# [King Arthur] These pictures look reeeally cool!



## Klaus (Oct 18, 2003)

http://www.omelete.com.br/cinema/news/base_para_news.asp?artigo=6849 

A historically realistic take on King Arthur's tale, set during the downfall of the Roman Empire, directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day), with Clive Owen (Arthur) and Kiera Knightley (Guinevere).

Ms. Knightley's Guinevere sure looks like a wild elf, and a good one at that!


----------



## uv23 (Oct 18, 2003)

Klaus said:
			
		

> http://www.omelete.com.br/cinema/news/base_para_news.asp?artigo=6849
> 
> A historically realistic take on King Arthur's tale, set during the downfall of the Roman Empire, directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day), with Clive Owen (Arthur) and Kiera Knightley (Guinevere).
> 
> Ms. Knightley's Guinevere sure looks like a wild elf, and a good one at that!




I've been looking forward to this since I first heard about it. Lots of good epics coming up. King Arthur, Troy, bunch of others I can't remember because I'm still half asleep


----------



## hong (Oct 18, 2003)

Guinevere, warrior princess. Hmm. Is that Malory I hear rolling over in his grave?

OTOH, I'll take Keira Knightley in a leather bikini and warpaint any day.


----------



## Wombat (Oct 18, 2003)

Historically realistic ... wearing a leather bikini into battle...  Wow, talk about fantasy and reality clashing quickly.

I love the Arthurian legends.  I have about 500 books (no, that is not a typo) on the topic.  Every few years there is another wave of books about the "real" King Arthur.

The problem?  There is not REAL King Arthur.

Oh yes, there are lots of stories, many of which contradict each other.  Some claim they are based on Roman tales, some on various Celtic legends, some on the myths of the Sarmatians, etc.  But the truth of the matter is that there is no single thread that creates"The Truth".  Instead it is a collection of threads, slowly creating a tapestry that alters with each retelling of the tales.

This movie will probably be better than "First Knight"; it will have little problem being better than "Camelot" or "The Mists of Avalon" (the movie here, although the book is not that much better).  I wish that the movie could be as good as Bernard Cornwell's or Mary Stewart's books, but I hold out little hope.

The tales of King Arthur have yet to truly succesfully translated to either stage or screen.


----------



## CrusaderX (Oct 18, 2003)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Ms. Knightley's Guinevere sure looks like a wild elf, and a good one at that!




You're right, she does look just like a wild elf.  But I hope she looks more Guinevere-like in other scenes.  Which I'm sure she will, but a wild, bikini-clad, blue Guinevere is definitely an odd look for this character.


----------



## Elf Witch (Oct 18, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> Historically realistic ... wearing a leather bikini into battle...  Wow, talk about fantasy and reality clashing quickly.
> 
> I love the Arthurian legends.  I have about 500 books (no, that is not a typo) on the topic.  Every few years there is another wave of books about the "real" King Arthur.
> 
> ...





I too read and collect books on the Arthur mythos. And I am looking forward to this movie. I enjoy reading and seeing different "takes" on the legend otherwise it gets kind of dull.

First Knight was not a very good film though I loved the way it was shot visually it was beautiful the scene at night with the flames shining off the armor was breathtaking. I liked Mists of Avalon the book is one of my favorites of course being a wiccan makes me like it more.  I liked the way that it showed that the worship of Mary was most likely linked to Goddess worship in the British Isles. I also liked that it told the story of the woman of Camelot which seems to be a popular thing to do now a days.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 18, 2003)

Having studied the Arthurian cycle in college and liked it quite a bit, the only movie I've seen that even comes close to telling the story correctly is Excalibur. First Knight was a travesty, plain and simple. Frankly, this one looks like the got the armor right, but I have reservations about the rest of it. What I would like to see is a big budget mini-series for TV, at least 6 hours long, that covers more than just the bare bones of the story.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 18, 2003)

http://www.empiremovies.com/gallery/king_arthur/king_arthur_pictures_08.shtml 

Here Kiera Knightley looks more Guineverish here...

This is only speculation, of course, but I assume this movie will portray Guinevere as a Celt princess, marrying Arthur in an attempt to bring the different peoples of Britannia together after the fall of the roman occupation.


----------



## CrusaderX (Oct 18, 2003)

I enjoyed First Knight for what it was.

I thought Mists of Avalon was awful, though.

The Excalibur film was pretty good.

Has anyone here read The Pendragon Cycle by Stephen Lawhead?  I haven't yet, but I've heard decent things about these books.


----------



## drnuncheon (Oct 19, 2003)

First Knight...twitch...I'm having flashbacks now...chrome armor...the Knights of the Round Table wearing uniforms that look like they came from Battlestar Galactica...

J


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 19, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> First Knight...twitch...I'm having flashbacks now...chrome armor...the Knights of the Round Table wearing uniforms that look like they came from Battlestar Galactica...
> J




Lets not forget about the fact that the armor/uniforms wouldn't have even begun to protect anyone from anything. A cloth shirt with a few plates of metal worked into the shoulders does not constitute armor. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it a -5.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 19, 2003)

I've always considered *Excalibur* a classic. If this new version is even close I'll be very happy. I'm no expert on Arthurian Lore but it was a damn entertaining film.


----------



## Wombat (Oct 19, 2003)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Here Kiera Knightley looks more Guineverish here...




After looking at these pics all I have to say is

DEAR GOD!  SOMEBODY FEED THAT POOR WOMAN!

...okay, okay, it's my problem, i'll get over it, i screamed the first time i saw ally mcbeal, too...


----------



## Dark Jezter (Oct 19, 2003)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> You're right, she does look just like a wild elf.  But I hope she looks more Guinevere-like in other scenes.  Which I'm sure she will, but a wild, bikini-clad, blue Guinevere is definitely an odd look for this character.




Actually, the first time I saw the pics of Keira Knightley dressed as a pict over at AICN, I thought she looked like a skinny teenaged boy.  It took me a second before I said "Wait a minute; that's a woman?" 

Still, I think this movie is definately looking cool.  Hope that it dosen't disappoint.


----------



## Oni (Oct 19, 2003)

Looks fun.


----------



## Thorntangle (Oct 19, 2003)

The movie looks interesting but the pictures have stirred my pet peeve - she is releasing the arrow from the wrong side of the bow.  My pleas to educate the whole world in this matter have apparently gone unheeded.


----------



## Halivar (Oct 19, 2003)

Didn't anyone else notice that the bottom picture has Sir Lancelot wearing the same helmet as the BBEG's (Big Bad Evil Gal's) daughter from Willow (the cute red-head)?

  I swear, look at it!  IT'S THE SAME HELMET!!!  I feel like I'm taking crazy-pills here!


----------



## Shadowdancer (Oct 20, 2003)

I guess Keira didn't get enough of playing with bows in "Princess of Thieves."


----------



## Skade (Oct 20, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> Historically realistic ... wearing a leather bikini into battle...  Wow, talk about fantasy and reality clashing quickly.




I'm neither an expert on Arthurian legend or this period of history, but would Celtic or Pictish warriors use armor in battle?  Some of them either would not have any, or would not wear it yes?  Some might even rush into battle barechested?  I know I've seen Celts and Picts covered in blue paint in differnt films, dressed only in scattered furs and maybe soem leather straps.  Is this any different?

I do think it's a bit of an odd look for her, and really not all that flattering to her.  Take some small comfort in that it is not a chainmail bikini.


----------



## Halivar (Oct 20, 2003)

Skade said:
			
		

> I'm neither an expert on Arthurian legend or this period of history, but would Celtic or Pictish warriors use armor in battle?



 If this is set during the waning of the Roman Empire, then yes; they would use armor. Not full-plate, certainly, but definitely some kind of mail.  Remember that Romanized Britons were every bit as civilized and technologically advanced as Roman Italians.



			
				Skade said:
			
		

> I do think it's a bit of an odd look for her, and really not all that flattering to her. Take some small comfort in that it is not a chainmail bikini.



 There area  few occurances of Brtish warrior women (Bodicea comes to mind) but by and large this idea is ridiculous. Guinivere would most certainly _not_ wield a bow in battle, or the history books *would* have remembered it.

 I'll just skip this one and wait for Troy... or... something.


----------



## kkoie (Oct 20, 2003)

Well, one thing that is definately not in this films favor is Jerry Bruckheimer.  Rarely has this crackpot created anything that was watchable or even worth a darn.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 20, 2003)

kkoie said:
			
		

> Well, one thing that is definately not in this films favor is Jerry Bruckheimer. Rarely has this crackpot created anything that was watchable or even worth a darn.



I disagree.

Taken from here:  http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=56247&page=2&pp=25



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Given Bruckheimer's history of films he's produced, oh heck, lets go to IMDB for a second -
> 
> 
> > National Treasure (2004) (pre-production) (producer)
> ...


----------



## Sirius_Black (Oct 20, 2003)

kkoie said:
			
		

> Well, one thing that is definately not in this films favor is Jerry Bruckheimer.  Rarely has this crackpot created anything that was watchable or even worth a darn.




Black Hawk Down and Pirates of the Carribbean immediately spring to mind as counter points to your statement.


----------



## Elf Witch (Oct 20, 2003)

Halivar said:
			
		

> If this is set during the waning of the Roman Empire, then yes; they would use armor. Not full-plate, certainly, but definitely some kind of mail.  Remember that Romanized Britons were every bit as civilized and technologically advanced as Roman Italians.
> 
> There area  few occurances of Brtish warrior women (Bodicea comes to mind) but by and large this idea is ridiculous. Guinivere would most certainly _not_ wield a bow in battle, or the history books *would* have remembered it.
> 
> I'll just skip this one and wait for Troy... or... something.




The history books don't really tell us a lot about Arthur most of it is legend so how would the history books know if Guinivere actually used a bow or not? And which Guinivere there is several woman named  that asociated with Arthur.

I just don't understand people who say they won't see a film about Arthur unless it is historically accurate. Do you take the same stance on Merlin or do you believe that there was a powerful wizard living back then? Most of the Arthurian mythos is pure fantasy and legend and you know what I like that. And I also like when they try new things with the legend otherwise they would be just telling the same old tired story over and over again. 

The main reason I go to the movies is to be entertained if I want pure history I will read a book. Ut is 2003 a lot of woman would like to see a movie where the woman do more than sit at home have babies and wave the men off to war while causing the downfall of Camelot because they can't keep their hands of a hunky knight.


----------



## Skade (Oct 20, 2003)

Halivar said:
			
		

> If this is set during the waning of the Roman Empire, then yes; they would use armor. Not full-plate, certainly, but definitely some kind of mail.  Remember that Romanized Britons were every bit as civilized and technologically advanced as Roman Italians.




I rather assumed from the blue war paint that Guinevere might not be as Romanized as might be.  Not all of Britain became Romanized, I thought.  There were some tribes and areas that simply evaded the invasion, or were remote enough to not be as affected.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 20, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> This movie will probably be better than "First Knight"; it will have little problem being better than "Camelot" or "The Mists of Avalon" (the movie here, although the book is not that much better).  I wish that the movie could be as good as Bernard Cornwell's or Mary Stewart's books, but I hold out little hope.



Mmmmm, the Warlord Trilogy.  Yes, this has little chance of being as good as that.


----------



## Wombat (Oct 20, 2003)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> Black Hawk Down and Pirates of the Carribbean immediately spring to mind as counter points to your statement.




I'll give you PotC.

Other than that, looking over the list, not a single one that I watched and liked.

I have less and less good feelings about this film.

Oh, and I remembered -- there _have_ been two good Arthurian films.

     Monty Python & the Holy Grail

     The Fisher King

Other than that, I weep over the lot.

(edited bit)

Oh, and neither Celts (of the era) nor Picts were noted for their bows.  Javelins, yes; slings, yes.  Bows, definitely not.  

Of course the Welsh alter that, but the first we really hear of Welsh bowmen is, I believe, the late 11th century.  I am, however, quite willing to be corrected on this point.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 20, 2003)

Note that Guinevere is using a composite short bow in a style that was developed in the Middle East circa 900 BC.

From those pictures, Guinevere looks like a Celt princess or leader of sorts. Arthur looks romanised, with the armor and barding. He probably marries her in an attempt of keeping pagan and christian groups together.

And according to the synopsys, Merlin is a druid in this version (which is fine by me).


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 21, 2003)

Short IGN.com interview with Clive Owen -

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/455/455701p1.html


----------



## Welverin (Oct 21, 2003)

Klaus said:
			
		

> This is only speculation, of course, but I assume this movie will portray Guinevere as a Celt princess, marrying Arthur in an attempt to bring the different peoples of Britannia together after the fall of the roman occupation.




But the Avatar is the one who brings the people of Britannia together!


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 21, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> *I'll give you PotC.
> 
> Other than that, looking over the list, not a single one that I watched and liked.*





So, you are saying that you didn't like _Remember the Titans_, _Con Air_, _The Rock_, _Crimson Tide_, _The Ref_, _Top Gun_, or _Beverly Hills Cop_, just to name a few?


----------



## Wombat (Oct 21, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> So, you are saying that you didn't like _Remember the Titans_, _Con Air_, _The Rock_, _Crimson Tide_, _The Ref_, _Top Gun_, or _Beverly Hills Cop_, just to name a few?




Yep, precisely.

Didn't like any of these.

Okay, okay, I know I'm in the minority...  I kinda used to it by now


----------



## Halivar (Oct 21, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> Yep, precisely.
> 
> Didn't like any of these.
> 
> Okay, okay, I know I'm in the minority...  I kinda used to it by now



 *Begin 50's era educational film with trumpet march*

 This is Timmy.  Timmy is a communist.  You can spot Timmy because he doesn't fit in with other _normal_ children.  He doesn't play sports.  He doesn't go to parties.  He doesn't wear the latest fashions.

 Do not play with Timmy.  Feel free to taunt or pick on Timmy.  If you feel like it, you can even punch Timmy in the face.

 Do your part to fight Communism; don't be like Timmy!

 *End 50's era educational film with musical crescendo, then descant*


----------



## KnowTheToe (Oct 21, 2003)

Thorntangle said:
			
		

> The movie looks interesting but the pictures have stirred my pet peeve - she is releasing the arrow from the wrong side of the bow.  My pleas to educate the whole world in this matter have apparently gone unheeded.





You are right, I would not have noticed that.  I can be bad with little details.

She is way too skinny.  When you can point out every bone in her body from 20 feet, she is too skinny.


----------



## takyris (Oct 21, 2003)

Well, if the movie has Lancelot, then it's throwing historical accuracy out the window, since Lance was (trying to remember back to college) added in when the Normans took control of England to Frenchify the Arthurian legends a bit.  Arthur also changes personality to become much more hotheated (in order to identify hiim as similar to the hotheaded Norman rulers), and Myrdden gets renamed Merlin so that the Norman rulers don't mispronounce his name (which should be Murth-in) as MURD-in, which to their French ears sounded a lot like "excrement-head".


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 21, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> Yep, precisely.
> 
> Didn't like any of these.
> 
> Okay, okay, I know I'm in the minority...  I kinda used to it by now




Odd. I've met a few people who didn't like one or two of those movies, but no one who didn't like _any_ of them. I mean, it usually turns out that someone who doesn't like _Top Gun_ will like _Beverly Hills Cop_ or something like that. Or that someone who doesn't like action movies would like _Flashdance_, or someone who doesn't like movies with violence and action driven plots would like a character driven movie like _Remember the Titans_.

Bruckheimer's credit list crosses genres and styles, and includes several of the biggest movies of the last 20 years. You would think a handful of them would be on the "good" list for just about everyone.


----------



## drnuncheon (Oct 21, 2003)

Thorntangle said:
			
		

> The movie looks interesting but the pictures have stirred my pet peeve - she is releasing the arrow from the wrong side of the bow.  My pleas to educate the whole world in this matter have apparently gone unheeded.






			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> Note that Guinevere is using a composite short bow in a style that was developed in the Middle East circa 900 BC.




These two may be related.  Apparently the Turks (among others) actually released from the opposite side of the bow (the "outside", I guess you could call it).

This was made possible by the different draw that they used, which made use of a thumb-ring to pull back the bowstring, allowing the index finger to keep the shaft pressed against the bow.  The thumb-ring was thought to give a cleaner release than fingers alone.

J


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 21, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> So, you are saying that you didn't like _Remember the Titans_, _Con Air_, _The Rock_, _Crimson Tide_, _The Ref_, _Top Gun_, or _Beverly Hills Cop_, just to name a few?



 I'm with you, Wombat.

I remember liking _Beverly Hills Cop_ when I was, like thirteen. I would give it another chance, but I'm skeptical. But every other film on that list? Yeah, sucked.

Come on, _Cat People_? _Kangaroo Jack_?

One of the things to consider that even if you approve of some of those films, the fact remains that Mr. Bruckheimer is EASILY (I would even say EFFORTLESSLY) capable of producing astonishingly bad films. So seeing his name in the credits of a film, while you might say to yourself, "Hey, this might be every bit as good as _The Rock_ (I wouldn't, but you might)!", you also need to keep in mind that it might be every bit as bad as _Gone In Sixty Seconds_.

Bruckheimer's name is a liability when it comes to picking films that I will like. I'm still astonished that _Pirates of the Caribbean_ was at all popular. But he obviously gets the mood of the times better than I.

But I see nothing in these pictures to dispel my growing dread...


----------



## Chain Lightning (Oct 22, 2003)

Actually, the part that worries me isn't Bruckheimer. He did produced "Black Hawk Down", a favorite movie of mine. So I think if he's got a director under him that has the juice and will to say 'no' to any silly producer stuff he may suggest, we'll be okay. But not knowing Jerry really at all, I can't say for sure that he has anything to do with the crappy stuff that appears in the films he's produced. Who's to say the fault came from another source.

The part that worries me is Antoine Fuqua. I like his work for the most part. But here's the thing I noticed. If he's not doing urban street drama, he's not doing that well. His "Tears of the Sun" was sloppy. I really get the feeling he's out of his element if its not some urban street story. Now he's doing a fantasy film? Hmm....we'll see. I'm not going to start feeling negative or anything, but I'm not going to expect too much this early either. I'll probably start getting hyped when I see the trailers.

But other than that....those pics look good! Yah, Keira's a bean pole and all, but I still think she's hot. And I like Clive Owen a lot too. If you haven't seen the BMW Films, see them! Real cool. He should be the next James Bond. 

But his hair in this pics .....man, that's not flattering too much.  Heh heh. Might just be helmet hair.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Oct 22, 2003)

Thorntangle said:
			
		

> The movie looks interesting but the pictures have stirred my pet peeve - she is releasing the arrow from the wrong side of the bow.  My pleas to educate the whole world in this matter have apparently gone unheeded.




I assume you're talking about the picture from the first link, from omlette.com, the 8th picture down. I'm no archery expert or anything...but I have taken archery lessons before. And yes, the arrow is on the wrong side of the bow in that one particular scene. To me, no big deal....small errors happen ALL the time on set. Even the most perfect movies have lots of little flaws. Hard to nab them all while filming principle photography. So I'll cut her a break.

Now, check out the second link mentioned.http://www.empiremovies.com/gallery...ctures_08.shtml 

Now, after scrolling down the six pictures, there's (really small) is the clickable 'next'. Click it and go to second page of pics. Four more pics of Keira all Ghetto Celt Fabulous. Hit 'next' again.

3rd page has her drawing and shooting a bow. Arrow on proper side and all that good stuff. I have faith the actress can do it correctly most of the time. Not sure why the one pic with her back to us has it on wrong side. But I know there could be hundreds of reasons. She was messing around on that shot and accidently put on wrong side because it involved a quick draw. Maybe she drew it too quick on that scene and did it wrong the first take or something. But that's where the publicity guy grabbed the screen shot from....so archery fanatics now think she hasn't been taught properly, blah blah blah. Anyways, let's not nit pick on this thing when we its more fun to nit pick on Lancelot's helmet.


----------



## Halivar (Oct 22, 2003)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Anyways, let's not nit pick on this thing when we its more fun to nit pick on Lancelot's helmet.



  That's *not *his helmet!  That's Madmartigan's helmet!  I swear!

  I am not insane! Do you hear me? I AM NOT INSANE... MWUAHAHAHA!!!

  PS: It's Madmartigan's helmet.

 PPS: Actually, I'm wrong.  I am insane, and it's not Madmartigan's helmet. But _geez_ doesn't it look stupid?


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 22, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *I remember liking Beverly Hills Cop when I was, like thirteen. I would give it another chance, but I'm skeptical. But every other film on that list? Yeah, sucked.*





Really? _Top Gun_, for example, sucked? _Remember the Titans_ sucked? Interesting.



> *Come on, Cat People? Kangaroo Jack?*




Yes, he has made some bad films.



> *One of the things to consider that even if you approve of some of those films, the fact remains that Mr. Bruckheimer is EASILY (I would even say EFFORTLESSLY) capable of producing astonishingly bad films. So seeing his name in the credits of a film, while you might say to yourself, "Hey, this might be every bit as good as The Rock (I wouldn't, but you might)!", you also need to keep in mind that it might be every bit as bad as Gone In Sixty Seconds.*




Yes, he can produce bad films. However, it seems that many here are saying "man, if Bruckheimer is involved then the film _must_ be a suckfest!" In point of fact, in a long career, Bruckheimer has many better than average to good films under his belt, many more than _most_ people who have produced fantasy style films.


----------



## Wombat (Oct 22, 2003)

I must admit that if you said "Jerry Bruckheimer" to me a little while ago, I would have said, "Who?"  I had not connected him with any film _except_ PotC.

Until I saw the list.

Then I realized that I, unlike most people, have only liked a single film of his.

Personally, I am much, much more worried because of the standard Curse Of Arthurian Films rather than the specific director.  So far I have seen two pictures, one I rather like (Arthur) the other I can't stand (Guenivere).  I have heard zero about the plot other than it is supposed to be "historical" (whatever _that_ means in an Arthurian context).  I will go see it because I go to see all Arthurian films (even ones I know will be bad); I am just not overly anticipating due to the general run, not of Mr. Bruckheimer's work, despite my reservations, but rather due to the run of slightly-below-mediocre to dead-awfulness that is most Arthurian films.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 22, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> *I must admit that if you said "Jerry Bruckheimer" to me a little while ago, I would have said, "Who?"  I had not connected him with any film except PotC.
> 
> Until I saw the list.
> 
> Then I realized that I, unlike most people, have only liked a single film of his.*




You do realize that this officially makes you the only person I have ever dealt with who did not like _The Ref_.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 22, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> Really? _Top Gun_, for example, sucked?



_Top Gun_ is a great example of a sucky film. It sucks for all sorts of reasons. If you wanted to show somebody a sucky film and have tons of suckiness to talk about, you could choose worse than _Top Gun_.


> _Remember the Titans_ sucked? Interesting.



Didn't see it. Mm, football movie. Thanks, I'll stick to swordfighting.

But I do not claim to have made an exhaustive study of Mr. Bruckheimer's films.


> Yes, he has made some bad films.



We appear to be in agreement.


> In point of fact, in a long career, Bruckheimer has many better than average to good films under his belt, many more than _most_ people who have produced fantasy style films.



We define "many" differently. I certainly approach any film with Bruckheimer's name attached to it with great caution.

Link this with the "Arthur Curse" mentioned previously, and there is cause for some alarm.

But I'm not saying "Bruckheimer" is a sure sign of crap. I'm just saying it's NO sign of quality.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Oct 23, 2003)

Halivar said:
			
		

> That's *not *his helmet!  That's Madmartigan's helmet!  I swear!
> 
> I am not insane! Do you hear me? I AM NOT INSANE... MWUAHAHAHA!!!
> 
> ...





You mean Sorsha's helmet don't you?


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 23, 2003)

Here's the word from Clive Owen (who I have no complaints about and consider a thoroughly good actor -- one point in favour of this film):


> _I play Arthur, who is half-Roman, he's a commander of a crack team of military knights who, at the beginning of the movie, gets the mission from hell._



I just need to point out the phrase, "crack team of military knights."

And one more time:

"Crack team of military knights."

Alrightie then.


----------



## Null Boundry (Oct 23, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Here's the word from Clive Owen (who I have no complaints about and consider a thoroughly good actor -- one point in favour of this film):
> 
> I just need to point out the phrase, "crack team of military knights."
> 
> ...




Whats wrong with him clarifying the type of knight?

After all it could quite easily be a story about the famous florist knights of Venice or the ancient order of Cardiff pacifist pizza delivery knights. I know how disapointed if I went to see a film about these and it turned out to have a bunch of military knights in it.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 23, 2003)

Of course, you also have to remember that Orlando Bloom called his character in Lord of the Rings "an assassin" in some interview that was packaged with the Fellowship DVD.  Just because the actor's a bonehead off screen doesn't mean much.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 23, 2003)

True enough.

"crack team of military knights"

...


Elf porn.


----------



## shilsen (Oct 23, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I just need to point out the phrase, "crack team of military knights."
> 
> And one more time:
> 
> ...




Doesn't seem that strange, considering many knights aren't part of a military. Or could also be described in some other specific role.

Galahad, Percival, Bors - Grail knights

Lancelot, Gawain (a la Malory) - Court and sometimes quest knights

Amadis, all the ones in the _Faerie Queene_ - Quest knights

Roland and the other 11 paladins of Charlemagne - Military knights

Reginald Front de Boeuf (Ivanhoe) or Sir Bercilak (Gawain & the Green Knight) -  feudal (baronial) knights.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 23, 2003)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Doesn't seem that strange, considering many knights aren't part of a military. Or could also be described in some other specific role.



Alrightie then. Uh huh.

I guess it's just me.


Crack team of military knights.


Clearly it's the end of civilization.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 23, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *Alrightie then. Uh huh.
> 
> I guess it's just me.
> 
> Crack team of military knights.*




I think it is. Maybe if you stepped back and realized that (as a modern person) he was using modern terms to describe something set in a previous era. What he said was functionally identical to saying that he was the leader of an "elite group of mounted warriors". Would you feel better if he had used different, but less commonly accessible terminology?

If so then you better be careful, your pointless elitism is showing.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Your pointless elitism is showing.



I'll have you know my elitism is powerfully functional.

And hey, my mom agrees with me, so it's not just me. So there.

I guess it could be genetic...


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 23, 2003)

Whoever said elitism is pointless?


----------



## buzzard (Oct 23, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Whoever said elitism is pointless?




I myself usually find it to be rather pointy. 

buzzard


----------



## Chain Lightning (Oct 23, 2003)

Okay, the term he used was silly, especially to us.

But let me try to defend him here. When you work in "Hollywood" and on set all day every day and with people from the industry all year, every year.....

....you'll start to talk a little like them. You'll try not to at first, but it eventually happens. What I mean by 'talk like them' is, you'll use the Hollywood short hand slang.  Its dumb, but its meant to be, because there's no mistake what you mean when you use it on set. Stormraven is right, they just use simple modern terms (as overly redundant as possible sometimes ) so there's no mistake what they mean by the common man.  Everyone that works on set is a different person. Each with their own preferred list of things they read. One person my understand one proper term referenced, while the next won't because he/she is into drag racing or something. 

I do storyboards for a living. You should listen to our meetings sometimes. We say the silliest references to get our point across. And its not like we're a bunch of apes or anything, its just that we have a lot of stuff to talk about and we don't want to waste a couple of minutes trying to clarify to everyone what one reference meant.  And we just grab stuff off the top of our head quickly. When you start talking like that, you're bound to have one or two statements come out like, "Crack team of military knights." 

I'm sure someone said at one point, "a fellowship of the most valorious knights" or something. But it went over the head of some 'suit' at the production meeting. He knows what the words mean, but he doesn't know how it applies to the story. So someone just followed it up with " like a medieval version of a commando team". Then the glazed eyes of the 'suit' light up and gets it. This happens a lot.

And let me tell you something, you'll find more quotes like this to complain about as the years go by. Orlando Bloom did it, Clive did it, and more will do it. Just go easy on them okay? Its just silly on-set slang industry people use. They do it out of habit now without realizing it. Some make it a point to suppress that slang when doing an interview, but some are so casual in interviews that they forget to do it. It happens.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 23, 2003)

Course, in Orlando's case, it was his _first_ movie (also having never done TV) and it wasn't in Hollywood, and he wasn't pitching the idea to the suits by the time he was involved.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 23, 2003)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> But let me try to defend him here.



You knock yourself out.

Look, I _like_ Clive Owen. I think the boy can act, and he seems smart enough. I'm not mocking the statement in the "Geez, what a moron," sense, I'm just having fun with a statement so silly it makes me giggle.

Crack team of military knights.

Come on, don't you get a mental image of guys in armour running up a beach yelling, "Go! Go! Go!", flopping down behind low walls, covering each other with their lances held at the ready, kicking in doors and yelling "Clear!"?

I do. And it's funny.

Crack team of military knights.


----------



## Skade (Oct 23, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Come on, don't you get a mental image of guys in armour running up a beach yelling, "Go! Go! Go!", flopping down behind low walls, covering each other with their lances held at the ready, kicking in doors and yelling "Clear!"?




I didn't, but now I do -thanks, you've just made my next d20 game a lot funnier.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Oct 24, 2003)

> Course, in Orlando's case, it was his first movie (also having never done TV) and it wasn't in Hollywood, and he wasn't pitching the idea to the suits by the time he was involved.




"Hollywood". As in the movie industry in general. Not the actual place in the Los Angeles area. And Orlando had been working in the industry by the time we saw that clip of his. At least a year or two. 

Now, i'm not saying he said his character was an "assassin" because he had adopted the 'hollywood short slang', but if it was, I can understand it being a plausible theory as to why he talked like that. And it doesn't have to be during a movie pitch meeting. People talk like that in production meetings, storyboard meetings, on-set, etc, etc. C'mon, you should've known what I meant.



> You knock yourself out.
> 
> Look, I like Clive Owen. I think the boy can act, and he seems smart enough. I'm not mocking the statement in the "Geez, what a moron," sense, I'm just having fun with a statement so silly it makes me giggle.




Man, I knock myself out everytime I come here and read these boards! 

Yah, I like Clive too. Enough to vote him for the next James Bond. If there was a voting system somewhere. 

That's cool Barsoomcore, I couldn't tell by your post if you were nit picking or just having a good old casual laugh at the silly quote. This form of communication doesn't quite allow each other to easily judge the 'tone of voice' in a post. 

Anyways, I'm laughing along with you. It's a silly thing to say, "hollywood short slang' or not. Although I'm not getting the same mental visuals you're getting, but I still find it silly. While people in the industry do use that style of talking to quickly describe concepts, we do often make fun of each other and that way of communicating quite often. When we get a chance to sit around and joke.


----------



## Krieg (Oct 24, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Of course, you also have to remember that Orlando Bloom called his character in Lord of the Rings "an assassin" in some interview that was packaged with the Fellowship DVD.  Just because the actor's a bonehead off screen doesn't mean much.




I do believe more than a few people here (well the old boards actually) were ready to tar & feather me for critisizing young Master Bloom on that one.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 24, 2003)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> While people in the industry do use that style of talking to quickly describe concepts, we do often make fun of each other and that way of communicating quite often.



Yeah, well, I A) work in the software industry. Talk about people with communication issues. B) in the software industry, I'm dealing mostly with defense/military clients -- talk about people with their OWN SPECIAL WAY of communicating. Do you know what an RMO is? Or ADM(MAT)? Sheesh.

Oh, and C) I also make films, so I spend a lot of time around film industry workers (not one myself -- I just hire them) and I know EXACTLY what you're talking about.

It's funny what a slippery slope it can be. You spend enough time around people who use utterly stupid phrases, and first you're using them in a joking fashion, but before you know it, there you are, saying things like, "Going forward", and "negatively impacting profitability."

One must be vigilant. Always vigilant.


----------



## qstor (Oct 27, 2003)

I thought Jerry Bruckheimer was doing a King Arthur movie as well? Is this one related to his?

Mike


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 27, 2003)

This *is* the Bruckheimer "King Arthur."


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 27, 2003)

Skade said:
			
		

> I rather assumed from the blue war paint that Guinevere might not be as Romanized as might be.  Not all of Britain became Romanized, I thought.  There were some tribes and areas that simply evaded the invasion, or were remote enough to not be as affected.




In which case she is wearing too many clothes. Naked would make more sense. And the Arthurian cyles are a little late in period to be the Picts anyway... (Best guess puts the first estimate at the time of the Roman withdrawl from Britain...)

Then again I thought Excalibur took too many liberties with Mallory. (Among the big ones - it was Morgause not Morgan that seduced Arthur. Nimue that seduced Merlin... Galahad *died* while questing for the Grail... The list goes on far too long given that it was supposed to be based on _The Death of Arthur_.)

As yet I have seen no good takes on Arthur at all in movies or TV.

The Auld Grump, let alone _The History of the Kings of England_ by Geoffrey of Monmouth...


----------



## Aaron L (Oct 27, 2003)

I watched the interview with Orlando where he called Legolas an assassin. He was referring to his deadliness with a bow.  Didn't seem the least bit strange or unfitting to me.

And I think the movie looks dang cool.  Historical in this sense would refer to historical fiction, whereas other Arthurian movies are set in a vague medieval mish mash time.  

Unfortunate about the composite bow, tho.


If it's half as cool as Excalibur it will be 100 times cooler than First Knight.  Didn't Arthur give Excalibur to Lancelot as a birthday present or something in that movie?


----------



## ciaran00 (Oct 27, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it a -5.



Was that AC -5? Bwahaha. 

ciaran


----------



## Skade (Oct 27, 2003)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> In which case she is wearing too many clothes. Naked would make more sense. And the Arthurian cyles are a little late in period to be the Picts anyway... (Best guess puts the first estimate at the time of the Roman withdrawl from Britain...)




Yes, what I left out of my original post was that I doubted that nudity would be acceptable in such a role.  Not referring to the character in this case, but running about, slashing people and having bowstrings awfully close to sensitive areas.  

And yes, the Picts wouldn't really be around at this time, but as you said, liberties are always taken.  I'm more than sure the decision to have blue face paint and ragged looking leathers has as much to do with Braveheart as anything else.  It worked for that movie, and the designers thought it would work here.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Oct 27, 2003)

Eek, sorry to jump in late!

Jerry Bruckheimer... I'll tell you exactly why his name attached to this film makes me tremble with fear. He's incredibly hit-or-miss. Some of his films have been great and some have been incredibly crappy. I mean, this is the same guy that can be associated with _Kangaroo Jack_ and then follow it up with _Pirates of the Caribbean_. 

Oh, and whip out the commies again... I'm the only person I know that hated _The Rock_. Not even Connery could save that piece of tripe.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 27, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Eek, sorry to jump in late!
> 
> Jerry Bruckheimer... I'll tell you exactly why his name attached to this film makes me tremble with fear. He's incredibly hit-or-miss. Some of his films have been great and some have been incredibly crappy. I mean, this is the same guy that can be associated with _Kangaroo Jack_ and then follow it up with _Pirates of the Caribbean_.
> 
> Oh, and whip out the commies again... I'm the only person I know that hated _The Rock_. Not even Connery could save that piece of tripe.



It's all good.  I thought *The Rock* looked like a piece of dreck and didn't give it a single chance until I was dragged to see it by a friend of mine.  I really enjoyed the movie.  The action was done well and the movie was _so_ over-the-top that it was entertaining.  But that's Michael Bay for you.  All his films are like that.  I thought it was a huge mistake for him to try something like *Pearl Harbor*.  As for JB, this seems like a pretty good cast he has put together.  Considering all the crummy Arthur-based films out there, there is certainly room for another try.  Now that Hollywood really likes these like of movies (as opposed to like liking them) it is the perfect time to try a different take.

Every big-time producer is going to have some stinkers under his belt and JB is no exception.  I'm waiting for a trailer to start a real opinion.  Right now we have very little to go on and I would rather have them give this subject matter a shot than not.  Unless it is as bad as the D&D movie, that is...


----------



## Sirius_Black (Oct 27, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Some of his films have been great and some have been incredibly crappy. I mean, this is the same guy that can be associated with _Kangaroo Jack_ and then follow it up with _Pirates of the Caribbean_.




I am so sick and tired of people trashing _Kangaroo Jack_.   One day people will appreciate the genius of this work.

Darn! I tried to keep a straight face while typing that all out.  Didn't even come close.   

Oh, yes, Jerry B is hit or miss and your illustration there definitely shows that. However, if I recall, KJ made money and a sequel is planned. I'm not sure what that says about the movie going public, but I'm not going to speculate lest the moderators decide I need a time out.


----------

