A movie

[dgan]

Inkling said:

Laura Ingalls having a make-out session in the cornfields....I still feel ill, thinking about it.....

You know, that is quite possibly the most nauseating mental image I have experienced. Thank God I never saw that.

Dinadan - I agree 100%. Unfortunately...well, maybe I was fortunate...I was in a cave (at work) and did not know all the claims from King Arthur's producers about its historical accuracy. Therefore, when I forked out the $2.50 to my local video rental, I really had no expectations at all. I was hoping it be something lifted from great literary works, and was thus disappointed. However, I was able to find about $2.50 worth of entertainment at the time.

After reading and hearing what was said about the movie by its creators, I am disgusted! That is what angers me about movies more than anything else. Why, Disney's Sword in the Stone was more <censored> accurate than that piece of !!!

It is one thing to exaggerate history to make it Hollywood or to be "creative" with areas of history that are disputed or unproven. It is completely something else to take documented history, and simply ignore it to tell the story you want - and then advertise it as historical!

[Zeke]

I think that Empyrion would make a great pair of movies I recomend aiming for a M or MA rating as parts are a bit gory in the book and I would not think it should be toned down or the contrast between good and bad would not be so powerfull

[dgan]

Interesting note on Kingdom of Heaven. I was reading my cube neighbor's Apr 29th edition of Entertainment Weekly. (Shut up...let that be lesson to you never to work 3rd shift at a dead end job that bores you to tears!) Anyway, check out this quote from director, Ridley Scott:

"I hope the movie stands on its own two feet as a movie, not a documentary."

I'm not sure what he means by that. Hopefully, he is saying the movie is not meant to be documentary and shouldn't be confused as one.

[dinadan]

He probably meant that he is just trying to make a great movie--not a history lesson. Which makes him A-OK.

[Riothamus]

Yep. I'm looking forward to this one--if I can manage to produce the mammon to go see it. In my view, historical infidelity a la Braveheart is not so much of a problem as historical infidelity parading as Historical Truth, a la Bruckheimer.

[Oh, and what buzz I've seen on this movie has been pretty positive--better than Gladiator, though in my mind that isn't much of a step, as Gladiator was at the time I saw it more or less forgettable.]

[kg00ds]

I have not read a book by Lawhead yet, that would not make a great movie.

[kg00ds]

I read some of you guys comments on the King Arthur movie. While I am not saying i liked it or that it was accurate I just thought I'd point out: although their is alot of ledgend there is very little documented/verifiable historical info. on him.Of the four historians who wrote about the British ilses during the time of the historical Arthur only 2 breifly mention him. He is mentioned as a dux brittannia, or war cheif, which helps lead the temporarily united Britons against the Anglo-Saxon invaders after which they had peace for about forty years. Other than that from what I have studied everything else is myth(unvereifiable). Do any of ya'll have more info. on the subject?

[Gwalchmai]

Well what I am aware of, there is quite a bit of circumstancial evidence that would support the claim of a King Arthur which is most likly why it has survived for so long in such granduer. I personally think that he was around and led a great victory over the invaders crossing over giving Britain a time of peace. But I don't trust many of his "adventures" or some of the concepts that came out of it. I think most of those were created to combat the Charlemange stories crossing over with the Normans and give the British people a sense of personal pride. But there is a LOT out there on the subject, and would take half a lifetime to piece everything we have so far, together to even start with a cohirent theory on Arthur. At, least thats how I feel.

[llyd415]

If they make the Song of Albion into a movie where do you think it should be placed. I think New Zealand or Scotland/Ireland where it is in the book.

[kg00ds]

thanks. Gwalchmai I agree your theory is very likely from what I have read and studied.

By the way, while I did not think the King Arthur movie was very accurate I did like it for what it was: just another tale. I thought the heart of King Arthur was portrayed well and I thought several characters were cool, especially Guinevere. I mean wether you hated the movie or not you have to admit her and her gal pals kicked some butt. Also, as far as the "knights went" yeah they were not up to par with the tales we love, yet they were courageous and each was unique in a cool way. So over all, although I was disappointed in the story line I thought the movie had some redeeming qualities. I also liked the added presence of Pelagius in the story.

P.S. Do any of ya'll know who Pelagius is?

[ellora]

I think the problem is that we SRL fans are a minority compared to the entire cinema going public. He is great but he is not Tolkien or Lewis or Rowling (yet) in terms of popularity so a studio is never going to commit to the hundreds of millions of pounds it will take to make a trillogy of that scale. If/when it happens i think it would be best to start with a one off like Partick, the twist at the end would work perfectly on screen.

[kg00ds]

Yeah, unfortunately I have to agree with you. Personally I hope all of these movies which have come out over the past few years will open the door a bit more for someone to be interested. Good call on the Patrick bit.

[Gwalchmai]

Well I'm not sure The Pendragon Cycle requires an author fan base like some of the other novels out there. The Arthurian Legends themselves could hold their own I feel, I mean just look at the new movie coming out Tristan and Isolde for instance. Which is why I keep my hopes up for a Pendragon Cyle movie.

By the way, while I did not think the King Arthur movie was very accurate I did like it for what it was: just another tale. I thought the heart of King Arthur was portrayed well and I thought several characters were cool, especially Guinevere. I mean wether you hated the movie or not you have to admit her and her gal pals kicked some butt. Also, as far as the "knights went" yeah they were not up to par with the tales we love, yet they were courageous and each was unique in a cool way. So over all, although I was disappointed in the story line I thought the movie had some redeeming qualities. I also liked the added presence of Pelagius in the story. [image]

P.S. Do any of ya'll know who Pelagius is?

Well Keira Knightley makes any part look good

I thought Arthur was ok... I wasnt quite as impressed by him as I wanted to be. He focused too much how everyone is equal and free and blah and blah. That just doesn't fit into my mental image of who he was. And I thought his "knights" did a terrific job. I mean I think thats what I enjoyed most about it, their commradeship throughout was amazing. And yes I know who Pelagius is and what he proposed. He comes up with much greater effect in Jack Whyte's series "The Camulod Chronicles."

[kg00ds]

Thanks I'll have to check out that chronicles series you mentioned, and I totally agree about the knights.

[Bard Child]

P.S. Do any of ya'll know who Pelagius is?

I know that he was mention in Patrick.... and was a considered "bane" to the Church at the time

As for SRL books becoming a movie. Hmmm, IMO I think that Patrick would be the best bet. I far to skeptical on Song of Albion and Empyrion. Many because of the gore and the detail of the books