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

[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.

[Puzz3D]

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.

It's often the producer or distribution studio that coerce the writer or director to make changes. For instance, Fox studio forced the writer of Kingdom of Heaven to change the ending of that film, and IIRC they interfered at other points as well. Lion's Gate and Miramax are notorious for interfering in films in this way. If you want to see a film where a director rakes a producer (Joseph E Levine) over the coals with wicked satire for this kind of interference, check out Le Mépris (Contempt) (1963) directed by Jean-Luc Godard. What's hilarious is that Joseph Levine was one of the producers of the film.

[atheotes]

I used to get excited over "historical" movies ... but have come to realise that the "history" part is just there to give it a plot . Now i dont mix up movies and history.

Anyone know any movie that can be called historically accurate

[rajpoot]

History Channel/Discovery documentaries. The movie about Hitler was excellent. There was also one about Nero, and one about Atilla and Aiteus(spell?).

[cmacq]

The History Channel must die!