Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2009 17:34:03 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2009 19:50:58 GMT
Roman drawn horse auxiliaries from central europe with that sword?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2009 21:38:29 GMT
well it goes his father, a roman officer, married a brittian, the sword was forged by a merlin in britian, (not sure how the father got it) then he was killed by a horde of brits and the son took the sword by right of passage and kept it through his carreer, im a little fuzzy on everything, but in the film they go through it pretty quickly... anyway i like the sword design, and its very detailed which adds to the style...
|
|
Avery
Member
Manufacturer/Vendor
"It's alright little brother... There are more!!!
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by Avery on Jun 28, 2009 22:49:35 GMT
You know, to go kinda off topic for a second; there is a belief that arthur drawing the sword from the stone is a metaphor. Early britains would mine iron ore, so in essence arthur was believed to have been, amoung other things, an accomplished smith. Drawing the sword from the stone by finding the ore from rock and processing it while being Merlins apprentice.
As for the movie, I have to admit I own a copy. I think overall its the closest thing for the origin of arthur that hollywood has done. And Kiera Knightly is just plain HOT! Excalibur in the movie is a bit confusing, though. I like the way it looks, but historically it doesn't fit the part.
There are a lot of discrepancies in the film, not just with the swords. For instance, stirrups are seen throughout the movie, however stirrups weren't introduced to europe untill the Norman invasion of 1066a.d. one could on and on about the historical contradictions, but I prefer to just enjoy it as a movie.....plus Kiera Knightly is HOT!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2009 23:37:30 GMT
There are a lot of discrepancies in the film, not just with the swords. For instance, stirrups are seen throughout the movie, however stirrups weren't introduced to europe untill the Norman invasion of 1066a.d. Charles Martel might argue that point seeing as the lance was the weapon that engineered his defeat of the Muslims in 732 and you can't use a lance without stirrups. Seriously, name any 1 movie in all of history that you couldn't do that with. It's part of the fun for us nitpickers... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2009 23:57:50 GMT
i agree with both... but moslty with that historical and undeniable fact that
Kiera Knightly is HOT!
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Jun 29, 2009 0:09:40 GMT
I'm forced to agree as well... about Kiera Knightly being hot. I dunno about any of that other stuff.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Jun 29, 2009 1:24:00 GMT
Sorry guys, not a Kiera fan over here. I hate that thing she does with her mouth when she talks. And shes WAY too skinny. I'm a chubby chaser. Just sayin'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2009 1:35:53 GMT
Personally, I prefer Kelly Hu...  |
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Jun 29, 2009 1:41:14 GMT
Personally, I prefer Kelly Hu... Kelly Who?  |
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Jun 29, 2009 1:46:23 GMT
Well, Kelly Hu is indescribably hot also... and given a choice, I too would humble myself before her so she could reject me like the loser that I am...
...but that dose not mean Kiera is not hot also.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Jun 29, 2009 2:26:05 GMT
Yeah well, for some reason there aren't any hot chubby chicks who are commercially known. They keep them hidden. But they're out there in the street every day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2009 3:16:23 GMT
Just How chubby are we talking, here, Brendan?
5 or 10 pounds (or even 15) extra or Rosie O'Donnell?
A little bit of extra cushion, a muffin top or rolls?
|
|
Avery
Member
Manufacturer/Vendor
"It's alright little brother... There are more!!!
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by Avery on Jun 29, 2009 3:21:04 GMT
There are a lot of discrepancies in the film, not just with the swords. For instance, stirrups are seen throughout the movie, however stirrups weren't introduced to europe untill the Norman invasion of 1066a.d. Charles Martel might argue that point seeing as the lance was the weapon that engineered his defeat of the Muslims in 732 and you can't use a lance without stirrups. I'd like some links to that, when you get time. |
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Jun 29, 2009 3:44:24 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2009 4:53:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2009 6:41:13 GMT
I dislike that movie; bad acting and the like.
M.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2009 12:48:03 GMT
Correct about the chubby women. Specially in the 6th century AD women, and most of all warrior women, would be chubby and masculine. Life was hard in those days even for those with more to spend. Muscles and fat were the way to go and were also what men liked.
99.5 out of a 100 Holliwood movies get this totaly wrong. But then again, people with feeble minds who watch this crap don't appreciate historical accuracy. Only flat entertainment and what their egocentric brains tell them they want to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2009 14:38:54 GMT
you know...
Hollywood is about entertainment. Not research.
You entertain people by showing them what they want to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2009 14:47:51 GMT
Charles Martel might argue that point seeing as the lance was the weapon that engineered his defeat of the Muslims in 732 and you can't use a lance without stirrups. I'd like some links to that, when you get time. As easily done as said... hmmm... damn. Ah well, guess I should have expected it to be another case of a high school textbook (and the teacher who relied on it) being wrong. Arabs had lances. French were almost all infantry... |
|
