Talk:King Arthur (2004 film)

message: Does anyone else think this article is a wee bit too subjective? ScottyBoy900Q 20:11, 8 July 2004 UTC
I agree. There is a tiny piece about positive reception compared to the huge piece of negative reception. can this be evened out abit? --Anonymous 21:49 19-09-2006
"ARTICLE" -? It seems to me to have become more of a "REVIEW"; at the least a focused and mean spirited review of the historical accuracy of the film which, if honestly titled as-such as a separate Wikipedia article, it may begin to justify the maelstrom of nitpicking-geekery we see here. Never in the history of film making has there been another film even coming one -tenth- the distance this film has in incorporating elements of historical accuracy into a telling of the Arthur Myth. Earrach (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article may place undue weight on the inaccuracies in the film, but they are all sourced, and I don't think anything here is "mean-spirited". Actually, quite often the more historically accurate a film is, the more its inaccuracies stand out and are easier to pinpoint!! I mean with a film that takes as many liberties as Cecile B. DeMille's Cleopatra, there's no point, because it's all equally inaccurate- there's no backdrop of accurate stuff against which to locate the wrong stuff. I myself added the material on Pelagius to this article, which is fairly serious. The film really does get Pelagius dead wrong on crucial points.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective 

message: Someone who tried to be funny has included alot of nonsense on the page refering to another movie or a book of King Arthur but not this movie so i coped a good plot summary and translated it and put it here.I AM SORRY BUT It was the BEST that could be done.When you find someone who is burried under a heave stone and you end up saving the man's life but but he has a limp at least he did not die.This text was like that man i did what i could to make it better.Maybe not in the proper way but at least its no longer alot of nonsense  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.155.74 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: B.S.

message: I found a comprehensive 10-point criticism of King Arthur; much more detailed and authoritative than mine: http://arthurrex.blogspot.com/
--Jie 12:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More criticism of a historical ''King Arthur'' 

message: As far as I am aware, the only historians who debate the idea that the pontifical office as we know it today was fully formed by the fifth century are those with a religiously motivated point to make - i.e. Protestant historians looking to delegitimize the office of Pope or Orthodox ones who believe that the office of Peter held symbolic primacy only prior to the Great Schism of the 11th century.  Documents and letters recovered from as early as the last decades of the first century reveal that the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church itself fully believed the Bishop of Rome to be the rightful successor of Peter as the head of the Church. Iceberg3k 16:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source concerning the pope would be? --41.17.100.251 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope existing? 

message: If the use of crossbows in the movie was anachronistic, it surely needs to be documented because it's so prominent (two knights are killed by them). Ezedriel, the "crossbows are anachronistic" has been there since it was added, and only you have edited it out. All around the Internet, the film's crossbows are mentioned as historically inaccurate. 
Also, the film had a mish-mash of "Sarmatian" armor, since the knights, like the action figures that they are, don't dress alike as formal soldiers should, even allowing for small variations. How can you say that they are more accurate? If they weren't dressed like cataphracts, how were they dressed like?
Could you please cite your sources? Thanks. 203.131.137.90 06:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that last doesn't work in the context of the film. Virtually all of the Saxon archers are portrayed with their highly anachronistic crossbows - scavenging that many defies possibility. Second - and again in the context of the :film - early on Gawain shows Arthur a crossbolt, as if in wonderment at seeing one for the first time, and tells Arthur "Armor-piercing" as a warning. So let's add that to the inaccuracies. If anyone happens to remember Crecy and Agincourt in the 14th and 15th centuries - the French problem was (among others) that their crossbows (a weapon preferred by the highly militarized Normans from France, thus reintroduced to Britain 500 years later) could penetrate neither plate nor mail armor, whereas the English longbow, direct descendant of the weapon the Saxons would have been using (but in the film being used by the Woads/Brythons/Picts/Celts), could and did. However entertaining the film may be, historically/archaeologically accurate it is not. Sensei48 (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossbows and Sarmatian armor

message: Before the final battle, Sarmatian Knights gathered at the side of Arthur fully armed. You can see their armors and helmets are miscellaneous. Maybe the filmmaker wants to show us a mixed band of ancient warriors. But a Turkic Tristan really goes too far. --Mato Rei 10:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Turkic Tristan?

message: For instance, Bors, portrayed in the film as a loud-mouthed boor and father of a huge number of children, was something of a Boy Scout in the legends ..... - I don't know what this anachronistic methaphor is supposed to imply. If I did I would change it. Jooler 07:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bors

message: it says in the article that the film potrays arthur as a roman soldier and not a night.
well,it does show him as a saramtian knight serving the romans.
:Arthur himself wasn't a Sarmatian, his "knights" were. Uthanc 07:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  knight or soldier? 

message: I remember finding two pictures, set side-by-side near when the movie was coming out, and in those pictures it showed Keira Knightley posed as she is in the movie poster (drawing a bow); one picture was obviously the final version of the poster, and the other appeared to be a version of the poster without all the little effects added in. Well, it was obvious that among the things added to make the final version was at least a full cup to Keira Knightley's bust. While I don't claimed to be shocked that someone in whichever company made that decision, I was stuck by how obvious it was, since Ms. Knightley bust is... not what she is known for, and that it was rather insulting. Does someone have the pictures I was talking about, or can confirm this? It could be added into the Trivia section.
--Gero 14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. According to this link, which has comments from her that are apparently from a magazine, they asked her permission. --Gero 22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added piece about it to the Triva section. --Gero 02:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like this has seen been removed but I think it noteworthy as it's becoming an issue again here. CoW mAnX (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Brilliant insight, John. In fact, all 300+ million of us were consulted on whether or not to enhance Keira's boobies for that poster. Needless to say, we all agreed that it should be done. An American love of fake/plastic body parts? Two words for you, John: Victoria Beckham or, as I like to call her, Collagen Spice.--172.190.228.64 (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Altered' movie poster

message: There are even more historical inaccuracies concerning the Saxons. Their leader Cerdic, was born roughly the time the movie was set, and his son, Cynric, therefore would not be alive then.
Lemmy Kilmister 08:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxons 

message: Any info on the language the Woads in this movie speak, or at least are supposed to speak? 66.115.241.35 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woads' language 

message: Anybody know where the phrase "Rus," uttered by all of the knights, it seems like, comes from?  I haven't been able to find proof of historical usage of the word. Seems like this kind of information would be good for the Trivia section if we could get an explanation. -- JeffHCross
:: I guess it comes from them. In my view this movie is completely underrated and for one reason only - the knights are presented as pagan Sarmatian warriors (OMG Slavs even!) instead of them being true Christian Brits. Most of the article merely reflects this prejudice. However, despite some factual inaccuracies the general historical context of the movie is plausible and as a result the movie is one of the best ones dealing with transition from the Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages. It was never meant to be a documentary. 195.210.240.188 (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several works of Arthurian fiction which don't portray the important characters as (true/sincere/devout) Christians (try Mary Stewart or Bernard Cornwell), and they are much more historically accurate. The film sloppily combines two different historical Arthur theories: the "Sarmatian commander" and the "Saxon fighter", which are separated by around 300 years. One can't have it both ways. And while it was not meant to be a documentary, it was promoted as the "true story behind the legend", so it's bound to attract "historically-based" criticism . Uthanc (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rus" 

message: I'm pretty sure most if not all of this is true... we just need good references for all of them (rephrasing?), and the film being quite inaccurate despite claiming to be the "true story" makes it all the more notable among historical epics and Arthurian movies.
TEXT STARTS HERE
...King Arthur has been heavily criticized for its historical inaccuracies — especially since it claims to be close to or even be the original story, as evidenced by its tagline. Some examples include:
History
*A trailer for the film claims that historians now agree that Arthur was a real person because of recent archaeological findings. However, historians do not; and the Artognou inscription – the recent find possibly being referenced – has nothing to do with the film's version of events. 
*The film has the withdrawal of the Roman legions from Britain take place after Arthur rescues the Pope's godson. In reality, it was completed in 410 AD, nearly 60 years before this rescue mission. By 467 AD, there were no legions left in Britain, which was now a patchwork of territories ruled by local warlords.
*Sarmatian cavalrymen did come to Britain in the 2nd century. But despite the film's suggestions, the evidence for them remaining there until the 5th century is slight. There is some but little evidence for the continued importation of Scythian-born immigrants to late Roman Britain.
*In the film, the Picts are called "Woads". This is a reference to one plant the Picts may have used to make blue paint; however, the use of woad by the Picts is contested by scholars, and the historical Picts were never known by this name.ní Dhoireann, Kym (2004) The Problem of the Woad accessed 1-27-07 In an interview Fuqua stated that they used "Wodes" (sic) instead of "Picts" because they thought the latter sounded "a little weird".Gilchrist, Todd "Interview: Antoine Fuqua, Keira Knightley and Clive Owen revisit the round table with King Arthur". "It was a little weird in the dialogue when we did a reading, to hear people say 'picts.' It came off kind of odd, for some reason, when they spoke it. So we went with Wodes." accessed 12-18-2006
*Archbishop Germanus' second (and last) mission to Britain was twenty years before the year the movie is set. Indeed, Germanus died in 448, well before the setting of the film.
*The Roman family which Arthur rescues lives north of Hadrian's Wall. This would be unlikely because the Wall represented the extent of Roman rule in Britain, except for brief periods of occupation during the second century AD. (It should be noted that Romanized client states such as that of the Votadini did exist north of the wall even into the Sub-Roman era.)
*Pelagius is believed to have died decades earlier, but he died of old age and was not burned at the stake. The Pelagian heresy is misrepresented as well - it denied original sin, and was not about political freedom.
*The movie implies that the Pope was in control of the Western Empire, though it was actually ruled by the Emperor and de facto controlled by the Magistri Militum and other regional governors.
*The Saxon leader Cerdic is believed to have been born c. 467, and the ninth-century  Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions his and Cynric's arrival in Britain (at Hampshire) in 495. The film is set in 467; therefore Cerdic could not have invaded and Cynric (recorded as either his son or grandson)The entry for 495 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives two versions of Cynric's parentage:
This year came two leaders into Britain, Cerdic and Cynric his son, with five ships, at a place that is called Cerdic's-ore.
...Ethelwulf was the son of Egbert, Egbert of Ealmund, Ealmund of Eafa, Eafa of Eoppa, Eoppa of Ingild, Ingild of Cenred (Ina of Cenred, Cuthburga of Cenred, and Cwenburga of Cenred), Cenred of Ceolwald, Ceolwald of Cuthwulf, Cuthwulf of Cuthwine, Cuthwine of Celm, Celm of Cynric, Cynric of Creoda, Creoda of Cerdic.(Translated by Rev. James Ingram (London, 1823), with additional readings from that of Dr. J.A. Giles (London, 1847); bolding eds.  Last retrieved 12-18-2006)could not have lived at the time. 
*Cerdic and Cynric could not have died at the battle of Mount Badon. The battle is thought to have been fought sometime between 490 to 516, and according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Cynric succeeded Cerdic as king of Wessex in 534 (Cerdic was the founder of the kingdom).
*The Saxons are shown attacking Hadrian's Wall from the north. By 467 the Saxons were already occupying parts of Britain way south of the wall (the Saxon Shore), and never invaded Scotland.
 
*In the film, Cerdic stops a warrior from raping a woman because it would lead to less-than-pure Saxon blood. This is a reference to the long-held belief that the Anglo-Saxons eradicated the Romano-Celts from the eastern part of the island. This contention, largely based on linguistic evidence, has been challenged by modern genetic analysis, which suggests extensive mixing between Anglo-Saxon and Briton populations (some historians have even suggested that Cerdic himself, who bore a Celtic name, was at least part Briton). 
*In the film, the character of Guinevere is drastically altered from Arthurian legend - she is portrayed as a barbarian warrior who joins Arthur and the knights in battle. While there was historical precedent for this portrayal (for example, the warrior queen Boudica), no source, early or late, describes Guinevere in this way. Nor is there any evidence for her depiction as a rustic Celt; in fact, in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, which contains one of the oldest accounts of the character, Guinevere has Roman blood while Arthur is an indigenous Celt.
*The Sarmatians have French (i.e. Lancelot) and Celtic-based (i.e. Tristan, original Drustan) names. Though these do appear in medieval romance as the names of Knights of the Round Table, they are not accurate to either history or the stories from which they are taken. For instance, Bors, portrayed in the film as a loud-mouthed boor and father of a huge number of children, was something of a Boy Scout in the legends, whose celibacy allowed him to witness the Holy Grail.
Costumes and weaponry
*The Saxons use crossbows for war in the movie; however, they historically used bows (to a limited extent) and spears instead during that time period. Indeed, Saxon spears are all but absent in the film, all the more telling since they use their famous shield wall tactic on Arthur's knights. Though there is evidence for the use of some form of crossbows among Greeks (actually more like hand-held catapults, which they called gastraphetes), Romans (which they called manuballistae) and, some claim, the Picts — the weapon was still not widely used in England until much later. However, a Woad scout does present a knife called a seax to Merlin - the weapon that the Saxons are named for. They are not featured much, though.  
*Similarly, the Woads use a trebuchet-like weapon to hurl flaming missiles at the Saxons, though the trebuchet was not re-introduced to Britain until the siege of Dover in 1216. The Romans reportedly used an early form of it in their sieges, however.
*The Sarmatian costumes and weapons are inaccurate - they should be armored in the manner of cataphracts (full-length coats of scale armor),http://www.wargamer.com/articles/gb-articles/dacia/dacia_7.asphttp://www.civfanatics.net/uploads7/Sarmatian_horsemen.jpg and they should use spears. Instead, the film's armor is a mishmash of pseudo-Roman, Turkish, Mongol, and Hunnic designs, and the knights mainly use swords, though they do carry spears. Also, Tristan uses a Chinese sword called a dao. 
*Aside from the knights' weapons, some of their fighting styles are also inaccurate or at least unaccounted for. Lancelot uses two swords, possibly of the gladius variety; though attractive it may be to the viewer, there is no evidence for two-weapon fighting in that area. In contrast, Galahad is depicted as a cavalry archer; many Sarmatian troops were indeed cavalry archers.
*Tristan has a pet hawk. Nonetheless, the hawk flown in the movie is a Harris's Hawk, which ranges from the southwestern US to Argentina. Additionally, the computer-generated hawk shown soaring overhead later in the film, while supposed to be the same individual hawk, appears to be a red-tailed hawk rather than a Harris's Hawk.
*There is no historical precedent for Knightley's leather costume.
TEXT ENDS HERE I hid the Lancelot image using code. Uthanc 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of the removed text 

message: Large sections of this article consist of unreferenced (and often demonstrably innacurate) POV.  I have altered and referenced the first point in the "Historical inaccuracies" section but don't have time for the rest atm.  It all needs considerable rewording, revision and referencing -- the kind of statements being made here are simply unreferenced arguments against the films critics and read like they are made by a partisan of the film; in my opinion they do not comply with NPOV and they need considerable support from respectable sources if they are to be made... Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through the article history, most of the partisan comments seem to have been added on 22 Feb 2008 by user Aelfgiva. I would suggest reverting to a version before these edits to remove the POV, and then working through and referencing the piece properly...  Any comments? Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I'll try to keep a better eye on this page. Any source that says the Matthews' are "experts" is immediately suspect.--Cúchullain t/c 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Matthews may not be experts. But they were advisors on the film. Even if the film is dead wrong, it reflects their views.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced POV 

message: This seems out of all proportion to the importance of the subject--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article

message: After reading the first half of "The Search for the Grail" by Graham Phillips (published in America as "The Chalice of Magdelene"), I suspect that the first half of this book (and parts of the second half) were source material for this film, but I cannot prove it.
--WickerGuy (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for this film might be Graham Phillips 

message: According to the cast list, Ray Winstone plays Bors the Younger, but it's never stated in the movie. The character is simoly called Bors, and it could be Bors the Elder.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.187.182 (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bors the Younger 

message: I'm not sure a consultant to the film should be quoted in the reception section as if they are a critic. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He is quoted as a rebuttal to critics, not as a critic. A bit of rewording might be good.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: The following was written into the text of the article, at the end of the "Military technology" section:
"That third from last sentence is quite inaccurate as a description; the "barbed wire" was not "placed" by the Woads, it was attached to arrows and shot from bows. The forest scene actually shows an explicit scene with a rapidly-uncoiling flexible cord.  This would probably be a vine, creeper or even nettle-twisted rope.  The addition of long thorns at regular intervals in various orientations would produce a perfectly reasonable thorn-rope, well within historical technology, and no metal would be needed."
While I can't speak to its accuracy, this is something that needed to be put on the Talk page, and not in the article itself.  I've removed it from the article.  Tennesseellum (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion Text Written on the Main Page 

message: "The producers of the film falsely claim to present a historically accurate version of the Arthurian legends, supposedly inspired by new archaeological findings" – historical accuracy is kind of a subject standard.  Unless you want to say that it's wrong to say a film is "historically accurate" unless it's fotage of actual events, historical accuracy is a subjective standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.140.6 (talk • contribs) 
:The lede is tiny and not overwhelmed with detail. If the claim of accuracy is made, it must be questioned, as this film was anything but. This is addressed further down, but as someone who observed the controversy around the film, including discussion during the time it was being filmed, I think the controversy should be addressed in the lede. Right now I'll make a compromise edit, in the interests of not edit-warring with a logged-out user, but I would encourage others to weigh in on this. And IP SPA, I'd also encourage you to log back in and stand behind these edits. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointing to a particular instance of the film makes saying something that is demonstrably untrue (or at least not supported by evidence) or saying that many historians consider the film to be historically inaccurate would be fine, where as Stating that they weren't being truthful when they claimed the film was historically accurate is totally subjective. Also I don't think it's appropriate to put anything about the controversy in the lede unless it can be said that that controversy is one of the most well known things surrounding the film's existence. Frankly I get the impression you only want to mention it because you take personal issue with the film's historical inaccuracies and want the criticise it in the most public a way possible  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.140.6 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct, the film is best-known for making ridiculous claims of "historical accuracy." I also agree that my perspective on this is not going to be the same as an average movie-goer who knows next to nothing about Welsh history, the Mabinogion, etc. Had the film simply been marketed as what it is - a work of fiction that departs radically from both the known history and the folktales/mythology that make up the Arthurian materials - the accuracy issue wouldn't really matter. It's fiction. It's the fact that it's one of the least accurate portrayals, yet was aggressively marketed as the exact opposite of what it is. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{anchor|"The producers of the film falsely claim to present a historically accurate version of the Arthurian legends, supposedly inspired by new archaeological findings" historical accuracy is kind of a subject standard}}Historical accuracy 

message: So far Lorenzo De Angelis has appeared in only one known film (this one), thus why the redlink was removed the first time. In order to prove this actor's notability, search for any other movies he has taken part in. Homechallenge55 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One of his main areas of expertise appears to be voice dubs, as found in his article on the Italian Wikipedia.  There you will find a comprehensive listing of his accomplishments.  All that article needs is for someone expert in the Italian language and in English to transfer it here.  In my opinion this actor is definitely notable enough for an article here.  Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lorenzo De Angelis 

message: The section on controversies includes a link to a youtube video where Italian novelist Manfredi apparently states that the movie was "almost" a plagiarism of his own work.  So far, this is the only instance I can find at all regarding this movie and any plagiarism controversy.  Is this really enough to declare plagiarism and/or a controversy?  Further, after the scant sourced material there is a short analysis of why there could be a controversy or not but seems to rely on original research instead of citations.  I think this at least needs a rewrite if not re-categorized entirely since Manfredi seemed to have mentioned this rather casually (my impression) in 2007 after a movie on his own novel was released and hasn't pursued anything since.
"Italian historian and novelist Valerio Massimo Manfredi claimed that the movie was almost a plagiarism of his 2002 novel The Last Legion, due to several similarities between the two works.[29] These similarities include the reuse of some tropes and happenings present in the book and, especially, the attempt to give historical reliability to the main characters with the concept of King Arthur having Roman origins. Actually the events of the movie suggest a theory that is largely different from the one on which Manfredi's novel is based, in which Artorius Castus isn't even mentioned, and neither is the Sarmatian auxiliary army. According to Manfredi, King Arthur's release and its commercial failure were among the main causes of the problems related to the movie adaptation of his novel, that was in development hell until its release in 2007."
Yojimbo1941 (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone reinserted the text but re-titled the section as "Relationship with other works," which at least makes more sense.  I don't disagree with the title but still question whether this is noteworthy enough to include.  Any thoughts?Yojimbo1941 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on King Arthur (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217013034/http://www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies/kingarthur.htm to http://www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies/kingarthur.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.postroman.info/anglo_saxon/chronicle4.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925012939/http://www.postroman.info/anglo_saxon/chronicle5.htm to http://www.postroman.info/anglo_saxon/chronicle5.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217013034/http://www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies/kingarthur.htm to http://www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies/kingarthur.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified