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.
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…
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.
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!