Has there ever been a competent film portrayal of the legend

>>2899174
>He has short hair like a Germanic instead of long hair like a Briton

>>2899250

didn't germanics have some kind of top knot?

File: image.jpg (105KB, 1024x577px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1024x577px

King Arthur is a part of grail mythology, and so the most "accurate" portrayal is naturally one that highlights the qualities and aspects that actually characterize this mythology, not by being "historically accurate" which is hardly the priority in a subject matter that is essentially suprahistorical (i.e. in its symbolism). In that case the only film version I know of that comes close is Excalibur (1981).

vid contains spoilers kinda
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bzLfJvHlQmo&itct=CAkQpDAYBCITCKDR0MT_n9QCFUtmTgodOPAAhDIGcmVsbWZ1SMXSho3o4vSXeA%3D%3D

>>2899174
What would you even consider to be the legend of King Artur and what would be the society it stemmed from?
Do you want to see a pretty much unrecognizable warchief and the 6th century welsh society of Aneirin and Taliesin, or do you want to see the classic King Arthur with Merlin, Ginevra and Lancelot in the 12th century anglo-norman society of Geoffey of Monmouth?

>>2899447

I suppose I just want something outside of faithless grey drudging simple revenge plots with empty values

>>2899174
No. It would have to depict him as a legit Romanized warlord fighting Saxons.

>>2899447

well, of course the welsh wouldn't be relevant to anyone, the classical arthurian legend is the one most well known, and it's not been captured well at all for our contemporary audience

>>2899250

Arthur was a Roman, he would have worn his hair in the style of Romans of his age.
>>2899258

Some of them did, not all by any means.

>>2899434

Excalibur is a great movie but it isn't even historically accurate for the period the Arthur Romances were being written in the 12th century.

>>2899447

Arthur lived in Lloegyr not in Wales, his society was Latin-speaking and urbanized, nothing like the medieval Welsh society.

>>2899607
Insert Cornwells Artus-Chronicles

>>2899733
>it isn't even historically accurate for the period
that's my point―it's "symbolically accurate" (more or less, but certainly more than any other adaptation), even if it isn't historically accurate.

>>2899759

OP is asking about the actual historical Arthur, not the French fantasy stories written about him 600 years after his death.

>>2899779
There is no evidence of a historical Arthur.

>>2899783

Whatever you say, dope.

>>2899733
>Arthur lived in Lloegyr not in Wales, his society was Latin-speaking and urbanized, nothing like the medieval Welsh society.
I didn't say that Arthur lived in Wales, I said his tale stemmed from the welsh society of Taliesin and Aneirin, neither of which lived in Lloegyr.

>>2899736
Pls no. I love Sharpe, but that's literally the only good series Cornwell ever wrote.

>>2899840
>insert random swallow joke

>>2899835
What about the Warlord series?
Also, every fucking main character, supporting character, antagonist, and plot he writes is almost exactly the same except Uthred

>>2899825

And you're wrong, it was preserved in Wales but it stemmed from Lloegyr.

>>2899840
actually in terms of the "symbolic accuracy" which I mentioned earlier, this film is a close second even though it's intended as a parody―nevertheless it comes closer than any "gritty" and "realistic" hollywood junk ever could to being faithful to the mythology.

>>2899174
I really hope someone turns the warlord chronicles into a movie/ tv show

>>2899907
They did, the last kingdom, it is horrid though.

>>2899835
Anon shut up the warlord chronicles are fucking great.

>>2899607
This would be the way to properly do an adaptation of the Arthurian legends, according to the most historically accurate sensibilities. Arthur could have been the son of Ambrosius Aurelianus, or an individual called Riothamus, in the 5th century AD. I would place Arthur's time of action to have been around the late 400s, early 500s, though, as those two other individuals are probably more middle of the 5th century. There was a real Vortigern, but it may have been just a title rather than a name, and the one we know of from the early half of the 5th century lived one or two generations before Arthur may have been alive.

I have mixed reactions about the 2004 King Arthur movie, though. I liked that they went with a somewhat more realistic approach, but even that was not realistic. The time period is much more correct than any other Arthurian film I've heard of, but the individual they decided to portray as King Arthur is not. Lucius Artorius Castus, despite having the similar name Artorius, was more than likely not the Arthur of legends. There is speculation that he may have influenced the later, familiar legends, but Artorius was a 2nd or 3rd century AD Roman cavalryman. His story is compelling as well, though, and it is possible that he might represent a rather early example of a Christian serving in the Roman Army. Anyway, the armor in the 2004 film was not particularly accurate to the 5th century, either.