Main > The Library

King Arthur (with clive owen)

<< < (2/3) > >>

Sir Edward:

I thought it was OK as a movie in general, but didn't like it as an Arthurian story. They tried very hard to fit it into that particular time-period, while deviating from the ballads to do so.

In a way it's not possible to do what they were trying to do. Most of the surviving stories and ballads come from a time when they used contemporary concepts to describe events that had supposedly happened a long time before. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit into any particular point in history, because of this. So given the choice, I'd rather be true to the way the stories were written, rather than shove the characters into a different era and invent new stories for them.

Sir William:
Depends on which stories you're referring to, Sir Edward.  If you mean de Troyes' works, then yes, it did not fit within that canon.  Nor, for Malory, I think.  However, all of these Arthurian legends most likely got their start from older Welsh tales; I knew more on this back when I was more interested in Arthur in general.  Not that I'm not anymore, just that my interests have moved on and I've only got so much room to keep stuff in my head.

Since they are just stories, the when of it can be of interest too, or rather, a speculative look at what might have been for a given period.  I loved Excalibur as a kid, because the knight in shining armor concept that I'd first read about in Bulfinch's mythology was firmly entrenched in this movie but I appreciated the 2004 movie because it gave me a different viewpoint on the myth of Arthur that spurred me to doing a little research on the validity of its claims.  Turns out they got a number of things wrong, but I still liked the idea and the effort.

Let's face it, we KNOW he did not exist in the 12th - 16th centuries, but what we don't know is if he ever did, and if he did, when?  At least, that's my take on the subject.

Sir Nate:
Isn't the oldest King Arthur involved story sir gawain the green? Which was around before le morte de arthur

Don Jorge:
La Morte de Arthur was actually an anthology edited by Malory. So really there were LOTS of Arthurian legends/stories before La Morte.

Sir William:

--- Quote from: Belemrys on 2013-12-10, 17:24:16 ---I love Bernard Cornwell, especially his holy grail trilogy. I personally like that Arthur movie but I can see why it isn't well received by everyone. It is realistic and less fantastical. Merlin is a druid and not a wizard. Arthur and his round table don't really exist, except now there is a historical figure from which they might have sprouted from and inspired Malory.

--- End quote ---

There was a 4th to the Grailquest series, 1356.  Although I'll be the first to admit that I really wanted something more by the end of the original trilogy, this seemed sort of half-assed.  Great premise but was over entirely too quickly.  I guess he had to stop somewhere, right?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page