>2024. >Still no historically accurate King Arthur movie

>2024
>Still no historically accurate King Arthur movie

Why? Is he that hard to adapt?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    howmany swords did he have

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >historically accurate King Arthur

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >historically accurate King Arthur
      based moron

      Arthur is not historically accurate. Also it really should be nunc et perpetuo to get across now and forever as we think of it.

      >Hurr dur historically accurate

      What year does the legend take place? Using that alone can't you just deduce what type of armor and weapon someone during that time period would be using?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Sure, but the thing is he didn't exist. The fun of the Arthur mythos is that they're batshit insane. Why would you want to ruin that by making it "historical?"

        >israelite christcuckery on shield

        Dropped.

        The Romano-Britons were Christians. That was literally Constantine's section of the tetrarchy you dumb homosexual.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >he didn't exist.
          source?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Most scholarly analyses of him have come to that conclusion. It's not like the scholars wouldn't want him to exist, either, because discovering something like that would be incredible. Instead all we have are made up stories written at least 300 years after he supposedly existed. As far as I'm aware no physical evidence has ever turned up, which is the holy grail of these mythological figures being proven as being real.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Romano-Britons were Christians
          Would explain why the eternal anglo is so vehemently anti-Aryan. Christcucks HATE whites.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You will never get Europeans to renounce their heritage Chaim.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Romano-British weren't Anglos, Anglos conquered them.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Arthur lives both in the 4th and the 10th century and everywhere in between
        it's part of the charm
        OP pic makes no sense, the oldest sources make him a medieval knight and extrapolate contemporary technology to the late romans with whom arthur interacts
        the prince valiant comics got a nice equilibrium aesthetically

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Prince Valiant was made in the 1930s when historians didn't know as much about the dark ages and had to base a lot on historical depictions made hundreds of years later.
          It's not until recently that archeology and historical research has come to the conclusion that the dark ages had far more Roman influence than previously believed

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          A 4th century knight would look closer to the OP than whatever you think a "medieval knight" looks like.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        the "legend" is a romanticism of finding an iron deposit in a lake.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >historically accurate King Arthur
      based moron

      King Arthur was real
      So was Jesus
      Keep coping.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >everyone is black or brown except for guenevere
      pass

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >historically accurate King Arthur
    based moron

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Arthur is not historically accurate. Also it really should be nunc et perpetuo to get across now and forever as we think of it.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >israelite christcuckery on shield

    Dropped.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >redditspacing
      >fedora tipping
      Go back

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, one of Arthur's most famous stories was his quest for the holy grail. Cope.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, one of Arthur's most famous stories was his quest for the holy grail. Cope.

      it is now time to discuss whether the holy grail is purely christian, or a christianised keltic myth.

      then we will have a hint on the kind of art we are going to talk about.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      it's fricking ugly, which is even worse

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    A dream project of mine is a movie about King Arthur that's written and structured like a Spaghetti Western. Portray him like a Clint Eastwood-style knight errant.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The 2004 movie was accurate in that there were no implants available during that time period and kawaii Kiera Knightley

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't Lancelot cuck king Arthur with her and which led to the downfall of the knights?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      no booba

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I just wish that we could get a early Medieval story in Britain where the vikings don't dress in black leather and fur, the Anglo Sexons don't dress like 12th century Normans, and the Normans dress like 15th century Lancaster knights

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Best I can do is open relationship modern sensitivity adapted bikings with meme haircuts

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >"Accurate" King Arthur movie
    >Excalibur is the "sword in the stone" and not the sword given to him by the lady in the lake

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The only accurate Arthur movie would be the one removing all the Fr*nch nonsense. That's of course where all the cuck shit started.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        but it's a french norman book...

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The first works on Arthur came from the Welsh around the 9th century my friend. The French Norman book is much later and of course introduces cuck shit.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      its both moron. the lady in the lake gave him the "sword in the stone" and he "pulled it out" by molding it into a weapon. Even the idea of "finding the sculpture within the stone" predates the legend.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Sword in the stone and Excalibur are two different swords

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          They are the same, but one is a gay retelling and the other is the sword in the stone

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Fate/Stay Night is the best depiction of King Arthur

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    There will never be a movie about the Vandal king Gaiseric slaughtering his way through half of Europe while having the Huns nipping at his heels, killing celts and wolves in the Pyrenees, and Berbers and lions in Morocco

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    they had their chance with the Warlord chronicles adaption but they fricked it up with shit casting and bad costumes

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why has there been no historically accurate Star Wars movie yet?

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    theres literally a movie called
    >King Arthur: Knight of Rome
    you fricking moron

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Arthur is a post-roman, pre-anglo-saxon character.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That movie is about him trying to unite the britons against the invading anglo-saxons. Clive Owen plays Arthur with Keira Knightly playing Guinevere.

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The real question is why is there no Richard the Lionheart or William Marshal movies? Is the El Cid tv series any good? I never seen the El Cid movie from the 60s, does it hold up like Ben Hur?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >why is there no Richard the Lionheart
      I assume the big noses hate him

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >historically accurate movie about a fictional character

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    There it is

    ?si=mK1sQrhT7CHfeGGL

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *