Odd thing I just now noticed about the King Arthur movie...

[Marius Dynamite]

I bring up a quirky topic about a movie I like, and it degenerates directly into anti-American politics...

Although I rarely spot historical inaccuracies in films, It does annoy me very much when film producers neglect historical accuracy. This film in particular would be annoying as it basically boasts to be a historically accurate version of the Arthur legend rather than the traditional story.


To explain why historical accuracy is important take this example.

Say you love Roman history and can often be found buying books just to read up about it. Then you hear their making a movie following, lets just say that guy Varus. So you think "Awesome, they are making a movie about this thing I love, now I can see it come to life!"

Then you go to watch the movie and the Roman is portrayed as a selfless hero - when hes not (or more appropriately 'wasn't') - the Germans are therefore the unjust, unreasonable, racist enemy - which you know they are not - and the thing you love the most, the roman military laws and political system - is drastically changed to suit the movie or otherwise doesnt exist.

Life is rarely ever Good guy, bad guy but Holywood will consistantly make it so because its easy for them. There is a lot of grey in the world, particularly the Roman world.


You would be really pissed at the movie especially when you know it could have been better with a bit more effort from the director.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Although I rarely spot historical inaccuracies in films, It does annoy me very much when film producers neglect historical accuracy. This film in particular would be annoying as it basically boasts to be a historically accurate version of the Arthur legend rather than the traditional story.


To explain why historical accuracy is important take this example.

Say you love Roman history and can often be found buying books just to read up about it. Then you hear their making a movie following, lets just say that guy Varus. So you think "Awesome, they are making a movie about this thing I love, now I can see it come to life!"

Then you go to watch the movie and the Roman is portrayed as a selfless hero - when hes not (or more appropriately 'wasn't') - the Germans are therefore the unjust, unreasonable, racist enemy - which you know they are not - and the thing you love the most, the roman military laws and political system - is drastically changed to suit the movie or otherwise doesnt exist.

Life is rarely ever Good guy, bad guy but Holywood will consistantly make it so because its easy for them. There is a lot of grey in the world, particularly the Roman world.


You would be really pissed at the movie especially when you know it could have been better with a bit more effort from the director.

Actually I wouldn't give a **** *** because movies are fiction and historical movies have always been used to talk about the modern world. Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is really inaccurate as well. When you hear the line "Et Tu Brute" do you yell at the theater screen "Caesar would have spoken greek! "?


@Spartan198:

Well as my dad would say, "That's Hollywood for ya!"

That's an interesting statement...something I notice about movie threads is that some people love to diss a movie seen as "hollywood" or a "B-movie" but are very cautious when criticizing a movie seen as a artistic work. Bourdieu has an interesting theory about how tastes in movies and music are seen as representative of social class. Anyway I could talk more about the sociology but I don't really know much about it, I just find it interesting that whether people like a movie or not can be affected by what social class they see themselves as/what stereotypes surround that type of movie. These are probably some of the reasons you got flamed on that other forum.

King Arthur is a fairly standard action/adventure movie of which there are many (praise the lord!). It's hella fun and entirely entertaining, thanks largely to the way it isn't constrained by attempts at accuracy. God bless hollywood!

[Husar]

King Arthur is a fairly standard action/adventure movie of which there are many (praise the lord!). It's hella fun and entirely entertaining, thanks largely to the way it isn't constrained by attempts at accuracy. God bless hollywood!

You have to be working class.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I actually like action-movies, and also B-movies.

You have to be working class.

There's no excuse for being ignorant, not even being working class.

[cmacq]

Again, I was very surprised about a number of things they got sort of right about the possibility of Roman Senatorial family living and a Saxon army operating north of Hadrian's Wall in the early 5th century AD. This includes the small private army, some may have mistaken as guards, that the Senatorial family used for protection.

A nicely wicket twist would have had the Romans employing the Saxons to wack the Picts in southern Scotland to cover their main field force's withdrawal from the island. The Saxons in turn decide to capture and ransom the Roman family, whom the Picts want to catch, cook, and eat? As the orders demand a quick withdrawal to defend Gaul, at the last minute the Roman Magister Equitum remembers the Senatorial families living north of wall and send a small detachment of heavy horse to police them up and get them to the ships. The Senatorial families don't want to leave because the natives, among whom they have been spreading "The Word,' love them so. Meanwhile, in the shadows await the savage Scots.

[Hax]

Oh well.

At least it isn't as bad as The Last Legion. A ten-year old boy wielding a 6 feet long sword?

Yeah, right. Also, a female (!) serving in the corps of the Roman Kataphraktoi (!!) from India (!!!)? What the hell is this?

Bad crap. Evil.

[Marius Dynamite]

Actually I wouldn't give a **** *** because movies are fiction and historical movies have always been used to talk about the modern world. Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is really inaccurate as well. When you hear the line "Et Tu Brute" do you yell at the theater screen "Caesar would have spoken greek! "?

Of course not, that would be unreasonable and I wouldn't yell at inaccuracies in the cinema either, like I said I barely spot them anyway.

At the time of Shakespeare if I saw the play with a totally wrong portrayal of Caesar I would be damn disappointed. Today the inaccuracies don't matter for that play because that play is very old now and is indeed history itself.

Small inaccuracies are ok for me personally, I can see why a writer or director would bend the truth slightly for dramatic effect, its the larger ones which disappoint.