King Arthur: Jerry Bruckheimer corrects historians

From the trailer:

Well, though the existence of a military leader named Arthur is debatable, the film also includes “knights” Lancelot and Galahad who are roundly believed to be completely fictional. I find the line “True story behind the legend” a bald-faced lie.

Which wouldn’t bug me so much if I didn’t believe that too many people these days are getting their history lessons from movies [cough]PassionoftheChrist[/cough].

I believe the earliest mention of a knight of Arthur’s was of Bedevere. Lancelot didn’t come around until at least the 12th century.

I saw the trailer at a movie the other night and at least the fortifications were more period than usual, though the armor was off and- fifth century Angles were using catapaults! (That would be similar to making a Civil War pic in which Robert E. Lee bombs Washington D.C. from his airship.)

I should add to the above: the catapult was in use long before Arthur, but not by the Germanic tribes who invaded Britain. Warfare technology was generally downgraded for a few generations after the Roman evacuation of Britain.

Hollywood using “true story” when it’s not accurate?! No! Not with their sterling reputation for accuracy in film!

Personally, I saw Xena!Gwen and started laughing for 5 minutes straight.

Loudly. At the movies. In a pretty big crowd.

I mean, are they serious? Is that a historical fact? Could someone please tell me?
Warning: Might shake my deepest beliefs.

And I left Superman not believing a man could fly!!!

Congress should investigate! Imagine: Hollywood hypes their movies!! I’m shocked. Shocked! The next thing you’ll tell me is that gambling is going on in Las Vegas!


And here I was expecting that every time a horse gets hit or falls over or anything it automatically explodes in a gigantic fireball.

Who has been cast to play the moistened bint who lobs the scimitar Excalibur at Arthur?

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP HELP I’M BEING REPRESSED!!

When I am God Emperor, Jerry Bruckheimer will pay for his crimes. Pay dearly. One of my first acts upon deification will be to seize his wealth and use it to start the greatest film school the world has ever seen. Then I will divide the rest of it equally amongst the moviegoing public. I will keep Little Jerry himself on a leash in my throneroom and periodically force him to dance for my pleasure. Dance, Little Jerry, Dance, or you will taste the prod! Faster! FASTER! But he will never dance fast enough…

Sadly, I’ll have to watch it. It’s got Clive Owen in it.

Can’t be worse than Troy, can it?

King who? Sir what?

Sorry, all I saw was a movie about a bunch of dudes with swords killing some more dudes with swords.

Helen of who?

Sorry, just a movie about a bunch of dudes outside a city attacking a bunch of dudes inside a city.

You guys need to lighten up. It’s Hollywood. Don’t expect history from them. Take the movies for what they are: big budget action flicks.

Don’t roll your eyes at me, Chuck. Movies have a long history of dramatizing events “based on a true story.” The unique aspect of what we’re talking about here is the claim that educated historians are wrong and that this movie is fact. That goes beyond hype. If it is your contention that the only way one can hype one’s product is by stating out and out falsehoods, I hope I am never so unlucky to bid on anything you may put on eBay.

I don’t know about anyone else, but everytime I read that post I bust out laughing.

Whoa! Ebay slamming! Now that’s fighting dirty!

Where’s the “snicker” smiley?

I think that you’ll find mentions of Sir Kay (Cai) in the “Welsh triads” that precede even Geoffrey of Monmouth, making him the oldest knight in Arthurdom.

If that’s the case, you may want to pass if Sony ever starts selling stuff on eBay.

In 2001, Newsweek broke the story that marketing geniuses at Sony had completely fabricated rave reviews for a number of the studio’s films. I can’t seem to find the original story online, but this page seems to summarize things pretty well:

Call me a cynic, but if a movie studio is willing to go that far, I’m not particularly surprised that Bruckheimer and Touchstone would feel little compunction about making a specious “claim that educated historians are wrong.”

Heck, I guess we should be glad they didn’t just concoct an educated historian out of thin air to tell us how accurate the film is…

Maybe the movie will have a fictional educated historian appear on screen and start lecturing on the “real” historic background.

And then a knight can come by on horseback and kill him! Ha ha!

Of course, at the end the police would have to show up and arrest everyone involved.

Side question: Has there ever actually been a good serious film about King Arthur? Holy Grail is, IMHO, not only a better movie but actually more historically and legendarily accurate than any other Arthur flick I can remember seeing!

Surely you’re not forgetting Knightriders, are you?