new King Arthur movie

[Matthew Amt]

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:<br>
<br>
"The public is ignorant so we have to keep lying to them."<br>
<br>
We won't even go into the reasons for WHY the public is ignorant...<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
<br>
Matthew/Quintus<br>
<br>
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. <p></p><i></i>