new King Arthur movie

[rekirts]

Vincula, try this one:<br>
www.bookloons.com/cgi-bin...bookid=443 <p>"I am an admirer of the ancients,but not like some people so as to despise the talent of our own times." Pliny the Younger</p><i></i>

[Vincula]

Thanks! I must've missed it on Amazon.<br>
(Here [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812545141/qid=1082655580/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3268694-1676603?v=glance&s=books" target="top]if anyones intrested[/url].) <p></p><i></i>

[Chariovalda]

Well, the first reviews are in:<br>
<br>
www.cinemablend.com/review.php?id=563<br>
<br>
movie-reviews.colossus.ne...rthur.html<br>
<br>
www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/<br>
<br>
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it looks like it's official: we have a deluxe stinker of a movie! <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

More reviews:<br>
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/06/review.kingarthur.ap/" target="top]www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/06/review.kingarthur.ap/[/url]<br>
[url=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5343992/" target="top]msnbc.msn.com/id/5343992/[/url]<br>
[url=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5352308/site/newsweek/" target="top]msnbc.msn.com/id/5352308/site/newsweek/[/url]<br>
[url=http://www.premiere.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=1712" target="top]www.premiere.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=1712[/url]<br>
[url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20040706-9999-1c6arthur.html" target="top]www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20040706-9999-1c6arthur.html[/url]<br>
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/04/movies/04MCGR.html" target="top]www.nytimes.com/2004/07/04/movies/04MCGR.html[/url]<br>
[url=http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/07/07/movies/07KING.html" target="top]movies2.nytimes.com/2004/07/07/movies/07KING.html[/url]<br>
[url=http://www.startribune.com/stories/1553/4863117.html" target="top]www.startribune.com/stories/1553/4863117.html[/url]<br>
[url=http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0427/atkinson1.php" target="top]www.villagevoice.com/issues/0427/atkinson1.php[/url]<br>
[url=http://filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/0/2c1e3a6a3a7457be88256ec60007ff88?OpenDocument" target="top]filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/0/2c1e3a6a3a7457be88256ec60007ff88?OpenDocument[/url]<br>
<br>
None too favourable, I'm afraid. "All wet", Kurosawa Copy", "The Saxon leader, Cerdic, is like Hitler buried in hair", "Boogie Knights", "Brave-Troy-Gladiator-Heart of the Rings".<br>
I loved "Knight of the Living Dead"!<br>
Sorry Tim, I don't like it either, but ever since Marion Zimmer Bradley the early Christian Church plays an inquisition-like role in most movies and novels. Too bad; "The young Catholic Church is up to no good, condemning ungrateful pagans to horrid dungeons".<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vortigernstudies>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 7/8/04 9:41 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

read in a newspaper that John Matthews was the historical adviser .... didn't he write a book or two ? <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

John matthews has indeed written a few books.. !<br>
Another advisor was Linda Malcor 9sometimes discussed here), who co-developed the whole theory that the 'legendary' Arthur goes back on one Lucius Artorius Castus, who commanded a bunch of Sarmatians.<br>
<br>
Trouble is, they were asked only within a month of the movie going into pre-production, and there was not much they could do.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Some time ago I watched a documentary on how medieval costumes were made for a film, and I was amazed at how much attention it was paid to details and to the safety of the actors (fake weapons of all kind of materials) and how little to historical accuracy <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

The safety of actors is obviously puts pressure on the physical details of the film (action scenes) and the visual details are important because films are a visual art and close ups are unforgiving. But as long as the public knows nothing of history and the history of costumes, why should a film maker, producer, director, art director go thru all the extra effort to make accurate costuming?<br>
Is the main purpose of movie makers to educate?Shouldn't education start much earlier elsewhere, schools for instance?<br>
<br>
For exmaple: the recent Brad Pitt TROY flick annoyed many in Italy because many have READ the Illiad. But we must admit that in a place and time where no one reads the Illiad anymore, there will be no one to complain and, argueably nothing to complain about. <p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

Just caught the movie last night. Awesom.<br>
I didn't know that Hadrians Wall was still there in 452 AD. (Doesn't that make it Byzantine?! ) <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Did they say it was 452? I thought the scenario said the Romans had 'just left'. That would make it 410, right?<br>
<br>
Btw, did you understand why that Roman dignitary built his summer home in the midst of the Picts, oh excuse me, 'Woads'?<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Geetings!<br>
<br>
Well my friends, if you thought Gladiator and King Arthur had their share of 'historical problems' and seemed rather modern you are not wrong according to the screenwriter, Mr. David Franzoni.<br>
<br>
In an article in today's LA Times Franzoni talks about what inspired his take on King Arthur, and mentions a new script he is working on.<br>
<br>
To para phrase: He sees this King Arthur film as a Vietnam War story with the Empire pulling out of Saigon and a Special Forces team sent out on one last mission to the DMZ. Or was that an SF team in Bagdad fighting to protect a populace that hates them? Actually he thinks there are references to both wars in his new film.<br>
(He was first inspired to write this version of King Arthur by a student thesis, that he found in the library, which tried to prove that Arthur was a late Roman military commander.<br>
<br>
Franzoni likes history, though not historians, "Historians - they're just drunk idiots in tweed." Of course, he is just being provocative for it's own sake, as if it is a requirement of being in the film industry.<br>
<br>
As for Rome, Franzoni says he is currently working on a script about Hannibal and the fall of Carthage. "So I'm beginning to think maybe Scipio actually got the crap kicked out of him at Carthage."<br>
<br>
To his credit perhaps, Franzoni insists that he is interested in telling the truth about the world in which we live and that history is but a vehicle for revealing something about ourselves and our current problems.<br>
Fair enough, after all he is not doing a History Channel Docu-Drama but a popular entertainment for mass consumption. But of course there's the rub. Many people will exit the theatre certain the Lancelot fought with two swords just as they are certain that the Emperor Commodus dired in the arena. Perhaps such distortions are not Franzoni's fault nor his responsibility, but given his attitude, as displayed in this LA Times article, one has to wonder.<br>
<br>
If his take on Hannibal and Scipio is anything like Gladiator, then oh boy do we have something to look forward to.<br>
<br>
The gods look down and laugh.<br>
<br>
As Groucho Marx said "The world would be a better place if the parents had to eat the spinach."<br>
<br>
I'm still not sure what that means, but I like it.<br>
<br>
Narukami <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I don´t have problems with the Troy movie, it just says it was "inspired" by Homer´s Illiad, my problem is with movies that insist they are accurate, but they fail horribly. For instance, I remember "Elisabeth" abut the english queen, that received lot of credit form critics for its historical recreation, and it was totally crap. Then you have the public to believe they are watching history, but they are not at all. <p></p><i></i>

[Frank Miranda]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Franzoni likes history, though not historians, "Historians - they're just drunk idiots in tweed." Of course, he is just being provocative for it's own sake, as if it is a requirement of being in the film industry.<hr><br>
<br>
Shortly after <em>Gladiator</em>, Franzoni spoke at a Roman historian's conference where he had his a$$ handed to him, thoroughly chewed. It would seem that he is still smarting from that.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Frank,<br>
<br>
Very interesting...that would explain his attitude, but in this case I think he got his just deserts.<br>
<br>
Aryaman is quite right, the Troy film did not bother me either because there was no pretense on the part of the film makers that they were presenting history, as opposed to the current Arthur film (or any number of other films Mr. Spielberg). When a director or writer or producer say 'This is the way it really was.' then they had better be right. Minor errors or compromises due to safety issues or budget...? Sure. But the problem here is not some minor error like their tunics are the wrong shade of red.<br>
<br>
No one was upset with Pirates because it was not presented as history, or even as an allegorical comment on our times. King Arthur is an allegory for the Vietnam Way or Iraq? Sure, why not. The case has been made else where that The Return Of The Jedi is an allegory of the Vietnam War. But Lucas never said "This is the way it really was."<br>
<br>
But I rant over long...forgive me.<br>
<br>
A good film about Hannibal and Scipio is long over due. But the Punic War ala Gladiator or King Arthur...no thanks.<br>
<br>
Narukami <p></p><i></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>Historians - they're just drunk idiots in tweed.</em><br>
<br>
Hang on... I'll just nip down to the River Tweed and see if I can spot any... no, none there. I can't even think of any who <em>wear</em> tweed. Isn't assertive ignorance a wonderful thing?!<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop<br>
(Who's seen the trailer; 'nuff said - Thunderbirds looks far better, but then Virgil was a role model for me in earlier life) <p></p><i></i>