Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Capellan" data-source="post: 1666403" data-attributes="member: 6294">Dire.I'm fine with alternate versions of Arthur (I've read semi-historical 5th century versions before, and enjoyed them; I'd also like to see a post-apocalyptic modern update), but if you're going to claim to be the "true" story, then for goodness' sake make a movie where that's (a) at least moderately accurate to history and (b) doesn't have plot-holes the entire Knights of the Round Table could ride through.[SPOILER]Pelagianism was outlawed 50 years earlier than the movie was set, and Roman rule in Britain had ended even before that occurred.  The Saxon conquest is generally accepted as complete about 20 years before the movie was set.  Hadrian's Wall never looked anything like that.  Lancelot's well-known as a late addition to the myth so how can he be in the 'true' story?  For that matter, why does a Sarmatian have a French name?  If the woads are so anti-Roman, how is the evil Roman Aristocrat able to indulge his sadistic whims so far north of the wall?  It's not like he has a decent guard force.  Why are the Saxons so freakin' stupid all the time?  Who invented the siege equipment?  Why didn't Arthur just defend the wall?  The Saxons had no a siege gear, and would have been easily destroyed in front of that stone monster.  How did they co-ordinate missile fire and cavalry charges so easily when the smoke was so thick you couldn't see 20' in it?  For that matter, what were the woads aiming at?  The list goes on ...[/SPOILER]</blockquote>

Verification