Has anyone seen this trailer for the new remake of Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
That is great, I really love how they did the trailer. Satyagraha
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
>_> Dork.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:>_> Dork
Which one? I hope you don't mean the guy who's playing Lancelot. I know he's no John Cleese, but he is a fine actor in his own right.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
No coconuts! It's absolutely ruined without coconuts!
Stupid remakes. Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Coconuts are tropical. England is in a temperate zone.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
The swallow may seek warmer climes in winter yet these are not strangers to our land!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
No swallows, either.
Stupid bloody remakes. Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
of course coconuts migrate. Like, duh.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Of course not. They could be carried.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
As long as they keep the musical number I'll be happy.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
You know, it's odd that they say they want to go back to the original, demythisized, historical King Arthur, but they also include Lancelot, whom everyone is CERTAIN is made up.
[ April 17, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
They only want to pretend to go back. Besides, if Lancelot was made up, what about Robin?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Movie looks to be decent viewing anyway. If it is a remake, it will be a poor remake. May still be a good movie tho.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Well, if they include Castle Anthrax in this version, I guess I can live with it.
"Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot!"
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Oi. This whole movie is just so... wrong... Gah.
Quote: "For centuries, historians believed that King Arthur and his Knights were only legend..."
No. For centuries, we believed it was true. Then we got some proof, and it turned out to be not quite like what we imagined.
While he was possibly Romanized, he did not live in a castle. A fort, maybe, and it was likely stone or wood. But not this monstrosity.
The Romans had long abandoned Britain. Legionnaries would not be seen. Not even in the form of Romanized Celts. These Celts would have raised their own warbands and not had access to the military equipment of the then-fallen Empire.
They did not wear chainmail, either.
And IF Arthur was all but Roman, Excalibur would not be the sword we see - it would have been the gladius, a short, stubby blade.
Guinevere looks somewhat authentic. The woad is a nice touch, though I think that was more of a Picti thing than a Cymric. And just who ARE these Picti we see, anyway? Why are they fighting Arthur? The historical Arthur is likely to have fought them, but it also seems like his queen IS one in this movie. I always thought Guinevere was Irish, anyway. Or maybe she's just another character. And he's more famous for his halting of the Saxon advance, anyway.
Lancelot is not historical. He's pure and utter fiction, first appearing in the 13-th century troubadour ballad "The Knight of the Cart." But at least they've kept his costume somewhat consistent and given him gladii, even if his costume is flawed from the get-go.
AND, for the daily double: "These things were not found in 6th century Britain." "What is 'stirrups', Alex?"
Scratch that. There are two answers to that question. TREBUCHETS DID NOT EXIST THEN! They are 11th century! Not earlier! (Okay, maybe China had them earlier, but the record is a little fuzzy. However, Britain did NOT, under any circumstances.) Catapults, okay. Ballistae, okay. NOT trebuchets. And they're too small, anyway. Those are pumpkin-sized trebuchets. They won't do a huge amount of damage.
I'm still confused on who these woad-painted people are.
I'll wait until I see the whole thing before I slip into despair, but as it is, I'm feeling rather depressed. Yes, I'm being picky. But I love this story. I love the "knights" version and the historical version both. If you make an Arthur story that makes no pretense at being historical, I'll probably enjoy it. If you make one without paying attention to the history, being careless and poorly researched (I mean, c'mon people! Trebuchets?!) and then claim it's the "real story," it's very upsetting. At least A Knight's Tale didn't even pretend to take itself seriously.
Sorry, folks. Needed to rant.
I'd rather watch Monty Python.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
ITA
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
E.L. I know they are trying to be historically accurate, but it also has to sell. They don't think a story that's lasted a thousand plus years can sell without things like STirrups and Trebuchets...
and Lasers.
The movie should have more lasers.
Big exploding lasers, that the eye can follow as they arc across the landscape in decidedly un-laser like ways.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I chuckled when they said it's the true story behind the legend -- like they had someone there with their laptop keeping copious notes or something.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I actualy wrote that post for a different purpose than this thread. But I was too lazy to re-write the whole thing, so I just copied and pasted it. It was mostly just a rant.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
"For centuries, historians believed that King Arthur and his knights were only legend . . . but this is not that legend."
Sixteen hundred years ago? The Celts invited Anglo-Saxon mercenaries to protect them after Rome left, and as far as I understand, the Celts weren't so romanized that they would've looked like legionaries. And it was probably at least a couple hundred years after the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon invasion that King Arthur stopped them, and the Roman influence on Britain was pretty much gone by then.
And what the heck was with Kiera Knightly running around in that bikini-thing?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
No, Trogdor, it's "based on the true story behind the legend." If that doesn't leave some significant wiggle room, I don't know what does. Man, they way you all are carrying on, you'd think "First Knight" was never made.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Oh my gosh. Their "historical" information is making me cry.
They're claiming that Arthur was not only a Roman, but that he was stationed at Hadrian's Wall, not somewhere in Wales. They're claiming that the Saxons were politically unified, that they invaded as early as 400 AD, not 450, and that they invaded from the north, not the south.
This contradicts all historical documents and evidence that I've ever heard of. The historical King Arthur that I've always heard of was a Briton chieftain who kept the Anglo-Saxons from pushing into Wales. The Anglo-Saxons were, ironically, invited to come to Britain to protect the Celts after the Romans left. (Historical lesson of the day: never invite a large mercenary army to come live on your island to protect you.)
And even their writing is terrible! They need to hire a team of historians and a good editor. And what ever happened to citing your sources?
Pooka, they don't even say "based on." They simply say, "The true story behind the legend." *cries some more*
[ April 17, 2004, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Damn. EL beat me to it.
Good debunk, kiddo. Kudos.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Okay, so I've done a little more reading, and it appears that Anglo-Saxons were migrating to and occasionally raiding Britain as early as the fourth century. But still, this movie is enough of a joke that it might as well be a remake of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Actually one of my high school English teachers said that Monty Python is actually pretty accurate. She may very well have been wrong. This was Arkansas Public Schools, after all.
[ April 17, 2004, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Three words...
Jerry 'EFFING Bruckheimer
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Ah, EL, another fine product of Waterloo/Laurier's Classic's program.
*doffs hat*
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Oh, and I forgot to mention the snow. What's up with the snow? Do they get snow like that in Wales? Or even in England?
Once again I will express me disgust at the trebuchets. Arrgh. They're about 600 years too early, too small to do much damage, and as I recall, the counterweight kind were more common anyway.
Oh, and whoever the waod-painted warrioress is, she's GOT to be uncomfortable in that costume. That's a rival for the one in The Fifth Element.
EDIT: Actually, I'm in RS. But I enjoy my Classics, and I have always loved Arthurian stories. I took the Arthurian Legend course a couple terms back and made sure to verify some historical details with a friend in Medieval Studies. Oh, and I had to do at least two major projects on trebuchets. The "Balrog" version hurls tennis balls a good 30 feet. The "Smeagol" version tosses erasers about ten feet.
[ April 18, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
It's pretty cute, though.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:What's up with the snow? Do they get snow like that in Wales?
I don't know if it snows like that in Wales, but this movie isn't even set in Wales—they're claiming that Arthur was a Sarmatian warrior serving Rome at frickin' Hadrian's Wall!
And I think the woad-painted warrioress is supposed to be Guinevere. Is there any historical evidence that Pictish women ran around in leather bikinis (in the snow) and fought alongside the men? Somehow, I kind of doubt it.
And yeah, Primal Curve summed it up pretty well. *remembers Pearl Harbor and groans*
[ April 18, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I don't know about the Pictish women, but Gaulish, Briton, and Irish women have been recorded as going into battle. In some cases so fiercly that Roman historians said that the one woman was worth a whole battalion of men all by herself.
And I'm even more depressed now. I'd only seen the trailer and I didn't realize the full extent of the historical mangling. *weeps*
They've got their time periods so off that it makes me want to mail them a calendar in protest. A freaking first year undergrad or even a high school student with a survey course of western civilization could have picked out the discrepancies. Rome was out of the picture by the 400s, and Arthur wasn't around till almost 600. And he was Cymric. Welsh. Wales is to the south.
I don't like Jerry EFFING Bruckhiemer.
[ April 18, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
How does one pronounce Cymric, anyways? To my foolish and inadequte comprehension of foreign language, it would be something like "Cumric."
I know I'll go see it. But I probably won't like it.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
I think it's something like "sim-ric", but then again I could be wrong.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*winces*
No, it is indeed "kum-rik." In Celtic languages ("Keltic," not "Seltic") a c is always hard, and in Welsh, the y is usually an "uh" sound.
Eaquae Legit, it seems that they're setting it just before the Romans abandoned Britain, when the Saxons were really starting to attack. (And the Saxons most likely weren't landing on the island and telling the locals, "We're going to slaughter your people." But hey, every movie has to have a heartless, merciless villain, right?)
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
"W" is a sort of "oo" sound, right?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Right. It's like the vowel in goon, but not the vowel in good. (And of course, this only applies to Welsh; Gaelic languages don't use the w at all, and I don't know if Breton uses it, but if they do, it's probably just a regular w sound.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)