Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

That New King Arthur Movie...Follow

#1 Jun 29 2004 at 7:42 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
77 posts
Am I the only one who thinks Gwen is a Ranger & Lancelot (sp?) is using Duel Wield?

Maybe I need a break from FFXI... It's really bad when I start to talk in Auto-Translate, though...
____________________________
~*~ Teslithia De Morgriffith ~*~
"If this doesn't worrrk, then I'll go fishing."
� Unicorn Server �
#2 Jun 29 2004 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Has any knight in the history of British knighthood actually been trained to use two longswords? Seems to me they'd be using weapon and shield.

It's the middle age version of firing your guns "gangsta style" Smiley: lol
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Jun 29 2004 at 9:29 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
This movie couldn't posibly suck more testicle then First Knight.

..but then again.. It prolly will..
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#4 Jun 29 2004 at 11:11 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
Isn't Arthur a Roman in this?


Any Arthurian historians out there???

There are like 5 versions of Arthur.. I don't recall any of them being Roman. though i could be wrong..

Guess he's suppoed to be 'saving' Roman Britain from the invading Germans?

PAh.. I might see it eventually just to laugh at it...


Still I reiterate.. it Couldn't SUCK as much as First Knight.
(yes.. I ALMOST lost a bit of respect for ole' Sean for that piece)
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#5 Jun 29 2004 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dude! It's the true story of King Arthur! Jerry Bruckhiemer said so and he's a world accredited documentarian. Haven't you ever seen Pearl Harbor?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Jun 29 2004 at 11:37 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
I'm Merlin re-incarnated.
Smiley: wink
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#7 Jun 29 2004 at 11:43 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,980 posts
Quote:
This movie couldn't posibly suck more testicle then First Knight.

..but then again.. It prolly will..


Dont second guess yourself Kel. NOTHING can suck more testicle than a @#%^-ass Richard Gere not getting chopped down by an angry Sean Connery.

#8 Jun 29 2004 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
****
4,688 posts
Quote:
Isn't Arthur a Roman in this?


Any Arthurian historians out there???

There are like 5 versions of Arthur.. I don't recall any of them being Roman. though i could be wrong..


I do remember reading a version where Arthur was of Roman descent. Caesar bloodline, even. But it was a pretty self-inflating piece of work, too. Darned if I can recall the name of it....
____________________________
------------------------------------------------
What of it?
#9 Jun 29 2004 at 12:50 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
I think the Merlin 'movie' had Romans.. not sure who was who though..


in all actuallity It may be true.... The time periods match up...sorta.


I just hate Romans.


Either way.. one must take into account the Centuries that have passed since wehnever Arturius..or whoever lived..

That's plenty of time to mix and mangle.
Really you should believe in Nothing..because I'm sure someone changed somting at some point somewhere...

The Five I am thinking of are Celtic Stories... from the Mabinogion.
There's also 5 French ones too.. but eh
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#10 Jun 29 2004 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
******
20,637 posts
I think the height of Arthurian Badness is that 70s/80s movie about Gawain and the Green Knight.

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0084750/

Also starring Sean Connery. Anyone that remembers it probably wishes they didnt.
____________________________
Bode - 90 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#11 Jun 29 2004 at 2:48 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
I actually really liked Excaliber.
very fulfilling and wierd.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#12 Jun 29 2004 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Of course. The best King Aurthur film of all time must be Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail... :)


We... Are the knights who say... Ni!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Jun 30 2004 at 4:41 AM Rating: Decent
[i][/i]I actually haven't seen it yet but made me think of the movie Troy...
I think Acchelies must have been a Rogue
LOL He reminded me of a guildy the moment I saw him!
____________________________

Joniee Arch Babe Mage..lvl 65 Smiley: blush
#14 Jun 30 2004 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
This Arthur crap will become as forgotten and as big as a flop as Troy.

I kinda feel sorry for thum.


The 2 Alexander the Great movies and the 2 Hanibal of Carthage movies should be better.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#15 Jun 30 2004 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
******
20,637 posts
Quote:
Of course. The best King Aurthur film of all time must be Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail... :)


Finally something i can agree with ^^
____________________________
Bode - 90 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#16 Jun 30 2004 at 1:42 PM Rating: Decent
*
75 posts
long live montey python (hope i spelt it right)

with the arthur movie if it was the true story there would be more than a movie saying it i meen a historic legend (or even a myth) if someone found the truth it would probley be on the news
____________________________
if u read this u r gay

mwa mwa mwa mwa mwa

#17 Jun 30 2004 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
Of course. The best King Aurthur film of all time must be Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail... :)



Probably the most historically accurate too.

#18 Jun 30 2004 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
Quote:
Probably the most historically accurate too



you must love Life of Brian then.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#19 Jun 30 2004 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,847 posts
So far the only historical thing I've seen is the fact that they have Celts covered in blue war paint, which is historically correct. Along with the fact that Celtic women (after the first daughter) went into battle alongside the men. Hopefully they didn't just get the little details right.. although, so far as I know, there was no actual king Arthur (beyond the poems).
____________________________
I refuse to be victimized by notions of virtuous behavior. - Calvin, to Hobbes

Mage Class Officer
Uldum PUG - SSC/TK Now Recruiting! Click for more info.
#20 Jun 30 2004 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
935 posts
King Arthur: "Now stand aside, worthy adversary."
Black Knight: "'Tis but a scratch."
King Arthur: "A scratch?! Your arm's off!"
Black Knight: "No it isn't."
King Arthur: "Well, what's that then?"
Black Knight: ... "I've had worse."
King Arthur: "You lie!"
Black Knight: "Come on, you pansy!"

Yes! I just watched Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail today. What an excellent movie!
____________________________
Discretion is the name of my cement-feathered bird ...
#21 Jul 01 2004 at 7:42 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
Hey Brits...

The most civilized of all these nations are they who inhabit Kent, which is entirely a maritime district, nor do they differ much from the Gallic customs. Most of the inland inhabitants do not sow corn, but live on milk and flesh, and are clad with skins. All the Britains, indeed, dye themselves with wood, which occasions a bluish color, and thereby have a more terrible appearance in fight. They wear their hair long, and have every part of their body shaved except their head and upper lip. Ten and even twelve have wives common to them, and particularly brothers among brothers, and parents among their children; but if there be any issue by these wives, they are reputed to be the children of those by whom respectively each was first espoused when a virgin.

~From CAESAR's Gallic War Memoirs
another totally un-biased document.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#22 Jul 01 2004 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,803 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Has any knight in the history of British knighthood actually been trained to use two longswords? Seems to me they'd be using weapon and shield.


Nope, beacuse 2 longswords would be stupid. With just one longsword and a shorter parrying blade of some sort, you can still manouver under and inside your attack lines with your off hand. Having 2 blades of equil length means you were more likely to get caught on your own blade than do any real damage. Unmounted 2 swords wasn't commen, but you did see them from time to time. Mounted, you almost never see them.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#23 Jul 01 2004 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
16 posts
i'm still trying to decide if i want to see it...
#24 Jul 01 2004 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
If it shows Keira Knightly (sp?) nekkid it'll be well worth price of admission.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#25 Jul 01 2004 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Dread Lord Kaolian wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Has any knight in the history of British knighthood actually been trained to use two longswords? Seems to me they'd be using weapon and shield.


Nope, beacuse 2 longswords would be stupid. With just one longsword and a shorter parrying blade of some sort, you can still manouver under and inside your attack lines with your off hand. Having 2 blades of equil length means you were more likely to get caught on your own blade than do any real damage. Unmounted 2 swords wasn't commen, but you did see them from time to time. Mounted, you almost never see them.


Hmmm... Historically, I think you are correct. Interestingly enough, the "best" live steel fighters that I know all use 2 weapons (both long swords of some kind). However, I think alot of this is the quality of the armor in relation to the weapons being used (we're not actually trying to kill eachother). Historically, during early periods in armor development, you have a strong prediliction towards shields and 1h weapons. Mostly because if you didn't have a big object to parry with, you stood a good chance of getting hit somewhere where your armor didn't protect you (and early armors really didn't help against more then glancing blows and cuts and scratches from the environment).

As metalworking got better, the weapons themselves became more viable for parrying. You start seeing two weapons styles using main-gaunche style weapons, and larger hilts even in "normal" weapons so they can be used for parrying. Also, the armor got better at protecting from more types of blows. Ultimately, when you get to the late mideval period, and are looking at the classic "knight in armor", "normal" weapons were more or less useless against the armor. You start seeing a rise in axe style weapons (specifically the 2h poleax which was designed for knights to fight eachother with). You also see larger weapons being deployed, specifically to attempt to penetrate/dent the armor worn by the other guy.


So historically, 2 long swords was just impractical. If you were in an era where the armor was strong enough to justify losing a shield so you could equip the other weapon, then a long sword was probably not going to do more then bother someone if you hit them with it. You'd be better off going with a 2h weapon instead. However, there's nothing technically wrong with the style. The weapons don't "get in the way" of eachother. If you are fighting for points instead of killing eachother, then it's actually a very viable method (and as I pointed out at the beginning of this post, it's exactly the configuration the best steel fighters use today in tourneys). The primary advantage over the traditional 2 weapon style is that you can attack at distance from either side. I can tell you from experience that it's almost impossible to get inside the reach of someone who knows what they are doing and is wielding 2 long swords. You will get hit. Probably several times.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Jul 01 2004 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,847 posts
When I still worked at the Renn faire, they basically taught us that the main reason why it was rare for 2 larger weapons (namely longswords) to be used was due to the fact that it would be nearly impossible to carry. Considering a battle could last for hours, carrying 2 long swords vs. 1 longsword and a parrying blade could mean the difference between being alive 20 minutes into battle, and dead from exhaustion.
____________________________
I refuse to be victimized by notions of virtuous behavior. - Calvin, to Hobbes

Mage Class Officer
Uldum PUG - SSC/TK Now Recruiting! Click for more info.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Anonymous Guests (58)