[ 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)]

Reading through the comments here, and remembering the 2004 King Arthur movie as well, I'm realising how much I just generally dislike the 'historically accurate' genre of Arthurian adaptations. It's a mythology, most of the sources it's based on are 10th century and up, and even the earlier ones which name him as an actual historical king are more than a bit questionable and are still 9th century or later. Most of the actual themes and stories come either from Welsh legend or from medieval chivalric romance, and a lot of them are distinctly supernatural in nature and/or involving much later social mores. Plus it's just more fun when the supernatural elements are in play and it's running on grand fictional tragedy rather than blood-and-dirt 'historical plausibility'. I just think Arthur works better as a free-floating mythological figure, set wherever/whenever the adaptation wants to put him.

I don't know. I suppose, given that a lot of the earlier legends are Welsh and a lot of the later traditions do build back in a lot of 'celtic' elements, if I was doing an adaptation and had to put him anywhere I'd bump him all the way back to pre-Roman Iron Age Britain, where he's not going to get tangled up in arguments about Roman history, and just say that later sources are remnants of his legend echoing upwards. I'd just as soon step sideways, though, and admit straight up that the story is set in an idealised Britain that never really existed, and then get back to my medieval broadswords, plate armour, round tables, feudal trappings, and grand operatic tragedies of virtue, vice, magic, betrayal and murder.

Haircuts are optional, but I will say I never particularly liked the modern gelled look. If we're pre-metal armour or sideways to it or in magical hair-care territory, I kind of favour either flowing locks or just short curls, and if we're post-armour all the knights are going to have helmet-hair anyway.