthur was.
The movies is supposed to come out some time this summer.

I watched the trailer, and it looked pretty entertaining. My only critique on it was: historians have been analyzing and re-analyzing the Arthurian legend for 200 years, and they still aren't sure who he is, exactly. But Jerry Bruckheimer does?

Still, it looks like a good time, and I caught a flash of a boy pulling the sword out of the stone (my favorite part of the legend).

Can anyone say Lord of the Rings? I mean cmon, the trailer even had the main character talking about riding into battle, just like the ROTK trailer.

I can't wait for this movie, Excalibur is fun to watch, but this should be fantastic! I don't think there is a *real* king arthur? Read the Davinci Code tho, they talk about the search for the holy grail, and where and what it might be...

The trailer looks excellent. It will be very cool if they show Merlin as a spy master.

It looks like it will be an entertaining movie, but I saw lots of holes in its claimed "historical accuracy." First, *no one*, least of all Jerry Bruckheimer knows the truth about the legend. Second, the generally accepted time period of the legend, and the time period that historians think was when any truth to the story occured, is before 1000AD. There were no huge castles, longbows, large siege weapons, or anything else shown in the trailers at this point. Castles were made of wood and placed on a hill. It was more of a cabin with a fence around it. The trailer was *chock* full of historical fallacies.

That said, it should be entertaining at the least.

I agree. It seems like whenever one movie makes a lot of money, several similar movies are sure to follow.

For a huge fan of anything Arthurian like myself, it looks like it will be a highly entertaining film. While I'm sure there are going to be huge historical inaccuracies, it's definently a first, and an exciting one that, they are moving away from the fantasical aspects of the Arthurian legends and into the shreds of historical truth that we do have. Not that I don't love the fantastical elements of the story, but it will give some people new perspectives who have never come across the 'historical' Arrthur before.

Yeah... that seems like a nobrainer to me. Why wouldn't they try to follow suit? Of course Jerry Bruckheimer has been making successful movies since before LOTR, so you might be assuming too much anyway.

Regardless, this is the first I've heard of this movie, and it looks like one I'll really enjoy. I've always liked to story of King Arthur, especially when I was younger. I haven't been interested enough to research any truths to the story, but this film should be entertaining. It will be fun to see the historians bitching after the film is released too.

Re: King Arthur
 

The "real" Arthur was no such thing.

If anything, he was a Briton, and not a Roman.

This movie will be as historically accurate as U-571.


Mr Mephisto

How about the fact that Arthur has been done to death. A cursory search of IMdB for the character "King Arthur" turns up 57 results.

*schoolyard oooooooh*

That made me laugh, thank you, and I agree

The Arthurian legends are just that.. Legends.. Knights getting thier heads cut off, half mage half demons, women who could turn pretty at night (or the day), and wattery tarts flinging scimitars..

However, the movie looks good, and the Arthurian legends do offer alot of movie fodder..

No one will play Arthur better then Connery though

Gladiator made alot of money and won an Oscar
So did Lord of the Rings.
I know, lets have people dressed as Roman soldiers fight with swords and catapults in a lush green setting!

it looks like a movie I'll still go and pay money to watch, though.

With Excalibur as one of my all time favorite movies, added to the fact that I've crawled around half of the castles in Britain, means I'll be seeing this despite any historical issues. :)

On a side note - Batman976: Best... Avatar... Ever.

Considering that "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White is my favorite book, and having always been a fan of the Aurther legend, I definately want to see this movie. It looks to be highly entertaining.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

ugh... I just watched this movie... thank god it was a screener and I didn't pay $10.25x2 to see it with the wife.

I thought it was horrible. Take away ALL the references to the Arthur legends and maybe it was a decent movie, but still it was very bad. It was so bad that it made me look up historical facts to double check them.

the people behind me liked it, but then again, they had some questionable discussions behind us.

This looks like a very interesting movie. Don't plan on seeing it in theatres though. Would probably be a movie that was rented or bought on DVD. I use to watch the cartoon series a long time ago and really enjoyed them. So I would be definately interested in at least watching this movie once.

This movie is getting preaty bad reviews. Considering how many good movies are out right now this is a rental if anything.

I just watched this...it was alright in my opinion. Arthur's outfit looks wicked. Can't say much for Guenevere (sp?) war outfit....looks like it's underbudget or something.

i thought this movie had tremendous potential... but unfortunately, the only thing greater was it's tremendous failure.

character development -- shit
historical accuracy -- they might as well been fighting with laser guns and riding elephants. this went far beyond "poetic licensing"... they took famous names and fabricated everything else.
acting -- horrible
epic battle sequences -- lame
special effects -- impressive... if it were currently 1980
keira knightley -- nothing that will give you wet dreams... go watch POTC again.
ending -- (spoiler i guess, but not really) gathering of heroes inside stonehenge... which is on a cliff by the ocean? WTF??

I think everyone's getting tired of the digital soldier. I mean, LOTR did it, and did it well, but when Troy did it, that was just the end of the road. It's like beating a dead horse now, because lesser franchises and lower production value movies are going to try to duplicate the effects of Massive and fail miserably.

I'd watch it just for Keira Knightly

that's what i thought, too... "even if the movie does suck, keira's in it, so that will be worth it." however, she's VERY pale in the movie and her costumes aren't flattering at all. so like i said before... go watch pirates of the caribbean.

I like sailor lots and lots right now. :icare:

However, there is an interesting series of novels on this subject, how and why a system of government such as Camelot had, and a character as Arthur might have arisen in the aftermath of the roman evacuation of Britain in the early 5th century.

It's called The Camulod Chronicles, by Jack Whyte. Historically interesting, even if the writing and storylines tend to become boring and repetitious.

Either way, i still want to see this.

Went and saw this last night with a friend who's a historian, and while we were both laughing due to the glaring historical errors, the movie was entertaining. Nothing to stick in the mind forever, but hey, it made a thursday night go by a little faster.

I think, as Jon Stewert put it last night, "King Arthur is a big cauldron of bubbling liquid shit"

Agreed. If anyone is going to go see this movie, disregard anything you've heard about Arthurian legends in the past, and go for the 'entertainment' value. It was entertaining, but I was expecting it to be much like the stories of Arthur and the Knights of the Round table. I was rather disappointed by the movie.

correct me if im wrong, but didnt the crossbow come out with the invention of Full Plate armor? Im pretty sure this is true. The armor they wore in the film, was banded mail, maybe chain mail and i think studded leather. The armor that most roman soldiers wore was the breast plate with piece-mail on the rest of them.

Although im not a die hard fan of the Authorian legends.. I just find that its a bit un-nerving seeing a legend made into this.

Just saw an ad for this movie on television. Looks ok by the clips anyway. As stated looks like it is innacurate only for entertainment value.

I always thought this movie looked terrible. From the minute they toted it as "the real story" but had Keira Knightly looking as if she was going off to battle I thought it would be shit. I do have admit though, she is pretty hot, and pale skin is a great thing.

Am I the only thought who really enjoyed the movie?

I have nothing to say about the historical accuracy, or lack thereof, as I have never studied King Arthur and know nothing of the stories. So, to me, the movie was a nice old time battle flick.

HA! I was listening to a neo-=con talk show host talking about movies, and he said something liek " When big became a hit, they (hollywood) made 5 "kid become adult" movies..."

He made a few mjore references, and he was talking about Farenheight 9/11, but in general, I agree: this is a "coattail" move for LOTR....which is too bad, cause the pis of Kiera in leather look GUUUUUDDD ;)

Saw the movie today, was not that bad.