Inspired by the literature discussion. For screen adaptations I've seen Excalibur, Camelot (the musical) and, ahem, Monty Python... Excalibur is good, but I'd say it suffers from trying to jam the entire myth into two hours. Camelot has fantastic songs but the plot is very rushed so it can be squeezed in, while Monty Python is the best of the lot but not entirely serious. Having heard horrible things about the recent King Arthur so I've avoided that. Are there any others worth seeing?

Sadly there is First Knight with sean connery and Richiard gere. :-[
King Arthur is fun but crap. Quenivere looking sexy with a bow is neat.But it is eye candy.
I have yet to see another one that u have not mentioned. So to me there really is not a fabulous movie adaptation. I wish they would write a trilogy and make one. So there would be no cramming. But how much profit would it make?????? Who knows. :(

Sword of the Valiant :: it's a bit hokey - ok, it can be a lot hokey - but it's a fun version of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight - AND it has Sean Connery as the Green Knight.

Disney's Sword in the Stone :: interesting take on the whole "merlin teaches arthur by making him become different animals"

Merlin and Mists of Avalon were two decent miniseries.

Knights of the Round Table (1953) may not be the best of the Arthur movies but it does have the look.
The Black Knight (1954) is also not bad... unless you are a fan of Sir Palomides.
Anyone remember the The Adventures of Sir Lancelot series? I've only seen a couple episodes.

King Arthur is fun... but as someone else said, crap. An interesting experiment, to bring the other Arthur forward 300 years, but blegh. Keira was the only redeeming feature, and even she looked like she needed to eat a sandwich.

Excalibur still the best, despite the amusingly insane full-harness sex scene.

On the fringe... Arthurian period, is Tristan and Isolde. It certainly wasn't the best, but it was enjoyable.

SDLeary

Excalibur still the best, despite the amusingly insane full-harness sex scene.


Assuming you're talking about the armour here, I'm sure I read a discussion about the film on some Pendragon list where it was suggested that this was symbolic, and was contrasted to Lancelot and Guinivere's adultary which involved no armour! The suggestion was that by removing his armour, Lancelot was in someway shown as betraying his knighthood - or something along those lines...

To me, however, it simply says uncomfortable!

The Black Knight (1954) is also not bad... unless you are a fan of Sir Palomides.


I am so concerned now.... Why are Palomydes fans going to cry? What is so bad here....... ??? please don't leave me hanging!!!!!!!!!

AAUUUUGGGHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!! Palomides is white!!!!!!!!!!! AUUUGGGHHHH An old man named Peter Cushing!!!!!!! AAAAHHHHHHH Blashpheme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o

The Last Legion is also talking about Arthur and excalibur. This movie is quite cool better than Lancelot with Richard Gere and King Arthur (i know, it was not very difficult :P)

AAUUUUGGGHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!! Palomides is white!!!!!!!!!!! AUUUGGGHHHH An old man named Peter Cushing!!!!!!! AAAAHHHHHHH Blashpheme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o


LOL. Well, in the movie Peter (Grand Moff Tarkin himself) wore the standard makeup to make him look swarthy. He is the villain of the movie, working with King Mark to destroy Arthur.

Simply because It is crazy sounding, I might watch the black knight 1954. If I can find it that is. I think I have watched the 1953 Knights of the round table. I seem to remember it being a decent film, as was Sword of Lancelot. Give it up for the old movies ,huh? Also I like Tristan and Isolde from 2007. It had to grow on me because at first I was angry about James Franco being Tristan,. But now... It sems okay. Also I liked Franco in pineapple express, so i could see he was able to act as something other than a spoiled little brat.

Wow, I actually found "King Arthur" to be an entertaining movie; I never expected to see such distaste for the movie. Now, I never saw it as a definitive Arthurian tale, but instead an interesting take on what an historical Arthur's adventures may have looked like (and how the elements of the more familiar legend came about). (Bors was my favorite character in that movie.)

I agree with the consensus that "First Knight" is not a movie to include in your inventory...it's to the Arthurian legend what "Pearl Harbor" is to "Tora, Tora, Tora."

Peter Cushing was also in Sword of the Valiant: The Legend of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (1984) with that dastardly Sean Connery as the Green Knight. lol It has been a long time since I've watched this one...
Anyone remember Edward Fox as King Arthur in Prince Valiant (1997)? I just remember Katherine Heigl. :)

Wow, I actually found "King Arthur" to be an entertaining movie; I never expected to see such distaste for the movie. Now, I never saw it as a definitive Arthurian tale, but instead an interesting take on what an historical Arthur's adventures may have looked like (and how the elements of the more familiar legend came about). (Bors was my favorite character in that movie.)

I agree with the consensus that "First Knight" is not a movie to include in your inventory...it's to the Arthurian legend what "Pearl Harbor" is to "Tora, Tora, Tora."


I certainly found it entertaining, but the timing and the fact that Arthur was actually a Roman commander, and that the Pope was running the Empire somewhat detracted from the overall appeal. As did the very Games Workshop armor. :)

SDLeary

Tristan & Isolde from 2006 isn't bad. Very entertaining.

SDLeary

Excalibur is good, but I'd say it suffers from trying to jam the entire myth into two hours.
Agreed. I find the plot in Excalibur is moving way too fast. The story would be better served by three 2 hours movies in my opinion.



Having heard horrible things about the recent King Arthur so I've avoided that. Are there any others worth seeing?


King Arthur and the Last Legion were ok but really nothing special. Both were a very different take on the story. It's been a decade at least since have seen First Knight but my recollection of the movie still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I remember seeing Mist of Avalon a few years ago and I think it was not that bad but the books are better. Hmmm, I think I will watch Excalibur and Mist of Avalon one after the other just for the fun of it.

The pickings are slim, my friend. The genre has yet to have a transcendent movie such as graced the also-perpetually-lame fantasy movie genre when Peter Jackson did his adaptation.

You're basically looking at "Excalibur" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." If you stretch the definition of Arthurian to include Vikings, "Korpen Flyger" is good, too. (Even in Icelandic with Swedish subtitles!)

And has anyone else sat through "Prince Valiant" with Robert Wagner? Oh, man.

Suzanne

And has anyone else sat through "Prince Valiant" with Robert Wagner? Oh, man.

Suzanne


Several times. ;D

This is a stretch but how about Knightriders (1981)?

This is a stretch but how about Knightriders (1981)?

I actually enjoyed it (even have it in my library) & in some sense it was truer to the tale than other renditions out there.
Skal,
Sven

If you're going to include Knightriders then the Fisher King definitely deserves a mention.

Not Arthur, but a great miniseries is A&E's adaptation of the Ivanhoe story.

I like the 1982 Ivanhoe movie better. James Mason as Isaac of York, Sam Neill as Brian de Bois-Guilbert, Michael Hordern as Cedric and John Rhys-Davies as Front de Boeuf. Although most probably preferred Olivia Hussey as Rebecca, I preferred Lysette Anthony as Lady Rowena. ;D

'Excalibur' is a flawed and compressed version of the legend but I like its magical and earthy tone. It is the most sensual and visually interesting version of the Arthurian legend so far.

I like 'Camelot' even though I am not a big fan of musicals and it's very close to the spirit of T H White's books. Richard Harris delivers a great performance as King Arthur.

For some crazy reason I'm also thinking of 'The Black Sheild of Falworth', a truly cringeworthy film with Tony Curtis. I can still hear him saying "Yonder is the castle of my fodder"!................. :D

Lastly, even though it has no mention at all of the Arthurian legend, I feel that Ridley Scott's great film 'Kingdom of Heaven' is a true Arthurian film in story and spirit. I love that film and recommend it to any Pendragon player to watch.
I'm sure it will never happen but that great British director would make a truly memorable Arthurian film..................

I liked The Black Shield of Falworth. My avvy is the corrected shield. ;)

Kingdom of heaven is a great film. Orlando Bloom wouldnt be my first choice as the lead, but he manages to hold the movie down fine. What I like is that, though artistic license was taken, the movie is very much grounded on truth. The count of Ibelin was real, and the way the city held out, the fact that the count DID knight anyman that had a will to fight. He was asked why he was making those men knights, did it make them fight better, and he did answer YES. and he did really save all the inhabitants of Jerusalem by making a deal with saladin. There were many other elements that were very true as well. Its a good movie, and more than that a great tale. The more so because it is a true life tale of adventure! :o

I didn't much care for Kingdom of Heaven. The costumes and fight scenes were wonderful, and there were some great actors (especially Jeremy Irons and what's-his-face, Qui-Gon Jinn), but Bloom was just kind of there, and more important was the fact that he was basically a projection of a 21st-century liberal onto the 12th century. The result was a very smug, judgmental look at those silly primitive medieval fanatics, which is really bad form for something that wants to have any sort of historical legitimacy. The portrayal of Patriarch Heraclius was especially ham-handed. So these people were both superstitious idiots who would believe anything associated with religion, yet cowardly hypocrites ready to drop their beliefs at the drop of a hat?
This review sums up my problems with it: http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2005/05/orlando-bloom-is-soooooo-dreamy.html

So, did I like the movie? Sure. But it was just your standard summer movie, a package of cliches playing themselves out to a booming orchestral score and lots of bloodshed. It wasn't a good movie, and it was a pretty crap medieval movie, but it had it's moments. Obviously, it's full of crap history, but nowhere near as much crap history as that King Arthur movie that I still haven't gotten around to talking about.

There's also a review by the great crusades historian Johnathan Riley-Smith in which he draws a direct connection between the ideas behind the movie and the ideology of al-Qaeda. The review isn't quite as nutty as it sounds, but I still think it's a bit much.

Kingdom of Heaven certainly had its faults. I initially did not like Orlando Bloom (he is so dreamy!) but in retrospect someone older like Russell Crowe would not have been suitable for the role. I found the statement about religion/conflict at the end rather clumsy but the director was respectful in his portrayal of Islam.

I personally find it an Arthurian film to watch because its elements of the afflicted king, the unfaithful wife, the flawed young knight seeking redemption, a conspiracy to overthrow the rightful king and destroy the peace.

The hero, a young blacksmith, is a kind of twisted, reverse young Arthur in the beginning where he creates a sword and murders a priest with it by plunging it red hot and smoking into the victim's chest. Ouch! :o

It has two superb baddies in it too, played by Brendan Gleeson and Martin Csokas. Csokas (hope I've spelled that right!) is great as a truly malevolent Guy de Lusignan.

WELL ... I certainly didnt watch Kingdom of heaven for its historical accuracy. thats exactly like watching EXCALIBUR and expecting it to be just like Le Morte D'Arthur. It is actually a fairly crap version of Malory, but we all love it because it's all we have. I would say Kingdom of Heaven is no worse than Excalibur. In fact I would almost always rather watch it than excalibur if given the choice. I guess it's all in what your looking for. :D

How about the Robert Taylor version of Ivanhoe? Or Heston's Warlord? I put together a list of required movies for those who wished to play in my Pendragon campaign: Excalibur; Ivanhoe; The Warlord; Knights of the Round Table; Dragonslayer; Monty Python and the Holy Grail; Camelot; Branagh's Henry V. Had I access to the Black Shield of Falsworth I would have added that as well. And now I would add the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven.

How about the Robert Taylor version of Ivanhoe? Or Heston's Warlord? I put together a list of required movies for those who wished to play in my Pendragon campaign: Excalibur; Ivanhoe; The Warlord; Knights of the Round Table; Dragonslayer; Monty Python and the Holy Grail; Camelot; Branagh's Henry V. Had I access to the Black Shield of Falsworth I would have added that as well. And now I would add the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven.


I have not seen a few of these...I'll have to check them out if i can find them. Who stars in THE WARLORD ?

The Warlord stars Charleton Heston, Richard Boone and Rosemary Forsythe. It was a small budget film based on Steven's play The Lovers and has my favourite filmed siege in it. Despite grave inaccuracies within the premise, I feel that it does an excellent job of capturing the atmosphere of 11th century Normandy.

Back in the early 80s there was a TV anthology series that were aired with Saturday morning cartoons. I didn't watch the show as the series they they advertised didn't appeal to me as much as the second hour of the Bugs Bunn/Road Runer Hur.

However, I found out that one of the shows was a retelling on the King Arthur Legend. I caught some of it, and what I saw looked good (all five minutes), but the next week the show was dropped (apparently everybody else was watching Bugs too).

I was wondering if anybody knew anything about this anthology series. It would seem to be worthwhile for us Pendragon fans, as it not be as "compressed" as most movie treatments.

Although not an Arthurian film, I'd like to recomend a film where a conflict between Loyalty Lord, Love Family and Honour created a situation where a knight found himself in an impossible situation which meant the destruction of his family.

I can't recall the director, as I have lent the film out, but it is called in English, Samurai Rebellion and stars Toshiro Mifune as the Lords Swordmaster.

Samurai movies often do capture the feel of knighthood in a way that western movies often miss.

Apparently, the modern romantic view of bushido and samurai were strongly influenced by 19th-century Japanese attempts to prove to the medieval-loving Victorians that they too had a strong knightly tradition; this was a time when Japan was trying to prove that they were really white in spirit or something, and didn't need the White man to burden himself on their account thank you very much.

It probably helps that many of the men behind samurai films tend to put a modern, western viewpoint to their films, too. Kurasawa is particular.

How about the Robert Taylor version of Ivanhoe? Or Heston's Warlord? I put together a list of required movies for those who wished to play in my Pendragon campaign: Excalibur; Ivanhoe; The Warlord; Knights of the Round Table; Dragonslayer; Monty Python and the Holy Grail; Camelot; Branagh's Henry V. Had I access to the Black Shield of Falsworth I would have added that as well. And now I would add the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven.


I would agree with that list. I have all of them myself. However the 1984 Ivanhoe was much better than the Robert Taylor one.

Vermithrax Perjorative = the ultimate dragon!!!!

I haven't seen the '84 Ivanhoe since '84. Three things stand out in my memory: 1) the brass great helm, 2) JAMES MASON! and 3) Richard's mail.... I'll have to see if I can find it. My favourite, though, is unquestionably The Warlord. I think it so fits Pendragon's trait and passion rules!

I haven't seen the '84 Ivanhoe since '84. Three things stand out in my memory: 1) the brass great helm, 2) JAMES MASON! and 3) Richard's mail.... I'll have to see if I can find it. My favourite, though, is unquestionably The Warlord. I think it so fits Pendragon's trait and passion rules!


I managed to get it on dvd from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.ca/Ivanhoe/dp/B001TKNWUA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1263751067&sr=1-1

Although not an Arthurian film, I like Lion in winter, with Peter O'Toole, Katherine Hepburn & Timothy Dalton... For a court and intrigue story, he could be an great inspiration...

Although not an Arthurian film, I like Lion in winter, with Peter O'Toole, Katherine Hepburn & Timothy Dalton... For a court and intrigue story, he could be an great inspiration...


In all of my 33 years I have meant to watch this film so many times. It seems like I must absolutely pick it up soon!

Oh, yes! The Lion in Winter is excellent! I probably should add it to my list! I mean, Anthony Hopkins as Richard?! Timoth Dalton as King Phillip!? It may play a little fast and loose with reality, but it was a fantastic play and a superb film!

I recommend The Lion in Winter as well. Hopkins and Dalton were suitably venomous as the feuding sons. Dalton would have made a great Mordred in a Arthurian film.
The Patrick Stewart/Glenn Close remake of the same film is worth a look at too.

I recommend The Lion in Winter as well. Hopkins and Dalton were suitably venomous as the feuding sons. Dalton would have made a great Mordred in a Arthurian film.
The Patrick Stewart/Glenn Close remake of the same film is worth a look at too.


I like Patrick Stewart as an actor... I, Claudius, Excalibur, Lady Jane, Dune... etc but I can't say that I like his version of The Lion in Winter. It was like when the mini-pops do a cover of a good song.

I very much enjoy Sir Patrick's work as well. (I admit it; I'm a trekkie). But I find I have been rather disappointed in two remakes of old favourites in which he has starred: The Lion in Winter and Moby Dick. But even a third rate community production of Lion is worth taking in. I'll add another medieval film to the list that I think captures something of an Arthurian feel, though many disagree with me on that; LadyHawke. Something about the glamor felt rather, well, Pendragonish. I admit I would love to see a remake of it with a somewhat more realistic take on costuming and weaponry.

I very much enjoy Sir Patrick's work as well. (I admit it; I'm a trekkie). But I find I have been rather disappointed in two remakes of old favourites in which he has starred: The Lion in Winter and Moby Dick.

I wasn't that fond of his version of A Christmas Carol either. Not that he's is necessarily to blame, it takea a lot of people to make a movie.




I'll add another medieval film to the list that I think captures something of an Arthurian feel, though many disagree with me on that; LadyHawke. Something about the glamor felt rather, well, Pendragonish. I admit I would love to see a remake of it with a somewhat more realistic take on costuming and weaponry.


I'd let the costumes and weapons slip by, but the synthesizer has got to go. It's a good film, with a fine cast, but the music sounds like a Doctor Who serial from the 1980s.

I very much enjoy Sir Patrick's work as well. (I admit it; I'm a trekkie). But I find I have been rather disappointed in two remakes of old favourites in which he has starred: The Lion in Winter and Moby Dick.

I wasn't that fond of his version of A Christmas Carol either. Not that he's is necessarily to blame, it takea a lot of people to make a movie.




I'll add another medieval film to the list that I think captures something of an Arthurian feel, though many disagree with me on that; LadyHawke. Something about the glamor felt rather, well, Pendragonish. I admit I would love to see a remake of it with a somewhat more realistic take on costuming and weaponry.


I'd let the costumes and weapons slip by, but the synthesizer has got to go. It's a good film, with a fine cast, but the music sounds like a Doctor Who serial from the 1980s.


Not a fan of Alan Parsons??? :(

Ladyhawke was very good. I think the acting was very top notch. Especially Leo McKern and John Wood. As to costuming, I liked it, except for the armour. I mean the helms looked like they borrowed them from the Knightrider set.

I very much enjoy Sir Patrick's work as well. (I admit it; I'm a trekkie).

If U like him I wonder..have you ever seen the Movie LADY JANE with Patrick and Cary elwes? Anyone?

If U like him I wonder..have you ever seen the Movie LADY JANE with Patrick and Cary elwes? Anyone?



Yes, I believe I saw this movie. Very well made and acted.

Yes, I've seen Lady Jane. Excellent costuming and some darn fine performances. You know, I always thought Cary Elwes would go places. Sort of be the new Errol Flynn....didn't really happen, though. But, for the record, I think the older Mr. Elwes would make a darn fine Gawaine.....

Yes, I've seen Lady Jane. Excellent costuming and some darn fine performances. You know, I always thought Cary Elwes would go places. Sort of be the new Errol Flynn....didn't really happen, though. But, for the record, I think the older Mr. Elwes would make a darn fine Gawaine.....


Very true :)

Not a fan of Alan Parsons??? :(

Not especially. But to be fair I don't think that's it. I think it is a case of the music being poorly suited to the subject matter. The synth just doesn't work for knights, castles and such. The syth also dates the movie as a 1980s film.

I like Ferraris, but I wouldn't like to see one in Ladyhawk.





Ladyhawke was very good. I think the acting was very top notch. Especially Leo McKern and John Wood. As to costuming, I liked it, except for the armour. I mean the helms looked like they borrowed them from the Knightrider set.


Agreed. Leo McKern is always good to watch, Matt Broderick was fun to watch as the main character, and Michelle Pfeiffer was captivating. Some of those helmets might have come from Buck Rogers!

Not a fan of Alan Parsons??? :(

Not especially. But to be fair I don't think that's it. I think it is a case of the music being poorly suited to the subject matter. The synth just doesn't work for knights, castles and such. The syth also dates the movie as a 1980s film.

I like Ferraris, but I wouldn't like to see one in Ladyhawk.





Ladyhawke was very good. I think the acting was very top notch. Especially Leo McKern and John Wood. As to costuming, I liked it, except for the armour. I mean the helms looked like they borrowed them from the Knightrider set.


Agreed. Leo McKern is always good to watch, Matt Broderick was fun to watch as the main character, and Michelle Pfeiffer was captivating. Some of those helmets might have come from Buck Rogers!




I guess I have to agree about the wrong music in a movie. I mean I like Queen and I like movies about knights - I like Paul Bettany and Mark Addy. Put them all in the same movie and you get a movie whose soundtrack doesn't work for me.

I liked Buck Rogers... Mmmmm, Wilma....

Personally I liked the jokes in First Knight. Historical dramas can be a bit po-faced and doing some frame-breaking stuff like that helps to cut the mood. In fact it can help my WSoD actually (nothing worse than a costumer shooting for 'authentic' that falls short).

Indeed, having modern anachronisms is practically obligatory for an Arthurian piece...

PS
Some smileys for my daughter (currently sitting in my lap) who wants to see what they look like:

:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
:( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( :) ;) :D ;D >:(
:P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::)

Well if we want to discuss some historical based movie, which is very difficult, since we are speaking of movies... well than I will say that the last King Arthur, seen as a remnant of a roman-british commander, is not so awful.

Probably if somewhere the Cymri fought back the Saxons invaders it could have been in the vicinity of the fortifications, so why not Adrian's Wall?

As you know, ancient British tribes had a tradition of warrior-queens, so why could it not be Guenever (Kiera) a fighting pict princess?
Why could Merlin not be a druid, or a bishop, perhaps? I mean a religious figure of importance... someone who could be so charismatic to lead the british, divided into different clans and chiefdom, to unite under the guidance of a Dux Britannorum, a romano-british experienced commander of the field?

I will not say, in the end, that it is a bad movie. I mean it is far and far better than the Richard Gere's one... also because historically speaking all the relation between Lancelot and the queen may be a literary invention of Mary de France.

I will put in the list the tv-movie Merlin, which has a good cast and the good atmosphere.

The problems with "King Arthur" are not the points you raised. One could indeed posit Guenevere as a tribal warrior princess, and many have done so (e.g. GURPS Camelot).

The big problem (at least for me) is that they advertised the movie as telling the "true story" and then showed stuff that was not merely ahistorical and/or Politically Correct but downright physically impossible. I mean, Picts as guerrillas marching out of the woods hauling a dozen multi-story-high trebuchets firing burning, explosive ammunition?

If someone wants to make a movie that's openly for fun, fine. I loved 300. But then they shouldn't stress in the ad campaign how this is what really happened and then fill it with stuff that isn't even plausible. Too many folks who already have a poor understanding of history will think they now know The Truth.

I couldn't have said it better. Though I enjoyed the King Arthur film, particularly the saxon leader, I knew I was in for pure fiction quite early on. I mean, a SAXON warleader telling his raiders to not consort with the local women?

And, out of idle curiosity, is anyone else sick to death of napalm and explosives totally out of context in historical films? Kingdom of Heaven for example. I loved the director's cut of the film BUT was it really necessary to film so many ridiculous and extraneous explosions? And don't even get me started on the "fire tactic" from Braveheart. (In fact, don't get me started on Braveheart all together. Quite arguably the worst historic film EVER!!)

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/06/classic-cliches-for-medieval.html
http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/06/mel-gibsons-historical-offenses.html

Oh, and he's working on a brand-spanking-new historical blockbuster epic, this one about the Vikings.

Great links. Mel...vikings...(visions of horned helmets, badly tanned furs, fantasy double bitted axes and longships belching broadsides of napalm.........) GAAAKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Those wicked, horrible, irredeemable, wicked ENGLIIIIISH (hell yeah suck it Brits)
-Also Jews


Also, that blog I linked to, http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com , is really good, the guy posts a lot of translated sources from Old French and Latin regarding pas d'armes, weaponry, etc., and also stuff like this http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2009/06/bnp-wins-two-seats-in-european.html


The Britons’ Nationalist Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia.

We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe of the giant Albion, the daughters of Danaus, and the Trojan exile followers of Brute, grandson of Aeneas of Troy, who gave his name to Britain.

Immigrants who arrived in Britain no later than 1116 BC have an obvious moral right to an inviolable ethnic homeland, on the universally acknowledged basis of We Got Here First. [. . .]

And now, to bring this back to movies:

Over in the comments at Megan McArdle, Braveheart was suggested as suitable viewing for Libertarian Movie Night. It is to laugh.

Da, Gibson does scream Freeeeeeedom, even if he delivers line better in Chicken Run. But really, Braveheart is patriotic epic of defense of motherland from foreigners that come to rape our women and mince about in crushed velvet. Is about collectivist virtues of people united shoulder to shoulder against invader, except for traitorous splittists who are justly liquidated through nighttime visit from patriotic security forces in necessary breaking of eggs to make omelets. Is about heroic guidance of Great Leader, who wisely teaches laboring class to use pointed sticks against decadent feudalists, a tactic they were unable to deduce for themelves because only Great Leader can think of such a thing. Is about revolutionary overthrow of foreign authoritarian overlord and replacement by Scottish authoritarian overlord, which is of course wonderful improvement. Is about putting inconvenient historical events down the memory hole. Is movie that could have been made by Eisenstein for Lochnessfilm if he had had color stock and less talent.

Great links. Mel...vikings...(visions of horned helmets, badly tanned furs, fantasy double bitted axes and longships belching broadsides of napalm.........) GAAAKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Don't write crazy old Mel off yet on his wild visions, even though I'm convinced he is exactly is as shown in that South Park episode!
Apocalypto was a surprisingly decent film methinks. The man still has the capability to surprise us all.
Maybe a decent Arthurian film is brewing up in that loopy skull of his!

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/06/classic-cliches-for-medieval.html
http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/06/mel-gibsons-historical-offenses.html

Oh, and he's working on a brand-spanking-new historical blockbuster epic, this one about the Vikings.



These were very funny links..thanx for sharing :D

I will admit that Mr. Gibson is talented. I haven't seen Apocolyptica. The Passion was brutal and, in some w
ays, amazingly realistic, but it still missed in a lot of historic areas. But it was at least making an effort. My issue with Mel is Braveheart. Gods, but I hated that film! British history is a passion of mine and what that film did with it was unspeakable.

Mel making a King Arthur film... That would be interesting news. So long as he didn't try to play the title role himself, I would become enthusiastic, I admit. Maybe someone should mail the man a copy of Steinbeck or Malory....

Actually, I would really like to see a high medieval film treatment of Arthur. Something along the lines of Taylor's Knights of the Round Table with a bigger budget and a better writer. If only....

Ah, I would like John Boorman to have another crack at it. Maybe he could coax the great, tempestuous Nicol Williamson to reprise his role as Merlin! Not sure if he could afford to have Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson and Gabriel Byrne still in it though as well.

Meh, it is more likely that toad licking, peyote gobbling Mel will make it his next dream project!:
"Two days ago, I saw a vehicle that would haul that tanker. You want to get out of here? You talk to me"

Ah, I would like John Boorman to have another crack at it. Maybe he could coax the great, tempestuous Nicol Williamson to reprise his role as Merlin! Not sure if he could afford to have Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson and Gabriel Byrne still in it though as well.


He might be able to get them. Some of those guys do projects because the like them, and might waive or reduce their normal fees.

IMO the biggest problems with Excalibur were from trying to cram the entire Arthurian Legend into a couple of hours. And doing it without naming more characters than the audience can follow.

Those problems would remain, too, unless someone did a mini-series or a series of films (maybe a trilogy- Uther/Boy King, Height of Reign, Grail Quest/Fall).

I agree; the major problem with Excalibur was compression. Well, that and having blown the entire costume budget on armour! But using the Lindsay sword, Discerner, for Excalibur herself was brilliant!

A mini series would be grand. Something along the line of what they are doing with George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones. And wouldn't casting a new version, be fun? I mean, who would you really like to see as Arthur? Gawaine? Lancelot? Hoo, boy!

I agree; the major problem with Excalibur was compression. Well, that and having blown the entire costume budget on armour! But using the Lindsay sword, Discerner, for Excalibur herself was brilliant!

If, indeed it is the Lindsay sword. Despite the similarities that hasn't been proven.



A mini series would be grand. Something along the line of what they are doing with George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones. And wouldn't casting a new version, be fun? I mean, who would you really like to see as Arthur? Gawaine? Lancelot? Hoo, boy!


I'd love to see a mini-series or something else that devotes more time to the story.

Casting would be tough. I think a lot would depending on how much time they tried to cover. Young actors could be nice for things like Boy King, but they would need to be actors who could play older for the latter years.

But I doubt we'd see something like that happen, or it if did happen, it would probably be "improved" by Hollywood to the point of ruin.

I still can remember that King Arthur movie with Sean Connery. I like Connery, I like Arthur, and yet, look at what that film was like. :'(

(He'd make a good Merlin, though, if given a chance).

Yeah, First Knight was a real stinker on so many levels. I remember my horror at the machine that the knights had to face to be found worthy.... I guess jousting and swordplay just weren't exciting enough. And the age difference between Connery and Gwynevere (I forget the actress's name) was somewhat disconcerting. And the costuming. And the dialog. And Richard Geer. (shudders at memories that I've attempted to repress)

At risk of starting a real (or should that be reel?) brough-ha-ha, I would like to see Ewan MacGregor try his hand at Arthur. The mistake most Arthurian films have made, in my opinion, is forgetting that Arthur may have been someone with charisma. Just look at Merlin and the film version of Mists of Avalon. Arthur was so charisma impaired in those two films that I thought they were presidential candidates!

And look would be quite important. As much as I appreciated the plate in Excalibur, I have always preferred the look of an earlier period for Arthur, more 13th century (though I know many will disagree). I like the semi-historic post-roman look, but only for an attempt at an authentic post-Roman setting, not the Round Table and Grail stories.

Makes one think, eh?

Maybe the uncharismatic Arthurs result from the influence of the French romance tradition of Arthur as a bland and inept figurehead, reliant on his knights?

Maybe the uncharismatic Arthurs result from the influence of the French romance tradition of Arthur as a bland and inept figurehead, reliant on his knights?


Partially. It is also, partially due to the fact that most of Arthur's great deeds are done during the early part of the story. Once he defeats the Saxons, becomes High King, and wins the foreign wars (where he dies in some version of the tale), he moves from being the center frigure of the tales to more of a background figure.

But, I think it mostly stems from the problem of trying to fit everything into two hours. In order for the round table knights to shine (and for Lancelot to excel) they have to go out and do things. If Arthur is active and charismatic, then Lancelot must be even moreso.

For example, in Excalibur, Arthur is active as a Boy King, up through his wedding to Guenevere, the building of Camelot and the formation of the Round Table. From that point the film focuses on other characters. The Lancelot-Gueneivere romance is handled very early (before the siring of Modred) and Arthur is soon struck by lightning and bedridden for most of the rest of the film.

But if they didn't do that, the whole Percival/Grail Quest story would have suffered.

It's a case of so many stories to tell, and so little time. Each of the Knight's Tales in Mallory was it's own book, and each would provide enough material for a film. Putting them all into one film, and lots of stuff is going to get chopped.

And that is just covering Mallory. If you start looking at other sources, there is even more stuff.

As a Pendragon GMs, We all have had to make the same decisions. There is so much stuff that I could include, but only room for so many adventures in the 80 year timeline. If we throw in something from the the Vulgate or Geoffrey of Monmouth or the Mabinogion, we have to drop something (or several things) to make room. And we have room for 80 something adventures or more. Film and TV don't have that kind of luxury. THey have room for 3 or 4 adventures and that's about it.

I wince when I think of an Arthurian mini-series. I have an image of media executives creating a series of vanilla episodes marketed to appeal to the widest audience who they assume have no knowledge of the subject at all, 20% of whom believe Xena Warrior Princess was an actual historical figure.
And only 6% of people know that! ;)
Throw in large dollops of teen romance to appeal to the younger viewers, the obligatory and cringeworthy comic relief and a soap opera story line.
Unless driven by a director with a strong vision, most Arthurian efforts are doomed to failure and doomed to be repeated on the Sci-Fi Channel ad nauseam in my experience! 'Merlin and the Book of Beasts', I'm looking at you!

I wince when I think of an Arthurian mini-series. I have an image of media executives creating a series of vanilla episodes marketed to appeal to the widest audience who they assume have no knowledge of the subject at all, 20% of whom believe Xena Warrior Princess was an actual historical figure.
And only 6% of people know that! ;)
Throw in large dollops of teen romance to appeal to the younger viewers, the obligatory and cringeworthy comic relief and a soap opera story line.
Unless driven by a director with a strong vision, most Arthurian efforts are doomed to failure and doomed to be repeated on the Sci-Fi Channel ad nauseam in my experience! 'Merlin and the Book of Beasts', I'm looking at you!





It would be a good idea to do a mini series ONLY if an upstanding channel did it..like Arts& Entertainment channel or Bravo channel in America, or BBC in England. Of course they will not have the enormous budget or the right PULL with huge actors to make it truly Epic. :(

It would be a good idea to do a mini series ONLY if an upstanding channel did it..like Arts& Entertainment channel or Bravo channel in America, or BBC in England. Of course they will not have the enormous budget or the right PULL with huge actors to make it truly Epic. :(


I think a joint venture would be needed here, such as the HBO/BBCtwo venture for ROME. And I think it would need to be more than a simple mini-series. At least a full season (20 -ish episodes), and perhaps two. But, if something like this were done, I would much prefer a Warlord Chronicles type of series to Mallory, though my personal favorite would be a treatment of Stewart. I think these, with their more "realistic ™" grounding would be much more successful as mini-series; at least here in the States.

SDLeary

It's one reason why I wish I could remember the name of that series from the late 70s early 80s. It seemed to be some BBC thing that they ported over, and looked like it was a full season. I don't know if it was any good, but it's worth looking into.

I think I'll do a little surfing and IMDBing.

I don't think they need well known actors to pull it off. In Excalibur, Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne et al were relatively unknown actors at the time. Nicol Williamson was probably the most recognisable actor in it, at least to us British.
I kinda agree with SDLeary. HBO/BBC's Rome was a great success and very enjoyable, a great 'I Claudius' for the 21st century! A venture similar to this probably could be the best hope for an Arthurian epic.

Atgxtg, I think I vaguely recall that BBC effort in the late 70's/80's too. Even though I was quite young, I recall men in pointy Celtic helmets in shabby, very cheap looking sets. I don't remember it being particularly memorable. Damned if I can recall what it was called though.
Still, memory plays tricks on us all. I remember being enthralled by 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' while very young too..................

Would that be "The Legend of King Arthur", with Andrew Burt as Arthur and Maureen O'Brien as Morgan le Fay? I remember it airing on the BBC in the late 70's when I was a boy (and still have the novelization).

I agree, Solitary, that unknowns could carry it off. It really depends on ability and presence, not name recognition. The only reason I pegged McGregor as Arthur is a certain something about his eyes that reminds me of my favourite painting of a Knight by Angus McBride. But the most important thing in making a potential Arthurian film or series is a love of and respect for the source material. I'm not advocating slavish adherence to Malory or any other author, just the desire to not throw in too many CGI creatures and flashy napalm fueled pyrotechnics.

And I, too, was quite impressed by Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea as a child. (I still think the Seaview is an impressive little ship, but as far as the rest is concerned?)

Would that be "The Legend of King Arthur", with Andrew Burt as Arthur and Maureen O'Brien as Morgan le Fay? I remember it airing on the BBC in the late 70's when I was a boy (and still have the novelization).


It might be. Whetever it was, I managed to watch all of five minutes of it, 30 some years ago, while waiting for the show I wanted to watch to start. About the only things I remember about it was:

1) It was shown as part of an anthology series.
2) It was on at the same time as a show I watched on another challed (Probably Bugs Bunny)
3) It was on right before a TV show that I wanted to watch on the same channel.
4) I think it was on Channel 25 (Boston)
5) There were live actors, they were mostly young, and sounded British.
6) One of the women looked sorta cute

UPDATE: Yeah! I think this was it. I now vague recall the reason why I knew it was an Anthology was because I would turn to the channel to see if "Robin Hood" was on. If it was, I watched it. If not, I'd switch to the other program.

Thanks merlyn.

I have no idea if it is any good. It gets good marks at IMDB, though. It's a pity that isn't not available on DVD.

A friend of mine once submitted a proposal for an Arthurian animated mini-series to the BBC. It was to cover, in twelve episodes, Arthur's story from his pulling the Sword out of the Stone to Merlin's imprisonment by Nimue. He even wrote the script for one episode, covering the Battle of Bedegraine (which, while basically following Malory, included some elements from other sources: among the petitioners coming to Arthur's court at the beginning are refugees from the flooding of Cantrev y Gwaelod and people reporting problems with the various monsters and giants in "Culhwch and Olwen", such as Yrnach, for example, and at the Battle of Bedegraine itself, Merlin, recalling the old tale of the Cath Goddeu or Battle of the Trees, stirs the trees of the forest to come to Arthur's aid against Lot and the rest of the eleven kings, almost like the Ents in "The Lord of the Rings"). Unfortunately, the BBC turned it down.

It's one reason why I wish I could remember the name of that series from the late 70s early 80s. It seemed to be some BBC thing that they ported over, and looked like it was a full season. I don't know if it was any good, but it's worth looking into.

I think I'll do a little surfing and IMDBing.



Damned if I can recall what it was called though.
Still, memory plays tricks on us all.


One possibility is Arthur of the Britons, starring Oliver Tobias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbL0CWtMT00

http://chud.com/articles/articles/22904/1/GUY-RITCHIE-REMAKING-EXCALIBUR/Page1.html

please don't suck please don't suck please don't ahahahaha who am I kidding this is Guy Ritchie here.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/22904/1/GUY-RITCHIE-REMAKING-EXCALIBUR/Page1.html

please don't suck please don't suck please don't ahahahaha who am I kidding this is Guy Ritchie here.


Considering that Warren Ellis wrote it, and it is about Arthur "assembling" the Knights of the Round Table rather than any actual Arthurian tale, I expect this to rival First Knight.

not gonna lie, I perked up when I pictured Spider Jerusalem as Merlin.

Oh dear.... Jason Statham as Arthur, Vinnie Jones as Merlin, Brad Pitt as Lancelot (with an incomprehensible pikey french accent of course!)

"Hurry up, Sir Thomas, before ze Saxons get here."

William Shatner as Arthur, Pauly Shore as Merlin, Don Knots as Lancelot (with the US bad French accent- mon sewer).

I think Hollywood has got it wrong. Rather than charging people $10 to watch a bad film, they should treat it like an extortion racket. When everyone has got their popcorn, and the usher goes around with the tin can, they should show an warning about some movie idea that will be made unless the patrons pay up.

Then show a few "sneak previews" to show the audience that they mean business.

Holy crap
http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-camelot-tv-series-to-be-made.html

brought to us by the same people who came up with, uh, Spartacus: Blood on the Sands.

Holy crap
http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-camelot-tv-series-to-be-made.html

brought to us by the same people who came up with, uh, Spartacus: Blood on the Sands.


Sigh. This really deserves the ROME or Deadwood production teams.

SDLeary

I'm starting to think that the only thing worse than having a pet topic mostly ignored by the media is having that topic become a hot topic. Suddenly you get five years or so of stuff that you wish was never made.

And then you have to explain to your friends, family and coworkers why something like First Knight was not a good Arthurian film.

tell me about it

yes, I study the crusades

yes, the Templars were involved

no, they probably are not still around as part of an all-powerful conspiracy to hide the "truth" of jesus and also renaissance art history

no, you're wrong, dan brown is shit

you are kind of dumb

Hmmm....Spatacus.....King Arthur..... Well, perhaps they are planning a psuedo historical post roman britain version of Arthur so they can reuse the costumes, weapons and armour from Spartacus. You know, all the Knights of the Round Table will carry tridents and nets! And the saxons just wore fur and untanned leather, right? Sigh.......

Seriously, though, I am hopeful of something worth watching. I still believe in the Easter Bunny, too!