Chicken soup is awesome stuff

[seneschal]

The old newspaper strip "Prince Valiant in the Days of Kng Arthur" is a good example of how to set a campaign in an established setting.  Val  was a headstrong Viking prince who wound up a squire to Sir Gawain in the court of an elderly Arthur.  He had some interactions and relationships with the legendary characters but ended up having tons of adventures on his own, some as distant as Notth America.  He wooed and won a princess and had kids who grew up to have quests of their own.

[Atgxtg]

On 6/28/2018 at 4:06 PM, Toadmaster said:

I think a proper King Arthur movie would have to be multiple movies. It would lend itself well to a quality mini-series HBO / Netflix style or more properly the BBC.

Yeah, but would it get a "proper" treatment? The BBC did just do a Merlin series, but, as with most such shows, they turned into a show about teenagers being teenagers.  

 

On 6/28/2018 at 4:06 PM, Toadmaster said:

I think attempts showing a more historically correct post roman era Arthur tend to fail as they are generally not historically accurate so annoy purists, and they lack the image of knights which most casual movie goers seem to expect.

There haven;t been that many attempts. Most Arthurian movies, indeed most any movie where somebody is carrying a sword tell to fail because they aren't done very well, and the people making them don't seem to have much respect for the subject matter. I think the few films that stand out, such as Excalibur, do so because the people making them have some respect for the subject matter. 

On 6/28/2018 at 4:06 PM, Toadmaster said:

The huge variety of "correct" is a serious issue for having success with a movie, Once & Future King, Mallory, Mists of Avalon, Stewart's Merlin series, various historical accounts most of which have fairly serious differences from each other beyond the most basic aspects. 

 I doubt it, and sadly, it's not like there are any Arthurian films out there that failed for not being "correct". Usually they are just bad, and done by people who haven;t read a single Arthur book and just go with what little they remember i.e. Genevieve has an affair with Lancelot, Morgana is the evil sister and mother of Mordred (she isn't, but no one remembers the other sisters), and that Mordred is Arthur's illiterate son who tires to take the throne. 

 All those literary version of Arthur show, I think, that the concept doesn't have to be historically "correct" or Medieval to succeed. It just have to be done well and treated with respect. 

 

[Atgxtg]

52 minutes ago, seneschal said:

The old newspaper strip "Prince Valiant in the Days of Kng Arthur" is a good example of how to set a campaign in an established setting.  Val  was a headstrong Viking prince who wound up a squire to Sir Gawain in the court of an elderly Arthur.  He had some interactions and relationships with the legendary characters but ended up having tons of adventures on his own, some as distant as Notth America.  He wooed and won a princess and had kids who grew up to have quests of their own.

Greg Stafford did a Prince Valiant RPG, too.

[SDLeary]

Mary Stewart's Merlin series could NOT be done as a movie (for obvious reasons), nor do I think a series of three or four movies (depending upon inclusion of the heretical The Wicked Day; and haven't read The Prince and the Pilgrim, so no comment there). It would have to be a straight up series of series.  One series for each book.

Another set of books that would be good for a series treatment would be the Firelord books, by Parke Godwin.

As far as movies are concerned, the only books that might be able to work would probably be The Warlord Chronicles. 

19 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I doubt it, and sadly, it's not like there are any Arthurian films out there that failed for not being "correct". Usually they are just bad, and done by people who haven;t read a single Arthur book and just go with what little they remember i.e. Genevieve has an affair with Lancelot, Morgana is the evil sister and mother of Mordred (she isn't, but no one remembers the other sisters), and that Mordred is Arthur's illiterate son who tires to take the throne. 

 All those literary version of Arthur show, I think, that the concept doesn't have to be historically "correct" or Medieval to succeed. It just have to be done well and treated with respect. 

This.

SDLeary

[Toadmaster]

On 6/29/2018 at 8:51 PM, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, but would it get a "proper" treatment? The BBC did just do a Merlin series, but, as with most such shows, they turned into a show about teenagers being teenagers.  

 

There haven;t been that many attempts. Most Arthurian movies, indeed most any movie where somebody is carrying a sword tell to fail because they aren't done very well, and the people making them don't seem to have much respect for the subject matter. I think the few films that stand out, such as Excalibur, do so because the people making them have some respect for the subject matter. 

 I doubt it, and sadly, it's not like there are any Arthurian films out there that failed for not being "correct". Usually they are just bad, and done by people who haven;t read a single Arthur book and just go with what little they remember i.e. Genevieve has an affair with Lancelot, Morgana is the evil sister and mother of Mordred (she isn't, but no one remembers the other sisters), and that Mordred is Arthur's illiterate son who tires to take the throne. 

 All those literary version of Arthur show, I think, that the concept doesn't have to be historically "correct" or Medieval to succeed. It just have to be done well and treated with respect. 

 

 

I guess I should have said challenges.

I wouldn't call Excalibur a failure (Epic is better word in my mind 😊 ), but much of its criticism comes from the huge variety of source material (it doesn't follow xyz), and pseudo historical issues. On the other side it was too complicated for some critics who lacked much knowledge of the source material.

 

You see much the same with Lord of the Rings, and Conan.

 

I agree lack of effort or caring from the production staff, writers etc is a major factor but sadly common in the modern film era. Why bother having a good screen play when you can use CGI and hot actors.

[Atgxtg]

26 minutes ago, Toadmaster said:

 

I guess I should have said challenges.

I wouldn't call Excalibur a failure (Epic is better word in my mind 😊 ), but much of its criticism comes from the huge variety of source material (it doesn't follow xyz), and pseudo historical issues.

It's a mixed bag. It still probably the best King Arthur film ever made, but, considering most of the other Arthurian films, that's not saying much. 

26 minutes ago, Toadmaster said:

On the other side it was too complicated for some critics who lacked much knowledge of the source material.You see much the same with Lord of the Rings, and Conan.

Yeah, the details aren;t well known, despite the fact that nerdy geekiness is now "in".  

 

26 minutes ago, Toadmaster said:

I agree lack of effort or caring from the production staff, writers etc is a major factor but sadly common in the modern film era. Why bother having a good screen play when you can use CGI and hot actors.

 ..and it will be just as successful or more at the box office.It's one of the drawbacks to "star power".  

[SDLeary]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It's a mixed bag. It still probably the best King Arthur film ever made, but, considering most of the other Arthurian films, that's not saying much. 

I had lots of hope when I first heard about the Clive Owen flick way back when. Then I saw the trailer, and all hope was lost. Haven't watched any of the more recent renditions, not even on "Movie Night".

SDLeary

Edited July 4, 2018 by SDLeary

[soltakss]

I really liked Excalibur and Arthur and the Britons way back when. I watched Merlin and spent almost all of the first episode saying "Well, that isn't right, that isn't dark ages, that looks odd" and then forgot about all of that for the rest of the run, as I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Edited July 6, 2018 by soltakss