![]() ![]() Doug was given a job to watch over a young female scientist, Emilia, who he fell in love with. Once the organization deem the children ready they make the children/young adults kill someone who has a bag over their head, when the said person is killed by the young adult they take the bag off the person head only to reveal their surrogate mother crushing their spirit. Although he is a friendly and loquacious "mood-maker", when looking down the scope of his rifle, Doug has the cold eyes of a beast.Īt a young age he was taken in by a organization of assassins who teach young children to become assassin and are given a surrogate mother to raise them until a certain age. With black gloves that mainly cover his pinky and ring finger.ĭescribed as a sniper who loves women and cats. And sometimes he wears a light and dark blue striped scarf. The pants he wears are forest green with navy colored leg guards and black shoes. ![]() He normally dresses in a dark navy work suit and a hunter green chest armor. It's possible "Camelot" had redemption arcs in mind, but if we've learned anything from Vortigern, it's that you can't build on a busted foundation.Doug has fair fawn with some coral streaks colored hair and gray eyes. We're given no reason to care about the series' tween-ish Arthur (a pre-"Stranger Things" Jamie Campbell Bower) save the fact that he is Arthur, and as for the one-dimensional Guinevere (Tamsin Egerton) she's really more prop than person. Space for the Unbound - I heard other podcast talk about this but not really around the KF parts. In this accidental parody of itself, Eva Green's Morgan exists solely to glare, seduce, and serve as a warning about the dangers of female ambition. For you Last of Us tv show fans, today at 11AM PT Neil Druckmann is joining the guys to talk season 1 finale and spoilers (Twitch and KF YT). That said, the fact that "King Arthur" at least attempts to give its leader a cause places it firmly above STARZ's failed medieval series, "Camelot" (2011). Thomas' Sarmation Connection, its complete misrepresentation of Pelagianism, and its whacky portrayal of both the Romano-British and the Picts - that one wonders why it even attempted to call its Arthur historic. Again, there's a universe in which Arthur as a champion of inherent, individual freedom makes sense, but that universe is 18th century France - not 5th century Rome or Britain. There are so many issues with this film - including its half-baked use of C. And yet, historical evidence suggests that for at least a couple generations - or, for "one brief, shining moment," as Professor Dorsey Armstrong puts it, referencing the Kennedy family' use of "Camelot" - someone, possibly even a dude named Arthur, was able to unite his "countrymen," fend off these enemies, and bring peace and stability to the region. Here's the thing: the Irish (or "Scots," at the time) and the Picts (of modern-day Scotland) were also taking advantage of the fractured, weakened state in which Rome's withdrawal had left Arthur's Britain. Surrounded by threats on all sides, the odds were insurmountable. By British, we mean the various Brittonic-speaking Celts of Sub-Roman Britain that would come to be known as "Cymry" (predominantly the modern-day Welsh, but also the Cornish and Breton), and by English, we mean the various Germanic tribes (predominantly the Saxons, but also the Jutes, Angles, etc.) that would come to be known as "English." Many scholars believe that if Arthur was a single individual who actually existed - and not just a symbolic amalgamation - he would have emerged out of Sub-Roman Britain's 5th and 6th century resistance to Saxon invasion and assimilation. Finally, there's the issue of context and subtext, an issue most major productions fail to prioritize at all, much less adapt.Īrthur's origins are British - not English. Then there's the breadth and continual evolution of the "source material" itself (the Arthur of the 9th century Welsh monk Nennius is not the Arthur of Thomas Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" - the basis for most modern-day depictions). The reasons for this are as countless as the adaptations themselves, but tend to fall into one of three categories.įirstly, screenwriters are often obliged to simplify and clarify, and Arthuriana is not a sub-genre that lends itself to such reductive pragmatism. Hoda Kotb took a leave of absence from Today while her 3-year-old daughter Hope was hospitalized in the ICU. Inevitably, it isn't, because there's no such thing as "the real story" when it comes to the knotted mass of mythology, literature, history, and religious and cultural context in which the legend of "King" Arthur is inexorably bound. Despite this, plenty of texts have given us spectacular interpretations, but attempts to lift the legend from the page to the screen have been decidedly less successful. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |