[ SECRET POST #3510 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3510 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Stephen King]


__________________________________________________



03.
[John Green]


__________________________________________________



04.
[American Gods]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Charlie Hunnam in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Penn & Teller: Fool Us]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Steven Universe]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Questionable Content]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Ghostbusters 2016]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 53 secrets from Secret Submission Post #502.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't mind focusing on the sword so much, it's the tight focus on Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot as the main plot that annoys me.

[(Anonymous)]

DA. In a sense, sticking to Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot as the plot driver is an understandable decision in a lot of cases. Not just because love story, but because it legitimately is a major plot driver for one end of the myths. While there are a lot of individual stories among the knights, if you're making a film epic there are really only two big plots in the myths, the first one being the rise and fall of Camelot, and the second one being the search for the Grail. The love triangle is a large component in the first plot (depending on who's writing and when, I know, but still), and the second plot is ... potentially sticky to sell to a modern audience, depending on how it's done. So it isn't really surprising to me that the triangle keeps coming up. It's one of the most familiar bits of the story, it's part of one of the larger plots in the myths (though it does get a very unfair amount of focus even during that plot), and it's part of the slightly-safer-for-modern-sensibilities end of the legends.

That said, I would love to see more big screen versions of the other knights and other parts of the myths. Gawain, Percival and Yvain in particular. I would love to see some version of Knight of the Lion on the big screen.

[philstar22]

I've always Liked Mary Stewart's take on it. Her research seemed to suggest that Lancelot was actually a later addition to the myths. So in her Merlin trilogy, while she does have the affair, she has Arthur knowing about it and approving.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt, but Lancelot is a later addition to the Arthurian legend made by Chrétien de Troyes. Neither he nor the love triangle feature in earlier versions of the legend. That said, books and film really like a romance angle, and it works better for that medium rather than a bunch of different stories about each knight's adventures.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT. To be fair, massive sections of what modern audiences think of as the legends are later additions. A large part of what we recognise as the knights has more to do with the chivalric romances than the original welsh myths, and while a lot of modern adaptations do try and go in between and adapt the Historia Regum Britanniae, if they were doing that 100% accurate Arthur would be busy conquering Europe and fighting Roman emperors when he gets word that Mordred has betrayed him, seized the throne and married Guinevere. Even that version has characters/plot points that didn't appear earlier, since I think Mordred-as-betrayer comes from there first as well. Even Camelot itself is also a later addition, up into the chivalric period, though Arthur does have other courts in earlier myths. Almost anything a modern audience would recognise as an Arthurian plot comes from the later traditions. So, you know. I'm still inclined not to blame people too much for picking Lancelot.

That said, books and film really like a romance angle, and it works better for that medium rather than a bunch of different stories about each knight's adventures.

There's also this. Though, that said, I'd love a miniseries or an anthology film or something with the knights. A series, like Jim Henson's Storyteller series did for fairy tales, each episode an one-off Arthurian tale.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but let's be clear that it is the very spirit of Arthurian romance/legend to have "later additions". There was never a single Arthurian myth. We don't know the exact source, or whether Arthur was historical or not - if he was inspired by a real historical warlord or mythical hero. The earliest versions of Arthur are too lacking to be interesting and don't resemble the Arthurian myth that defines the genre until basically the stuff written in the later medieval period. The cool thing about the genre is everyone was inspired by someone/something else and contributed their own "fanfic", which would inspire other "fanfics", whatever. To try to argue that Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot isn't "real" or authentic Arthurian legend isn't true. Basically every element of the genre was invented in the mid-to-late medieval period (and quite a lot of the elements, even later than that, up until today).

Modern Arthurian authors seem to pick and choose their setting. I've seen Arthurian legend clearly set in the post-1400s, and Arthurian legend clearly set a thousand years before that. I'd say it's all equally authentic for a genre built upon picking-and-choosing favorite elements. If there was a real Arthur, or going by the very first scant records of a warlord who was ~maybe~ Arthur, it certainly wouldn't resemble anything close to what we know as Arthurian legend.