Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Middle Ages epics

Expand Messages
  • ERATRIANO@aol.com
    Oh well I don t remember much about Excalibur: except isn t that the flick with the sex-in-plate-mail? That more than anything I think is what stretched its
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Oh well I don't remember much about Excalibur: except isn't that the flick
      with the sex-in-plate-mail? That more than anything I think is what
      stretched its credibility for my group. Course I'd like to find The Perils
      of Gwendolyn again...

      Lizzie
    • Janet Croft
      It was a rather odd film. I recall a few images -- Patrick Stewart as Guenivere s father pledging faith to Arthur; Guenivere handing out what looked like
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 7, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        It was a rather odd film. I recall a few images -- Patrick Stewart as
        Guenivere's father pledging faith to Arthur; Guenivere handing out what
        looked like Alice B. Toklas cupcakes at a feast; Arthur finding Lancelot and
        Guenivere in the woods and driving his sword between them; Morgana (I think
        that's what they called her, she was an amalgam of Morgan le Fay, Morgause,
        and Nimue) giving birth to Mordred (I can still remember her incantation,
        which is odd); Nicol Williamson as Merlin in a silver Ming the Merciless
        helmet... I haven't seen it in years, and great liberties were taken with
        the text (doesn't that sound familiar...;))

        As someone else mentioned earlier, Boorman's LotR would have been
        interesting. How about if Hitchcock had directed? He might have kept
        Tolkien's sense of suspense intact without ratcheting up the monsters....

        Janet

        -----Original Message-----
        From: ERATRIANO@... [mailto:ERATRIANO@...]
        Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 3:42 PM
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Middle Ages epics


        Oh well I don't remember much about Excalibur: except isn't that the
        flick
        with the sex-in-plate-mail? That more than anything I think is what
        stretched its credibility for my group. Course I'd like to find The
        Perils
        of Gwendolyn again...

        Lizzie

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT




        The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Stolzi@aol.com
        ... You mean your group doesn t... Oh, never mind!
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 7, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Lizzie wrote:

          > Oh well I don't remember much about Excalibur: except isn't that the
          > flick
          > with the sex-in-plate-mail? That more than anything I think is what
          > stretched its credibility for my group.

          You mean your group doesn't... Oh, never mind!
        • WendellWag@aol.com
          In a message dated 1/7/2002 3:58:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... That was Nicol Williamson as Merlin. And, for what it s worth, I thought it was a great
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 7, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 1/7/2002 3:58:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
            jrobinson@... writes:


            > And Ron
            > Moody's willfully weird Merlin.

            That was Nicol Williamson as Merlin. And, for what it's worth, I thought it
            was a great film.

            Wendell Wagner


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • jamcconney@aol.com
            In a message dated 1/7/2002 9:24:23 PM Central Standard Time, ... You know, I ve never ever found anyone who thought Excalibur was a so-so film. You love it
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 7, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 1/7/2002 9:24:23 PM Central Standard Time,
              WendellWag@... writes:


              > And, for what it's worth, I thought it
              > was a great film.
              >

              You know, I've never ever found anyone who thought 'Excalibur' was a so-so
              film. You love it or you hate it. And that, too, says something about its
              power. (For the record, I'm in the hate group. I could forgive the sex in
              armor--passion of the moment perhaps?--but when the knights came in to dinner
              (or was it breakfast?)in full plate, I simply got the giggles.)
              Jamaq


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Bill
              Wasn t that Nichol Williamson as Merlin? (Not sure about sp.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 8, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Wasn't that Nichol Williamson as Merlin?
                (Not sure about sp.)





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Christine Howlett
                Excalibur is the one movie I have ever walked out on. Fortunately I was with my sister and her young baby. Baby made a little fuss and we walked with
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 8, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  'Excalibur' is the one movie I have ever walked out on. Fortunately I was
                  with my sister and her young baby. Baby made a little fuss and we walked
                  with gratitude. After the first ten minutes as I recall. Gosh that was
                  putrid.
                  Christine

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Jeremy Robinson <jrobinson@...>
                  To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
                  Date: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:02 PM
                  Subject: [mythsoc] Middle Ages epics


                  >>From Jeremy Robinson
                  >
                  >Watched a bit of 'Excalibur' last night. Yeouch!
                  >Gotta be thankful that, despite all the recent
                  >complaints about 'LOTR', about all its omissions,
                  >alterations and pointless additions, 'LOTR' isn't
                  >as bad as 'Excalibur'! 'Excalibur' has bad acting
                  >(despite Brit thesps), 1980s lipgloss, hair &
                  >make-up, really ropey looping (dubbing), wacky
                  >set design and some not so special effects. Plus
                  >there's John Boorman's Jungian mysticism. And Ron
                  >Moody's willfully weird Merlin. Phew!
                  >And Boorman spent months planning to shoot 'LOTR'
                  >in the late 1960s. Thing about Boorman is, he's a
                  >very interesting director, with some unusual
                  >ideas, but he promises much more than he
                  >delivers, and far too often flounders. I'd much
                  >rather see his version of 'LOTR' than Peter
                  >Jackson's, in a way, though, because Jackson is
                  >run-of-the-mill by comparison with some
                  >directors. Jackson, though, hadn't promised
                  >anything more than a good evening's
                  >entertainment, and certainly doesn't have the
                  >mythic pretensions of directors like Boorman.
                  >(I'd love to see fellow Kiwi director Vincent
                  >Ward take on Tolkien). On the other hand, if
                  >Boorman or some such director had tackled 'LOTR',
                  >it might've turned out like 'Excalibur', or the
                  >Costner 'Robin Hood', or some other naff recent
                  >mediaeval epic.
                  >It's really difficult to do a mediaeval (or any
                  >historical) epic nowadays, getting the tone
                  >right. One method is to be sombre, sincere, and
                  >increase the macho/ gore level ('Braveheart', and
                  >'son of Braveheart', i.e., 'Gladiator'), which's
                  >the route 'LOTR' took, but more common is the
                  >camp, self-conscious approach ('Robin Hood',
                  >'Knight's Tale', 'Conan'). I'm glad New Line/
                  >Wingnut/ Osbourne/ Jackson et al took the sombre,
                  >'Braveheart' 'we mean it, maaan' route but,
                  >selfishly, I'd love to see a really visionary
                  >approach to Tolkien, a la Vincent Ward, Boorman,
                  >Gilliam, etc.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                  >
                  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.