This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
King Arthur (2004 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the film is horrifically anti-Christian. It's almost a protest film. I've added specific movie critics who have addressed precisely that issue. Matt Sanchez ( talk) 02:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The last quote is not accurate and somewhat taken out of context. The final sentence is the problem. The author says, "While it would be tempting to dismiss this as leftist, anti-Christian sterotype, there is almost always a kernel of truth to the most effective propaganda. Such is the case with King Arthur's rebuke of organized religion. The sad truth is that the medieval Roman Catholic Church was corrupted, even though there were many sincere and honorable adherents in its rank." For a film that claims to be "historically accurate", this "anti-Catholic" feature might be accurate and not reflect a "hollywood leftist conspiracy". If nothing else, the quote isn't accurate as presented. Bgreen96 ( talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Let us contemplate the probability of Hollywood depicting any other religious hierarchy as generally corrupt and oppressive. Any examples come to mind? The depictions of pagan and non-western religions are almost without exception sympathetic, even romantic. I'm afraid Mr. Sanchez is quite right. 216.120.218.53 ( talk) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Roxana
On the one hand the film is more anti-Catholic than anti-Christian, since the Christian monk Pelagius is a hero in the movie for resisting Roman Church corruption. On the other hand, the peak of real corruption in the Catholic church was long long long after the period of this movie, although there certainly was real tension between England and the Catholic church in this particular time-frame, so the emphasis on church corruption is somewhat but not entirely anachronistic.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 00:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It's telling that you had to go as far back as the 1950s to cite the two examples of Jewish Hollywood's sympathetic portrayal of the Roman Catholic Church. Pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.55.241 ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh my god. Who cares if it's anti-catholic, it's a movie for christ's sake. What next, Concussion is anti-NFL? Super Size Me is anti-McDonald's? We're an encyclopedia, not some corporate legal jargon propaganda BS site... MightyArms ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this article is a wee bit too subjective? ScottyBoy900Q 20:11, 8 July 2004 UTC
I agree. There is a tiny piece about positive reception compared to the huge piece of negative reception. can this be evened out abit? --Anonymous 21:49 19-09-2006
"ARTICLE" -? It seems to me to have become more of a "REVIEW"; at the least a focused and mean spirited review of the historical accuracy of the film which, if honestly titled as-such as a separate Wikipedia article, it may begin to justify the maelstrom of nitpicking-geekery we see here. Never in the history of film making has there been another film even coming one -tenth- the distance this film has in incorporating elements of historical accuracy into a telling of the Arthur Myth. Earrach ( talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I hope the original contributor isn't too peeved about my revision. Just saw the film today. Don't see what all the indignation is about, really. It was an interesting film, albeit not Oscar material.
A couple of things I picked up whilst watching the film (bear in mind that I am no expert in early British history):
I understand that the directors, writers, producers of the movie have artistic license, but they shouldn't hold it up to be historically accurate. For Antonine Fuqua to say: "I wanted to make a film that was based, as much as possible, on historical fact which is tough because a sword-and-sorcery film would probably make more money!" is laughable to say the least.
The plot of King Arthur has none of the elements which make the original Arthurian legends great, like the prophecy, the Holy Grail, the betrayal and the whole tragedy of it all. Instead you've just got this collection of action scenes without any particular motivation. For example, after the Roman family had escaped, why did the Saxons continue to go after Arthur when they knew that he was a formidable opponent? Why does Arthur claim that the British people are united at the end of the movie? Seems like only that particular tribe was willing to follow him. And then there's that love scene inserted in the middle, which was as pointless as Mel Gibson's affair with Sophie Marceau in Braveheart.
That's what all the indignation is about: some cheap Hollywood imposter claiming to be "the true story". Listening to Arthur's tirades about freedom is like listening to George W. Bush talk about Iraq.
-- Jie 14:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Jai" is horrifically wrong on one point. Sarmatians DID fight as heavy (charging) cavalry and are in fact notorious for not knowing any other way. Their favoured weapon was a 2-handed Lance or "Kontos". Jai is thinking of Scythians (an earlier culture from the same geographical area). A more serious objection is that at the time the movie was set the Sarmatians appear to have been ceased to exist as a nation, their land having been occupied by first the Ostrogoths and then by the Huns.
I have to say that many of the "inaccuracies" listed above are actually subject to historical dispute. In particular the use of crossbows as Ezedriel said the romans had crossbows so there is no reason that the Saxons couldn't have aquired them or indeed recreated them. The Saxons were a highly resourceful people whose weapons production was far superior to that of the early medieval era.The use of teh double headed battle axe is also disputed the Amazonians a race from he Steppes of Russia used double headed battle axes in combat so there is a possiblilty of the Saxons doing he same.The Saxons attacked in the winter on occasions where it served them best, in the 800's Guthrum invaded (admittedly a Viking but the same people different name) invaded in the winter to suprise the enemy. Whilst Hadrians wall was the northenmost point that Roman lands officially extended there are records of traders and nobles living north of the border in relative peace, in ana era of religious turmoil a zealous noble may have been inclined to try and convert the Picts. Finally the Sarmation Knights are not depicted as cataphracts as they are not covered head to foot in armour for most of the film and in the scene that they are they are depicted no differntly than Sarmatian nobles. Also considering the size of Salmatia its entirely possible that both Cataphracts and Sarmation Cavalry archers were used and the knights in the film are a combination of the two.
Someone who tried to be funny has included alot of nonsense on the page refering to another movie or a book of King Arthur but not this movie so i coped a good plot summary and translated it and put it here.I AM SORRY BUT It was the BEST that could be done.When you find someone who is burried under a heave stone and you end up saving the man's life but but he has a limp at least he did not die.This text was like that man i did what i could to make it better.Maybe not in the proper way but at least its no longer alot of nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.155.74 ( talk) 11:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I found a comprehensive 10-point criticism of King Arthur; much more detailed and authoritative than mine: http://arthurrex.blogspot.com/ -- Jie 12:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
They have determined that in that time period, men and women fought side by side, there for making it possible for Guinevere to have been a warrior. Also, we shouldn't put the film down so harshly because not all facts are public knowledge as of yet and we have yet to unlock all that history has to tell. Though some of the facts listed on this page are very compelling facts, they may not be completely true. Some say the knight's fighting styles don't match the period, well, people have there own ways of doing things now, their own styles, why could that have not been true then as well?
Not every aspect of a persons life is documented down to the tiniest detail, things could be different. As stories are told, they become more elaborate with each tell, and soon the real facts are forgotten and replaced by the false elaborations. Am I not correct about that? It's still that way today, in schools, family, friends, co-workers, and so on. I am not a hisory expert, but I am a history buff and my research has led me to believe that some "Historical Inaccuracies" may, in fact, not be so inaccurate. I know many people that agree with me, but I also have many that do not agree me(obviously). Just don't put down the movie until you have facts and you consider that just because it is not documented it does not make it untrue.
Firstly, who are the "they" to which you refer? Secondly, are you saying that in a movie which makes claims to historical accuracy as a major part of it's publicity campaign, that it's good enough ignore all the sources and common sense, on the grounds that they might be right anyway on the basis of coincidence?
I'm not saying ignore the facts for the sake of a good movie(in my oppinion)but remember that facts are open to interpretation and be open to change if it comes. And the "They" I refer to is historians. I would expect the film to recieve critical fact checking before they put in the advertising that it was historically accurate and the true story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.134.252 ( talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't argue with any of this. The main things which stuck out to me were the inaccuracies in costume and, as you pointed out, stirrups. Other than that, I felt it was interesting, but only as entertainment.
I'm not sure all markets are being subjected to the level of historical hype of the film as others. Certainly, it will get more people interested in learning about the time and lore of post-Roman Britain.
Why can't the picture of the promotional poster be made smaller? I tried to lessen the amount of pixels in the edit, but no matter what size I chose the picture's size remained the same in the article.
The age difference between Lancelot and Galahad (or lack of) cannot be said to be an historical inaccuracy, since none of them are historical persons in the first place.-- Tokle 19:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The criticism section states that "Pelagius is believed to have died decades earlier, and was a traditionalist, not a reformist," while the article on Pelagius states that "Pelagius was a monk and reformer who denied the doctrine of Original Sin from Adam and declared a heretic." Perhaps this conflict should be corrected somehow.
As far as I am aware, the only historians who debate the idea that the pontifical office as we know it today was fully formed by the fifth century are those with a religiously motivated point to make - i.e. Protestant historians looking to delegitimize the office of Pope or Orthodox ones who believe that the office of Peter held symbolic primacy only prior to the Great Schism of the 11th century. Documents and letters recovered from as early as the last decades of the first century reveal that the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church itself fully believed the Bishop of Rome to be the rightful successor of Peter as the head of the Church. Iceberg3k 16:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If the use of crossbows in the movie was anachronistic, it surely needs to be documented because it's so prominent (two knights are killed by them). Ezedriel, the "crossbows are anachronistic" has been there since it was added, and only you have edited it out. All around the Internet, the film's crossbows are mentioned as historically inaccurate.
Also, the film had a mish-mash of "Sarmatian" armor, since the knights, like the action figures that they are, don't dress alike as formal soldiers should, even allowing for small variations. How can you say that they are more accurate? If they weren't dressed like cataphracts, how were they dressed like?
Could you please cite your sources? Thanks. 203.131.137.90 06:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Look at this: Sarmatian cataphracts 203.131.137.90 06:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The Romans had crossbows. Assume the ones in the movie were either bought or stolen or scavenged. Same with the armor. The average reader has been spoiled by mass production and may not be aware that ALL Roman soldiers were responsible for their own individual armor and had to get what he could afford, including scavenging off of dead enemies or (yes, even ) dead friends who logically, no longer needed armor. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.179.30.13 (
talk)
02:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
http://steppenreiter.de/images/skythevorne.jpg http://steppenreiter.de/images/skythehinten.jpg image of Scythian/Sarmatian armor. They may be mixed with Greek cataphracts clothing or Roman equites. Their bows would be mostly used to wound the enemy`s horses or light infantry. Then they take them out with javelins and spears. Supposing these troops have Roman training, they could use Numidian style fighting, with javelins in one hand and a lance or axe in the other. But not with two swords. There are no reports about cavalry fighting this way, but a lot that cavalry uses one distance and one closeup weapon in twohanded combat.
Handheld crossbows, the Saxons could possibly use, had roughly the deadliness of an airgun. You really have to hit a small vulnerable spot on a fast moving target. Therefore the Greeks tried them in the phalanx, but decided, this weapons to be ineffective in warfare. It is good for hunting small animals like rabbits and birds. Bigger crossbows handled by 2-3 men were in use by the Roman military and could have been adopted by the Saxons, but it is unlikely that amphibian forces land with heavy siege artillery for a fast raid.
Historically correct would have been if the Saxons landed with some noblemen on horseback, who have a life of military training in leading small partys to steal, sneak up from behind, kill and rape. They can be accompied by their peasants, who row the boat, carry the booty and have shields, long knifes and mostly javelins, spears and lances. Some of them are hunters and skirmishers, have smaller knifes, bows or slings and run around fast. They are the first to gether knowledge from the whereabouts of the enemy.
Chinese artcraft was known to the Romans and Chinese steel was highly valued because it had supreme quality. But the export from China was forbidden under the penality of death, so very few pieces reached the Roman empire. It is possible that a high ranking soldier owned one of these expensive products, like a dao. But compared to our world, it is like driving a single edition ferrari.
Before the final battle, Sarmatian Knights gathered at the side of Arthur fully armed. You can see their armors and helmets are miscellaneous. Maybe the filmmaker wants to show us a mixed band of ancient warriors. But a Turkic Tristan really goes too far. -- Mato Rei 10:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Assume all the armor was looted —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.179.30.13 (
talk)
02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
For instance, Bors, portrayed in the film as a loud-mouthed boor and father of a huge number of children, was something of a Boy Scout in the legends ..... - I don't know what this anachronistic methaphor is supposed to imply. If I did I would change it. Jooler 07:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Stereotypical Boy Scouts are virtuous people who, for example, help little old ladies cross streets. 202.163.242.1 12:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Just one quick thing; I thought he weilds Butterfly Swords (or a slight variation), not Katars.
it says in the article that the film potrays arthur as a roman soldier and not a night. well,it does show him as a saramtian knight serving the romans.
I remember finding two pictures, set side-by-side near when the movie was coming out, and in those pictures it showed Keira Knightley posed as she is in the movie poster (drawing a bow); one picture was obviously the final version of the poster, and the other appeared to be a version of the poster without all the little effects added in. Well, it was obvious that among the things added to make the final version was at least a full cup to Keira Knightley's bust. While I don't claimed to be shocked that someone in whichever company made that decision, I was stuck by how obvious it was, since Ms. Knightley bust is... not what she is known for, and that it was rather insulting. Does someone have the pictures I was talking about, or can confirm this? It could be added into the Trivia section. -- Gero 14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The interesting fact is: ONLY the US-movieposter was doctored, in britain and everywhere around the world nobody thought of cheating the photo of her body. This gives a funny insight to the mindset of americans and their weird love for faked/plastic body-parts ;-) John -- 77.4.80.23 ( talk) 01:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
There are even more historical inaccuracies concerning the Saxons. Their leader Cerdic, was born roughly the time the movie was set, and his son, Cynric, therefore would not be alive then. Lemmy Kilmister 08:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Any info on the language the Woads in this movie speak, or at least are supposed to speak? 66.115.241.35 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I watched it last night on tv with closed captioning on and I am pretty sure that it saud 'speaking gaelic' or just 'speaking foreign language'. Tydamann ( talk) 09:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Anybody know where the phrase "Rus," uttered by all of the knights, it seems like, comes from? I haven't been able to find proof of historical usage of the word. Seems like this kind of information would be good for the Trivia section if we could get an explanation. -- JeffHCross
I'm pretty sure most if not all of this is true... we just need good references for all of them (rephrasing?), and the film being quite inaccurate despite claiming to be the "true story" makes it all the more notable among historical epics and Arthurian movies.
TEXT STARTS HERE
...King Arthur has been heavily criticized for its historical inaccuracies — especially since it claims to be close to or even be the original story, as evidenced by its tagline. Some examples include:
History
Costumes and weaponry
TEXT ENDS HERE I hid the Lancelot image using code. Uthanc 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Large sections of this article consist of unreferenced (and often demonstrably innacurate) POV. I have altered and referenced the first point in the "Historical inaccuracies" section but don't have time for the rest atm. It all needs considerable rewording, revision and referencing -- the kind of statements being made here are simply unreferenced arguments against the films critics and read like they are made by a partisan of the film; in my opinion they do not comply with NPOV and they need considerable support from respectable sources if they are to be made... Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In one section of the page, it says that Guinevere is a Celt in the film, but then later on it says the 'Woads' are meant to be Picts. So which is it? 81.109.25.133 ( talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Given her tattoos, she is certainly meant to be a Pict. However, Picts are a pre-Celtic people, and the Picts were divided into Celtic Picts and Scythian Picts. See "Scotland, A Concise History" by James Halliday -- WickerGuy ( talk) 19:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This seems out of all proportion to the importance of the subject-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This year came two leaders into Britain, Cerdic and Cynric his son, with five ships, at a place that is called Cerdic's-ore.
(Translated by Rev. James Ingram (London, 1823), with additional readings from that of Dr. J.A. Giles (London, 1847); bolding eds. [1] Last retrieved 12-18-2006)...Ethelwulf was the son of Egbert, Egbert of Ealmund, Ealmund of Eafa, Eafa of Eoppa, Eoppa of Ingild, Ingild of Cenred (Ina of Cenred, Cuthburga of Cenred, and Cwenburga of Cenred), Cenred of Ceolwald, Ceolwald of Cuthwulf, Cuthwulf of Cuthwine, Cuthwine of Celm, Celm of Cynric, Cynric of Creoda, Creoda of Cerdic.
After reading the first half of "The Search for the Grail" by Graham Phillips (published in America as "The Chalice of Magdelene"), I suspect that the first half of this book (and parts of the second half) were source material for this film, but I cannot prove it. -- WickerGuy ( talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the cast list, Ray Winstone plays Bors the Younger, but it's never stated in the movie. The character is simoly called Bors, and it could be Bors the Elder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.187.182 ( talk) 11:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure a consultant to the film should be quoted in the reception section as if they are a critic. Duggy 1138 ( talk) 23:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The following was written into the text of the article, at the end of the "Military technology" section:
"That third from last sentence is quite inaccurate as a description; the "barbed wire" was not "placed" by the Woads, it was attached to arrows and shot from bows. The forest scene actually shows an explicit scene with a rapidly-uncoiling flexible cord. This would probably be a vine, creeper or even nettle-twisted rope. The addition of long thorns at regular intervals in various orientations would produce a perfectly reasonable thorn-rope, well within historical technology, and no metal would be needed."
While I can't speak to its accuracy, this is something that needed to be put on the Talk page, and not in the article itself. I've removed it from the article. Tennesseellum ( talk) 05:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as the accuracy is concerned, just LOOK at the scene in the film! Cords coiled up, attached to arrows cannot in any circumstances be made of inflexible (and heavy) metallic wire. Although shown in a brief shot the unlooping of the coiled cord is absolutely clear. Think of, for example, light cord attached to a rescue rocket for maritime use, or even rope attached to a modern harpoon.
The original article was somewhat naive in assuming barbed wire without apparently considering a rational alternative, and was unnecessarily critical. GruffyGnome ( talk) 23:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"The producers of the film falsely claim to present a historically accurate version of the Arthurian legends, supposedly inspired by new archaeological findings" – historical accuracy is kind of a subject standard. Unless you want to say that it's wrong to say a film is "historically accurate" unless it's fotage of actual events, historical accuracy is a subjective standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.140.6 ( talk • contribs)
So far Lorenzo De Angelis has appeared in only one known film (this one), thus why the redlink was removed the first time. In order to prove this actor's notability, search for any other movies he has taken part in. Homechallenge55 ( talk) 05:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The section on controversies includes a link to a youtube video where Italian novelist Manfredi apparently states that the movie was "almost" a plagiarism of his own work. So far, this is the only instance I can find at all regarding this movie and any plagiarism controversy. Is this really enough to declare plagiarism and/or a controversy? Further, after the scant sourced material there is a short analysis of why there could be a controversy or not but seems to rely on original research instead of citations. I think this at least needs a rewrite if not re-categorized entirely since Manfredi seemed to have mentioned this rather casually (my impression) in 2007 after a movie on his own novel was released and hasn't pursued anything since.
"Italian historian and novelist Valerio Massimo Manfredi claimed that the movie was almost a plagiarism of his 2002 novel The Last Legion, due to several similarities between the two works.[29] These similarities include the reuse of some tropes and happenings present in the book and, especially, the attempt to give historical reliability to the main characters with the concept of King Arthur having Roman origins. Actually the events of the movie suggest a theory that is largely different from the one on which Manfredi's novel is based, in which Artorius Castus isn't even mentioned, and neither is the Sarmatian auxiliary army. According to Manfredi, King Arthur's release and its commercial failure were among the main causes of the problems related to the movie adaptation of his novel, that was in development hell until its release in 2007."
Yojimbo1941 ( talk) 13:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I re-removed the controversy section since it relies on scant references and strikes of original research. Plus, it had already been removed once before by another editor whose edit was undone with no explanation. Yojimbo1941 ( talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC) I re-re-removed the controversies section. Someone reinserted Original Research as well. Yojimbo1941 ( talk) 17:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. The support !votes are more in number, and it certainly seems valid to suggest there might be confusion and that the new film will in some cases be called "King Arthur" only. King Arthur (film) can redirect to King Arthur (disambiguation). — Amakuru ( talk) 13:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
King Arthur (film) →
King Arthur (2004 film) – The upcoming film
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword makes the present title
incomplete disambiguation; it's been frequently called simply "King Arthur" in news reports.
[3]
Cúchullain
t/
c 16:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
21:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be no consensus about altering titles that do not strictly collide., and since the upcoming film has a subtitle, it's title does not strictly collide with this one, and therefor a disambiugator should not be added. Ppp ery 20:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on King Arthur (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.postroman.info/anglo_saxon/chronicle4.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
King Arthur (2004 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the film is horrifically anti-Christian. It's almost a protest film. I've added specific movie critics who have addressed precisely that issue. Matt Sanchez ( talk) 02:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The last quote is not accurate and somewhat taken out of context. The final sentence is the problem. The author says, "While it would be tempting to dismiss this as leftist, anti-Christian sterotype, there is almost always a kernel of truth to the most effective propaganda. Such is the case with King Arthur's rebuke of organized religion. The sad truth is that the medieval Roman Catholic Church was corrupted, even though there were many sincere and honorable adherents in its rank." For a film that claims to be "historically accurate", this "anti-Catholic" feature might be accurate and not reflect a "hollywood leftist conspiracy". If nothing else, the quote isn't accurate as presented. Bgreen96 ( talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Let us contemplate the probability of Hollywood depicting any other religious hierarchy as generally corrupt and oppressive. Any examples come to mind? The depictions of pagan and non-western religions are almost without exception sympathetic, even romantic. I'm afraid Mr. Sanchez is quite right. 216.120.218.53 ( talk) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Roxana
On the one hand the film is more anti-Catholic than anti-Christian, since the Christian monk Pelagius is a hero in the movie for resisting Roman Church corruption. On the other hand, the peak of real corruption in the Catholic church was long long long after the period of this movie, although there certainly was real tension between England and the Catholic church in this particular time-frame, so the emphasis on church corruption is somewhat but not entirely anachronistic.-- WickerGuy ( talk) 00:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It's telling that you had to go as far back as the 1950s to cite the two examples of Jewish Hollywood's sympathetic portrayal of the Roman Catholic Church. Pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.55.241 ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh my god. Who cares if it's anti-catholic, it's a movie for christ's sake. What next, Concussion is anti-NFL? Super Size Me is anti-McDonald's? We're an encyclopedia, not some corporate legal jargon propaganda BS site... MightyArms ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this article is a wee bit too subjective? ScottyBoy900Q 20:11, 8 July 2004 UTC
I agree. There is a tiny piece about positive reception compared to the huge piece of negative reception. can this be evened out abit? --Anonymous 21:49 19-09-2006
"ARTICLE" -? It seems to me to have become more of a "REVIEW"; at the least a focused and mean spirited review of the historical accuracy of the film which, if honestly titled as-such as a separate Wikipedia article, it may begin to justify the maelstrom of nitpicking-geekery we see here. Never in the history of film making has there been another film even coming one -tenth- the distance this film has in incorporating elements of historical accuracy into a telling of the Arthur Myth. Earrach ( talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I hope the original contributor isn't too peeved about my revision. Just saw the film today. Don't see what all the indignation is about, really. It was an interesting film, albeit not Oscar material.
A couple of things I picked up whilst watching the film (bear in mind that I am no expert in early British history):
I understand that the directors, writers, producers of the movie have artistic license, but they shouldn't hold it up to be historically accurate. For Antonine Fuqua to say: "I wanted to make a film that was based, as much as possible, on historical fact which is tough because a sword-and-sorcery film would probably make more money!" is laughable to say the least.
The plot of King Arthur has none of the elements which make the original Arthurian legends great, like the prophecy, the Holy Grail, the betrayal and the whole tragedy of it all. Instead you've just got this collection of action scenes without any particular motivation. For example, after the Roman family had escaped, why did the Saxons continue to go after Arthur when they knew that he was a formidable opponent? Why does Arthur claim that the British people are united at the end of the movie? Seems like only that particular tribe was willing to follow him. And then there's that love scene inserted in the middle, which was as pointless as Mel Gibson's affair with Sophie Marceau in Braveheart.
That's what all the indignation is about: some cheap Hollywood imposter claiming to be "the true story". Listening to Arthur's tirades about freedom is like listening to George W. Bush talk about Iraq.
-- Jie 14:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Jai" is horrifically wrong on one point. Sarmatians DID fight as heavy (charging) cavalry and are in fact notorious for not knowing any other way. Their favoured weapon was a 2-handed Lance or "Kontos". Jai is thinking of Scythians (an earlier culture from the same geographical area). A more serious objection is that at the time the movie was set the Sarmatians appear to have been ceased to exist as a nation, their land having been occupied by first the Ostrogoths and then by the Huns.
I have to say that many of the "inaccuracies" listed above are actually subject to historical dispute. In particular the use of crossbows as Ezedriel said the romans had crossbows so there is no reason that the Saxons couldn't have aquired them or indeed recreated them. The Saxons were a highly resourceful people whose weapons production was far superior to that of the early medieval era.The use of teh double headed battle axe is also disputed the Amazonians a race from he Steppes of Russia used double headed battle axes in combat so there is a possiblilty of the Saxons doing he same.The Saxons attacked in the winter on occasions where it served them best, in the 800's Guthrum invaded (admittedly a Viking but the same people different name) invaded in the winter to suprise the enemy. Whilst Hadrians wall was the northenmost point that Roman lands officially extended there are records of traders and nobles living north of the border in relative peace, in ana era of religious turmoil a zealous noble may have been inclined to try and convert the Picts. Finally the Sarmation Knights are not depicted as cataphracts as they are not covered head to foot in armour for most of the film and in the scene that they are they are depicted no differntly than Sarmatian nobles. Also considering the size of Salmatia its entirely possible that both Cataphracts and Sarmation Cavalry archers were used and the knights in the film are a combination of the two.
Someone who tried to be funny has included alot of nonsense on the page refering to another movie or a book of King Arthur but not this movie so i coped a good plot summary and translated it and put it here.I AM SORRY BUT It was the BEST that could be done.When you find someone who is burried under a heave stone and you end up saving the man's life but but he has a limp at least he did not die.This text was like that man i did what i could to make it better.Maybe not in the proper way but at least its no longer alot of nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.155.74 ( talk) 11:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I found a comprehensive 10-point criticism of King Arthur; much more detailed and authoritative than mine: http://arthurrex.blogspot.com/ -- Jie 12:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
They have determined that in that time period, men and women fought side by side, there for making it possible for Guinevere to have been a warrior. Also, we shouldn't put the film down so harshly because not all facts are public knowledge as of yet and we have yet to unlock all that history has to tell. Though some of the facts listed on this page are very compelling facts, they may not be completely true. Some say the knight's fighting styles don't match the period, well, people have there own ways of doing things now, their own styles, why could that have not been true then as well?
Not every aspect of a persons life is documented down to the tiniest detail, things could be different. As stories are told, they become more elaborate with each tell, and soon the real facts are forgotten and replaced by the false elaborations. Am I not correct about that? It's still that way today, in schools, family, friends, co-workers, and so on. I am not a hisory expert, but I am a history buff and my research has led me to believe that some "Historical Inaccuracies" may, in fact, not be so inaccurate. I know many people that agree with me, but I also have many that do not agree me(obviously). Just don't put down the movie until you have facts and you consider that just because it is not documented it does not make it untrue.
Firstly, who are the "they" to which you refer? Secondly, are you saying that in a movie which makes claims to historical accuracy as a major part of it's publicity campaign, that it's good enough ignore all the sources and common sense, on the grounds that they might be right anyway on the basis of coincidence?
I'm not saying ignore the facts for the sake of a good movie(in my oppinion)but remember that facts are open to interpretation and be open to change if it comes. And the "They" I refer to is historians. I would expect the film to recieve critical fact checking before they put in the advertising that it was historically accurate and the true story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.134.252 ( talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't argue with any of this. The main things which stuck out to me were the inaccuracies in costume and, as you pointed out, stirrups. Other than that, I felt it was interesting, but only as entertainment.
I'm not sure all markets are being subjected to the level of historical hype of the film as others. Certainly, it will get more people interested in learning about the time and lore of post-Roman Britain.
Why can't the picture of the promotional poster be made smaller? I tried to lessen the amount of pixels in the edit, but no matter what size I chose the picture's size remained the same in the article.
The age difference between Lancelot and Galahad (or lack of) cannot be said to be an historical inaccuracy, since none of them are historical persons in the first place.-- Tokle 19:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The criticism section states that "Pelagius is believed to have died decades earlier, and was a traditionalist, not a reformist," while the article on Pelagius states that "Pelagius was a monk and reformer who denied the doctrine of Original Sin from Adam and declared a heretic." Perhaps this conflict should be corrected somehow.
As far as I am aware, the only historians who debate the idea that the pontifical office as we know it today was fully formed by the fifth century are those with a religiously motivated point to make - i.e. Protestant historians looking to delegitimize the office of Pope or Orthodox ones who believe that the office of Peter held symbolic primacy only prior to the Great Schism of the 11th century. Documents and letters recovered from as early as the last decades of the first century reveal that the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church itself fully believed the Bishop of Rome to be the rightful successor of Peter as the head of the Church. Iceberg3k 16:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If the use of crossbows in the movie was anachronistic, it surely needs to be documented because it's so prominent (two knights are killed by them). Ezedriel, the "crossbows are anachronistic" has been there since it was added, and only you have edited it out. All around the Internet, the film's crossbows are mentioned as historically inaccurate.
Also, the film had a mish-mash of "Sarmatian" armor, since the knights, like the action figures that they are, don't dress alike as formal soldiers should, even allowing for small variations. How can you say that they are more accurate? If they weren't dressed like cataphracts, how were they dressed like?
Could you please cite your sources? Thanks. 203.131.137.90 06:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Look at this: Sarmatian cataphracts 203.131.137.90 06:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The Romans had crossbows. Assume the ones in the movie were either bought or stolen or scavenged. Same with the armor. The average reader has been spoiled by mass production and may not be aware that ALL Roman soldiers were responsible for their own individual armor and had to get what he could afford, including scavenging off of dead enemies or (yes, even ) dead friends who logically, no longer needed armor. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.179.30.13 (
talk)
02:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
http://steppenreiter.de/images/skythevorne.jpg http://steppenreiter.de/images/skythehinten.jpg image of Scythian/Sarmatian armor. They may be mixed with Greek cataphracts clothing or Roman equites. Their bows would be mostly used to wound the enemy`s horses or light infantry. Then they take them out with javelins and spears. Supposing these troops have Roman training, they could use Numidian style fighting, with javelins in one hand and a lance or axe in the other. But not with two swords. There are no reports about cavalry fighting this way, but a lot that cavalry uses one distance and one closeup weapon in twohanded combat.
Handheld crossbows, the Saxons could possibly use, had roughly the deadliness of an airgun. You really have to hit a small vulnerable spot on a fast moving target. Therefore the Greeks tried them in the phalanx, but decided, this weapons to be ineffective in warfare. It is good for hunting small animals like rabbits and birds. Bigger crossbows handled by 2-3 men were in use by the Roman military and could have been adopted by the Saxons, but it is unlikely that amphibian forces land with heavy siege artillery for a fast raid.
Historically correct would have been if the Saxons landed with some noblemen on horseback, who have a life of military training in leading small partys to steal, sneak up from behind, kill and rape. They can be accompied by their peasants, who row the boat, carry the booty and have shields, long knifes and mostly javelins, spears and lances. Some of them are hunters and skirmishers, have smaller knifes, bows or slings and run around fast. They are the first to gether knowledge from the whereabouts of the enemy.
Chinese artcraft was known to the Romans and Chinese steel was highly valued because it had supreme quality. But the export from China was forbidden under the penality of death, so very few pieces reached the Roman empire. It is possible that a high ranking soldier owned one of these expensive products, like a dao. But compared to our world, it is like driving a single edition ferrari.
Before the final battle, Sarmatian Knights gathered at the side of Arthur fully armed. You can see their armors and helmets are miscellaneous. Maybe the filmmaker wants to show us a mixed band of ancient warriors. But a Turkic Tristan really goes too far. -- Mato Rei 10:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Assume all the armor was looted —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.179.30.13 (
talk)
02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
For instance, Bors, portrayed in the film as a loud-mouthed boor and father of a huge number of children, was something of a Boy Scout in the legends ..... - I don't know what this anachronistic methaphor is supposed to imply. If I did I would change it. Jooler 07:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Stereotypical Boy Scouts are virtuous people who, for example, help little old ladies cross streets. 202.163.242.1 12:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Just one quick thing; I thought he weilds Butterfly Swords (or a slight variation), not Katars.
it says in the article that the film potrays arthur as a roman soldier and not a night. well,it does show him as a saramtian knight serving the romans.
I remember finding two pictures, set side-by-side near when the movie was coming out, and in those pictures it showed Keira Knightley posed as she is in the movie poster (drawing a bow); one picture was obviously the final version of the poster, and the other appeared to be a version of the poster without all the little effects added in. Well, it was obvious that among the things added to make the final version was at least a full cup to Keira Knightley's bust. While I don't claimed to be shocked that someone in whichever company made that decision, I was stuck by how obvious it was, since Ms. Knightley bust is... not what she is known for, and that it was rather insulting. Does someone have the pictures I was talking about, or can confirm this? It could be added into the Trivia section. -- Gero 14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The interesting fact is: ONLY the US-movieposter was doctored, in britain and everywhere around the world nobody thought of cheating the photo of her body. This gives a funny insight to the mindset of americans and their weird love for faked/plastic body-parts ;-) John -- 77.4.80.23 ( talk) 01:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
There are even more historical inaccuracies concerning the Saxons. Their leader Cerdic, was born roughly the time the movie was set, and his son, Cynric, therefore would not be alive then. Lemmy Kilmister 08:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Any info on the language the Woads in this movie speak, or at least are supposed to speak? 66.115.241.35 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I watched it last night on tv with closed captioning on and I am pretty sure that it saud 'speaking gaelic' or just 'speaking foreign language'. Tydamann ( talk) 09:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Anybody know where the phrase "Rus," uttered by all of the knights, it seems like, comes from? I haven't been able to find proof of historical usage of the word. Seems like this kind of information would be good for the Trivia section if we could get an explanation. -- JeffHCross
I'm pretty sure most if not all of this is true... we just need good references for all of them (rephrasing?), and the film being quite inaccurate despite claiming to be the "true story" makes it all the more notable among historical epics and Arthurian movies.
TEXT STARTS HERE
...King Arthur has been heavily criticized for its historical inaccuracies — especially since it claims to be close to or even be the original story, as evidenced by its tagline. Some examples include:
History
Costumes and weaponry
TEXT ENDS HERE I hid the Lancelot image using code. Uthanc 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Large sections of this article consist of unreferenced (and often demonstrably innacurate) POV. I have altered and referenced the first point in the "Historical inaccuracies" section but don't have time for the rest atm. It all needs considerable rewording, revision and referencing -- the kind of statements being made here are simply unreferenced arguments against the films critics and read like they are made by a partisan of the film; in my opinion they do not comply with NPOV and they need considerable support from respectable sources if they are to be made... Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In one section of the page, it says that Guinevere is a Celt in the film, but then later on it says the 'Woads' are meant to be Picts. So which is it? 81.109.25.133 ( talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Given her tattoos, she is certainly meant to be a Pict. However, Picts are a pre-Celtic people, and the Picts were divided into Celtic Picts and Scythian Picts. See "Scotland, A Concise History" by James Halliday -- WickerGuy ( talk) 19:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This seems out of all proportion to the importance of the subject-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This year came two leaders into Britain, Cerdic and Cynric his son, with five ships, at a place that is called Cerdic's-ore.
(Translated by Rev. James Ingram (London, 1823), with additional readings from that of Dr. J.A. Giles (London, 1847); bolding eds. [1] Last retrieved 12-18-2006)...Ethelwulf was the son of Egbert, Egbert of Ealmund, Ealmund of Eafa, Eafa of Eoppa, Eoppa of Ingild, Ingild of Cenred (Ina of Cenred, Cuthburga of Cenred, and Cwenburga of Cenred), Cenred of Ceolwald, Ceolwald of Cuthwulf, Cuthwulf of Cuthwine, Cuthwine of Celm, Celm of Cynric, Cynric of Creoda, Creoda of Cerdic.
After reading the first half of "The Search for the Grail" by Graham Phillips (published in America as "The Chalice of Magdelene"), I suspect that the first half of this book (and parts of the second half) were source material for this film, but I cannot prove it. -- WickerGuy ( talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the cast list, Ray Winstone plays Bors the Younger, but it's never stated in the movie. The character is simoly called Bors, and it could be Bors the Elder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.187.182 ( talk) 11:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure a consultant to the film should be quoted in the reception section as if they are a critic. Duggy 1138 ( talk) 23:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The following was written into the text of the article, at the end of the "Military technology" section:
"That third from last sentence is quite inaccurate as a description; the "barbed wire" was not "placed" by the Woads, it was attached to arrows and shot from bows. The forest scene actually shows an explicit scene with a rapidly-uncoiling flexible cord. This would probably be a vine, creeper or even nettle-twisted rope. The addition of long thorns at regular intervals in various orientations would produce a perfectly reasonable thorn-rope, well within historical technology, and no metal would be needed."
While I can't speak to its accuracy, this is something that needed to be put on the Talk page, and not in the article itself. I've removed it from the article. Tennesseellum ( talk) 05:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as the accuracy is concerned, just LOOK at the scene in the film! Cords coiled up, attached to arrows cannot in any circumstances be made of inflexible (and heavy) metallic wire. Although shown in a brief shot the unlooping of the coiled cord is absolutely clear. Think of, for example, light cord attached to a rescue rocket for maritime use, or even rope attached to a modern harpoon.
The original article was somewhat naive in assuming barbed wire without apparently considering a rational alternative, and was unnecessarily critical. GruffyGnome ( talk) 23:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"The producers of the film falsely claim to present a historically accurate version of the Arthurian legends, supposedly inspired by new archaeological findings" – historical accuracy is kind of a subject standard. Unless you want to say that it's wrong to say a film is "historically accurate" unless it's fotage of actual events, historical accuracy is a subjective standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.140.6 ( talk • contribs)
So far Lorenzo De Angelis has appeared in only one known film (this one), thus why the redlink was removed the first time. In order to prove this actor's notability, search for any other movies he has taken part in. Homechallenge55 ( talk) 05:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The section on controversies includes a link to a youtube video where Italian novelist Manfredi apparently states that the movie was "almost" a plagiarism of his own work. So far, this is the only instance I can find at all regarding this movie and any plagiarism controversy. Is this really enough to declare plagiarism and/or a controversy? Further, after the scant sourced material there is a short analysis of why there could be a controversy or not but seems to rely on original research instead of citations. I think this at least needs a rewrite if not re-categorized entirely since Manfredi seemed to have mentioned this rather casually (my impression) in 2007 after a movie on his own novel was released and hasn't pursued anything since.
"Italian historian and novelist Valerio Massimo Manfredi claimed that the movie was almost a plagiarism of his 2002 novel The Last Legion, due to several similarities between the two works.[29] These similarities include the reuse of some tropes and happenings present in the book and, especially, the attempt to give historical reliability to the main characters with the concept of King Arthur having Roman origins. Actually the events of the movie suggest a theory that is largely different from the one on which Manfredi's novel is based, in which Artorius Castus isn't even mentioned, and neither is the Sarmatian auxiliary army. According to Manfredi, King Arthur's release and its commercial failure were among the main causes of the problems related to the movie adaptation of his novel, that was in development hell until its release in 2007."
Yojimbo1941 ( talk) 13:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I re-removed the controversy section since it relies on scant references and strikes of original research. Plus, it had already been removed once before by another editor whose edit was undone with no explanation. Yojimbo1941 ( talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC) I re-re-removed the controversies section. Someone reinserted Original Research as well. Yojimbo1941 ( talk) 17:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. The support !votes are more in number, and it certainly seems valid to suggest there might be confusion and that the new film will in some cases be called "King Arthur" only. King Arthur (film) can redirect to King Arthur (disambiguation). — Amakuru ( talk) 13:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
King Arthur (film) →
King Arthur (2004 film) – The upcoming film
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword makes the present title
incomplete disambiguation; it's been frequently called simply "King Arthur" in news reports.
[3]
Cúchullain
t/
c 16:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
21:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be no consensus about altering titles that do not strictly collide., and since the upcoming film has a subtitle, it's title does not strictly collide with this one, and therefor a disambiugator should not be added. Ppp ery 20:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on King Arthur (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.postroman.info/anglo_saxon/chronicle4.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)