PDA

View Full Version : King Arthur Stories or the Movie, King Arthur?


meegaan1
04-09-2004, 06:25 AM
I've been reading a book about King Arthur, which closely follows Sir Thomas Mallory's retelling of the stories, but I really like the movie about what might be the factual telling better.
What about everyone else? Do they like the Legends or the Movie?

Jasper
04-09-2004, 03:23 PM
I like the movie/documentaries depicting the real King Arthur story more.

I saw a documentary a little while ago about the real "King" Arthur. It was really interesting.

frodo1511
04-09-2004, 03:46 PM
Definiately the movie. I read the stories of KA in Language class last year, and although I found them interesting, I also found them dumbed down from the likes of LOTR(obviously KA was written before the epic) and so I was weened on action over story(although me still likes story, too) I was really excited to see the movie, partly because it resembled Tolkien's books (hero rises to save his people, big, bad army comes to town, battles, things that go boom, etc...) Overall, I enjoyed both takings on the legend, but in this day and age of "action over story" don't hesitate to see the movie, it gives you another perspective on the legend.

meegaan1
04-09-2004, 06:41 PM
I get what you're saying. I enjoy the tales, like I just finished the tale of Beaumains, the Kitchen Knight, but I just really loved the movie.
Maybe thats just cuz Keira was in it. :P

Richard
04-09-2004, 11:19 PM
I'm not familiar with neither. Hopefully the movie will have interested in the legend.

aznkkfan
04-09-2004, 11:40 PM
i've been a king arthur fan for half of my life. i've seen read lots of stuff and i really cant pick which is better. of course it's great to know history but i think the legends are getting in the way a little bit. stupid question, but can anyone explain to me how galahad isnt lancelot's son in the movie?

Mags
05-09-2004, 12:35 AM
If I'm not mistaken, and I've only read one King Arthur focused book, so I may be, Lancelot was never Galahad's father. In what I read, Galahad, Gawain, and two others were all brothers. Lancelot was from France. I believe Arthur had an affair with the brothers' mother, resulting in a evil child...Mordred. I'm really not positive what it was I read...lemme double check. I'm pretty sure it was various bits and pieces of The Once And Future King...but I don't feel like I read the whole thing. Anyway, what I remember is that Galahad and Gawain, were brothers, who were knights of the Round Table. I'm...pretty damn sure that Lancelot was not their father.

frodo1511
05-09-2004, 01:12 AM
I'm...pretty damn sure that Lancelot was not their father.

Yeah, considering Lancelot was only a couple years older than Galahad and Gawain.

blackdragon
05-09-2004, 07:57 AM
I red more than 100 books about celts and Arthur and all that stuff and I may say that the movie IS just the legend. The only thing true in that movie was Guinevere's beauty (although she was blond because she was Saxon and not Pict). And Lancelot was add in the legend in the 12th century alongside the round table just to lead the Holy Grail quest and NO OTHER reason (he was blond too). Galaad has benn introduce in the story in the late 16th century to palliate Lancelot's weekness for his Queen and to complete the holy grail quest at his father's place (he was also blond) As for Arthur, he was like most Celts between blond and redhead.

Add to that that the REAL Merlin lived 50 years after Arthur was dead. And Arthur never been King, he was just a mercenary warchief fighting for the Britsh Kings against the Saxon and the Angles, and after he threw them out of Britain (and his mariage with the Saxon Winlogée - who became Gwhenwyfar and then Guinevere) he fought the Picts, the Scots and the Gaels (Irish invaders) until he got killed by Mordrawt (Mordred) on the Slaughter's bridge in Cornwall. (Mordret wanted Guinevere for himself).

The only reason Arthur was named King in legends is because of his name, Arth means bear and the bear was the Celtic emblem for the King, so the reason for the King.

So, my point is that the movie IS NOTHING MORE than a remake of the legend.

blackdragon
05-09-2004, 08:05 AM
In what I read, Galahad, Gawain, and two others were all brothers. Lancelot was from France. I believe Arthur had an affair with the brothers' mother, resulting in a evil child...Mordred.

Galahad's not Gawain's brother. Closest name for a Gawain brother is Gaheriet (sorry I do not have the original English name) and indeed they were 4 (5 if you include Mordret but it's only in the legend). The affaire between Arthur and Anna (aka Morgause in some story) is only part of the legend to give a more dramatical sense to the final fight between Arthur (the bear) and Mordret (the dragon). Both were just war chiefs and they fought for Guinevere (Mordret wanted her for him). And yes Lancelot was from the Kingdom of Benoic in what we call today Britain in France

blackdragon
05-09-2004, 08:10 AM
can anyone explain to me how galahad isnt lancelot's son in the movie?

Simple answer : lack of researches, and a wish to try to induce people on false tracks by creating such a bunch of lies (but it still just what all my researches taught me). And just like that, maybe they also got confused because Galahad was also Lancelot's birth name (later changed for Lancelot - in the legend because of Viviane of the lake - lady of the lake)

deviljet88
05-09-2004, 09:04 AM
I've read a few versions of King Arthur and his Round table. Most claim that Galahad was a child born by Lancelot and Elaine, who if you also believe the tale of the Holy Grail, was the daughter of the guardian, King Pelles. There's so many versions of King Arthur, its useless to argue about them. I however, prefer the tales. I mean the movie tried to make it seem like fact, when I rather like the thought that it was just a grand medieval world of knights and legends.

apoggy
05-09-2004, 09:51 AM
Blackdragon, you seem to have a decent level of Arthurian knowledge but will you please refrain from consequtivey posting in future. Use the http://www.kkwavefront.org/forums/images/buttons/edit.gif button :D

Spartakus
05-09-2004, 04:19 PM
I do not the story of KA pretty well,but the movie was really good.Although i am wondering,the Saxons conquered Britain and then came the Normands or just the Saxons where native people of Britain?

frodo1511
05-09-2004, 04:34 PM
I do not the story of KA pretty well,but the movie was really good.Although i am wondering,the Saxons conquered Britain and then came the Normands or just the Saxons where native people of Britain?


Naw, the Saxons were an invading force outside of Britain, although I can't remember where from exactley. I tend to think of them as Saruman's army from the Two Towers to put it in prespective.

Kelsey
05-09-2004, 04:39 PM
I prefer the legends, because most of the time, the truth just turns out to be boring!

Spartakus
05-09-2004, 04:42 PM
That's a good point of view.

aznkkfan
09-09-2004, 12:47 AM
well i'm gonna try and figure this out. thanks for all the info. and yea the truth is always boring but it's good to kno