LogFAQs > #956670263

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Green Knight
wydrah 08/01/21 11:44:13 AM #24:	Blighboy posted... I guess I mean that Arthurian legend feels more like a "setting" than a "story", and most people aren't familiar enough with it to make it easily adaptable? Outside of the Sword in the Stone. I only have a passing familiarity I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert, I could be way off. But it seems most adaptations of King Arthur seems to try to adapt the King Arthur legend as a whole, when the right answer would be to do what this film did and adapt specific stories. Arthurian legend has a narrative history dating back about a thousand years. The most influential for us is probably Le Morte d'Arthur, but The Once and Future King (The Sword and the Stone) is also influential. Gawain and the Green Knight is part of a lengthy literary tradition of medieval romances (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedding_of_Sir_Gawain_and_Dame_Ragnelle). The literary tradition there is rich, but probably will be bastardized or ignored by this film. I think Arthurian legend lends itself well to Hollywood in some ways. If you read the actual source material, it is FUCKED UP. Rampant violence and a lot of sex. I kind of agree that Hollywood tried to adapt the legends as a whole. It's impossible for one movie to do that (I would LOVE a TV series like Game of Thrones or the upcoming Lord of the Rings Amazon series. Holy shit that would be amazing) because of how many stories there are. So what Hollywood tries to do instead, often, is turn Arthur himself into an action hero. He's not, really. He's a king. He rules while his knights go out and fight for him. That's what a lot of movies get wrong imo. Excalibur handled it well in that it depicted Arthur's rise to power, which did involve action on his part, and then focused on his governance, which is the majority of the legend. --- PotD Paradiso www.potdparadiso.net <cite>wydrah posted [p:956670263] in Green Knig... [t:79592691]...</cite> <quote>Blighboy posted... </cite> <quote>I guess I mean that Arthurian legend feels more like a "setting" than a "story", and most people aren't familiar enough with it to make it easily adaptable? Outside of the Sword in the Stone. I only have a passing familiarity I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert, I could be way off. But it seems most adaptations of King Arthur seems to try to adapt the King Arthur legend as a whole, when the right answer would be to do what this film did and adapt specific stories.</quote>Arthurian legend has a narrative history dating back about a thousand years. The most influential for us is probably Le Morte d'Arthur, but The Once and Future King (The Sword and the Stone) is also influential. Gawain and the Green Knight is part of a lengthy literary tradition of medieval romances (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedding_of_Sir_Gawain_and_Dame_Ragnelle). The literary tradition there is rich, but probably will be bastardized or ignored by this film. I think Arthurian legend lends itself well to Hollywood in some ways. If you read the actual source material, it is FUCKED UP. Rampant violence and a lot of sex. I kind of agree that Hollywood tried to adapt the legends as a whole. It's impossible for one movie to do that (I would LOVE a TV series like Game of Thrones or the upcoming Lord of the Rings Amazon series. Holy shit that would be amazing) because of how many stories there are. So what Hollywood tries to do instead, often, is turn Arthur himself into an action hero. He's not, really. He's a king. He rules while his knights go out and fight for him. That's what a lot of movies get wrong imo. Excalibur handled it well in that it depicted Arthur's rise to power, which did involve action on his part, and then focused on his governance, which is the majority of the legend. --- PotD Paradiso www.potdparadiso.net</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1