Hmmm...
The hype has the tagline of 'the true' story' (obviously an exaggeration even in the absolute best of times) and someone mentions earlier that it is nice thay are taking a realistic view...
Bah- strikes me as a gimmick. Arthurian lore is an interest of mine, and it should not be forgotten that King Arthur is a LEGEND, constructed, like all legends, over time, and all that which this interpretation is saying is 'false'' is PART of that legend, as rather well explored in the grim 80s film Excalibur.
Because for this film to claim this is true as opposed to that falsehood is complete balderdash. Aside from that no-one knows the true story, this film has only made a half-hearted effort to be even remotely close to accurate. Ok, it is nice that Arthur and co are going around in quasi-Roman gear, which has not been seen before, but to be honest just because we has Romano British is no guarantee he would have done that. They have cavalry- wrong. Metal armour- wrong. And STONE CASTLES! Completely wrong by some 500 years. Camelot, if it ever existed in as much as whatever the Camelot legend i based on, would have been a tent.
So if they are only going to go halfway, I am not convinced of the point- might as well stick with the legend; probably far more exciting. And anyone who thinkls the mystified version- which frankly, literarility speaking, is the ONLY version- is 'sugar coated'- you really SHOULD watch Excalibur...
But.... we shall see.
In fact, on further reflection, this talk of demystifying... Guinevere, Lancelot, Galahad and Merlin are all part of the myth, so I am not sure what they are doing there...
It's just gibberish to talk of this as true, or in any way more valid than, say, Disney's Sword in the Stone in ways of 'accuracy'. If they would just say this is a new interpretation and stop pretending it is more 'true' than any other, I would feel a lot happier about it.
What I'm excited about is the fact that they aren't using the hyper-mythic 'Lady of the lake, magic exacalibur, green knight, grail legend' that all of the other movies have (although I myself am I self-proclaimed scholar and avid fan of Arthurian legend). I'm happy that they're at least exploring the the truth behind the legend, if not being entirely truthful itself. It's a step in a new direction, which I respect
Originally posted by Lord Soth
What [b]I'm excited about is the fact that they aren't using the hyper-mythic 'Lady of the lake, magic exacalibur, green knight, grail legend' that all of the other movies have (although I myself am I self-proclaimed scholar and avid fan of Arthurian legend). I'm happy that they're at least exploring the the truth behind the legend, if not being entirely truthful itself. It's a step in a new direction, which I respect [/B]
Nah... it's just a gimmick. First Knight didn't have any of that either; didn't make it any better.
It is simply the latest in a long line of interpretations and it has no place pretending it is endemically better than the others in concept.
Ok, now, I have been doing some research into this...
Apparently, this story is based on a very specific interpretation of Arthurian legend that staes that the whole Arthurian 'thimng' was based on the idea of imported Kataphraktoi heavy riders from the East- from modern day Russia/Turkey, who would later become the vanguard of the Byzantine Empire and the foprerunner of the Medieval Knight...
... and so therefore that Arthurian legend is based upon these foreign 'pre-Knight-Knights' helping the Romano-British fight off the Saxons.
Whilat this makes it a decidedly skewed interpretation of Arthurian Lore... I concede that this interpretation DOES actually excuse the use of cavalry. It is interesting... but it still is subject to my basic criticisms (vis a vis, there is still ntohing that makes it 'true', as such).
My friend Barries brother was in it. I'm from Dublin Ireland & they shot it in Wexford with is 1 county away so he got a bus to the location everyday for like 3 months. & like me he's a movie buff so he snuck a camera on set abunch of times & got some impressive shots. He was playing a warrior on the same side a Kiera Knightly so he was fighting with her alot wearing blue face paint. We all called him the smurf cus even after a shower he never got it all off.
From the photos i saw it looked good.. They included siege machines large armies fighting with lots of tyre burning for the ancient mythic look etc.. & an anyonmous big wall.. I presume they will lengthen it & put a castle behind it or something in Post Production.. but I'd agree with you guys, the trailer does make it look kind of crap.
If you guys are interested in pics send me an E mail my friends brother might let me scan some in..
Peace
Originally posted by Lord Soth
What [b]I'm excited about is the fact that they aren't using the hyper-mythic 'Lady of the lake, magic exacalibur, green knight, grail legend' that all of the other movies have (although I myself am I self-proclaimed scholar and avid fan of Arthurian legend). I'm happy that they're at least exploring the the truth behind the legend, if not being entirely truthful itself. It's a step in a new direction, which I respect [/B]