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

[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!

[MerlinusCDXX]

@ Hax,

yeah, The Last Legion was total unhistorical crap, but at least the Indian Cataphract chick was a hottie, unlike Keira "lack of cans" Knightley.

[Hax]

yeah, The Last Legion was total unhistorical crap, but at least the Indian Cataphract chick was a hottie, unlike Keira "lack of cans" Knightley.

Hehe. True, true. Also Keira "fails to act" Knightley.

...

Wait, how does that differ from the Indian chick? -sigh- Hollywood, as usual.

[rajpoot]

That Indian chick is Aishwarya Rai. Supposed to be one of the best actresses in Bollywood. Anyhow, I don't think she did anything but add a little eye candy to the movie.

[ShadesPanther]

Hehe. True, true. Also Keira "fails to act" Knightley.

Well it's a good thing the Indian Chick isn't Keira "more mannish than Orlando Bloom" Knightley.

[Conradus]

Hehe. True, true. Also Keira "fails to act" Knightley.

...

Wait, how does that differ from the Indian chick? -sigh- Hollywood, as usual.

Wel Ms Rai really can't act, while Keira Knightley can, go see Atonement if you're not convinced. Ow and I found Guinevere far more lovely than the Byzantine warrior.

[Puzz3D]

The Last Legion was total unhistorical crap, but at least the Indian Cataphract chick was a hottie, unlike Keira "lack of cans" Knightley.

Lack of cans is why Keira could shoot an arrow further than the men despite having mangled hands, and I loved that blue makeup. I thought she was awesome.

[Artorius Maximus]

I just saw King Arthur for the first time a week ago. I like it. I know its not historically accurate, so I'd consider this a historical fiction movie, even though King Arthur was a historical man. (I really do believe this. Ambrosius Aurelianus could have been "King Arthur")

[Kamakazi]

Why would a Roman family be living north of Hadrian's Wall?

Maybe becuase they didnt like that roman dude the father... lol his son just had to follow lol