something smacking of fear and Guinevere says something like "don't worry,
I'll protect you".
Does every single movie ever made from older source material have to
insanely beef up the female role? If they don't turn the character into a
warrior then they turn them into an uber-hottie where one didn't exist (see
the awful adaptation of "The Time Machine" for that).
I'm all for strong female roles, but I would have thought that the
traditional Guinevere WAS a strong female role without adding in all the
extra brass and bullets. It seems like lately we've equated "strong female
role" with "ultra-sexy, sarcastic and mostly bitchy"
An argument can be made that to show, explicitly, how strong the character
was you have to update/modernize her actions. But do those actions always
have to be so damn cookie-cutter? That's also just saying that people are
stupid and would never understand subtlety (which may be true I suppose).
Not everything needs a "modern twist".
This movie could be great, but right now it seems they took everything from
"Pirates" and just changed scenery. Next he'll take the same characters and
call them "Robin Hood", then, for a change, he'll do "Zorro" then he'll "get
serious" and try "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" (casting Kiera Knightly as
the professor, of course, and adding a 40 minute sword fight) so forth...
Jim Davis
-----Original Message-----
From: Marlon Moyer
They've got a pretty nice trailer on the web site. The story seems to
diverge quite a bit from the normal Arthurian legend though. I think it
will be an interesting take.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
