The medievalist in me just died a little. The classist decided to join him.
I want to give a coherent response, but mostly I'm reduced to spluttering. I can manage a few simple points.
1. Excalibur was not the sword in the stone. Excalibur came from the Lady of the Lake, after Arthur broke the sword from the stone. 2. Last Emperor? How, exactly, are they picking one? Ah forget it, standard Hollywood mangling of Rome. 3. The Britons were "barbarians" just as much as the Goths who sacked Rome, and maybe moreso.
It hurt so bad I couldn't finish the trailer.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a horrible mess. At least the frantic, chanting Latin women in this trailer have a reason to be chanting in Latin.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eaquae, can you name a single Arthurian fantasy from The Mists of Avalon onward that -hasn't- been extremely revisionist of both mythology and history?
Just sayin' it wasn't started by Hollywood. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Eaquae, can you name a single Arthurian fantasy from The Mists of Avalon onward that -hasn't- been extremely revisionist of both mythology and history?
Just sayin' it wasn't started by Hollywood.
Heh heh. No, I know that the revisionism started probably back even before Geoffrey of Monmouth. It's just that this one seems worse than usual. I never thought "King Arthur" would seem like a good movie in comparison to anything.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least First Knight had Sean Connery, who I generally enjoy on screen. That puts it one Scottish actor above King Arthur (not very far).
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
The medievalist in me just died a little. The classist decided to join him. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
