Considering what an improvement the DC was I wonder the same.Originally posted by Rustynail@Dec 26 2004, 06:04 AM
King Arthur originally was made to be a dark and gritty movie rated R from the beginning, mid production the producers told the director to make it pg-13 so they could release it for a younger audience and earlier. The directer himself said that the story line suffered along with his passion for making the film. They told him he could release an R version directors cut, but by then the damage was done. I wonder what would have been different if he would have been left alone.
The alternate ending was better then the one they kept.
Damn you Bruckheimer. *viking*
Well, Tristan was standing on that hill a good while so he could have spotted something moving in the tree.
Oh, and remember when one of Arthur's knights fired an arrow into the air, which sailed over a wall and killed the traitor hiding in the tree-- when he could have had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of his presence? Hell, he'd never even met the guy!
Of course this you have to assume this.
It would have been better if they would have just made a shot of the traitor moving a branch or something so you don't have to assume.
King arthur has a high rating for me then Excalibur IMO.
The musical score for King arthur is just awesome.