MovieChat Forums > King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) Discussion > Do we need yet another retelling of the ...

Do we need yet another retelling of the Arthur legends?

posted 8 years ago by TigerWarg
20 replies | jump to latest

Not in my mind.

I am fascinated by the legends and read about them avidly. Each time there is a new movie, or TV series I want it to be good but I have been disappointed most times.

Excalibur is still the only big screen adaptation that I have any time for. I am glad it was made when it was, in the way it was. If made today it would have too much reliance on special effects / CGI.

from the trailer I have seen, it's just another Guy Ritchie "lads" movie and the mythical elements removed or downplayed. I live in hope but fear the worst.

[–] Gromel 8 years ago

Well it's been retold for 1500 years. Good or not, new stuff is how it's kept alive.

I'll give this a chance, just like I gave Starz's Camelot a chance, though that sucked.

I'm holding out for a novel adaptation of something like Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Trilogy. Don't know why people haven't leapt on it after the success of Game of Thrones, Vikings and Cornwell's own The Last Kingdom.

[–] jmac7106 8 years ago

Camelot made a fatal casting mistake with it's arthur.

[–] April221968 8 years ago

The Jude Law casting means I'll never watch it anyway.

[–] Gromel 8 years ago

My first impression was that he looked more like Mordred (zing) and all the other knights looked more like Arthur. Even the black one.

But the writing hurt him just as much or more.

[–] Calebxy 8 years ago

from the trailer I have seen, it's just another Guy Ritchie "lads" movie and the mythical elements removed or downplayed. I live in hope but fear the worst.

The mythical elements definitely don't seem downplayed from the trailer. If anything, they look intensified.

The greatest hindrance to discovery is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge.

[–] politicidal 8 years ago

Mythical elements removed or downplayed? Did you see the trailer? Vortigern practices magic!

What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals.

[–] dalbrech 8 years ago

My real issue is severe doubts about RItchie being the right director choice for this.

[–] ChrEberle 8 years ago

Same with Robin Hood, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Three Musketeers etc. etc. - these stories will be retold, remade and so on FOREVER...

And yes, EXCALIBUR is a masterpiece! I love that one. All the other "Arthur" movies are either boring or outright terrible.

NightAxe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJzZ4jkYd40

[–] ad101867-1 8 years ago

Excalibur was a melodramatic joke that made Arthur look like a complete dick. And it was completely implausible for those of us who try to imagine what a real Arthur might have been like in the real Dark Ages (for instance: there were no shiny suits of armor back then).

[–] ChrEberle 8 years ago

Yeah, even with some flaws - like 1980s aesthetics and some 'melodramatic' Arthur - John Boorman's version still eats all the other ones for breakfast!

Oh, and I know that there were no full-plate armours in the early middle ages! It's an aesthetic choice. Since it's mythology / fantasy that has all these "knightly ideals" going... which was a thing of the LATE middle ages - I can very much live with that.

And there's also a difference between this over the top "action-explosion-kung-fu-BS" stuff they do these days and some "medieval fantasy" that John Boorman created!

So, to make things clear: Sure - I would love a version that is "historically accurate" - but the last one that tried to be that, was this abomination from 2004... which was just another excuse for some stupid action movie that just ended up to be dry and stupid.

When it comes to the sword in the stone myth, I WANT magic, I WANT Merlin etc. - because if you take all that away, then you may as well just make some generic "medieval movie"

Sersiously: Why even bother making a "King Arthur" movie when you try to make it "historically accurate" when MOST LIKELY he never existed!

Oh, and about the "sword in the stone" thing: This one is at least based on the "magic" perception of the skill of blacksmithing... "drawing" an iron sword from a stone (ore).

Just a fascinating side-note I recently learned when reading Joseph Campbell.

NightAxe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJzZ4jkYd40

[–] ad101867-1 8 years ago

"Sure - I would love a version that is "historically accurate" - but the last one that tried to be that, was this abomination from 2004... which was just another excuse for some stupid action movie that just ended up to be dry and stupid."

This is a nonsensical position for the simple reason that it falsely assumes a genuinely interesting, rousing historical drama can't be written. Plenty have been, at least insofar as novelizations are concerned, and not just for Arthur. No reason one of those can't be adapted to film - or a completely original film script written that's just as good as one of those novels.

"When it comes to the sword in the stone myth, I WANT magic, I WANT Merlin etc."

That's legitimate, but the problem with leaving it at that, or assuming that Excalibur is "it," is that too many people assume that's the only possible Arthur story: the medieval-magical legend.

"Sersiously: Why even bother making a "King Arthur" movie when you try to make it "historically accurate" when MOST LIKELY he never existed!"

You're assuming a negative position when you really shouldn't. I'm of the "where there's smoke, there's fire" school of thought, and there are good historians on this side too. I highly, highly recommend Christopher Gidlow's book The Reign of Arthur (which ironically came out in 2004, the same year as the disappointing movie):
https://www.amazon.com/Reign-Arthur-History-Legend/dp/0750934190/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485806456&sr=1-2

And even IF Arthur didn't actually exist - it's still generally accepted that the Britons staved off the Anglo-Saxon tide for a generation from the Battle of Badon. Why can't a great story of that Celtic generation be told on film . . . ?

[–] ChrEberle 8 years ago

Thank you for the book-recommendation. This looks quite like my cup of tea.

Now, about other versions of the King Arthur mythology... well, for ME, personally, "Excalibur" is "it" - I'm not speaking for others.

And I basically said also that I would be quite happy with some "historical drama" version of the King Arthur myth - very much so.

See, the worst examples of how NOT to do it are right there in this Guy Ritchie version's trailer: Gigantic monsters, Kung Fu... lots of "cool talk" etc. etc. It's looks almost as if it borrows all this "over the top fantasy-action designs" from this horrible movie "Suckerpunch" - and mixes it with some Tarantino style of storytelling...

You know - I had my share of medieval reenactment and general interest in European medieval history. I LOVE the books of Joseph campbell and even more I love swords and European Martial Arts which have quite a renaissance in the past several years - so, YES, PLEASE: Give me some King Arthur movie that is accurate to the place and time...

...and still: I like "Excalibur"

NightAxe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJzZ4jkYd40

[–] NotoriousRio 8 years ago

Excalibur was a melodramatic joke that made Arthur look like a complete dick. And it was completely implausible for those of us who try to imagine what a real Arthur might have been like in the real Dark Ages (for instance: there were no shiny suits of armor back then).

There wasnt any magic back then either!

It was based on Le Morte d'Arthur, romanticised fantasy of Albion, and also visually inspired by the many paintings of Arthur and his knights from the 19th Century.

I’d love to see a reworking of that but also an historical take on Arthur (without the shining armor) based on Bernard Cornwell’s novels.

[–] missybusty 8 years ago

YES

[–] NotoriousRio 8 years ago

Yes, but only because the movies about Arthur have been so poor since Excalibur.

Once a movie or series of films is made about the Arthurian legend comparable in quality to Lord Of the Rings, then you may have a point.

But unfortunately Hollywood screws up everytime since 1981.

[–] ad101867-1 8 years ago

Yeah, we do - because it's never been done right. British history in general is fascinating, but especially the Dark Ages. There are a number of excellent books about that era, but almost none of what the best research indicates about the Dark Ages has ever been given the "Arthurian" treatment on-screen.

[–] markdancedcrazy 8 years ago

More than we need another Spiderman movie!

This looks like it will be garbage, though. Look at what Guy Ritchie did to Sherlock.