Wanna see a bunch of pics that have nothing to do with Arthurian legend, but everything to do with KING ARTHUR'
Hey folks, Harry here... Ok... while not entirely as worthy of coagulated anal sangre as Halle Berry's additional... unspeakable CATWOMAN pics, these images are simply... NOT ARTHUR... Not King Arthur... not his lady fair... This looks like some weird cross between Zardoz, Gladiator and Emerald Forest. None of which have anything to do with the Knights of the Round Table... well, except the first and third were done by John Boorman, who made the definitive Arthurian feature film... EXCALIBUR, which will rule for all time and always... and definitely will own this craptacular load of dessicated doggy dung.
Sorry I took so long here. I didn't realize how many pics I got here. Anyways, as promised, here's some pics from King Arthur.
Congrats again on your deal with Revolution
All the best!
A Kid in King Arthur's Court
Readers Talkbackcomments powered by Disqus
+ Expand All
Oct. 17, 2003, 3:19 a.m. CST
Time travel? Maybe they move forward in time and... oh nevermind.
Oct. 17, 2003, 3:21 a.m. CST
I guess I can see that. I see a lot of Roman/Goth/Celtic influences, too. Probably will suck, though. First Knight, anyone?
Oct. 17, 2003, 3:22 a.m. CST
i think it might just be be kinda cool...o' course that's just me ;)
Oct. 17, 2003, 3:33 a.m. CST
Caption 1: I hereby claim the back of this horse's ass for the Chimney Sweep country. Caption 2: Man, this white girl looks retarded. Don't panic. I know, just stare out into space, maybe she'll just think I'm a statue or something. Caption 3: Little did Keira know that before she could be released from the natives she had to face her most difficult test titled '400-way gang bang'. Caption 4: Johnny Depp scampers up a tree as he figures out that his salary in 'Pirates of the Carribean 2' isn't exactly the same as his co-stars.
Oct. 17, 2003, 3:34 a.m. CST
It was alleged to be based on la morte d'arthur but this looks more like the last of the romano-british, but who cares when keira rocks.
Oct. 17, 2003, 3:36 a.m. CST
Be fuckin' serious - that chick looks like she just stepped out of Duran Duran's "Rio" video for Allah's sake. And what's Julius Dickhead uptop? Trojan Man there to save the cast from STDs? Pathetic.
Oct. 17, 2003, 3:48 a.m. CST
So, it's obviously not a film based on the most recent iteration of Arthurian legend, but please realize that this legend has been in developement for approx. 1300 years. And some parts of it are just crap. A movie based more on the historical facts (though it should be known that these facts are not many) could certainly be entertaining. Oh, and by the way, the costumes used are very much more England in 700a.d (Arthurian time) than the ones used in Excalibur (which more resembled 1400-1500 era armor).
Oct. 17, 2003, 4:03 a.m. CST
by Cash Bailey
Oct. 17, 2003, 4:09 a.m. CST
by Andy Travis
This is strange. I knew that they were going for a more "historical" Arthur story...I just never imagined they'd make Guinevere a Pict. Merlin, sure, but Guinevere?
Oct. 17, 2003, 4:13 a.m. CST
I own the DVD, one of the best movies of all time - a true masterpiece. And your right Harry, it craps all over this POS. This movie is singlehandedly trying to destroy the Arthurian legend. Apparently Keira Knightley (*cough* overrated *cough*) is the warrior Queen Guinevere! BAh what a load of shite! "He who draws the sword from the stone, he shall be king. Arthur, you're the one!"
Oct. 17, 2003, 4:16 a.m. CST
by Bobby Robsons Ba
You yanks - ya know nothing pre 1492!!! The real King Arthur didn`t ride around in Shiny Armour - that`s just fantstical crap made up for fims to suit Yanks!! The real King Arthur was a Celtic King, had no castle made of Stone, more likely a wooden fort, his sword was similar to a Roman blade (by the way, he fought Romans), and he wasn`t much for jousting. Read some HISTORY books, or better still visit our CUTE little Country and learn sommat!
Oct. 17, 2003, 4:22 a.m. CST
Don't care what they're NOT, i.e. pics from a romantic version of the Arthur legend. I've seen that enough. I'm more interested in this version: the realistic, gritty, Braveheart-esque one.
Oct. 17, 2003, 4:24 a.m. CST
LEGEND hasn't always been about historical facts - its about mythical things, magic, beasts, fallen kings, forgotten lands, etc. Thats whats so good about Excalibur (1981), its not based on historical fact, its about LEGEND. Hence such rules dont apply. Other such movies NEVER follow historical facts anyway - Crossbows in Gladiator? bah.
Oct. 17, 2003, 4:34 a.m. CST
I think this is far closer to the mark than what we've seen in the past. Apart from the fact that the legend of king Arthur is a mish mash of other stories formed in the dark ages the main part of which come from Aquitaine not England. It's based in Roman or pre Roman time. Boorman had the cast in Medievil & renaisance armour hundreds of years ahead of the legend !!! So who really sucks !!!!!!
Oct. 17, 2003, 4:44 a.m. CST
Keira looks like she's part of Conan's tribe.
Oct. 17, 2003, 5:03 a.m. CST
Arthurian romance is the single largest corpus of stories in the English language (you thought the final LotR marathon would be long? 12 hours would barely cover the childhood of Arthur). Virtually all of it is fiction, but there is a core of historicity. Yes, Arthur's a bit too early Roman and Guinivere has the potential to be a deadly bad choice, but it might just work. And wouldn't it be lovely if it did?
Oct. 17, 2003, 5:24 a.m. CST
by Virtual Satyr
on the planet. At last the circle is complete.
Oct. 17, 2003, 5:31 a.m. CST
... it was only yesterday that I was thinking "it's about time someone did a spectacular remake of that classic low budget Borman movie"... and yes, Excalibur still holds up well today, I'm yet to see an Authurian film that comes close really which is kinda sad
Oct. 17, 2003, 5:32 a.m. CST
This was always about a realistic interpretation of life in the supposed era in which Arthur existed. Harry this isn't fantasy, it's about history. Yeah it may be crap, but these are just pics not a bloody script.
Oct. 17, 2003, 5:58 a.m. CST
That looks really cool. It confirms my suspicion. If you want to make an epic movie, with kick ass battles, go to Ireland. Failing that, go to New Zealand
Oct. 17, 2003, 6:43 a.m. CST
I was always lead to believe that the Athurian legend was based on a Ramono-British warlord (a Pendragon) called Artorius Aueralanus (SP?). So however much I and others like Boormans take on Malorys Medieval Arthur, this film seems to be the first time anyone has tried to 'do' a film based on the original legend and not the Norman propaganda piece. For that alone I'm looking forward to the movie. That and Ms. Knightley in skimpy clobber mmmmmmmmm.
Oct. 17, 2003, 6:56 a.m. CST
I thing I'll reserve my judgement for now. By the way, That "black guy" is the director Anton Fuqua.
Oct. 17, 2003, 7:10 a.m. CST
You need to start proof-reading this shit.
Oct. 17, 2003, 7:33 a.m. CST
First of all, click on the link - There is a HUGE gallery of images (maybe 30 or more) that give a much better idea of how this movie will look. And I love the fact that they are making this more historical. Excalibur was a cool take on the legend, but there is certainly a need to see a historical take as well. The images from that gallery have a pretty accurate late Fourth Century/early Fifth Century dark ages Romano/British feel to them. And I think I see what look like Saxons (the real 'Arthur's' primary foe). Let's wait and see - I hope this movie rocks!
Oct. 17, 2003, 7:45 a.m. CST
Keira Knightley seems to have borrowed the biro Harvey Keitel scribbled all over his face in "The Piano". And I think the black guy is the obligatory black sidekick you have to have in all American "historical" films a la Morgan Freeman in "Prince of Thieves". Ok, so his costume isn't historically accurate but, by the look of it, no one else's is either. I've seen Jerry Bruckheimer quoted as saying King Arthur fought the Romans so he may be responsible for this fundamental misconception or he may have been misquoted. Either way, in no version of the story does Arthur fight the Romans. He unites the Romano-British to fight the Saxons.
Oct. 17, 2003, 7:49 a.m. CST
"I dare not kiss so lovely a lady. I have but one heart to lose, brother!"
Oct. 17, 2003, 7:57 a.m. CST
Plenty of potential for nip slip.
Oct. 17, 2003, 7:59 a.m. CST
by Mel Garga
Dudley Moore!!! "Where's the rest of this moose?"
Oct. 17, 2003, 8:19 a.m. CST
Look, part of the legends is this underlying supernatural mix of Christian and Pagan legends. Taking that out of the picture, and rationalizing it within whatever time frame, whether we're talking 1400s style First Knight, or some version in a 600s style Bruckheimer production misses out on the legend's true strength. Fantasy, in whatever form, allows us to put our anxieties and our hopes together in such a way that we get that dream-like state of things occurring half-shaped or fully shaped by those emotions. Monsters embody fear, Paladins and brave knight embody courage, the paramours love, the combat incarnate our internal conflicts. Without that extra layer of meaning, Arthur's tale is interchangeable with any other of such setting. Anyways, I get annoyed when people talk about realism in these things, because when you get that far back in time, especially the dark ages, you're not speaking of a time where our records are absolutely thorough. I mean, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves had the advantage of being set in a time that was much better documented, with a legend that perhaps need a grittier treatment. Arthur though, is so remote in history, trying to be historical means you're doing a bunch of guesswork anyways, so what's the point in not including the fantasy parts? You can still make it gritty, you just make it gritty in a fantasy context. It worked for Peter Jackson.
Oct. 17, 2003, 8:28 a.m. CST
I know that some of you are joking but you guys do realize that the black guy is the director, right?
Oct. 17, 2003, 8:41 a.m. CST
Oct. 17, 2003, 8:56 a.m. CST
While adorning Ms. Knightley with tattoos has occurred to me more than once, covering her with cake flour definitely was NOT part of the yankie-my-wankie scenario! Time to go rent Beckham, I guess.
Oct. 17, 2003, 9:02 a.m. CST
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail". No, really! If you took out all the gags, and re-shot with the same sets, locations, and over-all atmosphere, you'd have a really cool, evacotive, mysterious Arthur film. Better than that silly "Excalibur," that's for sure. sk
Oct. 17, 2003, 9:04 a.m. CST
Really fond of the horse's chain mail get-up. As for Ms Kiera's strappy little number, that has got to really hurt far more than the corset she sported in Pirates. It's a technical thing, but important. As one of the few women on this site, my first thought upon seeing her pix as a Pict was OUCH! Trust me on this one, the girl's gotta be in some serious pain here. I hope they're paying her huge amounts of money to suffer so. Otherwise looks pretty interesting, albeit a bit too early on the Roman gear.
Oct. 17, 2003, 9:16 a.m. CST
Oct. 17, 2003, 9:29 a.m. CST
by Andy Travis
It's just funny, since that shot looks so much like a movie still--everyone staring off camera seriously, etc. Heck, that single shot looks better than all that I've seen so far from Timeline.
Oct. 17, 2003, 9:32 a.m. CST
by Lost Skeleton
...This King Arthur is not a re-telling of the mythical King Arthur but a story about how a historical King Arthur (if Arthur actually ever existed) united the factions of England into one country, right after the Roman empire collasped. Don't get a big head fat ass 'cuz you know if Ghost Town sucks we are going to rip you a new one. Revolutions...making you glad not all internet geeks get producing deals on November 5th!
Oct. 17, 2003, 9:51 a.m. CST
This looks like it'll be good, but I really want to see someone do a decent big screen version that INCLUDES the fantasy in the Arthurian legends. No, Excalibur is NOT the best it can be. That movie is the cinematic equivalent of Cliff's Notes, and it's laughable watching Nigel Terry, the comical Prince John of the Lion in Winter, playing the king in full stinking tin foil armor beside a Merlin who looks like Ming the Merciless. Plus, the whole thing suffers from a resemblance to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I love Helen Mirren, Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, and Gabriel Byrne, but Excalibur is vastly overrated.
Oct. 17, 2003, 10:38 a.m. CST
Keira's in it!
Oct. 17, 2003, 10:43 a.m. CST
That "Black Guy" is Antwon (sp?) Fuqua, the DIRECTOR. He also directed "Training Day", you fucking morons. Stop making tasteless, fucked up jokes. The shit isn't funny, and neither are half of you...ya' goddamn tools.
Oct. 17, 2003, 10:52 a.m. CST
The best book series of the King Arthurian Legend out there. I'll even be nice and give you the books Titles: 1 The SkyStone 2 The Singing Sword 3 The Eagles' Brood 4 The Saxon Shore 5 The Fort at River Bend 6 The Sorcerer: Metamorphosis 7 Uther Everybody, say away from this pile of cow dung and read these books instead. The best non-magical, non-fantasy retailing of the King Arthur legend I have ever read. You can thank me later...
Oct. 17, 2003, 10:56 a.m. CST
Check out the Bernard Cornwell Arthur books - The Winter King, Enemy of God and Excalibur if memory serves. They paint Arthur as he could have been - trying to hold the country together as Roman rule collapsed and the Saxons invaded and Christianity took off and the Celts tried to rebel against the formerly Roman bits and everything went to hell. The Cornwell books are great - we've got fantasy in the definitive form of LotR and the less inspired but very polished Harry P, so I say go for the muck and leggings epic.
Oct. 17, 2003, 10:57 a.m. CST
Why is King Arthur dressed like a Roman legionaire? And why is Guinevere looking a like an undead female version of Robin Hood? I guess this movie has very LITTLE to do with the King Arthur legend. I just love it when some studio suit thinks he knows better ... ____ I'll stick with "Excaliber", thank you very much.
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:05 a.m. CST
Arthur didn't fight the Romans, he came after them and tried to salvage the civilisation he could. You're thinking of Bodicea or something. Guinevere was always a Celt, and they have always been warlike (thankyouverymuch)(like Bodecia) so that kinda fits (unlike her straps. Which make her look like she is the flatest woman in the world). And while you can quibble all you like about the design of the Roman armour, one might reply that this wasn't ever the heart of the Empire, and it is possible that they didn't send all the best equipment out to the provinces that Rome increasingly didn't give a toss about. Also, bear in mind that the legions left, and took their stuff presumably, so what was left probably wasn't the newest. Or it could be an inaccuracy by the filmmakers, but give them the benefit of the doubt gentlemen, they've been working on it for a while, and don't be such pedants.
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:10 a.m. CST
Especially if Kiera's in it! This looks pretty insane.
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:10 a.m. CST
by Osmosis Jones
Sam Neill IS Merlin, and the F/X work is damn good for a TV production. It's a brilliant film.
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:21 a.m. CST
by Chet Hudson
Can't wait to avoid this one!
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:27 a.m. CST
Seriously though, what the fuck is that costume. Really. If I wanted to see a ugly chick in rags, I'd rent The Ring again. www.rockithardcore.com
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:39 a.m. CST
insert lines for BLACK GUY IN BASEBALL CAP here.
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:46 a.m. CST
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:48 a.m. CST
hey arsewipes. glad to see you're reviewing movies based on 4 or 5 pics now. that'll save you alot of trouble now that you're not getting free dvd screeners anymore. maybe in the future you could shoot down movies when they're still just ideas, that would save everyone some time, no?
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:49 a.m. CST
the reason some people are making fun of Fuqua in the picture is because it's supposed to be Europe in the middle ages. Being a 'black guy,' and at that, a 'black guy in a baseball cap' would make you stand out. Now, if this were a movie about the Japanese Mongol invasions and there were some white guy there. We'd say 'what the fuck is that white guy in a baseball cap doing there?' Sorry for killing the joke but damn if some of you people are quick to cry racist. Also, I might just have to check out Bend It Like Beckham on DVD because of that infectiously cute banner ad. Have I been missing out on the beanpole?
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:51 a.m. CST
by Mr. Myers
If anyone knows anything about Arthurian history, they'd know that this is a confused mish-mash of ideas. Presumably, "Le Morte d'Arthur" is being eschewed in favour of the "true" accounts written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in "The History Of The Kings Of Britain" (all of which is horseshit, but it's where the story began); so then why are later, "romanticized" Arthurian elements being introduced into this story? Why are Lancelot, Galahad and their ilk being presented as the gritty characters that they supposedly were...being that they were a creation of Chretien de Troyes nearly three hundred years later, and part of the "courtly" image of Arthur? How can you incorporate the famous love triangle, when it didn't even exist in the original story?
Oct. 17, 2003, 11:55 a.m. CST
damn... there goes my dream that this was gonna be some kind of sequel to Black Knight. oh well, no one could improve on the original anyway.
Oct. 17, 2003, 12:01 p.m. CST
Some scholars believe Arthur lived during the time of Roman occupation and helped drive them off the island. There is some evidence to support this, albeit few and far between. Nonetheless, I think the photos look FANTASTIC. Nice to see a more down to earth rendition of the tale. Lookin' forward to it.
Oct. 17, 2003, 12:27 p.m. CST
so now i've followed the link to pics from the film. i find myself wondering what the personal gripe with the film that AICN has? the rest of the pics look great. they even have your precious gwenevier looking all lame and drab for you. so i can only assume that harrys diatribe and the selection of the most lambastable pics has something to do with either A. Personal Bias or 2. John Boorman's winkie in your hiney or C. You were wishing for Richard Gere in "Second Night"
Oct. 17, 2003, 12:33 p.m. CST
Man, Harry. Trashing a movie based on a couple of photos, without seeing a piece of film, or a script. I guess the makers of this film don't want to advertise on your website. Whatever happened to waiting to see a movie before either praining it/or bashing it. Tour really proving to everyone what a sellout whore you are. Hope you get some of the when it comes time for Ghost Town. Well at least you didn't plug Kill Bill agin this time.
Oct. 17, 2003, 1:05 p.m. CST
this looks like something totally taken out of the marvellous comic Slaine,the best that Simon Bisley has ever painted.if Braveheart borrowed from Slaine,this one looks just like it.and it looks good.i agree that Keira's outfit looks like a bit of a torture...and its not really that atractive on such a small-breasted girl.apart from the tittytorture,i like the outfit.she looks cute anyway.and i like the war paint,keltish-berserker style.the curved bow looks great...and when she screams she looks like a wild animal,that IS cool...Stellan Skarsgaard as the saxon/viking looks very very good indeed,braided moustache and all.man,the bigbearded saxons looks more like dwarves than Jackson's Gimli does.oh yeah,this whole thing looks much better that that fluffy eighties-style Excalibur.like LOTR,and like The 13th Warrior,and yeah,like The Holy Grail,gritty and real.Sam Neill as Merlin,dont make me laugh,he was horrible,in a lousy movie.i cant wait to see Stephen Dillane as Merlin!
Oct. 17, 2003, 1:07 p.m. CST
Oct. 17, 2003, 1:54 p.m. CST
I love all these posts by "Arthurian legend" purists and "Arthurian history" know-it-alls. Look, this is a film attempting a new take on the many possibilities that exist within Arthurian lore. You can't get mad that "legend" elements are mixing with "history" elements (if there are any), neither can you get mad that the armor is from the wrong century (although everyone knows the Brits got the hand-me-downs)...in fact I see no reason from these pics to get up in arms about ANYTHING AT ALL. You people simply have too much personal baggage invested in this. The bottom line is, it will either be a good movie or it won't. Since we know NOTHING about the true Arthur (if there was one), why waste our time on petty little quibbles? And by the way, "Excalibur" sucks. I hate movies that were shot in English but look like they were dubbed anyway.
Oct. 17, 2003, 1:57 p.m. CST
Great film. Great R1 DVD.
Oct. 17, 2003, 2:28 p.m. CST
There have been a number of books written by a man named Geoffrey Ashe including "The Search for the Historical Arthur" which discuss how a real warlord in fifth century Britain would have lived and waged war. It was thought he was a roamnesque lord named Riathamus or Ambrosius who held the title of "war-chief" or "head-dragon" (Pendragon)and kept the land together against hording invaders and the retreating Romans. His legend was combined with the Breton (Welsh) god Artor--who was famous for many tales that are now associated with King Arthur--including leading an expedition into the land of the dead to steal a life-giving cauldron (the inspiration for the holy grail). Ashe said that he thought that the Arthur legend would have played out at the end of the fifth century, not the sixth, when the Roman influence was still felt throughout the isles. It took many years for the culture to completely erode after the Romans pulled out of Britain. So, it is possible that in this film, "Arthur's" armor is an heirloom, like his sword Caliburn (Excalibur) which means "hard lightning." The thing to remember about this movie is that it, like Lord of the Rings is trying to show the differences between cultures visually. The Rich are holdovers from the occupation and have a clean, Roman influence while the Celtic Bretons of the time are savage and painted. This makes the "Arthur" and "Guinevere" romance a doomed one from different cultures. Will this be the Perfect King Arthur movie? Probably not. It seems to be set in the historical period, but uses the classic characters that were added later in the middle ages by the french (Lancelot and the like). Boorman's "Excalibur" is still the king--it is a timeless fantasy incorporating all the legends that had been cooked up by Mallory's time--even so far as to include the cheesy Wagner "Tristan and Isolde" music as Lancelot and Guinevere's love theme. But, this new film will be interesting--to be sure.
Oct. 17, 2003, 2:29 p.m. CST
Take a woman who already has the chest of a malnourished 12 year old boy and put her in gear that constricts her itty bitty titties so they not only look small, but also look wierd...GOOD ONE ANTIONE. If you all are drooling over these pics, you need to just step out of the closet and admit that your ideal woman is a young hairless teenaged MALE! KEIRA KNIGHTLEY ISNT A WOMAN, THATS A MAN BABY!
Oct. 17, 2003, 2:29 p.m. CST
What is with the bandaid outfit? Kiera Knightly looks like an anorexic model chick that is on Coke. I didn't know it was possible to make the movie King Arthur look this ridiculous and stupid prior to the release of the film. What is with the ugly black color hair on Kiera...she looks like the wicked witch of the east. I didn't know that it was possible to make a beautiful gal look this horrible. Especially since Guinevere is suppose to be a beautiful character. Oh well, it is someone's idea of a great costume.....
Oct. 17, 2003, 2:45 p.m. CST
If I may summarize points made above: The real Arthur was a 5th century Romano-Celtic chieftain who fought, shortly after Rome withdrew from Britain for good, against the Saxon savages that were invading his island. (Which makes it ironic that Arthur is now thought of as the fantasy hero English king, when he was actually a Celt who fought AGAINST the English, or rather the Saxons that became the English. Arthur should be the hero of the Welsh, Bretons and Irish, not the English). Anyway, that's what this film is about. So anyone who is bitching because there's no sword in the stone, or Merlin, or any of that other bullshit--THAT'S NOT THIS MOVIE. That is the legend and fairly tales written by Malory and others in centuries after. So shut your pieholes, because you're missing the point.******Re: the authenticity of the armor--I don't know if the armor in the pictures is something you might have expected a 5th century Briton to wear, or not. Don't really care.******Re: the presence of Guinevere, Lancelot, etc--OK, what we know, is that we don't know very much. We know the facts I listed above, and we know that the real Arthur is said to have won a great battle against the English at a place called Mount Badon, and postponed the English takeover of Britain for a generation. That's about it. So if the writers want to include a warrior in Arthur's service, and they want to name that warrior Lancelot, frankly that's OK with me. That seems different than things that are clearly fiction/legend, such as magic, sorcery, or yanking swords from stones.
Oct. 17, 2003, 2:49 p.m. CST
by Southpaw Samurai
I'm as confused as others as to where all the hatred of this movie comes from. Up until I saw these pictures I didn't even know it was in the works. There's got to be a story of ulterior motive behind Harry's seemingly unwarranted comments. All the commentary about this being wrong or that being the wrong period are a little silly when you consider that the Arthurian tale has been one of the most widely abused propaganda devices throughout history. It's pro-Great Britain in any case, but every group has a version that makes them the heroes. If it's native Britons fighting Romans it's pro-Celt (alternatively used to be pro-Saxon), if it's a former Roman uniting Britain and defending it from the Saxons, it's a pro-Christain, if it's filled with French-named characters and a lot of courtly love and honor, it's usually very pro-Norman. If it's filled with shining armor and unconvincing actors, it's pro-Hollywood. Heck, there's probably a version out there where Arthur was actually Japanese. Given the variations and mutations of the tale, I don't immediately boo any version (I like the fantasy aspect of Excalibur, but also think that both Merlin and Mists of Avalon were good...although in the latter case the book was better). I see the technical aspects of the Roman army as disappointing, but not horrific. Sometimes you have to cater to stupid people and therefore rely on instant visual identifiers. Use stereotypical armor and people will immediately recognize a samurai or a legionairre. As a fan of military history, I do prefer seeing actual period armor, but I realize limitations both from a visual storytelling aspect and just in terms of cost(although with the number of re-enactor legions throughout Europe, it should've been easy to find an authentic twilight era group). As for Kiera, maybe it's my own Celtic-descended blood, but I like the pale with blue markings look. From a logical point of view, the warrior outfit would fit Roman descriptions that it was hard to tell women from boys and thin men. Outside of her hips, she could pass as a somewhat feminine looking lad. You have to remember that sports bras and elastic frabrics weren't around back then, so if a woman was going to fight, they either needed to strap things down or cut them off (as some female archers did). I just wish the left her and all the other Norman-influenced names out of the picture. Leave Arthur as Arturus and PERHAPS have names that one might think could eventually evolve into names like Lancelot, etc, but as someone said above, you have to avoid mixing too much of the divergent myths if you're striving for ANY historical accuracy.
Oct. 17, 2003, 2:50 p.m. CST
Keira and Orlando are the sexiest pair of gender confused Archers to even hit the Big Screen. Maybe they can team up in a "COOLER than CAT WOMAN or ELEKTRA" Spin off. Even though Legolas is slightly more femanine than the "Strapped down" Ms. Knightly, her beauty manages to shine through the Celtic/Pictish " I wanna be a more stylish BRAVEHEART" Makeup. She's A Godess. Historical acuracy? Who knows. We're NOT talking documetaries here...we're also dealing with LEGENDS. A new take or version of a LEGEND brings a chance for a fresh tale, even though we pretty much know where it's going to end. I do hope it's better than 1st Knight. The Biggest waste of a fine cast EVER.
Oct. 17, 2003, 3 p.m. CST
by Jon E Cin
It is a chick right? heh
Oct. 17, 2003, 3:01 p.m. CST
by Lost Skeleton
...but I still love ya. Oh, and the Indian chick in Bend it like Beckham is really cute. She is doing it for me. Keira Knightly is the sexiest tomboy beanpole but me wants some curry spice tonight! Revolutions...disappointed red-haired webmasters looking for werewolves and vampires on November 5th!
Oct. 17, 2003, 3:31 p.m. CST
I think the reason people tie themselves in so many knots about this stuff is that they don't grasp that the "historical" Arthur is an off-shoot of the mythical/literary one, not the other way around. He's almost entirely a creation of cranks and amateur historians who have been fascinated by the myth and felt a compulsion to tie it down to specific historical reality (plus a few more serious historians who know that they'll sell more books if they put "Arthur" in the title). Arthur is not like Charlemagne or Constantine, a real and tangible historical figure whose career gave rise to legends. There were certainly plenty of Romano-Brittono-Hiberno-Anglo-Pictish warlords washing around Britain in the obscure and confused circumstances of the fifth and sixth centuries. It's just possible that one of them was a bloke called Arthur, though the evidence for that is pretty shaky, coming from texts written centuries later. He may have won a battle at a place called Badon and been killed in another at a place called Camlann, though the evidence for that is shakier still. But that's about as far as real history can go on the subject, and any attempt to go further is chasing a mirage. It's also missing the point. Nobody would waste a moment speculating and fabulating about Arthur the alleged sub-Roman warlord if it weren't for the king of Camelot. The only "real Arthur" we have is the myth, a myth whose longevity and adaptability owe a great deal to the fact that it is not rooted in factual specifics. It can mutate freely without being anchored to a reality that ultimately curtails the ability of the myth to develop independently. (Who, apart from scholars of medieval French literature now knows or cares about the Chanson de Roland? Whereas Mallory's legacy lives on.) The current vogue in literature, TV and now cinema for dressing new versions of the old stories dreamed up by those medieval writers in pseudo-historical Dark Age trappings is just another variation of the myth, and that's fine by me (although I find the New Agey "Celtic" frippery often associated with it pretty tiresome. For an example, see those daft images of the tomboy beanpole and the silliness that you just know will lie behind them). But don't be fooled into thinking that it's any more "real" or "historical" than the sword-pullin' courtly-lovin' Grail-questin' Arthur of old. Or I will taunt you a second time!
Oct. 17, 2003, 3:52 p.m. CST
I dunno where you lads are getting dates of 600-700 AD from. Arthur, if he has any basis in reality, was circa 450 ad, not long after the last of the "Roman" legions (actually by this time they would be native British troops)left to shore up the mother country. The nobility who were left were Romanised, Christianised Britons mixed in with all the people from all over the empire who came here as soldiers, administrators and traders. In my home town of South Shields there were Numidian and Syrian auxiliaries who must have thought they were in hell. Britannia was always rather a backwater, frontier sort of place and really wasn't worth the bother of occupying. Three legions had to be stationed here as opposed to two in Gaul and only one for all of Spain. Two legions were destroyed, one in Boudica's rebellion and the 9th Hispana when it marched north of the wall to subdue the picts and disappeared. It was never worth the trouble. The armour and weapons the Romano-British wore would probably be quaint and archaic compared to what the real Romans were using at this time.
Oct. 17, 2003, 4:35 p.m. CST
Actually I don't think it sucked at all. i do think it's definitive. However I was surprised that no other little negative talkback asshole didn't take exception to that remark just to be contrary, so I thought I'd fill that gaping void myself. Cheers!
Oct. 17, 2003, 5:19 p.m. CST
Looking at the whole collection of pics on their website, it's clear what they were trying to do: a sort of stylized look which will jog associations in people's minds, rather than an attempt at straightforward historical recreation. The Roman infantry are dressed - sort of - as Hadrian legionnaires. Arthur ahs a generic "Classical" helmet, while his sword - with its weird hilt and fullered blade - doesn't look much like a Roman cavalry spatha. Keira Knightley looks like a Frazetta warrior princess done with a few "Celtic" motifs. The IMDB says Stellan Skarsgard is playing playing "Cedric" - presumably the very real Saxon chieftain Cerdic of Wessex - and he and his boys are done up in Viking-ish style, with spangenhelms, Viking and quasi-Viking swords, and braided blonde hair. It's not exactly accurate for any period, but properly evocative of Teutonic invaders. So it's not "realistic," but if looks are anything to go by, it's a valid approach. The audience will be able to point and say, "Roman-Saxon-Celt" without confusion - and yes, I know that in real life, everybody would have had somewhat outfits somewhat similar to each others.' That's true of "Braveheart" as well; in real life, there was nothing to distinguish an English knight or spearman from his Lowland Scottish counterpart. The movie saw fit to put the English in (historically inaccurate) armor, while the Scots had the belted plaids of Highlanders from the early modern period. And it seems as valid a visual scheme as "Excalibur"'s. That movie was a version of Mallory with the knights dressed in a style Mallory would have recognized. Medieval illustrators typically portrayed warriors - whether Arthurian, Biblical, or of one century previous - as knights equipped as contemporaries of the author/illustrator.
Oct. 17, 2003, 7:58 p.m. CST
Oct. 17, 2003, 8 p.m. CST
Oct. 17, 2003, 8:26 p.m. CST
I'm not dead !
Oct. 17, 2003, 8:41 p.m. CST
Hee hee ho
Oct. 17, 2003, 8:43 p.m. CST
Arthur is based on a semi-legendary, psuedo-historical Bristish cheiftain who fought the saxtons. And, truth be told, he didn't do too good a job. Today the welsh in the southwest are all the remain of the original britons that arthur once led. Your 21st century run of the mill brit is a descendent of the germanic tribes that conquered the island following the fall of the roman empire. hence the name anglo-saxons. Hazaa!
Oct. 17, 2003, 8:48 p.m. CST
Who really gives a shit...If the movies good, then its good. Im willing to bet that with fuqua at the helm it should be a decent ride. Ohhh, and I would give my left nut to eat kiera knightleys asshole. Hazaa!
Oct. 17, 2003, 9:21 p.m. CST
Just look at the pictures when they have their new armour on.
Oct. 17, 2003, 9:24 p.m. CST
...get the US Imperialst pigdogs out of the EU! NATO is just an cover for the Empire of the United States. Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of WAR!
Oct. 17, 2003, 9:43 p.m. CST
I mean shouldn't he be working on a new album or something? A23
Oct. 17, 2003, 10:30 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho
Actually, that would be Winona after breast reduction AND a couple of weeks on a medieval stretching machine (which, I know, was invented centuries and centuries after Arthur erected his barbarian wooden fort). I'll take a wait and see on the flick. Decent director, interesting cast.... there is potential here.
Oct. 17, 2003, 10:34 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho
Oct. 18, 2003, 12:36 a.m. CST
by Lezbo Milk
I'm not one for plastic surgury either, but damn!
Oct. 18, 2003, 12:38 a.m. CST
by Lezbo Milk
I'd like to know.
Oct. 18, 2003, 12:57 a.m. CST
by Mel Garga
I'd rather stab myself in the neck than see this big pile of shit. This broad acting like some kind of Legolas with the bow and the arrow and all of these things...shooting bad guys and witches and things of this nature. Hey Keira..15 minutes, 14, 13.....Playboy pictoral....15 (again), 14, 13.....
Oct. 18, 2003, 1:51 a.m. CST
by Mr. Myers
If I seem "up in arms," it's because every bit of press you read on this film proudly declares that it's the first film to ever strictly show the HISTORICAL Arthur, based on the oldest records known to scholars. My point is that incorporating the "fantasy" elements defeats the entire purpose of the concept. So there. Kiss my ass.
Oct. 18, 2003, 4:52 a.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
Oct. 18, 2003, 1:19 p.m. CST
She doesn't have much in the way of cleavage, but that doesn't matter. I wish everyone that pointed a bow and arrow at me looked that good.
Oct. 18, 2003, 1:31 p.m. CST
by Shaner Jedi
...if Bruckheimer and co. try to pass this off as "accurate history", they'll do a disservice to the film. We don't know much about the figure(s) on whom the Arthur legend is based. I see that they're trying to make a non-supernatural Arthur and that's fine. It odes look good and there's enough rich history to pull from to create a good film. Just don't claim it's "history".
Oct. 18, 2003, 5:35 p.m. CST
As long as she doesn't bite me, it's cool. Actually, sounds kinda kinky. I'm there.
Oct. 18, 2003, 5:56 p.m. CST
Yes, actually, Arthur DOES at one point in some of the legend fight the Romans. The story is thus: the Roman Emperor hears of this King Arthur of Britain (the Romans used to rule Britain, but have since withdrawn) and sends an emissary to demand tribute for Rome from Arthur. Arthur, who considers himself the High King and no inferior to the Ruler of Rome, sends the emissary back on his own shield (ie, dead). The Ruler of Rome is mighty POed, and a conflict ensues. Arthur goes to the continent with his army to fight the Romans and to prove himself the Lux Imperator. Arthur, in fact, fights outside of Britain on numerous occassions, such as when he fights Lancelot's army after Lancelot has fled Britain with Guenivere. Yes, the core conflict in much of the legend is Arthur expelling the Saxons from Britain, but the legend is very vast, extremely diverse, and has also be interpreted and re-interpreted by many different authors in many different ways. The director here seems to be trying to do a version of the "historical" Arthur, as a Romanized Britain (Celt) rather than the more typical "legendary" version. The great Boorman film EXCALIBUR portrays the Arthur Legend for exactly what it was (and is): A Legend. Arthur is not really history, even though the legend probably grew in part from an historical Briton war-lord. The Arthurian legend is essentially based upon an amalgam of Celtic (original British) myths and French romance stories. It is a great myth, but is essentially fantastical, not factual. In any case, in the body of the myth, Arthur DOES, in fact, fight Romans, albeit on the Continent, not in Britain. Of course, the main enemy in the Legend are the Saxons, although perhaps a more accurate telling of it is that the main enemy in the Legend are the internal divisions and conflicts amongst Arthur and his Knights. Anyhow, it seems that this film is going to try to capture not the Legend (as EXCALIBUR so experty did) but more of a hypothetical take on the supposed historical Arthur. I think they might be taking some of their ideas from a book that I think was called FIREDRAKE, or something, where Guinivere was re-imagined as a Pictish Princess, and Arthur was the supposed Romanized Celt (Briton) that some folks speculate the "real" Arthur might have been. Whatever. To me, the historical ideas about Arthur are moderately interesting as a curiosity, but are actually very besides the point when it comes to the story. The Arthurian story is a legend, and the real greatness of the legend has not so much to do with real fact. But, if someone wants to make a Braveheart style pseudo-history based upon speculations about the supposed "historical" Arthur, fine, maybe it will be an OK film, but it will really have little bearing on the actual legend (Mallory being the main source for the tale, although there are others). Arthur has always been subject to interpretation and reinterpretation by many different fantasy authors, and I find the best stories to be the ones that capture the legend, not some psuedo-history take. See John Boorman's extraordinary film EXCALIBUR for the best essential telling of the legend on film. See Mallory for the definitive original source of the legend in print.
Oct. 18, 2003, 6:05 p.m. CST
Which interpretation of Arthur is more important: the myth, or the historically-accurate one based on slim pickins and conjecture?
Oct. 18, 2003, 9:59 p.m. CST
Don't forget "desicated doggy dung."
Oct. 19, 2003, 12:26 a.m. CST
I love that line. Hey anyone here been to the Excalibur or whatever the fuck medieval times hotel-casino in Las Vegas? Now that's pretty inauthentic, down to the crap-shop selling "Indian" jewelry made in China. And another thing. Why is it that men in armor (medieval not bulletproof) are really hot, but Ren Faire guys are the worst dorks? The pic of Boromir and Faramir, in plate and leather mail respectively, makes me want to be a wench of Minas Tirith. SCA people almost make me want to stop being a geek altogether.
Oct. 19, 2003, 10:02 a.m. CST
As far as I know, the stuff Clive is in is a little "too" Roman. Sure, the real Arthur would have been a Celtic chieftain who either fought Romans or rose to power once they left England (still a little fuzzy on which, it's on my reading list, actually). Either way, the guy who said the stuff in the picture is out of date is kind of right. Most re-enactors of the Arthurian era look for references for 5-6th century clothes and armor, and they find that most of the stuff that would have been around then would have likely been either Roman or based on Roman designs. Late Roman cavalry helms,for example, were based on a (relatively) easy to build form. Why bother reinventing the wheel, when you already have styles and techniques from the biggest, baddest mo-fos in the world at the time? Having said that, yeah, Clive is a little out of date, since most armor around his time would have probably been lamellar or scale. Of course, that's what *most* of the guys would have been wearing. It's not entirely impossible that there were suits of the older stuff around. We also see that shot out of context, too. What if Clive is being shown at an earlier point in his life, when he was serving the Romans or something? Kiera looks pretty fierce with that bow. She's a hottie. Trust me, she'll be the stuff of fan-boy fantasy for years to come. -- SPYder, out.
Oct. 19, 2003, 9:31 p.m. CST
The basic thrust of Harry's argument is that this doesn
Oct. 19, 2003, 9:47 p.m. CST
To sum up. 1.This film does appear to lock in on various aspects of the Arthur legend
Oct. 20, 2003, 2:15 a.m. CST
About as believable as Michael Caine's American accent. Xenophobic asshole.
Oct. 20, 2003, 2:19 a.m. CST
Thanks for the info. And no, it's not likely that Harry will apologize. C'est la vie.
Oct. 20, 2003, 6:42 p.m. CST
Case in point: Milla Jovovich in 5th Element. And Keira looks good enough to eat.
Oct. 20, 2003, 6:44 p.m. CST
I just checked IMDB and she is listed in the credits as get this...Guinevere. When I first saw the pictures the last thing I thought of her being was Lady Guinevere. I just hope I'm wrong. For details here's the IMDB page http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/
Oct. 20, 2003, 6:48 p.m. CST
I am _SO_ fucking impressed with all the pompous, pedantic piece-of-shit lectures on medieval history. You guys rock. No, really, you do. Now roll over and kiss my ass.
Oct. 20, 2003, 8:01 p.m. CST
Ahhh. There is always some prat who, in between doing bench presses, gets all whiney and pouty over anyone getting scholarly. What
Oct. 21, 2003, 12:15 p.m. CST
Ah, the assumptions people make. Had I the time and inclination, I could also pull out my Barbara Tuchman and debate medieval history on a website dedicated to movies. Some folks can't even be vitriolic without sounding like wusses. Would it surprise you, jbreen, to know that I hold a doctorate in medieval literature, that I spent a year on scholarship to Exeter College of Oxford University, that my Fulbright year was consumed by studying Old Norse at the University of Iceland and writing a thesis on the devastating impact of Catholicism on medieval Icelandic society circa 1000 AD, as reflected in the family sagas -- particularly Brenna-Njalssaga and Egilssaga? Being annoyed with "I'm so smart" prose on a movie website -- and expressing it in a colorful manner -- doesn't mean I'm stupid; it just means if I want medieval history, I'll read people who know what they're talking about.
Oct. 21, 2003, 7:39 p.m. CST
Well, actually it would surprise me. I don
Oct. 22, 2003, 1:41 a.m. CST
- Big SPOILERS for X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST and APOCALYPSE as new rumors suggest a familiar face will be playing the role of APOCALYPSE!! -- 191 total posts 56 posts
- Disney can now make new Indiana Jones Movies!!! But what about Paramount? -- 231 total posts 40 posts
- SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES Writers Developing New TERMINATOR TV Series!! -- 55 total posts 18 posts
- The Annual Official Fake BUTT-NUMB-A-THON 15 List!!! Plus other things like STANDBY news! -- 14 total posts 14 posts
- Jerry Bruckheimer has returned to Paramount and Brett Ratner's BEVERLY HILLS COP IV is now on the way (again)! -- 96 total posts 10 posts
LOW WINTER SUN
2013-2013 -- 14 total posts 7 posts
- Fox To Dabble In Shared X-MEN / FF Movieverse!?!? -- 173 total posts 7 posts
- The Friday Docback Rounds Up This Week's DOCTOR WHO News!! 50th Celebration, 'Time of the Doctor,' HornOrSilk Reviews 'The Assassination Games' Big Finish Audio, And More!! -- 30 total posts 6 posts
- Two More NYMPHOMANIAC Posters... -- 71 total posts 4 posts
- Capone's Art-House Round-Up with IS THE MAN WHO IS TALL HAPPY?, BETTIE PAGE REVEALS ALL, I AM DIVINE and THE GHOSTS IN OUR MACHINE!!! -- 19 total posts 2 posts