I was getting psyched for Clive Owen as Bond. Call me crazy but I liked King Arthur...But I will admit that I did like Brosnan as 007 in Tomorrow Never Dies. The rest of them I can live without.

I liked King Arthur.

I don't think I've liked a single Brosnan bond film. Goldeneye was ehhh, and they've gotten increasingly more moronic since then.

Instead of Roger Moore, how about Michael Moore? I can see it now: "Fahrenheit 007: The Temperature at Which Even a Fat Disgusting Professional Liar Is Cool."

Of course, being a lefty, Moore would not carry a gun. Instead, his bodyguard would do all the shooting.

In lieu of the famously debonair Bond charm, Moore could just spill ketchup all over his suit before splitting the ass-seams.

And in the films climactic scene, instead of killing the bad guy, Moore will explain how his evil plot for world domination is really all America's fault.

Ace, you've got it all wrong. Pierce wasn't the problem... the Producers and Directors were the problem with recent Bond films. I think Pierce is actually better than Sean Connery. (Yes, I know one can be shot for saying that, but it's true)

Sh#% can the producers and the director and hire John Woo or Tarantino to film the next Bond. Then you'll see what I mean.

And for one last kick in the knads, Goldeneye is still the best 007 film out there. Sorry Ace.

Now you can go back to being right all the time.

I like Brosnan as Bond. Of course, when you're following Timmy Dalton, what's not to like? Granted, I don't think I've really enjoyed any Bronson/Bond film to date, but I chalk that up to crappy writing and bad Bond girls.

Denise Richards as Christmas Jones?? I know she's a hottie, but sorry... girl can't act. Decent rack and camel toe though.... If you're into that sort of thing.

I wonder what makes good actors act bad in certain movies though. Halle Barry in Die Another Day? (Star Wars prequels just bewilder the hell out of me...)

Fuck that eurowennie bond shit.
Jack Bauer(kiefer sutherland) kicks ass, breaks fingers and rode Bulls when that dingbat Julia Roberts dumped him.
And it's got to be a thorn in his daddys hippie side.

Go JACK!

Give me Bourne instead, a role where Damons robotic acting actually fits & the character can be frightening.
And its better than the books to boot!

None of this english ninja man fighting in space BS of the Bond franchise.

Best Bonds, in order:

Roger Moore-- Sorry, gotta be a contrarian. Yes, he doesn't have what Sean Connery had, but I liked him better, and he was in three of my favorites-- TSWLM, LALD & FYEO.

Sean Connery -- great... but a lot of the early Bonds suck.

George Lazenby -- another very good Bond, could have been one of the best if they'd given him a chance.

Peter Sellars -- okay.

David Niven -- okay, if prissy and old.

Pierce Brosnan -- prissy and stiff. A walking maniquin for well tailored suits. Plus, has all these stupid fucking ideas like adding nudity and graphic violence and language to the films... Sorry, that's not Bond.

Timothy "Sensitive Boy" Dalton -- was good in the first several minutes of Living Daylights, but has a very goofy smile and his eyes bug out and he played the "emotional," womanly Bond. I'll pass.

"Stiff Prissy Boy" would be another good entry in the Peace Protestin Storm Trooper caption contest.

I always though Dalton played a good "dark" Bond, more sinister than Moore like the novels

the best thing to look forward to if you like classic Bond is the upcoming videogame of "From Russia With Love" that Connery is doing voiceovers for....and you, uh, play video games

Eh, too bad. Owen would have made a good Bond.

I read somewhere that Connery turned down a role in Lord of the Rings and I think Xmen as well. He took the part in League of Extraordinary Gentleman because he thought he should since he turned down the others. I liked League, but he probably should have taken Rings instead.

Sean Connery -- great... but a lot of the early Bonds suck.

Good God, Ace, this is like announcing your favorite Stooge is Shemp.

I'm okay with Brosnan as Bond. I actually like him better than Moore, who was a little too smirky for my tastes. Also, the Bond franchise tended to trough out in the 70s, just like the rest of the culture.

I'll go along with Chad on Denise Richards: she's a terrible, terrible actor with phony, phony tits, and casting her as a nuclear physicist was just ill-advised comic relief. Sophie Marceau, OTOH, was one of the best Bond villains ever.

And I think we can all agree that Timothy Dalton just sucked on every level. Worst Bond since Woody Allen.

I read somewhere that Connery turned down a role in Lord of the Rings and I think Xmen as well. He took the part in League of Extraordinary Gentleman because he thought he should since he turned down the others. I liked League, but he probably should have taken Rings instead.

You may have read that on this site... I covered that. He called LOTR too "Tricksy" and said he didn't "get it."

Even if they hadn't had a gelding like Owen playing the lead role, "King Arthur" still would have stunk in the grandest of ogivemeabreak fashion. I particularly enjoyed how Arthur's men were called 'knights' without explaining how they, like, became knights while serving Rome. Uh...

And I'm not going to believe that Brosnan is still Bond until they start shooting the dang film. There's been so much pointless speculation about it that I stopped buying into any of it.

Later,
bbeck

LOTR would not have been the successes they were if Ian McKellen had not played Gandalf.

To be honest, I can't really see any of the rolls (save Frodo) in the hands of any other actor.

I particularly enjoyed how Arthur's men were called 'knights' without explaining how they, like, became knights while serving Rome.

Rome had knights. They were called "Equites" or something.

Everyone had knights. Knights are just mounted cavalry. I suppose there's an aristocratic gloss on that if you take the word's meaning as from the midde ages and all, but I don't see any reason not to call heavy mounted cavalry "knights."

Further, it was specified that these were non-Roman horsemen (Samarian?), so, you know, whatever. They were "knights."

Chalk it up to translating the movie out of the original Roman/Samarian.

I think Pierce is actually better than Sean Connery. (Yes, I know one can be shot for saying that, but it's true)

Posted by El Capitan

El Pince Pueteto Capitan,

Up against the wall mutherfucler!

Ace, I never heard them referring to Arthur himself as a knight, and he was mounted cavalry, too. Maybe they did and I missed it; admittedly, I fast-forwarded through the majority of the POS movie lest I slit my wrists.

Later,
bbeck

I'm with ya Ace - Moore is my favorite too. He's definitely the funniest one. Favorite movie - Octopussy. Mostly because I like to say "Octopussy".

I never heard them referring to Arthur himself as a knight, and he was mounted cavalry, too.

Which is then even better evidence it's a fair way to describe the others. Arthur may not have been a "knight," as he was Roman (although, again, there was a social class called "Equites" that corresponds to the Medieval knighthood, and in fact it was, as the name suggests, based on riding a horse in combat), but the rest were Samarians (or whatever), and perhaps they were called "knights" in their own land.

And just to out-geek you, I will note, in your favor, that they actually didn't really appear true knights, but rather hobilars, troops that ride horses into battle but dismount to actually fight (unlike knights, who are true cavalry and tend to remain horsed), like the Three Musketeers were.

spaz? why, yes, I am.

originally "servant" in old german

Knight \Knight\, n. [OE. knight, cniht, knight, soldier, AS. cniht, cneoht, a boy, youth, attendant, military follower; akin to D. & G. knecht servant; perh. akin to E. kin.]

1. A young servant or follower; a military attendant. [Obs.]

[1913 Webster]

2.
(a) In feudal times, a man-at-arms serving on horseback and admitted to a certain military rank with special ceremonies, including an oath to protect the distressed, maintain the right, and live a stainless life.
(b) One on whom knighthood, a dignity next below that of baronet, is conferred by the sovereign, entitling him to be addressed as Sir; as, Sir John. [Eng.]

Hence:
(c) A champion; a partisan; a lover. ``Give this ring to my true knight.'' Shak ``In all your quarrels will I be your knight.'' --Tennyson. [1913 Webster]

Knights, by their oaths, should right poor ladies' harms. --Shak. [1913 Webster]

Note: Formerly, when a knight's name was not known, it was customary to address him as Sir Knight. The rank of a knight is not hereditary. [1913 Webster]

That's just the word itself, dude.

Every ancient civilization had cavalry, even those who didn't use it very well or relied more on infantry or archers or whatever, and, as it's expensive to maintain horsed troops (1, the horse, 2, the training... diverting a man from economic uses of his time) cavalry was usually associated with the gentry or nobility.

Whether or not they were called knights is irrelevant; they were what we think of as knights in most aspects. The word "knight" is obviously younger than the concept of the knight.

And, anyway, the Romans did have knights. Look up "Equites," I think. It's related to the English "equestrian."

The word "hobilar" probably didn't come 'round till much later. I'm guessing in the Dark Ages, if you had a horse, you were a "knight," or whatever word they used to describe it. You were definitely not infantry. If you want to call it cavarly, fine, but that's just another word (in this context) for knight.

To get even geekier, the word Knight is Anglo-Saxon in origin is is related to the German knecht, or servant/slave. Now, I haven't seen the movie, yet, despite Kiera Knightley's bodily presence, but I assume that they are fighting the Saxons, so that makes the use of the term even more anachronistic.

Ace is correct about the equites, a roman class between the senators and plebians, the original merchant class. They had their origin as a Romes cavalry, thus the name from the roman equus or horse. By Arthurian times I think the term was irrelevant, but I could be wrong.

King Arthur was not actually set in the typical "Arthurian" times. It was set during the period of the decline of Rome. Not even during the Dark Ages... just a little before.

bbeck, you should listen to VonKreedon on this one. He's so into this shit he played GURPS in jail after being arrested for protesting a nuke plant.

ace,

"arthurian" times were the late roman period, duing the decline of Roman influence on the Island.

Arthurus was (as best as can be made out), a Roman general. The movie sounds close to period-accurate, but the language is chocolatesaltyballs

what? was that confusing?

exactly

From everything I've heard and read, Arthur was a "Romanized Celt". i.e., native to England, not Rome.

He may have been trained/schooled by the Roman administration, but he was a "Briton" by birth.

English major geek here, reporting for duty...

So, was the term being used as "mounted cavalry" or not? If it was, then Arthur should have been called one along with all the other mounted cavalry that was in the film. If it wasn't, then why were they called "knights"? They were never in their homeland (Sarmatia) while serving as they were removed at an early age, so how could they have gotten the title there? And why would they be called that by the English people?

Point is, the fact that we're discussing different theories about it kinda proves that the movie was woefully inadequate in its portrayal of who and what these people were. There's a real inconsistency in the (painfully bad) writing of this script that touted itself as a "historical" look at Arthur. The inconsistency wouldn't have been worth pointing out if it hadn't sold itself as being a truer story.

But, even if it had sold itself as something else, the characters were sorely underdeveloped. The writer was relying on its audience knowing the traditional Arthurian legend and put Zero effort into showing any camaraderie between Arthur and Lancelot. Every time the two of them spoke alone Lance was just *itching about something, and Arthur would reply in true wooden Clive Owen form, "You...who know me...so well...should not ask me...that..." I'm sorry, the writer shouldn't be relying on the audience's knowledge of the legend when you're freakin' re-writing it. It was lazy.

And just don't get me going on the forced romance between Arthur and the butched-up Gwen. It's creepy enough that there's a RL 20-year difference in their ages, but it's even worse when their relationship is based solely upon a handful of longing glances and the fact that she was hot for his body. In the scene where she comes to his room for some action, he was like, "Eh, well, she's throwing herself at me so I might as well..." Oooo, the chemistry!

Okay, I'll stop now. Sorry, I just thought the movie blew donkeys, but I am really rough on films.

Later,
bbeck

Well, I shouldn't have said "mounted cavalry" at all, really, because it's more or less redundant. Cavalry are mounted troops. If they weren't mounted, they'd be infantry.

There's a real inconsistency in the (painfully bad) writing of this script that touted itself as a "historical" look at Arthur.

There is no "historical" look at Arthur, because except from a few dubious references to "Arturus the Bear" or whatever, there's simply no Arthur at all.

It just meant: "No magic."

"arthurian" times were the late roman period, duing the decline of Roman influence on the Island.

Nonsense, you're just making that up, based on the dubious "research" into Arturus the Bear.

"Arthurian times" are generally taken to mean the late high medieval period, when the epics are usually set, with courtly romances and jousts and all the other stuff from the age in which the most famous accounts were written.

Of course, it also means silly white castles and giants and crap like that.

"There is no "historical" look at Arthur, because except from a few dubious references to "Arturus the Bear" or whatever, there's simply no Arthur at all."

Well gosh, Ace, then the movie shouldn't be CALLING itself that, right?

Later,
bbeck

bbeck,

Well, I sorta don't really believe it when a movie tells me it's the "laugh-out-loud gutbuster of the summer!" either.

We are the mounted cavalry who say "Ni"!

So, it's okay to lie to your audience just because everybody does it? And if the audience expects it to be what it claims to be based on, then it's the audience's fault when they're disappointed?

The front of the DVD says "The Untold True Story That Inspired The Legend." It says more of the same on the back. I think that's promoting it as something more than the "laugh-out-loud gutbuster of the summer..." and lines like the example you give usually come from critics' reviews, not from the movie's premise itself.

One thing's fer sure; whether a movie calls itself the "laugh-out-loud gutbuster of the summer" or "The Untold True Story That Inspired The Legend," oddly enough I don't translate that to mean, "No magic." I guess I just don't speak Hollywood. :P

Later,
bbeck

bbeck,

but... but... but... in this context, being that there really was no Arthur, or at least no Arthur really work making a movie about, and no Arthur we know a damn thing about anyhow... what else could it possibly mean?

WORTH making a movie about

unless you're big on seeing an obscure Celtic warlord score some moderate victories over Saxons

(All of which we'd be pretty much guessing at anyway)

Ace,

Having just read a decent old book on the Celts, I'll speculate that there was an Arthur of some sort.

and ""Arthurian times" are generally taken to mean the late high medieval period, when the epics are usually set, with courtly romances and jousts and all the other stuff" from your trip to Medieval Nights, where you can call the waitresses "wenches" and eat turkey drumsticks?

"but... but... but... in this context, being that there really was no Arthur, or at least no Arthur really wor(th) making a movie about (that much is CERTAIN -- me), and no Arthur we know a damn thing about anyhow... what else could it possibly mean?"

I think the MAIN thing it means is that you and I have different tastes in movies. :)

Later,
bbeck

Ace - The image of the Arthurian Romance has knights in shining armor riding out from a Norman walled and turreted Camelot. But looking for the historical basis for the romance leads to Britain as it is being abandoned by the Empire. Apparently the historical trail implicates a know person, Ambrosius Aurelianus, as either Arthur, or Arthur's father, in the late 5th century.

"Arthurian times" are generally taken to mean the late high medieval period, when the epics are usually set, with courtly romances and jousts and ..."

Well, "generally taken" does not mean correct.

Off the top of my head, the Roman influence began dwindling in England around 70 A.D., leading to the rise of Romanized Celts like Arthur. Somebody had to keep opportunistic invading hoards at bay, and people like Arthur did for awhile.

Hence the legend. Rome withdrawing support, island's on it's own now, and local heros rally for its defence. Slice barbarian invaders like a f'ing hammer. Made him a hero.

Well before the "late high medieval" period.

Historical Authorian time: Late 4th, early 5th century post-Roman Britain

Literary Authorian times: 12th century England, when Mallory wrote L'Morte D'Arthur

Commonly perceived Arthurian times: Continental high medivela times with full plate armor, walled castles, chivalric codes, etc that closely associated with 13-15th century French romances that were written about Author

To the avergage person "Arthurian" just means a bunch of stereotypes about the Middle Ages. And maybe some dragons

You guys are just a bunch of Arthuritarians.

GROOOOAAAANNNN

Awful seedub. Just awful.

Re: Mounted Cavalry - well, there are the Armored Cavalry Regiments in the current army, so some sort of clarifier could be useful. (Not that anyone would have visualized Arthur and Company in Abramses and Apaches, but it might have made the movie more interesting. Arthur II, the Quest for the Holy Gas Can.)

>I don't think I've really enjoyed any Bronson/Bond film to
>date,

A typo which brings to mind Bronson Pinchot as James Bond. As my above comment, might make the movies more interesting. I like the Woo or Tarantino Bond movie concept.

Guys, how clear do I have to make it that I know of this Arturus the Bear cat that was a warlord in 300-400 AD?

I know about him.

But apart from the name, no one knows anything else about him. They're not even sure he was much of anything. I.e., was he actually a great warrior or are we just guessing he was because his name is sort of close to "Arthur"?

And even if he is the basis for the legend of Arthur, you can't do a "historical" movie about him, because we know nothing about him except for his name and maybe a suspected burial place.

And certainly we couldn't have a movie containing Guinevere, Lancelot, etc., because, once again, we don't know a lick about this guy.

Look-- everyone wants there to have been a real King Arthur. I know I'd like that to be the case. But to speak of the "REAL Arthurian times" based upon one guy's name being recorded in one monk's scroll... well, that strikes me as wishful thinking.

Connery?

Sean Connery: I've got to ask you about the Penis Mightier.

Alex Trebek: What? No. No, no, that is 'The Pen is Mightier.'

Sean Connery: Gussy it up however you want, Trebek. What matters is does it work? Will it really mighty my penis, man?

Alex Trebek: It's not a product, Mr. Connery.

Sean Connery: Because I've ordered devices like that before - wasted a pretty penny, I don't mind telling you. And if The Penis Mightier works, I'll order a dozen.

Alex Trebek: It's not a Penis Mightier, Mr. Connery. There's no such thing!

Nicholas Cage: Wait, wait, wait.. are you selling Penis Mightiers?

In an actual "on topic" contribution...

I think my wife and I settled on Ewan McGregor as ideal for "good-guy Bond". I'm still trying to decide who I'd like to see as "dark Bond".

was Bearcat some sort of D&D monster?

No,No,No!!

The klingons didn't come into the series until episode 11.....wait, I must be on the wrong thread

I thought this was the Trekkie website.

I googled "pointless bullshit to argue about" and thought it would take me to their site, but here I am./sarcasm

Seriously though, i guess reading you guys geek out about king arthur is a lot better than arguing if captain kirk's character was kept accurate throughout the course of all the movies, or some shit like that...

...Right?

Son of America

(BTW,ace, love your site. )

Loose shit. Malory was 15th c. The first known-to-us manifestation of the Arthurian stories was in the 12th c. Old French poems of Chretien de Troyes, a great Provencal poet who was at the court of Marie of Champagne.

This should be no surprise: Marie's court, with that of her mother Elanor of Aquitaine, birthed the chivalric ideals of "knighthood" as we now think of it -- along with related notions of romance, courtly love, and perhaps indeed love itself. Interesting folk, those Provencals.

Before Chretien the stories obviously circulated orally from across the Channel. Whether there was any basis in fact, or not, of course...

How about moving on to whether there was a Trojan War?

Incidentally, it's quite likely that the Provencals were substantially inspired by the courtly habits of Islamic Andalusia -- the last real flowering of Muslim culture -- as exemplified by, e.g., Ibn Hazm's "The Ring of the Dove".

So this isn't totally off-topic.

Ace

Brosnan is actuallly pretty good as Bond, for those that have read the books (not the "adapted from the movie" books, the actual Ian Fleming books). Fleming's Bond was not a he-man (a la Connery, the best Bond), but rather an effete snob of sorts. Brosnan fits this role.

Of course, purists tend to be anal anyway, so take the above for what it's worth (not much). Moore was good in the movies because he could effortlessly make fun of himself.

At any rate, the Bond franchise jumped the shark before I most of us reached puberty. But I stll set the remote down when one comes on TV.

Cheers,
Brennan

Oh Ace, you silly fool.

Sean was the best Bond, and he's still hot, even though he'd probably need to pop the blue Pfizer pills like they were Pez if he wanted to ride the Sue Express to Happy Town.

Pierce is suuuch a hottie. He's easily the second best Bond. The man was built for a tuxedo. He can't help it if the scriptwriters suck donkey balls. With those exquisite eyes, that jawline, and that voice, he could infiltrate my evil lair any time he wanted.

And I think the red meat and Guinness is working on Chad. He's talking about Denise Richards' rack and pooter just like the rest of you pigs. Next thing you know he'll be lighting farts and competing in alphabet-belching contests.

ehh, i flip-flopped my centuries up there on the French romances and Mallory, its not my fault Mallory's work is so boring it put me to sleep, oh well

A king's a king for life, but once a knight's enough for most men.

Batman: "It's time to get set, Robin. It's almost oda wabba simba."

Robin: "It's almost what?"

Batman: "Oda wabba simba. Six o'clock in our nomenclature. In the 14th dynasty, the hour of the hyena. The time when ancient Egyptian supercriminals invariably struck!"