Hard agree and, impressively, it tells the full legend in one film. If they were doing it now, it’d be a trilogy, each film would be 3 hours long and part 1 would end with him pulling the stone from the sword."Eh?" was popularized by Bob and Doug. And when Canadians say "about", it doesn't sound like "aboot" and it's fucking annoying.
It sounds like "aboat" when they say it. LOL. It's always the tell that someone's Canadian to me.
Whaaaa? It's still the best rendition of the Arthurian cycle, all in one film. Early roles for Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, Helen Mirren, Liam Neeson, Cirian Hinds and Clive Swift. It's a goddamn classic I tells ya! A classic!
Whaaaa? It's still the best rendition of the Arthurian cycle, all in one film. Early roles for Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, Helen Mirren, Liam Neeson, Cirian Hinds and Clive Swift. It's a goddamn classic I tells ya! A classic!
A fada, to be entirely accurate!
"Eh?" was popularized by Bob and Doug. And when Canadians say "about", it doesn't sound like "aboot" and it's fucking annoying.
It sounds like "aboat" when they say it. LOL. It's always the tell that someone's Canadian to me.
Whaaaa? It's still the best rendition of the Arthurian cycle, all in one film. Early roles for Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, Helen Mirren, Liam Neeson, Cirian Hinds and Clive Swift. It's a goddamn classic I tells ya! A classic!
Whaaaa? It's still the best rendition of the Arthurian cycle, all in one film. Early roles for Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, Helen Mirren, Liam Neeson, Cirian Hinds and Clive Swift. It's a goddamn classic I tells ya! A classic!
No offense intended, but it seems a bit odd to say Merlin ruined you for Arthurian adapations, since has almost nothing do with the original mythology. Don't get me wrong, I really really enjoy, but it changes so much that it's barely even recognizable as the Arthurian mythology.
Sorry, I didn't know there was an objectively right way and wrong way to enjoy TV shows and movies based on legends of people who probably never existed in the first place, or at least not as they're presented in literature written centuries after the time frame the characters are set in.
I've got my favorite characters. I've got my favorite storylines. I've got my favorite actors. Some are funny, some are sad, and there were some missed opportunities when the showrunners should have taken the story in a particular direction but either chose not to, or it never occurred to them (in which case, fanfiction will provide, even if I have to write it myself).
And it's pretty damn cool that Peter Davison's daughter played one of Arthur's many almost-betrothed princesses and there are behind the scenes photos of her and David Tennant strolling around the set at the Chateau de Pierrefonds. To a fanfiction afficionado, this presents a delightful opportunity to dream up a Merlin/Doctor Who crossover (even though Tennant wasn't in the episode, his wife played his daughter in a nuWho episode).
Just out of curiosity, which version of Robin Hood is the "objectively correct" one? Errol Flynn? Richard Greene? Michael Praed? Jason Connery? Kevin Costner? Cary Elwes? The science fiction animated version Rocket Robin Hood? The dozen or so other versions that were done and I don't recall the titles at the moment? I've got my favorites of those as well, and am fully aware that my favorites don't match the traditional legend.
I'm also into Highlander (TV series, not movies). There's a really nice story in one of my print 'zines in which Duncan McLeod meets King Arthur - turns out Arthur is Immortal and chose to spend his life on holy ground, waiting for the right time when he would be needed. He sees that Duncan has the nobility of mind and spirit that would have fit well with the Round Table, and knights him.
But oops. The traditional legends don't mention this. Guess that means this delightful story must be "odd" and not suitable to be enjoyed.
Sorry, I think I might have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant it was such a perfect adaptation of the mythology, and that it followed all of the original stories so closely that other version could ever do it better.Sorry, I didn't know there was an objectively right way and wrong way to enjoy TV shows and movies based on legends of people who probably never existed in the first place, or at least not as they're presented in literature written centuries after the time frame the characters are set in.
I get that, it's a great show.
I didn't know that, that's pretty cool.
I honestly have no idea, I don't know that much about the original Robin Hood stories.
Again, I think you misunderstood, like I said before, a story can still be a great story, even if it sucks as an adaptation. To me the quality of something as an adaptation is totally separate from it's overall quality.