Position:Home>History> About time we had a 'really good' movie on the following 'historic
About time we had a 'really good' movie on the following 'historic' events !?
1!. The Norman Invasion and the battle of hastings
2!. The English Civil War
3!. The Crusades
Kingdom of Boredom (heaven) was a brilliant flick , however, it was so inaccurate at times and I guess we might need a drama serial or a REALLY good account of Saladin etc !?
also why can't they make great movies about their own history in England !? must we rely on the US movie industry and their talent, resources, $$$ to re-tell, re-depict the happenings of the stony old past of England !?
I haven't seen that movie 'King Arthur' , so let me know if thats any good - or if its a poor account of the whole thing!.
of all the ideas for a movie depicting historic events - I'd love to see a movie about the 'English Civil War' , i drool @ the prospect!.
it would have to go all out for 'realism' and 'shock' , so please, if one must be made - make it an 18, gosh they dont make '18' rated movies any more eh !?
lets see gore, lets see the full monty and how it all panned out on the battlefields!.!.!.it wasn't pretty nor was it 'censored' or 'polticaly correct' back in the 1640's , so why dumb it down for todays noobish audiences !? people are stabbing each other to death in 2008, and we read about 24/7 - surely graphical and accurate accounts of the past on film aren't a bad thing !? I'm sure art students would agree with this!.
if a movie on the english civil war gets made - make it interesting but less cheesy than 'braveheart' !.
also - a good account of the crusades too, how the papacy got involved etc - that would be interesting, the movie should not favour the 'beliefs' of christianity or islam, rather showcase the motives that led each side into battle/confrontation and show the internal poltics that were happening in the christian kngdom as well as the islamic one!.
also, why on earth haven't we had a movie about one of the most bloodiest hardest fought battles in history !? 1066 wasn't a little sword fight between nervous noobs, oh far from it!. This was a gorefest, death metal heads would so dig a movie about 1066 and the battle of hastings!. The Bayeux Tapestry is inconclusive or is it !? was harold REALLY struck in the eye by an arrow then slashed down by sword !? :|
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
If you have SKY why not watch the History channel, they have some fab docudramas on the subjects that you have mentioned!. also the Military and Crime channels!. They are so well done that it's like watching films but a lot shorter (so you have more variations) and without the Hollywood feel!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
The problem is that history unfolds slowly and that does not always make for good cinema, which also prevents a good story being told
The problem with King Arthur is that we had to abandon the mythology we knew of for something rather jarringWww@QuestionHome@Com
Well movies are made to A!. make money and B!. tell a story!. Somehow the historical accuracy part gets lost!. also some folks have a vested interest in not seeing history like it really happened but how they think it should have happened!. This is very common in the U!.S!. Don't hold out too much hope for King Arthur!. I too would love, love , love to see a good flick about the English Civil War!. But I'm not holding my breath!.
I didn't care for Kingdom of Heaven or King Arthur!. I love history and see every historical movie and am always disappointed!. They are so inaccurate!. I want to yell at the director "Do it right!." Www@QuestionHome@Com
Norman Conquest films:
William the Conqueror (coming in 2008)
English Civil War films:
To Kill A King
Arn: The Knight Templar
Hearts and Armour
Kingdom of Heaven
King Harold (II) Godwinson of Wessex
The idea of him being shot in the eye with an arrow is in all likelihood a myth!. The "arrow in the eye" was a common metaphor of the age for untrustworthiness!. William I felt Harold had double crossed him for taking the throne, when the dying King Edward (the Confessor) has promised it to William!. They do say the history of war is written by the victor, so the image of the arrow in the eye on the Bayeux Tapestry is widely regarded as poetic licence, rather than absolute fact!.
EDIT - why are people considering King Arthur as "history"!? King Arthur is a mythological figure with no provable basis in reality!. And it would have nothing to do with the Crusades, as the King Arthur myth is set sometime before the unification of England under the House of Wessex, and that happened in 871 under Alfred the Great!. The beginning of the Arthurian tale tells of a fragmented England, so it must be set before 871, or a romanticisation of the real king Alfred the Great!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Except for a movie about William the Bastard invading England, I've seen very good and accurate movies about all of the HISTORIC subjects you have mentioned!.
The one that we can't say is "history" is of course King Arthur!. The newest one IS an excellent example of how the King Arthur Legend COULD have started!.
As for the reference to the U!.S!. dollars made by the movie companies in the U!.S!. Well the only thing for that is for your countrymen to pry open their wallets and do it themselves!. Britain is more than capable of making the movies, so stop waiting for the Americans to do it for you!.Www@QuestionHome@Com