MovieChat Forums > Sej > Replies
Sej's Replies
Correct, Damosuzuki, this is one movie where if you haven´t seen it on a big screen, you haven´t seen it at all. The entire experience is in the big screen. People who have seen it at home simply have no idea what they are missing.
Momoa
Hi Otter,
Did you ever get around to watching this?
I only just watched it, and I personally was absolutely enchanted.
I would say it's one for the true fans, people who know Tolkiens life and work well enough to know the countless subtle references, like f.ex.that Edith actually did dance for him in the woods.
It's for those who love Tolkiens work so much that these references are absolutely entrancing in themselves, and no very exciting events are needed.
I imagine that it captured Tolkiens passions: languages, medieval literature, friends and Edith, perfectly, (admittedly, his faith was omitted) and I was moved and fascinated every second. One for the fans.
Hello Otter,
Nice to hear from you again since the King Arthur board :)
No, my assertion about Abe is pure conjecture, I admit, and I am not actually a great Hellboy fan or know much about Abe.
I made the assumption because Abe looks like half human, half Fish man, and setting Shape of Water in the 1950ies makes the timing right for him to be their son, doesn't it?
But I don't know; I expressed myself with unwarranted assuredness :)
No, this is essentially a prequel to Hellboy. Abe looks like half human, half the fish man from this movie because Elisa and Fish man are his parents. That is why this movie is set in the 50 lies, so the timing is right.
Agree again, I wasnt too thrilled with the Owen one when it came, because I am futilely hoping for something that captures the spirit of Malory, but in retrospect its not that bad :)
LOL, thanks for that one :) I could not agree more!
So far my favourite is Boormans Excalibur, even with its flaws.
I saw your comment about an HBO series. I have thought the same myself, the time is ripe for a version of Arthur which does not gloss over the incest and brutality esp. of Uther in the beginning.
Only thing is, everyone would say "What a GOT rip off" :)
But HBO wouldnt care; we fans would know; and if it was well made, enough people would watch it even if they think its a copy, because as you say, everyone is scrambling for the GOT replacement now.
Otter, I just want to second your opinion, everything you said. I too am an Arthur buff, and I hate this movie just like you because it reduces and degrades the Arthur I love. I just rewatched this movie, and I actually think that if they had called it something else and not tried to attach it to the Arthur brand, I might have enjoyed it as a silly, trite, but somewhat fun movie.
As you say, this was not made for people like us who love both legends and history, and it is not well enough made to give anyone else reason to care.
You are completely right about written and oral conversation and I do infinitely prefer oral, but I do not have the option to discuss Arthur movies with anyone in my acquaintance.
And again, I largely agree with you, I would not want to discuss something I hate with someone who loves it, that is not fruitful. I like to discuss where there are nuances of opinion.
In the case of this Arthur movie, I directed a question to you because you were clearly informed, knowledgeable and a lover of the true spirit of Arthur and also well versed in movies and with a rare understanding and passion for narratives in general.
In short, an example of someone whose opinion and perspective I would clearly have to respect, but whose opinion I yet could not quite understand. When I see such people I like to ask them to explain their perspective, in the hope that they can make me understand and I can broaden my own perspective.
When I seemed to dismiss the discussion, it was because I unfortunately could still not understand your viewpoint, and then I felt that to press on with the question would only have led to the kind of pointless negativity, which we both agree is depressing and futile.
Let me finally add, I love the passion you show for movies and narratives in your OP, I am too lazy to type it out, but I could have said pretty much the same. That was what intrigued me, it seemed strange that we could disagree at all :)
I completely respect your pow, but it is funny that I could have used those exact same words in the opposite meaning: "it is nice enough to agree, but in the end it can't go much farther than that". Again: your approach is completely valid, just different.
We clearly have very different temperaments. But like you I also hate when people just keep hating on things just to spite the people who like it. What I find fascinating is to try to understand other people's pow (not that you don't also try to :) And yes, disagreement does require great care not to descend into conflict.
I realise that this conversation now bends more towards my taste than yours, discussing differences that is, so I won't hold it against you if have grown tired of it : )
I understand. Well, I did like many things about Beowulf, and I am sure we do agree on many things. If we discussed Boormans Excallibur, f.ex.
The thing about me is that I find it more interesting to discuss differing opinions than to talk about agreements, sorry about that :)
And if you say I don´t like reinterpretations, you have misunderstood me. I love them, just not all of them. Mists of Avalon was one that I loved (have only read the book, not seen the series).
And I regard "American Gods" as a reinterpretation of mythology, the finest and most interesting one ever made, in my opinion.
Sorry about what? That I don´t love Beowulf? I do like many things about it.
I also love history, I don´t quite understand your meaning?
Woman, born 1969, yes :) Yes, the odds for Austen fan gender is pretty clear these days :)
No, I did not know about early Austen men fans, feel free to elaborate if you care to?
I do not LOVE Gaimans Beowulf, but I definitely like it more than most people, thought the "this is what really happened" take was interesting.
Yes, I am fully aware of the changing nature of traditional tales, but I don´t like all new re-interpretations, though I respect others´right to differing opinions.
Thanks for the reply, Vicky. Its funny, because I agree with virtually everything you are saying, Boormans Excalibur is infinitely the best so far, love the Colin Firth P&P, the Keira Knightly one not so much, Gaiman is my god of Fantasy, and no, adaptions dont have to be exact, I love Mists of Avalon.
Practically the only thing we dont agree on is wether this movie is in the spirit of the old Arthur tales, to me it isnt, to you it is. So just proves again that people sometimes see something totally different, but lets respectfully agree to disagree :) Thanks, I enjoyed your viewpoint.
Vicky, after reading your comments here and on other sites, I can tell that you and I actually agree on most things and generally have the same king Arthur film favorites. However, this one, I did not like much - I have nothing against the fresh new take, and it wasnt all bad, I just thought the story was a dull, generic Hero's Journey with Refusal of the Call endlessly drawn out.
But I don't mean to criticise your opinion, my question is just: are you, as a person who know and love the old story, not bothered by the virtually total absence of that story in this movie. Come on, they might as well have called it "Hamlet", it had just as much in common with that story as with King Arthur. I am not a purist who can tolerate no changes, but as a King Arthur lover, dont you miss something that at least vaguely resembles the King Arthur story?
I am asking you because you and I mostly seem to agree, and you obviously do love the old story.
I am all for diversity, yet I also care about historical realism. Eg. It annoys me if half of King Arthur's Knights are Asian and African.
In this case, yes it is clearly supposed to be France sometime in the 18th century, but it is an alternative France with beast, magic and sorceress, so sure why not also tons of all kinds of ethnicities?
You don't expect historical realism in a fairy tale, do you?