king arthur movie

Discussion of topics concerning life in the middle ages around the world, including architecture, history, and warfare.
User avatar
Legomaat
Laborer
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 5:09 pm
Location: Voorburg, The Netherlands

Post by Legomaat »

JPinoy wrote: Heck, ever heard of "Mile Castles"? Those small "residential fortifications" (not originally, but they eventually evolved into one) on Hadrians Wall? Those Castles existed long before the Middle Ages even began. With that in mind amongst others, one can say that "Castle Theme" can extend far back into the Ancients period.
Originally, Hadrian’s Wall ran across the whole width of Britain, and was about 10 ft thick and 15 ft high with 6 ft battlements on top of that. Every Roman mile there was a mile castle and in between each pair of mile castles were two watch towers.

If you see a castle as a fortification you are perfectly right.
As Sidney Toy says it in his book “Castles, their construction en history” so lovely:
“The art of fortification had reached a high state of development even at the dawn of history. Powerful military works, dating from the remotest periods, have been found in Asia Minor, in Greece, and in de basins of the Tigris, the Euphrates and the Nile rivers. The medieval castle, with its strategic, crenellated ramparts and aura of legend and romance, represents perhaps the most familiar form of a long-crucial art.”

So, fortifications were build from long ago till far in the 20th century. And therefore, it is not easy to draw a sharp line between a roman castellum, a medieval castle, and a “modern” fortification.
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars".

Edward Young / Night Thoughts.
User avatar
lemon_squeezer2
Gentleman
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:52 pm
Location: The "Other" Academy
Contact:

Post by lemon_squeezer2 »

Legomaat wrote:So, fortifications were build from long ago till far in the 20th century. And therefore, it is not easy to draw a sharp line between a roman castellum, a medieval castle, and a “modern” fortification.
I agree with you on the first part here, but the time when castles as we know them stopped being made would most likely be in the early 17th century. As guns became more effective and accurate, fortifications became lower, and the recognizable star shaped fort came into being, such as deal castle in England.
"Bite off more than you can chew, then chew like heck"

KP 2011!
User avatar
Legomaat
Laborer
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 5:09 pm
Location: Voorburg, The Netherlands

Post by Legomaat »

Speaking about castles, everyone knows what type of building you refers to. Mostly the typical medieval castle, built somewhere between 1100 and 1500 AD.
But viewed in the light of continuing development of building fortifications, this is only one phase. With the construction of the Burg Muqattam in the citadel at Cairo, especially designed for defence by artillery, just another development took place. This powerful tower is four storeys in height, its walls are 22 ft. thick and it is covered at each stage by a strong dome vault. And then, indeed, the fortifications became lower and got the typical star shaped form.
And after the temporary return to early forms, the fortifications became entirely below ground level, and finally culminated in the concrete constructions of the 20th century.
Of course, this is not longer called a castle, but it is also a fortification.

I think, this is also one of the differences between a castle and a fortress.
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars".

Edward Young / Night Thoughts.
Stephen
Laborer
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 5:35 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Post by Stephen »

Robin Hood wrote:
Somebody ealier was talking about Roman time King Aurthur. Well I think that the real one (there actually was a real one) did infact live around late roman times. I am pretty sure that he was a Saxon king.
Arthur did live in late Roman time, the late 400s and early 500s. He was probably more like a general or warlord though, not a king. And he was probably Roman British, decended from the people who occupied the island before the Romans came, and who had adopted Roman ways during the four centuries the Romans were there.

Arthur was fighting against the Saxons who were invading the island from northern Germany. He and his men probably wore armor similar to that worn by Roman soldiers at the time - heavy leather with metal plates attached. They did not wear full body armor like we see in the movies. The LEGO scale mail torso and the bullet shaped chin guard helmet are probably close.

Stephen
User avatar
Tycho McKorley
Artisan
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 1:20 am
Location: Washington, DC, USA

Post by Tycho McKorley »

It seems to me that they've taken the story of Ambrosius, who supposedly was the "last of the Romans" among the Celtic Britons and mixed it with the story of Arthur the Dux Bellorum ("duke of battles"- this is one title attributed to Arthur before medieval legend transformed him into a king).

Regardless of how "accurate" the story is though, it's quite intriguing to see somebody making a story about the earliest Arthur.

However, I admit that I'm disappointed that the movie-makers have chosen to retain the sword in the stone legend. I've always believed that the actual sword in the stone was originally from the banner of the descendants of Roman Sarmatian cavalry in Brittian. Apparently the Romans stationed groups of these horsemen in Northern Britain where they mixed with the native population and formed an important element of the resistance against the Anglo-Saxons. The great part though was that their battle symbol was that of a sword in a stone!
am pretty sure that he was a Saxon king.
There is some truth to that actually. If my understanding is correct, the great Saxon King Alfred had much of his legend grafted onto the tale of Arthur after the Norman invasion of England in the 11th century.
[url=http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=Tycho123]My Brickshelf Folder[/url]
User avatar
Robin Hood
Knight Templar
Knight Templar
Posts: 2070
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 2:35 am
Location: An empty room.....somewhere.
Contact:

Post by Robin Hood »

Stephen wrote:Robin Hood wrote:
Somebody ealier was talking about Roman time King Aurthur. Well I think that the real one (there actually was a real one) did infact live around late roman times. I am pretty sure that he was a Saxon king.
Arthur did live in late Roman time, the late 400s and early 500s. He was probably more like a general or warlord though, not a king. And he was probably Roman British, decended from the people who occupied the island before the Romans came, and who had adopted Roman ways during the four centuries the Romans were there.

Arthur was fighting against the Saxons who were invading the island from northern Germany. He and his men probably wore armor similar to that worn by Roman soldiers at the time - heavy leather with metal plates attached. They did not wear full body armor like we see in the movies. The LEGO scale mail torso and the bullet shaped chin guard helmet are probably close.

Stephen

Oh yeah right. He was fighting the Saxons. Forgot about that. Thanks.
I build, therefore I am.

Brave words coming from a guy called grapenuts.
User avatar
LEGOFREAK
noy dna rehtih
Posts: 2061
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:46 pm
Location: home

Post by LEGOFREAK »

Formendacil wrote:That shield when you start going to their site looked freakily like Lego to me!

Seriously, though, I hope that this does result in some new designs and such: I'm always on the lookout for more.
Freakily ...

like lego..

hmmmm

Image

:D
PS - I know. this should have been further towards the beginning, but I was busy :) and besides, maybe this will get moved anyway by an admin.
User avatar
Green Fox
Bailiff
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:50 pm
Location: That's how you get Capone!

Post by Green Fox »

Weeeeel, the movie itself might not inspire many MOCs (a realistic king Arthur movie, as opposed to fantasy), but I think there will be more intrest in ancients, but not in the movie itself.
User avatar
doctorsparkles
Landlord
Posts: 995
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:42 pm
Location: Medina, Ohio
Contact:

Post by doctorsparkles »

I just wanted to say that I saw King Arthur last night, and I thought it was rather enjoyable. I can't comment on the accuracy of the story (not that anybody knows the true story of Arthur for sure anyway), but I did enjoy the scenery and the costumes. I was never a fan of Roman armor or clothing, but the Britons and Saxons looked pretty good in my opinion.
I wasn't a big fan of seeing Guinevere on the battlefield, but I did enjoy seeing a scantily clad Keira Knightly decked out in tribal war paint. Yeah, that was nice.
Has anyone else seen it yet?
"Always do what you want, and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." ~ Doctor Suess
User avatar
jamitjames
Gentleman
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: The Great North White, Canada
Contact:

Post by jamitjames »

Not yet, but when it comes to our cheep theater I will :P
[url=http://radio.laml.org/]LAMLradio: LEGO Talk Podcast[/url]
User avatar
The Josh
Apprentice
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:02 pm
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Contact:

Post by The Josh »

The New York Times gave a review of the movie and said it was "..at best, a B type movie shot amidst fog used during the battle scenes.." :?

Was it bad, or was it ok? Has anyone seen the movie, and would they recommend it? I want to see it but with movie prices nowadays I would rather buy a small Lego set :wink: then waste my money on a poorly made movie.


-The Josh
User avatar
doctorsparkles
Landlord
Posts: 995
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:42 pm
Location: Medina, Ohio
Contact:

Post by doctorsparkles »

The Josh wrote:The New York Times gave a review of the movie and said it was "..at best, a B type movie shot amidst fog used during the battle scenes.." :?

Was it bad, or was it ok? Has anyone seen the movie, and would they recommend it? I want to see it but with movie prices nowadays I would rather buy a small Lego set :wink: then waste my money on a poorly made movie.


-The Josh
I saw it, and I recommend it (I actually enjoyed it enough that I'll probably see it again), but don't go into the theater expecting to see anything even closely resembling the Arthurian legend. There is no magical sword or Holy Grail in this story. Most of the key players are there, but mostly only by namesake.
Here's a brief summary: a group of Knights (led by none other than Arthur) are forced into service for 15 years by the Roman Empire, and are stationed at Hadrian's Wall to protect the empire from the Britons in the north, led by Merlin. Before they recieve their freedom and can return to their homeland, they are sent out on one last mission, during which they encounter a massive Saxon army...
I'll let you find out the rest when (if?) you see it. No spoilers here.
"Always do what you want, and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." ~ Doctor Suess
User avatar
Dragon Master
Merchant
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Dragon Master »

Its Megablocks :lol: I haven't hated a movie as much since the Tuxedo.

Come on people! The producers are trying to sell this to us as if it were a historical account. Its loosely (and I do mean ever so loosely) based on the history of a Roman cavalry commander, named Arthurius Castis (spelling). It would have been a fine movie if it was about that.

But then they go throwing in classic Aurthurian things, like Lancelot (a FRENCH name when France at the time was Gaul), and they gave the traditional names to other "knights" even though the term wouldn't be used till 1066 :wink: Naming the sword Excalibur was another mistake.

I either want to see a history, or a fantasy. Not some crappy mixture where Jerry Bruckheimer pretends he's a histoiran (I still haven't got over the repeating rifles in Pirates of the Carribean :shock: ).

If you want to see a King Aurthur movie...Pick up Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Don''t see this movie, save your money from Bricklink.

Regards,

DM

Camelot!

Camelot!

Camelot!

Its only a model!
"I have looked for you. Now you have come to me. And I thank you." -Pope John Paul II
User avatar
TwoTonic Knight
TwoTonic of Many Colors
Posts: 1815
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: The Lowest Pit of Megablocks

Post by TwoTonic Knight »

The Josh wrote:The New York Times gave a review of the movie and said it was "..at best, a B type movie shot amidst fog used during the battle scenes.." :?

Was it bad, or was it ok? Has anyone seen the movie, and would they recommend it? I want to see it but with movie prices nowadays I would rather buy a small Lego set :wink: then waste my money on a poorly made movie.


-The Josh
Kinda depends on what you are expecting to see. My son voted for King Arthur over Spiderman 2, so that's what we just got back from. If you want to see the Arthurian Legends with quests and magic and love triangles, forget it. If you want to see something that is trying to REALLY be historically accurate, forget it (Lancelot the french guy in briton in 452 AD, and recast as a Sarmatian from the Black Sea no less? Romans still there 40 years after they really left? Come on). And, of course, Keira Knightly fighting in a leather bikini?

Okay, so, I really wanted her stripped down to just the woad. :twisted: *

But if you abandon preconceived notions and ignore the inaccuracies, it was an interesting enough take on the origins of the Arthurian myths. I'd give it a B. Certainly not an A, but enjoyable on its own merits. And anyone who likes my axe variants will love seeing all those Saxon axes. Oh, and Sarmatians really did ride armored horses and used bows.

* I got the Keira Blues or Woadn't it be luverly?

The Woad Song (To Men of Harlech - see Zulu)

What's the use of wearing braces ?
Vests and pants and boots with laces ?
Spats or hats you buy in places
Down on Brompton Road.

What's the use of shirts of cotton ?
Studs that always get forgotten ?
These affairs are simply rotten,
Better far is woad.

Woads the stuff to show them,
Woad to scare your foeman.
Boil it to a brilliant hue,
And rub it on your back and your abdomen.

Ancient Briton, never hit on,
Anything as good as woad to fit on,
Neck or knees, or where you sit on,
Tailors you be blowed.

Romans came across the channel,
All dressed up in tin and flannel,
Half a pint of woad per man'll,
Dress us more than these.

Saxons you can waste your stitches,
Building beds for bugs in britches,
We have woad to clothe us, which is,
Not a nest for fleas.

Romans keep your armour,
Saxons your pyjama.
Hairy coats were meant for goats,
Gorillas, yaks, retriever-dogs and llama.

Tramp up Snowdon with our woad on,
Never mind if we get rained our snowed on,
Never want a button sewed on.
Go it Ancient B's!
Redwine the Ribald: Stare long enough into the abyss...
Two-Tonic Tippler: ...and you spit into it.

[img]http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/corsair/C ... ippler.jpg[/img]
User avatar
Formendacil
Knight Templar
Knight Templar
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Ashland, MA
Contact:

Post by Formendacil »

I haven't seen it, and unless some friends invite me to, I doubt I'll make the effort, but based on these reviews I guessing that it will be an okay movie, one not to be taken in as either real or true Arthurian legend.

So am I just posting to tell you what I guess it will be like?

No.

I am posting to post my comments on the nature of movies: the opinions that they evoke in people tend to be widely divergent, and are just that: opinions.

I bet that ever last movie ever made has had at least one die-hard fan, and at least one complete enemy. But there is usually a popular general opinion, a majority vote.

In this case, I would guess that it is more towards the TTK/Dr.Sparkles line of thought than the Dragon Master one.

And the best thing, if I may be permitted a moment of preachiness, to do when going to a movie is to expect to be entertained. If you go intending to critique, there is no way you can fail to destroy the movie.
Post Reply