longbow Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Scots took over Northern England (hmmmm) when was this? i live in n.england,never heard of the scots taking over. L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skel Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 taking offense to someone saying "damned picts" just cuz youe english is like taking offense for being called a damn gaul and living in france... or even being called a damn prussian and living in germany... kinda rediculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fafnir Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Okay i said "damned Picts" in a playful manner, i even added a smiley after it. Ill just say i was looking at the Picts in a Roman perspective, as they continued to raid the wall, and even past it. I really have nothing against the Picts.  Btw i meant the Scots came from Ireland (i believe) and took the Picts out of power in Northern England.  taking offense to someone saying "damned picts" just cuz youe english is like taking offense for being called a damn gaul and living in france... or even being called a damn prussian and living in germany... kinda rediculous   Damned Carthaginians... (not intended at you skel, lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbow Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 taking offense to someone saying "damned picts" just cuz youe english   Which in the UK is a bit like saying:  .....taking offence to someone saying "damned canadians" just cuz you're american....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skel Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 alas.. i am kinda sorta canadian :'( oh well i learn to live with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedx7 Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hollywood does have a hait of bastardizing history to fit into entertainment. I have read that it all relates to the lack of American History and the need to hijack the achievements of others, i have also read there are political reasons behind some of these decision, not to mention the personal opinions of some individuals in the hollywood system who just dislike Britain - STAND UP MR GIBSON! however, for all these misrepresentations of the truth, I like to think they are just simplified versions of fact, re-written to appeal the biggest movie going market in the world - America (please dont tell me about China being the biggest, I know it is, but im thinking financially). I just hope if someone ever decides to film the Scarrow novels, they try and avoid Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer...or MEL F@@KING GIBSON! Â For my part, King Arthur was rubbish. And the ninja-roman with the bird-friend was about the worst part. Although the nonsensical invasion of britain by landing North of the wall was just daft...what sort of a General was he then? Obviously he left his strategc brain inside his hells angels helmet.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 Indeed, in my opinion, it wasn't only a historical mess, it wasn't even entertaining. Â Braveheart, despite more moderate distortions of history, was at least highly entertaining. The same can be said of Gladiator. Â One thing that I find often is that the British seem to really dislike Braveheart. Is it simply because its anti-English? Or is it more reflective of Mel Gibson and his later horrible history bastard... the Patriot? Which I, even as an American, found offensive. Â However, just because a movie may be anti-establishment, 'Dances With Wolves' from an American perspective comes to mind, I can still appreciate it. I found that film, despite some of its messaging, to be a wonderful representation of pre-American expansion. What I'm saying is.. I love that movie and don't care that my side is depicted as the bad guy. Is Braveheart taken more personally in Britain, or do people really thinks its too much of a historical sham? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 For those of you who dislike Gibson, just remember he started out as being famous for little more than showing his naked rear end on some bad police movie. Don't take the views of a male bimbo too seriously. Â In fact, I don't think anyone really took him seriously until he starred in a version of Hamlet designed to draw in younger viewers to Shakespeare. After that, he was suddenly respectable for some reason, even though he couldn't hold a candle to the British Shakespearean actors who were his supporting cast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedx7 Posted February 18, 2005 Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 I actually quike like braveheart, and continue to enjoy with great amusement Longshanks' treatment of the Scots. Panto villains always make me laugh, no matter how evily they are protrayed. At the end of the day it was film about a Scottish hero, and you cant give the bad guy redeeming features or the public can get confused....or at least that is the preconception of Hollywood IMHO. Â "Scotland......Myland...." Cracking...gets all the best lines....exactly like the Sheriff in that other great piece of cack, Robin Hood with Kevin Costner...I agree, great in Dances with wolves, cack as Robin Hood....anyway....bit of a digression....King Arthur was a turdburger and I am greatful for the joys of Boormans Excalibur! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skel Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 i think some of yall are being a lil to critical of movies... most movies are generally good. they may not be spectacular, they may be corny at some parts, or some bad acting... but i mean, could you really do any better? i find lots of things wrong with all kinds of movies but i appreciate them all, expecially the hardwork that goes into it. keep in mind guys the budget has alot to dow ith how good a movie is! if they couldnt get a billion bucks it wont be as good as it could be!. Â but really i just hold a firm belif in most things, that if you cant do a better job you really have no right to treat it so harshly... Â just my opinion though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Regulus Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Ursus, In fact, I don't think anyone really took him seriously until he starred in a version of Hamlet designed to draw in younger viewers to Shakespeare. After that, he was suddenly respectable for some reason, even though he couldn't hold a candle to the British Shakespearean actors who were his supporting cast. Â Â Quite true. The brits definitely play Shakespere better, but I still don't trust them, My family coming over on the boat from Wales and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I'mrussian Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 ok.................... so what do people know about sarmatia as a whole? oh by the way. are you lot a load of bofs who love studying etc...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skel Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 i responded with all i know about sarmatians (in a nutshell) in your other thread russian. Â as for us being studying buffs... i despise studying. but i love to learn about ancient history. mostly through getting bored and looking up stuff, not really studying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord Squiffy Posted November 15, 2005 Report Share Posted November 15, 2005 Getting back to the King Arthur / Sarmatian thingy........... Â I seem to remember the film's historical adviser was mortified when Bruckheimer labeled the movie "The true story that inspired the legend". Being a huge Arthur fan I too was mortified at just how bad the film was. Â I've always associated Arthur (be he king or not) with hundreds of Roman trained horsemen, not blinking six! Mount Badon would've been very different if there'd only been six cavalry. You can stretch movie magic a bit far...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovay Posted November 20, 2010 Report Share Posted November 20, 2010 ok if you had paided attention to the film you would know that there had been more knights but they were killed . I think that although King Arthur is a really good film (the actual filming, directing and the music are amazing!) the Brits do historical films and tv shows a lot better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.