Login

Vincula · 07-10-2004, 01:23 PM

Quote:<hr>Did they say it was 452?<hr> 
Opening on-screen comment (as far as I recall). 
Quote:<hr>Btw, did you understand why that Roman dignitary built his summer home in the midst of the Picts, oh excuse me, 'Woads'?<hr> 
Nope. Do tell. 
Quote:<hr>Many people will exit the theatre certain that Lancelot fought with two swords.<hr> 
He did. I saw him!

Frank Miranda · 07-11-2004, 03:59 AM

Haven't seen the movie yet, but can't wait......read the book though- so many memorable lines. I think my favorite sums up the entire work: after the last chapter (the Battle of Badon Hill), the author sums up the destruction of the Cynric and Cedric hordes by stating, in his "historical" epilogue, that the Saxons were never again able to mount attacks on Britain...

**Robert Vermaat** · 07-11-2004, 05:52 AM

Quote:<hr>...read the book though- so many memorable lines. <hr> 
There's a book about this movie? Already?

07-11-2004, 08:18 AM

Just saw the movie today and it is clear that the writer, Franzoni, is just being provocative for it's own sake. 
 
In his LA Times interview he stated that he did not buy into the idea of the knights riding around the countryside in plate armor and that he purposely stripped away all elements of magic that usually inhabit the films about King Arthur. 
 
And yet... 
 
As Arthur awaits the Saxons for the final battle at the wall the horses of his 'knights,' who are heading south with the retreating Romans, suddenly stop and will go no further, as if they know that Arthur needs them. Of course they know, because we are told in the first scene that the spirits of knights killed in battle are reborn as noble steads. But that's not magic, it's a well established fact isn't it? 
 
Then in the next scene we see the knights ride up all decked out in a wide selection of fantasy armor. True, it is not shinning plate armor like Boorman's Excalibur 
but it is oddly out of place all the same. 
 
Or is it? 
 
Actually, this was not as bad a film as I had feared, but it played more like a Samurai film, particularly in some of their fighting styles. Perhaps they should have set the story in Japan. If one ignores all the nonsense about this film depicting the "truth" behind the legend it is an amusing diversion for a hot afternoon. 
 
Have I seen better films -- yes. 
 
Have I seen worse films -- yes, and no doubt will see more before the year is over. But the air con was cold and the popcorn was fresh so I had a good time. 
 
However, we are still waiting for a good film about Rome and my previous statement still stands -- Franzoni's take on the Punic Wars...the gods look down and laugh. 
 
Narukami

07-11-2004, 03:30 PM

I thought it was absolutely terrible, and I'm one of the people that is generally quite forgiving when it comes to inaccuracies in movies. I loved Braveheart and Gladiator, for example, and liked Troy. But this was just a total joke. 
 
The event that's supposed to get the entire movie rolling is that King Arthur and his band of merry men are sent beyond Hadrian's Wall to rescue the pope's favorite godson. This is just about the stupidest reason they possibly could have come up with to get Arthur into the conflict with the Saxons. Why in god's name would the pope's favorite godson be in Britain, let alone BEYOND Hadrian's Wall? I mean, come on, it doesn't even make sense to people who don't know anything about Roman history. I don't even want to bother going on because it just gets worse after that. 
 
The only cool scene was the battle over the ice.

Frank Miranda · 07-11-2004, 07:36 PM

Quote:<hr>There's a book about this movie? Already? <hr> 
 
Indeed there is. In fact, the book came out weeks before the film so, since it was based on the Franzoni screenplay, I already knew all the scenes in the movie. It seems that is the standard thing now for the past few years with alot of these movies- for the film company to publish a movie tie-in novel. Touchstone- the producer of King Arthur- owns the copyright of the novel- not writer brought in to pen it. 
 
On a related note, since several members noted Franzoni's future hatchet job on [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382731/" target="top]Hannibal[/url], I thought it interesting that Vin Diesel has been tapped to star as the Carthaginian general "who rode an elephant across the Alps..." juggling severed Roman heads the entire way, no doubt... 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=frankmiranda>Frank Miranda</A> at: 7/11/04 9:38 pm

07-11-2004, 08:19 PM

You guys are too funny, I can't get that image out of my head. Though I'd prefer Karl Urban in the role, he is a lot more sexy, and since we're going to get a historically inaccurate movie, I want at least a bunch of hot actors to drool over. 
 
BTW I am a historian and I do have a Tweed jacket. 
 
Let's face one thing: you can make way more money with movies like Troy and King Arthur than with anything historically correct and thus too complicated to turn into a good screenplay; and the average movie-goer doesn't care. 
 
And I really wonder what Kingdom of Heaven will be like. <img src="http://otherworldfantasies.com/gabriele2/eilean_small.jpeg"/> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gabrielecampbell>gabriele campbell</A> at: 7/11/04 10:21 pm

07-12-2004, 03:32 AM

Were the machines throwing the fireballs trebuchets? They did not look like onagers or anything else that the romans had. I had always thought that trebuchets did not appear till the 13th century. Also, auxiliaries in the 5th century? Which emperor was it who made all miles citizens, long before the time of this movie? I could go on and on.

***Praefectusclassis*** · 07-12-2004, 04:46 AM

Caracalla made all inhabitants of the empire citizens in 212 AD. That didn't stop auxiliary units from existing afterwards though. Greets 
 
Jasper

07-12-2004, 02:38 PM

I swear I will never, repeat NEVER understand why sane people continually bash hollywood films for historical accuracy. I think it's a favorite pastime for people with a semblance of knowledge in a given area. They gather around with others of similar direction, and chant all the idiosyncracies around a bon fire in order to get the attention of the Hollywood gods. 
 
Who cares. Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

07-12-2004, 02:47 PM

not a fantasy. For things like lord of the rings, I do not care. If you are happy with fantasy garbage, then fine. Historical, even semi-historical, dramas should be as accurate as is possible. If we do not hold Hollywood's collective feet to the fire, how do you expect any improvement?

07-12-2004, 03:12 PM

Yeah, but Lee, I've heard many times Hollywood directors like Ridley Scott say they're not there to educate. Movies are not documentaries. They are telling stories, for entertainment only. It HAS to be taken as such. 
 
This will never change. Why? Because directors/story writers and the like are artistic. Not Historians. If Mike Bishop had a 100 million dollar budget and was the director, things would be different. You see this on a smaller scale on shows like Discovery channel and so forth. Until then, my advice is don't see these types of movies, or take them with a bag of salt. Otherwise you're just wasting your money, and energy getting all worked up about it. Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" 
Niagara Falls, Canada

**Robert Vermaat** · 07-12-2004, 03:40 PM

Magnus, 
It's quite easy to understand why we bash Hollywood films for lacking historical accuracy. It's because they constantly claim histrical accuracy, so they only have themselves to blame. 
So when Bruckheimer claims that archaeological evidence places 'his' Arthur between 452 and 468 AD and that the whole thing is historical, no one should moan if we bash the movie for it. 
 
Lately this is becoming very common, with even recent history twisted (like the capture of the German 'Enigma' coding machine by the US Navy, when everyone knows it was the British who did that). I don't like this trend. 
 
So when Hollywood directors like Ridley Scott say they're not there to educate, they should shut up as well about their movies being even remotely accurate, and call 'em Fantasy. 
then we will shut up as well. 
 
 
Valete, 
Valerius 'the avenger'/Robert

Matthew Amt · 07-12-2004, 04:42 PM

I finally realized what Hollywood's dogma is on "historical" movies, after years of being puzzled not only by their great efforts to get things needlessly wrong, but also by the derision flung on anyone who didn't praise such crap. What it boils down to is: 
 
"The public is ignorant so we have to keep lying to them." 
 
We won't even go into the reasons for WHY the public is ignorant... 
 
There are those who say that you can't make a more accurate (mind you, I only say MORE accurate) historical movie because it will be boring. Say what? You can't find real stories that aren't exciting, and still have plenty of unknown details to allow a screenwriter to indulge his fancy? And you think that an ancient battle, pretty much the most brutal form of confrontation our species has yet devised, will have audiences yawning if it doesn't include napalm? I think it's time you fired your writers! 
 
Hand-in-hand with this is the point I've been making for years, that a movie can still be fabulous and fun even though it is NOT good history!! Anyone seen "I, Claudius"? Lousy costumes and armor in that, all done in a very stage-looking set, and yet the script and acting are outstanding and incredibly engaging. (Of course, they cheated by sticking heavily to the writing of an ancient historian...) How about "The Wind and the Lion", with Sean Connery and Candice Bergen? It plucked a date and a couple names from history, butchered the facts of an actual event, and I couldn't tell you if the costuming and cultural details are anything near accurate or not. But again, it is so incredibly well-acted and scripted that you end up loving even the bad guys! 
 
The REAL problem with so many "historical" movies these days is that they keep slapping you with needless stupidity or just end up being lame, preventing one from just enjoying the show. And allowing us to notice the "errors" rather than distracting us with an excellent script, plot, and acting. Basically, just bad movie-making. 
 
Okay, it ain't just "historical" movies that do that, let's be fair. It just seems a pity that directors don't want to aim for the obvious audiences (i.e., us history buffs), instead deriding us for being nit-picky. After all, with a larger audience, wouldn't they make more money? 
 
So when someone asks me if I've seen Troy, or Arthur, or The Passion, I just shrug and say, "No, why should I?" I like the kinds of things that those directors have gone to great expense to remove from their films. They don't really want me to see them! 
 
Valete, 
 
Matthew/Quintus 
 
PS: "Alien vs. Predator" is coming out in a couple weeks! Now THERE'S a movie that doesn't NEED acting or script! Hey, you can't accuse me of being picky or snobbish about my entertainment.

Frank Miranda · 07-12-2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:<hr>I swear I will never, repeat NEVER understand why sane people continually bash hollywood films for historical accuracy.<hr> 
 
I think it's the same reason why someone would go out of their way to inform everyone that they have 1,248 other meaningful posts....vanity 
 
I'm with Robert- I only like to bash the movies that claim historical accuracy. Otherwise, I leave them alone. And besides, why waste a good backyard bonfire?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	History Channel program on King Arthur	Anonymous	14	2,901	06-24-2004, 12:45 PM Last Post: Anonymous
	Arthur, King of the Britons	Q Rutilius	2	1,229	01-13-2003, 08:15 PM Last Post: derek forrest