Jump to content

New King Arthur movie


Driver
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not certain if this is a well known version, but this book and then the Disney film were my first exposures to Arthurian Legend. It's a pretty book, if very old in language and structure almost biblically matter of fact at times. The art is great, bindings etc. I got my copy in the 80s. I think my great-aunt Vera owned a book store. This gift from her is thus responsible for me really only imagining Arthur in colorful linens and eventually various armors, both typical knights and also more "ranger" role-play stylings.

post-1397-0-73998300-1391193761_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I've been watching Arthur of the Britons. (Episode 1 "Arthur is Dead" on Youtube.) The production is dated, but its take on the myth and legend is surprisingly modern for when it was made. Very grounded, realistic, and humanist. I'm not a fan of rebooting everything, but this should get a look.

 

One thing: Is there any role in his career when Brian Blessed isn't yelling the majority of his lines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest El Chalupacabra

You know, back when I watched The Tutors for the first time, I was thinking that if there ever was a King Arthur, Jonathan Rhys Meyers would have fit the bill nicely, with Sam Neil as Merlin. But I have to say Charlie Hunnam is definitely a great choice for Arthur, too, though him being Arthur never occurred to me. I would have expected him to do a Hamlet film, especially as a follow up to SOA. That said, I think he could pull off a great portrayal of King Arthur.

 

I am really interested in who else will be cast, now that they have cast someone I think will be a good King Arthur.

 

Now that he is older, I think John De Lancie would be an awesome pick for Merlin!

 

They could still possibly bring Meyers in for a role: he could pull off a role as either Lancelot OR Mordred.

 

Either Mila Kunis or Lena Headey might be a good choice for Morgause/Morgana Le Fey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie Hunnam is a bit too good-looking to be Arthur IMO. Though I totally see why he was cast. You dont have to stretch your imagination too hard to see him as Arthur (which is why I think its a typical or status-quo kind of choice). Arthur needs that kindness in his eyes but also to be able to look ruthless and hard as **** (when he needs to be). Slightly more unique looking than uber-hunk. At least thats what I think. Mads Mikkelsen for example has a uniqueness of look that I think would work. He's a little less aryan sex symbol. However I admit my take on Arthurian myth is probably too specific for major motion picture studios. Even Gustav Skarsgard would be a good choice (if he grew his hair long or had a wig or something as he is going a little bald). But hes got an everyman quality that Arthur needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

See, I always thought Lancelot was a douche pretty boy and Arthur the honourable reluctant hero.

Arthur was the embodiment of what it was to not just be a great knight, but a great King. He was the one who offered leadership, moral guidance, and ruled with a just hand and brought order to chaos. Before Lancelot, Arthur was fighting and leading his knights to establish Camelot. In his early years he was the the best of the knights, actually. After Camelot was established, Arthur had to tend to his duties as King, and couldn't be gallivanting on knightly quests, which is where Lancelot, as the King's champion, filled the role Arthur no longer could. You can almost compare Arthur to PT era Obi Wan (oddly in the OT, I would compare Obi Wan to Merlin, and young Arthur to Luke).

 

Lancelot was the knight that everyone lauded as best of the Round Table, supposedly the embodiment of knighthood. But it turned out he was just as flawed as any other man, and fell from grace when his pride, overconfidence, and lust for Guinevere got in the way, and it was that affair that destroyed Camelot. In the end, he does redeem himself, but at the cost of his life. Not all that unlike Anakin Skywalker, though I wouldn't say Lancelot went straight up evil, but he was a great big, selfish douche. Hell, when it comes to his affair with Elaine, he almost killed her before he found out she was pregnant, and even then, he was a dead beat dad to Galahad.

 

So I would say Arthur was the boyscout and honorable/reluctant hero (at first, anyway), Lancelot was more of an Achilles: a great warrior with a tragic flaw that doesn't live up to the hype of being consummate, honorable knight everyone else, including Arthur, has heaped upon him. Oddly, his son, Galahad DOES live up to that, not unlike Luke Skywalker).

 

(Side note: I think you can also compare Anakin to Uther Pendragon, whose son, Arthur, fulfilled the destiny Uther should have fulfilled, but didn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.