King Arthur

[Emu]

Dear god this movie is going to be horrible. Just from the previews you can tell they fucked the whole story up royal.

[sports]

at your post!

[AChimp]

BUT IT'S THE TRUE STORY!

Seriously, who gives a shit what the TRUE story was? Guinevere is a bull dyke in this movie.

[glowbelly]

grrrrrrrrl power

[Emu]

Sports, I was planning to ignore your post because you have what can be called the "Black Hole" of taste in movies and television. To sum it up for you, everything you like is inevitably horrible. But I'm curious, have you ever read ANY of the Arthurian legends, or is the extent of your knowlege of the legend only as broad as Disney's "The Sword in the Stone?"

[Sam]

I liked the Sword in the Stone.

[Emu]

I did too, but they took a lot of artistic liberties with the legend.

which could have been expected from Disney, but it's not exactly inspiring kids to pick up Le Morte d'Arthur.

[CastroMotorOil]

isn't this technically not based on the legend at all?

[ItalianStereotype]

nope, because Arthur wasn't a fucking Roman. I think the Arthurian legend is based off a 9th century Welsh king.

[CastroMotorOil]

wasn't it 5th century? Because I was just watching the history channel and stuff. And if it was the 5th century wouldn't older Roman armor be the msot prized armor, as the technology to make it would have been lost, and I'm pretty sure a king could find some.

[ItalianStereotype]

see, the thing is NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE. most credible scholars that I've heard or talked to think the Arthurian legend is complete bunk.

IF Arthur were truly a 5th century king, then no, the technology to make Roman armor wouldn't have been lost. the western empire didn't "fall" until 476 and even afterwards, it took at least one or two centuries for Europe to descend into what we know as the Dark Ages.

all that aside, most historical accounts I've heard of match the Arthurian legend to a 9th century Welsh king/warlord.

[CastroMotorOil]

good point but although the western empire fell in 476 the romans left britain starting in about 400 and finished in 410 with honorius letter telling the britains to look to their own defenses.

Thats a decent amount of time to lose the roman art of armorsmithing.

http://www.britannia.com/history/historan.html

almsot every comment listed there mention the 500's not the 9th century.

although most say he never existed at all.

[ItalianStereotype]

right, that's what I was saying. most historians don't believe the Arthurian legend.

notice how I said "fall" instead of fall. most of the peoples of Europe still considered themselves Romans, but they refused to accept the authority of Romulus Augustus. the customs, traditions, etc. of Rome (not Byzantine Rome) continued for hundreds of years. look at the Holy Roman Empire.

in retrospect though, the HRE was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

[CastroMotorOil]

well it was an empire, just not a very good one.

The Knights Templar were cool though.

[ItalianStereotype]

it's a matter of opinion, I guess, and the majority of opinions are against you there.

[ScruU2wice]

Originally Posted by AChimp

Guinevere is a bull dyke in this movie.

Is that hot

[ArrowX]

Is this the one where the guy uses Dual-Broadswords?

[Emu]

No, that's Diablo II.

[Perndog]

I just read an annotated Arthur book with legends from 1100-1400, and it says that most historians completely discredit the actual stories but place the real King Arthur or his equivalent in the 5th century.

This site agrees.

I don't care if the movie is historically accurate (which it won't be) or in line with the legend (which it probably won't be). I still think it'll be good.

[ArrowX]

But some guy uses TWO Swords at once!! Is such a radical Idea because hes from the 1400 and the concept of using TWO swords is still like 300 years away!!!