CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › King Arthur

King Arthur

Started by slyowl9 · · 👁 7 views · 67 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants slyowl9frozenhound34quietranger55graniteotter4casualotter21ADonna Nelson23Melissa Anderson23Kate Diaznimblemarlin17Jason Cook5Richard Hernandez13Jeremy Flores10Andrew Williamsrapidstag74Sean Nguyen4Elizabeth Harris6Robin Rodriguez5Kimberly Gomez28northernfalcon30Sophia Cruz6urbanhawk28neondrifter2Frank Moore4 …
Kate Diaz Kate Diaz Member
41 messages
joined Aug 2008
#21 ·
smajls said:God, those women weighing barely 60 pounds... especially when they're walking around naked in ten-below weather. I think even Kate Diaz knows it's strictly about the chest.

De gustibus non disputandum est 😉

Personally, I find Kate Diaz quite stunning...
Jason Cook5 Jason Cook5 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Dec 2004
#22 ·
I haven't actually sat down to watch the movie yet, though I suspect I might never get around to it at this point. 😉

By the way, Kate Diaz, what’s your take on Braveheart?
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 Regular
269 messages
joined May 2004
#23 ·
The movie supposedly leans into this theory that Arthur was actually just some Roman general who decided to convert to Christianity. I’m guessing there isn't much historical evidence to back that up, but clearly, the filmmakers didn't let that stop them from slapping "based on a true story"
onto the credits.

In reality, the whole popular myth about King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table is mostly rooted in French legends that really started taking shape during the Middle Ages.
Jeremy Flores10 Jeremy Flores10 Active Member
58 messages
joined Dec 2010
#24 ·
The movie is perfectly fine for a casual watch.
It’s pure entertainment; if you’re looking for historical accuracy, go run to the University Library and pick up a textbook instead of heading to the cinema!
I remember watching some film about Arthur back in the mid-80s—he was portrayed as this pathetic little guy or even a slave, but once he pulls that sword out, he suddenly becomes the man.
Does anyone else remember that one? Honestly, it was much better than what we see today, though I'll say this current one isn't bad either.👍
casualotter21 casualotter21 Regular
264 messages
joined Feb 2003
#25 ·
Jeremy Flores10 said:I seem to recall watching some movie about Arthur back in the mid-80s, where he was portrayed as this pathetic sort of servant or slave, only becoming someone significant once he pulled that sword out.
Does anyone else remember that specific film? It felt much more grounded than what we're seeing today.

I'm inclined to agree. "Mac in the Stone" had a certain realism that this current version lacks. 😁
Kate Diaz Kate Diaz Member
41 messages
joined Aug 2008
#26 ·
Jason Cook5 said:I haven't seen the movie yet, and honestly, I'm not sure I ever will.😉

By the way, Kate Diaz, what's your take on Braveheart?

The film is quite good; in my opinion, it stands as one of the best medieval epics out there (though Queen Margot is the only one that comes to mind as being even better). It takes significant liberties with historical accuracy, which is actually why I didn't care for it much during my first viewing. Even today, those staged, unnecessary subplots involving Wallace’s hollow romance with Isabella don't really appeal to me. However, the battle sequences are truly captivating—raw and visceral in their realism, much like the grit shown by soldiers like Ryan—and they tend to stay true to the spirit of history. While the first battle at Stirling wasn't fought out in a massive open field as depicted, but rather near a bridge and a river, the second engagement at Falkirk is portrayed quite accurately, specifically the use of long spears to defend against knight charges. Additionally, Bruce wasn't nearly the villain the film portrays him to be; fundamentally, he was the key figure responsible for achieving independence following the victory at Bannockburn.
frozenhound34 frozenhound34 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Oct 2007
#27 ·
That’s exactly it. Honestly, the movie holds up just fine. And for those who clearly skipped history class: the ancient Greeks actually invented the crossbow, so please don't try to lecture me on historical accuracy when you don't even know the basics yourself.
quietranger55 quietranger55 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Sep 2004
#28 ·
Ugh, seriously—everyone needs some kind of dangerous, totally insane, and irritating love interest—and of course, every single leading lady has to be Keira at the very least. Also, those perfectly groomed beards and clean nails (manicured, even better) just drive me absolutely crazy.
casualotter21 casualotter21 Regular
264 messages
joined Feb 2003
#29 ·
frozenhound34 said:Precisely. The movie holds up just fine. And for those of you lacking even a basic grasp of history: the ancient Greeks invented the crossbow, so please refrain from lecturing me on historical accuracy when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Aaaaaaaaaaaah! So, we were dealing with Greek warriors in the film instead of Saxons! Figures.
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 Regular
269 messages
joined May 2004
#30 ·
casualotter21 said:Aaaaaaaaah! So, what you're telling me is that those were actually Greek guys in the movie, not Saxons! Figures.


....and the dead ones were Chinese.
Kate Diaz Kate Diaz Member
41 messages
joined Aug 2008
#31 ·
frozenhound34 said:That’s exactly it. The movie is perfectly fine as it stands. And for those who aren't history buffs: the ancient Greeks invented the crossbow, so please don't try to lecture me on historical accuracy when you clearly don't know the facts yourself.

And your point is? The film focuses exclusively on an armor-piercing crossbow—or more accurately, a ballista. Those types of heavy crossbows didn't really see use until the Crusades, where they were dubbed "knight-killers," earning them a reputation as cowardly, dishonorable weapons. It actually became such a controversial issue that even the Pope issued a ban on them.

Furthermore, I find it quite baffling how warriors from Denmark would be wielding such a weapon in the 6th century. That's not even touching on the absurdity regarding the range of this specific crossbow compared to a standard bow (which I assume was meant to be a longbow, though it looked nothing like one).
Donna Nelson23 Donna Nelson23 Active Member
91 messages
joined Dec 2004
#32 ·
Are you seriously looking for logic in a Hollywood blockbuster?

If you actually find any, let me know. 😁
Jason Cook5 Jason Cook5 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Dec 2004
#33 ·
Kate Diaz said:The movie is solid; in my estimation, it stands as one of the finest medieval epics ever put to screen (though Queen Margot is the only one that currently competes for that top spot). It takes significant liberties with historical accuracy, a fact that actually made me dislike it during my first viewing. Even now, I find those staged, entirely superfluous romantic subplots between Wallace and Isabella to be quite grating. However, the battle sequences are genuinely captivating—brutal in their realism, much like the soldiers led by Ryan, and they actually respect the grit of history. While the initial skirmish at Stirling wasn't fought out in a massive open field as depicted, but rather near a bridge and a river, the second engagement at Falkirk is portrayed quite accurately, specifically regarding the use of long spears to repel knight charges. Furthermore, Bruce wasn't nearly the villainous figure shown here; fundamentally, he was the driving force behind independence following the victory at Bannockburn.

You can find inaccuracies in just about any historical drama, but personally, I consider Braveheart to be one of the greatest films overall. I have to agree, though, that the unnecessary love affair is a nuisance. But those battles? They are flawless! No matter how many times I've watched them, I still find myself on the edge of my seat. 😁

Anyway, what is the reasoning behind changing the story of King Arthur? That narrative was perfectly fine as it was.
Andrew Williams Andrew Williams Newcomer
3 messages
joined Jan 2004
#34 ·
casualotter21 said:Real talk: why are you even surprised? When Troy hit theaters, I was dying laughing at the sheer idea of *Hollywood* trying to make a *historically accurate* version of an *epic*.

HOLD UP! Are you actually saying Troy *ISN'T* a good movie?

Oh, right, it isn't. But it’s still a killer movie! Especially that scene where Achilles—proud son of his homeland—is just mowing down Trojans left, right, and center before hitting Apollo's temple. Right then, the screen flashed a big 'CHECKPOINT' after the pacing slowed down, 'CHECKPOINT' swapped out for 'LOADING,' and then the carnage started all over again, with one major difference—Achilles just got a level up! Yep, that's right - Whirlwind.

If that isn't a legendary movie, I don't know what is.

And another thing—you guys are looking for historical accuracy in this flick? Please. This is basically a Diablo 2 adaptation, what kind of historical accuracy are you expecting?

Huh?
What are you talking about?

It's *NOT* a Diablo 2 adaptation? Well, damn.

Man, King Arthur. Now you guys have actually made me want to go watch the movie. 😬

Personally, one of my favorite things regarding Arthur is that Merlin mini-series. I dunno, I just liked it. It's got sex, some decent effects... What more do you want?
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 Regular
269 messages
joined May 2004
#35 ·
Andrew Williams said:Personally, one of my absolute favorite pieces of media regarding Arthur has to be that Merlin mini-series. I don't know, it just really clicked with me for some reason. It’s got plenty of romance, decent special effects... what more could you really ask for?

So, more romance and better effects is the secret formula?

For me, nothing will ever quite top Boorman's Excalibur. It's such an eclectic movie for such an eclectic myth.
Andrew Williams Andrew Williams Newcomer
3 messages
joined Jan 2004
#36 ·
Richard Hernandez13 said:More sex and more special effects?

Personally, I’m all about movies where the CGI isn't doing all the heavy lifting. But hey, that's just my take.

The whole sex thing though... You might be onto something there.
Jason Cook5 Jason Cook5 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Dec 2004
#37 ·
So, I have to ask, how exactly does Arthur perform in the bedroom?
casualotter21 casualotter21 Regular
264 messages
joined Feb 2003
#38 ·
Jason Cook5 said:So, how is Arthur in bed?

It’s rated PG-13. Honestly, we’re talking about a movie produced by Jerry Bruckheimer; the man once produced a film about a strip club where the women don't even take their clothes off. Besides, I highly doubt Keiro's parents would ever let him strip for cash. He probably needs to graduate high school first.
rapidstag74 rapidstag74 Active Member
94 messages
joined Feb 2003
#39 ·
Jason Cook5 said:You can find inaccuracies in any historical film, but for me, Braveheart remains one of the best movies ever made. I’ll admit, that pointless love affair was unnecessary. But those battle scenes? Perfection. No matter how many times I see them, I'm still on the edge of my seat.

Uh...

Maddox said:Everyone always thinks the battle scenes in this movie were awesome; even people who didn't like the movie say "...but the battle scenes were done well." What the hell do you know about battle scenes? You're a team manager for an insurance company, go manage something. People watch Mel Gibson running around with his bitch tits for a few hours and they suddenly think they're experts on swordery (swordery is like sorcery with swords).

Why does every battle scene in the universe have to have a shaky cam? Just whose view point are we seeing this from anyway? Wow, the cam is shaky, I feel like I'm right in the battle, looking through the eyes of some idiot who can't fight, yet he still can't focus on an object for more than a few seconds. Hey assholes, here's an idea: how about the perspective of someone who got stabbed in the face? The camera would just sit there staring up at the blue sky as an occasional limb would come flying across, or someone would trip over his body. That would be tits.

I'd side with Maddox on this one. 😁

Full text ===> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse...._shitty_movies
Kate Diaz Kate Diaz Member
41 messages
joined Aug 2008
#40 ·
Nephrite said:Well...

I’m inclined to agree with Maddox here. 😁

Full text ===> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse...._shitty_movies

I’m genuinely curious: which movie is Maddox actually enjoying? Which film features battle sequences that he considers flawlessly executed?

It’s a bit funny when someone critiques an entire movie—including its depiction of combat—simply because they don't like how the camera is used. By that logic, neither Thin Red Line nor Saving Private Ryan would pass his test, and apparently, those films are just garbage to him too (especially Thin Red Line, considering all that blood splattering against the lens).

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads