Movie Discussion Club

Discussion in 'Kent UK' started by Lord-Tice, Dec 6, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AmberStarbright Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 20, 2002
    star 7
    It's supposed to be the story or that is how it is advertised. But personally I think they should have just made up a story and not say it's an Arthur story because it's not accurate.

    From what I remember Guinevere and Lancelot have an affair once she marries Arthur. The wedding is at the end of the movie and shall we say poor Lancelot isn't going to be having an affair with anyone let alone Guinevere.

    Really the only things I remember it having in common with the legend is the names and that's it.
  2. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    They didn't even have a magic sword :_|
  3. Lord-Tice Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2001
    star 5
    Nonono, Lancelot is darkhaired.

    hehe, you're much better qualified then me to answer that, so I must have been confused with someone else ;)

    Rumour has it that a director's cut will be released later when the DVD is due. Essientially this film is a studio film who wanted a PG13 summer release, rather then a higher rated winter release which it was originally scheduled as...so watch this space ;)

    I can certainly see you enjoying this film Pash, but it could have been much, much more. It just seemed to concentrate on Arthur, which is fair enough, but at times it just called out to provide us with more insight into the other characters.

    I still haven't seen Troy yet, but I also like Eric Banna. Rumour has it he might be the next Bond :cool:

    Okay, I'm going to get all technical now :p :

    There was a good documentary on lastnight that tried to find out who the real King Arthur was, and basically it came to the same conclusion as the film, i.e he was a half Roman/Britain warrior who faught the Saxons during the 5-6th Century. It wasn't until the 10-11th Century that the first accounts of Arthur were written, which were by a Welsh Historian (I think) who wrote them purely as propaganda material. But during the crusades, the stories spread into mainland Europe and were nicked...er, I mean adapted by two French poets who used them to write romance stories (and decided to set them in France too). But thankfully Thomas Malory took them back and wrote Le Morte D'Arthur which is were all the legends come from. So sadly, it would be fair to assume the likes of Guinevere, Lancelot, Galahad etc never existed anyway.

    I definitely prefer the legends to the reality, but it is quite nice to have this alternative version of events.
  4. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    They could've mentioned the fact that Monks found his body in the 10th century and buried it somewhere else and refuse to tell us where.

    So now theres a plaque up instead.

    (selfish Monks wrecking things for everyone)
  5. SithLord-Mixo Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 5
    not enough blood for my likings
  6. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    That too
    Which, considering the Romans were in it, is quite odd.
  7. Yoshee RSA FFUK/EUROPE, CR Emeritus: London

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2002
    star 6
    I've actually got to the point where I refuse to watch this film now.
  8. Enji Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 14, 2002
    star 6
    I'll probably watch it on video later... don't want to pay the outrageous ticket fees for the cinema for this film.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.