• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

King Arthur

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: NuclearNed
It would have to be pretty good to top Excalibur. I'll probably wait and see what the critics say about it.
Click to expand...

I hate to point out the obvious but critics are full of crap.

About 1 out of every 10 film reviewed by critics is in line with movie goer reviews. Just look at Yahoo as an example.

Most films are rated one to two levels below what people rate a film as.

Once about every 10 films they are almost the same.

Plus a LOT of the news site reviews are total crap. I still remember one idiot from CNN or FOX reviewing Underworld and pretty much tore into the film because they were using those liquid silver filled ammo against warewolves and weren't using silver bullets. I mean WTF did that moron even go see the film or did he just watch the trailer and based the review off of it.

Critics suck.
 
Originally posted by: Passions
Any movie with hot chix wielding bow or sword loses all forms of credibility.

:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Anyone tossing a blanket statement around like a rag doll without any credible evidence looses all forms of credibility.

P.S. Back then girls actually picked up a bow and arrow and killed people because it was a necessity to learn a trade (hunting) that could also be used in defense/attack if need be. Girls were just practicle. Back then it was a bow and arrow. Today its a cellphone and daddy's debit card.
 
just got back from a screening... it was alright. wasn't as epic as i would have liked, some of the drama was too quick and easy, but all in all, it was entertaining.
 
Originally posted by: Pex
ANyone else think the King Arthur movie looks good?


Who are they fighting...the norse?


I love DAoC so I'll probably see it.
Click to expand...

Not the norse but what are considered saxons. Saxons were germanic warring tribes.
 
There's no Camelot, no Excalibur. There's no Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle.
Click to expand...

The love triangle was what made the story more interesting. Anyway, the preview doesn't interest me the least bit.
 
Originally posted by: BladeWalker
There's no Camelot, no Excalibur. There's no Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle.
Click to expand...

The love triangle was what made the story more interesting. Anyway, the preview doesn't interest me the least bit.
Click to expand...

well there are references to those things... some flashback involving excalibur.... and some scenes where lancelot eyes the girl and arthur notices and stuff like that
 
I was gonna bash the comments about Guinevere being a warrior. Then I found a story about Joan of Arc thinking it would support my side of things. Oops!

To answer those questions, we have to understand what women did in the 15th century. Believe it or not, women fought with men during those days. Women were wounded in battle. Thirty were wounded at Amiens. They were heroes during sieges. It was a different time. Even so, Joan was a teenager, with no military experience. And - she was motivated by voices? And visions? Of saints?!
Click to expand...
Link

Possible I was wrong? Wow! I guess there's a first time for everything... 😛
 
Originally posted by: DurocShark
I was gonna bash the comments about Guinevere being a warrior. Then I found a story about Joan of Arc thinking it would support my side of things. Oops!

To answer those questions, we have to understand what women did in the 15th century. Believe it or not, women fought with men during those days. Women were wounded in battle. Thirty were wounded at Amiens. They were heroes during sieges. It was a different time. Even so, Joan was a teenager, with no military experience. And - she was motivated by voices? And visions? Of saints?!
Click to expand...
Link

Possible I was wrong? Wow! I guess there's a first time for everything... 😛
Click to expand...
Common misconception about the Medieval period is that women were second-class citizens. They were pretty much equal to men in terms of public regard. Women were educated (at least, they were educated as much as anyone was truly "educated" in Medieval times), they were patroned writers, they were respected merchants and businesspersons. It really was not until the Rennaissance that the idea of women as "beneath" men sprang up to popular appeal.

ZV
 
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: DurocShark
I was gonna bash the comments about Guinevere being a warrior. Then I found a story about Joan of Arc thinking it would support my side of things. Oops!

To answer those questions, we have to understand what women did in the 15th century. Believe it or not, women fought with men during those days. Women were wounded in battle. Thirty were wounded at Amiens. They were heroes during sieges. It was a different time. Even so, Joan was a teenager, with no military experience. And - she was motivated by voices? And visions? Of saints?!
Click to expand...
Link

Possible I was wrong? Wow! I guess there's a first time for everything... 😛
Click to expand...
Common misconception about the Medieval period is that women were second-class citizens. They were pretty much equal to men in terms of public regard. Women were educated (at least, they were educated as much as anyone was truly "educated" in Medieval times), they were patroned writers, they were respected merchants and businesspersons. It really was not until the Rennaissance that the idea of women as "beneath" men sprang up to popular appeal.

ZV
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say "It really was not until the Rennaissance that the truth of women as "beneath" men sprang up to popular appeal."

😉
 
Originally posted by: NuclearNed
It would have to be pretty good to top Excalibur. I'll probably wait and see what the critics say about it.
Click to expand...

Yep. Judging by the previews, it's just garden variety sex and violence, just change the costumes and names to match this particular theme. Nothing at all to do with the actual story.

I think I'll wait for this one to come out on video.
 
I've seen two major reviews of it, and both absolutely trashed the movie-giving it one star.

King Arthur's legend is one of the commonly redone movies. Rent one of the old ones, or a Robin Hood flick.
 
Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: NuclearNed
It would have to be pretty good to top Excalibur. I'll probably wait and see what the critics say about it.
Click to expand...

Yep. Judging by the previews, it's just garden variety sex and violence, just change the costumes and names to match this particular theme. Nothing at all to do with the actual story.

I think I'll wait for this one to come out on video.
Click to expand...

not much sex
 
I just saw it today with Bockchow. The movie starts out with explaining that the legend was based on very very rough historical "fact" which pretty much means that they're going to do whatever they want in the movie.

And they did.

***SPOILERS***

Guinevere fights a LOT in the movie. She's apparently good with a dirk and good with a bow. Arthur pulls Excalibur from his father's grave (it's the grave marker) made of stones. Merlin is the leader of a band of rebel hicks and doesn't have any magical powers (that are shown). Arthur is endebted to the Romans for years along with the other men from his village until he wins his freedom from the Romans. It's not a bad movie, just a different twist. Okay, fine, it's a whole different twist on Arthur, very different from the legend. Keira Knightley, at one point, is wearing this very revealing leather war-garb thing. She has absolutely no breasts. ...she looks like a man. I laughed outloud when her "dramatic" scene hit the screen with her standing there ready to fight and I realized it wasn't just another scrawny man-peasant.
 
Saw the movie yesterday, wasn't expecting much, i wanted to see Anchorman, but the wife roped me into going to see King Arthur with her. Really enjoyed the movie, wish the sex scene wasn't there (or if they were gonna leave it in, show some more flesh).

I remember an interview with Jerry Bruckheimer late last year where he said this was going to be his first R rated movie, lots of gore, and nudity in it, guess he didn't get his way though.
 
Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
I just saw it today with Bockchow. The movie starts out with explaining that the legend was based on very very rough historical "fact" which pretty much means that they're going to do whatever they want in the movie.

And they did.

***SPOILERS***

Guinevere fights a LOT in the movie. She's apparently good with a dirk and good with a bow. Arthur pulls Excalibur from his father's grave (it's the grave marker) made of stones. Merlin is the leader of a band of rebel hicks and doesn't have any magical powers (that are shown). Arthur is endebted to the Romans for years along with the other men from his village until he wins his freedom from the Romans. It's not a bad movie, just a different twist. Okay, fine, it's a whole different twist on Arthur, very different from the legend. Keira Knightley, at one point, is wearing this very revealing leather war-garb thing. She has absolutely no breasts. ...she looks like a man. I laughed outloud when her "dramatic" scene hit the screen with her standing there ready to fight and I realized it wasn't just another scrawny man-peasant.
Click to expand...

Kierra Knightly has the opposite problem as me. When naked, I look like a woman "down there"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top