King Arthur

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well this movie comes out today, and now I know I don't want to see it. Going by reviews which haven't been good it has made up my mind. I think part of it is because they have taken out the magical elements of the story. I was okay with taking out the gods and stuff with Troy because that was hard to do and the Trojan war did happen. To me taking out the magical elements destroys King Arthur especially with the way they are doing it, I mean you bring in Guinever and Lancelot, two characters that were made up by a French writer in the 10th century or so, and completely change their characters. And you keep Merlin in it but change him to something else. I just think trying to make it too historical doesn't work because most of the Arthurian story is combination of legend and fantasy, Arthur still may not even have existed we just don't know. I also hear they are trashing the romantic elements of the story which is just as bad. Man this has got to be the biggest disapointment for me this year, I was looking forward to this film when I first heard about it.

[JMK]

Yeah, but you had to know that since there is no definite history of Arthur, Hollywood (in this case Bruckheimer) was going to do whatever they wanted to do with it. From the sounds of it, the only thing this movie has in common with the actual 'legend' (be it real or fantasy or both) is the names.

I understand if that turns some people off, but if I see it, I will go in pretending that this is an entirely new fictional story.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I understand what you mean, it be impossible for me, I think because I have always loved the Arthur legend and messing with it so much just irks me, more so than Troy because at least they kept the story part the same with that.

[Razielle Alastor]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
To me taking out the magical elements destroys King Arthur especially with the way they are doing it, I mean you bring in Guinever and Lancelot, two characters that were made up by a French writer in the 10th century or so, and completely change their characters. And you keep Merlin in it but change him to something else.

I agree, but I'm still going to see it, just to see someone else perspective. My favorite Arthurian tale was The Mists of Avalon, I seriously loved that one..LOL

But I'll give this one a whirl on account of sheer boredum today.:p

[General Dan]

Seeing as this is going more by a Roman-esque slant on the story, I will most definitely go and see it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I don't like that angle but that is me I like the fantasy legend version since it is unlikely that most of these people (except maybe Arthur) even lived.

[General Dan]

Well since the entire story is hearsay and speculation, you'd think you would be able to suspend your disbelief.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I just like the fantasy version better but that is just my opinion. Besides looking at the reviews and the trailers the movie just doesn't look good to me now.

[Darth McBain]

Everything I've seen of it looks pretty bad - and so far the reviews haven't been the best for it. I will say Keira Knightley looks pretty zesty in that getup, but that does not a movie make...

[Live Wire]

I'm also disappointed it's not faitful to the mystical aspects. But I am interested to see what I consider a new interpretation on an old story and will judge then which version is better.

[jjwr]

I want to see it eventually, it won't be in the theatre though.

I don't mind the magical aspect being taken out, its fun with the story but to make it even slightly realistic they would have to. The fact that they say its the Real King Arthur is pretty laughable though.

History Channel(or was it Discovery?) in the past few weeks has had some really good Arthur shows on, trying to delve into the real Arthur and then the history of the Legend.

A king did live who fit the mold but the majority of the legend is just that, changed through the years and embellished.

[JMK]

I think embellished would be an understatement! ;)

[General Dan]

I think its pretty silly that they're touting it as the real story as well. It's no more real or nonsensical than anything found in Mort D'Arthur and all the carbon copies that tale spawned.

I'm not expecting realism, just a different slant on the story which seems to be one I will enjoy.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Well, I saw it yesterday evening, and I have to admit, I was disappointed. The movie had many opportunities to be great, but it settled for mediocre. Like many Bruckheimer films, visually yummy, but lacking in the plot.

For instance, how did all the Woads get on the southern side of the wall before the battle with the Saxons? And why did the Saxon leader have that American accent, when his son had some weird accent I can't even define? I'm guessing he was attempting to be Norwegian, but they weren't exactly supposed to be Vikings, were they?

And Lancelot died - which sucked. I kept waiting for a horrific love triangle to develop, but there really wasn't much of anything to hint at something between Arthur and Guenivere, except for the love scene that seemed totally unnecessary.

Why was G. allowed all over the roman wall in the roman camp, although she was a Woad, and their enemy? O, wait, pretty face good body, I forgot.

I liked the knights, and the reasoning behind Arthur and them, but too many died in the movie. ALSO - suddenly at the end Merlin announced Arthur as king, with no reason given! Bizarre.

I give it two and a half stars.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah I heard there was no love triangle, I mean that is stupid, that is the reason Camelot fell according to legend that and Arthur's stepson/halfson whatever, Mordred, speaking of him, was he in the movie?? And what role did Merlin play? Also in the legend Lancelot did die, what happened was after Arthur died, Guienvier died of a broken heart and then Lancelot wept at their graves he basically starved to death at their gravesite.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Arthur has no children, and Guinevere and Arthur marry right at the very end of the movie, after Lancelot has died in battle (there are only three knights and Arthur left by the end of the movie). Merlin was the leader of the Woads (I read in Entertainment that Guinevere was supposed to be a warrior queen of the Picts [the Woads?], but who knows. It wasn't mentioned in the movie.) Obviously the Woads were named so because they covered themselves with blue paint - woad.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Now talk about changing around the legend Obviously they are setting up a sequel but why kill of Lancelot??? Not having Modred in it is okay if they are going to deal with that later, but killing Lancelot just doesn't work as the love affair with Guienvier is why Camelot fell apart, I know I am going to hate this already, I am just too picky when it comes to King Arthur, I will just stick to Excalabur, now that was a great Arthur film.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

It didn't appear that they were setting up for a sequel. You can't kill off a major character and expect a sequel.

[Jedi Master Carr]

True, but Arthur is still alive so they could do a sequel with it of course based on reviews I don't expect a sequel to ever happen.

[JMK]

This all sounds VERY disappointing.

Thanks for nothing Bruckheimer.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well his movies have been 50-50 lately. Sure he did Pirates of the Carribean but that action flick with Hopkins and Rock was a huge bomb the year before.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Now, if you want a very interesting and different take on the Arthur tales, you should read the Pendragon series by Stephen Lawhead. I wouldn't mind seeing those as movies.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I have heard of the books just have never read them.

[Droo]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Now, if you want a very interesting and different take on the Arthur tales, you should read the Pendragon series by Stephen Lawhead. I wouldn't mind seeing those as movies.

I loved those books, borrowed them from the school library a few years ago and thought they were the bees knees and all that jazz.

[Razielle Alastor]

Okay I saw it last night. My stance is this, if you go because you like traditional Arthurian, you'll be dissapointed. But if you go just to see a historical / battle type movie with characters whose names you already know, I rather liked it.

I was sure I was going to depise Knightley as Guinevere but she managed to do rather well. If one could get past the pouty looks she gave all through Pirates, which she does again. :rolleyes

I hated Lancelot, but I think they pretty much got him right if they were aiming for realism. Instead of being a trecherous lover type, he was a self serving jerk, up until the last 10 minutes or so...

I loved Guin's little comment about "Don't worry, I won't let them rape you.."

I loved the scence on the ice in its entirety, in fact.

But on the whole they did a crap job of explaining, like Lil said. If I hadn't read the credits I wouldn't have gotten the Knights correct with the exception of Bors, Lance & Gallahad..

That and what was up with Guinvere running about half dressed in a near blizzard the whole movie? The Picts were rustic, not stupid...

Mostly I just liked the fighting scenes, but I was prepared to be dissapointed with the plot so it was ok..LOL

[James Prent]

I loved Guin's little comment about "Don't worry, I won't let them rape you.."

I loved the scence on the ice in its entirety, in fact. I liked that bit the best too. :D

[Pierce Tondry]

I haven't seen the movie, but let me guess: this was a girl power moment?

[Razielle Alastor]

No this was a

Lancelot was being a jerk moment trying to spook her ;)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

But it was funny. Just like the part where Bors was telling them about how he liked #3 the best, and Lancelot saying that was because the kid was his. :lol

[ReaperFett]

Well acted, good fights, some good scenes. But somehow, it doesn't gel.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I saw it tonight, Overall I liked it. I still prefer the legendary version but that is me especially since Tristan, Lancelot, and Guinever never probably existed as they were put in the Arthurian legend by Thomas Malfory in the 15th century Still I tried to ignore that and the movie did convey the whole nobel Arthur idea and the his concept of chivialry which was the main point the legend really was about. I really liked how they showed Merlin's magic. Actually if Merlin existed that is how I have envisioned him.

[Jedieb]

Everytime I see a commercial for this and hear that LOTResque music playing over and over I feel even more determined to stay as far away from this as possible. I'd be better off watching the Broadway musical.

[Yog]

It seems to me, theire changing too much of the story which makes the legend great. I will stick to <a href=http://imdb.com/title/tt0082348/>Excalibur</a> thank you very much.

[Zasz Grimm]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Everytime I see a commercial for this and hear that LOTResque music playing over and over I feel even more determined to stay as far away from this as possible. I'd be better off watching the Broadway musical.

It made me not want to watch it as well, hearing the Requiem Overture playing on a trailer. But my roomie, his girlfriend, and I went and bought it (couldn't find a rentable copy)

We got the directors cut. And I went in expecting the realism. How different it was going to be, and I enjoyed it. Of course, I loved the fantasy aspect we're used to seeing, so I was a little dissapointed.

I kind've enjoyed how most of the knights were self serving. They were in it for their freedom, and for arthur. But primarily freedom. They were 'serfs' the whole time

I'd write alot more, but I have to go to work here shortly. All in all, it was a good action flick.

[Peter McCoy]

My favourite Arthur legend isn't about Arthur at all - its about Merlin, who has the power to see into the future. Centuries into the future. He's even been there, lad. :p

Incidentally, I thought this film sucked.