"King Arthur": rubbish, discuss...

I wouldn't go so far as to call it rubbish but i was dissapointed considering..

1) I'm a sucker for owt Arthurian.
and
2) It was the same kids that did Pirates of the Carribean which I thought was amazing.

So I went expecting it to be fantastic and it weren't, it was....alright I suppose. Liked the Dark Age revisionary thing but that was about the only thing new or challenging in the whole film.

And walling up Keira Knightley? Were they all eunuchs back then or summat?

They stole the name 'King Arthur' and that was about it.

Demythologising the whole Arturian legend is rather pointless - typical revisionism from Hollywood. By retelling the stories with a 'modern' tilt the script writers and producers have missed the point.

Merlin is supposed to be a magician; the stories, as recounted by Mallory and others, are set in a mythical 'non-period' of history because they are supposed to be legends. How would they explain away the stories of the Holy Grail, etc. central to Arthurian legend?

By taking this realistic approach they attempt to remove another aspect of the magical from an increasingly prosaic and grey world. I WANT to believe in a bunch of folks who are looking for the Holy Grail. I like the associated story of the Fisher King and redemption, the Green Knight, etc.

I don't want Arthurian Legend told like Die Hard in armour.

Joe

Originally posted by Carmine
"King Arthur": rubbish, discuss...

Yes !

Found the firast 45 mins way too dull. Even the ice scene was naff. Film could have done with some blood and gore for realism. Wont go into the concocted storyline etc :P

I'm a HUGE fan of the whole mystique and wonder of the Authurian Cycles, I find that they have such far reaching connections with the character of the nation and the ideals of an age which never was.

The tagline for the film set my teeth on edge from the start, there is not "real" Arthur, that's the bloody point. A myth only retains its power whilst it remains an idea passed from one person to the next, an ideal aspired to in an imperfect world. When a person attempts to pin such a thing down it will dissipate like mist in their hands. It is not the achievement of perfection that is important, but the quest itself...therein lies the true meaning of the Grail.

There were Sarmatian cavalry units on the wall, there was a warrior named Artorius, there was probably a great leader who ruled from Cadbury Hill and we know that Glastonbury Tor was once an island and warriors were buried in boats facing the great landmark. But none of these things alone can explain or dismiss the body of myth that has grown over the centuries.

Excalibur is still the best example of an Authurian adaptation in my mind. It sticks to the knights and damsels interpretation and doesn't try to reinvent the wheel...But then my favourite novels on the subject are Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles...different versions, and neither claims to be the sole true version of the tales.

Hollywood creates fiction and pretends has presented facts, the sad thing is that some people will have come away thinking that this was an authoritative historical outing.

The only true King Arthur film is this one (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080062/)

Also, just like the peasant in the Monty Python film, I do have to question the legitimacy of any system of government that's based around swords distributed by strange women lying in ponds.

:)

Joe

Horses for courses.

I quite get off on mad things being made believable.

( 2001, Last Temptation Of Christ. just two that come to mind. )

Your all a bunch of Tolken lovers, runaway, runaway, them DRAGONS are chasing us:banana:

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Also, just like the peasant in the Monty Python film, I do have to question the legitimacy of any system of government that's based around swords distributed by strange women lying in ponds.

:)

Joe

come on joe, you're fooling yourself- we're living in a dictatorship.... :P

Excalibur is still the best example of an Authurian adaptation in my mind


Aint that the truth Carmine!

IF Arthur existed he was clearly a Briton who fought the Picts in the North and the Angles and Saxons in the South.
Most of the battle place names listed in the chronicles and which can be identified today are on the present Anglo/Scottish border which suggests that if Arthur was one man he lead a war band in Strathclyde, Rheged or Gododdin,

That Arthur may have been real rather than mythical is surely magical in itself.

The Mallory myths may have hidden our real and fascinating history but still allow us tantalising glimpses

The Holy Grail may have been introduced in stories to sanitise the pagan beliefs surrounding the Celtic Cauldron as a magical vessel.
The Lady in The Lake has a deep pagan resonance as well.

I suspect that Mallory was familiar with a long standing oral tradition and he "cleaned it up" and put it in writing.

Err Not seen the film yet