History channel and the movies...King Arthur

[Mystery Man]

So did anyone else watch the History Channel last night?

The Quest for King Arthur was a pretty good show, although it seems it was aired to hype the new movie.

So does this movie coming out look like its going to...


edit: doh! and yes, I know spelled cabbage wrong.

 

[Wombat]

Okay, I haven't watched the History Channel show (my sister has taped it for me, but I won't be able to watch it until NEXT Sunday), but I have watched both trailers for the upcoming King Arthur film, as well as reading a goodly number of books on the historicity of Arthur (Welsh-Arthur, Romano-Britain-Arthur, Roman-Arthur, Scottish-Arthur, Cornish-Arthur, Breton-Arthur, Saramtian-Arthur). I have also seen most of the films that have been made on the Arthur, whether they are meant to be historical or not.

Based on this convergence, I assume that the movie will be pretty much terrible.

Neither of the trailers look very good, and as far as I am concerned, there have only been a couple of movies about the legends (in the widest sense) that are any good: Monty Python & the Holy Grail, The Fisher King, and Perceval. On the other hand, there have been a host of absolutely attrocious films: First Knight, Sword of Lancelot, Camelot, The Sword in the Stone, Merlin, Mists of Avalon, etc. As such, I hold out very little hope for this film.

 

[buzzard]

I'm thinking the decaying vegetable is more likely, but I will wait to decide until after I've seen it. Yes, I suppose I will se it.

The thing that's beginning to irk me is the trailing taling about "The TRUE story of King Arthur". Feh. It was particularly galling to see this during a show which explicitly says that nobody really knows what the real facts are anyway.

Though Wombat, I've seen your list of bad Arthurian films (and the few good ones) and it's missing Excaliber. I thought that was one of the good ones, though views may differ.

buzzard

 

[Mystery Man]

Excalibur kind of grows on you. One thing that really bugs me about that movie is that no one ever takes off their armor. Ever.

The thing that's beginning to irk me is the trailing taling about "The TRUE story of King Arthur". Feh. It was particularly galling to see this during a show which explicitly says that nobody really knows what the real facts are anyway.

Yes, this bugs me as well.

A good friend and fellow DM's wife wrote a book based on the King Arthur legends, and she freely admits in the preface that she took libertys whenever possible. There was no way she couldn't but even if she didn't she would have never billed it as the "true story".

 

[Pseudonym]

From the moment I saw a woad-covered Guinevere in a battle bikini, I kew it was going to be a bad film. Well, as a generic pseudo-historical, generically medieval, fantasy-esque movie, I'm sure it will be fine. As an Arthurian story, it's going to suck.

 

[CarlZog]

The thing that's beginning to irk me is the trailing taling about "The TRUE story of King Arthur". Feh.

Agreed. No doubt many ignorant moviegoers will walk out certain that this is the unvarnished truth. The movie's website even includes short profiles describing who all the main characters "really were" -- reinforcing this historic notion.

The lines between reality and fiction, education and entertainment, continue to blur. It seems oddly ironic that Arthur himself should be the latest representative of the growing role of mythology in American culture.

I saw the History Channel show, and though I'm no Arthur expert, I liked it. It made sense to end with Mallory, given the show's goal of finding the real Arthur, but I'd love to see another show on all the different retellings since then.

Certainly it was timed for the movie, but I'm okay with that. The History Channel has developed a noticeable pattern of responding to current events and pop culture in their programming. It's good business sense, and I think it's a good role for them. Sure beats running nothing but old WWII documentaries!

zog

 

[Wombat]

I saw the History Channel show, and though I'm no Arthur expert, I liked it. It made sense to end with Mallory, given the show's goal of finding the real Arthur, but I'd love to see another show on all the different retellings since then.

Hmmm, probably "Major Themes" rather than "all the different retellings", probably. Given the thousands (literally) of volumes just of retellings of the legends, not to mention those with allusions to the legends, even sorting through that could take a while: the Athletic Christianity of Tennyson, the semi-historicity of Stewart and Cornwell, the High Fantasy of White, the Neo-Paganism of Bradley and Paxson, the multitude of poets from Epic to Doggerel, the many comic books, etc.

Might make an interesting project, though

 

[Mystery Man]

and I think it's a good role for them. Sure beats running nothing but old WWII documentaries!

Yes it does seem that if it wasn't for Adolf Hitler they would have nothing to show. That and you don't see a whole lot of people running around with that particular type of moustache.....

 

[CarlZog]

That and you don't see a whole lot of people running around with that particular type of moustache.....

Actually, before it became synonymous with evil, that style of moustache was more common than you'd think.

 

[diaglo]

kim chee or kim chi (i can't spell worth a hoot either)