GridStream Productions

We have a rich history of mythological history that is being drawn upon to create new stories based upon those mythologies. But modern renditions tend to forget the history and context that these mythologies are based in. We see it in the Lord of the Rings movies and in the Latest Arthurian epic. An attempt to put these stories into a modern context that loses some of the flavor of the original.

Arthur a true history...

For a story that claims to be the true history of Arthur to include the character of Lancelot is rather rediculous. Lancelot was added by the court author of Elenor of Aquitane. Elenor the ex-wife of the King of France and wife of the King of England ruled Aquitane as a seperate state from both nations for about a decade. Chretien d'Troi (SP) couldn't quite bring himself to write Lancelots role in to Elenors request as he was afraid to offend Both the kings of England and of France. Thus instead of a openly polyamourous and accepted relationship Lancelot becomes the adulterer and man who betrays his king. In any case my point being that Lancelot who to modern thinking is inseperable from the Arthurian mythos isn't, wasn't and could never have been part of any true history of Arthur.

Yeah the movies a few years old now but I just read the novelization and the lack of accuracy of time and place, weapons in use and tactics used by all sides of the portrayed conflict is so astounding as to leave anyone with half a clue about what would be the true history dumbfounded.

Kinda like that 300 movie and the less said about Troy the better...


We're back to "The Clash of the Titans" Where accuracy to either history or to mythology has ceased to matter as long as the story is told...

If only the storys as told were any good this approach might be forgivable.

Here is my take on movies.

Whether historic based or not, it's just that -- based. The setting may be around a historic era or whatever, it's meant to entertain and sell tickets. It really has nothing to do with truth or accuracy for the most part. When I go into a movie I expect to see a work of fiction, where characters and weapons and events are made up and tell a story. If they are based on real people, cool. I don't expect that the movie is going to tell what was really said or present the actual facts or perception of facts. I go into a movie expecting to be taken from the real world and sucked into a fictional time frame and events so if they aren't accurate, I have no cares about it. So what? It's a movie. Movies aren't real.

Arthur, A True History

First clue is in the title.. 'a true history' its a bit hard to have a true history of a story that has been adapted every few hundred years throughout history.

Nobody can tell the story of arthur, its a legend, its open to interpretation. Yes lancelot was added later, guinevere never existed, merlin was half a dozen people and never a 'wizard', there was no sword in the stone, it was never cast into a lake after arthur's death (which incidentally, the lake in question which was reputed to be 'bottomless' has drained twice in recent history and no swords were found)

It's all a matter of subjectivity.

Oh yeah, and there was no camelot either, or a round table.

End of the day.. Its just a damn story and stop trying to read more into it than that.

One of the truths of doing a review is that your giving your opinion. In my opinion writing a story and claiming it's the truth when it's total fiction is doing your audiance a disservice. There are still people who take what passes in the news and newpapers as gospel truth. So when you make a claim at presenting the truth you should have your facts straight. Because you have to know theres some poor scmuck of a high school student who turned in a history paper using this movie as a basis for the truth.

I share your view that movies and novels are fiction. However it would of nice to get a discussion of views rather than a slap in the face and get over it as a thinly veiled attack.

My point was that no effort was made to present any form of truth. Everything was wrong. Weapons used, The manner of their use, Tactics used by historical people of that era and even the era the story is set in. Pretty much all evidence points to the historical figure Arthur may have been based upon as belonging to the second or third generation after the Roman exedus from England.

Because yes we have fairly convincing evidence that there was a historical Arthur. Legends invariably are an exaggeration of a truth.

Kinda like movies when you think about it.

Fishi3 wrote:...accuracy to either history or to mythology has ceased to matter as long as the story is told...

It is the way all stories go, I think. No story is told in only one way forever, it is bound to change, the extent of changes depending on those telling the story.
As mentioned above, the legend of Arthur was changed a lot over the centuries and will continue to do so. Maybe in 200 years the "official" story of Arthur will be the one the movie told...
Someone claiming to tell the "true history" is just advertising his story, nothing else. Every story told is adapted for its specific medium and audience.

Of course there are those movies that are just plain dumb, in my opinion, like 10.000 BC which was by some thousand years more distant to reality than any other movie I ever saw.
I only hope that most people are aware of the fact that those are made-up stories...

Fishi3 wrote:If only the storys as told were any good this approach might be forgivable.

That is so true. Most of the movies these days are just some old story re-written to fit the standard movie frame, making them predictable, unchallenging, uninteresting and plain boring.
Speaking of such an adaption: Seen "I am Legend"? And read the book?
Of course the story was changed to better fit our time and the medium movie, but seriously, almost the complete story was re-written to be just one of those dumb Hollywood Blockbusters. One of the most disappointing movies ever made, in my opinion.