History or Legend (King Arthur potential spoilers)

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-10-20 02:17am

So a bunch of new pictures from the new King Arthur movie have been posted online.

23 pages worth

Highlights

What do you prefer? The historical take that the new movie is going to take, or the legend with the magic and such?

I think it looks rather cool. And unlike what IGN says, Kiera Knightley looks freaky hot as a warrior, though that leather number crushing her breasts makes her look like she has the chest of a 12 year old boy.

I figure this goes in off-topic, since the movie is going historical rather than the fantastical.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-20 02:21am

neoolong wrote:though that leather number crushing her breasts makes her look like she has the chest of a 12 year old boy.

If you were a woman who was involved in combat, you would so want that. Trust me.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-10-20 02:27am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
neoolong wrote:though that leather number crushing her breasts makes her look like she has the chest of a 12 year old boy.
If you were a woman who was involved in combat, you would so want that. Trust me.

I know.

But that doesn't change what it does to her chest.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-10-20 03:57am

I think whoever designed this guy's costume needs to take another look at their history books.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-10-20 04:26am

Somehow I don't think people in Arthurian times wore Romanish armor.

And Excalibur ownz (except for the really cruddy dialogue sometimes)

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-10-20 05:24am

Drooling Iguana wrote:
I think whoever designed this guy's costume needs to take another look at their history books.

Maybe he's a time traveller?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-10-20 06:15am

About damn time that somebody got around to depicting a Romano-British Arthur and Companions on film.

Shinova wrote:Somehow I don't think people in Arthurian times wore Romanish armor.

On the contrary, archaeological research and the fact that Roman rule of Britain ended circa CE 480 strongly suggests that those military forces serving under the Dux Bellorum would very likely have been wearing Roman as well as native armour.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-20 11:52am

History. The legend is good, but there's already enough quality cinema devoted to the legend.

Is this going to a more literal adaptation based on the life of one of the men who may have been the real King Arthur, like Lucius Artorius Castus? Or is it just going to take Arthurian stories and put them in their proper historical context?

And Keira Knightley makes a damn fine Guinevere, that she does.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-10-20 11:59am

neoolong wrote: What do you prefer? The historical take that the new movie is going to take, or the legend with the magic and such?

Either is fine. I recently watched a history channel look at King Arthur (hosted by the old-dude that played him a while back). That topic (Britons fighting Saxon invasion) would make for an interesting movie.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-10-20 12:10pm

Durran Korr wrote:History. The legend is good, but there's already enough quality cinema devoted to the legend.

Is this going to a more literal adaptation based on the life of one of the men who may have been the real King Arthur, like Lucius Artorius Castus? Or is it just going to take Arthurian stories and put them in their proper historical context?

And Keira Knightley makes a damn fine Guinevere, that she does.

Yes. Lucius Artorius Castus.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-20 12:11pm

Yes. Lucius Artorius Castus.

Sweet. Fucking sweet.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-20 01:09pm

Finally - something as rare as an Arthurian movie which attempts to be even halfways historically correct!! (The last one I recall which tried to be was TNT's miniseries based upon "The Mists Of Avalon")

BTW - as the quasi-metalhead I am, I can't help but note that Keira looks like a member of some R.O.B.M.B.W.A.C.L.L.S.F.A.B.V. (Random Obscure Black Metal Band Whose Album Covers Looks Like Stills From A Bad Vampire Movie).

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-20 01:42pm

Finally - something as rare as an Arthurian movie which attempts to be even halfways historically correct!! (The last one I recall which tried to be was TNT's miniseries based upon "The Mists Of Avalon")

That was a good miniseries, though I personally never cared for Marion Zimmer Bradley's reimagining of Arthurian myth. However, it was still not particularly close to being historically correct; it was completely devoid of anything Roman.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-20 01:53pm

Finally - something as rare as an Arthurian movie which attempts to be even halfways historically correct!! (The last one I recall which tried to be was TNT's miniseries based upon "The Mists Of Avalon")

Mists of Avalon was as historically fucked, if not more so than the mainstream Arthurian legend. The idea of Wiccanism and Druidism existing at that time is silly. The first is a product of new age religion and the latter was wiped out by the Romans.

It's nothing more than a feminist, pro-new agey story. There's no real resemblence to history and only new-age idiots would believe it does.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-20 01:55pm

Keira Knightly + Arthur & The Knights Of The Round Table = teh fucking win!!1!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-20 02:17pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Finally - something as rare as an Arthurian movie which attempts to be even halfways historically correct!! (The last one I recall which tried to be was TNT's miniseries based upon "The Mists Of Avalon")
Mists of Avalon was as historically fucked, if not more so than the mainstream Arthurian legend. The idea of Wiccanism and Druidism existing at that time is silly. The first is a product of new age religion and the latter was wiped out by the Romans.

It's nothing more than a feminist, pro-new agey story. There's no real resemblence to history and only new-age idiots would believe it does.

Thank you Stormbringer, for expressing so eloquently what I didn't have the balls to say.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-20 02:46pm

Durran Korr wrote:Thank you Stormbringer, for expressing so eloquently what I didn't have the balls to say.

You're most welcome.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-20 05:12pm

Gandalf wrote: Maybe he's a time traveller?

Hrmm. Has "Homboyz in King Arthur's Court" been written in the original Ebonics yet, for that matter?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-10-20 05:55pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Gandalf wrote: Maybe he's a time traveller?
Hrmm. Has "Homboyz in King Arthur's Court" been written in the original Ebonics yet, for that matter?

Actually the movie is really entitled, "A Pittsburgh Brotha' in King Arthur's Court." The lesser known sequel to Mark Twain's, "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court."

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-20 06:10pm

I feel I need to hit someone because I know such a film actually exists.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-10-20 06:20pm

Awesome, absolutely awesome. I've always wanted a mainstream media exploration of the historical possibilities of Arthurian legend. I hope the battle scenes are appropriately done. I'm looking forward to seeing a few hundred Romano-Britons, equipped with elderly Roman equipment and ragged native product, going up against waves of barbarians from northern Germany. If all goes well, it'll have a ending wherein all the protaganists die and Romano-British civilization is absorbed and lost forever.

And Merlin will be a comic-relief Pictish apothecary

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-10-20 11:19pm

Patrick Degan wrote:About damn time that somebody got around to depicting a Romano-British Arthur and Companions on film.

What about Monty Python and The Holy Grail?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-10-21 02:20am

New interview.

"Our version is set earlier than it's usually set. We have it at 500 A.D. as opposed to medieval times. Basically, the Roman empire is crumbling."

"[Arthur] is half-Roman. He's a commander of a crack team of military knights who, at the beginning of the movie, gets the mission from hell – to go into dangerous, unknown territory and rescue a family as the Saxons are invading by the thousands, and the rebels are out there fighting. Meanwhile, Arthur has always held onto Rome as something he wants to return to and something he reveres, but it keeps changing. ... His faith is called into question."

Oh yeah, it opens Christmas 2004.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-21 11:22am

Stormbringer wrote:
Finally - something as rare as an Arthurian movie which attempts to be even halfways historically correct!! (The last one I recall which tried to be was TNT's miniseries based upon "The Mists Of Avalon")
Mists of Avalon was as historically fucked, if not more so than the mainstream Arthurian legend. The idea of Wiccanism and Druidism existing at that time is silly. The first is a product of new age religion and the latter was wiped out by the Romans.

Well, Mists of Avalon was by no means historically correct - but at least it didn't have plate armour during the 5th century!

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-10-21 01:26pm

Whooo Hooo. Though after looking at the pics, they might over Romanize it so its a worry. It would be nice to show a variety of styles ranging from Romanized (traditionalists?), Celt style (nationalists?), and the Saxons and such.

Looking forward to some good Saxon battleaxe action.

And if you want to read some good historical set Authurian stories, get your self the Winter King series. Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excalibur. Good and different take on the Authur legend viewed in a historical text. Roman legacy, death of the old reliegion, battle of rival fiefdoms to control Britania, Saxon invasions and expansions.

Whoo hoo.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

History or Legend (King Arthur potential spoilers)

History or Legend (King Arthur potential spoilers)

Re: History or Legend (King Arthur potential spoilers)

Re: History or Legend (King Arthur potential spoilers)

Re: History or Legend (King Arthur potential spoilers)