I am still indignant
Oct. 7th, 2005 04:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amari_zIn further nurturing of my indignation, I have now watched both the director's cut and the theatrical release of the movie King Arthur. Yes, I know, I will never get those hours of my life back, but I am nothing if not diligent in my outrages. That's admirable, I'm sure.
The main differences were the more violent fight scenes. I have to say, that as much as a pacifist as I like to think I am, I far prefer seeing all the blood (or maybe its just because its more honest--if you're going to have people killing one another, you should show the actual consequences--people do bleed when you cut them--never understood people who complain that a war movie is too bloody). And how much better was it to see Lancelot drag his pissed off, dying self over to treacherous, murderous Saxon and really, really make sure that Saxon was dead? Sword through the chest--not really a sure thing, after all. Sword through the neck--little doubt is left.
Several things I noted. Why is it more pg-13 to show the "bishop" shot through the chest rather than the skull? Isn't dead body stuck with arrow, dead body stuck with arrow? Disney or movie rating board, or whoever you are, I comprehend you not.
By far the best change, though, was the ordering of the scenes between the knights' (I have to grit my teeth when I type that word. Roman knights? I girt my teeth again) return to the wall and the battle with the Saxons. I loved that they changed the gratuitous sex scene so that in the theatrical version it falls after Arthur tells the knights he is going to stay and fight. In the director's cut it appears before Arthur makes his little announcement--so in that version, Arthur has just come directly from having sex with Guinevere. The implication of the director's cut is that it is that Guinevere's little visit that influences Arthur's decision and that she has sex with him in precisely the hope of that. In the theatrical cut, he only sleeps with her after he decides he will stay. I like the director's cut timing better, it says way more interesting things, but I am amused that someone felt the need to reorder the scene to make it more acceptable.
The other changes were mainly cuts from the theatrical version--the scene on the hill before the knights return to the Wall with the Bishop (discussion of Bors', er, size--why that's PG-13 and not sex in exchange for favors, I'm not sure) and the camp scene in the forest as the knights are traveling beyond the wall (discussion of Bors' bastards and their lack of names, and btw, wink, are they really all Bors'?) (and don't get me started about wondering why a Roman villa exists above Hadrian's wall--really, I just wonder). There are also scenes where Arthur discovers his dead mentor's medallion has been smashed and where he is in the round table room alone after he has informed the knights he plans to stay (poor man). The director's cut shows a longer scene at Dragonet's grave and as mentioned, there are additions to fight scenes.
As much as I basically liked the grittiness of the director's cut fight scenes, the fight scenes don't really hold up on a second viewing. I kept getting distracted by the extras in the background, who were hitting at each other too slowly to be convincing. Once you start noticing that, you can never go back. Also, watching it again reaffirmed my opinion that Arthur is a self righteous bastard who I really want to smack upside the head. What I can't figure out is whether the makers of the movie intended Arthur to be that anachronistically smug (come on, I can't be the only one who giggled during his "inspirational" speech before the Saxon battle--I really was waiting for the knights to fall off their horses laughing--come on Lancelot, where is your eye rolling now) or whether we're suppose to be nodding our heads at his little speeches. Sadly, I think we're suppose to be cheering him on.
Also, I find it ironic when a dvd of the theatrical version only comes in pan and scan. Um, okay.
The main differences were the more violent fight scenes. I have to say, that as much as a pacifist as I like to think I am, I far prefer seeing all the blood (or maybe its just because its more honest--if you're going to have people killing one another, you should show the actual consequences--people do bleed when you cut them--never understood people who complain that a war movie is too bloody). And how much better was it to see Lancelot drag his pissed off, dying self over to treacherous, murderous Saxon and really, really make sure that Saxon was dead? Sword through the chest--not really a sure thing, after all. Sword through the neck--little doubt is left.
Several things I noted. Why is it more pg-13 to show the "bishop" shot through the chest rather than the skull? Isn't dead body stuck with arrow, dead body stuck with arrow? Disney or movie rating board, or whoever you are, I comprehend you not.
By far the best change, though, was the ordering of the scenes between the knights' (I have to grit my teeth when I type that word. Roman knights? I girt my teeth again) return to the wall and the battle with the Saxons. I loved that they changed the gratuitous sex scene so that in the theatrical version it falls after Arthur tells the knights he is going to stay and fight. In the director's cut it appears before Arthur makes his little announcement--so in that version, Arthur has just come directly from having sex with Guinevere. The implication of the director's cut is that it is that Guinevere's little visit that influences Arthur's decision and that she has sex with him in precisely the hope of that. In the theatrical cut, he only sleeps with her after he decides he will stay. I like the director's cut timing better, it says way more interesting things, but I am amused that someone felt the need to reorder the scene to make it more acceptable.
The other changes were mainly cuts from the theatrical version--the scene on the hill before the knights return to the Wall with the Bishop (discussion of Bors', er, size--why that's PG-13 and not sex in exchange for favors, I'm not sure) and the camp scene in the forest as the knights are traveling beyond the wall (discussion of Bors' bastards and their lack of names, and btw, wink, are they really all Bors'?) (and don't get me started about wondering why a Roman villa exists above Hadrian's wall--really, I just wonder). There are also scenes where Arthur discovers his dead mentor's medallion has been smashed and where he is in the round table room alone after he has informed the knights he plans to stay (poor man). The director's cut shows a longer scene at Dragonet's grave and as mentioned, there are additions to fight scenes.
As much as I basically liked the grittiness of the director's cut fight scenes, the fight scenes don't really hold up on a second viewing. I kept getting distracted by the extras in the background, who were hitting at each other too slowly to be convincing. Once you start noticing that, you can never go back. Also, watching it again reaffirmed my opinion that Arthur is a self righteous bastard who I really want to smack upside the head. What I can't figure out is whether the makers of the movie intended Arthur to be that anachronistically smug (come on, I can't be the only one who giggled during his "inspirational" speech before the Saxon battle--I really was waiting for the knights to fall off their horses laughing--come on Lancelot, where is your eye rolling now) or whether we're suppose to be nodding our heads at his little speeches. Sadly, I think we're suppose to be cheering him on.
Also, I find it ironic when a dvd of the theatrical version only comes in pan and scan. Um, okay.
